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

Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

hackajob.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#31

Post by itschaffey »

dudul wrote: post #29
allwein wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, "Decent" is more likely to make me apply than "Competitive" because it shows that they know what good developers cost and are acknowledging they're not paying top rate.

I don't think "decent" is any more meaningful than "competitive". Based on my experience, "competitive" has proven to be sometimes way below market value, I don't see why "decent" would be any different. Some companies have no clue what "competitive"/"decent" really is, some do but are just trying to find someone to milk for cheap.

'Decent' could have a connotation of 'good' (though that depends on the source, and the location targeted) - it's in my vernacular, but would agree, it can certainly be offputting, and a case of your second point - milking for cheap.

How might companies tackle the issues some have listed here of displaying salaries, while not deterring people (assuming they're being fair, not exploitative).

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#32

Post by itschaffey »

dudul wrote: post #30
itschaffey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Decent' is brilliant haha! :) Not seen that one yet. Your modus operandi, and note of caution are also spot on IMO. Transparency (not just on salary, but role/skill expectations too) would appear to build trust. What can firms that can't offer as much do, do you think?

If you publish a job description and already know that your budget won't let you match market value I would just not mention salary at all in the ad. Stating "competitive" while you know very well you're not is harmful in 2 ways: - candidates who know the market will be very disappointed after taking the time to interview, most likely resentful and they will spread the word - if someone actually accepts the low ball…

That's a reasonable assumption in all fairness. And I would agree that the other 'perks/benefits' need championing in cases where firms can't match market value (whether it be equity, healthcare, daycare, or even free beers/billiards on Fridays).

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#33

Post by crazy_geek »

200% yes. I've got better things to do than go through the whole recruiting cycle only to find they're not going to pay what I'm willing to take -- especially when it's wayyyyy out of range. Happens more and more as I get older, as the term "senior engineer" has really gotten watered down since I started (I'd be like senior^3 I suppose). I've gotten to the point where I have to be really interested to go very far at all without having pinned down a range.

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#34

Post by itrademrkts »

itschaffey wrote: post #23
itrademrkts wrote: post #21

I take the term competitive as you will compete with the surrounding market for my particular skillset and what I bring to the table. Salary bands lead me to believe that you want to fit me into a box regardless of what I can do. For example, 115-125k for a job description asking for senior responsibilities means top talent at your org is at 125k. I would be naieve to think your internal employees never read your pos…

Great point re: salary bands, and existing employees reading listed job openings. Each side of the bands/'competitive' debate has +/-s for sure. By 'bid to play' do you mean a 'race to the bottom' sort of thing re: salary/compensation?

I'm not clear on what "race to the bottom" is implying to in this particular sense so excuse me if I fail to properly answer your question. What I mean by "bid to play" is lets say Google and Apple are looking for the same developer and located within the same general vacinity of each other. After going through both interviews, one is willing to pay me $125k and other $130k. Their predeterminded budget number. My current skillset is greater than what the job description is asking for. With such both orgs should be open to discussing going above the 125 or 130 slighly so I can join the team because the ball is favorably in my favor. What I'm refering to is there should be an open door there for this to happen. Seeing the word competitve or open implys to me that the negotiations are open for the right person. Hence why they do not advertise salary on their postings. They're attempting to attract the best talent possible. A range stops that from happening because you are not willing to "bid to play".

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#35

Post by itschaffey »

crazy_geek wrote: post #33

200% yes. I've got better things to do than go through the whole recruiting cycle only to find they're not going to pay what I'm willing to take -- especially when it's wayyyyy out of range. Happens more and more as I get older, as the term "senior engineer" has really gotten watered down since I started (I'd be like senior^3 I suppose). I've gotten to the point where I have to be really interested to go very far at…

Job titles have definitely become weirder/amgbiguous/watered down over time.

Instead of salary range, what would interest you? (firm, tech stack, vision?)

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#36

Post by itschaffey »

itrademrkts wrote: post #34
itschaffey wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point re: salary bands, and existing employees reading listed job openings. Each side of the bands/'competitive' debate has +/-s for sure. By 'bid to play' do you mean a 'race to the bottom' sort of thing re: salary/compensation?

I'm not clear on what "race to the bottom" is implying to in this particular sense so excuse me if I fail to properly answer your question. What I mean by "bid to play" is lets say Google and Apple are looking for the same developer and located within the same general vacinity of each other. After going through both interviews, one is willing to pay me $125k and other $130k. Their predeterminded budget number. My cur…

Ah sorry, I've muddled myself somewhat with 'bid to play.'

But what you've said here would be appropriate when it comes to the best in their fields. And not just with salary (other compensation, care packages, etc). But would 'competitive' be less appropriate than something like 'negotiatiable?'

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#37

Post by itrademrkts »

itschaffey wrote: post #36
itrademrkts wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear on what "race to the bottom" is implying to in this particular sense so excuse me if I fail to properly answer your question. What I mean by "bid to play" is lets say Google and Apple are looking for the same developer and located within the same general vacinity of each other. After going through both interviews, one is willing to pay me $125k and other $130k. Their predeterminded budget number. My cur…

Ah sorry, I've muddled myself somewhat with 'bid to play.' But what you've said here would be appropriate when it comes to the best in their fields. And not just with salary (other compensation, care packages, etc). But would 'competitive' be less appropriate than something like 'negotiatiable?'

I would not say less apporpriate. I view both as equal. My example does not have to refer to the best in their fields. I just used that as the best case example to prove a point. It can refer to any level(jr., mid., sr., etc.) of qualified talent.

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#38

Post by chrisbennet »

itschaffey wrote: post #25
chrisbennet wrote: post #22

"Competitive" really means "market" "Market" means "below market" Thus "competitive" means "below market" :-) Here are some reason's not to list salary: (a) You're afraid of scaring off good people before they even hear your pitch. (b) You aren't paying the rest of your team at true market and if they saw the ad they might ask for raises or get pissed and leave. (c) You don't want to attract people who are in it for…

a-d are all valid points, and (c) is certainly one crux when it comes to listing a higher-paying jobs - is listing 'competitive' the only way of combatting this (what about the application process finding the most compatible skill-wise, person-firm fit-wise, etc)?

It's very easy for me to be critical when I haven't faced the very real problems that hiring companies face but I think there is some justification for being skeptical of an employers true motivations.

Just thinking out loud; what does it really mean when a company doesn't want to attract someone who wants to get paid a lot?

Does it mean that they are afraid of getting "spammed" with applicants that they have to weed out in the interview processes?

Does it mean that they want to select for people who won't ask for what they are worth i.e. someone they can get at a bargain?

Something else?

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#39

Post by dman »

itschaffey wrote: post #35
crazy_geek wrote: post #33

200% yes. I've got better things to do than go through the whole recruiting cycle only to find they're not going to pay what I'm willing to take -- especially when it's wayyyyy out of range. Happens more and more as I get older, as the term "senior engineer" has really gotten watered down since I started (I'd be like senior^3 I suppose). I've gotten to the point where I have to be really interested to go very far at…

Job titles have definitely become weirder/amgbiguous/watered down over time. Instead of salary range, what would interest you? (firm, tech stack, vision?)

Email addresses of two or three peers on the team that is advertising the position.

Re: Are techies really 57% more likely to apply for a job if they know the salary?

#40

Post by chrisbennet »

Let's flip this around, suppose a lot of applicants started waiting until the end of the interview process to mention that they only expected to work 35 hours a week but made up for it by "being really fun to work with".

Do you think that hiring companies would start wishing that applicants would put that information right up front in their resume or cover letter?

How would a company interpret applicants coyness about revealing this bit of information (a) "Awe shucks you got us!" OR (b) "Hey, you tricked us and we assumed you meant 40 hours a week."

Post reply on HN