18 ms·

I had a recruiter call me a year ago with what sounded like a really amazing offer. Working for a well funded startup on a problem in which I happen to be a do

• Aloha 8y ago
  Yeah, I see this all the time too, they offer 50-60% of market rate and wonder why they get no takers.
  • polskibus 8y ago
    Aren't most startup founders straight out of school and never worked anywhere full time in software? Maybe that's why they behave like they do with only small guidance from their VCs that could well be detached from reality too.
    • phamilton 8y ago
      Or, as the title of the post suggests, the VC guidance is to look for suckers.
    • shaggerty 8y ago
      The average age of a software startup founder is 40 [1]. [1] https://hbr.org/2018/07/research-the-average-age-of-a-successful-startup-founder-is-45 https://hbr.org/2018/07/research-the-average-age-of-a-succes...
  • doctorpangloss 8y ago
    There's a possibility that someone agreeing to work for less than market, in software, given everything else about them is stellar, is a phenomenally positive signal.
  • robertAngst 8y ago
    I imagine the people that would accept that are 'lifers'. Where they get comfy, rationalize that they know their job, and the company never has to spend more than 98k on this person for the next 35 years. Weirdly enough, it seems like Fortune 500 pays best for the brightest and they have them working on high level concepts and paying suppliers to perform the nitty gritty engineering. I don't quite understand the rationale behind this hiring phenomenon.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • pm90 8y ago
      Its not that hard if you've worked in corporate america. Executives like to work with people that they "like", so its frequently people who went to similar schools, have a similar sense of humor, don't say stupid shit etc. Even if these people are totally ineffective and have no skills, they will keep getting hired. Then, they make use of the new labor markets, where you can just outsource everything and hire consultants/contractors to do the actual implementation. If the project succeeds, the hired person is a star and gets showered with money, poached by other firms where they try to replicate a similar, completely short sighted way of building business value. If the project fail, blame the contractors get new ones.
      • mcnichol 8y ago
        This is the nail on the head. Until we can show that there is something more effective (and possibly transparent) I fear we are doomed to continue repeating this cycle.
      • troels 8y ago
        And because everyone knows this, a contractor can easily charge 2-3 times what an employee makes - aka what they're actually worth. The system works (Except of course for the employees)
        • robertAngst 8y ago
  • marcinzm 8y ago
    The ones who are good salesman do get takers. I don't really know why or how but they get them. Not the greatest engineers but also not bottom feeders. It's surreal. Granted it's usually people who don't realize their own worth or are naive about how much equity is actually going to be worth.
    • owldimoon 8y ago
      Hey, uh. So, I'm going to be graduating with a B.Eng soon. Any tips on how to realize my own worth? I have a tendency to let myself be taken advantage of... I mean, I'm currently doing a research internship at a computer vision lab at my uni for very little compensation (grant + departmental top-up). I told myself I was doing it "for the experience." I... I feel like I might be a candidate for the behavior you describe, so I'd like to snap myself out of that if possible. Any resources you could point me to would be stellar, please and thank you.
      • sweeneyrod 8y ago
        That's different. Academia pays less at all levels.
      • testpostpls 8y ago
        The unhappiest people I know are the golddiggers. They cannot escape the feeling that they’re being taken advantage of. That the pie is so big anyways, and they deserve a little more, you know? And oh look, here comes somebody offering just a little more. What kind of sucker wouldn’t want to get paid what they’re really worth? They’re unhappy because they let other people control their sense of self-worth.
      • marcinzm 8y ago
        The best way is to interview at good companies and get offers from them. That means the usual Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. and also up-and-coming ones (Uber, Lyft, etc.). You don't even need to want to work for the company but getting an offer will tell you your worth for the future. You will need to study hard for those interviews but it's well documented online what you need to study specifically (read Cracking the Coding Interview, practice Hackerrank, LeetCode, etc.). There's generally threads online where recent grads say what offers they've gotten from companies and websites like www.paysa.com that try to aggregate them but those are all biased. Equity is a gamble not in your favor, read up on how many startups fail outright, how many sell for basically nothing, and how much you're going to get diluted in funding rounds. Founders will say otherwise but it's their job to sell you so don't trust them. So if you do want to gamble on a startup make sure to heavily discount the value of equity when negotiating.
• mavelikara 8y ago
  Orthogonal to the point of your anecdote, but this: > They're aren't many expects in my field with my background and skill set contradicts the title of the submitted post.
  • ivanbakel 8y ago
    It seems to me that they're not contradictory. A "talent shortage" would be if, when you consider all roles requiring some particular qualification or experience, there aren't enough people to fill them. If there aren't many people that meet the requirement, but there are at least as many as jobs that need to hire them, then there's no shortage - that small number could even be too many, if some of those people are overqualified for the jobs they end up doing.
• areyouseriousxx 8y ago
  I find it strange, as software developers, that we discuss the effects on automation all the time, but no one seems to understand that automation has made searching for new employees incredibly inexpensive and efficient compared to the past. So in technical roles there are a lot of companies that are always hiring. Recruiters work for free until they find you someone and placing job listings online is so inexpensive it barely registers as a cost. On top of that, most states are "at will" employment, so even if a company does not have any openings, if they find someone better, and cheaper, than another employee that is currently working at the company, they can hire them and then eventually let that other employee go. For example, I'm not in the market for a new laptop, but if a brand new, top of the line laptop came up for sale at half price, I'd probably buy it. Its so cheap to look for new talent due to automation, so most companies will shop around in case they get lucky and land a fantastic bargain. Many are not seriously looking to fill an immediate need. With that said, there are still plenty of companies out there with an immediate need, so please do not get discouraged by that group of companies that are "always hiring".
  • mattnewport 8y ago
    > Anyway... Went in for 4-5 interviews. Took me about 10 hours in total to interview with them. The experience of the poster you are responding to doesn't seem to align with the situation you are describing. Sure posting an online job ad is pretty cheap. The rest of the hiring process, not so much.
    • areyouseriousxx 8y ago
      Believe it or not, those interviews usually aren't that expensive. You probably have a mix of managers, which spend all their time in meetings anyway, and engineers, which are paid salary so they typically end up putting in a couple extra hours when they fall behind due to interviewing. Sure it isn't free, but remember, this person had made it all the way to the end of the process. The determination was made that they represented such a large gain, for the low salary they were paying, that it was worth the risk of that small cost to get an employee at a 30% reduction in salary. If you are going to save 30% of $140k, that means you will save $42k. It would take a lot of interviews to make up that gap.
• sheetjs 8y ago
  There was a similar discussion 2 years ago (article https://www.shellypalmer.com/2017/04/id-pay-500000-year-cant-work/ https://www.shellypalmer.com/2017/04/id-pay-500000-year-cant... comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14246760 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 the price when others are willing to pay much much more. The only way to really balance the market is for more of the talented engineers to start their own companies (reducing labor supply and possibly increasing demand). Arguably the proliferation of one-person or small bootstrapped startups is a reflection of the state of the labor market.
  • HatchedLake721 8y ago
    How will that balance the market - cutting supply while demand is growing?
    • morenoh149 8y ago
      engineers can capture more of the value they generate for themselves if an engineer founds their own company.
• revvx 8y ago
  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 experience and position. I had good rapport with the HR recruiter and flat out asked why they proceeded, even though she knew I was already getting more, at a better company, with more benefits. The answer: they assumed I was lying about my current salary and I was just bluffing. Recommended me that I lie in my next interview.
  • d4mi3n 8y ago
    Rule number 1, IMO, never discuss salary. I find listing your salary requirements before starting a process weeds out a lot of silly interviews. If you know your worth and have a goal for your salary, it is the most effective way I know to avoid dumb offers.
    • revvx 8y ago
      But that's exactly what I did? Sorry, I didn't phrase it right. My non-negotiable requirement was 20% more than I was getting. I gave a hard number and they said "yeah we can give that" before the interview. However the recruiter just assumed I was bluffing and went ahead with that colossal waste of time.
      • infinite8s 8y ago
        You should list the company so other people know not to waste their time.
      • mcv 8y ago
        They promise that amount up front, and then renege? That's not even deceitful, that's just intentionally wasting your time. I would send them an invoice for the time spent on the interview. What a bizarre way to run a business.
• bitcoinmoney 8y ago
  Are you like earning 500k? 200k might be really pushing it for the startup but yeah that was bad overall.
• Waterluvian 8y ago
  Maybe I'm out of touch but 4-5 interviews when they have sought you out and you're a domain expert seems like a big red flag. I've had a few short interviews that quickly turned into a sales pitch on why I should work for them. I've also had the same you experienced: they act like they really want you specifically then feed you into the human resource machine. Basically made me feel scammed so I bowed out after the first 30 minutes. I get the sense that a lot of tech companies' hiring playbook is all about making you feel special and elite then feeding you into the machine.
  • burtonator2011 8y ago
    > Maybe I'm out of touch but 4-5 interviews when they have sought you out and you're a domain expert seems like a big red flag. I was interviewing with the CTO/CEO etc and some of them were out of town. Normally I would agree btw.
  • Consultant32452 8y ago
    For my current job I took a 30 minute phone interview followed by an offer. The offer was what I was making as a consultant + benefits/vacation. So really it was a huge net pay increase. The project isn't super inspiring but I almost never work overtime, get 6 weeks vacation and it's 100% remote. This is honestly the best job I've ever had. I really don't understand why people put up with 4-5 interviews, homework, etc. I guess I could understand it if I REALLY wanted to work at company X and company X happened to have annoying interview practices. But is that the condition for most people seeking jobs? Or is there some selection bias of who is posting about their experiences?
    • shoo 8y ago
      > really don't understand why people put up with 4-5 interviews, homework, etc. not everyone is negotiating from a position of strength.
      • Consultant32452 8y ago
        Everyone who currently has a job, that isn't at imminent risk of losing that job, is in a position of power against a company that needs labor. I'm certainly not widely known in the industry. I don't have any public projects/repos. I've been doing this for almost 20 years, so I do have a pretty extensive resume. But I didn't have extensive resume when I was starting out in the early 2000s just after the internet bubble burst and times were relatively rough in the industry. And I wouldn't have done 4-5 interviews or homework projects even then. We don't need to accept this kind of treatment from potential employers.
• 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I've been there before. After one instance of that routine I learned to unashamedly [at least loosely] state my asking rate, and ask about salary up front (or early) after hearing the interview process. It's saved me. I would have faced the same interview length for [same as you] half of my current salary, and would have had to share a machine as a matter of principle. For an intermediate->senior role. With longer hours, and fewer benefits (but there would be a ping pong table and exposed brick walls...). Though the situation I experienced seems especially endemic to Toronto's dev mills. I've since learned to recognize them at the outset and stay away.
• jijji 8y ago
  when they do that, i have sent an invoice to the recruiter for the hours they wasted of my time... didnt get the payment lol
• ChuckMcM 8y ago
  This happens to me a lot. I get a recruiter who calls, tells me they are looking for someone who can do what I do, and they are competitive compensation wise. Except the way that they get to be competitive from a compensation perspective is to offer a "huge" stock grant that will be worth "at least a few million" going forward. Oh but the base pay is kind of what you get for being on your second or third position (say 5 years of experience). People buy that line of reasoning. It is sad but they do, and I have colleagues who have worked in several such positions and failed to increase their 401k savings by much (given the low base pay) and after 10 years of work and haven't seen a dime from the so-called "valuable" equity. Worse they are now considered 'old' so they are pushing headwinds when they even get to an interview (much like the original author). When I talk with newly minted engineers today about compensation I will often recommend that they "do the math" which is to say they compute their living expenses and assume they are going to save the maximum allowable 401k and they are going to pay taxes at what ever the current rate is. To take those numbers, try to plot them out with inflation and the stock market return, take a million off the top for each kid they expect to have if their future spouse isn't working, a half million if they are working. And then see if they exit 20 - 25 years with enough to live on or not. Once you have the basic model you are in a much better position to understand how the base salary you are being offered helps or hinders your future self.
• daeken 8y ago
  At this point, I flat-out tell recruiters what I'm looking for and ask if they're going to be able to offer something in that ballpark before we proceed to an interview. I let them know that it'll be a hard no if it's below what I'm asking, regardless of stock/benefits/whatever. That's drastically cut down on the amount of time folks have wasted.
• digianarchist 8y ago
  This happens on Hired.com all the time. Company makes an offer that meets your expectation. Phone interview comes to an end and then HR say "Actually we want you to move on salary before proceeding" and that's if you are lucky. I finished an interview in London, UK and they start umming and ahing over a measly five grand. It happened in Toronto too last year.
  • samhh 8y ago
    I was put in touch with a business by a recruiter. I stated my salary expectations, received the typical "that's a little high..." from the recruiter; as per usual, the offers I received justified my stance. They offered me 15% below what I wanted alongside a very uninspiring business in advertising. I was honest and said I was interviewing elsewhere and wasn't about to accept that offer quickly, though it wasn't off the table. They waited one week and pulled the offer. I accepted a better offer pretty much the next day. The recruiter got back in touch with me a week or two later and said quite frankly that they regretted their decision as they've struggled to find anyone comparable in my salary range. Because, as it finally dawned on them, my salary expectations weren't even that high - I intentionally put them in the mid-range for my skill-set because I care deeply about work/life balance and I'm picky about tech stack. Unrelated, but I also had a similar experience last year when buying my first home. First place we put an offer in with was poorly advised by their agent, and they came back begging a few months later by which point it was too late. It's only two anecdotal data points but it does seem to be that people are willing to lose a lot in order to gain a pittance.
    • duxup 8y ago
      5k... and god knows how much lost productivity. That's just penny wise and pound foolish... but also IMO a bad sign if that is how they make decisions. After the housing bubble burst I decided it was time to buy a new house. I made an offer on a house and we went back and forth but we hit the ceiling I was willing to pay so we went our separate ways. After the seller had an agreement with two other families fall through they called me 9 months later asking if I was interested. I went back to my first offer from the start and told them I'd close in two weeks. Deal was done.
• thrownthatway 8y ago
  I'm a tradesperson with knowledge-worker experience. Had a software company offer me a position, tech support + some maintenance of existing codebase. I have a demonstrated capability to meet the requirements. Remote + onsite work at client premises. Existing employees doing the roll are way overloaded and obviously stressed. The person I'd report to travelled to interview me. This person admitted they hadn't received a pay rise in four years. I told them my current pay grade BEFORE the interview. Their offer: $45,000 BELOW my current pay, then another $5000 per year I'd spend paying for my dependants to be cared for during the time suggested I'd be at clients premises.
• dangero 8y ago
  I want to give a slightly different perspective on this as a cofounder of a startup. First of all it sounds like there was some really dishonest communication and there is no excuse for that. As far as salary goes, I absolutely cannot afford to compete and hire at market rate prices so I rely on: -People who are motivated by other factors than money (everyone at our company took a pay cut to join). We have schedule flexibility, we are like-able, our tech is interesting, our mission and vision are inspiring I hope, we are good at selling ourselves. -People who like the gamble of stock options -People who are unaware of their market value This is how every startup in seed round works pretty much. That said, I don’t go around complaining that there is a talent shortage. I’m well aware of the situation we are in.
  • itronitron 8y ago
    I have noticed two things, 1) every company I have interviewed with has lied to me at some point in the process. Sometimes those are small lies, sometimes they are very big ones. I get that hiring is a complex process but a company's recruiters and hiring managers should make an effort to not over-promise and under-deliver to people that want to work there. 2) I have never received an offer from a company that asked me my salary expectations. I consider that question a loud signal that I am just being regarded as a data point by the recruiter, and I basically write them off.
    • dba7dba 8y ago
      > 2) salary expectation Oh lol. I just applied for a job that asked for salary expectation. Well I guess its ok. I spent minimal amount of time uploading my resume and entering data into 4 webpage.
    • helloyo1212 8y ago
      >> Sometimes those are small lies, sometimes they are very big ones. Been there. But lies cut both ways. Once a company is dishonest with you, it is 100% fair game for you to be dishonest with them: - Side consulting gigs - During work consulting gigs, especially if you have "unlimited vacation" - Sneaking off during the day to do whatever That said, that isn't healthy for either party. The best situation is where both sides are honest and both sides work their hardest to reach a shared goal.
• refurb 8y ago
  Same thing happened to me. Exciting company, leadership opportunities, etc. The asked how much I was looking for, I told them X, which was 25% more than I was getting now and on the high-end for a similar role. They say ok. Interview goes great, everyone loves me, offer time. They offer me X-20%. WTF? That’s basically what I’m making now and they didn’t offer big company perks like 401k match, stock grants, etc. So in fact, the offer was less than I was currently getting. They were willing to go up to X-15%, but no higher. Why say ok when someone says they want X, then make an offer way lower than X?
  • systemBuilder 8y ago
    You really need to ghost a company like that.
• code_chimp 8y ago
  I don't do the 4-5 interview thing any more either. If you cannot make a determination in 1 or 2 interviews in person - in combination with my work history and references then you are wasting my time and yours.
  • muse900 8y ago
    Completely agree with you, and if am going on a 4-5 interview step thing and blackboards are presented etc then I want you to be able to offer same sign on bonuses and perks big companies can offer. If the only thing you have to offer is equity (risk) and a lower salary than what I was getting/market salary why don't I just save me some time and risk it all by starting my own company.
  • snowwindwaves 8y ago
    My girlfriend had 10 or maybe even 11 interviews at Stryker without getting an offer. That's pretty twisted
    • JanisL 8y ago
      Wow, I honestly wonder how this is possible?
    • SauciestGNU 8y ago
      I have also had some dealings with Stryker and without getting into too many specifics I will say they seem horribly disrespectful to their candidates.
• orpheline 8y ago
  My last job search, I was cold-called by a recruiter who was working with a local bank. Salary range was acceptable, and there were a few factors pressing for finding a job quickly. Interviews went well, liked the people I met; things looked good. As a condition of the offer, the recruiter told me they needed my current salary. I provided that, and they dropped their offer ~$15,000 below the low end of their range because my income (in another state and a different industry) was lower. I told them, "that's not how this works. You base your offer on what the work is worth here, not on what I was making in another role." Walked, and got an offer two weeks later - $30,000 above their original range and no bullshit trying to tie it to my current income.
  • bitcoinmoney 8y ago
    Did you say that on the phone or email? Did they reach out to you first after two weeks of radio silence? I’m always curious how these negotiations go since I just got off the job market.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• megaremote 8y ago
  > Why in the heck would I turn down a bird in the hand for 1x in the bush? It is a startup. That is what they do. They offer low comp but with more stocks. How is this a surprise to you?
• bayesian_horse 8y ago
  They may honestly not have the money/resources to afford you. Most startups and new businesses fail. Part of that is a lack of funding and a lack of information/knowledge about the specifics of the markets they are working in. They may not know that they are looking for a Ferrari or what the market for Ferraris looks like.
  • TuringNYC 8y ago
    This is totally fine, but it isn't a "shortage". It is poor product market fit, poor pricing, or just a bad business. If a business cannot support input costs, the business is just a bad business. If I start a business that sells Ferraris for 20k, then complain how I cant buy them cheap enough wholesale, there isn't a shortage.
    • bayesian_horse 8y ago
      This example certainly constitutes a "shortage", especially from the point of the employer. He has a demand which he can't fulfill. Due to not fulfilling it, he has problems investing his capital as productively as possible. The idea that job applicants get offered wages which they perceive as too low does not mean that there is not a shortage of similar talent on the market, even at reasonable wages, if there even is such a thing. The analogy with the Ferraris breaks down for developers and engineers because their qualifications are hard to quantify and their added value is hard to predict. Employers will especially talk about talent shortages when they can't hire additional talent at the wages of their existing workforce. That may be because they got lucky and found very cheap engineers ("suckers"), but it also may be that they are running against the wall of the talent shortage, meaning they can only hire new people if they embark on a potentially ruinous wage competition with other employers... If wages are perceived to low compared to profits, than I'd rather question the potential collusion among employers. There have been dramatic cases of such sollusion in silicon valley, as I recall. Less drastically labor market regulations and workforce protections will also play a role.
      • TuringNYC 8y ago
• netwanderer3 8y ago
  I wonder in what situation exactly would a company legitimately have a need to interview a candidate for a total of 5 rounds? Wouldn't they run out of questions to ask? Are you applying for a CEO position? All it does is displaying for everyone to see their indecisiveness and wasting other people's time. They obviously couldn't make up their mind even after the first four rounds and that's just bad in any businesses. If I ever had to go through a five-rounds interview and they ended up turning me down, I will not care if it burns bridges as I will track down their boss and he/she will receive some nice hand-written letters from me to let them know how their company performed. A working relationship always goes both way and they obviously have not valued much of your time.
• cafard 8y ago
  Years ago, I was at a social gathering of some sort. Another guest worked in tech for an organization that had an opening, for which a friend of mine seemed qualified. I took the information about the outfit, and emailed my friend. She replied that she was pretty sure this was an organization she had interviewed at some time before. They found her qualified, and made her an offer substantially below what she had clearly said she required. They said, Well, we thought you'd find the work so interesting that you'd be willing to work for that. They thought wrong.
• kraigie 8y ago
  >You can't go to a ferrari dealership and offer to buy one or $20k.. that's just not how it works. That's how employers work though. Next step is to whine about a Ferrari shortage and bribe (I mean lobby) the goverment to increase immigration of Ferrari knock of builders in order to reduce the shortage. Then when the locals get indignant about all these new Ferraris depressing sale price of Ferraris, if your the UK you blame the EU and have a vote on brexit.....