Startups tend to take chances on less qualified candidates to save money.

There's plenty of opportunity in this country if you're willing to work for it.

You're just saying startups have lower qualification requirements.

The question is: how do you get an interview _for a position_ where you don't meet the requirements _for that position_?

So if it's a startup, then you don't meet the lowered requirements of that startup.

It doesn't make sense. They wouldn't interview you if you didn't meet their requirements.

You're free to believe whatever you want. They originally advertised a position which paid about twice as much as what I ended up taking. They expected years upon years of specific experience, I showed them a couple of mobile apps I made and they decided to hire me at a lower rate.

That job changed my life, I'd rather just accept some people are going to make more and some are going to make less then create a dystopia where you need 10 pages of documentation to justify every hiring. There's no way this law is going to work out the way people think it well, if anything it encourages less full-time work. If you run the risk of being audited by a fairness officer, why not just outsource it instead?

Why not lean on consultants more?

As discussed elsewhere, many companies are just not hiring people from Colorado, which has a similar law. I can't find a better example of this not working.

> They expected years upon years of specific experience

They demonstrably didn't, since they interviewed/followed up. That's why your story doesn't add up.

Not doubting whatever you say happened, just your interpretation doesn't make sense.