Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An update on salary transparency in job posts

directlyapply.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#81

Post by seadan83 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #13
bearjaws wrote: post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

>How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? Get a competing job offer. A minimum price lets labor sellers know if it is worth applying or not, and trends in supply and demand for that type of labor (based on which way the minimums are moving industry wide).

Competing job offers and other interviews lined up are excellent, excellent, excellent to have!

For this reason always try to cluster job interviews together as much as possible so that the offers come out around the same time. This situation is generally going to be very favorable for you as an engineer!

Consider that some hiring manager probably has been played games with for months in terms of head count and interviewing poor candidate after another. When they extend that offer to you, they want you seated yesterday. Mentioning "I have 2 offers, I've had 100% offers for every interview so far, and btw I'm interviewing at a FAANG tomorrow." - that will perk up some interest and can elicit a pro-active better offer.

I've had one outfit ask me, "How much for you to just stop interviewing and come work for us?" This sense of urgency on the employer side is the only time where an engineering employee has more power than the company. Most employers will try everything to make this window of time short - usually by trying to get you to stop interviewing and do no salary negotiation, or give you an exploding offer, or counter and say there are competing candidates.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#82

Post by nonrandomstring »

This is a strange American thing. As a Brit it is utterly bizarre and alien to me. Nobody here would ever look twice at a job that didn't state the salary. If you're trying to fill a position the salary is probably the most important piece of information you need to sell it. How can an employment market even function otherwise?

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#83

Post by the_only_law »

LispSporks22 wrote: post #72
lotsofpulp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? Get a competing job offer. A minimum price lets labor sellers know if it is worth applying or not, and trends in supply and demand for that type of labor (based on which way the minimums are moving industry wide).

Honestly after sometimes weeks long latencies waiting on “proceeding to the next step”, ludicrous leetcode exercises and design Twitter, or worse - their business - from scratch on this here virtual whiteboard, I’m so buggered I’m gonna take the first number out of their mouths.

Yeah I had a situation where I had an offer for Job A, but really preferred Job B (Job A required me to move which I really didn't want to do). The recruiter for Job B gave me the impression that the interview process was going to be quick enough that'd I'd have time time to take it before I would have to accept A instead. Instead, I hear nothing, assume I was ghosted until fucking weeks after I moved and started Job A, Job B calls asking me to do a final round.

Even worse, im just now getting interviews/rejections for jobs I applied to months ago.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#84

Post by dmoy »

mx_02 wrote: post #9
singron wrote: post #4

The scariest thing about the salary transparency laws is that it makes it blindingly obvious that companies do not regularly follow the law. Adherence is both very public and easy, but imagine all the other laws being broken all the time that aren't as trivial to comply with.

Do you mean it's a bad thing about the law? Or is a bad thing that is seeing the sunlight due to the law?

Almost certainly the latter

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#85

Post by bdw5204 »

tempsy wrote: post #70
bdw5204 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are there plenty of $215k jobs? That's way above the range I'm seeing even on most "senior" or "staff" listings.

Are you in the US in a coastal market? $200k+ base is very normal.

I'm in Philadelphia which is definitely a coastal city in the US and $200k would be way above market here unless my understanding of the local market is dramatically wrong.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#86

Post by liquidpele »

bearjaws wrote: post #49
Infinitesimus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Research a bit about Netflix's comp philosophy and this will make more sense. It's not bubble compensation. They aim to beat what someone else will pay for your skills, as long as they want you working there. Until recently, they also only hired at a single IC level so the range was probably narrower.

> They aim to beat what someone else will pay for your skills, as long as they want you working there. So what happened in 2020-2022 where everyone was willing to pay more and more for the same skill sets? I think we're agreeing on the same thing here, I am saying they will never pay $700k now, but they probably have someone at that comp level, so they have to list that in the range.

They will, but it depends on previous work/level. The range is because they’ll hire you in for a position at your ideal level, not necessarily for the position you actually applied for.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#87

Post by no_wizard »

dymk wrote: post #68
jghn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a 0% chance that I'd put in the effort to get an offer from a company just to set my price with a company I'd like to work for. No company is worth that headache. If I happen to already have a competing offer, sure. But when job searching I'm not carpet bombing resumes, I'm targeting specific companies that I think would be a match.

That's why you find two companies you'd like to work for, and have them compete against each other. This is just job hunting basics.

In practice, this can get dubious.

You'd be surprised how many companies will simply pull you out of the candidate process and decline the offer. Companies you would probably work for, to be honest.

This works when you're pitting say, Netflix vs Meta or Apple vs Microsoft, or Google vs Amazon etc. but if you go down the ladder just a little, you'd be shocked at how much this doesn't work, is all.

I feel like its too general of advice to say you can simply play two companies off each other.

There's other tactics too, like setting a high minimum acceptable amount of compensation upfront, that one can use.

Its all a little risky in a way

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#88

Post by supersparrow »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #82

This is a strange American thing. As a Brit it is utterly bizarre and alien to me. Nobody here would ever look twice at a job that didn't state the salary. If you're trying to fill a position the salary is probably the most important piece of information you need to sell it. How can an employment market even function otherwise?

> As a Brit it is utterly bizarre and alien to me.

I’m really surprised you say that. 90% of the jobs I look at for ‘software developer’ do not state salary. I have seen a couple with a ‘salary range’ but most don’t mention it or say “dependent on experience”.

I’ve been working in software for 15 years now in the UK and that’s always been my experience. Even though it’s standard, I still don’t see it as normal that such a vital piece of information is always missing.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#89

Post by dymk »

no_wizard wrote: post #87
dymk wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you find two companies you'd like to work for, and have them compete against each other. This is just job hunting basics.

In practice, this can get dubious. You'd be surprised how many companies will simply pull you out of the candidate process and decline the offer. Companies you would probably work for, to be honest. This works when you're pitting say, Netflix vs Meta or Apple vs Microsoft, or Google vs Amazon etc. but if you go down the ladder just a little, you'd be shocked at how much this doesn't work, is all. I feel like its too…

I believe that this has been your experience - I can only offer my own as another data point.

I've done the "two competing offers" thing four or five times at companies big and small. I've never had a company rescind an offer or ghost. In fact they all seem to expect a competing offer; all have asked "Are you interviewing anywhere else?" at some point.

I agree with discussing a minimum early on in the interview process. It's a good smoke test to ensure neither party's time is being wasted.

Re: An update on salary transparency in job posts

#90

Post by jampekka »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Now lets quantify how many of them are absurd listings. Recently saw a Senior Security Engineer role for Netflix, $100-$700k salary range. How is someone supposed to reasonably negotiate that role? $100k is clearly a joke, $700k is clearly a salary someone got during the bubble. Do I come in at $400k? Is $250k a bargain rate? https://imgur.com/a/0Fe00Qf

Double the median salary is clearly a joke?

White collar pay has gotten totally out of hand.

Post reply on HN