3 ms·

I'm not affiliated with YC, but people are not commodities - one person might be a $50,000/yr X, and another person might be a $200,000/yr X. You don't know wha

by calebm 5y ago

I'm not affiliated with YC, but people are not commodities - one person might be a $50,000/yr X, and another person might be a $200,000/yr X. You don't know what kind of person you have until you talk with them.

giantg2 5y ago
People working the same level job should probably fall within a range for that position. Outside of that range should land them in a different level.
- hash872 5y ago
  The problem here arises that any company that isn't tiny has engineers with the same basic job description, but at multiple levels of seniority. And then multiplies the larger the company gets. I.e. we have a Software Engineer 1, Software Engineer 2, 3, 4 etc. It can be tough to know which specific role someone is going to end up in until they're interviewed (and even then it's a crapshoot....) Not accusing you (or anyone) of this, but just a general observation- a lot of these 'companies should have salary ranges' discussions seem to come uncomfortably close to an old-school union or government employee system of 'if you have x years, you're at x level'. I think we should celebrate individual accomplishment- some engineers with 4 years of experience are just better & worth more than some engineers with 10 years, and that's OK. My point is- most companies are hiring at multiple levels, and we can't know what level you're at until we interview you. So we can say Software Engineer 1 makes this, Engineer 2 makes that, etc.- but we don't know where you're going to end up
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I'm just tired of wasted time. I'm not bothering with code screens and interviews if it's not significantly more than I make right now. The seniority thing misguided. People should be paid based on the value that is a product of that role. Maybe their seniority qualifies then for a better role. That's fine, then post a different job description for the other role.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Yeah I am convinced seniority is a kind of a scheme too. Sure, people get better, but there is also cost to switching jobs and that is probably even more pronounced and not priced in. I think it is in large part way to underpay people earlier in life and overpay them later in order to incentive them differently. It also is a rough cudgel to match family vs single difference in needs.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I think for software there's also a part where the managers don't understand, or can't measure, skill/contribution. So it ends up just being seniority.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    That's fine then. It should be this easy for a company or recruiter: - SDE 1 makes $X-Y - SDE 2 makes $Y-Z - SDE 3 makes $Z-A - Sr Software Engineer makes $A-B - Principal Engineer makes $B-C For someone of your experience we'd typically be looking at an SDE 2 or SDE 3 role, but that can change as we move through the interview process. We'll let you know as we move through the process if we decide to change the level that we're evaluating you for. -- Just, like, be transparent and honest with candidates. It's really really not hard.
ryanbrunner 5y ago
Those people should ideally have different titles as a way of "checking your work" as a manager. It's easy to let personal bias slip into who you judge to be a $50,000/yr X and who's a $200,000/yr X. But if you call one of those people Junior and one of those people Senior, you at least have to justify it under consistent criteria, and your team can call you out on it if it's clearly unjustified.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  Most startups are flexible with a wide range of compensation and seniority as necessary to bring candidates on board. It wouldn’t be all that helpful to break the job listing down into 3-6 different job listings if the end result is a wide or open-ended range anyway.
  - perth 5y ago
    I think it would be helpful to break the job listing down into 3-6 different job listings.
    - jcims 5y ago
      The we’re back where we started with no way to predict what your offer is going to be, only now there’s more paperwork.
      - sgift 5y ago
        Only if your categories don't have clear criteria for who falls into which one. Which shouldn't be surprising: For all the hand wringing about how some people are far more productive no one in software business has yet found a way to measure software developers work performance. It's always just "I think that ...".
88913527 5y ago
By posting the salary, you can let the 200's and 50's self select. Sure: some 50's will aim for 200 roles. But since you're speaking to everyone anyways, you aren't relinquishing the ability to determine a candidate's worth to you.
- nickff 5y ago
  If you tell someone that they’re in the bottom of a 70-80 band, they will be more offended than if you just offered them 70. This is not a good way to start a working relationship. I have personally seen people with literally no domain relevant experience (they’d worked in retail & service businesses) say that they expect to be in the top half of the salary range of a mid-level engineering role posting.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
You can always list a minimum.
inetknght 5y ago
> You don't know what kind of person you have until you talk with them. I disagree. I'd say that you don't know what kind of person you have until they've put in a few months of work.
- urda 5y ago
  Even then people can surprise you beyond that. At one of the earlier startups I was involved with I had worked closely with another developer. When said startup fell apart and the group of us all went our different ways, I got a warning from another colleague about the individual I had grown close with, we will just note them as "E". She had cautioned that when things were good (and the usually were) "E" was a great individual. However, the moment things did not go 100% perfectly, or there was any type of "advantage" to gain regardless of the cost, they would immediately do that and backstab anyone. I wrote that off as just a disagreement between the two of them, something grudge or who knows. It took many years later that "E" made his true nature shown. I truly believe it to be a combination of being locked down for COVID, constant job hunting, the fact he had "quit" learning in tech, a weird fascination with crypto currency, getting lost into a hole of IDPOL (us versus them, with us or against us nonsense), and some closet fascism to boot. Not to mention attacking myself and others for "being educated" because the few of us Engineers held specialized degrees and long work histories, whereas "E" was nothing more than a basic bootcamp grad. All it took was myself not fully agreeing on a trivial point in a matter, and in moments "E" had attempted to turn everything I had privately confided in him in an attempt to hurt me. Of course all that did was confirm the warning of him being what he was, and his opportunist ways. So even then, people can surprise you.

by calebm 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

People working the same level job should probably fall within a range for that position. Outside of that range should land them in a different level.

hash872 5y ago
The problem here arises that any company that isn't tiny has engineers with the same basic job description, but at multiple levels of seniority. And then multiplies the larger the company gets. I.e. we have a Software Engineer 1, Software Engineer 2, 3, 4 etc. It can be tough to know which specific role someone is going to end up in until they're interviewed (and even then it's a crapshoot....) Not accusing you (or anyone) of this, but just a general observation- a lot of these 'companies should have salary ranges' discussions seem to come uncomfortably close to an old-school union or government employee system of 'if you have x years, you're at x level'. I think we should celebrate individual accomplishment- some engineers with 4 years of experience are just better & worth more than some engineers with 10 years, and that's OK. My point is- most companies are hiring at multiple levels, and we can't know what level you're at until we interview you. So we can say Software Engineer 1 makes this, Engineer 2 makes that, etc.- but we don't know where you're going to end up
- giantg2 5y ago
  I'm just tired of wasted time. I'm not bothering with code screens and interviews if it's not significantly more than I make right now. The seniority thing misguided. People should be paid based on the value that is a product of that role. Maybe their seniority qualifies then for a better role. That's fine, then post a different job description for the other role.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Yeah I am convinced seniority is a kind of a scheme too. Sure, people get better, but there is also cost to switching jobs and that is probably even more pronounced and not priced in. I think it is in large part way to underpay people earlier in life and overpay them later in order to incentive them differently. It also is a rough cudgel to match family vs single difference in needs.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I think for software there's also a part where the managers don't understand, or can't measure, skill/contribution. So it ends up just being seniority.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  That's fine then. It should be this easy for a company or recruiter: - SDE 1 makes $X-Y - SDE 2 makes $Y-Z - SDE 3 makes $Z-A - Sr Software Engineer makes $A-B - Principal Engineer makes $B-C For someone of your experience we'd typically be looking at an SDE 2 or SDE 3 role, but that can change as we move through the interview process. We'll let you know as we move through the process if we decide to change the level that we're evaluating you for. -- Just, like, be transparent and honest with candidates. It's really really not hard.

ryanbrunner 5y ago

Those people should ideally have different titles as a way of "checking your work" as a manager. It's easy to let personal bias slip into who you judge to be a $50,000/yr X and who's a $200,000/yr X. But if you call one of those people Junior and one of those people Senior, you at least have to justify it under consistent criteria, and your team can call you out on it if it's clearly unjustified.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
Most startups are flexible with a wide range of compensation and seniority as necessary to bring candidates on board. It wouldn’t be all that helpful to break the job listing down into 3-6 different job listings if the end result is a wide or open-ended range anyway.
- perth 5y ago
  I think it would be helpful to break the job listing down into 3-6 different job listings.
  - jcims 5y ago
    The we’re back where we started with no way to predict what your offer is going to be, only now there’s more paperwork.
    - sgift 5y ago
      Only if your categories don't have clear criteria for who falls into which one. Which shouldn't be surprising: For all the hand wringing about how some people are far more productive no one in software business has yet found a way to measure software developers work performance. It's always just "I think that ...".

88913527 5y ago

By posting the salary, you can let the 200's and 50's self select. Sure: some 50's will aim for 200 roles. But since you're speaking to everyone anyways, you aren't relinquishing the ability to determine a candidate's worth to you.

nickff 5y ago
If you tell someone that they’re in the bottom of a 70-80 band, they will be more offended than if you just offered them 70. This is not a good way to start a working relationship. I have personally seen people with literally no domain relevant experience (they’d worked in retail & service businesses) say that they expect to be in the top half of the salary range of a mid-level engineering role posting.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

You can always list a minimum.

inetknght 5y ago

> You don't know what kind of person you have until you talk with them. I disagree. I'd say that you don't know what kind of person you have until they've put in a few months of work.

urda 5y ago
Even then people can surprise you beyond that. At one of the earlier startups I was involved with I had worked closely with another developer. When said startup fell apart and the group of us all went our different ways, I got a warning from another colleague about the individual I had grown close with, we will just note them as "E". She had cautioned that when things were good (and the usually were) "E" was a great individual. However, the moment things did not go 100% perfectly, or there was any type of "advantage" to gain regardless of the cost, they would immediately do that and backstab anyone. I wrote that off as just a disagreement between the two of them, something grudge or who knows. It took many years later that "E" made his true nature shown. I truly believe it to be a combination of being locked down for COVID, constant job hunting, the fact he had "quit" learning in tech, a weird fascination with crypto currency, getting lost into a hole of IDPOL (us versus them, with us or against us nonsense), and some closet fascism to boot. Not to mention attacking myself and others for "being educated" because the few of us Engineers held specialized degrees and long work histories, whereas "E" was nothing more than a basic bootcamp grad. All it took was myself not fully agreeing on a trivial point in a matter, and in moments "E" had attempted to turn everything I had privately confided in him in an attempt to hurt me. Of course all that did was confirm the warning of him being what he was, and his opportunist ways. So even then, people can surprise you.