5 ms·

I've talked to two FAANG-level recruiters recently about remote openings, which are all the rage now. One was willing to give a base-salary range but absolutel

I've talked to two FAANG-level recruiters recently about remote openings, which are all the rage now. One was willing to give a base-salary range but absolutely refused to provide any comp information beyond that. Signing bonus? Equity? "We are still working out those numbers for remote employees, we'll negotiate when we give you an offer" The other - everyone at the same level at the same location gets the same comp and the same equity, here it is. Guess which one I'm willing to pursue. These days the whole process of doing a tech interview is grueling, between the 'leet' coding practice, the take-home assignments, the 4-8 separate interviews. If they think I'm putting myself through all that without some guarantee of a considerable pay raise, they're crazy. I don't think "wait til we get you the offer" is going to work much longer for a lot of companies. Not unless they go back to the old-fashioned "tell us about yourself" interviews, which would be quite a relief but I don't see happening anytime soon.

hinkley 5y ago
> we'll work it out when [we] give you an offer Maybe I'm a cynic, or I've read too many books with a powerful cabal that lies while telling the truth. But one interpretation of these words is that you are going to be a test subject in that 'work it out' activity.
- nineplay 5y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised after all the hemming and hawing about how they don't have remote compensation numbers in place. "How much less can we pay people who don't live in SV? Let's bring a bunch of chumps in and low-ball them to find out."
  - hinkley 5y ago
    I think we underestimate the amount of self-deception that goes on with these deceptions. As evil as some people can be, I think more often we are just unwilling passengers on someone else's delusion. Waking up every day thinking that things aren't going to work out is hell. At some point you have to do something about it, or you can't keep going on. Hope doesn't care if it's objective or not, and evolution preserves it if it actually works slightly more than never.
readams 5y ago
The only way to know your value in the market is to get multiple offers and then negotiate against them. You'll do much worse if you just pursue one option, especially the option where they tell you that everyone gets the same (low) pay.
logicslave 5y ago
I mean you can just go on levels.fyi and see the comp for yourself. Recently FB has been giving ~350k for a senior developer working remote. Thats great money for someone in the mid west. Studying a few months for a job that could set you up financially for a long time is a great deal.
- nineplay 5y ago
  Call me cynical, but they are supposed to be trying to recruit me. I say "That doesn't sound like more than I currently make, what about other forms of compensation?" If they say "well we're not sure...", I'm going to be pretty reluctant to jump in. For all I know they are "re-leveling" and those 400k paydays are going away.
  - logicslave 5y ago
    Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior. They have been paying this for a long time. Its great money remote. I really dont understand the issue
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      > Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior. I wouldn't say this. It's solidly middle of the road for a Google or FB senior, and high/unreachable for an Amazon or Microsoft Senior. Its probably(?) on the lower side for Netflix. This is all before stock growth. Someone who has been a Senior for 5 years at Google or Facebook will be vesting shares that doubled in value, so the take home pay will be higher.
      - titanomachy 5y ago
        That's true, but stock growth influences new-hire offers as well. Google's valuation doubled in the last year, so someone who joined Google 1-2 years ago (and had the equity piece of their compensation double) will require a stronger offer to entice them away from Google.
xyzelement 5y ago
This is an incredibly nearsighted approach for reasons other responses partially point out. First you have confused uncertainty with a bad scenario. For all you know the offer from the first company would end up much higher than from the second but you won't know. Second, and this is probably a bigger deal - lack of exact range often indicates flexibility in seniority, skillset and scope. So in your case, your only good scenario is if you match exactly the picture of an employee company 2 has in mind for the role/comp. If you are just a little under, you won't make the cut. If you are any over, they will underpay you. Comoany 2 gave themselves more flexibility with hiring and paying you. Eg if you aren't quite on the level they thought, they could level you down as a say in, which you would appreciate. Similarly if you are beyond what they expected they may offer you more than you'd think, and more than company 2. Mainly, you have cut yourself off from valuable information and potentially leverageable competing offers because you couldn't hang with a bit of uncertainty.
- benlivengood 5y ago
  > Second, and this is probably a bigger deal - lack of exact range often indicates flexibility in seniority, skillset and scope. The flexibility should be reflected in the job title or level; salary bands are vital to ensure that people at the same level are being compensated equitably and know what they're interviewing for up front. It's totally fine to tell candidates they're going to aim for a L4 position with the possibility of L5 (or higher) depending on interviews.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    Jobs are less cookie cutter than your post implies though, especially at the higher levels. Personal example - my last job (hedge fund) really wanted me. It took them forever to find someone of my profile - a mix of background, technical skills, domain knowledge, and personality so they wanted to have me. The way they set my salary was like this: they looked at what I was making and added enough on top that I couldn't refuse. The first and last conversation we had about money was at the end of the interview process when they made me a really good offer. I didn't bother negotiating. If I asked them during the 1st call what the salary was, they wouldn't be able to say because the salary was based on how much they wanted me and my circumstances. You can think that's inequitable and that's valid, but from a persona standpoint I'd be a fool if I had ended the conversation at that time.
908B64B197 5y ago
Anything other than the rate at the main campus is not a serious offer.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Why? Say you live in or near Atlanta, the rate paid to (on site) employees in Atlanta is less than the rate paid to (on site) employees in SF (I think this is true for pretty much every FAANG). Why should a remote employee in Atlanta make more than an onsite one?
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > Why should a remote employee in Atlanta make more than an onsite one? Not more, but why shouldn't they be paid the same if they're doing the same work?
    - not2b 5y ago
      Markets don't care about justice. It's all about supply and demand. If a company needs people on-site in SF and also needs people on-site in Atlanta, it will have to pay the former more than the latter. If they don't, they will either be paying more (if they give the Atlanta folks extra money) than they have to or they won't be able to fill the positions (if they don't give the SF folks extra money).
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Well, in the scenario you're responding to, you're actually asking why an onsite Atlanta employee should be making less than an onsite SF employee (based on the statement that remote should get main campus salary). And the answer is market rates but a lot of people don't like that answer.
      - adamcstephens 5y ago
        If the hiring pool is remote, then the local market rates don’t matter. Perhaps an open cost of living difference could be ok, but there is no market rate justification.

hinkley 5y ago

> we'll work it out when [we] give you an offer Maybe I'm a cynic, or I've read too many books with a powerful cabal that lies while telling the truth. But one interpretation of these words is that you are going to be a test subject in that 'work it out' activity.

nineplay 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised after all the hemming and hawing about how they don't have remote compensation numbers in place. "How much less can we pay people who don't live in SV? Let's bring a bunch of chumps in and low-ball them to find out."
- hinkley 5y ago
  I think we underestimate the amount of self-deception that goes on with these deceptions. As evil as some people can be, I think more often we are just unwilling passengers on someone else's delusion. Waking up every day thinking that things aren't going to work out is hell. At some point you have to do something about it, or you can't keep going on. Hope doesn't care if it's objective or not, and evolution preserves it if it actually works slightly more than never.

readams 5y ago

The only way to know your value in the market is to get multiple offers and then negotiate against them. You'll do much worse if you just pursue one option, especially the option where they tell you that everyone gets the same (low) pay.

logicslave 5y ago

I mean you can just go on levels.fyi and see the comp for yourself. Recently FB has been giving ~350k for a senior developer working remote. Thats great money for someone in the mid west. Studying a few months for a job that could set you up financially for a long time is a great deal.

nineplay 5y ago
Call me cynical, but they are supposed to be trying to recruit me. I say "That doesn't sound like more than I currently make, what about other forms of compensation?" If they say "well we're not sure...", I'm going to be pretty reluctant to jump in. For all I know they are "re-leveling" and those 400k paydays are going away.
- logicslave 5y ago
  Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior. They have been paying this for a long time. Its great money remote. I really dont understand the issue
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    > Yeah but they arent though. 350-400k is actually somewhat low for senior. I wouldn't say this. It's solidly middle of the road for a Google or FB senior, and high/unreachable for an Amazon or Microsoft Senior. Its probably(?) on the lower side for Netflix. This is all before stock growth. Someone who has been a Senior for 5 years at Google or Facebook will be vesting shares that doubled in value, so the take home pay will be higher.
    - titanomachy 5y ago
      That's true, but stock growth influences new-hire offers as well. Google's valuation doubled in the last year, so someone who joined Google 1-2 years ago (and had the equity piece of their compensation double) will require a stronger offer to entice them away from Google.

xyzelement 5y ago

This is an incredibly nearsighted approach for reasons other responses partially point out. First you have confused uncertainty with a bad scenario. For all you know the offer from the first company would end up much higher than from the second but you won't know. Second, and this is probably a bigger deal - lack of exact range often indicates flexibility in seniority, skillset and scope. So in your case, your only good scenario is if you match exactly the picture of an employee company 2 has in mind for the role/comp. If you are just a little under, you won't make the cut. If you are any over, they will underpay you. Comoany 2 gave themselves more flexibility with hiring and paying you. Eg if you aren't quite on the level they thought, they could level you down as a say in, which you would appreciate. Similarly if you are beyond what they expected they may offer you more than you'd think, and more than company 2. Mainly, you have cut yourself off from valuable information and potentially leverageable competing offers because you couldn't hang with a bit of uncertainty.

benlivengood 5y ago
> Second, and this is probably a bigger deal - lack of exact range often indicates flexibility in seniority, skillset and scope. The flexibility should be reflected in the job title or level; salary bands are vital to ensure that people at the same level are being compensated equitably and know what they're interviewing for up front. It's totally fine to tell candidates they're going to aim for a L4 position with the possibility of L5 (or higher) depending on interviews.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  Jobs are less cookie cutter than your post implies though, especially at the higher levels. Personal example - my last job (hedge fund) really wanted me. It took them forever to find someone of my profile - a mix of background, technical skills, domain knowledge, and personality so they wanted to have me. The way they set my salary was like this: they looked at what I was making and added enough on top that I couldn't refuse. The first and last conversation we had about money was at the end of the interview process when they made me a really good offer. I didn't bother negotiating. If I asked them during the 1st call what the salary was, they wouldn't be able to say because the salary was based on how much they wanted me and my circumstances. You can think that's inequitable and that's valid, but from a persona standpoint I'd be a fool if I had ended the conversation at that time.

908B64B197 5y ago

Anything other than the rate at the main campus is not a serious offer.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Why? Say you live in or near Atlanta, the rate paid to (on site) employees in Atlanta is less than the rate paid to (on site) employees in SF (I think this is true for pretty much every FAANG). Why should a remote employee in Atlanta make more than an onsite one?
- kelnos 5y ago
  > Why should a remote employee in Atlanta make more than an onsite one? Not more, but why shouldn't they be paid the same if they're doing the same work?
  - not2b 5y ago
    Markets don't care about justice. It's all about supply and demand. If a company needs people on-site in SF and also needs people on-site in Atlanta, it will have to pay the former more than the latter. If they don't, they will either be paying more (if they give the Atlanta folks extra money) than they have to or they won't be able to fill the positions (if they don't give the SF folks extra money).
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Well, in the scenario you're responding to, you're actually asking why an onsite Atlanta employee should be making less than an onsite SF employee (based on the statement that remote should get main campus salary). And the answer is market rates but a lot of people don't like that answer.
    - adamcstephens 5y ago
      If the hiring pool is remote, then the local market rates don’t matter. Perhaps an open cost of living difference could be ok, but there is no market rate justification.