3 ms·

I agree, and I'll add more irony... Titles don't intrinsically mean anything. They cost nothing to assign, and have no requirements. So the only people compla

I agree, and I'll add more irony... Titles don't intrinsically mean anything. They cost nothing to assign, and have no requirements. So the only people complaining about titles being inflated are those to whom they have "meaning". And the only reason they're being inflated in the first place is because the same folk want "better sounding titles". They're given out like candy to those who want candy.

conductr 2y ago
They do mean something on your resume and as social capital. I wouldn’t sell short the actual intrinsic value of having a big title even if it’s fake you can sell it to the next employer. Even if they disagree with giving you the same title, you can use it to justify your comp expectations.
- bruce511 2y ago
  I'm sure there are people, and companies, impressed by fancy titles. Personally, I go the other way. I don't have a fancy title, and I don't want a fancy title. I don't need a title to earn social credit or impress an interviewer. I have my achievements for that. But of course, to those who are impressed by titles feel free to call yourself anything you like. There are no qualifications or skillsets required.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    My gym instructor describes my pudgy, bald, middle-aged body as "stud". I think I'm gonna update my resume, and linked-in profile to "Stud". I expect that will help in the next interview.
  - prng2021 2y ago
    You’re disconnected from reality. You say titles cost nothing. You really don’t think it costs companies money to progress employees from engineer to senior to staff and so on? You seem to agree title inflation is common and you say fancy titles are given out like candy. If everyone easily gets promotions, what does that say about someone who’s not given such easy candy?
    - bruce511 2y ago
      If you work at a company that has a bunch of pay levels, and levels are tied to titles then sure I guess you see titles as "meaningful". (Personally I think the pay part us the meaningful part, but hey, whatever floats your boat.) I'm not sure your title has any meaning beyond your company though. Where I work, pay is based on skills, experience, quality and value of work produced. I can call myself "programming super-god" if I like but that has no effect on my pay. Some companies just have pay levels and you're an L5 or whatever.
      - conductr 2y ago
        > I'm not sure your title has any meaning beyond your company though. So you are ignorant to the reality that it is meaningful and has some value, that value is debatable and subjective, but it can and does have actual value. You're stuck on your own narrow minded meritocracy mindset, which is noble and pure, but also extremely naive to how the world actually works at large. > Where I work, pay is based on skills, experience, quality and value of work produced. Reducing to N=1 doesn't help your argument. Quite the opposite. I think we're all in agreement it would be convenient if titles and levels were normalized across the industry / globe but they never will be. I'm glad you found an employer that works for your preference. But if you ever search widely for another job, and want to optimize your earnings, a big title will come in handy and have value. You can stick to your guns, but you are experiencing an opportunity cost by being stubborn on this and not seeking bigger titles. You'll never know how much more you could have been paid had you came with a big title and made them think you were worth way more than they wanted to pay.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Does your workplace have salary transparency? If not, this setup sounds designed to limit the average employee's capacity to negotiate. In a world where pay is tied to public-facing titles I can look around, recognize that I'm doing more and better work than people with a higher title than me, and push for a promotion. In the world you describe (absent salary transparency), how do you know if you're getting underpaid relative to peers?

conductr 2y ago

They do mean something on your resume and as social capital. I wouldn’t sell short the actual intrinsic value of having a big title even if it’s fake you can sell it to the next employer. Even if they disagree with giving you the same title, you can use it to justify your comp expectations.

bruce511 2y ago
I'm sure there are people, and companies, impressed by fancy titles. Personally, I go the other way. I don't have a fancy title, and I don't want a fancy title. I don't need a title to earn social credit or impress an interviewer. I have my achievements for that. But of course, to those who are impressed by titles feel free to call yourself anything you like. There are no qualifications or skillsets required.
- bruce511 2y ago
  My gym instructor describes my pudgy, bald, middle-aged body as "stud". I think I'm gonna update my resume, and linked-in profile to "Stud". I expect that will help in the next interview.
- prng2021 2y ago
  You’re disconnected from reality. You say titles cost nothing. You really don’t think it costs companies money to progress employees from engineer to senior to staff and so on? You seem to agree title inflation is common and you say fancy titles are given out like candy. If everyone easily gets promotions, what does that say about someone who’s not given such easy candy?
  - bruce511 2y ago
    If you work at a company that has a bunch of pay levels, and levels are tied to titles then sure I guess you see titles as "meaningful". (Personally I think the pay part us the meaningful part, but hey, whatever floats your boat.) I'm not sure your title has any meaning beyond your company though. Where I work, pay is based on skills, experience, quality and value of work produced. I can call myself "programming super-god" if I like but that has no effect on my pay. Some companies just have pay levels and you're an L5 or whatever.
    - conductr 2y ago
      > I'm not sure your title has any meaning beyond your company though. So you are ignorant to the reality that it is meaningful and has some value, that value is debatable and subjective, but it can and does have actual value. You're stuck on your own narrow minded meritocracy mindset, which is noble and pure, but also extremely naive to how the world actually works at large. > Where I work, pay is based on skills, experience, quality and value of work produced. Reducing to N=1 doesn't help your argument. Quite the opposite. I think we're all in agreement it would be convenient if titles and levels were normalized across the industry / globe but they never will be. I'm glad you found an employer that works for your preference. But if you ever search widely for another job, and want to optimize your earnings, a big title will come in handy and have value. You can stick to your guns, but you are experiencing an opportunity cost by being stubborn on this and not seeking bigger titles. You'll never know how much more you could have been paid had you came with a big title and made them think you were worth way more than they wanted to pay.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Does your workplace have salary transparency? If not, this setup sounds designed to limit the average employee's capacity to negotiate. In a world where pay is tied to public-facing titles I can look around, recognize that I'm doing more and better work than people with a higher title than me, and push for a promotion. In the world you describe (absent salary transparency), how do you know if you're getting underpaid relative to peers?