3 ms·

I think the more general version of this argument is that jobs achievable via recruiters are a fairly small subset of the job market, and you don't have a good

by geofft 8y ago

I think the more general version of this argument is that jobs achievable via recruiters are a fairly small subset of the job market, and you don't have a good sense (as a job-seeker) of how exactly that subset is shaped, so this doesn't actually solve the problem of not having enough information. You now have significantly more information about a subset of the market and no idea what that subset is. If you were to go trade, say, tech stocks, but you didn't know how profitable the companies were until after you had made a bid, and you decided to solve the incomplete-information problem by working with brokers who were paid by some of the companies, you would be making a mistake by thinking you're now in possession of enough information to make the EMH kick in.

dunpeal 8y ago
Your argument is well-phrased, and theoretically correct, but in reality recruiters often work with a large subset of the job market in their area. The market is tight right now, and hiring managers have no reason to only work with one recruiter. On the contrary: they will cast the widest net, talk to any viable recruiter, and typically disclose comp information to that recruiter. I agree it's not perfect information, but in reality if you job hop, work closely with several recruiters, and negotiate well - you'll get a pretty good idea of your market value, imho. Employees who have the least idea of their market value are those who stayed in the same job for a long time, and haven't interviewed or talked to recruiters in years. I completely agree with your earlier assertion that it's quite possible that entire sectors of the tech industry are underpaid, but the employers' frantic and often limited efforts to keep comp data secret are just one reason for that.