171–180 of 406 posts
Well, yes obviously that is better. If 2% of all poker games required you to hold your cards the other way around, would it be better to just avoid those games? Yes, it would.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price. One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills,…
If someone shows up for interview with leadrship skills so amazing they can run the whole company and you want to pay them 4x, then it's probably a different job, maybe a TeamLead.
Publish several jobs and just fill one of them, cancell others.
But the argument is bordering on "we are so flexible we have no structure at all and we have no clue what we are doing" and is difficult to taje seriously.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price. One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills,…
Also, I most certainly do sort by price when I'm looking for real estate: I have a budget, after all. Same thing with employment: most people have needs that salary requirements can meet, and it's pointless to look for jobs outside the range one can accept. Therefore it's almost certainly the best and most useful first thing to sort by.
Others have more freedom. For example, thanks to a recent IPO I can literally work for no salary and be fine. I have far more freedom to consider other details about a job than 99% of the population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not sane, it's crazy! As a buyer why would I trust a surveyor selected by the seller? I would rather pay inspector myself for an independent opinion. In the US this only costs a few hundred dollars for a typical house, which is a tiny fraction of the overall transaction price.
For the same reason you trust an auditor and accountant hired by Tesla to produce quartely earnings report - they are on the hook if they lie. Surely you do not hire an independant accountant every time you buy stocks?
An auditor hired by the buyer has no such incentive.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price. One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills,…
I highly doubt that the parent comment meant that he would literally apply to the job with the biggest number with no other consideration.
I read it as the far more modest claim that, if even _seeing_ the number requires a significant investment of time and effort on your side, the efficiency of the market is highly restricted. Especially since, once you do see the number, you usually need to take it or leave it within a short time frame; you can't "open up" a lot of job offers and then pick the best.
To use the real-estate analogy again, how would the housing market be affected if buyers had to put down a deposit to even _see_ the listed price? And if the sellers had the ability to get a complete profile of the buyer before revealing their price? It seems pretty clear to me that the average house price would significantly increase, despite the supply and demand both staying the same.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
In the US, real estate sellers have to disclose known problems, but they can claim they didn't know, and then you might have to fight it out in court. It's still in your interest to get an inspection before closing.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
The idea that there would be a bunch of generic job listings with fixed salaries makes you essentially a replacable drone with no unique value, and sounds horrible to me.
Also a free market doesn't need to be absolutely transparent. That's just something you would want because it sounds like it would be easier, but uncertainties about the future, unknowns, and consumer wants is what drives the whole pricing game to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“ They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism, and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or foreign invasion, they’d become precisely the sort of useless baggage you’d trade for a box of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.” so this is ok because he’s saying they’re only useless in an apocalyptic scenario? he’s literally saying that the core of women is useless…
If I recall, the context was that he was dating a woman who was a bit of a tomboy and saying how cool it was that she was better at power tools and such than he was, and this comparison to typical SF tech women was part of that extended riff. It wasn't part of an incel monologue about 'femoids' or something. Ultimately, if we let this continue, it becomes a war on flavor and humor, where no rhetorical fun is allowed…
at the same time, i feel like i’d have known better than to generalize like this and publish it. i understand there’s context about how/why it was said.
i’d really love to be able to express my thoughts that border on “anti-woke” but i don’t. i feel like the only way for us to be honest about our feelings is to be anonymous.
i guess at some level i would hope this person would’ve been smart enough to know that. there’s a social game we all have to play, and just because it sucks we can’t not deal with it.
A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. However companies don't want to compete on salary, and potentialy drive them up - they want maximum leverage. They get more leverage if process is obscure, so that you only agree salary late in the process and for the applicant, pulling out is risky. The market is not really free - its being manipulated by one side. Simila…
> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job. I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price. One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills,…
Sure there are about a billion other factors to look at but if the salary is a non starter then why waste the time to interview even if everything else was perfect?
So it' s basically a corporate boycott against labor laws favorable to employees?! I guess this will be first time a boycott won't be broken by a police charge and perhaps even becoming successful! /s
> favorable to employees Is it really though? Complete transparency in salary ranges also means that every other employer can see exactly what their competition is offering. I can't help but worry that this will lead to a sort of "price fixing" that will actually drive wages _down_.