51–60 of 191 posts
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Probl...
The candidate puts in the minimum they're willing to take into one side of the solution, and the employer puts in the maximum. Both then securely find out if the minimum is less than the maximum, without revealing the two numbers to each other.
The socialist millionaire solution is used in OTR, but this solution seems to have not caught on yet.
To the interesting job spam I usually reply with the question of the salary range, and 95% of the time there's no reply back.
I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs: - I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc,…
I look at my own current job. I was offered a full time position 6 months ago, for an amount that is pretty in line with local salaries. As a consultant, they were able to offer me a whooping 60% more, and that's after I accounted for all the benefits of the full time position.
I find it pretty screwed up, but it is the realities of the local job market, where very senior full time devs are severely underpaid unless the are consultants or telecommuting for bay area companies.
My experience is it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications. As for the article, I think the author lists a lot of real concerns that exist at companies - and then sort of dismisses them as if they are invalid because they aren't ideal. I'm sorry - but companies aren't ideal. Let's also look at the function of job postings - from my point of view, the goal is…
>> it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications. One of the points in the post is that not posting salary information is also a filter. Some would argue that the absence of even a salary range filters out the top end of candidates, leaving you with a pipeline of mediocrity.
I work at an IB, doing Python/Quant development. We are presented with two candidates to interview.
Candidate 1 is ok, has a year or two of Python but otherwise mostly Java background. Did so-so in the algo and numerical discussions, was ok in the problem solving categories. He was currently earning 75k and was asking for a 5k bump. HR were fine with this.
Candidate 2 was unbelievable, has authored and contributed to many open source Python libraries, was well known in the community, did very well in the questions, would have been an absolute asset to the team and business. He is currently earning 50k at a Django shop. HR rejected his application as hge asked for 70k, on the grounds that the jump was too big. Even though it was less than the overall pay for candidate 1.
Employers suck hard sometimes!
I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs: - I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc,…
Do you only work for startups? Most major tech companies don't list salary ranges, and Google, Facebook, etc obviously have the money to pay what people are worth.
I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs: - I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc,…
That's reasonable, but I've found that I am no longer put off by open-ended contracts. I found many companies doing this because they know their hiring practices aren't good enough to weed out posers. If you are good at your job, you have little to worry about. Besides, I've lost more jobs that were "permanent" than contract. Employer commitment is a fairy tale from the days of yore.
I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs: - I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc,…
What's amazing to me is all the recruiters who call you to ask if you want to do temp-to-perm work when you have a full-time job. Why would you agree to that?
Would a solution to Yao's Millionaires' problem help? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Probl... The candidate puts in the minimum they're willing to take into one side of the solution, and the employer puts in the maximum. Both then securely find out if the minimum is less than the maximum, without revealing the two numbers to each other. The socialist millionaire solution is used in OTR, but th…
This is simple. I won't waste my time applying for a job that doesn't even bother to tell me what they're going to pay -- any more than I would buy a car without knowing its engine capacity, mileage, etc. The idea is idiotic. So: the only people who will apply for jobs with no salary listed are the ones desperate for any job. Are they the people you want to hire?
And people who hire complain about the bad standard of applicants!