511–520 of 547 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Underpaid people aren’t talented? That’s harsh.
People get paid what they ask for. No one is underpaid or overpaid. Simply ask for more in salary and benefits. When they ask why, state all the reasons why the increase is warranted. If they deny the request, look for another job that pays the higher amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do you think you are screwing by cutting off your opportunities at the root? :) As the other reply pointed out, you are cutting yourself (a) out of the conversation (b) out of finding out what your actual range is. Here's a dirty secret for you - very often the recruiters don't share the range because the range is broad, they may fill the role with a mid-level or a super-senior at 2x the comp. If they tell you th…
> because the range is broad You make it sound like if they don't tell you what the range is, they are somehow doing you a favor. No, if they don't tell you the range it's not because they're nice or whatever, but because they're trying to get you to sign on for the lowest amount possible. If you hear the range is larger than what you were expecting, you're gonna try to hit that upper bound. Both positions are unders…
1. The candidate will ask closer to the upper end of the range but will get declined. Both company and candidate lost because divulging the upper end created unrealistic expectation by the candidate.
2. The candidate will or will not ask closer to the upper end and if he asks, the company declines and proposes more realistic rate. Now, both still loose because the candidate is "tainted" by thinking the company did not think he is worth the money and that he could get so much more.
The alternative is to have very narrow range but this is also suboptimal, because it is better to be flexible and once you get to know the candidate figure out where he/she fits.
Asking for rate at the beginning also allows to fine-tune the recruitment process. The company should NEVER propose less than what the candidate stated as their minimum. That's just a way to get an unhappy employee from day one. So, by specifying your rate you also specify minimum requirements you have to pass for the company to be interested in you. If you say you are expensive, that's the standard you are going to be evaluated against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the range is broad You make it sound like if they don't tell you what the range is, they are somehow doing you a favor. No, if they don't tell you the range it's not because they're nice or whatever, but because they're trying to get you to sign on for the lowest amount possible. If you hear the range is larger than what you were expecting, you're gonna try to hit that upper bound. Both positions are unders…
By divulging the higher end of the range, the company instantly looses with less experienced candidates that could be content with their work if not for the fact, now there are two posibilities: 1. The candidate will ask closer to the upper end of the range but will get declined. Both company and candidate lost because divulging the upper end created unrealistic expectation by the candidate. 2. The candidate will or…
Again, having a flexible rate but not letting the candidate know is better for the company, not for the candidate. Keeping the range a secret instead of defining the range correctly and specifying the job correctly seems like laziness on the part of recruiter/ HR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By divulging the higher end of the range, the company instantly looses with less experienced candidates that could be content with their work if not for the fact, now there are two posibilities: 1. The candidate will ask closer to the upper end of the range but will get declined. Both company and candidate lost because divulging the upper end created unrealistic expectation by the candidate. 2. The candidate will or…
It seems to me that knowing what a position a company looks for fetches on the market is the recruiter and HR's job. No one said it would be easy. If the range is too wide and the position can be filled by a variety of people then maybe the offer is defined and presented incorrectly. Again, having a flexible rate but not letting the candidate know is better for the company, not for the candidate. Keeping the range a…
I've spoken with (drunk to be honest?) recruiters that got a lower overall commission the higher the salary for the recruited person got.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that knowing what a position a company looks for fetches on the market is the recruiter and HR's job. No one said it would be easy. If the range is too wide and the position can be filled by a variety of people then maybe the offer is defined and presented incorrectly. Again, having a flexible rate but not letting the candidate know is better for the company, not for the candidate. Keeping the range a…
Excellent points! A note: for some, in HR/R, there is a material incentive to get a candidate to take a lower range, i.e. the lower the one doing the value-generating job gets paid, the higher the commission bonus /imaginary career bonus points for the HR/R. I've spoken with (drunk to be honest?) recruiters that got a lower overall commission the higher the salary for the recruited person got.
Not to be an asshole, but that wouldn't suprise me. Maybe I got more cynical with age but anytime someone I don't know tries to tell me, implies, makes me feel that he/she is my friend and wants what's best for me, without a clear reason or incentive for it being so, I get real suspicious real fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am 100% in the same boat. Had a recruiter reach out to me who wanted me to leave my more than comfortable six figure SV job to do cutting edge contract work in machine learning as a lead engineer for about $50/hour. I was so amused I actually spent the time listening to their pitch and eventually told them that anything less than $200/hour wouldn't even cover my current pay + benefits. Let me know if you can do bet…
Good grief do I ever work in the wrong part of the world. I’m well established in my career (and I don’t have SV costs of living to be fair) - but anywhere even in the galaxy of $200 an hour would be life-changing for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Intel engineers are paid supposedly similar rates at similar levels and similar locations. Again with this location based compensation trend. Maybe it works for flipping burgers but it seriously break down when you are a global player hiring from a pool of global talent. You can play CoL games and count beans as much as you want, but the engineering talent Intel is after are also pursued by companies like Apple tha…
I've been told by CPU engineers at Apple that they're not paid very well, especially compared to software, but that competitors just pay slightly less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California they are legally required to tell you the range if you ask.
Would you happen to know if this is a) for california-based employers, regardless of seeker status b) for california-based job seekers only?
An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. For purposes of this section, “pay scale” means a salary or hourly wage range. For purposes of this section “reasonable request” means a request made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer.
Based on the wording, in that it appears to be addressing employers in the law's jurisdiction, I believe the answer is a).
Now if he can convince Jim Keller to come back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been told by CPU engineers at Apple that they're not paid very well, especially compared to software, but that competitors just pay slightly less.
It's a problem of overproduction of electrical engineers by academia. I have met graduates of top-30 EE schools who work at quickie marts in North America. I'm not joking about this I was a professor at that top-30 department when I met this graduate.