Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 26, @04:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the shift-in-the-balance-of-power dept.

Here in California, our government has passed a strange new law.

Although intended to force employers to stop offering different pay rates to men and women, the new law has the strange side effect of forcing recruiters to play fair - and recruiters aren't liking it. The law also forbids asking candidates for their prior compensation history. Again, recruiters and hiring managers aren't liking the new shift in the balance of power:

Assembly Bill No. 168
SECTION 1. Section 432.3 is added to the Labor Code, to read:

432.3. (a) An employer shall not rely on the salary history information of an applicant for employment as a factor in determining whether to offer employment to an applicant or what salary to offer an applicant.

(b) An employer shall not, orally or in writing, personally or through an agent, seek salary history information, including compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment.

(c) An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment.

(d) Section 433 does not apply to this section.

(e) This section shall not apply to salary history information disclosable to the public pursuant to federal or state law, including the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) or the federal Freedom of Information Act (Section 552 of Title 5 of the United States Code).

(f) This section applies to all employers, including state and local government employers and the Legislature.

(g) Nothing in this section shall prohibit an applicant from voluntarily and without prompting disclosing salary history information to a prospective employer.

(h) If an applicant voluntarily and without prompting discloses salary history information to a prospective employer, nothing in this section shall prohibit that employer from considering or relying on that voluntarily disclosed salary history information in determining the salary for that applicant.

(i) Consistent with Section 1197.5, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow prior salary, by itself, to justify any disparity in compensation.

(emphasis added)

To drive salaries and wages down, Silicon Valley has for many years outsourced their recruiting efforts to other states, where the cost of living is much lower and recruiting agency employees were less likely to respect the inevitable protests from candidates over the low wages being offered, because the wages being offered were comparable to the wages being offered in the state where the recruiter was located.

Now Silicon Valley's employers have the unpleasant duty of educating their remote, far-flung, outsourced networks of workers of the new law.

If you're a job-seeker, here in California, how has this new law affected your ability to seek employment and your experience with recruiters?

If you're a recruiter - inside or outside California - how is this affecting your business? How are you treating candidates who inform you of this new law?

If you're a hiring manager, are you informing recruiters of this law? Are they informing you of this law?

Violation of the law is a misdemeanor.

The California Legislature is interested in receiving feedback from employees and candidates, also.

Obviously, the Legislature has already heard, and is hearing, from employers. But they need to hear BOTH sides in order to make (and defend) their decisions.

It's tempting to badmouth the California Legislature - but I was pleasantly surprised to discover legislative information was available, via Archie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_search_engine), from the leginfo.legislature.ca.gov website, two decades ago.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @04:45PM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @04:45PM (#628325)

    ... women to negotiate for pay.

    I swear. It's almost like the womens need the Patriarchy to see to their welfare.

    Anyway, I don't see how the law in question is in any way constitutional; it's clearly a total violation of free speech and the like—I mean, in the U.S., you have the right to remain silent during a criminal investigation.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:18PM (17 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:18PM (#628342)

      Anyway, I don't see how the law in question is in any way constitutional; it's clearly a total violation of free speech and the like—I mean, in the U.S., you have the right to remain silent during a criminal investigation.

      Than you clearly have no clue what "Freedom of speech" actually means.

      It means that you have the freedom to express your opinions that are different from those that the government believes, without the fear that you will be jailed due to these opinions. Requiring employers to state extra information for jobs has nothing to do this. The "right to remain silent" is criminal law and is based on the fact that someone who is under criminal investigation should be protected against the government who might force the suspect to "help" with his/her own prosecution. Again, nothing to do with freedom of speech.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:29PM (10 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:29PM (#628350)

        It's right there in the AC's comment.

        Whence does the government derive its power to coerce one private individual to divulge information to another private individual?

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @06:06PM (8 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @06:06PM (#628374)

          If they had a more accurate term to use, they should've just done so. Of course namedropping freedom of speech is going to be mocked, because it absolutely doesn't cover this case.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:09PM (7 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:09PM (#628378)

            To not speak is to exercise your freedom of speech.

            To lie about salaries is also to exercise your freedom of speech. Of course, if an employment contract is based on that lie, then it would probably make sense to prosecute the employer for fraud.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @06:27PM (4 children)

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @06:27PM (#628389)

              To not speak is to exercise your freedom of speech.

              No, it's not exercising anything. IF this were a criminal investigation--which it isn't--it would be exercising your right to avoid self-incrimination.

              You have the right to remain silent in a criminal investigation...which is not what we're talking about. Ergo a law compelling you to divulge information isn't covered by your weird category that doesn't have a name. Laws that punish you for fraud also set limits on what you can say in a business context, which *is* what we're talking about here.

              Freedom of speech only applies in citizens' dealings with the government anyway. The concept doesn't apply to situations where the government is involved.

              Now I want to mod you Troll myself because you're arguing from a position of misleading terminology.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @06:30PM (3 children)

                by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @06:30PM (#628390)

                The concept doesn't apply to situations where the government *isn't involved.

                No country has a concept of being punishable by private organizations for saying things in public, AFAIK. You just walk down the street, say something "wrong", and a private citizen is legally allowed to punch you? Even with states with secret police, when they deal with you they're doing so on behalf of the government. So what you're talking about can't be contrasted with anything so it's pointless to talk about.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 26, @09:47PM (2 children)

                  by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @09:47PM (#628553)

                  No country has a concept of being punishable by private organizations for saying things in public, AFAIK.

                  Sir I'm sorry to inform you, you're banned from the mall property for one year for being loud and disruptive.

                  There's an interesting side issue the local TV news claims where in practice being "loud and disruptive" seems to correlate a lot stronger with skin color than with actual decibel levels. Or more realistically, shocking expose news coverage correlates incredibly strongly with not signing a large enough advertising contract with that station. But, whatevs, anyway.

                  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @09:57PM (1 child)

                    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @09:57PM (#628562)

                    for saying things in public

                    you're banned from the mall

                    Aren't malls considered private property? In which case you're at the mercy of their private security or whatever, yes. I'm talking about just standing in the street.

                    --
                    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 26, @10:33PM

                      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @10:33PM (#628594)

                      Hmm how about being banned from twitter/facebook for thought crime?

            • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26, @08:21PM (1 child)

              by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 26, @08:21PM (#628485)

              In what way does it not unreasonably infringe on free speech to "prosecute the employer for fraud"? That sounds like certain kinds of speech might be a prosecutable offense. The very concept of criminal fraud seems to infringe upon this ideal you call "freedom of speech".

              --
              If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:05PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:05PM (#628528)

                As in this case [soylentnews.org], the employer and employee are agreeing that if any of the foundational facts of the contract are breached, then some kind of enforcement mechanism will kick in.

                In this case, that enforcement mechanism could be some kind of compensation; it wouldn't be a matter of criminal fraud, but rather civil fraud.

                However, if the contract stipulates that the Courts of California are to be the enforcers of the contract, then I suppose it would be totally acceptable for the Courts to define this fraud as being also "criminal" (e.g., a slight against not just the individual employee, but against the Government), for which there could be a "criminal" penalty, too.

        • (Score: 2) by r1348 on Sunday January 28, @01:55AM

          by r1348 (5988) on Sunday January 28, @01:55AM (#629275)

          It's called "Rule of Law", which is the power a democratic government has to regulate the relationships between citizens. I't the same reason a phone company is forced to divulge how much they're charging you for your mobile plan.

      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26, @08:17PM (4 children)

        by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 26, @08:17PM (#628481)

        Yup, freedom from self-incrimination comes from the 5th, not the 1st.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:22PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:22PM (#628487)

          Straw man [soylentnews.org].

          • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26, @09:55PM (2 children)

            by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 26, @09:55PM (#628560)

            I will concede that "and the like" leaves the possibility that the AC is technically correct [imgur.com]. It's terribly unpersuasive due to its vagueness, however.

            How is anybody supposed to even understand the argument when "freedom of speech and the like" could refer to literally any part of the constitution? Am I supposed to go through the thing line by line, showing how each part of the constitution doesn't apply, until I happen upon a few interesting cases that might merit further discussion? That sounds like a job for the person trying to make the argument that this is unconstitutional, not for those of us that are mainly here to correct people that are wrong on the internet [xkcd.com].

            --
            If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @10:00PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @10:00PM (#628566)

              I think the phrase is "not even wrong." [wikipedia.org]

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:10PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:10PM (#628583)

              Don't forget my personal inspiration: The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, @05:16PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, @05:16PM (#629881)

        Freedom of Speech is the right to express oneself through verbal means. The first amendment is the protection of the citizen from infringing on that right by the government. Slight nuance but it does make a difference. I have the right regardless of whether the government is involved with stifling it or not. Others have the right not to listen but not to negate my right to verbalize or express myself.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Friday January 26, @04:56PM (66 children)

    by looorg (578) on Friday January 26, @04:56PM (#628332)

    I'm not in California but I assume this is a global and common issue all around. I seriously hate companies that won't divulge the pay or at least a pay-range. It becomes a stupid guessing game where I want to maximize and they want to minimize. It always ends up being the same stupid guessing game since I always want as much as I can possibly get and now I have to try and guess how much they want to pay and how much I can get away with. If I go to high I might scare them off, if I go to low they might believe I'm an idiot, perhaps I went low and they took me anyway and quite soon I'll figure out that I took the low bid cause all my co-workers are making more then me -- so I'm going to get pissed, demand a raise to their level or I'll quit and go someplace else and they have to start the recruitment process again (so we all lose out really).

    I recon it might have shifted over the years, when I was new, younger or just more desperate for a job I played their little guessing game. But as I grew older I just gave up on that game. When they ask me how much I want I ask how much they are offering or are willing to pay me and if I believe they are trying to low ball me I tell them I couldn't possibly do the job they are asking for such a low sum and then I wish them good luck in their recruitment effort and then I'm out of there.

    How much I made previously isn't really all that interesting since they probably are not asking me to do the same thing, in the same place etc. So current salary is a really bad comparison, not to mention I could just tweak that on demand.

    There is probably only one thing I detest more then the salary guessing game and that is companies that are recruiting and calling people to interviews but have not set aside money to cover travel expenses to bring the people they want to interview to them. If they are not compensating or covering those expenses they can just fuck right off. I'm not paying to be interviewed.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:23PM (54 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:23PM (#628346)

      There is this strange notion (especially among socialists) that everyone knows the "correct" price for something, and that evil people (especially capitalists) try to obscure that calculation not only to benefit themselves but also to dominate others just for the pleasure of it.

      Nobody knows what something should cost today until a deal is struck (in fact, until many deals are struck). That is the whole point of the market: To find these values—this is called the Price Mechanism.

      That is the reason that socialist regimes always decay into black markets and poorly run bread lines; they do not respect the price mechanism; they do not respect the fact that the economy (that is, society, which is one and the same) is a complex system that is totally and utterly intractable to machinations of any particular person or group. The only thing you can do is find a workable organization of society's resources through evolution by variation and selection, where variation takes the form of supplier competition, and selection takes the form of consumer choice.

      It has to be a guessing game. The world is stumbling around in search of the answer, and that answer changes from day to day.

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by Nerdfest on Friday January 26, @05:28PM (20 children)

        by Nerdfest (80) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @05:28PM (#628349)

        Socialist regimes? Like Norway, Finland, Canada? I think they're doing pretty well. Calling the current or former Russia a socialist country would be a bit of a stretch.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:35PM (18 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:35PM (#628352)

          Besides the fact that the socialist regimes in those places are indeed hemorrhaging resources, and thereby destroying the people's wealth, it is also the case that those countries have tiny, homogeneous populations.

          According to Google, the population of Finland is slightly under 5.5 million people, and every one of them is basically a copy of the same person. They are no model for anything else in the world—hell, the core City of New York has 8.5 million people, and several orders of magnitude more diversity.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:57PM (16 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:57PM (#628417)

            what about Canada

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:13PM (15 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:13PM (#628429)

              So, Canada is mostly Europeans and the "model" minority.

              Also, they're hemorrhaging resources; in 2013, the Canadian government owed $1.2 trillion to holders of treasury securities.

              • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:28PM (11 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:28PM (#628443)

                Tell me good sir, what is the current state of US debt? I mean the US is the bastion of unfettered capitalism so we MUST be awash in cash right? Is your only defense that these functional pseudo-socialist countries are smaller? Less diverse? In that case your bigotry seems to be showing.

                • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday January 26, @07:39PM

                  by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @07:39PM (#628451) Journal

                  bastion of unfettered capitalism

                  Chuckle.

                  --
                  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
                • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:53PM (8 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:53PM (#628468)

                  The other AC never claimed that the U.S. is a bastion of capitalism; only you brought up such an assertion.

                  Indeed, it's clear from your derision that you agree the U.S. Government is not a bastion for the philosophy capitalism; how can it be? Like every other government, the U.S. Government is founded on the principle of non-capitalist "do-as-I-say" coercion rather than capitalist "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation.

                  The other AC never claimed that being less diverse is better. Rather, he claimed that being less diverse means it is a dubious model for the general question.

                  Also, as with all attempts at Intelligent Design, socialism works better the simpler and dumber you make society; that means that socialism works better as you limit the complexity of the population. Remove genetic differences, and value-system differences (including religious differences), etc., and you have a much more tractable system on your hands.

                  In the general, most complex case, you need a philosophy that leverages the Universe's process of Evolution by Variation and Selection; that philosophy is Capitalism.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:59PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:59PM (#628472)

                    Wooooeeeee, that is some serious assuming you're doing there. I'm gonna check out of this bullshit thread so you can just continue with your "assme" statements.

                  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26, @08:27PM (4 children)

                    by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 26, @08:27PM (#628493)

                    ...works better as you limit the complexity of the population. Remove genetic differences, and value-system differences (including religious differences), etc., and you have a much more tractable system on your hands.

                    That statement applies to all types of government, not just the ones you think can't deal with more complexity. Except fascism, I guess, since that system only works when there's a plausible scapegoat for all your problems.

                    --
                    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:19PM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:19PM (#628534)

                      Like every other government, the U.S. Government is founded on the principle of non-capitalist "do-as-I-say" coercion rather than capitalist "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation.

                      The AC is saying 2 things:

                      • Capitalism is the necessary foundation for society (hence why socialism always decays into black markets).

                      • Any government is inherently anti-Capitalism; a government is an organization defined around a principle that isn't allowed under Capitalism.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:33PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:33PM (#628541)

                        You don't understand what socialism is and are obviously conflating it with communism.

                        Stop sucking the capitalist teat, that milk is poisoned.

                      • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 26, @09:45PM (1 child)

                        by meustrus (4961) <meustrusNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 26, @09:45PM (#628550)

                        And I'll say again what I said last time this philosophy was summarized as such, this time in simpler terms: "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation is enforced by the government, by force. If it weren't, there'd be nothing to stop the capitalists from changing the terms of the "agreement" whenever they feel like it. Kind of like the mafia and other black market groups get to do because government regulation can't reach them.

                        --
                        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:02PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:02PM (#628571)

                          You are making the erroneous deduction that a violently imposed, culturally revered monopoly is the only way to implement the service of contract enforcement.

                          Clearly, that's not the case, as there has never been and there never will be One World Government; clearly, not even the governments of the world agree with you.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:28AM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:28AM (#628654)

                    Indeed, it's clear from your derision that you agree the U.S. Government is not a bastion for the philosophy capitalism; how can it be? Like every other government, the U.S. Government is founded on the principle of non-capitalist "do-as-I-say" coercion rather than capitalist "do-as-we-previously-agreed" cooperation.

                    Yeesh! Take your pseudo-Libertarian talking points and go find a deserted island to live on. If you really do believe that is what the U.S. Government is all about then you clearly don't belong here.

                    Also, as with all attempts at Intelligent Design, socialism works better the simpler and dumber you make society; that means that socialism works better as you limit the complexity of the population. Remove genetic differences, and value-system differences (including religious differences), etc., and you have a much more tractable system on your hands.

                    In the general, most complex case, you need a philosophy that leverages the Universe's process of Evolution by Variation and Selection; that philosophy is Capitalism.

                    ???? I'm not even sure where to begin with this one. What the fucking blue blazes are you talking about? And, who the hell modded this "Interesting"? Would somebody care to explain that upmod?

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @01:45AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @01:45AM (#628673)

                      It reaches a level so out there I'm starting to believe it is a troll and not a legit libertarian nutcase.

                      However, to explain that last chunk and modded "interesting" you just have to realize that it takes a shot at socialism cause socialism BAAAD, does a back handed compliment of it "working" when people are all morons, and throws in some bigotry / eugenics type shit. It is a stone hitting four birds, the last one being capitalism is great and only it can possibly handle the complexities of human society.

                      Wild guess time. Aristarchus is so bent out of shape about his stories being denied that he is doing a parody of the libertarian viewpoint. Although, given VLM's more reasonable posts perhaps this is his AC blowing off steam phase.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, @05:19PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, @05:19PM (#629882)

                  That the GOVERNMENT is in so deep in debt and bailing out companies should tell you that holding it as a bastion is stupid. It isn't unrestrained. Try starting a business and then you can report on the level of restraint the market really is.

              • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Saturday January 27, @10:32AM (2 children)

                by vux984 (5045) on Saturday January 27, @10:32AM (#628788)

                5.8% *chinese*; closer to 20% 'asian'. And it was 2% black in 96. Its closer to 3.5% now. Its down to about 70% caucasion, still substantial, but far below the 92% you implied.

                As for hemorrhaging resources, America WISHES it could hemorrhage resources like Canada.
                Canada's per capita debt is around 17,600 CAD.
                America's per capita debt is 63,000 USD.

                Doing things only as bad as Canada would be a pretty wild improvement.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @05:30PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @05:30PM (#628979)

                  According to Wikipedia, the other AC is right with regard to demographics.

                  Also, the U.S. controls the world's reserve currency, which means it can tax everybody on the planet (through printing money).

                  Also, the U.S. GDP is $20.199 trillion, eleven times larger than Canada's $1.836 trillion.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:00PM (#628418)

            Walking talking propaganda replicator. If only it could be harnessed for good purposes!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:48PM (#628359)

          Socialism and a market economy with a welfare state aren't the same thing, go ask Bernie Sanders about the scolding he got from Denmark about it.

          Either way those countries are running on stored wealth.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:24PM (14 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:24PM (#628386)

        "the fact that the economy (that is, society, which is one and the same)"

        NO! Humans developed society before economics. Yet another fool who worships at the altar of Mammon and is trying to convert others. I do wish you'd stop appropriating the idea of natural selection, it is the most base application of the theory and is an insult to science.

        "It has to be a guessing game. The world is stumbling around in search of the answer, and that answer changes from day to day."

        You really think it is just a stumbling game of an evolving system? Yeah probably, no way any individuals have enough power and influence to affect monetary markets, it is all based on consumers at the store and manufacturers trying to min/max their production chain. Yup, that's what it is! Nice, simple, neat. Just leave the system alone and everything will work itself out! No way no how any jerk is gonna ruin this party!!

        I now take off my hat and request that others do the same. For years we have tried to improve our society, and in these final days it becomes clear that we are simply at the mercy of market forces. Nothing is to be done, so please remove your hats and join me in a moment of silence as we mourn the passing of our dear friend Freedom.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:46PM (13 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:46PM (#628406)
          • Sentience is the question How should this or that resource be allocated? There was economics before humans.

          • Brains are every bit as much part of this universe as everything else; they are just another factor in evolution by variation and selection—sorry, but your "humanity" does not mean you transcend this universe.

            The whole point is that not only is "Intelligent Design" unnecessary, but every attempt at being the Dear Leader fails pretty hard to achieve intended outcomes.

            The evolutionary process indeed does involve minds (after all, humans are participating in it), but it does not require them, and it does not necessarily improve with their presence—many of the problems in society are not even known to exist, and many of the solutions to problems in society come about without people even realizing that they are emerging from the seemingly unrelated activities of human interaction.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:03PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:03PM (#628421)

            Ewww, someone smart enough to defend their own stupidity. Take your materialist worldview and shove it. Anyone invoking "the universe" to justify their politics is an arrogant fool. Trying to fall back on "that is science" or "that is how physics works" is the worst sort of justification when talking politics. But that won't stop you, keep feeling superior, one day you'll learn better.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:19PM (9 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:19PM (#628435)

              You have neither attacked the other poster's points, nor added any of your own.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:26PM (8 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:26PM (#628439)

                Reading comprehension isn't your strong point I see.

                - Anyone invoking "the universe" to justify their politics is an arrogant fool.
                    - can't comprehend the point? Applying the laws of physics to human political systems is DUMB! I pointed out the fallacy behind the poster's appeal to authority of science.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:28PM (7 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:28PM (#628442)

                  Got it.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:36PM (6 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:36PM (#628449)

                    A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

                    I was directly refuting the appeal to science, there is no straw man. Some people may be swayed by crap like: "Sentience is the question How should this or that resource be allocated? There was economics before humans." It is still crap, conflating a human construct with physics in the most basic way in an appeal to authority, "It is SCIENCE therefore I am right!!"

                    It is sad, you are sad, take a decade to get some real experience and wisdom. You sound like some college kid trying to push your personal "revelations" on the world without realizing your own limitations. Woops, I assumed that you're the AC making the argument, but still feels like a safe bet as who would bother to call out my response repeatedly? lol

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:18PM (5 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:18PM (#628483)

                      Why can you make a statement like "Humans developed society before economics."?

                      That is in dispute; you have not defended that statement, while the other AC has built a much richer and more fundamental framework for discussing it.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:33PM (4 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:33PM (#628499)

                        Incorrect. Economics is a modern construct and humanity. There are currently still tribes of humans that have no conception of money or private property. That you cling to the idea that economics is some base function of the universe is weird. As to how I can make such a statement, it is because I have a brain and learned a bit about human history. Comparing the incredibly convoluted modern human economics system to any sort of reductionist framework is a dumb exercise. Our current economy includes lots of quirky mechanisms, and a good portion of the economy is literally based on faith. Faith that the value will remain stable. The greedy actions of one individual can literally topple small nations, so unless you want to bring God into your "fundamental framework" then get a freakin clue!

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:23PM (3 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:23PM (#628537)

                          The AC isn't endorsing or basing his argument on what you seem to be calling humans' "current" "economic system".

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:36PM (2 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:36PM (#628543)

                            And how would you know what the OTHER AC is endorsing? Or that it is a he? Could you and he be THE SAME PERSON??? wooo wee wooo weee ooooo

                            "current" "economic system"

                            extra quotes why? actually, why any quotes? I think you are just incapable of admitting when you're wrong and you'll have to do more than give opinions full of holes.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:05PM (1 child)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:05PM (#628575)

                              Only special, precious, or exotic things (such as boats, or females) are referenced with feminine forms; the word "he" is neutral, and says nothing about gender.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:22PM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @10:22PM (#628585)

                                I get it already, you're working on your journalism degree and this is your master's project; examining a real world experiment in online trolling. Nice choice, you get to have fun trolling a forum while billing it as authentic research. *clap clap*

          • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday January 26, @09:10PM

            by unauthorized (3776) on Friday January 26, @09:10PM (#628532)

            Sentience is the question How should this or that resource be allocated? There was economics before humans.

            Are you saying we should eat fat capitalists?

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday January 27, @08:13PM

            by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 27, @08:13PM (#629111) Homepage Journal

            Sentience is the question How should this or that resource be allocated? There was economics before humans.

            What are you blathering on about? Sentience [wikipedia.org] has nothing to do with resource allocation, except in the sense that the ability to reason is necessary to make conscious decisions about *anything*:

            Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by tfried on Friday January 26, @07:39PM (4 children)

        by tfried (5534) on Friday January 26, @07:39PM (#628452)

        Yes, prices are changing. But lack of a reference is not the hallmark of an efficient market.Of course stock traders - allegory for capitalism(TM) - have ample access to current and historical data of price bids, asks, and trade volume. Of course supermarkets - allegory of western lifestyle - have price stickers on their wares. Of course even a used car dealer - allegory of murky market niches - will put a price sticker on their offers. You are well advised to negotiate from there, and just how far you push the price is a guessing game, indeed. But not offering a reference is downright ridiculous.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:55PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:55PM (#628559)

          The employer has an idea of what he's willing to pay, and the employee has an idea of what he's willing to accept.

          People talk to their friends and coworkers, and take interviews to put out feelers.

          Those supermarkets have prices on their wares because their margins are large enough that fluctuations in costs don't matter, and it's currently logistically cheaper not to change those prices throughout even 1 store, let alone hundreds or thousands.

          Seriously, do you people even have a modicum of imagination?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @01:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @01:47AM (#628674)

            You people? What do you mean by YOU people? Don't make me get my nunchuks!

          • (Score: 2) by tfried on Saturday January 27, @08:49AM (1 child)

            by tfried (5534) on Saturday January 27, @08:49AM (#628771)

            So what you're saying is, it does not matter either way, because the information in question is already available?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @05:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @05:32PM (#628981)

              The government is asserting that it has the right to force once private individual to say something to another private individual.

              That is disgusting.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:52PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:52PM (#628467)

        This "price mechanism" only works when information is freely available to ensure a well-working competition.
        So if you want to argue for that angle, you would have to argue that all companies should publish complete reports on what every single person in the company earns, maybe not by name but at least by qualifications and job descriptions.
        In practice, this is a much easier approximation of that: The companies generally have a good idea of an approximate market value (since they check what other companies offer for example), so they can just make that information available.
        More openness and information very much is in line with capitalism!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:40PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:40PM (#628546)

          It doesn't matter whether information is hidden now; the evolutionary selection process (e.g., consumer choice) can be totally retrospective.

          It is an obvious and pernicious canard, spread by would-be Intelligent Designers, that the market requires 100% knowledge; only an Intelligent Designer needs omniscience, and evolution by variation and selection does not require an Intelligent Designer.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:45AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:45AM (#628661)

          So if you want to argue for that angle, you would have to argue that all companies should publish complete reports on what every single person in the company earns, maybe not by name but at least by qualifications and job descriptions.

          That would work just fine for me.

          In practice, this is a much easier approximation of that: The companies generally have a good idea of an approximate market value (since they check what other companies offer for example), so they can just make that information available.

          That information is already generally available. For example, you can easily look up what an Electrical Engineer with an advanced degree and 5 - 10 years experience can rightly expect to be paid. But that only gives you a very rough approximation for what you can rightly ask for at a job interview at a specific company. In that respect, the company has a distinct advantage over the prospective new hire.

          More openness and information very much is in line with capitalism!

          Yes, indeed! So, then, we are in agreement that companies should publish complete reports of what every single person in the company earns?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Friday January 26, @08:25PM (4 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Friday January 26, @08:25PM (#628490) Journal

        You should look up the difference between Socialism and Communism. Also the difference between obscuring the price and obscuring the "correct price". Many price confusion tactics exist simply to muddy the market so it won't settle on the natural market price, but rather at some other price based on deliberate confusion.

        Markets thrive on information. Perfect markets require perfect information.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:51PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @09:51PM (#628558)

          If markets thrive on information, then they'll naturally make information as widespread as possible; there's absolutely no reason to force it at the point of a gun—in fact, forcing it suggests that there's something wrong with your ideas.

          Also, perfect markets are neither required [soylentnews.org], nor desired; a perfect market would require people to give up their individual identities and become The Borg.

          This seems to be veering towards the fundamental dispute:

              Collectivism vs Individualism

              Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism

              Intelligent Design vs Evolution by Variation and Selection

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 27, @05:09AM (2 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Saturday January 27, @05:09AM (#628724) Journal

            You assume, for some reason that I cannot fathom, that all players in a market prefer a healthy and efficient market over one that favors them in particular. Sometimes it is necessary for society to enforce the spread of market information so it doesn't become too unhealthy. You need to go back to the basics. Start with Smith.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @05:34PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @05:34PM (#628984)

              It doesn't have to be perfect NOW.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday January 28, @04:03AM

                by sjames (2882) on Sunday January 28, @04:03AM (#629320) Journal

                But the iterations do need to be converging on a fair market value. If they aren't convergent, it will never be optimal or even close.

                So what would you call soon enough? After everyone reading this is dead of old age? Just before the heat death of the universe?

                Sometimes the free market uber alles people remind me of Linus waiting in the pumpkin patch, certain that THIS time it's so unregulated that the Great Pumpkin will surely appear.

                REALLY, read Smith. Markets must be regulated if they are to function.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday January 26, @08:46PM (2 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @08:46PM (#628508)

        Nobody knows what something should cost today until a deal is struck (in fact, until many deals are struck). That is the whole point of the market: To find these values—this is called the Price Mechanism.

        No Thanks!

        I want price information published.

        When I walk into Target to buy more Diet Coke, I don't want to negotiate. I don't want to haggle. I want to see what the price is, and if Walmart is cheaper I might go there instead. My choice.

        And make no mistake, that IS a market.

        If I'm looking for a job (something I've never done for over 35 years), I would like to be able to use the offered salaries to weed out places I don't want to waste my time with. Just like I want to weed out which store I might visit. Why is one okay but the other is not? Or do you think it unfair that I am able to choose where I make purchases based on price?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @11:23PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @11:23PM (#628618)

          From the employer perspective:

          If I'm looking for an employee (something I've never done for over 35 years), I would like to be able to use the offered salaries to weed out people I don't want to waste my time with. Just like I want to weed out which store I might visit. Why is one okay but the other is not? Or do you think it unfair that I am able to choose where I make purchases based on price?

          So... what is your price?

          • (Score: 2) by YeaWhatevs on Saturday January 27, @07:46PM

            by YeaWhatevs (5623) on Saturday January 27, @07:46PM (#629071)

            Meh, fuck that motherfucker. I want the negotiating advantage, fuck what the employer wants.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Friday January 26, @09:03PM

        by unauthorized (3776) on Friday January 26, @09:03PM (#628526)

        That is the reason that socialist regimes always decay into black markets and poorly run bread lines

        And that reason is they are regimes. There is no such thing as an authoritarian regime that's a good place to live, the best you can hope for is one or two generations of competent dictators, followed by the inevitable decline.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @06:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @06:31AM (#628736)

        Except that in things like shopping or stocks, you can actually see the currently going price by looking at the listed price or the current rating. Nobody needs to guess what the price is because the range is known publicly. (though the price may change later to your benefit or detriment in the latter case)

        With employment, there is no such rating. You're simply guessing within a very large range. Since an employer or recruiter interacts with many employees in the same position and you are negotiating with relatively few employers, there is a massive information asymmetry in favor of the employer. Personally I feel that trying to decrease this imbalance to allow the market to operate more fairly is a good thing.

        One way is to achieve this is to disallow recruiters and employers from informing about an applicant's previous salary. Another way is to list all salaries publicly. Both have their pros and cons.

        Worded differently to appeal to people in the US; it increases the efficiency of the market to determine the actual current price which is what markets and capitalism is supposedly all about.

    • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday January 26, @06:39PM (4 children)

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday January 26, @06:39PM (#628399)

      Thank you for being the only person that could stick to the fucking topic here. This isn't a socialist or feminist conspiracy, you fucktards.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:51PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:51PM (#628410)

        Whence comes the authority of the government in this case? [soylentnews.org]

        Where is the acceptance for how our Universe actually works? [soylentnews.org]

        This law is touching upon philosophical and political disputes; it absolutely is one group of thinkers trying to impose its will on another group of thinkers.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:06PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:06PM (#628425)

          I ask, HOW OLD ARE YOU? HOW OLD??? We all have our guesses, the pool needs to know!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:50AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:50AM (#628662)

            I ask, HOW OLD ARE YOU? HOW OLD??? We all have our guesses, the pool needs to know!

            My guess is that he is about 15 years old. What? Did I win? What's my prize? Just asking.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday January 26, @08:49PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @08:49PM (#628512)

          it absolutely is one group of thinkers trying to impose its will on another group of thinkers.

          I want you to know that there is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed with more government regulation!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:46PM (#628461)

      "There is probably only one thing I detest more then the salary guessing game and that is companies that are recruiting and calling people to interviews but have not set aside money to cover travel expenses to bring the people they want to interview to them. If they are not compensating or covering those expenses they can just fuck right off. I'm not paying to be interviewed."

      I've refused to travel for an interview the small number of times I was asked to. I figure if you aren't serious enough about hiring me to pay for my flight, then why should I spend time and money flying for an interview? They lose nothing by "carpet bombing" and having dozens of people fly to them, maybe most of them not even serious considerations. So yeah, they can fuck right off.

    • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 26, @07:48PM (3 children)

      There were a couple years in which I only asked for what I felt I needed and no more. I did this because I had the idea it would enable others to get jobs too.

      Not. One. Offer.

      The last time I applied for a job I requested $130k and they offered $135.

      Next time I'm going to ask for $150k.

      I have been contract programming [soggywizards.com] for just one client for a little over a year now. Last year's gross income wast $21k.

      I'm doing just fine.

      --
      "MICHAEL DAVID CRAWFORD IS A LYING MOTHERFUCKER."
      -- Anonymous Coward
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:32PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:32PM (#628498)

        Mike,

        You should usually ask for the "going rate."

        If you deviate too much from that, things get difficult for everyone.
        I assume you finally learned what "the going rate" is by your last post.

        Offering to work for less than that does not help you or gain you respect, as you stated.
        Demanding more than that makes it harder to find work--although it is not impossible. Just harder to pull off.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @01:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @01:19AM (#628668)

          You should usually ask for the "going rate."

          Actually, what you really should ask first is "are you offering me the job?" If they say no, that is a bad sign. A very bad sign. More than likely, what they really want is to have a good documented reason for not making you an offer. If, on the other hand, they say that they are offering you the job, then you can start salary negotiations. Instead of asking for the "going rate", it is much better to ask them what they are prepared to offer their best applicant. Depending on how hardball you want to play it, you could then make a counter offer that is about 5 to 10 percent higher. That's the way to maximize any potential salary offer. And, depending on what position you are interviewing for, they may actually be quite impressed with your negotiating skills.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Friday January 26, @10:00PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @10:00PM (#628564)

        I only asked for what I felt I needed

        Empathy, buddy, empathy.

        Think about it from their point of view not yours. They have no idea what you want or need, but they "know" they need $135 worth of something (per hour, I assume?) to accomplish what they want based on market experience. So if you offer something that does not gel with their opinion of what they want.., no contract.

        Bad SN car analogy, lets say they want to buy a nice Cadillac and are willing to pay $48K MSRP. It doesn't matter if you're an engineer expert who can scientifically prove they actually need a nice $20K Yaris to do the job, because they already decided they want the caddy. If you offer them the Yaris they're gonna be pissed off.

        Now if you want to work like a rented mule for less than minimum wage mostly to do rich kids homework assignments, let me introduce you to the Upwork website. Thats the other empathy side, don't ask real companies for joke pay, you're essentially insulting the company. The real company probably isn't a Stanford rich kid who just wants an "A" in java 101 class.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:16AM (#628648)

      There is probably only one thing I detest more then the salary guessing game and that is companies that are recruiting and calling people to interviews but have not set aside money to cover travel expenses to bring the people they want to interview to them.

      I suspect what they are really doing is conducting what, for lack of a better term, might be called "market research". They call you out for an interview; during the interview they ask about your salary requirements. If they do that with a few people they get a good idea of what they can "reasonably" offer a prospective new hire. In any case, yes, it's just plain shitty and you have every right to tell them to fuck right off if they expect you to cover the costs of your "interview". Even if they do cover the costs of your interview, you should still tell them to fuck right off. Seriously. Just tell them to fuck off. What I find just as annoying was when I would get calls from a company but it became clear pretty quickly that they did not have any job on offer at all and no intention of opening up a position either! I hated playing the "guess what job we may have for you to fill" game; that one was annoying too.

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:14PM (#628340)

    ... women to negotiate for pay.

    I swear. It's almost like the womens need the Patriarchy to see to their welfare.

    Anyway, I don't see how the law in question is in any way constitutional; it's clearly a total violation of free speech and the like—I mean, in the U.S., you have the right to remain silent during a criminal investigation.

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:26PM (35 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:26PM (#628347)

    Look, it's very simple, folks.

    If you downmod a legitimate comment, then I'm going to keep posting it.

    -------------------

    ... women to negotiate for pay.

    I swear. It's almost like the womens need the Patriarchy to see to their welfare.

    Anyway, I don't see how the law in question is in any way constitutional; it's clearly a total violation of free speech and the like—I mean, in the U.S., you have the right to remain silent during a criminal investigation.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:40PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:40PM (#628355)

      It's very simple, shitstain. If you post a comment more than once, we're going to keep downmodding it.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:49PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:49PM (#628407)

        "It's very simple, shitstain."

        Careful, your bigotry is showing.

        "If you post a comment more than once, we're going to keep downmodding it."

        It seems to me that you conflate the order of events. As I read it, "we" downmodded it, the author noticed, and reposted his comment again.

        I'm not logged in and I saw his comment so if it was downmodded, the modding did not achieve its desired goal. Yet.

        He may be biased against women but your hatred of his use of free speech is the greater crime, IMHO.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:13PM (#628430)

          Then you aren't paying very good attention. I will 100% back calling the AC a shitstain, now if someone is actually trying to censor him beyond this modding debate THEN I'll worry about free speech issues.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by unauthorized on Friday January 26, @09:21PM

          by unauthorized (3776) on Friday January 26, @09:21PM (#628535)

          I disagree, spam is not speech at all. The cutoff point for me is when the message contains meaningful information, if no additional ideas can be derived from a message, it's just worthless garbage noise.

          And indeed intentionally disrupting a communications platform with such noise does make one a shitstain.

    • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday January 26, @05:41PM (21 children)

      by DutchUncle (5370) on Friday January 26, @05:41PM (#628356)

      The employer may not remain silent, but may provide a pay scale of "$40K to $200K per year depending on suitability of experience".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:51PM (19 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:51PM (#628361)

        The government does not have the authority to force one private individual to divulge information to another private individual.

        If anything, a law could at most say that an employer is committing fraud if the employer lies to a new hire about how much other employees are paid.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:59PM (16 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @05:59PM (#628369)

          Really? Exactly what keeps the government from having that authority? The national government of the USA might have a carefully set out set of limited powers, but state governments don't work that way. They have any power that's not forbidden to them or reserved to the national government by the national Constitution or the applicable state constitution.

          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:06PM (15 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:06PM (#628375)

            No individual in California (in its entire history) has ever had the right (outside of an explicit contract) to force one private individual to divulge information to another private individual.

            Ergo, no individual in California has ever been able to delegate that authority to the government of California.

            So, whence comes the authority to do this? WHENCE, I say, WHENCE?!

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Spook brat on Friday January 26, @06:35PM (6 children)

              by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 26, @06:35PM (#628394)

              Every individual in California has the right to unilaterally refuse to sign a contract. As a group the citizens of California, therefore, have the right to en-mass refuse contracts with any employer who demands applicants' salary information as part of negotiation. The Citizens of California have delegated that authority to the Legislature to establish it as a state Law, permanently encoding the desire of the Citizens.

              The Employer is not forced to disclose salary data, either; they have the option of not hiring Citizens of California if the desire of all Californians for personal privacy is not to the Employer's liking.

              This is no different than the Citizens forming a union and demanding these terms as part of a mass-bargaining or unilaterally imposed contractual term. The difference is that they are instead leveraging the existing rights of Citizenship and representation that they agreed on when establishing the State Constitution (the Union already exists!) and using the power they gave their representatives to refuse to Employers the ability to coerce individual Citizens into going against the Citizens' individual and collective interest.

              If you don't have a problem with Unions, you shouldn't have a problem with this, either.

              --
              Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
              • (Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:01PM (5 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:01PM (#628419)

                Your answer is based on the notion that the "union" can force people at the point of a gun to join the union.

                That is itself a problem subject to the initial question: Whence comes the authority?

                You haven't solved anything.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:09PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:09PM (#628427)

                  Why does anyone bother conversing with you? Always light on substance and heavy on repeated opinion and denial. You are the worst.

                  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:21PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:21PM (#628438)

                    RIGHT?

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:39PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:39PM (#628453)

                      Yes that is right!

                      Oh I see, you're one of those jagoffs who put half your comment in the subject line. You are just a reactionary fool, have fun getting downmodded every day :D

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:57AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27, @12:57AM (#628665)

                        Oh I see, you're one of those jagoffs who put half your comment in the subject line. You are just a reactionary tool, have fun getting downmodded every day :D

                        FTFY

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Friday January 26, @11:12PM

                  by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 26, @11:12PM (#628610)

                  Are you the AC I was discussing government with late last year? [soylentnews.org] If so, I owe you an essay on how sovereign individuals can legitimately come to agreement on a social contract of mutual obligation to form systems of government. Apologies for the delay, life's been busy around the holidays, and hasn't let up yet. Look for a journal post titled "Civics for Anarchists", no guarantees on arrival date.

                  If not (and I suspect this is the case), your objection to the situation in the article seems to revolve around the details of how the specific system of government is organized ("Your answer is based on the notion that the "union" can force people at the point of a gun to join the union."). That issue isn't going to get resolved in this thread; it would take too much screen space, and is mostly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether union membership is inherited by the children of members, and whether union membership is automatically conferred (with accompanying obligations) on anyone moving into a geographic area are separate issues from whether unionization is a legitimate means of delegating authority.

                  You did not seem to object to the concept of mass negotiation or delegation of authority to a representative. If you can agree that we are free to organize into groups and appoint members of our group to act as proxies for us in contract negotiations, then let's simplify the discussion and analyze the case where the people represented by the Legislature all consented to be members of the notional "Citizen's Union". If that is the case, then the authority to pass the law comes from the consent of the Citizens who voted the legislature into place. They have the authority individually to reject bad terms of employment, and therefore they have the right as a group to reject those bad terms universally within their sphere of influence. Passing the law is the formal method they use for doing so.

                  --
                  Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:35PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:35PM (#628396)

              Ah, I see the mental block you're having. You see, most of us do not agree with the decision that corporations are people. Corporations are regulated all the time, and since they are not actual citizens they do not get to enjoy the same range of basic freedoms.

              You want free markets? Well ensuring honesty in the labor market is a requirement for that to happen.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, @05:30PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 29, @05:30PM (#629893)

                They get taxed like a person and you have to sue them like a person. They are separate people as far as the law is concerned. That is why they are taxed. Sole proprietorships not corped aren't taxed or be sued, the owner is personally liable in both cases (which is part of the metric of high income individuals, they are the Waltons and such but they are also business owners and you are seeing mom and pop shops on there that aren't corps). That was the innovation that allowed most of what we have today. You can buy stock in your 401k or IRA or pension because investment is possible because you as a partial owner of those companies are liable for the taxes or in lawsuits. They aren't flesh and blood but legally they are people. Otherwise you argue against taxing them at all. Or that stock holders are liable for suits, that means that if a public insurance company or bank you own through a mutual fund is rendered bankrupt by a disaster, they can come for your home to pay off the debt. That doesn't sound like a formula for success.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:35PM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:35PM (#628397)

              Hmm, that argument pretty much guts every government function and law. Which is probably your real point. And I'm pretty sure folks have been require to divulge information via subpoena for oh, centuries.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:54PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:54PM (#628415)

                So, your argument is a straw man.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:43PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @07:43PM (#628456)

                  No, you are literally incapable of seeing the bigger picture. I think you took the DARE campaign a little too seriously.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:12PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:12PM (#628479)

                  Meh, just simplifying one private citizen suing another another private citizen and asking a court clerk or lawyer to issue a subpoena. But if your argument is that private citizens can't directly compel another private citizen to give up information so the government can't either, then I suppose you disagree with subpoenas too, seeing that courts are part of the government.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:27PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:27PM (#628492)

                    When 2 people agree to a contract, they are necessarily agreeing to the means by which the contract could be enforced.

                    If the Contract states that it shall be enforced by the Courts of California and their methods, then of course it makes sense for the Courts of California to be able to issue such a subpoena.

                    As you can, see the AC's point has still not yet been dismantled; it remains perfectly consistent.

                    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:35PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @08:35PM (#628501)

                      Stop referring to yourself as "the AC" and perhaps try owning your ideas?

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 26, @06:39PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday January 26, @06:39PM (#628400) Journal

          The government does not have the authority to force one private individual to divulge information to another private individual.

          Yes, because when advertisers say "symptoms include anal leakage" it's because they're really proud of that leakage! It's not because they're compelled to divulge that information.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fritsd on Friday January 26, @09:42PM

          by fritsd (4586) on Friday January 26, @09:42PM (#628548) Journal

          The private individual who is an employer does not have the authority to incorporate as a company, either.
          If they want to do business as a company in a jurisdiction then they have to play by that jurisdiction's government's rules, whatever those rules are.

          Of course they could sue the government at the WTO, I guess :-)

      • (Score: 2) by rcamera on Friday January 26, @05:54PM

        by rcamera (2360) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 26, @05:54PM (#628364) Homepage Journal

        which is better than nothing.

        if i'm already in the $400k range, then this "senior" position that maxes out at $200k isn't something that's worth my time (or your time) discussing.

        if i'm in the $150k range, then we can start defining what qualifications are required for me to reach the higher-end of their scale, and what happens after i eventually (hopefully) get to the $200k range (upward mobility type questions).

        --
        /* no comment */
    • (Score: 2) by Eristone on Friday January 26, @05:54PM (1 child)

      by Eristone (4775) on Friday January 26, @05:54PM (#628363)

      Down modding a comment means the moderators disagree with your post. The response least likely to be modded down is a vigerous defense with credible references if available. That will start a discussion thread and can result in your original post being up modded as well. Reposting the same comment goes from making you look immature to looking like an idiot to looking like a spammer.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @06:03PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @06:03PM (#628371)

        Down modding a comment means the moderators disagree with your post.

        Maybe the meaning has drifted that way by now, but it's not supposed to mean that if moderators are obeying the rules. There's a reason the "Disagree" mod is -0.

        Someone posting a thing you disagree with is not trolling. Trolling is posting something purely to get a rise out of people, without caring to actually debate the matter at hand. Someone posting a thing you disagree with *might* be Flamebait if they do it in a particularly rude manner or with personal attacks.

        In this case, posting the same thing over and over because it keeps getting modded down is pretty obviously Spam, and rather self-defeating. You'd be better off just posting it once and waiting for someone to come along and mod it back up, IMO. But making a user account would be helpful because you'd start at higher visibility, too.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @05:56PM (4 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @05:56PM (#628365)

      Why do you assume that your comment is somehow intrinsically worthwhile? Your opinion is "correct" and everyone else disagreeing with you are just morons?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:00PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:00PM (#628370)

        Not only does downmodding collapse a comment, but it also triggers SoylentNews's spam thwarting machinery; which blocks a person from commenting further.

        It's not acceptable.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:30PM (#628391)

          When a user spams the same thing all the time with little to no variation based on the actual article, yeah you're a spammer. An ideological spammer, and people want that shit to stop. Get a clue perhaps? Or set up an easy to use list of proxies so you can get around the filter and keep spamming.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Friday January 26, @06:32PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday January 26, @06:32PM (#628393)

          but it also triggers SoylentNews's spam thwarting machinery

          So make an effing account already! I betcha that would stop the IP shenanigans. And it would make your comments more visible in the first place, which is all you really care about, right?

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:39PM (#628398)

          You know that every time you post the same comment again, we're going to downmod it. Personally speaking, seeing this kind of behavior makes me less inclined to wonder if I should correct a downmod on the original comment. What are you trying to accomplish, anyway?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, @06:27PM (#628388)

      And it remains very simple, keep spamming troll posts and they will keep being modded down. Your "logic and reason" are terrible with most of it being knee-jerk reactionary anarchist/capitalist tripe. You dislike that people view your ideas in such disdain so your solution is to try and force it in their faces?? Sorry bud, you're not gonna get any better validation that way, you're just riding the emotional wave of anger and retribution. Pathetic.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Spook brat on Friday January 26, @06:51PM

      by Spook brat (775) on Friday January 26, @06:51PM (#628411)

      Are you the same AC as I replied to before on this topic, or a different one?

      Duplicate posts pollute the discussion space and dilute the conversation. They will be modded redundant. [soylentnews.org]

      Please complain about bad mods in the affected thread, not in a separate one. [soylentnews.org]

      From the moderator guidelines: [soylentnews.org]

      Bad Comments are flamebait, incorrect, or have nothing to do with the article. Other examples: Ad Hominem, ridicule for others with different opinion (without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words), repeats of something said 15 times already (read previous comments before you post), use of unnecessary foul language, some are hard to read or just don't make any sense. Basically they detract from the article they are attached to. (Score: -1)

      We're not trying to prevent anyone from talking, we just want the conversation to run smoothly. Say what you like, and we'll have a discussion about it. Mail the admins [mailto] if you think you are unfairly being modded as spam.
      Flood the board with repeated threads, though, and we'll regard the redundant messages as damage/attacks and treat them accordingly.

      --
      Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(1) 2