> A competitive market would enable me to sort by salary and benefits and apply for the best job.
I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table.
In a way, I think there's a bit of "you don't know what you don't know" principle at play here. If someone has limited perspective on how career development, seniority, and hiring work, they may really believe that the big problem is "I can't sort my opportunities by salary." Someone with more experience and understanding may recognize how non-fungible people and roles can be in a way that a simple "sort by price" cannot capture.
To use your real-estate analogy, would you ever buy a house that came up first in a price-sort? No, you'd both want to really understand the nuances of the house (location, condition, etc.) and how it compares to your needs and your ability to pay. IE, you'd often take "not the best price" because either there's something wrong with the property or it's just not suitable to your needs." Hiring is much the same.
> I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
I highly doubt that the parent comment meant that he would literally apply to the job with the biggest number with no other consideration.
I read it as the far more modest claim that, if even _seeing_ the number requires a significant investment of time and effort on your side, the efficiency of the market is highly restricted. Especially since, once you do see the number, you usually need to take it or leave it within a short time frame; you can't "open up" a lot of job offers and then pick the best.
To use the real-estate analogy again, how would the housing market be affected if buyers had to put down a deposit to even _see_ the listed price? And if the sellers had the ability to get a complete profile of the buyer before revealing their price? It seems pretty clear to me that the average house price would significantly increase, despite the supply and demand both staying the same.
Interestingly, I use price-sort extensively when doing online shopping. I don't often buy the thing that comes up first, but I certainly use it to help figure out the tradeoff between price and quality, and to filter out items that I have no reason to consider. Also, price-sort eliminates one of the psychological burdens of shopping, which is the manipulative presentation of products by the vendor.
Price-sort is a very crude version of an even more powerful tool, which is: "Show me everything about every product, without trying to manipulate me, and let me organize the data by criteria that I choose, not that you choose." This is why Excel pivot tables are so popular in business.
Anything that makes the job search function less psychological has to be beneficial. Nothing prevents me from taking a pay cut for a particular job that I absolutely love, in a favored location, etc.
Oddly enough, product marketing and hiring share a common feature, which is that both fields have endless amounts of verbiage about how psychological manipulation is actually beneficial to the person being manipulated. If so, it should be an opt-in feature, perhaps even one that people are willing to pay for.
It's a bit presumptuous to suggest the OP "has limited perspective on how career development, seniority, and hiring work".
Also, I most certainly do sort by price when I'm looking for real estate: I have a budget, after all. Same thing with employment: most people have needs that salary requirements can meet, and it's pointless to look for jobs outside the range one can accept. Therefore it's almost certainly the best and most useful first thing to sort by.
Others have more freedom. For example, thanks to a recent IPO I can literally work for no salary and be fine. I have far more freedom to consider other details about a job than 99% of the population.
> It's a bit presumptuous to suggest the OP "has limited perspective ...
This is going to be very meta and not about salary so feel free to skip :)
When I disagree with someone, I try to find where we are disconnected. It's usually one of two things: we reach divergent conclusions either because we are aware of different facts, or because we're interpreting those facts through different values lens.
A good quick heuristic of a fact missing if when someone talks about either one side of the equation or even worse, makes both sides line up to their conclusion.
For example: "we should use Python - it's the best dev experience, we are only using C++ cuz our lead engineer is stupid" versus "We use C++ because of performance attributes, but I argue we can be fast-enough in Python and get better dev-experience"
The 2nd statement shows awareness of both sides of the argument and then proposes a solution that accounts for them. The 1st side is missing the context for why someone would do something other than what they want to do - suggesting they don't have perspective on that and making it likely that their solution doesn't account for it (or if it does, only by accident.)
In the discussion at hand, the original poster clearly prefers salary ranges and his model for why companies don't publish them is that they are evil. To me that suggests that they are lacking perspectives on the cases where salary ranges are either impossible to share or end up working in the employee's favor. Having had this conversation many times before, I attribute this lack of perspective on not having the senior hiring experience either from candidate or company side where one would have picked up the perspective.
To sum it all up, yet there's a bit of presumption in my suggestion but at the same time - you have to be able to assert things or else you'd never be able to make any points.
> Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table.
You're making it sound like the companies are being forced to pay the same salary for the same role - they are not, and this is a straw man argument. The companies should publish the salary range - they are free to adjust the offers within the range depending on skills & experience of the successful candidate. If the range is $20k - $180k to cater for the "rockstar" who brings a lot - then they ought to publish that range and be prepared to explain to a candidate why the company thinks a candidate deserves $20k/yr and see how that goes.
An equivalent scenario to what's happening on the job market outside Colorado would be houses being sold without displaying the asking prices - all potential buyers would be expected to jump through all the hoops and be asked to "make an offer" without being able to make comparisons on how much other similar houses on the market are going for. Instead, they'd be asked "How much did you pay for the last house you bought?" or "How much are you currently paying in rent?"
My friend interviewed for an SDE 1 position but after interview, was then offered a role of SDE 2 on the team, since the team was hiring for both, and he was more qualified as a 2.
I think this is an example of flexibility that people bring up. Not that they shouldn't publish the range, but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him.
TO be clear, i agree that they should have to explain "why" if they chose the part of the range, like you say, but i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.
> [...]but my friend had no idea the other range was open to him.
This asymmetric information is the intention of the employer, but sadly, in most cases it goes the other way: person gets hired as an SDE 2, but earns less than some/all SDE 1's because they are terrible at negotiating, or their salary history was always below market rate and they do not know it. I'm all for companies paying commensurate salaries and having the flexibility to do so - publishing salaries ranges when posting jobs is orthogonal to that.
> i think it misses some edge cases that are not uncommon.
In your friends case, I hope/wish the law covers that scenario whereby the employer is forced to disclose the range for the upgraded when asked - so that all your friend needed to do was ask.
We do recognise that, and that's why you publish a salary range. If your salary range for a dev is 50k - 90k, then publish that. The point, a candidate who know they are a good developer can know what to expect.
If someone shows up for interview with leadrship skills so amazing they can run the whole company and you want to pay them 4x, then it's probably a different job, maybe a TeamLead.
Publish several jobs and just fill one of them, cancell others.
But the argument is bordering on "we are so flexible we have no structure at all and we have no clue what we are doing" and is difficult to taje seriously.
> two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
What do you think makes this a problem here? You apply, you interview, the company either gives you the position or not. I don't think anyone would use the salary range as the one and only factor to decide where to apply. It can help to decide where to make more effort or what the comp potential is if I improve my skills.
> To use your real-estate analogy, would you ever buy a house that came up first in a price-sort?
No, but if they also weren't giving me an asking price, that's a huge red flag.
You're right that price is but one attribute of a job, but it is an important attribute. Its not the only thing i am evaluating, but it is one of the things, even one of the more important things.
So yes, i would like to know what the salary range is at the get-go.
Also this is true for pretty much everything - when buying a car, you dont generally go with the cheapest option, there's lots of attributes to evaluate, but if someone refused to tell you the price you wouldn't go with them either.
Exactly. And to emphasize your point, a company (or car sale) who is being coy with the price/salary is a huge red flag. They know it's not good and are trying to lure you far enough down the path that you won't turn around.
> I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
This!!
- At every company and institution I've worked for, I've never really been in a situation where two people, even if they have the same job title, are line-replacable for one another (unless they are very junior). Everyone has extremely distinct skills, experiences, capabilities whose value is extremely contingent on the needs of the moment.
- Making rules to make things for fair or transparent has the opposite effect. A major institution I worked for came up with an impossible-to-game, no-human-in-the-loop formula for bias-free and discrimination-free compensation. The result? People with equal responsibilities ended up getting paid _vastly_ different amounts. Similarly, people with equal salaries had vastly different levels of responsibility. I don't think a uniform compensation scheme simply works, other than just negotiating 1-on-1 with staff until agreements are reached, and when it no longer works out they ask Mr. Market.
- A company not disclosing salary already gives you enough information. Unless they are a flagship megacorp with well known salary bands and staff levels, and they are not disclosing the salary, then you know it's not competitive salary.
> Unless they are a flagship megacorp with well known salary bands and staff levels, and they are not disclosing the salary, then you know it's not competitive salary.
Frankly that's not been my experience. I find that especially on the senior level, the variance is so high for what a person could make in a role that publishing the range would just be meaningless. Thus, I take the "lack of range" as a non-signal.
I see what you mean. If I could refine what I said, I'd put it that for those flagship mega corps, you generally know that it will _at least_ be competitive, and it's just a matter of how far beyond it.
> One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
That's because software engineering suffers from tittle inflation (same way grade inflation works really).
Internally there are several "levels" of Senior Engineers at most companies. But what the levels map to is completely arbitrary. I've seen places where senior really means 20 years of industry experience and others where it's more like 5.
You sort of point this out, but title inflation in itself isn't a problem. If everyone could agree that "senior staff developer" in 2021 is what everyone meant by "senior developer" in 2005, we'd be fine.
The real problem, as you point out, is there is no consistency. In reviewing resumes basically ignore titles from any company I'm not very familiar with, and rely on their description of what they have done.
As an aside, many engineers, especially less experienced ones, are terrible at this. As a piece of advice, think about what your resume says about your work if the titles are blacked out.
> So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
I don't do this, and I feel like most reasonable people wouldn't do this either.
Let's say you manage to actually get a job that you're not qualified for. There's a strong possibility that you'll be fired, maybe within the 90 day probationary period. At a some large companies, you might get some cover and get passed around from department to department for years. But I've definitely seen a fair number of people fired for non-performance in my career; it's not exactly rare.
Eh. I wouldnt buy a house that came up first based on price sort but I would rule out most/all houses that cost less than X. Salaries are the same thing. I'm not going to consider a job that is X amount do if the top range is below that I'll skip it. It's a time saving tool.
Sure there are about a billion other factors to look at but if the salary is a non starter then why waste the time to interview even if everything else was perfect?
If I’m looking for a job, it’s already on me to try to limit my search to positions I’m qualified for. Providing me with the salary information for each job doesn’t make that task any more difficult.
But they don't and yet you still have a job (I hope).
And the reason is because when you are looking for a job other things are more important than knowing the salary even before you apply or they seriously consider you.
Everyone does whatever they can get away with, and the moment we accept that everything becomes clear. They are all trying to benefit themselves, just as you are by trying to learn some information before the other party feel the need to share it with you.
Salary is the single most important thing to know about a position. If a job doesn't pay enough to cover my mortgage, I couldn't care less about the commute, the inclusive culture or how great their lunchroom is or even whether I'm qualified. It's a non-starter before I even read the description.
Having to write a cover letter, customize a resume and sit through multiple interviews just to find out if I can literally afford to work for you is not acceptable and the only reason companies get away with it is because all the other companies do it. This trend needs to die and it needs to die a decade ago.
> Salary is the single most important thing to know about a position.
That's like, your opinion. Millions of people go on job interviews everyday without first knowing the salary offered and in fact in most meetings the salary is the last thing discussed.
Of course the final salary is the last thing negotiated, I don't think anyone is going to argue against that point.
What job seekers are begging for is a salary range being included with the job posting. Not doing so just wastes everyone's time when the company low-balls after the 3rd interview and the interviewee walks out the door.
If you want a junior worker for a junior's salary, that's fine, there are plenty of juniors looking to get their foot in the door, but include a junior's salary range so you don't waste everyone's time interviewing someone who's never going to accept your junior offer.
If you want a senior for a junior's salary and think you'll get one by leaving the salary range blank, go pound sand.
> If you want a senior for a junior's salary and think you'll get one by leaving the salary range blank, go pound sand.
No one thinks they are getting away with anything but you. I don't get why you are so mad most people don't consider not knowing the salary beforehand a reason not to go on an interview. Not posting the salary on the job ad has never been the reason a position has been left unfilled.
People don't consider it a reason not to go on an interview because 95-99% of job postings don't include it because they know nobody else does and they can get away with it and applicants don't have a choice. If a reasonable number of postings included a salary range, omitting one would tank an ad's response rates and you'd see the trend change very quickly.
I am always surprised to see comments that make it sound like jobs (or, employees) are fungible commodities that can be bought and sold purely on price.
One simple example - two jobs may have the same title (Senior Developer, or whatever) but have totally different expectations of communication skills, leadership skills, ability to handle pressure, etc and would pay very differently. So you (and everyone else) would be tempted to apply for the top-paying job but potentially not be qualified.
Or the situation where a company is very flexible on who they hire and thus would pay a lot more or a lot less depending on what the individual brings to the table.
In a way, I think there's a bit of "you don't know what you don't know" principle at play here. If someone has limited perspective on how career development, seniority, and hiring work, they may really believe that the big problem is "I can't sort my opportunities by salary." Someone with more experience and understanding may recognize how non-fungible people and roles can be in a way that a simple "sort by price" cannot capture.
To use your real-estate analogy, would you ever buy a house that came up first in a price-sort? No, you'd both want to really understand the nuances of the house (location, condition, etc.) and how it compares to your needs and your ability to pay. IE, you'd often take "not the best price" because either there's something wrong with the property or it's just not suitable to your needs." Hiring is much the same.