5 ms·

We've been unsuccessful finding senior roles lately. The job is slightly underpaid, but the technologies, team, and everything else are amazing. It's difficult

We've been unsuccessful finding senior roles lately. The job is slightly underpaid, but the technologies, team, and everything else are amazing. It's difficult to communicate that in a job rec. I'd never leave for a much more higher paying role because the weight of being on a team of real experts working on real challenges far outweighs additional money. Just the way it goes out here. For the same reasons you wouldn't be able to hire me, other people won't be hired for less than what they want. Edit: The "slightly underpaid" comment is getting all the attention, so I'm just going to make it literal. 200k before considering stocks, and other benefits, remote US. That's what I consider slightly underpaid. It's not a euphemism for "massively underpaid"

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> job is slightly underpaid, but the technologies, team, and everything else are amazing I would be sceptical of someone describing themselves as senior who falls for this. Pay them properly. If you can’t afford cash, make it up in stock and responsibility and flexibility and be open that you’re proposing that tradeoff from the start. You’ll filter out everyone with a mortgage or kids close to college or a lifestyle they love, but that’s better than hoping someone falls for the schtick Silicon Valley regularly foist on twenty somethings. (I would also be sceptical of someone describing themselves as senior responding to job postings versus being recruited, but that may be more bias than truth.)
- AndyNemmity 4y ago
  I mean, it's entirely reasonable if those are your objectives. I don't decide pay, so I have no say in those details. I do agree that you don't find seniors by job postings very often, but we have had success with it provided the job posting is narrow on a technology that is specialized, so you know the candidates in a way. They come from a company you've worked with, or interacted with on some vertical.
- GiorgioG 4y ago
  > I would be skeptical of someone describing themselves as senior who falls for this. Pay them properly. 100%. Seniors are likely to have families, kids, etc. I'm not leaving a job for "dream tech, or dream team" if I'm taking a step down, or for a lateral compensation move. Given the current economic/inflationary environment "slightly underpaying" is massively underpaying them.
  - AndyNemmity 4y ago
    I literally meant slightly underpaying. I'm sorry, if I realized people weren't going to use the words I said with their own meaning, I would have said it differently. I'm not marketing a job to you, I'm just saying that it doesn't pay as high as the highest offers I get for roles which I wouldn't take to replace it. Edit: Let's just make this literal, it's 200k without considering stock, benefits, etc. I consider that slightly underpaid, but the idea you can't raise a family on it is mind boggling.
    - GiorgioG 4y ago
      Thanks for the update (with the numbers), I was about to reply that without a number it's hard to gauge what 'slightly underpaying' means. It would be interesting to see if you added a pay range if you got any additional hits. I'm not a devops guy, so I can't say whether it's underpaying or not. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
      - AndyNemmity 4y ago
        It's also a remote US role, and it isn't Devops, as much as Software Engineering. It's going to depend a lot on where you live for how competitive the numbers are, but I don't care where someone lives. I need someone equally as useful as everyone else in the team. It's a very high quality team, so it's a challenge certainly. But pay isn't the issue, it's differentiating yourself from all the other positions that say similar things, but don't mean it. Like, every job rec says the same boring things. everyone wants "a+ players" or "force multipliers" or whatever bs they say. I wouldn't apply for the role as listed in the rec, and I know the job is great! It's tough to say, no really, this is dope.
vba616 4y ago
Think about it. You expect to hire people making less right now, because most people won't take a pay cut if they aren't forced to. But if you are paying $200K, then presumably you will not hire anyone who is now making $100K, $50K, or $5K. So you're restricted to a fairly narrow band. Where is your "glass ceiling", the minimum someone has to be making for you to take them seriously?
- AndyNemmity 4y ago
  How much someone is making now is not part of the analysis on if they would be a good hire. I wouldn't even ask this within the process.
  - vba616 4y ago
    Let's set aside whether it's explicitly screened for or discussed. If, hypothetically, you knew what they were making, either as a dollar figure or implicitly because of their previous/current job description, what would be the minimum? I'm asking something which necessarily has an answer, even if you won't answer it. I'm asking about the limits to your imagination - where is the boundary between a plausible hire and and one that is not? Both in numeric terms and all the stuff associated with it. When I wrote $5K, that was a serious possibility - think of it as 4 lakh rupees per annum. You don't seriously go through the same analysis for everybody. Nobody does. Maybe you won't share exactly when you jettison the analysis, but the important thing is to realize this is where the problem lies, and questioning the implicit rules related to shortcutting your process.
    - AndyNemmity 4y ago
      I don't even know how to respond to your line of thinking here. You've already stated that if I tell you the truth, then I'm lying, because the truth isn't true. You clearly have an issue you've experienced that bothers you, and you are critically concerned with it. That makes sense. Best of luck to you. It doesn't change the reality which is in my case, in the situation I'm discussing, the previous salary of the person applying is a completely irrelevant part of the hiring process.
hpagey 4y ago
is the stock liquid? checkout levels.fyi for senior / staff level compensation.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> job is slightly underpaid, but the technologies, team, and everything else are amazing I would be sceptical of someone describing themselves as senior who falls for this. Pay them properly. If you can’t afford cash, make it up in stock and responsibility and flexibility and be open that you’re proposing that tradeoff from the start. You’ll filter out everyone with a mortgage or kids close to college or a lifestyle they love, but that’s better than hoping someone falls for the schtick Silicon Valley regularly foist on twenty somethings. (I would also be sceptical of someone describing themselves as senior responding to job postings versus being recruited, but that may be more bias than truth.)

AndyNemmity 4y ago
I mean, it's entirely reasonable if those are your objectives. I don't decide pay, so I have no say in those details. I do agree that you don't find seniors by job postings very often, but we have had success with it provided the job posting is narrow on a technology that is specialized, so you know the candidates in a way. They come from a company you've worked with, or interacted with on some vertical.
GiorgioG 4y ago
> I would be skeptical of someone describing themselves as senior who falls for this. Pay them properly. 100%. Seniors are likely to have families, kids, etc. I'm not leaving a job for "dream tech, or dream team" if I'm taking a step down, or for a lateral compensation move. Given the current economic/inflationary environment "slightly underpaying" is massively underpaying them.
- AndyNemmity 4y ago
  I literally meant slightly underpaying. I'm sorry, if I realized people weren't going to use the words I said with their own meaning, I would have said it differently. I'm not marketing a job to you, I'm just saying that it doesn't pay as high as the highest offers I get for roles which I wouldn't take to replace it. Edit: Let's just make this literal, it's 200k without considering stock, benefits, etc. I consider that slightly underpaid, but the idea you can't raise a family on it is mind boggling.
  - GiorgioG 4y ago
    Thanks for the update (with the numbers), I was about to reply that without a number it's hard to gauge what 'slightly underpaying' means. It would be interesting to see if you added a pay range if you got any additional hits. I'm not a devops guy, so I can't say whether it's underpaying or not. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
    - AndyNemmity 4y ago
      It's also a remote US role, and it isn't Devops, as much as Software Engineering. It's going to depend a lot on where you live for how competitive the numbers are, but I don't care where someone lives. I need someone equally as useful as everyone else in the team. It's a very high quality team, so it's a challenge certainly. But pay isn't the issue, it's differentiating yourself from all the other positions that say similar things, but don't mean it. Like, every job rec says the same boring things. everyone wants "a+ players" or "force multipliers" or whatever bs they say. I wouldn't apply for the role as listed in the rec, and I know the job is great! It's tough to say, no really, this is dope.

vba616 4y ago

Think about it. You expect to hire people making less right now, because most people won't take a pay cut if they aren't forced to. But if you are paying $200K, then presumably you will not hire anyone who is now making $100K, $50K, or $5K. So you're restricted to a fairly narrow band. Where is your "glass ceiling", the minimum someone has to be making for you to take them seriously?

AndyNemmity 4y ago
How much someone is making now is not part of the analysis on if they would be a good hire. I wouldn't even ask this within the process.
- vba616 4y ago
  Let's set aside whether it's explicitly screened for or discussed. If, hypothetically, you knew what they were making, either as a dollar figure or implicitly because of their previous/current job description, what would be the minimum? I'm asking something which necessarily has an answer, even if you won't answer it. I'm asking about the limits to your imagination - where is the boundary between a plausible hire and and one that is not? Both in numeric terms and all the stuff associated with it. When I wrote $5K, that was a serious possibility - think of it as 4 lakh rupees per annum. You don't seriously go through the same analysis for everybody. Nobody does. Maybe you won't share exactly when you jettison the analysis, but the important thing is to realize this is where the problem lies, and questioning the implicit rules related to shortcutting your process.
  - AndyNemmity 4y ago
    I don't even know how to respond to your line of thinking here. You've already stated that if I tell you the truth, then I'm lying, because the truth isn't true. You clearly have an issue you've experienced that bothers you, and you are critically concerned with it. That makes sense. Best of luck to you. It doesn't change the reality which is in my case, in the situation I'm discussing, the previous salary of the person applying is a completely irrelevant part of the hiring process.

hpagey 4y ago

is the stock liquid? checkout levels.fyi for senior / staff level compensation.