4 ms·

The candidate probably wants a job where their specific skills are needed and where they can leverage said skills for more money. Imagine as a programmer you h

The candidate probably wants a job where their specific skills are needed and where they can leverage said skills for more money. Imagine as a programmer you have a bunch of specialized skills, have worked at a bunch of FAANGs and the interviewer is just like, "Oh you can program when you can you start and BTW here's $X". The number is probably too low and you'd be pissed at your time being wasted. Edit - to add to this, dismissing the value of an employee's skills is a deliberate tactic to underpay.

sokoloff 5y ago
The employer makes an offer; the candidate accepts, declines, or counters. The employer can certainly offer to underpay but if the candidate rejects it, they won’t succeed at it.
- ianai 5y ago
  For that matter, negotiating is a thing. They start low, you counter, etc. It’s probably good to take them not allowing negotiations as a point to reflect - is this a symptom of something you want to stay away from or just nature of the industry? (Ie certain industries pay low but compensate elsewhere)
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > For that matter, negotiating is a thing. They start low, you counter, etc. Is it really a good idea to negotiate salary with someone whose starting offer is well below market rate? I mean, even if you feel you can get a change of heart out of them, is that really the character you want in someone who can have a considerable impact on your well being and even life?
bityard 5y ago
Getting offended at every low-ball offer seems like a difficult way to live life. It's not like showing anger is going to get you a better offer or better working conditions. That's the point at which you smile, politely decline the offer, and later on reflect on which red flags you missed when you did your research on the company before and during the interview.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I'd prefer people get offended. That company has a decent nonzero chance of raising its future offers. Your initial offer as a company signals a lot of things aside from the raw value. Even a $10000 improvement in starting point may signal "we won't cheapskate you on:" - personal computing equipment - infrastructure - benefits - actual use of vacation - training/development - office/cube/chair - functioning HR/support systems - proper staffing Let's not pretend there is perfect information on companies. All large companies have good and bad teams. I wouldn't bother with Amazon because landing a "good" amazon team lottery ticket attempt is not worth the interviewing time, stack ranking, hostile culture, and "new job vulnerability" etc that Amazon imposes. It's why the best IT jobs are found via networking, and the best candidates don't really hit the open market. So HR opening with an insulting offer is very likely ruining a far better hire/fit than an open market negotiation. Typically HR does not distinguish between the two. They should. Of course it can be hard to distinguish between a "good hire" via recommendation and someone building an organization of lackeys, but that is also something HR needs to evaluate, and not simply revert to "cheap offer for everyone". It is very important to emphasize how vulnerable you are switching jobs. Unless your skillset VERY CLOSELY matches the new job (and that is pretty rare), you won't know their codebase, processes, political/budgeting/power structure, business requirements. Depending on the company, they'll either have good onboarding and tolerance, or... sink or swim. And people fundamentally don't like helping new hires outside of whatever perverse virtue signalling they want to show to their bosses. Every company's HR and Ticket systems are byzantine and annoying, and helping new hires through that is basically reliving the torturous new hire process for whomever helps them. A cheap offer also shows that they will pull the plug on your quickly. A good offer is a willing sign of investment. All those common fallacies in human nature with sunk cost / valuing things what they cost you / etc are very very very much things in a human organization.
  - ordiel 5y ago
    Having had the opportunity of working in the US. > people fundamentally don't like helping new hires outside of whatever perverse virtue signalling they want to show to their bosses This is work culture there but really really that is not the case everywhere Possibly this is, one of the many, reasons why people are hesitant to get a job on which besides having a shitty pay (on which you can underperform if you [consider] you are "over-skilled") you also have to deal with shitty people
pempem 5y ago
Going further, imagine a world - which is not very far behind us - where you work at a software company and someone comes in with their jeans and hoodie and ability to quote the last fastco article headline and gets the job. It is in fact, frustrating because you are looking to sell your skills, not a hastily put together image. There was time, energy, effort and potentially years of life poured into what you're attempting to present.
honkdaddy 5y ago
I’m a FANG engineer who get emails of that nature literally every day and it doesn’t offend me. People offended by a job offer is ludicrous to me.
- effingwewt 5y ago
  That's because you aren't actually looking for employment, being already employed. I guarantee you- if you are not working, have bills to pay and/or a family to take care of, and you do your part- being prepared, well groomed, informed about the company. You interview, you interview again, then finally with the owner. And after all this time, preparation, endless interviews, $ costs, time costs, etc and they lowball you- you will be offended. If not, you didn't need the job. Shit, I've been offended over this rigmarole when looking while employed. Many businesses do it on purpose, making you sink time and money so you feel invested and they hope you will not realize the sunk-cost fallacy. This is how businesses these days negotiate, and it's disgusting. Much like making speaking about compensation against company policy even though it's illegal. Companies break laws, exploit us, and we all just bend over and take it.
908B64B197 5y ago
> Imagine as a programmer you have a bunch of specialized skills, have worked at a bunch of FAANGs and the interviewer is just like, "Oh you can program when you can you start and BTW here's $X". The number is probably too low and you'd be pissed at your time being wasted. That's not really the same. What you described is a Michelin Starred chef applying at McDonalds...

sokoloff 5y ago

The employer makes an offer; the candidate accepts, declines, or counters. The employer can certainly offer to underpay but if the candidate rejects it, they won’t succeed at it.

ianai 5y ago
For that matter, negotiating is a thing. They start low, you counter, etc. It’s probably good to take them not allowing negotiations as a point to reflect - is this a symptom of something you want to stay away from or just nature of the industry? (Ie certain industries pay low but compensate elsewhere)
- nuerow 5y ago
  > For that matter, negotiating is a thing. They start low, you counter, etc. Is it really a good idea to negotiate salary with someone whose starting offer is well below market rate? I mean, even if you feel you can get a change of heart out of them, is that really the character you want in someone who can have a considerable impact on your well being and even life?

bityard 5y ago

Getting offended at every low-ball offer seems like a difficult way to live life. It's not like showing anger is going to get you a better offer or better working conditions. That's the point at which you smile, politely decline the offer, and later on reflect on which red flags you missed when you did your research on the company before and during the interview.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I'd prefer people get offended. That company has a decent nonzero chance of raising its future offers. Your initial offer as a company signals a lot of things aside from the raw value. Even a $10000 improvement in starting point may signal "we won't cheapskate you on:" - personal computing equipment - infrastructure - benefits - actual use of vacation - training/development - office/cube/chair - functioning HR/support systems - proper staffing Let's not pretend there is perfect information on companies. All large companies have good and bad teams. I wouldn't bother with Amazon because landing a "good" amazon team lottery ticket attempt is not worth the interviewing time, stack ranking, hostile culture, and "new job vulnerability" etc that Amazon imposes. It's why the best IT jobs are found via networking, and the best candidates don't really hit the open market. So HR opening with an insulting offer is very likely ruining a far better hire/fit than an open market negotiation. Typically HR does not distinguish between the two. They should. Of course it can be hard to distinguish between a "good hire" via recommendation and someone building an organization of lackeys, but that is also something HR needs to evaluate, and not simply revert to "cheap offer for everyone". It is very important to emphasize how vulnerable you are switching jobs. Unless your skillset VERY CLOSELY matches the new job (and that is pretty rare), you won't know their codebase, processes, political/budgeting/power structure, business requirements. Depending on the company, they'll either have good onboarding and tolerance, or... sink or swim. And people fundamentally don't like helping new hires outside of whatever perverse virtue signalling they want to show to their bosses. Every company's HR and Ticket systems are byzantine and annoying, and helping new hires through that is basically reliving the torturous new hire process for whomever helps them. A cheap offer also shows that they will pull the plug on your quickly. A good offer is a willing sign of investment. All those common fallacies in human nature with sunk cost / valuing things what they cost you / etc are very very very much things in a human organization.
- ordiel 5y ago
  Having had the opportunity of working in the US. > people fundamentally don't like helping new hires outside of whatever perverse virtue signalling they want to show to their bosses This is work culture there but really really that is not the case everywhere Possibly this is, one of the many, reasons why people are hesitant to get a job on which besides having a shitty pay (on which you can underperform if you [consider] you are "over-skilled") you also have to deal with shitty people

pempem 5y ago

Going further, imagine a world - which is not very far behind us - where you work at a software company and someone comes in with their jeans and hoodie and ability to quote the last fastco article headline and gets the job. It is in fact, frustrating because you are looking to sell your skills, not a hastily put together image. There was time, energy, effort and potentially years of life poured into what you're attempting to present.

honkdaddy 5y ago

I’m a FANG engineer who get emails of that nature literally every day and it doesn’t offend me. People offended by a job offer is ludicrous to me.

effingwewt 5y ago
That's because you aren't actually looking for employment, being already employed. I guarantee you- if you are not working, have bills to pay and/or a family to take care of, and you do your part- being prepared, well groomed, informed about the company. You interview, you interview again, then finally with the owner. And after all this time, preparation, endless interviews, $ costs, time costs, etc and they lowball you- you will be offended. If not, you didn't need the job. Shit, I've been offended over this rigmarole when looking while employed. Many businesses do it on purpose, making you sink time and money so you feel invested and they hope you will not realize the sunk-cost fallacy. This is how businesses these days negotiate, and it's disgusting. Much like making speaking about compensation against company policy even though it's illegal. Companies break laws, exploit us, and we all just bend over and take it.

908B64B197 5y ago

> Imagine as a programmer you have a bunch of specialized skills, have worked at a bunch of FAANGs and the interviewer is just like, "Oh you can program when you can you start and BTW here's $X". The number is probably too low and you'd be pissed at your time being wasted. That's not really the same. What you described is a Michelin Starred chef applying at McDonalds...