Just like how California's auto market is too big for auto manufacturers to give up on, despite the strict environmental laws, NYC talent pool may be too big for most companies to pass on.

Couldn't companies just post a low minimum and high maximum salary to comply? (Apologies for the naive question, I assume the law isn't this easily sidestepped).

From the second linked article above:

> In providing the salary range, an employer must use good faith to determine, at the time of the posting, what it believes it would pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity.

As a former lawyer, I would say the phrase "good faith" is the operative one here. Companies will want to stay far enough from the line so that they don't get sued.

> Companies will want to stay far enough from the line so that they don't get sued.

idk what legal precedent is, but if i was hiring i could make a large good faith salary range.

job candidates are different. post a large but meaningful skills list youre looking for and be willing to hire the right person that doesnt meet all your bullet points. a college grad with 0 experience or a no-college with 4 years of experience or a college grad+4 years exp all might be the right person, but deserve significantly different salaries.

> idk what legal precedent is, but if i was hiring i could make a large good faith salary range.

What'd be interesting would be how often a company offers near the top of that range, or potentially beyond it. I'd think the frequency of offers (either far below the maximum or actually above the maximum) would make a potential case against a company for not listing ranges in good faith.

(ianal)

I think you'd make a very hard time making that stick (and a field like software development, where the 10x more productive programmer is generally believed to be a real thing, would be particularly hard). There is no reason why a company operating in good faith should want to deter exceptional candidates from applying to a position, and exceptional candidates are both much rarer than "slightly-above average" or "underqualified but trainable" candidates and able to command much higher salaries.

But the possibility otherwise satisfied employees being paid a market wage commensurate with their experience might see ads for jobs similar to theirs and conclude they're being systematically underpaid and motivated to take legal action is definitely a negative second order effect of the law...

They'd probably need to demonstrate that they have (of have had recently) people working at the min and max to demonstrate good faith. And they cannot just get rid of titles, because it's really based on job description.

It seems unlikely that New York is a haven for remote workers; it’s a place with high pay and correspondingly high income. I think NY laws won’t have a substantial impact on remote-work job postings.

I don’t know: my kid lives in Manhattan but works for a California company. His previous employer was one too. He says it’s the best of both worlds.

I live in NYC and have been remote since way before the pandemic. Sometimes we just prefer to live in cities and our jobs are not in them (or at least not ones big enough for us).