this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
560 points (99.3% liked)

World News

32286 readers
666 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kiwifoxtrot@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

My employer gets around it by refusing to hire anyone in Colorado for remote jobs. Guess the same will happen for New York.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I feel like a business would have to be really dumb to rule out hiring NY'ers because of this. NY has a very educated and very large population.

Edit: I did the math. Colorado and NY have a combined college degree population of 9.9 million, or 8.9% of US degree holders.

[–] bleistift2@feddit.de 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a business would have to be really dumb

I don’t see how this is a counterargument.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 year ago

Lmao you got me there.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I can get maybe blocking one state but New York AND Colorado? I'm sure California or some other larger, more progressive state will eventually make the swap too. Eventually you start cutting yourself off from not just large swaths of the american workforce, but also disproportionately from the types of hires you need (assuming remote hires still).

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to the article, California already has a similar law. I didn't dig into the details of it. Relevant bit:

A similar pay transparency ordinance has been in effect in New York City since 2022. Now, the rest of the state joins a handful of others with similar laws, including California and Colorado.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I had a feeling CA had something similar but couldn't recall and couldn't be bothered to google in the moment on my phone lol

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It is required for employers here in Washington. But if the company is headquartered in a state where it is not required, they do not have to list it.

[–] FederatedSaint@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Like, we're not really keen on working for a crappy employer who would do this anyway, so no big loss I guess.

I think one long term effect of this would be driving up wages outside of states that require posted salaries, at least for some positions in some industries. There probably aren't enough businesses signing on to this idea to make much of a dent though. As a business, you're effectively reducing your own labor pool. Either way it feels like the corporate equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Probably the same idiots whining that "no one wants to work anymore" (cue worlds tiniest violin).

[–] tehmics@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They'll be out of states if we keep going then they'll naturally just cease to exist. Or, more likely, adapt to actual regulations.