No, there isn't, unless you're okay with short-selling yourself.
If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad situation. If you share and your amount is < the employers, you'll be underpaid. Bad situation.
If you share and your amount = the employers, you may have a job, but you'll never know if you left money on the table because you offered first. Bad situation.
If you offer the number first, the employer becomes the customer - and the customer is always right. If you wait for them to make you an offer, they have to make an offer that is compelling, in the same way sales people go above-and-beyond to close their deal.
Literally the only way sharing your salary first is advantageous is if you need a job immediately. If you can wait, it's best to hold onto your number. If they cared so much about "saving time" they would have put the salary range in the posting - the reason they don't is because it's disadvantageous to do so!
I think that holds only if your time is worth nothing. I don't want to go through weeks of interviews just to find out that my salary demands are $50K more than they're willing to pay.
This is exactly why I made the comment. Recently went through 4 calls and a full day on site just to be met with an offer they wouldn't budge on that's 20% lower than what I currently make.
I've been through a similar situation: big mistake. They key is to validate you are in range on salary before committing to an interview process. Companies should have the same goal, but many will waste their own time—as you experienced.
This doesn't mean you should share current salary information, but does mean you should be prepared to state your salary expectations. This can be a good thing, as you can anchor high.
If you're in demand and are taking phone screens on a whim, you can always ask the recruiter to share their range. Odds are good they won't, and you can have some "fun" by expressing concern that they don't know what they're hiring for.
The time everyone puts into it is part of the negotiating process. A company will budge if it's worth it for them -- and your job is to convince them it's worth it.
If the first thing out of your mouth is salary and they balk at that then you never even get to the negotiating phase.
A few failures, like you had, is simply part of the process. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to be successful a job hunting every time you go into the interview process. The time you put in is part of that process.
"Saving time" during the interview process doesn't make sense if you're going to spend the next X years being UNDERpaid at your job.
If we assume that your time has some amount of value, you are always better off withholding your desired salary.
If you want to see whether or not they're going to be a potential employer, ask them for a ballpark of what they're willing to pay. But there is no reason for telling them free information.
This is true - there's a time value included in this. If you can't take off work, or have a family/obligations and need to transition immediately, you may not be able to afford to withhold this information.
> If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job.
FWIW, I have never had this happen to me in the Valley. Companies will either make projections on what their stock will be worth in the future to make their offer look as attractive as my current pay, or they'll straight up tell me that they have a leveling chart and $X is the maximum they can offer.
Asking me is a rational thing for them to do because they have nothing to lose - same outcome if I decline, win if I accept.
Exactly, it's game theory. The trick to getting high salaries is not to try to win individual negotiations but to win in the general marketplace. I always disclose and ask for their pay so that we can get that out of the way quickly, and I can move on to somewhere that pays what I'm looking for.
This could be partially true. CA, MA, and a few other states have laws protecting against this kind of liability, but it's still probably a best practice against major liability.
I'm very interested in learning more about this project! Would I be able to email you at frits@progresso-ict.nl (from the website), or is there a different way you'd prefer to take questions? This is super impressive, well done!
What is is about scheme that allows the 18k LOC to be condensed to 7k LOC? I assume there was some culling of excess code, but that's a dramatic improvement.
Only what you bind to the environment exists, and in the case of null-environment, that's all that gets bound. (There are other environments you can use, or you can prebuild your own easily).
Scheme also provides string->symbol and symbol->string type conversions, which allow you to do things that are normally next to impossible, though mainly only useful in macros.
That can let you generate let-bindings on the fly, which if you contain them with a safe eval, gives you some really amazing possibilities.
If you're interested in Clojure, I _highly_ recommend /r/Clojure on Reddit. It's very active; several library devs, book authors, and core maintainers frequently post and comment. There's a weekly thread dedicated to new Clojure users ([Latest thread here][1]). The Clojure Slack[6] is even more active if you have a burning question.
If you would like to dip your toes in the water, 4Clojure[2] is an online interactive Clojure Kata. There's also a (nearly) full REPL environment at Try Clojure[3] or repl.it[4]. The Clojure Cheatsheet[5] makes it easy to browse and discover the Clojure standard library, and IMHO is _so_ well organized!
But the biggest part of Lisp is the interactive development. You really have to see it, and I love showing the [Bruce's Figwheel project presentation][7] because it's a very visual demonstration of what hot-reloading code and interactive development can bring. It also helps that he's doing Clojurescript in a live browser for web development.
Bonds have value because we assign a dollar value to them. The dollar value itself is fiat currency. The bonds do not value to dollar, the dollar values the bond.
Are the little devices that change the PIN or passphrase every 30 seconds the most secure way to lock access? It seems like having to have the right code at the right time was more secure than having the right code at anytime, but I wasn't sure why they weren't rolled out en mass. Is this not the best method of security?
TOTP, the algorithm used by github, google, and many others to provide two-factor auth is basically that, except your phone is the little device. IMHO this is "good enough" security for normal people. I haven't read of cases where people's second factor got hacked, just where it got bypassed (e.g. by using social engineering to skip passwords entirely).
People say the weakest link is the user in passwords, and that's often true. But for more security conscious users the weakest link is the helpdesk. It may not even be where you expect. Plenty of people have been hacked because the hacker called the support line for their registrar, hosting, email provider, or ISP and got a password changed without any form of hard verification.
It can be extremely frustrating to do everything right and then have your knees cut off by some script reader in a cube farm somewhere.
Also, if you do email verification for accounts, whenever someone changes their email send one to the old account saying 'Hey, this is being changed, are you OK with it?" and if they say no, revert the email and reset the password on the spot.
From the point of view of somebody brute forcing their way in, there is very little difference between a password that stays the same and one that changes all the time.
Those are great against key-loggers, not so against people that have insider info.
I don't know where you're based out of, but in Washington, D.C. is a school called Gallaudet University which you may want to reach out to. They are a school that that provides education for the hard of hearing, and I feel like they may be the most open to new technologies like this.
If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad situation. If you share and your amount is < the employers, you'll be underpaid. Bad situation. If you share and your amount = the employers, you may have a job, but you'll never know if you left money on the table because you offered first. Bad situation.
If you offer the number first, the employer becomes the customer - and the customer is always right. If you wait for them to make you an offer, they have to make an offer that is compelling, in the same way sales people go above-and-beyond to close their deal.
Literally the only way sharing your salary first is advantageous is if you need a job immediately. If you can wait, it's best to hold onto your number. If they cared so much about "saving time" they would have put the salary range in the posting - the reason they don't is because it's disadvantageous to do so!