3 ms·

This has never been a popular / well received message on HN, but jives with my experience 100%. I've been a techie in the same company for 20 years; then I've

This has never been a popular / well received message on HN, but jives with my experience 100%. I've been a techie in the same company for 20 years; then I've become a lead and therefore hiring manager last few years. I'll open a seat for something I need, and may be able to specify a range of levels/bands that we are acceptable; but the salary hugely depends on the person - primarily their skills, experience, knowledge, history, as well as (again unpopular but realistic) how well they interview. I may have a team of 5 ops managers and need a sixth one; I'm OK hiring a junior band 6 out of school to fully train up for salary X, or a reasonably experienced one for band 7 or 8 for salary Y; and if I happen to receive a resume for an exceptionally, uniquely qualified candidate with expertise with client or type of client and/or software/system/business we're working for, I might be willing to hire them as band 9 for salary Z. With that in mind, what's the end-game here? a) Publish full range of all possibilities - e.g. $60,000 -> $150,000? That's is true and accurate but it's not useful (and see human-psychology disclaimer below). b) Publish a specific smaller range, and miss out on good candidates on both sides of the range. To your point, government publishes their rate but that is because they aim, intentionally and knowingly, to mediocrity and not meritocracy. The bell curve is artificially flattened. It's a different system and goal. But I'm OK if my teams have a bell curve! Nobody is born at the edge, and I'm usually on projects big enough that I can train people up :) (As well, what most people won't admit, is that very few of us are happily aware of our actual performance and will happily take salary that matches it - e.g. in the medium of range for medium of performance; so large companies may well end up moving to a boring average, depressed salaries for all, because if I publish range of e.g. 60-150k, how many people will willingly admit they only have experience/history/skills for e.g. 85k?)

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> a) Publish full range of all possibilities - e.g. $60,000 -> $150,000? That's is true and accurate but it's not useful (and see human-psychology disclaimer below). This is very useful. For example, anyone wanting more than a minimum of $60k can skip applying. > b) Publish a specific smaller range, and miss out on good candidates on both sides of the range. I do not see how this is possible, especially on the lower side. No one is going to skip past your job listing because the minimum pay is higher than they expect, and no one is limiting you on how high to set your max pay.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> a) Publish full range of all possibilities - e.g. $60,000 -> $150,000? That's is true and accurate but it's not useful (and see human-psychology disclaimer below). This is very useful. For example, anyone wanting more than a minimum of $60k can skip applying. > b) Publish a specific smaller range, and miss out on good candidates on both sides of the range. I do not see how this is possible, especially on the lower side. No one is going to skip past your job listing because the minimum pay is higher than they expect, and no one is limiting you on how high to set your max pay.