31–40 of 71 posts
That's good, but where is the incentive to stay at the job? They should make a requirement that you are at the job for 3-6 months before you get the pay.
And that works both ways. We've had several new hires who didn't last a month. Does the hiring company still pay the full price in those cases?
Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous to ask for a 15% of annual salary recruitment fee? Why would any reasonable company agree to pay a website $15,000 just because they indexed their new 100k/year hiree's résume?. I think they're way over-valuing the service they provide. A smart recruiter who found someone they really wanted on Developer Auction would simply look them up elsewhere and make them an offer out…
I have my doubts about this. Disclosure, I work for a Careers 2.0, but little of my thoughts are biased by that in this case. For starters, this doesn't even seem to fix the problem stated, "The top developers are 25 times more effective than the average developer, but their salaries don’t reflect that". So you give a guy $3K pop if he would earn a salary of 100K... great, but that doesn't even address the difference…
As I understand it, it's the bidding that is meant to change the amount developers are paid, not the bonus. I am not sure what problem the bonus was meant to solve. I can speculate that they had a problem with too few developers accepting the offers. If so, they might want to look at whether underemployment is actually a problem amongst those they are allowing in - I would guess "great in practice, not great on paper…
For consideration. Two counter examples--(1) A great engineer working on a shitty project is not worth much. (2) And a great project can be executed with competent engineers. People are only as "effective" as the problems they solve are potenially valuable.
Now imagine another variation:
"The top [founders] are 25 times more effective than the average developer, but their salaries don’t reflect that"
Is this more or less likely to be true? And does it have anything to do with engineering and or Job titles? or is this phenomena something else altogether?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a traditional auction in the sense that "highest bidder wins". The goal is to present each software engineer with 5-10 opportunities at cool companies, with numbers attached to them. They can then choose which offers are worth following-up with via phone or in-person interviews based on any number of factors (location, product/service, company stage, who the investors are, equity, salary, etc.). Like you say…
Thanks for clearing this up for me. I do appreciate the response. Hopefully you can clear one other troubling thought up for me: How is this recruitment tool going to avoid falling into the same recruitment spam of sites like Dice et. al.? One of the greatest finds I've made in recent years was a decent recruiter. This individual not only finds opportunities that I find interesting, but supported and handled the minu…
We offer a cash-back on our fee (which your recruiter probably doesn't) and we'll present you to a much wider pool of vetted, venture-funded companies than a single recruiter will. And because it's a competitive bidding environment, the offers you get should be the same or higher than you would get through the other process.
It's about time we see some real innovation in this space, but will they be able to avoid the usual stench associated with tech recruiters?
The cash-back is just one more way we're trying to be different from everybody else in this space.
A 3% bonus? I guess it's better than traditional recruiters, but I think the real (financial) value lies in being offered a larger salary (which could be worth substantially more than 3%).
And you're right, the real value lies in being offered a larger salary.
As a company how do you subscribe to such a feed? As a developer how do you create a profile, update a resume, checkout the companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, it's the bidding that is meant to change the amount developers are paid, not the bonus. I am not sure what problem the bonus was meant to solve. I can speculate that they had a problem with too few developers accepting the offers. If so, they might want to look at whether underemployment is actually a problem amongst those they are allowing in - I would guess "great in practice, not great on paper…
"The top developers are 25 times more effective than the average developer, but their salaries don’t reflect that" For consideration. Two counter examples--(1) A great engineer working on a shitty project is not worth much. (2) And a great project can be executed with competent engineers. People are only as "effective" as the problems they solve are potenially valuable. Now imagine another variation: "The top [founde…
That they might be more valuable on other projects may be relevant to what I need to pay to retain them, but isn't relevant to what I am willing to pay.
I have my doubts about this. Disclosure, I work for a Careers 2.0, but little of my thoughts are biased by that in this case. For starters, this doesn't even seem to fix the problem stated, "The top developers are 25 times more effective than the average developer, but their salaries don’t reflect that". So you give a guy $3K pop if he would earn a salary of 100K... great, but that doesn't even address the difference…
As I understand it, it's the bidding that is meant to change the amount developers are paid, not the bonus. I am not sure what problem the bonus was meant to solve. I can speculate that they had a problem with too few developers accepting the offers. If so, they might want to look at whether underemployment is actually a problem amongst those they are allowing in - I would guess "great in practice, not great on paper…
I suspect it helps address the problem of getting product into the pipeline.
I see the challenge that the 3x guys and gals (not going to inflate that to 25x) don't have a 'job finding' problem or a 'pay' problem. And those are correlated strongly, if an engineer can easily find another job then that engineer and their employer know that they have to pay them enough to keep them around. So these folks don't need a job auction service.
What you can do though is find people who think they are worth a lot more than they are being paid. But they have been unsuccessful in finding another job. Rather than take that as market feedback, they search for other ways to reach out to people who can appreciate what they are worth. This auction site sounds like a really good idea to them.
If you're offering the service you want the people who are really good to use it, so that you can get good quality scores from your customers (employers) so how do you get those folks? You cut them in for a piece of the action.
That's my theory at least.
That's good, but where is the incentive to stay at the job? They should make a requirement that you are at the job for 3-6 months before you get the pay.
The incentive? Having integrity perhaps? Besides, it's not even financially worthwhile to job hop just to get a bonus. The bonus works out to be less than eight days of salary. If you're really a top developer, you're not going to tarnish your reputation for such a paltry sum.