4 ms·

> Why are you hiring a $150k candidate to work on X if a $100k candidate can work on X? Because the world isn't black and white. There could be soooo many diff

• learc83 5y ago
  It’s also very easy to just give the higher paid person a different title. Surely if they are worth 50% more, you can give them a better title to go along with it.
• mattnewton 5y ago
  I mean, the ones that come to my mind are variations on the market rate being closer to $150k and you are trying to get a deal lowballing people. Which of course every business is going to do, I don't think they are wrong to negotiate down, but I think being upfront about the range is more honest to candidates and results in a better hiring experience for the hiring company overall. Forcing them to be upfront about the requirements for more money results in candidates better aligned with the requirements I would think. And leaving that to some negotiation without those requirements seems like it just opens the door for bias. I want to hire engineers and keep them based on their qualifications, and negotiating abilities is usually not one of them.
• runako 5y ago
  > There could be soooo many different reasons why you're willing to pay one person a lot more than someone else to do a job. Interestingly, the architects of these laws would agree with this point.
• kerkeslager 5y ago
  There are soooo many different reasons why that's wrong, but since you're just claiming that there are reasons without bothering to share any of them, I guess I can do the same. The fact is, if there are reasons you're paying one candidate more than another, those reasons don't need to be secrets.