3 ms·
I don't think companies take this shallow view of recruitment. yes, they will choose the one that is beneficial for them, but the example you gave is not a situ
by pictur 4y ago
I don't think companies take this shallow view of recruitment. yes, they will choose the one that is beneficial for them, but the example you gave is not a situation that can provide any benefit in the long run. in other words, companies that prefer this will probably turn away from this decision in a short time.
- postexitus 4y agoWhy? Isn't it us who defend remote working to death and say it is the same or even better output as opposed to our in office counterparts? At some point during that argument, somebody is going to realize that you can get exactly the same quality of output for 10th of the price elsewhere in the world and it will not be a shallow/short termist move.
- newaccount2023 4y agoeven if it is "shallow/short" termist...thats okay, most tenures in tech now are two-three years...we turned ourselves into short term cogs working commodity tech its not just overseas competition, devs in Iowa think 170k is a dandy salary
- newaccount2023 4y ago> I don't think companies take this shallow view of recruitment. If 2023 has shown us ANYTHING, is that tech execs have done a complete 180 on "valuing" employees HN is stuck in 2019, but don't worry it is curable put yourself in the other chair - if you are hiring right now, why do you need to offer a premium salary? you don't no different than after the .com bubble burst, candidates were grateful just to have offers, no one was offering premium comp
- pictur 4y agoI do not mean whether the employee is valued or not. the things you write are the results that can be drawn from an emotional point of view. I don't think what you wrote is beneficial for the company.