3 ms·

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.
  - vba616 4y ago
    You're bristling like I'm personally attacking you. I'm not calling you a liar, if you say that you don't explicitly consider previous salary. But you consider things that are correlated with previous salary. Everybody does, and that's why salary is sticky over time. Think of it as an output, instead of an input. I'm asking for you to consciously consider what you might be doing. I don't know! So of course I can't legitimately tell you (accuse you) of anything specific. But how often do you, say, hire someone whose current job is, say, at a Best Buy retail location? Or someone without a college degree? I am not pursuing some idea of fairness - I am suggesting that if you are not getting what you want, there is some kind of self-defeating aspect of the current process.
    - AndyNemmity 4y ago
      I'm not bristling like you're attacking me, that again is you assuming my reaction. You've done it multiple times. That isn't how you have a productive conversation. You said distinctly that if I said it wasn't an impact, that I just wouldn't admit that it was. That is calling me a liar. I do not consider things that are "correlated" with a previous salary. I consider only if you can do the role. You can make less or more, and it doesn't change the reality that you need to fit into a very high performing logical team. I don't have a college degree, and would never consider it in a hiring process. I don't know if I've ever hired someone with a previous position at a Best Buy retail location, however I have certainly hired people with relevant experience of that. Again, you continue to assume my actions. That's all you're doing, creating a model in your head of who I am based on your past experiences, and then questioning me to confirm I am who you've made up in your head. The current process is certainly broken, but it isn't due to interviewing. If you'd have asked that question, I could have explained it. Instead you've done nothing but tell me who I am, which is incorrect. Have a nice day.
      - vba616 4y ago
        >You said distinctly that if I said it wasn't an impact, that I just wouldn't admit that it was. That is calling me a liar. This is not distinct or clear to me; I certainly can't say you are lying when I can't parse this. >I do not consider things that are "correlated" with a previous salary. Ok, I believe you believe this if you say so. It doesn't sound like a lie. I can't understand how you can believe it. >Again, you continue to assume my actions The things I am confident about have nothing to do with your actions. There's a lot of talk about things like "institutional racism" and it seems to me deeply weird that it is such an emotional topic, when it should be a bloodless technical one, given the premises. Namely that because of correlations, outcomes that are not intentional are endemic. The overall sense I have of your comments is that the idea of unintended consequences is offensive. But how do you correct anything without thinking about them?
- abeyer 4y ago
  > think of it as 4 lakh rupees per annum So is your question _actually_ "Will you/why won't you hire overseas remote, rather than in the US?"
  - AndyNemmity 4y ago
    Ah, sorry I didn't get that. The answer is this is a global team, and we do hire all over the globe. This particular position is for the US timezone, and that is why it's in the US.

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.
- vba616 4y ago
  You're bristling like I'm personally attacking you. I'm not calling you a liar, if you say that you don't explicitly consider previous salary. But you consider things that are correlated with previous salary. Everybody does, and that's why salary is sticky over time. Think of it as an output, instead of an input. I'm asking for you to consciously consider what you might be doing. I don't know! So of course I can't legitimately tell you (accuse you) of anything specific. But how often do you, say, hire someone whose current job is, say, at a Best Buy retail location? Or someone without a college degree? I am not pursuing some idea of fairness - I am suggesting that if you are not getting what you want, there is some kind of self-defeating aspect of the current process.
  - AndyNemmity 4y ago
    I'm not bristling like you're attacking me, that again is you assuming my reaction. You've done it multiple times. That isn't how you have a productive conversation. You said distinctly that if I said it wasn't an impact, that I just wouldn't admit that it was. That is calling me a liar. I do not consider things that are "correlated" with a previous salary. I consider only if you can do the role. You can make less or more, and it doesn't change the reality that you need to fit into a very high performing logical team. I don't have a college degree, and would never consider it in a hiring process. I don't know if I've ever hired someone with a previous position at a Best Buy retail location, however I have certainly hired people with relevant experience of that. Again, you continue to assume my actions. That's all you're doing, creating a model in your head of who I am based on your past experiences, and then questioning me to confirm I am who you've made up in your head. The current process is certainly broken, but it isn't due to interviewing. If you'd have asked that question, I could have explained it. Instead you've done nothing but tell me who I am, which is incorrect. Have a nice day.
    - vba616 4y ago
      >You said distinctly that if I said it wasn't an impact, that I just wouldn't admit that it was. That is calling me a liar. This is not distinct or clear to me; I certainly can't say you are lying when I can't parse this. >I do not consider things that are "correlated" with a previous salary. Ok, I believe you believe this if you say so. It doesn't sound like a lie. I can't understand how you can believe it. >Again, you continue to assume my actions The things I am confident about have nothing to do with your actions. There's a lot of talk about things like "institutional racism" and it seems to me deeply weird that it is such an emotional topic, when it should be a bloodless technical one, given the premises. Namely that because of correlations, outcomes that are not intentional are endemic. The overall sense I have of your comments is that the idea of unintended consequences is offensive. But how do you correct anything without thinking about them?
abeyer 4y ago
> think of it as 4 lakh rupees per annum So is your question _actually_ "Will you/why won't you hire overseas remote, rather than in the US?"
- AndyNemmity 4y ago
  Ah, sorry I didn't get that. The answer is this is a global team, and we do hire all over the globe. This particular position is for the US timezone, and that is why it's in the US.