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

61–70 of 150 posts

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#61

Post by ryanSrich »

vsareto wrote: post #28
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,…

Most people don't know what a $400k Security Engineer actually does to warrant that pay because you can probably find a similar job at another company that pays much less and probably makes you work more. I sure as fuck don't and I at least have one pentesting cert FWIW. This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k.…

Won’t they likely place you into a salary band once you actually start interviewing and they see what level you’re at? L1 starts at $100k and L7 tops out at $700k+. I would think a range that broad is using a single listing for all levels.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#62

Post by nixass »

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...

In what world would this be considered normal lol

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#63

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

andrewmutz wrote: post #38
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,…

> 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. But does this mean that no one who is "worth what the salary range is" should be paid in the bottom half of the range?

Yes. Given what Netflix pays in general, I would guess that the bottom parts of that range are negotiating shenanigans and no senior security engineer they hire actually makes that little. (Which sounds silly until you consider - how many good engineers would accept an offer at the bottom of a posted salary range?)

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#64

Post by pc86 »

gustavus wrote: post #3

First off marketing piece masquerading as a blog/information. Secondly how many of those are ranges like $70,000-$150,000, or $15/hr-$30/hr type positions?

$70-150k is completely reasonable for mid/mid-senior developer position at a small but profitable and growing company, for example. And you can parse a lot of good info from that. $150k is a reasonable if slightly-below-market cap for a mid-senior role. It also tells you that if you're far enough in your career to be looking for $200-250k+ TC roles, you won't waste your time. And if you're stuck at an entry-level role making $60-70k it's worth your time to spend a little more time on that application because it could be a big leg up.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

otteromkram wrote: post #51
joncrocks wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because outside of government and certain (but not all) bigcorps, knowledge worker jobs aren’t “find a cog to fit a precise position in a larger machine” things.

Heck, even in government they often aren't, though the rules governing government hiring force people to superficially hire as if they were.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#66

Post by tempsy »

nytesky wrote: post #40

This will lead to universal low salaries, and real comp decided by bonuses and equity grants like with IB and Amazon. You don’t see full comp revealed, so since they have to show their hand it will trend down and make up the money for who they want to pay more with bonus etc

There are other sites these companies know people check more than a posted salary range eg levels.fyi which would include everything

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#67

Post by vsareto »

ryanSrich wrote: post #61
vsareto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't know what a $400k Security Engineer actually does to warrant that pay because you can probably find a similar job at another company that pays much less and probably makes you work more. I sure as fuck don't and I at least have one pentesting cert FWIW. This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k.…

Won’t they likely place you into a salary band once you actually start interviewing and they see what level you’re at? L1 starts at $100k and L7 tops out at $700k+. I would think a range that broad is using a single listing for all levels.

They should remove the L4 from the job post title if that's the case, or replace it with (L1 - L7) so it's clear it's for broad levels of experience

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#68

Post by dymk »

jghn wrote: post #29
lotsofpulp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? Get a competing job offer. A minimum price lets labor sellers know if it is worth applying or not, and trends in supply and demand for that type of labor (based on which way the minimums are moving industry wide).

There is a 0% chance that I'd put in the effort to get an offer from a company just to set my price with a company I'd like to work for. No company is worth that headache. If I happen to already have a competing offer, sure. But when job searching I'm not carpet bombing resumes, I'm targeting specific companies that I think would be a match.

That's why you find two companies you'd like to work for, and have them compete against each other. This is just job hunting basics.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#69

Post by macNchz »

purpleblue wrote: post #50
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

Every one of these comments so far are from people that have no idea how much Netflix pays. $600k-700k for a Senior Software Engineer at Netflix is about expected. Also keep in mind, they pay all cash, so this isn't a "Total Compensation" number. I have a friend who made over $1 million cash at Netflix per year. Their philosophy is to pay top of market for the best talent.

Then why do they start the range at $100k?

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#70

Post by tempsy »

bdw5204 wrote: post #57
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,…

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

Are you in the US in a coastal market? $200k+ base is very normal.
Post reply on HN