Because it doesn't allow it, there needs to be a reasonable belief by the employer that the job posting may be paid within that range. If a complaint goes in front of a judge, they would probably find that $1bn/yr is not a reasonable payment for a job.

See the proposed amendments to 432.3 (m) (1).

That would still be a massive improvement over the status quo - it becomes immediately apparent what companies are more likely to be playing games.

As a practical matter, most of us would immediately ignore these joke postings. Hell, most job sites do (or would) allow filtering by compensation, which would hide these entirely. E.g. if you know you need to make $500k minimum, then a job that could "pay" $1 is gonna be right out.

If they post $1 or whatever small/min wage, I think we can now at least assume they intend to pay the lowest stated or allowed.

That is not a loophole. It still solves the problem of information not being transmitted quickly enough through the marketplace about which jobs/types of labor have too much supply or insufficient demand if the bottom of the pay range is too low.

Easily searchable and sortable price transparency will help allocate labor resources in a more timely manner.

You're not describing problems that the laws were intended to solve, at least from public statements. I'm also unsure as to whether the issues you describe are more than 'nuisance' problems, in that they don't cause long-term instability or inequity.

Price transparency underpins proper allocation of resources in an economy. This is from microeconomics 101. It would be greatly beneficial in the long term for a society to allocate resources (including labor) to where it is needed.

Don't disagree, but the challenge in this area is that no two people are alike and so the market price for developer-a is not the same as the market price for developer-b. Related, it depends on what job you are applying for as the same person applying for two different jobs isn't going to automatically end up with the same compensation.

I'm not saying that some transparency wouldn't help, just that market pricing for labor doesn't work the same way it does for a commodity.

Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified. That is the purpose of not forcing a certain pay range.

Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B. Eventually, employers who try to do that will be forced to change by lack of quality workers applying to them.

> Sure, and for those positions the market will decide that a wider pay range for job listings is justified.

Agreed. (and/or we end up with finer graduated positions with similar pay bands).

> Personally, I do not see a reason to legislate a specific bottom or top range. Let the pay range be $min wage to $1B.

If you don't require any good faith description of the pay bands, the law is useless. You can post accurate, narrow pay bands now if you want. Or you can post none. Workers have been letting companies get away with posting none.

$min wage to $1B is functionally equivalent to none.

This implies that there is one true price, while, in fact, prices on the labor markets are constantly in flux. The market price is the result of individual transactions, so one could argue that limiting the free negotiation of prices to some previously published price range prevents the market from finding the best price for both sides.

I do not see how it implies one true price.

And there is nothing preventing employers from updating their price ranges.

Of course employers do not want to show their current employers that they are increasing their price for new hires, so that is their real concern with publicly listed price ranges.