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

Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

jobs.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–117 of 117 posts

Re: Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

#111

Post by shagie »

Maro wrote: post #97

To me it feels like the range of $90k-900k is for all SWE IC levels, whereas the job post is specifically for L5. It cannot be that the range is so broad for a specific SWE level. By posting the overall range of SWE, the whole exercise becomes meaningless, because, of course interns earn (relatively) peanuts and the one "John Carmack guy" almost makes a million..

If you poke at the L5 for Netflix, https://www.levels.fyi/companies/netflix/salaries/software-e... you will see that the range of compensation reported is $180k to $1.5M (an exception, the next cluster is at $900k). Putting a $90k to $900k on that application appears to be reasonable in that context.

Re: Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

#112

Post by shagie »

jdminhbg wrote: post #34
t-writescode wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the law? No; but, this is the sort of thing that people who care about equality in pay should look at and refuse to work at. If there can be an 800k difference between two different employees with the same title that sit next to each other, that's not a place I would want to work for and wouldn't even apply.

If it's possible for there to be an $800k difference I am definitely applying.

https://www.levels.fyi/companies/netflix/salaries/software-e...

The lowest reported is $180k. The highest is $1.5M, but $900k is where most appear to top out.

Re: Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

#113

Post by Fatnino »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #20
tony_cannistra wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right but I think you're missing the point. Offering a range that broad in the job listing is just an effort to flaunt a law. That law was put into place to help the people you're talking about.

It’s not flaunting a law. It’s a typical built in Sacramento law written by dilettantes who can’t think through the simplest of problems. Just like the “can’t charge extra for using a credit card” law. Prices went up and gas stations give a cash discount.

The typical cash discount at any gas station in California that I've seen is 10 cents.

I get 3% back on gas purchases from my credit card.

Question: At what price per gallon does it stop making cents (heh) to buy with cash?

Hint: California hasn't had gas at that price for many years already.

Re: Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

#114

Post by a4a4a4a4 »

Retric wrote: post #85
tylersmith wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People ask for and are worth vastly diffently amounts.

If they can expect to get and retain someone for 90k which can do the job then it’s hard to argue anyone is actually worth 10x as much. I am not saying nobody makes 900k, just that if they are willing to budget 900k they might be looking for more from an applicant than someone whose skills only commands 90k base salary.

I work at one of these big companies, and at least how we do it is to see what kind of candidates we get, then compare seniority vs potential vs abilities, and decide which person is the best overall fit. This might be a junior person who gets $120k/year or a senior person that will get $400k/year. It depends on who applies, and how they would fit in with the team. 90-900k is quite a gap, but 150k-900k would be kind of reasonable to be honest.

Re: Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

#115

Post by Retric »

a4a4a4a4 wrote: post #114
Retric wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can expect to get and retain someone for 90k which can do the job then it’s hard to argue anyone is actually worth 10x as much. I am not saying nobody makes 900k, just that if they are willing to budget 900k they might be looking for more from an applicant than someone whose skills only commands 90k base salary.

I work at one of these big companies, and at least how we do it is to see what kind of candidates we get, then compare seniority vs potential vs abilities, and decide which person is the best overall fit. This might be a junior person who gets $120k/year or a senior person that will get $400k/year. It depends on who applies, and how they would fit in with the team. 90-900k is quite a gap, but 150k-900k would be kind…

That’s fair. I wouldn’t find it nearly as suspicious if they had said 250k to 900k.

Re: Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

#116

Post by ithkuil »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #108
ithkuil wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"discriminate* has two meanings: * recognize a distinction; differentiate. (Discriminate between ) * make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people. (Discriminate against ) I meant they current trend is to do the former in order to offset historical use of the latter. Whether that's fair or whether that will work long term is another question!

You forgot "discriminate in favor of " in your second point and incorrectly attributed the current trend to the first point, although perhaps you're seeing a different trend than me.

No perhaps I wasn't clear. the current trend is clearly "discriminate in favour in order to offset the discrimination against"

"Discriminate as differentiate" was a response to the comment I was replying to who said that "using any information means you'd be discriminating". Well, sure that's technically true but it's missing the point

Re: Netflix has job with almost $1M listed salary range, to comply with new CA law

#117

Post by butlerm »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #100
butlerm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can't charge extra for using a credit card" is a contractual condition imposed by the credit card companies. If anything there should be a law voiding such conditions as contrary to sound public policy. Why should cash or debit card users in a competitive market be charged extra to subsidize rewards for credit card users, for example?

Built in Sacramento https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/credit-card-surcharges

It is always convenient for businesses to have the legislature enforce their preferred contract conditions in statutory law, but this particular statute sounds like it is unenforceable.
Post reply on HN