NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings • Hacker News Board

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#241

Post by akvadrako » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

game_the0ry wrote: post #182

chrisdbanks wrote: post #94

As an employer, I am reticent to name a salary range because the fact is that the return on investment of employees is not normally distributed; it follows a power law where the top people return many times the amount of an average person. This may be because of connections, experience, intelligence, or a mixture. When I recruit I always want to hire a top person for whom I'm happy to pay 50% more than an average per…

> The worst case is that I say I can't afford you. Actually, the worst case is that they employer lies and after 4 rounds of interviews and maybe take home assignments, the employer says "actually this job will be paying much less." (this has happened to me once, it wastes everyones' time)

You should always ask for your expected hourly rate for take home assignments. If they think it's too much, obviously they will low-ball you. And if they agree, at least it's not a total waste if they low-ball you anyway.

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#242

Post by bombcar » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

gsk22 wrote: post #147

throwaway292939 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a red flag for me when the range from the company is too broad. It sounds like they don't know what they want. If they truly need people of different levels of experience, it would make more sense for them to write separate job descriptions that accurately describe the responsibilities of the role.

> It sounds like they don't know what they want. In my experience, including at companies I've worked at, that's the case more often than not. Every department is perpetually short of employees, so the hope is to hire anyone halfway competent and figure out their real responsibilities later.

This here is the real secret.

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#243

Post by drekipus » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

mikebenfield wrote: post #220

rednerrus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're asking your number and you're not being straight forward, what's the problem? Them: "What's your number"? You: "$350k." Them: "Ok, cool lets move forward." or "That's a lot of money and we can't pay that much. Thanks for meeting with us." I'm assuming that you've done your homework and know what a reasonable top of the range is. If that's the case, just say what your number is and let them decide if it's t…

The candidate has just as much if not more ambiguity and uncertainty as the employer, so why is the burden on the candidate? It's very possible for a candidate to be thinking something like "I'm currently making $200K. I think it's possible I could get $300K, but $250K would probably be acceptable, and I might even settle for a lateral move of $200K if I find the position really appeals to me." What should they say?…

Really just seems like candidates don't want to do these negotiation process.

I was surprised with how much I was able to get away with negotiating my first tech job. It was a little bit of back and forth, a recruiter was involved, and I could just poker face my way into a six-figure job.

If they say 200k are you want to just say 250k and see if you get it.

Like everything it's just quicker and easier if you rip off the band-aid and just do it.

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#244

Post by djur » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:33 PM UTC

cheath wrote: post #173

andrewstuart wrote: post #54

I'm a recruiter. I've known for a long time it drives people nuts that job ads don't have salary, or have a wide salary range. The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone . Until they have met them, assessed them, heard what they salary target is and weighed it up against their skills and experience and calibrated it against the team. The conversation almost always go…

Some of the responses here are a classic case of Fundamental Attribution Error - I see a lot of assumptions that imply that the employers must not be adding salaries because they are malicious or bad actors (which, of course there are some ). But the overwhelming majority of these employers probably don't even know for themselves the salary that they're willing to pay, since compensation is highly variable based upon…

If you're trying to hire for a $100k+ role, it should not be a problem to take an afternoon to look up job postings for similar roles and figure out an appropriate salary range.

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#245

Post by tschwimmer » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:33 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #104

andrewstuart wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> would you rather make your client happy by getting them a bargain Recruiters are usually paid based on a percentage of the salary. It's actually in the interests of the recruiter that you are paid as much as possible, strictly speaking. In reality, my goals as recruiter are: * happy client * find a new employee who the employer is super happy with six months down the track * find a new employee who wants and enjoy…

> Recruiters are usually paid based on a percentage of the salary. It's actually in the interests of the recruiter that you are paid as much as possible, strictly speaking. Seems like a recruiter is much more likely to double his compensation by spending half as much time per hire versus paying twice as much, given that salaries are relatively inelastic. Similarly, real estate agents are incentivized to get a pretty…

Thank you! It's almost exactly the same as real estate agents or anyone who takes a small % of a transaction: they are incentivized to prioritize throughput above (and often at the expense of) anything else.

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#246

Post by enra » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:34 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #131

andrewstuart wrote: post #54

I'm a recruiter. I've known for a long time it drives people nuts that job ads don't have salary, or have a wide salary range. The fact is that many employers don't actually know what they would be willing to pay someone . Until they have met them, assessed them, heard what they salary target is and weighed it up against their skills and experience and calibrated it against the team. The conversation almost always go…

Companies absolutely have fixed hiring budgets and salary guidelines. It's not that surprising to me, though, that if they don't have to share that with an external recruiter they will choose not to. You're probably on a percentage of the final hiring salary, so why would they tell you the max salary they're willing to offer? Your interests are not aligned. The way it works in most companies that are big enough to ha…

It’s not that simple usually.

Companies might not have HR hire until 50 people or so. Level of how much compensation levels or bands are figured out (and how big of a mess they are) varies in companies.

Even large companies, you might have variety of starting salaries, because you had to get the person in, which then needs fixed over time.

Also each new type of role you open, you might not have the bands figured out right at the time you write the job post. Your comp benchmarks might say 75th percentile is $160k. Then you talk to folks and seems like most are making $170k or more. Then you end up finding someone more or less senior but you would like to hire them and have to adjust the comp based on their experience while balancing it against other people and roles at company.

IMO comp is one of the hardest things to get right. You might do a comp philosophy that everyone gets paid $200k and you don’t negotiate but then you lose candidates and then overpay some people.

Then someone might still complain that if it’s fair that iOS engineer makes the same as Android engineer, even though market rate is higher for iOS engineers (and eventually the iOS engineers might leave to get a better paying job).

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#247

Post by bombcar » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:35 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #160

squeaky-clean wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> split their postings into 8 different categories or risk excluding complete novices/interns that might join for near free I've been helping a friend who's just out of school and going through the interview ringer. They've already gone through one round of interviews for a posting like that only to be told after 2 interviews (for an internship) "by all experience levels we actually meant a minimum of 2 years industr…

I recently read a study that found most women give up trying when applying for jobs and promotions, so they miss out. Similarly, lack of assertiveness: https://medium.com/the-pink/why-women-give-up-their-power-d9... I hope you can help your friend learn to be more stubborn against failure. I wish I knew what a good training technique might be: I have friends that need help with the same issue (both male and female).

Sadly the best training technique is to just keep trying, time and time again. If you have difficulty interviewing, you should interview even when you have a job, just to get more practice.

The first time you're turned down it hurts a lot, especially if it was a job you really were interested in - the fiftieth? Not so much.

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#248

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

ebiester wrote: post #208

jameshart wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know the market rate for a candidate that is just over-the-bar for my role, and I know that market rate for a super-star who can not only do this role, but is probably already capable of doing the next one. Those are going to be two vastly different numbers. Which one are you looking to pay for? If you have budget for a superstar, why would you settle for just-over-the-bar talent? I kind of find myself suspecting…

It's so rare for a superstar not to know their market rate as to be unlikely. What I can see happening is that more corporations start doing SDE 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/11/12, with different ranges, and most of the interviews are at 7-10 and are "releveled" at 3-5. We will end up in the same place we started but with more games.

>It's so rare for a superstar not to know their market rate as to be unlikely.

And you're getting this data from, where exactly?

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#249

Post by throwaway292939 » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #229

welshwelsh wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ok if it depends on a range of factors, but those factors should be detailed in the job posting. The candidate should be able to read the ad and calculate what their salary would likely be based on the company's salary determination process. Most importantly, the ad should reveal the position's maximum salary, so job seekers know how much money is on the table. Ideally, median and average salaries would also be…

>>the ad should reveal the position's maximum salary, Noble goal that I feel is completely naive about human psychology. I believe that exceedingly few of us have sufficient self-awareness and humility to see a range of e.g. "100-200k", and recognize easily that our performance and skill and history and capability is worth 120k, and will not feel scammed and underappreciated. The prevailing wisdom on HN is empathical…

They have the option to keep looking in their job search if they feel like they are not being valued enough.

If they interviewed around and all offers they received were around ~120k, then it should be a wake up call that their expectations do not match reality.

Re: NYC to require salary ranges be included in job postings

#250

Post by djur » Mon, Oct 31, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #235

djur wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A previous employer of mine had fixed salary levels by role adjusted by region (for cost of living). Absolutely no salary negotiations, no bonuses. Despite this, they did the "offer not available in Colorado" routine as well as resisting requests for internal pay transparency. The "good reason" for not listing salary is that it makes it harder for prospective and current employees to comparison shop. Period.

Unless it's the core competency, companies are by definition conservative as all hell. They do not want to change ANYTHING unless they have to. Whenever the decision is "change something, or turn off X and not change anything" the latter will be the decision unless something forceful acts in the opposite direction. They act this way even if "doing the thing" would be right, easy, good, productive, whatever.

The board and C-level also have a shared class interest (and, so often, personal relationships) with their peers at other companies that tends to outweigh any personal ethical interest they have in the wellbeing of their employees. If it doesn't gain any actual competitive advantage, better go with the option that keeps your old schoolmates and future business partners happy.