51–60 of 249 posts
The two reasons I disagree with publishing salaries and "ranges" are that a) the implicit collusion creates mean reversion that disadvantages talent, who can afford to leave and go where they are valued and b) the values behind it presume that a job is something paternalistic granted by a manager in return for supplication, and not due consideration for value offered. Together these create a race to the bottom in off…
How is any of this connected to publishing salary ranges for a job?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if a company wants to attract top talent they can just publicy offer +10% and they get the best people. Seems to me it could become a race to the top, heavily benefiting employees.
Now you're in game theory territory. A bunch of competitive companies can (don't say collude) mirror each other's salary ranges and maybe they're OK with not using higher salaries to hire away talent which may or not actually be worth more money anyway. Of course, this happens to some degree anyway as companies research this sort of information.
... are you one hiring people ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's so terrible. The "overall market" range for "roles in this area" are "typically" anywhere within an entire order of magnitude. I haven't seen anything vaguer in my entire time on this earth.
Well yes that’s the point. They’re clearly giving the middle finger to the requirement here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not due consideration for value offered How does that work? If the value offered isn't enough, then I'm not working somewhere. Now I can skip the part where I still have to do the interview first before they tell me that 'based on experience' maxes out at 80k.
When the top 10 employers all see that they can charge $60k in the ads, they all just do it. They don’t need to ask, they can see. Then any new person who enters the field sees the rates and just accepts it (both employer and employee). “Sure go walk, I can see what everyone else is paying”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the logic around transparency not giving an advantage to talent, could you expand? Certainly seems like there are counter examples in many places where compensation is public
I'm not sure if I completely follow the parent, but I would also be concerned since it means it'll be far more difficult to negotiate above the range. In the obfuscated market, if you are good at proving your value and negotiating, then the usual range people have in mind for that type of job becomes less relevant. But if the range is explicit and paying one person above that range will disadvantage the company (sinc…
That said, I personally negociated and had offers negociated for above the offering.
Think of it more as anchoring than hard bounds: a company details what they expect and how much they'd pay for it, and if on interview you don't fit the bill they could offer you a different job at a lower price instead of just refusing you, or you can ask a higher price for bringing a lot more skills than what they are requiring.
At the end of the day it's still negotiations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you're in game theory territory. A bunch of competitive companies can (don't say collude) mirror each other's salary ranges and maybe they're OK with not using higher salaries to hire away talent which may or not actually be worth more money anyway. Of course, this happens to some degree anyway as companies research this sort of information.
They did that anyway without that via various no poaching agreements, this makes it easier to notice, not harder. ... are you one hiring people ?
Companies already do research into what other companies pay. As another poster noted, if there is a non-competitive equilibrium (mostly among a certain class of competitors), there can be a tacit agreement that we just do whatever Google does. No formal agreements needed. Of course, companies already have better information than public websites do so they can mostly already do this without narrow salary bands being published.
I'm all for salary transparency, but I also miss the days when every tech company would have a single "Software Engineer" job posting on their board, and if you liked their vibe you'd apply for it. If they liked you in return, you were in. Everything else (your job title, seniority, salary, stock, what team and product you were actually going to work on, whether they had open headcount or not) were all just minor det…
If you have a family and a mortgage and need a pretty good idea of what they're offering because you can't afford to take stab a three or four jobs randomly and leave them if it doesn't work out.
Basically I see your model as perfect for newly graduates and freelancers, and pretty tough for everyone else.
In a way, these kind of openings still exist, they're basically consulting roles or internships.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well yes that’s the point. They’re clearly giving the middle finger to the requirement here
How so? My understanding is that Netflix offers a wide range of compensation based on individual performance. If they didn't disclose this, they'd be violating the law.
Lord knows companies have probably 80% of the leverage in the job market.
Tech people are doomed not by AIs, but by lack of solidarity, raw greed and lack of long term vision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In game theory territory, no company's best response is to stick to publicly posted salary ranges. Suppose that you are among the top performing workers in the labor market. If you have two job offers, you could get those two companies to match each other's offers. Each of the two company's best response is to match the other's offer to the point at which their offer is exactly equal to the value that you would bring…
And yet collusion has happened in Big Tech.