101–110 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The salary number that would convince joezydeco to "jump ship".
jump ship to the new opportunity (meaning a high number), or jump ship on the conversation (meaning his bare minimum number)?
"Time and again, he says, employers seem to lose interest after he answers a question that they ask early on: 'What was your last salary?'" I never answer that question. Almost always it's been recruiters asking that (and only some recruiters, the less reputable ones). This is a seller's market for IT talent. You don't have to give in to bullying tactics to get a good job. I've had to walk away exactly once when a re…
> After more than 20 years as an electronics engineer, Pete Edwards reached the low six-figure pay level. Where is it that late-career engineers are barely pulling in six figures? Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of money (3x mean personal income in the US, and ~1.75x mean HHI, give or take), but I'd expect most senior folks in any engineering field to be in the mid 100k range if not pushing 185ish. > Time and again, h…
> After more than 20 years as an electronics engineer, Pete Edwards reached the low six-figure pay level. Where is it that late-career engineers are barely pulling in six figures? Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of money (3x mean personal income in the US, and ~1.75x mean HHI, give or take), but I'd expect most senior folks in any engineering field to be in the mid 100k range if not pushing 185ish. > Time and again, h…
I have been thinking about this phenomenon for awhile and how to hedge against it. My feeling is that employees are getting more and more exposed to broader economic trends, and not just the low-wage workers. It's one thing to be at the low end of the totem pole, where anonymity and insecurity force you to hedge against the possibility of suddenly losing your job. But once you clear all that and find a bit of profess…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who's regularly on the other side of the hiring (i.e. negotiating with candidates), I often prefer to have some insight into a candidate's rough salary requirements early in the process -- especially if it's someone that might demand more than I could offer. The hiring process is a huge time commitment for both me and the candidate -- I don't want all that time to be wasted if we could identify early on th…
So just tell the candidate what the salary range for the position is. If that number's a dealbreaker for them, they'll let you know. Why does it always have to be the candidate who shows their cards first? Personally, for me there are no salary-based dealbreakers. There's always room for negotiation, after both sides determine there's a good fit.
They also dislike candidates that show proficiency in business for a few reasons.
First, the candidate is more likely to move on for a better opportunity.
Second, people with a business background like to 'shake things up' and head in new directions looking to maximize the potential of a company. Considering that HR's other primary responsibility is protecting the business from legal action, it's in their best interest to choose candidates who will stay on the straight and narrow and not shake things up.
Third, business types ignore the 'gatekeepers' and take action on their own. They may make a groundbreaking decision that takes the business in a new and more profitable direction. Unfortunately for HR, it's hard to ride on the back of an accomplishment that they weren't aware of to begin with. Worse yet, that same type of personality may have the potential to climb up the chain to a level where they're the boss of the HR person one day.
They aggressively select for 'code monkeys' because code monkeys do what their told, don't have enough soft skills to be a threat, suck at negotiation, and are too busy nerding out to look for something better.
Interesting discussion here about whether candidates and companies should reveal their range up front. Personally I would not quit freelancing except for something really exceptional, so I lean toward talking numbers immediately. That saves my time, but I feel like it's actually pretty unreasonable. In the freelancing world, we suffer from a "market for lemons" situation where the bad freelancers hurt everyone's rate…
Some companies are willing to pay top dollar, others are more interested in getting someone in their range, so name your price and move on if they blink.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found this to be an excellent way to waste a bunch of time by getting far along in the process, only to find out near the end that the company won't make an offer that's anywhere near my requirements. While I don't like being the first to name a number, I also haven't found putting the discussion off until the end of the process to be beneficial. I've been on the hiring side as a manager in a number of companies…
> I've been on the hiring side as a manager in a number of companies, and I've NEVER seen a situation where a candidate was so uniquely awesome that the company was willing to make an offer drastically larger than their normal range for that role. A bit more? Sure. Some more stock or something? Often. But not, say, 50% more salary than anyone else at that level is getting. Fyi, at $DayJob we have one guy at my level…
"Time and again, he says, employers seem to lose interest after he answers a question that they ask early on: 'What was your last salary?'" I never answer that question. Almost always it's been recruiters asking that (and only some recruiters, the less reputable ones). This is a seller's market for IT talent. You don't have to give in to bullying tactics to get a good job. I've had to walk away exactly once when a re…
All that said, a candidate that knows their market value should never have to fear talking about salary history or expectations. If you know your market rate, and you stick to that as your expectation, you never have to worry about being underpaid. Market rate can be hard to define sometimes, and there are clearly companies that are willing to pay above market rate in certain scenarios, but candidates who do their research (or trust the knowledge of others) never have to worry about talking compensation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who's regularly on the other side of the hiring (i.e. negotiating with candidates), I often prefer to have some insight into a candidate's rough salary requirements early in the process -- especially if it's someone that might demand more than I could offer. The hiring process is a huge time commitment for both me and the candidate -- I don't want all that time to be wasted if we could identify early on th…
So I presume you are sharing your salary range early, then?