651–660 of 810 posts
There is either an internal candidate already identified or there is a h1b candidate who needs their work authorization. Either way, that job was never going to be yours regardless of your qualifications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the recruiter thought the candidate was lying > they don't trust candidates ...which is a great tell for what kind of relationship you would be starting if you did take the offer.
My understanding is that it IS common to lie, or else to redirect the conversation from what was made in the last position to what is desired for the new position. Why should it matter? You're being hired to fill a position that's worth x amount of compensation; the primary reason to ask for prior compensation seems to be to to get a "deal" (i.e., rob an employee of potential earnings).
The way it's supposed to work is that you and your employer (who represents the capital) generate a return from your joint venture.
But the actual return is hard to predict. And there is no fair and obvious way to divvy up the return. So it comes down to negotiation power.
There also may not be any condition where you and the capital agree to join. The capital may have better options to generate a return and you may have better options to get a salary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the same thing happen to me a couple times. Long and tiring process. Blackboard, make a project, lots of dirty laundry about "long gone incompetent developers" that made the current system a giant mess. Lots of red flags but lots of promises including a large maximum salary, including bonuses and stock options. The final offer, however, was 60% of my current pay. Lower than the average for someone with my exper…
Is this an American thing? I live in Eastern Europe and make decent buck here (close to 5000 EUR/mo after taxes in a country where you can cover all expenses under 1000 EUR/mo). I never had any trouble getting quality work in my country but a few times I got approached by companies from the US and oh boy, weeks of tiring recrutation process and the pay was ALWAYS worse than local. I feel like they do it on purpose ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the OP mentioned that the recruiter thought the candidate was lying which is why they low-balled. So that explains the logic at least. They're not stupid, but they don't trust candidates I guess. Which is a whole different thing.
The OP also mentioned the offer was below the average market price for somenone with a similar work experience, which is simply absurd if their goal is to entice you away from your current job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a similar discussion 2 years ago (article https://www.shellypalmer.com/2017/04/id-pay-500000-year-cant... comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14246760 ) The ultimate problem is that people want "unicorns for peanuts". Google, Facebook and a few other large tech companies have hired most of the top of the labor market, the "ferraris" in your analogy. Most companies want the ferrari but can't afford…
How will that balance the market - cutting supply while demand is growing?
After moving to California in 2011, I decided I missed the office banter and started looking for a job. I found a listing on a large, tech-based recruiting firm (cybercoders) and the job was perfect for my skills. I applied but heard nothing back. After a week I reached out to the recruiter, and she replied with a curt, "You're not qualified for this role so we're looking elsewhere." I was a bit surprised as the reqs…
I've found the recruiting community to be very self-serving and manipulative. Recent example - someone who I had spoken with (shared the stage) at a conference indicated one of her clients needed someone with the my background. Naturally, a resume was on her desk before the end of the afternoon... A few weeks later, I get a call from a retained recruiter I had worked with previously, after having had my resume sent t…
They initially contacted me and indicated that they just raised a funding round and now have to staff the position ASAP, potentially with a freelancer for some time. So I thought: "Great, I'll freelance for them for a few months and they can kick me out once the found someone to employ!" This is unironically one of my favourite scenarios, so I went for it, and let the recruiter set up a meeting.
I was a bit surprised that HR was also invited for the meeting, as I usually haven't seen that done when bringing freelancers on in other companies, but tried to not interpret to much into it. So the meeting rolls around, and voilà, it is a full blown job interview! I went with it, acing the interview, but when they asked "Why are you looking to switch away from freelance?", I had to tell them that I don't, and it turned out that the recruiter told them something completely different.
WTF WOULD A RECRUITER THINK THAT THIS WOULD EVER WORK??? Do they think that 1 in 10 freelancers just resigns to his new fate during the interview and accept to work as an employee now? Truly one of my strangest recruiter experiences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Still, the guy who can create "Chart.js" (an artist) should be getting paid a lot more than a guy who can only use it (a craftsmen). Why? One without the other is pretty pointless. I can accept the roles are different but not that either is particularly harder.
Because there is one of him vs thousands of the other
Made my first ever HN throwaway account to respond to this. I have been running a successful business, but it's not "tech". I want to get back into the software industry. I didn't have a software business idea, so I explored some tech company jobs. I am well-qualified at the VP/Director level for startups and even larger companies. I did go so far as to do an on-site interview for one company. I have verifiable proof…
So are you going to
a) hire the best developer you know and pay them whatever they ask, or
b) hire the best developer who falls within your budget (which, I presume, cannot be very high when you are starting)
If you answered b), then I guess you already know the problem. No matter how qualified you personally think you are (and you are, I am not doubting that) - the only thing that matters is whether you fit into the plans of your employer, which includes whatever nebulous salary range they have in mind.
I suppose you will say that you are already running a successful business. But IMO that doesn't actually amount to much when you are creating a software business. Why? Because you are now competing with the FAANGs of the market. And there is already a lot of talk that FAANGs are actively hiring to take the best labor off the talent pool even if they don't need the services of those hires. So suddenly you have just lost almost all opportunity you had to create arbitrage - that wonderful and probably mythical situation where you buy labor low and sell the output high and take home a handsome profit.
So you recalibrate your expectations and go one rung lower. And you do grow your company quite successfully, because, lets be honest, if you can "do things which do not scale" at first to grow companies, it pretty much follows that you can make plenty of money despite hiring ordinary talent in the beginning stages if you have a good business background - which you do. And at some point, because you grew so fast, you will face a similar shortage for some kind of skillset, only to find that you suddenly cannot really afford to pay what the very well qualified person wants because that isn't even a part of your culture anymore.
And ironically, said person then goes and writes a post about how your company completely lowballed them :-)
I feel like a broken record, but I'm going to say it anyways. There is NOT a shortage of software developers. That myth was developed by big tech, and pushed all the way up the ladder, to the top of government. The goal? Reduce labor costs. Big tech has always been 1 step ahead of the employee, just like coal, and metal working was. They saw the huge need for developers and realized their costs would increase unless…
I'll say the same thing about security people. There's an executive who's been whining on LinkedIn about the major skills shortage in this area. Here's an ad his company put up. I've had it confirmed every individual line is non-negotiable. https://imgur.com/a/UX5wPDB
One has to be on serious drugs (or profoundly ignorant on the not-very-bright-kindergartener level) to think somebody 45 years old working in tech is ignorant about tech or social media. This is the generation who had computers since they were 10. And back then computers required real investment of time and knowledge to use.
Is it a real thing that happens? Are there recruiters like that?