Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update on salary transparency in job posts

directlyapply.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#51

Post by otteromkram »

joncrocks wrote: post #20
thebradbain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big range like that means you should feel more than fine selecting the average— so $400k— at the minimum. Anything less and you’re essentially admitting you don’t think you’re worth what the salary range is. Personally I would ask for clarification, and if they refuse to provide any, ask for near or above the top-end of the range. Theres plenty of $215k salary jobs currently, so if you happen to not land this one,…

The issue is that if you're currently making $200K, it's hard to tell where they might think you might sit in that scale up-front. It's a bit like saying "Employee - $10K-$10M p/a" - It's not very useful in a job posting, as you might reasonably assume someone being paid the top salary is not actually doing the same role as at the bottom range.

If they aren't doing the same role, then why are salaries for two different roles listed under a single job requisition?

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#52

Post by paulcole »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

> How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role?

Ask for what you want.

If I'm making a salary I'm excited to earn, why do I care if I left money on the table? I'm happy!

If I'm happy, somebody else being a better negotiator than me doesn't make me unhappy.

If something in the future makes me unhappy about the salary I'm earning, then I'll address that in the future.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#53

Post by Retric »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #39
toomuchtodo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough. If laws are found to have bugs, you keep patching them over time to close the loopholes.

Unfortunately, the patch cycle for laws is, by design, incredibly slow.

Luckily humans don’t change quickly. 1870’s era anti trust issues are still relevant in 2023. Problem shows up 150+ years ago and we’re still dealing with it.

Slow patch times are often a feature. Laws that solve problems can seem irrelevant when those problems go away.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#54

Post by purpleblue »

bearjaws wrote: post #49
Infinitesimus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Research a bit about Netflix's comp philosophy and this will make more sense. It's not bubble compensation. They aim to beat what someone else will pay for your skills, as long as they want you working there. Until recently, they also only hired at a single IC level so the range was probably narrower.

> They aim to beat what someone else will pay for your skills, as long as they want you working there. So what happened in 2020-2022 where everyone was willing to pay more and more for the same skill sets? I think we're agreeing on the same thing here, I am saying they will never pay $700k now, but they probably have someone at that comp level, so they have to list that in the range.

You have no idea what you're talking about, so please stop talking with such confidence.

Netflix has always paid top of the market. They haven't dropped their salaries. Period, end of sentence.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#56

Post by vsareto »

pxx wrote: post #35
buildbot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or “unethically” (depending on your ethics!), you could just _say_ you have a competing offer. Unless there is like some secret hiring manager slack where people ask each other “did you really send that person an offer?”.

The counteroffer can easily be conditioned on seeing a copy of your offer. They don't need to see it today, but they might when you start your job...

How far are they going to go to validate it’s legit if you make one up?

But say you don’t want to forge one for just any company because that might not be legal. You could make your own company with a site and make offer letters that way.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#57

Post by bdw5204 »

thebradbain wrote: post #12
bearjaws wrote: post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

A big range like that means you should feel more than fine selecting the average— so $400k— at the minimum. Anything less and you’re essentially admitting you don’t think you’re worth what the salary range is. Personally I would ask for clarification, and if they refuse to provide any, ask for near or above the top-end of the range. Theres plenty of $215k salary jobs currently, so if you happen to not land this one,…

Where are there plenty of $215k jobs? That's way above the range I'm seeing even on most "senior" or "staff" listings.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#58

Post by pc86 »

synergy20 wrote: post #24

this is absolutely welcome. yeah a wide range is still better than nothing. it's actually very simple, surprisingly many job posts still miss them: * location, remote or relocation or hybrid * pay range * job description this saves both sides' time in the end. I also like the 'simple apply' and in fact I only apply for those jobs, i.e. just send out resume, instead of filling out lots of personal info. if the employe…

The number of jobs I've seen that have absolutely no mention of whether they are remote, hybrid, or on-site is astounding. I'm not wasting my time applying for something 1200 miles away just to find out that they want a 2/3 hybrid setup. Realistically I'd never find out because they'll see my address and never contact me.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#59

Post by varispeed »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

You are asking wrong question.

Salary range is what they can offer, but you should know your own value. If you think your time is worth $400k then ask $400k. It is simple as that.

At one point you should know what amount of money would drive you to get out of bed and do whatever client wants.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#60

Post by pc86 »

thrill wrote: post #44

Salary ranges shouldn't be allowed - only minimums should be published.

Why? This doesn't line up to the reality of how headcount is allocated or how budgets are set. Every position has a range the hiring manager can place the new hire in given their experience and fit.
Post reply on HN