Pay transparency laws land in more states as raises slump
A wide-ranging new study from Payscale examining compensation and employment trends across industries suggests lower expectations are in order for workers seeking raises and remote work.
The number of organizations planning to give base pay bumps this year has dipped — 6% of employers say they're cutting pay increases entirely, roughly 2 in 10 are scaling back raises, and 14% are downsizing salary offers, according to the report.
The researchers said, 'Between the precarious economy, increased employer power in the labor market, and a heated political climate, organizations have been grappling with increased tensions when it comes to compensation. There's an expectation to reduce compensation costs while economic conditions are uncertain.'
Those companies who are doling out raises say they will hike salaries by an average of 3.5% this year, compared to 3.8% in 2024 and 4.8% in 2023 — which was the highest level in two decades.
For all of you clinging to your home office (or couch), more than 4 in 10 employers have mandated return-to-office policies this year. And 16% said they plan to enforce more in-office work. The researchers did find, however, that top performers frequently skate around those rigid rules to work remotely.
The outcome: Many workers have responded with their feet. Four in 10 employers report that some of their best workers have packed it up and quit due to the push to get back to the office.
Those employers might regret that.
'There is uncertainty around what they will be up against with inflation and tariffs,' Sandra Moran, a workforce expert at WorkForce Software, part of ADP, told Yahoo Finance. 'Many industries are proactively seeking new hires right now, however, and companies that offer flexible working arrangements and opportunities for advancement — in addition to competitive compensation — will come out ahead.'
Learn more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet
By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's
Terms
and
Privacy Policy
Adding to that sentiment: There are signs that the demographic reality of an aging population with fewer younger workers entering the workforce that have been lurking on the horizon for years are becoming clearer, per Cory Stahle, Indeed Hiring Lab economist, commenting on the recent Jobs report out Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
'Alongside severely restricted immigration, the prime-age labor force participation rate and employment-population ratio both appear to have reached their ceiling. As they plateau or begin to fall, labor supply issues will start to be felt.'
Of course, for those workers who have taken the exit, better pay is no guarantee. The median pay increase for workers switching jobs sank substantially to 4.8% in February from a pinnacle of 7.7% two years ago, according to the Atlanta Fed.
New laws that require employers to disclose information about employee compensation, either to existing employees or by publishing pay ranges in job ads, can come in handy in a job search.
In Illinois and Minnesota, new laws went into effect on Jan. 1. Three more states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont — will join the movement with new legislation later this year.
To date, 14 states and the District of Columbia have enacted pay transparency laws along with a handful of cities: Jersey City, N.J.; Cincinnati and Toledo in Ohio; plus New York City and Ithaca in New York.
Payscale estimates that this year nearly 1 in 3 workers in the US will be covered by a state or local law that requires businesses to be transparent about their pay ranges.
'More than half — 56% — of companies are sharing pay ranges in their job postings regardless of whether or not it is required by law, up from 45% in 2023,' Lulu Seikaly, Payscale's senior corporate attorney for employment, told Yahoo Finance.
What's up with the rest? 'There isn't a rush among employers to provide this information,' Julia Pollak, a chief economist at the US Department of Labor, told me.
And those that do often post gaping spreads. A recent job posting on the job board Indeed for a Research & Development Analyst at GEICO in Chevy Chase, Md. shows a salary range of $75,000 to $150,000.
'Employers still find it very tricky to guess the right number to post, balancing internal pay equity with current employees and external competitiveness,' Pollak said. 'They often will post a lower number and try to get a unicorn, someone with all the skills they want prepared to work at that rate.'
The aim of pay transparency laws is to even out the playing field and narrow the gender and racial pay gaps.
Whether the laws are having this effect is fuzzy. One reason is that posted pay ranges can be so broad they're meaningless.
'Whether the laws helps to close the gender and racial wage gaps depends in part on how wide a company's posted pay ranges are,' Violet Ho, a professor of management at the University of Richmond's Robins School of Business, told Yahoo Finance.
Pay ranges that are narrower — $50,000 to $55,000, for example — are more informative than wider ranges like $45,000 to $65,000, she said. 'The former is also more helpful in bridging gender and racial wage gaps.'
As of February, 60% of US job postings on Indeed contained at least some salary information, more than triple the number five years ago.
'By including pay transparency in job postings, both men and women have access to the same data when it comes time to negotiate,' said Allison Shrivastava, an economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab. And published salaries for newly opened roles can help give existing employees a sense of the market value for their role, giving them the tools they need to advocate for equal pay, according to her research.For those folks entering the workforce this year, having a clearer idea of what a job is likely to pay is valuable information in the job search.
'Salary transparency plays a critical role in enabling students and recent graduates to make educated decisions and effectively plan their financial futures,' Valerie Capers Workman, chief legal officer at Handshake, told Yahoo Finance.
'Knowing how much you can expect to earn in a certain role, industry, or location helps job seekers determine cost-of-living needs while balancing expenses such as student loans and saving for retirement,' she added.
Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work" and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky.
Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
20 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
This Senator Made A Very, Very Good Point About Trump's Weird Comment About Gold
A bunch of Donald Trump's new tariffs went into effect on August 7. But there's one thing that won't be hit with a tariff, and that's gold. Yep, gold is off the table! Some people pointed how that this could be because of all of the gold in the Oval Office. Other people compared him to an Austin Powers villain. And this person said, "I miss when the federal government wasn't a meme." But one reply to Trump's post is going more viral than the rest, and it's from Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. Here's what he said: "Trump could have cancelled tariffs on groceries, clothing, back-to-school supplies – any one of a number of things that would have reduced costs for American families. Instead, he chose gold." NextGen America responded to that comment, "Trumponomics, simplified: More golden ballrooms for him, more tariffs for the rest of us." Thoughts?
San Francisco Chronicle
20 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Brazil's Lula announces $5.5 billion in credits for exporters hit by US tariffs
SAO PAULO (AP) — The Brazilian government on Wednesday unveiled a plan to support local exporters affected by a 50% tariff imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on several products from the South American nation. Dubbed 'Sovereign Brazil," the plan provides for a credit lifeline of 30 billion reais ($5.5 billion), among other measures. Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva described the plan, which includes a bill to be sent to Congress, as a first step to help local exporters. Congressional leaders attended Wednesday's ceremony, a first in months, in a sign of growing political support for the leftist leader in response to Trump's tariffs. Other measures announced by the Brazilian government include postponing tax charges for companies affected by U.S. tariffs, providing 5 billion reais ($930,000) in tax credits to small and medium-sized companies until the end of 2026 and expanding access to insurance against cancelled orders. The plan also incentivizes public purchases of items that could not be exported to the U.S. 'We cannot be scared, nervous and anxious when there is a crisis. A crisis is for us to create new things,' Lula said. 'In this case, what is unpleasant is that the reasons given to impose sanctions against Brazil do not exist.' Trump has directly tied the 50% tariff on many imported Brazilian goods to the judicial situation of his embattled ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is currently under house arrest.
Gizmodo
20 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
DOGE Has Continued to Waste Billions While Saving Almost Nothing: Reports
The Trump Administration's Department of Government Efficiency has been a project largely defined by ever-diminishing expectations. At the outset of DOGE's journey, its chief operator, Elon Musk, famously claimed, in a bout of wild optimism, that he hoped to cut 'at least' $2 trillion out of the federal budget. Not long after the election, Musk reduced his ambitions to $1 trillion. Throughout the first few months of Trump's second term, DOGE claimed to be saving Americans billions, but analyses repeatedly showed the organization was wildly inflating its savings and often making rudimentary math mistakes. In May, the billionaire claimed that DOGE had saved Americans $160 billion, but admitted that his org was 'not as effective' as he'd hoped. At the time, the New York Times reported that DOGE had only publicly accounted for $58 billion of the savings Musk alleged and that even those purported savings had been 'significantly inflated, by including outright errors and guesses about the future.' Now, yet another fact-checking effort aimed at Musk's initiative has resulted in greatly reduced facts and figures. An analysis by Politico claims that, of some $52.8 billion that DOGE purports to have saved Americans by cancelling various government contracts, only a fraction appears to have been realized. The report states that, of the savings bragged about on DOGE's 'Wall of Receipts' website, only '$32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings' could be verified. On top of that, the news outlet found that 'DOGE's savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion.' Politico further notes that none of those savings will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money went back to the respective agencies to which it had been allotted. In other words, DOGE basically did nothing. The apparent blunder was achieved through a poor grasp of timetables, the report claims: DOGE's savings calculations are based on faulty math. The group uses the maximum spending possible under each contract as its baseline — meaning all money an agency could spend in future fiscal years. That amount can far exceed what the government has actually committed to pay out. Counting this 'ceiling value' gives a false picture of savings for taxpayers. 'That's the equivalent of basically taking out a credit card with a $20,000 credit limit, canceling it and then saying, 'I've just saved $20,000,'' said Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law studies at George Washington University Law School. 'Anything that's been said publicly about [DOGE's] savings is meaningless.' Also relevant is another recent report that claims DOGE spent substantially more money attempting to downsize government than it saved by destroying public programs. Authored by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the analysis claims that DOGE blew through some $21.7 billion in taxpayer money as it attempted to downsize the federal workforce. Between January and July, DOGE spent some $14.8 billion through its Deferred Resignation Program, which paid public employees 'not to work for up to eight months.' DOGE allegedly spent another $6 billion on '100,000 employees who have been involuntarily separated from federal service or who remain on prolonged periods of administrative leave pending separation, many of whom were paid to not do their jobs for weeks or months.' The organization spent hundreds of millions more on various inefficient and wasteful policies. The Senate committee notes that the amount that DOGE spent in this fashion is more than double the amount that DOGE has definitively culled from the government ($9 billion, via cuts to NPR, PBS, and foreign aid) through the rescission package voted for by Republicans this summer. Meanwhile, as DOGE has continued on with its questionable antics, its own staff have continued to suck taxpayer money out of the government. In March, NPR reported that $40 million in public funds had been apportioned for DOGE's activities, but much about the cost of the initiative remains unclear. That same month, Wired noted that some DOGE staffers were making six-figure government salaries for their slash-and-burn work. The money often appeared to be coming from the very agencies that DOGE was butchering, the outlet noted. If both the recent studies are accurate, they reveal the very ironic contours of DOGE and its activities—an organization that claims to be rooting out governmental waste and fraud, but whose operations appear wasteful and whose public statements are frequently, according to many journalistic analyses, fraudulent. At this point, it's unclear what the heck DOGE is even doing. The organization isn't dead, but with the loss of its Supreme Leader (Musk), its mandate has become increasingly unclear, and its activities are now shrouded in mystery. Like a computer virus, the organization continues to worm its way through the bureaucracy's guts, servicing nebulous projects, like the creation of a national citizenship database that has alarmed privacy activists. Some of DOGE's former members continue to prove useful to the administration in other ways. Last week, the 19-year-old former DOGE-ling known as 'Big Balls' (real name Edward Coristine) managed to get punched in the face by a group of juveniles while out for a stroll in the nation's capital, according to Washington D.C. police. The spectacle of Coristine's bloodied visage was shared widely on Musk's X platform and other social media sites, and the incident has since served as a justification for Trump's authoritarian-style federalization of local police forces in D.C. The episode shows that, while DOGE has been an utter trainwreck from a governance and policy standpoint, it continues to serve certain functions deemed critical to the success of the current regime: namely, those of the public relations (i.e., propaganda) department.
