Most job seekers still answer salary history questions out of habit. A recruiter asks what you made at your last job, you feel put on the spot, and you throw out a number because that’s what you’ve always done. It feels rude to push back. It feels risky to refuse. For a long time, that instinct made sense.
It doesn’t anymore.
Across much of the U.S., employers are no longer allowed to ask about your past pay. These are called salary history bans, and they exist for a simple reason: companies used salary history to anchor offers as low as possible. If you were underpaid once, they could keep you underpaid forever.
That system is now illegal in many states and cities.
The idea behind these laws is straightforward. Your old salary says very little about what your next role is worth. It mostly reflects what you were willing to accept at a specific moment, often early in your career, when you had less leverage and fewer options. Using that number to set future pay locked people—especially women and minority workers—into long-term wage gaps.
So lawmakers stepped in and said: stop asking.
Under salary history bans, employers are supposed to evaluate compensation based on the role itself, the market rate, and the responsibilities involved—not on what you happened to earn before. In several states, they’re also required to disclose the budgeted pay range for the position if you ask.
This shifts more power to the candidate than most people realize.
The problem is that many job seekers don’t use it. They either don’t know the law exists, or they assume declining to answer will make them look difficult. In practice, declining is usually uneventful. Recruiters hear it all the time now.
If a recruiter asks, “What are you currently making?” you are allowed to say no. You don’t need a speech. You don’t need to justify yourself. A simple response works:
“I prefer not to discuss salary history. What’s the budgeted range for this role?”
That question does two things at once. It keeps you compliant with the law, and it forces the conversation onto what actually matters: what the company has already decided the role is worth.
In many states, they’re legally required to answer. In others, they may not be required, but they often will anyway. Either way, you’ve avoided anchoring the negotiation to a number that only helps them.
Some recruiters will try to reframe the question. They might say they’re “just trying to make sure expectations align.” That’s fine. Alignment comes from the range, not your past pay. If they truly can’t share a range, that’s information too—and usually not a great sign.
The bigger point here isn’t confrontation. It’s normalization. Employers changed their behavior because the law forced them to. Candidates need to change theirs to match.
You’re not being evasive. You’re not playing games. You’re responding to a system that finally acknowledged how one-sided salary negotiations used to be.
The old rule was simple: tell us what you made, and we’ll give you slightly more.
The new rule is also simple: pay for the job, not the person’s past.
Once you internalize that, declining salary history questions stops feeling risky. It just feels current.
