12 ms·

We just went through a large hiring cycle. We posted two versions for every job posting- one with salary ranges and one without. The ads performed equally well

• diob 4y ago
  Something about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof for this one. How did you measure better? Did you get the same number of responses for each?
• 6510 4y ago
  You posted 2, its well in the anecdotal spectrum. You just went though the cycle and already think you know which are the better candidates. But we all know that performance is measured by doing the work. It's a fun idea thou. Perhaps others can follow the example and we may gather meaningful data.
• brippalcharrid 4y ago
  For most people who aren't independently wealthy, it's a necessary but not sufficient indicator of whether you'd enjoy the lifestyle associated with working in a particular job. And even if you don't need the money, it's a very clear indication of how much an employer values your time and expertise.
• Aeolun 4y ago
  Of course I want a good job, but I do not want a good job at the expense of salary, nor do I want to interview for hours before finding the company isn’t willing to honor my expectations (at least I can make mine clear up front).
• shikoba 4y ago
  > Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. My gosh :face_palm:
• honkdaddy 4y ago
  The link you posted presents studies which found the opposite conclusion. >A 2014 SAP survey found that compensation is the #1 factor that matters most to employees. >Another survey by the SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) conducted in 2013 also found that compensation and pay was the #1 factor contributing to job satisfaction Then later, >Several other studies have also emerged around what employees care about at work but the most recent one from Boston Consulting Group which surveyed over 200,000 people around the world is one of the most comprehensive. Unlike previous studies which may point to flexibility or salary as the top factor for job happiness, BCG found that the #1 factor for employee happiness on the job is get appreciated for their work! I don't know much about Boston Consulting Group, but my intuition says they may have been contracted by higher-ups with the intention of finding that exact conclusion. Cynical, yes, but so often that's how these consulting-funded-research-studies end up being. I can't speak for anyone else, but compensation is still above and beyond the most important factor when considering a job.
  • Phrodo_00 4y ago
    I think the difference is that the OP is talking about being "happy at work". I don't think about compensation while working, it doesn't really affect your work environment. Compensation is important because of what you can do with it outside of work.
    • seadan83 4y ago
      You never have the thought, "I'm not being payed enough for this shit?" Or, realized new hires with less experience are being payed more? Or that colleagues that are slacking are being payed the same or more? All these feel like concerns related to pay while working. I've certainly had those thoughts and was genuinely underplayed for half my career
      • antod 4y ago
        > You never have the thought, "I'm not being payed enough for this shit?" More like "no amount of money is enough to make me happy doing this shit"
• BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  >Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. You're conflating multiple things here. People aren't focusing on money because it's the most important part. They focus on money because it's one of the few things that's relatively easy to make tangible ahead of time. Similar goes for things like remote/hybrid, secondary benefits, etc. Many elements on that list, while important, are incredibly difficult to equate in practice without speaking with employees or reading up on the company. Take the following: >1 Appreciation for your work How in the world are you going to evaluate this pre-interview or even post hiring process? Both parties are showing their best selves. It's incredibly abstract and difficult to measure. >2 Good relationships with colleagues Again, difficult to measure. Establishing good relationships takes time. Additionally, most places (at least here) have people who are decent to get along with, they aren't filled with horror individuals. At least, I'd hope hiring processes would at least filter the most obvious nutcases out after all those hours spent. >3 Good work-life balance Here's one you can measure much more easily. Few core hours and a "do whatever whenever" mentality outside of core hours attracts individuals. Still I don't see most companies post it. It goes far beyond hybrid and remote work, and even that is already hard to pull out of them. Then at the end of the interview, you get a "yeah we have a flexible schedule. Our hours are from 7 to 7." Great.. I guess.
  • ipaddr 4y ago
    Getting that good work life balance issue settled usually takes 2 or 3 rounds to pry some useful info out.
    • BlargMcLarg 4y ago
      Great. We're talking about responding to an ad. Your response equates to just dealing with 1-4 hours of work, often requiring some juggling from the candidate's side (= more time), just to get some of the most important information. Not only are you supporting my argument, you're also showcasing how ridiculously inefficient the hiring process is from the candidate's side. Without it being obvious whether this is a net gain for the employer.
      • 4y ago
• ThalesX 4y ago
  > Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. > It is important, it makes it possible to pay bills, but it isn't what makes people happy. Meaning, if you are looking for a place you will enjoy working, do not start with salary. This feels strange to me… I have a minimum salary for which I wouldn’t consider working for a company even if they offered me flying rainbow unicorns. It’s not a gajillion $FAANG but there is a minimum. If I can get that at the beginning of the process, this saves both myself and the company time and money.
  • Tao3300 4y ago
    Likewise, I have a minimum salary for which I will move giant hunks of manure with my bare hands and love it so much I'll sing arias about it while I do so. It's a really big number, but I assure you it exists.
    • skeeter2020 4y ago
      You think this is true, and might even be willing to go through the motions for the money, but if I expect you to truly love what you do and look for ways to improve the quality and throughput of your manure handling operations the money is not a good indicator or motivator.
      • projectazorian 4y ago
        If I truly love what I do, I'm going to respect my work enough to demand excellent compensation when I do work for others. Anyway, do you apply this logic to your other vendors? Do you tell your accountant that you'll only pay them 70% of market because they should love what they do so much they shouldn't care what you pay them? They'd laugh you out of the room, and rightly so.
      • karmakurtisaani 4y ago
        If I have to shovel shit with my bare hands for a few months and it means I'll be financially independent for the rest of my life, you bet I'll love the manure out of that job!
• sha256sum 4y ago
  A lot has changed since 2014. Any more recent metrics on this?
  • Victerius 4y ago
    Human nature doesn't change in a meek 8 years.
    • wvenable 4y ago
      Culture can change quickly and I believe that it has.
    • sha256sum 4y ago
      I'm about to re-enter the job market. Pay is the biggest motivator due to COL increases (non-relational to human nature) which affects my ability to provide for my family (more relational). So, you're not wrong... but also far off track from the question asked.
    • jacquesm 4y ago
      In 8 years a whole generation goes from just out of school/uni to having kids and a mortgage. It definitely makes a huge difference.
    • goodpoint 4y ago
      No, but inequality and cost of living certainly does.
    • emaginniss 4y ago
      Are the same number of people seeking fully remote jobs now as were seeking them 8 years ago? Human nature may not change that much, but a job market certainly can.
• tashi 4y ago
  That's surprising to me. What statistical measures did you use to make sure your conclusion wasn't confirmation bias?
  • RandomWorker 4y ago
    Also how did you prevent people finding both postings? When searching for jobs if identical they will appear in the same list. Also the smart ones applying will apply on the one without because of all the various biases that the poster has and they will play some reverse psychology.
    • clairity 4y ago
      yes, this is a major flaw in their analysis. there's no way to draw a reliable conclusion because the experiment is uncontrolled in this way, among other factors (like the subjective evaluation of candidate quality which was also uncontrolled for).
  • kokanator 4y ago
    That is a great question. Regarding performance of responses I am referring to count of unique respondents meeting minimum requirements. Regarding 'better candidates', this is based upon the count of candidates which made it through team interviews and coding challenges. Our process requires multiple manager/leader approvals at each step of the process which is intended to reduce bias. It is possible the soft attributes of personality and communication are reflected better in one group than the other. I do not have evidence but is a possible source of unintended bias.
• boardwaalk 4y ago
  The thing is, people often start with a previous salary and a lifestyle/saving goals such that they have some expectations. Telling people to not start at salary, when most people will do so for good reason, is not particularly useful. I, personally, am not looking for 500k+ craziness, but I am expecting a baseline and you trying to waste time I’m not willing to unless I’m otherwise extremely motivated by what you do (very unlikely) is going to make me pass. This is essentially Tinder “swipe left or right” and it should treated that way.
• turkeygizzard 4y ago
  > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work You might not be wrong, but a higher salary makes me less miserable than a lower salary
• notatoad 4y ago
  Salary might not be the primary consideration, but IMHO it's absolutely necessary to at least post the range. no matter how good the job sounds otherwise, a salary that's too low is a huge red flag that they're not going to treat you well otherwise. as you say, the salary is a sign of respect from your employer, and including that number in the job ad is an easy way to signal to prospective employees exactly how much you respect them.
• time_to_smile 4y ago
  > before you say, perhaps your salary ranges were bad, they weren't. Care to mention what they are? Because I suspect your ranges are out of line with industry standards that have risen quite rapidly. I know because I've started responding to any recruiters that sound interesting asking for comp ranges and they are all below my current base, let alone TC. If the upper bound of your range doesn't exceed $350k there is no chance that any of the senior engineers I know will apply and honestly to get something to think about leaving a job they are moderately happy with you'd have to have that be the lower bound of your range. But I suspect you're posting ranges that are less than or barely over 200k at the upper end.
  • memling 4y ago
    > If the upper bound of your range doesn't exceed $350k there is no chance that any of the senior engineers I know will apply and honestly to get something to think about leaving a job they are moderately happy with you'd have to have that be the lower bound of your range. Outside of SV, that upper-bound is an absolutely wild number.
    • time_to_smile 4y ago
      That's not true at all anymore, at least not for TC. An insane number of startups have IPO'd in the last two years, and even with stock drops a lot of people suddenly have RSUs. In addition the rise in remote work has meant that near SV pay is much easier to obtain. Very few of my friends live in SV and I only know a few who aren't making at least that amount at the senior level. That number is not at all wild for an upper-bound.
      • memling 4y ago
        > That's not true at all anymore, at least not for TC. OP was discussing salary range, not total comp--but I'd be a little surprised to find that even TC at the $350k range at the top outside of SV firms is quite high. I'm not totally persuaded by levels.fyi, but looking at metros at 90th percentile of SWE total comp: Bay Area - 425k Los Angeles - 325k NYC - 343k Denver - 298k Boston - 273k Austin - 268k Chicago - 260k NoVA / DC - 237k Salt Lake City - 221k Columbus, OH - 215k Phoenix - 213k Minneapolis/St Paul - 210k Philadelphia - 210k Houston - 209k Kansas City - 152k Again, I'm not persuaded that the numbers from Levels are good, but $350k salary at an upper-bound still seems like a high number. $350k TC also seems high--but it's more attainable with RSUs or other equity options. I'd also be interested to see a breakdown based on the company type. There's room for SWEs in many companies, and the rates might break differently based on whether software is the primary product.
• bee_rider 4y ago
  A salary isn't a reason to be happy to work. It answers the question "how will this change the lifestyle of my family and I?" It is useful to know because a sufficient salary is one of the few 100% hard-line conditions for applying to a place, so posting it saves everybody time.
• turns0ut 4y ago
  Did you bother asking OP if their selection criteria is too restricted or assume based upon a single post highlighting one criteria? Really curious how it is air gapped commentators are able to intuit the real sequence others have adopted with so little information. That’s a pretty amazing power.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• lazyasciiart 4y ago
  I don't know any programmers who are responding to an ad because of the salary. I know a lot who are filtering out ads because of the salary and then choosing from the ones that include it. If you want to argue that salary doesn't matter then don't take one.
• znpy 4y ago
  > The ads performed equally well in regard to total responses with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. Maybe your company is known for paying well or well-enough, have you considered that? > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. That's very debatable, and that's to say the least (and to say it politely). For a lot of people a salary bump that eases financial pressure is a big boon on mental health, positivity and ultimately happiness. And by the way, a lot of people will not be "happy" in the purest sense of the work at any job. Work is ultimately the chore we all do to exist. Maybe work is the ultimate chore. We do our best to make the pill taste less sour, but very few of the people that do "code for passion" (or some other thing) would work on the same business related problem if they had no need for money. They would probably work on something else, which is very unlikely to overlap with some random jira ticket or something.
• abeppu 4y ago
  I think you're reading the rather poor evidence in a pretty tilted way. "Attractive fixed salary" is not "way down on the list"; it's #8 on a top 10 list in a "study" (cough survey) that considered 26 factors. Further "salary" and "attractive fixed salary" are not the same; perhaps people enjoy a competitive base salary plus a performance bonus. And frankly you say "salary is a sign of respect from you (sic) employer", and you highlight a consultant claiming that the most important thing is "Appreciation for your work" ... why would people believe you appreciate their work if they're not compensated well? The OP also doesn't say that their "primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary"; they may also be filtering aggressively based on the industry, tech stack, role, etc, and also filtering based on salary.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• wccrawford 4y ago
  My father once told me that money is how the company tells you how much they value you. It isn't just about the money, it's about the respect. Many, many people leave jobs because of the salary. Not just they need more money, but because they know they're worth more than that and can get it. Those people are not going to bother looking at jobs that pay less than they're worth. They are absolutely going to look at the money first, and other benefits after. All those benefits matter, but money is the one that's forced their hand. And by extension, respect.
  • trentnix 4y ago
    It also provides insight into the type of talent you can expect to work with. I work best when working with smart people that I can learn from and that challenge me. On the average, those types aren't going to be found in workplaces that aren't aggressive in how they compensate talent.
  • munk-a 4y ago
    To follow up on this point. It's not just the amount that is about pay either... it's the fact that, during the job seeking process, you as an employer respect me enough to be transparent about what you're paying. And, on a personal note, transparent wages are known to help break underpayment cycles where workers have been repeatedly underpaid and at each new opportunity their compensation is based on "Well what did you make in your previous job?" - a lack of pay transparency can end up giving people with social difficulties or who are of a visible minority much less take home. I want to work at a company where everyone is respected and valued because those companies are more successful in the long term. "Those who would give up company morale, to purchase a little temporary profit, deserve neither profits nor morale." - Benjamin Franklin (probably)
    • jacquesm 4y ago
      And, importantly: they indicate to the sitting crew how much they could make in their current jobs if they were to apply externally, and it isn't rare at all for that to be substantially more than they are making at present. So salary transparency helps employees evaluate their position across the board, not just new hires: if things are fair then there is no problem, but if things are not then employers will be loath to create such transparency because it equates to a break-off risk or an across the board raise.
• jacquesm 4y ago
  > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. I promise. I don't really care about your promise because after many (too many?) years in business and seeing a lot of companies from the inside without any restrictions I can tell you that companies that paid at or above market rates generally had better work/life balance than the ones that did not and the people I spoke there definitely seemed substantially happier than in the places where they were paying below market rate. In those places salary was usually just one indicator of many where incompetent management was showing through. Either you're a founder or you should make a very decent wage and anybody that tries to tell you that their crap salary is made up trough fringe benefits is taking advantage of you (or at least trying to do so). That you managed to trick some more qualified people into responding that otherwise would have rejected you out of hand is not a positive for them, it's a positive for you. Employees can use a salary range to quickly weed out the employers to avoid from the ones to talk to and I would reverse your statement to 'If you are looking for a place that won't make you feel bad start with salary'.
  • mwigdahl 4y ago
    This is a really good point. Bad management/strategy leads to all sorts of corporate dysfunction, and many times that shows through in either unwillingness or inability to pay market-level salaries for good developers who have options in the wider market.
• legitster 4y ago
  >Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. [0] It is important, it makes it possible to pay bills, but it isn't what makes people happy. This is bad analysis. Employees will already self-select based on pay. I would bet you real money right now that if you polled employees as they left the company what their future salary is going to be, the majority will be making more.
  • hiq 4y ago
    This. There's a huge selection bias: people saying that they're (un)happy with this or that have already accepted the position they're in, so they were at least moderately happy with their compensation when they started, while they had mostly no idea about the other aspects of the job.
• jakelazaroff 4y ago
  > The ads performed equally well in regard to total responses with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. > And... before you say, perhaps your salary ranges were bad, they weren't. Our salary offerings are very aggressive to the developer's benefit. In my opinion, salary is a sign of respect from you employer. What's your hypothesis for why they performed worse? If I saw a listing for a job I wanted, for which I was qualified and had a salary range within my target, you'd better believe I'd apply for it. The Occam's Razor explanation is that the listed ranges were below more experienced candidates' expectations for the position.
  • InitialLastName 4y ago
    Wouldn't the test of that question be whether they were able to hire the stronger candidates within the listed salary range? I could see other things swaying stronger candidates away from applying to the jobs with salary ranges; it can be difficult to tell the distribution of salaries within the range, so perhaps they didn't want to risk being offered at the lower end of the range.
    • jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Sure, but I think "the lower end of the range is too low" is basically equivalent to "the salary range is bad".
• bilsbie 4y ago
  Keep in mind it’s really easy to trick yourself into believing the salaries you’re offering are aggressive. I bet 80% of companies would say they have above average salaries.
  • kokanator 4y ago
    All our salaries are based upon most recent data assembled by market across the country and, in the case of this round of hiring, +10% to deal with the current inflation conditions. So, I am not just 'saying'. I have data. Careful research goes into making sure our employees are paid in pace or exceeding the market.
    • roflyear 4y ago
      How much you paying for a python dev with 6 years of experience?
    • jddddd 4y ago
      K, then how much? List the number or you're just blowing smoke
    • ZephyrBlu 4y ago
      This is what everyone says. "we know our salary is competitive because we benchmark it against the market". Most benchmarks for tech companies are dogshit though.
      • paleotrope 4y ago
        Yep I was going to say the same. My recent gig was like this, they paid a consultant firm big money to find out what the "market rate" was, around when I was hired, and when they finished and my boss spoke to me about it, he was like, "well you are way beyond the market rate they determined." My response was, "well are they going to try to claw some money out of my salary" and he kind of laughed and said no. And turnover here is super high due to salary.
    • TigeriusKirk 4y ago
• makk 4y ago
  > with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges Do you have hard, objective evidence to back this up? Very easy to imagine someone reading their personal biases into this observation.
• kif 4y ago
  > Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list You're conflating being happy at work and being happy to accept a job offer. You can be pretty well paid, and end up being not happy, and vice-versa. If the offer is not good enough, the applicant won't accept it. What happens after you join a company doesn't have to be related to how much you get paid -- although it can be, sometimes.
• philwelch 4y ago
  Whether or not I enjoy working somewhere is a secondary consideration. My primary consideration is my ability to support my family. If I didn’t need an income to support my family, I wouldn’t look for a job in the first place. Once I have a job, I’ve already agreed that the salary is adequate, or else I wouldn’t have accepted the job offer. So the salary isn’t going to be a factor for me one way or the other afterwards. But that’s a different question from whether salary is a factor before you go through the hiring process.
• tartrate 4y ago
  > with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges ^ conflicts with: > Our salary offerings are very aggressive to the developer's benefit.
• hammock 4y ago
  >The ads performed equally well in regard to total responses with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. Were these better candidates within the budgeted salary range though? Or were they priced too high?
• Forgeties79 4y ago
  >If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. I promise. I don't know man, if I got paid a metric *!&@ ton of money to do a really garbage job, I may very well be happy doing it for 12mo and building a big fat nest egg, or clearing major debt. Many of us are willing to sacrifice QoL/workplace culture/etc. if the price is right. If we don't know the salary upfront, you're simply asking us to invest time and energy (and maybe even fall for a sunk cost situation) for the promise that we maybe guessed the magic number you could have told us out the gate. Not to mention if I'm talking to 2 companies I need all the information I can possibly get my hands on to make an informed decision. We don't have to love our jobs. Some do, some don't. But you don't get to presume what motivates us or, better still, tell us our motivations are wrong. That's up to us to decide.
• bastardoperator 4y ago
  Just saying, I don't believe any of this. I think it's anecdotal at best. People want to be paid the most amount of money they can for the work they're doing. Maybe the work doesn't make them happy, that's why it's called work, but why would I want to work for a company that pays half for the same work when I can make double elsewhere? You do realize the decade old article you're linking to contradicts what you are claiming right out of the gate? "A 2014 SAP survey found that compensation is the #1 factor that matters most to employees" and "Another survey by the SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management) conducted in 2013 also found that compensation and pay was the #1 factor contributing to job satisfaction"
• HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  > Of the top reasons people are happy at work Don't confuse "people" with "this person."
• Schiendelman 4y ago
  Without knowing your full methodology I can't tell you what went wrong with your study, but: I work for a very very large recruiting/HR tech company. Our data across millions of jobs shows the opposite.
• theknocker 4y ago
  >And... before you say, perhaps your salary ranges were bad, they weren't. Oh ok.
• the_watcher 4y ago
  I agree that salary is not what dictates my level of satisfaction with my work. However, plenty of people make the (perfectly reasonable) tradeoff of work satisfaction in exchange for money. I'm not dogmatic about this - I am aware that plenty of people are deeply satisfied with both their work and salary, and that others are deeply satisfied with their work and are perfectly willing to trade salary for that. That is great! I am very happy for those people. But it's _also_ a perfectly reasonably decision to prioritize salary to enable your preferred non-work life, and it's entirely possible to still do excellent work if you're in that bucket. This doesn't even touch on people who _have_ to prioritize salary.
• RHSeeger 4y ago
  > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. Salary can be both a filter and a sorter. - I won't apply to a job that pays less than I need to support the life style I want; no other factor can overcome that. - I am more likely to apply for a job that pays more than a different job, but other things are also part of that sort. It is entirely possible for salary to be an important part of what is considered when deciding on a job, even a deciding factor, without it being the only thing or even the primary thing.
• MR4D 4y ago
  > Meaning, if you are looking for a place you will enjoy working, do not start with salary. I get where you are coming from, but at least here in Texas, a job with the title “Project Manager” can be a low-end job paying 50k to a senior position paying 250k or more. Salary is often the only way to tell them apart because the wording that recruiters use are typically identical (or very close to it). Not sure if this is common or uncommon, but I wanted to share that sometimes these things are important for other reasons.
• corrral 4y ago
  OK, but... some places think a "senior software developer" should make $70,000, and other think they should make $250,000 or more. And everything in between. I don't care how nice the a place it is to work, I'm not applying to the $70k place. If I can't quickly figure out where you fall on that spectrum, I'm not going to bother to contact you because job listings are not rare. If you somehow manage to present as exactly the perfect place to work, I might contact you—to ask what the salary range is, and if you won't say up-front, I'm out. It takes exactly one time sitting through interviews, having everyone be super excited about hiring you, then naming a totally normal rate when they ask what salary you're looking for, and watching everyone's faces turn green, to never, ever waste time doing that again. I've had mine already.
  • bragr 4y ago
    What you are likely running into the the trimodal nature of software salaries [1] that has been extensively discussed here on HN in the past. tl;dr there exists (supposedly) in the global market, 3 tiers of tech companies, with 3 distinct salary ranges. [1] https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-salaries-in-the-netherlands-and-europe/ https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala...
  • gernb 4y ago
    Honestly I'm considering the $70k place where as right now I have the $500k total comp. I can't say I hate my job but I have zero interest in it. Where as I had lots of <$100k jobs I loved. My life was better. I only get one life. I'd prefer to live a happy life than a well paid life. Right now I get paid well but my life feels like it's just bleeding away as a drone. The biggest reason I haven't pulled the trigger is there's no guarntee that taking the $70k will actually be fun this time. I have my criteria for taking the jump though and if they're met I'd do it in a heartbeat.
    • flippinburgers 4y ago
      We can swap if you like. I make $55K.
    • jacquesm 4y ago
• spongechameleon 4y ago
  As far as day-to-day satisfaction on the job, sure, salary could be way down the list compared to company culture and work/life balance. But I think we should acknowledge that salary is the only reason any of us work at all. If the salary is bad everything else will crumble around it regardless of how excellent culture and work/life balance are. If the salary is good there's no guarantees, but there's at least the potential for on the job satisfaction. Salary is the foundation. The exception to this is charity work for purely mission driven work, but that's not the work context for the majority of people.
• andrewmutz 4y ago
  > with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. This makes sense to me. The strongest engineers are those who really love the work and enjoy building software systems. They tend to have active software side projects outside of work. They tend to be the sort who want to be paid well, but prioritize places where they can learn new things, learn from others and be excited. They want to enjoy coming to work each day and grow as an engineer. The engineers I know who are the most compensation-oriented, on the other hand, seem to think of work as mostly about the paychecks. They aren't bad engineers, but they don't seem to love the craft as much as the great engineers. If your relationship with the industry is transactional ("I write code and you give me money"), you rarely develop into a great software engineer It doesn't surprise me that the strongest applicants are the ones who aren't prioritizing comp in the decision-making.
  • kjellsbells 4y ago
    > 'If your relationship with the industry is transactional, you rarely develop into a great software engineer' You may be right but I'm curious. I suspect that the issue is one of trust that the employer will adequately reward great code. If I'm a jeweler, its very evident that I will get paid handsomely for the finest work, and I will get to work with the finest materials, creating a virtuous circle. It is not at all evident that this works in software. You dont get reliably comped better for creating better code. In fact it's so bad that people publish code outside of their jobs to demonstrate to the next employer that they should have been comped better. on that basis I can see why the transactional mindset takes hold. you want to treat me as a fungible disposable fixed price asset? then I will act like one, starting with a demand for the highest possible asset valuation.
    • andrewmutz 4y ago
      > you want to treat me as a fungible disposable fixed price asset? I think this is the crux of the issue. Many companies invest quite heavily in improving engineers. My last company would send people to conferences, bring in consultants to train, have extended onboarding and training programs, and each engineer had a set budget for any training materials they wanted to purchase. They were absolutely not fungible or disposable. Other companies, I am sure, don't invest in their employees. But perhaps this is just the system working: "mercenary" engineers will go work for the highest posted salary and will work at companies where they are treated as fungible and disposable. The "growth" engineers will go work at the companies where they can learn and grow and are invested in. As long as both types of engineer make their way to the appropriate companies, the system works.
• jbverschoor 4y ago
  Then why post skills at all? If cultural fit and believing in your mission is the most important thing, then just hire people who are really good at that
• mlyle 4y ago
  > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. Look, it doesn't make sense to respond to ads for positions where there's no reasonable way that I'd accept the job based on comp. For the most part, I've been an entrepreneur / my own boss. But I remember 2 interview processes where money was talked about too late (one for a consulting job, and one for a full time position) and the offer was abusively low. I think there was the hope that I would try to justify the sunk cost of the interviewing process by taking the deal. There's a lot of talk that not posting ranges can contribute to discriminatory practices. I think this could be true -- I think of wife's experience as she was entering the workforce. She was president of the mech-eng honor society, magna cum laude from a highly ranked university, with better work experience than most graduates. Multiple employers gave her absurdly lowball offers after she interviewed-- literally half of the average going rate for new grads-- perhaps mistaking her warmness for being willing to roll over and not negotiate. (She ultimately got a gig in the upper quartile). P.S. Now I make about 3-6% of what I could make elsewhere-- I'm a middle school teacher. There was no need to surprise me with the number at the end to get me to take this offer. Salary isn't the end-all, be-all, but keeping it opaque concentrates too much power with the employer and that power is often used for dubious ends.
• Justsignedup 4y ago
  I am a bit skeptical. Paying far below the market doesn't necessarily make you a worse or better place to work for... but typically while salary won't improve how things go in a company... they are a core reason why I am even there... Like... The comfort and performance of a car will not be affected by the price. I can love a certain car, even if it is cheaper or 20k over what it should cost. That won't matter. But I won't buy the car if I am not comfortable paying for it. The car would be just as great, but if it was out of my price range, I am still suffering for it. Now cars are priced relatively close to their actual worth, and all car prices are well known vs hidden behind 7 hours of interviews and "don't talk about your salary" policies. So this is the playing field we're creating with salaries being up-front. I have turned down many job interviews because I said my salary requirements during our opening call. Sure it wasn't part of the posting, but it better be an early conversation otherwise why would I leave a comfortable job for a lower pay? When people respond to online job postings, it is often because they are already really unhappy, or need a job because they lost theirs, so the numbers may be skewed due to needs. So what is my point? idk... probably recruiter outreach should have salary info. For job postings... my bet is recruiters know response rates better than I do. :P Edit: Post interviews, I have taken lower paying job offers compared to other offers because after talking to the teams I predicted the money was worth losing over happiness. So money is certainly isn't everything, but it is an important aspect. I assure you I will deal with extra stress for 500k because I know at home I'll get the support needed and the extra money will change our lives. But would I do the same for 10k? hell no.
• websap 4y ago
  Very poor advice. Salary is a huge part of job satisfaction. I normally line up multiple offers at places I'd like to work and negotiate on the salary. If a place I really want to work can't offer me compensation that the market is already offering me, then by definition that place isn't a good place to work. They don't value my labour.
• godelski 4y ago
  > The ads performed equally well in regard to total responses Good sample size. This probably tells us that there isn't much difference posting salary and the people applying to each. This may be unsurprising since not posting salaries is already the norm. > better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges I have a feeling that this is a particularly low (and highly noisy) sample. I think you are overstating the significance of your results.
• jchw 4y ago
  In my eyes, this is a great response. It proves that if we want to move salaries up, then we have to follow Colorado's lead and force companies to post salary ranges. You won't have to worry which one performs better anymore, since you won't have a choice.
• anm89 4y ago
  > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary This never get's any less ridiculous the more it is repeated. It's like some sort of stockholm syndrome thing. I'm responding to a JOB ad, the thing where you trade your time for money. There are many criteria I use to decide if I'll be happy somewhere besides money, but they are all irrelevant if I'm not properly paid because, you know, that's why I'm taking a salary job instead of doing my own thing. It's funny how no one makes the same advice on the other side. Oh yeah, this person is incompetent, but it's not really about the work right? We are a big family, let's make him a VP because he's really fun to get a beer with. The same logic also never seems to apply when security is escorting you out because of layoffs and treating you like a criminal. (never happened to me personally but it surely happens to A LOT of people. Like 10s of thousands in the last month)
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
  Are you a locally/globally known company or raised funds recently? I'd still apply to a unicorn, or a company who I know just raised $20M,because I know they can afford it and already pay at/above market. Salary is not the primary reason, it's a bare minimum requirement, and if it's not completely obvious that the company is willing to pay enough, I won't click on it, let alone apply. > with the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. They responded but did the better candidates accept an offer and work for you now?
• whatever1 4y ago
  Salary is great criterion to pick an employer. Underpaying employees is a clear sign that a company tries to exploit them. So it creeps in work life balance, unlimited responsibilities, abusive management etc It is also a clear sign that they do not value the work that these employees are doing. So if a company pays pennies for example for ML engineers, you know that they don’t have vision to grow there, they are just checking boxes. On the other hand if employees are greatly compensated that means that the company is looking for the greatest talent out there, so they are seriously invested in the area, aka you have good potential to grow. Also companies that compensate great have no incentive to abuse their super stars. Exactly because they have invested a lot. So money is the first and only measurable criterion to reject an employer before even finishing the interview loops.
• aaaaaaaaaaab 4y ago
  >And... before you say, perhaps your salary ranges were bad, they weren't. Our salary offerings are very aggressive to the developer's benefit. Tell us the numbers. Otherwise I call bullshit…
• GekkePrutser 4y ago
  For me, salary is a prerequisite, not a final selection point. It's one I drop potential jobs from my list of consideration because while happiness is indeed the most important one, being underpaid is definitely not going to make me happy. I just have a salary range I am aiming for, especially because I compare it to my current job where I have a permanent contract. Like the OP said, it's super annoying to go through the process and then get a low-ball offer. I recently turned down a job at a very big company for that reason. When I said no they said it's a really good career move working for them and I would rise up fast. They have candidates begging to work there. But no I'm not taking less than I'm getting right now (after standards of living correction)
• pessimizer 4y ago
  I don't know why you'd be surprised by this. If you were giving away milk, you'd get a better response from an ad that said "Free Milk" than an ad that said "Free Expired Milk," even though the milk you're giving away is expired. You're concealing relevant information in order to sucker in people who have no interest. It's the central mechanism behind "linkbait" headlines. It's just a dark pattern. People who were not interested in a job with your salary range responded to ads that omitted the salary range. They heard you out because they had already committed their time to reach out to you. This basically shifts hiring costs onto the applicants in that they have to waste their time discussing a job they would never take because you held back the information they needed to know that it was a job they would never take. Somehow, you've found a way to rationalize this as passion.
  • commandlinefan 4y ago
    > you'd get a better response from an ad that said "Free Milk" than an ad that said "Free Expired Milk," But he said he got better candidates with the ad that didn't post salary ranges. If I understand your analogy, that's like (counterintuitively) getting more responses for the expired milk.
    • cptskippy 4y ago
      > But he said he got better candidates with the ad that didn't post salary ranges. He did, and that raises a lot of questions: Were the ads identical otherwise? Were the salaries actually competitive or did he just think they were? Did any of these better candidates actually accept an offer?
    • ben0x539 4y ago
      I think they're implying the salary ranges are actually bad enough to smell like expired milk.
    • nvrspyx 4y ago
      No, it's not. They probably got responses from better candidates on the one with no salary range posted because if those candidates knew what the salary range was beforehand, they wouldn't have applied at all. The better question is were they able to hire any of those better candidates after they told them that the milk was expired?
• larsonnn 4y ago
  > Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. [0] It is important, it makes it possible to pay bills, but it isn't what makes people happy. I want money so my family don’t struggle in the future. My child can go to better schools. We have better food. We can have a house at better places. When you only work to pay your bills you gonna have a bad time. What happens when you get fired? What happens when you want to change your perspective and go to school again.
• xena 4y ago
  Money does not buy happiness, but money enables me to do things that make me happy
• gwbas1c 4y ago
  > Meaning, if you are looking for a place you will enjoy working, do not start with salary. Assuming you're discussing engineering roles, this is a dangerous attitude. Engineering is an economic force multiplier; meaning, the monetary value of the results is worth many multiples of the monetary value of the engineering labor put in. Seeking a fair salary upfront ensures a few things. One of the most important is the value of the result of the labor. As a top software engineer; I only want to work on products that are significantly valuable. (And then I want my fair share of the profits, too.)
• codefreeordie 4y ago
  > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. I promise. This is true, but at the same time, if you're trying to hire people for $X, and I currently make $3X or more, it is probably not worthwhile for us to spend much time exploring working together. For the most part, I can tell whether you're likely to be vaguely close based on discussing the role with you. It's a bit of a signaling game, but I can usually tell if we're at least kinda-sorta close -- but at the same time I've definitely gotten well into the process with folks only to discover that we're so far apart that it doesn't matter what the role or company is like.
• nsxwolf 4y ago
  I have salary requirements that have to be met, full stop, or I cannot waste my time talking to you. There is nothing you can do to convince me to go below my bottom line. I have bills to pay and my family is used to a particular lifestyle. "Hey kids, you're going to public school next year so daddy can chase a dream he had in his early 20s!" ain't gonna fly.
• saddd 4y ago
  >And... before you say, perhaps your salary ranges were bad, they weren't. Our salary offerings are very aggressive to the developer's benefit. In my opinion, salary is a sign of respect from you employer. Let's see your salary range numbers and what tier you fall under. https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-salaries-in-the-netherlands-and-europe/ https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala... Are you in Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3? Are you paying your mid-level engs over $200k total when including stock and bonus? That's the minimum benchmark I would use for my next job hunt. 120k+ for juniors, 200k+ for mid, 300k+ for senior, 400k+ for anything above senior.
  • nsxwolf 4y ago
    I would love to hit that senior/above senior range working remote from the midwest, but everybody I talk to adjusts heavily for COL.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• TameAntelope 4y ago
  Hm, I know you're getting a lot of responses to this, but just to throw my view onto the pile: what I "enjoy" doing (golf, video games, playing with my dogs, traveling with my wife, etc.) is not something anyone will pay me for. What I'm willing to do, however, is a whole bunch of stuff, as long as that "stuff" gives me a better ability to do those things that do make me happy, and a primary driver of my ability to do the things I like is how much money I have. Happiness doesn't really factor into it, because as I said, the items at the top of the list of things that make me happy are nonstarters from an income perspective. It's delusional, as an employer, to think your job is to make the people who work for you "happy" in some objective sense. Nobody would be there if you weren't paying them, you need very badly to remind yourself of that.
• jzb 4y ago
  <em>Meaning, if you are looking for a place you will enjoy working, do not start with salary.</em> I'm not. Work is work. It's how I pay for my life. I want a job that doesn't make me miserable, and is constrained to ~40 hours per week -- but "enjoy" isn't the goal. Making the maximum amount of money for my labor is the goal. (Without doing things that go against my ethics, or are illegal. I could make more if I had no ethical boundaries, I'm sure.) I have a family, a mortgage, pets with expensive vet needs, and a limited number of years left in my career. "Enjoyment" doesn't pay the bills, supply health coverage to my dependents or put money in the bank to cushion any economic downturns, etc. I wish I'd had this attitude starting in my early 30s. I wouldn't be working now at all and could actually do things I enjoy with all my time and not just a sliver of it.
• DevKoala 4y ago
  If I was evaluating multiple similar roles, and most offered salary ranges except a few, I would ignore the ones that didn’t offer salary ranges. Your experiment is not valid because you are not controlling for the job market environment. However as the job market environment evolves to offer more data, the job postings with less data will suffer. We already see this pattern in other markets such as housing/cars. More information makes the posting more attractive to the extent that there is whole industries dedicated to offering more information about postings, ex: carfax. The job market is not different.
• chociej 4y ago
  High salary won't make you happy, but low salary will definitely make you sad.
• ROTMetro 4y ago
  Don't be a zombie. Don't feed the zombies. Knowing the price range the company can afford tells me if this is a zombie company (a company that is dead if it has to pay the going rate but stays 'alive' by hiring people willing to settle for less (students getting experience, self taught people, exploited desperate people, etc)). I have worked at plenty of zombie companies, from ones that thought they were startups, ones using the motivation of making the world better, ones exploiting excon's whose POs require them to have a job as a probation condition with the threat of prison. Every single one EXPLOITs you somehow (using FOMO, passion, compassion, the threat of your freedom). Do not go to work for a zombie company, and let legit businesses know they present themselves as a zombie business when they fail to publish salary ranges.
• winternett 4y ago
  I always like to start with the salary. I don't think I've ever been disappointed when a job pays me more, because it drives me to be worth the money more... Otherwise we (Me and the recruiter) both end up wasting each other's time once I find out the salary is below market value. Honesty is key, positive company culture should be a common expectation in all roles, it's not worth sacrificing income for in my opinion. One of the best career moves I can make is to ensure I am being paid properly for every job I accept. The most defeating experience is accepting a job that pays under market standard when roles and responsibilities are always guaranteed to increase and often become overburdening without overtime... I also live in an "At will" state, and that makes employers pretty careless about retaining me when their budgets on other projects suffer. As a senior employee who has done everything from Development to Architecture to Proposals to Project Management, Companies often try to seek advantage for hiring me at a lower rate for just one of those skills, but then often pile on the other roles and work hard to tap my experience/knowledge/contacts for free... In cases like that, a company becomes one in the same as an employee that lied on their resume. It's akin to being on a dating site... We all need to stop wasting each other's time and find the right matches that are well suited to each job. Listing salary is like a suitor listing their age on their dating profile... Pretty essential every time.
• itronitron 4y ago
  Your company's location/HQ will significantly impact assumed salary ranges.
• ewhanley 4y ago
  It feels like there is a data leak built into this test. Imagine ‘better candidate’ sees the posting without salary info. They decide it’s interesting and google ‘salary kokanator’s company’, see the posting with salary info, and decide it meets the bar. Next they either 1) know the salary meets their hurdle and don’t care which posting they apply to or 2) intentionally apply to the posting without salary info in hopes that it keeps salary negotiations open. Either way, it feels questionable to draw much signal from the process.
• onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  My primary reason for where I work is my salary (FAANG), and I have never been happier with my job. I work to live, not live to work.
  • speedgoose 4y ago
    You can also have an exciting work that fits your interests because life is short and it is better to enjoy most of your work hours.
    • shultays 4y ago
      And once your job becomes non-interesting, what do you do? Quit? How many times? I expect some excitement from my work but in the end it is just work. I work 8 hours and they pay me for that. I think having that personal attachment to your work and expecting more from it leads to early burn out when things are not going great
      • speedgoose 4y ago
        If you job becomes non interesting you need to take actions to make it interesting again. Perhaps some change of projects, of responsibilities, of technologies, of scenery. If it’s not possible or it doesn’t work you will have find another interesting job indeed. You may have to do that a few times during a career but I don’t think you should switch every second year. It’s true that if you love your job, it may be hard when it’s not going great.
• tshaddox 4y ago
  > If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. It's not really clear what "primary" means here. It's certainly one of my primary concerns. > Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. Okay, but that doesn't mean that if the salary were zero they would take the job. It just means that they have enough options within their acceptable salary range that they also considered other factors. Asking whether salary is the primary reason for choosing a job is a bit like asking if width is the primary reason for choosing a storage unit.
• roflyear 4y ago
  Why do you think people work? For fun?
• hedora 4y ago
  I think your experience makes sense. Over time, salary has become less than half my total comp. If salary is the headline number in the posting, I'll assume total comp isn't interesting. Put another way, I'd rather work somewhere that's investing heavily in tech talent and also has good market fit. Stock tends to go up at places like that, so it had better be a big chunk of the offer. This makes total comp impossible to predict, and therefore hard to put in a single number.
• the_gipsy 4y ago
  > the better candidates responding to the ones without salary ranges. So they would have rejected your offer... or are you hoping to reel them in with the sunken cost fallacy?
• brailsafe 4y ago
  Did you end up hiring the people who performed better and who responded to the salary-absent posts, and what did you end up paying them compared to the initial ranges in the others?
• wonderwonder 4y ago
  I'm not really happy at any job, I would rather be doing something else. Especially with remote work as there are no real relationships built. But the higher the salary the more I can do the things that make me happy. Salary also allows me to take care of my family, pay for their college etc. I would be willing to bet that most (not all) the hiring mangers saying money doesn't matter are the ones offering salaries on the lower end. It's a job I want to get paid as much as I can as I am selling hours of my life to make someone else rich. Are the higher level people also taking lower salaries and lower equity in exchange for happiness? Maybe sometimes but often probably not. "Meaning, if you are looking for a place you will enjoy working, do not start with salary." Are you suggesting people go through multiple rounds of interviews with no idea of what the salary is for the position? Of course you start with salary otherwise everyone is just wasting their time. If the company does not want to discuss salary up front then there is probably a pretty good reason for that and it's not a place I want to work as this trend would likely continue come raise and promotion time as well. It's the same companies demanding loyalty and offering none.
• civilized 4y ago
  Frankly, I think you either didn't do a rigorous experiment, were fooled by randomness, or (most likely) aren't hiring top talent. Interview loops are an enormous investment of time these days. I'm not going to take one unless I'm confident the offer will come out in an acceptable range. Maybe you can fool some people with less experience or market power by not giving them the comp info upfront. But not the best. And don't be surprised when any truly talented folks among your hires leave much earlier than you hoped. Karma.
• phpisthebest 4y ago
  People say alot of things that do not match reality, this is why these kind of self reporting surveys are bunk. People work for money, plain and simple. If the salary is not there people walk. Period. This is more than just "pay the bills" but Pay the Bills + Savings + retirement + Kids + hobbies + etc. 10 years ago the "magic number" where salary started to become less important was 75K, today (and I have not seen the research) but my guess that is closer to 100-120K before your idea of "salary is not the most important thing" comes into play, even then though it will be in the top 5 until you are well in the 1 percent category which is 400-500K +
• pcmoney 4y ago
  Salary is not a "sign of respect" it is an indicator of how the company makes money and values software engineers. Software companies have software margins other companies... do not. Software engineers want to work at companies where software is the product because: 1. They get to contribute more to the success of the company 2. What they built typically has real users 3. They are valued and get paid commensurately with the near infinite leverage they bring to the company. 4. They get to work with other like minded software engineers. 5. There is probably an established career path for them if they perform well. Good engineers typically ALREADY work at a place they enjoy. The market is too competitive for good talent to put up with any BS whatsoever. You are trying to get them to leave a good place for another hopefully better place. However, there is risk because they don't know your company/have to trust you a bit. You MUST compensate for this risk. My risk premium is easily a 25-50% salary increase. Which means I need a job to pay about $100-200k more or have significant high probability upside (IPO etc.) for me to jump all else equal (passion products maybe an exception). If you waste my time with a job ad that doesn't tell me up front what to expect I will: 1. Not accept your interview request or offer. 2. Will flame your company throughout my entire network. Also if you want me to do a "take home" anything that will be $500/hr with a max of 4 hours spent.
• jcadam 4y ago
  If the posted salary is too high I'll probably assume it's a scam or you plan on doing a bait and switch anyway :)
• bastawhiz 4y ago
  Sorry, no. I have bills to pay. If your role means taking a 50% pay cut, I'm just not interested. I don't want to waste multiple days of PTO to interview just so you can give me a number that is entirely unacceptable for my experience, expectations, and skill level. The most amazing role in the world would get the same response if I can't support my family.
• xemdetia 4y ago
  I think the things missing from this anecdote are secondary sources like glassdoor or personal references. If a company is large enough to have a high enough headcount you can often find it through secondary sources so the salary range is not a 'surprise' or at least you know what the floor should be. The floor is the real problem with a lot of postings where the salary range that they are expecting to spend is just not even a close match.
• dennis_jeeves1 4y ago
  >If your primary reason for responding to an ad is based upon salary you are not going to be happy where you work. I promise. Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. [0] It is important, it makes it possible to pay bills, but it isn't what makes people happy. Generally when you get people for whom salary is way down on the list, you get morons. But I think you are indeed looking for morons. So your strategy will work.
• WheatM 4y ago
• rfrey 4y ago
  Yeah, you hid the salary and got applications from people who would have passed if it had been available. Congratulations, deception and trickery get leads. Candidates is a red herring. What was the quality of the actual hires from one branch versus the other?
• svnt 4y ago
  Bold of you to assume that people weren’t looking at both job postings before applying. I’ll regularly take specific language from a job posting and search on it to see what information is where.
• Lazare 4y ago
  I think that misses the point. It's quite possible that if you have high salary ranges, you'll get high quality candidates through both versions of the job listing who will be happy with the offered salary. The issue is the companies out there with low salary ranges. And while it's absolutely true that a high salary isn't going to make an otherwise bad job great, too low a salary will make an otherwise great job terrible. So I'm not really surprised that your company wouldn't see much value from publishing salary ranges, but I don't think that means they have no value. Also on a side note: > Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. That's a weird link to give as evidence of that, since it immediately covers two different surveys that found compensation was the number 1 factor, before going on to discuss a third survey that found it was important, just not #1...
• ssss11 4y ago
  I don’t agree with this take, and there are tons of plausible reasons you may have had better responses to the ad without salary listed. The problem is that no one wants to apply to a job where the salary isn’t viable for them. Amongst the 50 other things they don’t know about a role and company, most of them you need to talk about in an interview, but item #1: salary, is make or break, and can be answered before even applying. It’s disrespectful to candidates not to put a range on the ad.
• jjav 4y ago
  > Of the top reasons people are happy at work, salary is way down on the list. Absolutely. But when considering a new role, I don't work there yet. It'll take a lot of research and talking to people to try to figure out if the working conditions are good or not. I don't want to spend that effort if it turns out you'll pay less than half what I make now. So I'll need to talk about comp on the first conversation with a recruiter.
• BeefWellington 4y ago
  Ads are one part of the equation but being actively searched out by recruiters who can't provide salary information is frustrating as someone with experience. I've gone through similar frustrations to other posters here where someone attempted to recruit me and gave me the old handwave "salary will be discussed later but I'm sure it can be worked out" and after multiple interviews they offered me roughly 50% of my base compensation at my (then current) role. It was a waste of everyone's time. Providing salary information isn't about finding the ideal place but filtering out the places that aren't in the same ballpark.
• adave 4y ago
  Fount the HM/Recruiter with their skewed up anecdotal data. Usually bad jobs hide behind lack of salary data and just like companies want to evaluate me, I want to evaluate them first.
• flippinburgers 4y ago
  Yeah maybe the money doesn't matter if you are single. If you have a family to support, however, money is every so slightly important.
• invig 4y ago
  Which pool did candidates end up being hired from?