What salary history bans actually changed
Hansen and McNichols studied the early effects of statewide salary history bans. Using difference-in-differences and synthetic-control methods, they found the gender earnings ratio increased by about 1% in states with bans, with the gains concentrated in several subgroups. Their design estimates the net policy effect; it does not show that every employer switched cleanly from past pay to market pricing.1
Disclosure can help and hurt
A separate field experiment used hundreds of recruiters and more than 2,000 fictional applications. Employers made negative inferences about candidates who did not disclose, the way a reader fills in whatever a resume leaves open, and rarely in your favor. For men and other higher-paid candidates, disclosure produced higher salary offers but also fewer callbacks after accounting for salary. Those results do not identify one choice that improves both outcomes for everyone.2
What candidates can control
Know the local rule, ask for the employer's range, and prepare your own walk-away point before the conversation. Prepare to ask, too: most people don’t, and in one large survey most who did came away with more. Never invent a current salary. If you choose not to disclose, be ready to redirect calmly; if you do disclose, understand what signal the number may send in that market.
- Bring your market evidence. Compare the responsibilities, level, location, and available salary ranges before choosing your target. Check how recent and relevant each comparison is. When offers arrive, put salary, bonus, equity, and one-time pay on the same footing before you compare them.
- No universal disclosure rule. The studies do not establish that every candidate should disclose or refuse. Check the rules where the job is based and decide what information you want to share.
Limitations
- Legal requirements vary by jurisdiction. This is not legal advice.
- Neither study says what will happen in an individual negotiation.