And how does this further complicate the gender inequality issues, in terms of salary negotiations?

A common tactic is, if a company knows what you're making, they'll try to hold your earnings as close as possible to something only slightly better than any potential raise you'd be entitled to at your current employer, and you'll get the same tactic from multiple potential employers.

If you're only entitled to a 3% raise, organizations with access to this information might only ever offer 5%, and refuse to go higher.

With this information in the picture, lower salaries mysteriously stay low, even for some lateral moves, depending on who you are and what they can dig up on you.

Past pay is not directly a significant issue. It's just a question of getting competing offers.

The real issue is some people suck at negotiation and past salaries will tell companies that.

If some people 'suck' at negotiating then that must mean there are others who are 'better' at negotiating

If I have a guardian who pays my rent so that i can take 6months to high ball offers to finally find a job that will pay me a high wage does that mean I'm 'better' at negotiating?

Try not to think in the very short term. Finding a job at ~70% of the going rate for your field is not that hard.

Now at 70% a 10% raise might not seem like a huge deal as your still under market, but it only takes 7 of those to double your salary. And a 15-20% pay raise to jump to the next job is hardly unreasonable. Do those every ~3 years and you will massive difference inside a decade.

Remember, the median salary is just that people really do get paid more than it.

What stops you from taking the first job you find, and then spending 6 months while working looking for better jobs?

It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?

> What stops [someone]..

Interviews scheduled during work hours, already working multiple jobs, burnout, lack of openings in your field

> It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?

This sentiment signals bias

Competing offers? For what? Serving coffee? Washing dishes? DBA? CTO?

If you offer anyone with a job more money my guess is 100% would take the extra cash, so just because they fail to find, or look, for more cash how does it imply they 'don't really want it anyway'?

> This sentiment signals bias

While your sentiments are presumably bias-free?

I think everyone has bias, but I do think issues can be discussed without letting your biases supplant reason

What I meant by signalling bias was I felt the gp was allowing bias about the issue cloud reasoning as to the nuance of the issue

If my comment seemed to imply that I deny nuance then I failed to communicate my point

Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation

> Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation

Thanks, I think that's a much better criticism of the original argument

Starting anything new is a drain on resources. Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out. After all, it usually takes a few months to get anyone up to speed in a job, and this is assuming they're giving lots of effort.

For existing jobs? Inertia is probably a factor there, as well as fear of the unknown. When you've got something to loose it's different than having nothing to loose.

> Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out

In my experience, that is not how it plays out.

Candidate A is living at home with his parents in some kind of GP paradise, able to give 100% of his time to interviewing.

Candidate B is working a stable but not fulfilling job, and interviewing on his lunch break / evening / morning to make it work.

Candidate B is going to be perceived as the higher value candidate, and all else being equal get more offers. Some of this is a value bias. You interview A and go "wow, he's not working now, I wonder what is wrong with him?"... you interview B and go "wow, he is a stable guy that can hold a job, he seems a slightly better fit".

Thinking that interviewing is some kind of magic trivia question that you need to devote full time study to is silly. Perhaps some jobs are like that, but I am not sure I would want to work there.

Idk why you are getting downvoted, because you are obviously right.

I think some people want to be outraged.

Any suggestions on how to bypass the question of past/expected comp then?

In some cases, it is explicitly stated by the prospective employer that any refusal of requested information (or providing false information) will be met with a rejection letter.

I have been on interviews where this is part of a boiler plate release/waiver for a background check, prior to receiving an offer letter, and on the same form, you are made to list prior employers, and fill in the salary box for each.

And if you don't like it, good luck taking legal action, right? Whether something is legal or illegal, most people lack the resources to even entertain the idea of challenging legality.

The only path that seems to effectively buffer this practice is working with recruiting agencies, which do a better job of negotiating, but do still collect this information. And although recruiters might only be capable of telling you whether you have real leverage for your salary demands, whether the recruiter is being paid by you or the employer is a clue as to who they're working for.

Hint: if you aren't paying them out of pocket, recruiters aren't actually working for you, even if they seem really pleasant.

I wouldn't paint so broad a brush with your "only path" argument; I've never listed my salaries, and have always negotiated my own (even when connected to jobs via a recruiter).

Then again, I'm fortunate to have highly sought skills and years of experience, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the only way to get fair pay.

Edit: I should point out that I'm not making anything to brag about by silicon valley standards, but I also live somewhere with much, much lower cost of living and salaries in general, and make the high end of what's common out here.

My offer letter says that I'm legally forbidden from disclosing the terms of my compensation. You should just fill in the salary boxes that you are under a legal obligation not to do so.

In California, you are legally allowed to share your salary. I would just not accept a job where they ask my salary, if I can create a big enough market where I can make that decision.

1. Say that your past contracts forbid it

2. Make up a figure -- you have a lot of leeway to do so truthfully by adding or not adding various benefits to the number you state.