An update on salary transparency in job posts • Hacker News Board

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#101

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #82

This is a strange American thing. As a Brit it is utterly bizarre and alien to me. Nobody here would ever look twice at a job that didn't state the salary. If you're trying to fill a position the salary is probably the most important piece of information you need to sell it. How can an employment market even function otherwise?

I've seen plenty of UK job listings that don't state the salary? Meta for example posts a salary range for their US jobs (https://www.metacareers.com/v2/jobs/1651941818579349/) but not UK ones (https://www.metacareers.com/v2/jobs/2274967272693600/). There are some fields and roles where it's expected in the US as well, and I suspect that's just where the difference comes in.

Without explicit salary ranges, the market functions through implicit cultural expectations about what an appropriate salary should be. Which of course has a lot of problems. For example, US software engineering salaries are stereotypically bimodal, and one of the staples of our mid 2010s job market discourse was people who'd only seen one hump insisting that the other can't possibly exist. (The question of whether there's actually two humps or just a wide range, I don't know if I've ever seen resolved.)

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#102

Post by INGSOCIALITE » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

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

That’s what I’ve seen as well, it’s always a range with a huuuuuge gap. No one is posting the actual expected salary. It’s almost a scam, I could post a job listing with a salary of “$0 to $1,000,000,000.00”. It’s the same as not posting a salary number at all

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#103

Post by oooyay » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

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? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble.

$100K is easily a junior salary. $700K is a Principal plus salary in "big tech". A huge portion of that is RSU's and there may be weight thrown into personal performance with certain goals that align to company objectives. There are certain SRE jobs that are designed this way, especially if you're on the policy or proactive software development side of SRE work where the products you build (policy or software) take time to build and have huge associated returns in terms of monetary and customer trust.

For reference, my first SRE job was $75k/year.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#104

Post by jghn » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

grogenaut wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't this mean that your company is also negotiating your salary down regularly?

They do, by not giving appropriate raises. Adjusting down nominally is typically done via terminating everyone and telling them to reapplying. Though, in at least a somewhat healthy company, adjusting down nominally leaves too much of a bad taste, so layoffs are used instead where the remaining employees’ pay to qualify of life at work ratio goes down (more work responsibilities, more hours, less amenities at work, e…

This is where pay transparency [1] comes in. If employees can see what other people are making and it's clear that old hands are getting the shaft, then old hands will leave.

Also the last few places I've been at have made a conscious attempt to reset once a year or two to combat this effect. I can't speak to prior employers as that was before I started to be privy to how the sausage was made. Companies that don't reset compensation aren't worth working for.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38167969

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#105

Post by michaelteter » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

oooyay wrote: post #103

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? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. $100K is easily a junior salary. $700K is a Principal plus salary in "big tech". A huge portion of that is RSU's and there may be weight thrown into personal performance with certain goals that align to company objectives. There are certain SRE jobs that are designed this way,…

The post says L4. That’s not junior or principal, it’s L4 (lower/middle).

Given the specific level, the salary range is indeed absurd.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#106

Post by 1234letshaveatw » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #82

This is a strange American thing. As a Brit it is utterly bizarre and alien to me. Nobody here would ever look twice at a job that didn't state the salary. If you're trying to fill a position the salary is probably the most important piece of information you need to sell it. How can an employment market even function otherwise?

These "as a X" posts always read like propaganda to me lol

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#107

Post by idkyall » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:05 PM UTC

bdw5204 wrote: post #85

tempsy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm in Philadelphia which is definitely a coastal city in the US and $200k would be way above market here unless my understanding of the local market is dramatically wrong.

Philadelphia metro area has very weak wages compared to most other east coast cities for tech. We don't have much of a FAANG or tech company presence here to bid up market salaries(outside of a couple of satellite offices in the suburbs). I can tell you from my network that with ~6-7+ YoE you can earn about ~180-210k counting base & bonus at most of the banks or financial firms as a new hire at the VP or tech lead level.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#108

Post by oooyay » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

michaelteter wrote: post #105

oooyay wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. $100K is easily a junior salary. $700K is a Principal plus salary in "big tech". A huge portion of that is RSU's and there may be weight thrown into personal performance with certain goals that align to company objectives. There are certain SRE jobs that are designed this way,…

The post says L4. That’s not junior or principal, it’s L4 (lower/middle). Given the specific level, the salary range is indeed absurd.

Yeah, providing a range when they specify the level is unethical, I agree

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#109

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:09 PM UTC

jghn wrote: post #104

lotsofpulp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do, by not giving appropriate raises. Adjusting down nominally is typically done via terminating everyone and telling them to reapplying. Though, in at least a somewhat healthy company, adjusting down nominally leaves too much of a bad taste, so layoffs are used instead where the remaining employees’ pay to qualify of life at work ratio goes down (more work responsibilities, more hours, less amenities at work, e…

This is where pay transparency [1] comes in. If employees can see what other people are making and it's clear that old hands are getting the shaft, then old hands will leave. Also the last few places I've been at have made a conscious attempt to reset once a year or two to combat this effect. I can't speak to prior employers as that was before I started to be privy to how the sausage was made. Companies that don't re…

Transparency helps a lot, but is not sufficient. Labor buyers can also be knowledgeable about their labor supplier's other options, so if they are the only game in town (such as in smaller towns/metros), they might choose to adopt a more take it or leave it attitude.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#110

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Tue, Nov 07, 2023, 5:13 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #100

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default is and has always been that employees will come into the office, I don't know why you'd expect this to be specifically disclosed. If it doesn't say remote it's almost surely not remote.

I would argue that the default for software engineers for the past 3-4 years has not been onsite, in person.

After the big tech companies all did their RTO last year I'm really not sure how remote work could be seen as the default. I recognize that it happens - there was a whole drama cycle last month from Amazon employees who seem to have believed the RTO was optional - but it's not a wise job searching strategy to expect remote opportunities from a company that doesn't advertise them.