Hacker News Reader

Comment by itrademrkts | Hacker News Reader

I take the term competitive as you will compete with the surrounding market for my particular skillset and what I bring to the table. Salary bands lead me to believe that you want to fit me into a box regardless of what I can do. For example, 115-125k for a job description asking for senior responsibilities means top talent at your org is at 125k. I would be naieve to think your internal employees never read your posted openings. So to save everyone feelings and make things "fair" you post a range. If you are looking for the best you should be willing to "bid to play" and post it as such.

View on HN

Great point re: salary bands, and existing employees reading listed job openings.

Each side of the bands/'competitive' debate has +/-s for sure. By 'bid to play' do you mean a 'race to the bottom' sort of thing re: salary/compensation?

I'm not clear on what "race to the bottom" is implying to in this particular sense so excuse me if I fail to properly answer your question. What I mean by "bid to play" is lets say Google and Apple are looking for the same developer and located within the same general vacinity of each other. After going through both interviews, one is willing to pay me $125k and other $130k. Their predeterminded budget number. My current skillset is greater than what the job description is asking for. With such both orgs should be open to discussing going above the 125 or 130 slighly so I can join the team because the ball is favorably in my favor. What I'm refering to is there should be an open door there for this to happen. Seeing the word competitve or open implys to me that the negotiations are open for the right person. Hence why they do not advertise salary on their postings. They're attempting to attract the best talent possible. A range stops that from happening because you are not willing to "bid to play".

Ah sorry, I've muddled myself somewhat with 'bid to play.'

But what you've said here would be appropriate when it comes to the best in their fields. And not just with salary (other compensation, care packages, etc). But would 'competitive' be less appropriate than something like 'negotiatiable?'

I would not say less apporpriate. I view both as equal. My example does not have to refer to the best in their fields. I just used that as the best case example to prove a point. It can refer to any level(jr., mid., sr., etc.) of qualified talent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com