5 ms·

To answer your question as posed: to fix the power/information imbalance that is used to pay people less than they are worth. To answer your question the way I

by 1991g 4y ago

To answer your question as posed: to fix the power/information imbalance that is used to pay people less than they are worth. To answer your question the way I wish to: thanks to Equifax's TWN, candidate resumes, reference checks, background checks etc - the candidate is already showing all their cards.

WalterBright 4y ago
> the power/information imbalance that is used to pay people less than they are worth Candidates often pad their resumes with skills they don't have. They'll pad their salary history. They'll hide things like stretches in jail. They'll list degrees they don't have. All to get a higher salary. The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. It goes both ways. I know you likely don't believe me, but I've been employer and employee, at min wage and professional wages. If you ever become an employer, you'll find out real fast how little power you have over employees. Anecdotally, I know employees with million dollar salaries. Is it credible that if corporations really had all this power, they'd be paid that much?
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  > They'll hide things like stretches in jail. Why would a company pay someone less because they've been in jail?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    There's the elevated risk of re-offending, or being less trustworthy. For example, if they did a stretch for embezzling, they'd be placed in a position where trust is less of an issue, which would likely pay less. I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate heavy machinery if he did a stretch for drunk driving. Would you?
    - Supermancho 4y ago
      > I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate heavy machinery if he did a stretch for drunk driving. Would you? Funny enough, that comes back on a background check...if it was within 7-10yrs depending on source, if you want to pay for it, iirc. JP Morgan will go back as far as they can to seek out any sort of theft or fraud charge for ANY position. Ostensibly this is about transparency for developers, so alcoholics are pretty common in corporate jobs the higher up you go in salary.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    If you invent a 4-year stint at respected company XYZ to cover your resume gap, the company might pay you based on the value that faked experience brought. It’s not that I’ll pay less because you were in jail a while, but rather that being in jail likely makes you less competitive skills and experience wise compared to someone who worked straight through.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  BTW, I have a friend who, when he interviews candidates for professional positions like accounting and such, asks them "how much is 20% of $20,000?" A significant fraction, even those with masters degrees, even those who claim to be accountants, are flummoxed by it. There's a lot of resume inflation going on.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Doing that sort of mental arithmetic in a high pressure situation has very little to do with an accounting degree. Yes, it should be easy but I imagine I could make a lot of people flail at questions that they could answer easily sitting around a coffee table.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > Doing that sort of mental arithmetic in a high pressure situation has very little to do with an accounting degree. Yeah, it does. Accountants work with percentages all the time. And if they can't do literally trivial arithmetic, they aren't fit to be accountants. He'd give them an hour. So let's see. What's 10% of $20,000? Then double it? (There are many other shortcuts to the answer.)
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Yes. Give someone an hour, of course. I'd expect any minimally educated white collar professional to be able to that without a calculator. As a verbal problem to answer in ten seconds? I'm more sympathetic with people freezing even if I certainly expect I'd be able to do it absent extreme pressure.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        If someone regards an interview question as extreme pressure, I don't know what to say. Except advise the person to do more job interviews until they get used to it.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
- antisthenes 4y ago
  > Candidates often pad their resumes with skills they don't have. They'll pad their salary history. They'll hide things like stretches in jail. They'll list degrees they don't have. All to get a higher salary. The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. It goes both ways. I'll explain why I disagree with you and downvoted you (since you are making an argument in bad faith). 1. Padding a resume is sometimes necessary to bypass automated systems. If the choice is between slight embellishment and never getting an offer, then I believe it is morally justifiable to pad the resume just enough to conform to requirements. It's really an open secret - recruiters will openly tell you to do this. Also, to go further on this, job requirements are very often written by less technical people (HR) who will make mistakes in the number of required years in tech, or have ridiculous requirements that would limit the candidate pool to maybe...10 people on this entire planet. 2. Padding the salary history is almost impossible and easily verifiable through pay stubs. I very much doubt this happens often enough at desirable jobs, especially where people's reputation is on the line. 3. They'll hide things like stretches in jail - Again, almost impossible to hide, considering court records are public record. Even you or I could check this and not proceed with offering them a job. If the company doesn't do this diligence - that's on them, they certainly have the resources to do so. > The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. What about cases where the employee ends up being better than expected and brings way more value to the company than the originally agreed upon offer? How quickly is that reconciled? It goes both ways, after all. > It goes both ways. While it does go both ways, it's like saying a pedestrian is also causing damage to the car during a collision. The amount of resources a company/corp has is insurmountably higher than any individual could hope to achieve (barring billionaires). This is why we have multitude of protections for employees (that corporations are continuously trying to circumvent) > Anecdotally, I know employees with million dollar salaries. Is it credible that if corporations really had all this power, they'd be paid that much? The mere fact that they are able to pay a million dollar salary to a single employee signifies one of the following: 1. The employee is indeed a genius who brings this amount of money in or more, or contributes to the company growth in a way to justify this. 2. The company enjoys something like monopoly presence on the market and can afford to overpay for truly mediocre employees. If this is the case, then it's hard to feel sorry for the company.
- colinsane 4y ago
  > The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. that employee's coworkers and team members surely would realize how well the pay matches though. or at least, they could, wherever the employer makes that info public. my own experience with internally-public compensation at a 70-engineer company: is that there's so much _error_ in setting salaries. i don't think my employer really cared if the salary they pay for equivalent work varies randomly by 20%: to them that's just the cost of doing business and they have enough margin to cover that. but when i see that my teammate, who's putting in literally 20-hr weeks and producing half the output as the rest of the team, is being paid 20% more than me? that's reason to feel that my employer isn't treating me fairly and to leave. that hurts my employer more than the 20% extra they're paying the other guy. i felt like there was a catch-22 here: in theory erroneous salaries could be more quickly corrected if they were internally public. but it's risky to make salaries public before the employer is reasonably confident that they're accurate.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    You don't have to leave. Just document the value you provide, and go negotiate. Yes, you can do that. I have. > that hurts my employer more than the 20% extra they're paying the other guy. I.e. there's your leverage. Go make your case. No excuses!
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      I've always hated the simplistic "Just negotiate, bro!" advice. I wish it came with more concrete tactics to use that work. I've never in my 20+ year career asked for more money from an employer and got it--no matter how many documents and facts I came in with. Here's how it goes with existing companies: [Me] Hi, I'd like a raise. [Co] Nope. [Me] OK, here are examples of the value I'm providing and how it's increased over time. [Co] Your current salary accounts for this. [Me] Other companies offer 20% more and I'm only asking for 10%. [Co] ... [Me] OK, I have an offer from the other company. Last chance. [Co] Well... Bye? Here's how it goes as a new hire: [Co] Here is your offer letter with your salary, bonus, and equity. (it's 0.2% more than my current TC) [Me] <gulp> I think the market rate should be much higher, based on my experience and skills. [Co] We don't agree. [Me] Can you be flexible with the equity? [Co] No. [Me] Can you offer a signing bonus? [Co] No. [Me] Can you be flexible with the base pay? [Co] LOL No. [Me] What about hours, time off flexibility, and so on... [Co] Look, do you want the job or not? There's a line forming behind you, my dude. I hate that a skill (negotiation) that is unrelated to my actual job has to be one of the primary drivers of my compensation.
JamesianP 4y ago
You can gather info on companies just as well.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  As a bonus, you're more likely to get an offer by researching the company beforehand and demonstrating familiarity with it.

by 1991g 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

> the power/information imbalance that is used to pay people less than they are worth Candidates often pad their resumes with skills they don't have. They'll pad their salary history. They'll hide things like stretches in jail. They'll list degrees they don't have. All to get a higher salary. The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. It goes both ways. I know you likely don't believe me, but I've been employer and employee, at min wage and professional wages. If you ever become an employer, you'll find out real fast how little power you have over employees. Anecdotally, I know employees with million dollar salaries. Is it credible that if corporations really had all this power, they'd be paid that much?

NoraCodes 4y ago
> They'll hide things like stretches in jail. Why would a company pay someone less because they've been in jail?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  There's the elevated risk of re-offending, or being less trustworthy. For example, if they did a stretch for embezzling, they'd be placed in a position where trust is less of an issue, which would likely pay less. I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate heavy machinery if he did a stretch for drunk driving. Would you?
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > I wouldn't want to hire someone to operate heavy machinery if he did a stretch for drunk driving. Would you? Funny enough, that comes back on a background check...if it was within 7-10yrs depending on source, if you want to pay for it, iirc. JP Morgan will go back as far as they can to seek out any sort of theft or fraud charge for ANY position. Ostensibly this is about transparency for developers, so alcoholics are pretty common in corporate jobs the higher up you go in salary.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If you invent a 4-year stint at respected company XYZ to cover your resume gap, the company might pay you based on the value that faked experience brought. It’s not that I’ll pay less because you were in jail a while, but rather that being in jail likely makes you less competitive skills and experience wise compared to someone who worked straight through.
WalterBright 4y ago
BTW, I have a friend who, when he interviews candidates for professional positions like accounting and such, asks them "how much is 20% of $20,000?" A significant fraction, even those with masters degrees, even those who claim to be accountants, are flummoxed by it. There's a lot of resume inflation going on.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Doing that sort of mental arithmetic in a high pressure situation has very little to do with an accounting degree. Yes, it should be easy but I imagine I could make a lot of people flail at questions that they could answer easily sitting around a coffee table.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Doing that sort of mental arithmetic in a high pressure situation has very little to do with an accounting degree. Yeah, it does. Accountants work with percentages all the time. And if they can't do literally trivial arithmetic, they aren't fit to be accountants. He'd give them an hour. So let's see. What's 10% of $20,000? Then double it? (There are many other shortcuts to the answer.)
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Yes. Give someone an hour, of course. I'd expect any minimally educated white collar professional to be able to that without a calculator. As a verbal problem to answer in ten seconds? I'm more sympathetic with people freezing even if I certainly expect I'd be able to do it absent extreme pressure.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        If someone regards an interview question as extreme pressure, I don't know what to say. Except advise the person to do more job interviews until they get used to it.
- sokoloff 4y ago
antisthenes 4y ago
> Candidates often pad their resumes with skills they don't have. They'll pad their salary history. They'll hide things like stretches in jail. They'll list degrees they don't have. All to get a higher salary. The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. It goes both ways. I'll explain why I disagree with you and downvoted you (since you are making an argument in bad faith). 1. Padding a resume is sometimes necessary to bypass automated systems. If the choice is between slight embellishment and never getting an offer, then I believe it is morally justifiable to pad the resume just enough to conform to requirements. It's really an open secret - recruiters will openly tell you to do this. Also, to go further on this, job requirements are very often written by less technical people (HR) who will make mistakes in the number of required years in tech, or have ridiculous requirements that would limit the candidate pool to maybe...10 people on this entire planet. 2. Padding the salary history is almost impossible and easily verifiable through pay stubs. I very much doubt this happens often enough at desirable jobs, especially where people's reputation is on the line. 3. They'll hide things like stretches in jail - Again, almost impossible to hide, considering court records are public record. Even you or I could check this and not proceed with offering them a job. If the company doesn't do this diligence - that's on them, they certainly have the resources to do so. > The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. What about cases where the employee ends up being better than expected and brings way more value to the company than the originally agreed upon offer? How quickly is that reconciled? It goes both ways, after all. > It goes both ways. While it does go both ways, it's like saying a pedestrian is also causing damage to the car during a collision. The amount of resources a company/corp has is insurmountably higher than any individual could hope to achieve (barring billionaires). This is why we have multitude of protections for employees (that corporations are continuously trying to circumvent) > Anecdotally, I know employees with million dollar salaries. Is it credible that if corporations really had all this power, they'd be paid that much? The mere fact that they are able to pay a million dollar salary to a single employee signifies one of the following: 1. The employee is indeed a genius who brings this amount of money in or more, or contributes to the company growth in a way to justify this. 2. The company enjoys something like monopoly presence on the market and can afford to overpay for truly mediocre employees. If this is the case, then it's hard to feel sorry for the company.
colinsane 4y ago
> The employer often doesn't realize for months that the employee wasn't as represented, and way overpaid. that employee's coworkers and team members surely would realize how well the pay matches though. or at least, they could, wherever the employer makes that info public. my own experience with internally-public compensation at a 70-engineer company: is that there's so much _error_ in setting salaries. i don't think my employer really cared if the salary they pay for equivalent work varies randomly by 20%: to them that's just the cost of doing business and they have enough margin to cover that. but when i see that my teammate, who's putting in literally 20-hr weeks and producing half the output as the rest of the team, is being paid 20% more than me? that's reason to feel that my employer isn't treating me fairly and to leave. that hurts my employer more than the 20% extra they're paying the other guy. i felt like there was a catch-22 here: in theory erroneous salaries could be more quickly corrected if they were internally public. but it's risky to make salaries public before the employer is reasonably confident that they're accurate.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  You don't have to leave. Just document the value you provide, and go negotiate. Yes, you can do that. I have. > that hurts my employer more than the 20% extra they're paying the other guy. I.e. there's your leverage. Go make your case. No excuses!
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    I've always hated the simplistic "Just negotiate, bro!" advice. I wish it came with more concrete tactics to use that work. I've never in my 20+ year career asked for more money from an employer and got it--no matter how many documents and facts I came in with. Here's how it goes with existing companies: [Me] Hi, I'd like a raise. [Co] Nope. [Me] OK, here are examples of the value I'm providing and how it's increased over time. [Co] Your current salary accounts for this. [Me] Other companies offer 20% more and I'm only asking for 10%. [Co] ... [Me] OK, I have an offer from the other company. Last chance. [Co] Well... Bye? Here's how it goes as a new hire: [Co] Here is your offer letter with your salary, bonus, and equity. (it's 0.2% more than my current TC) [Me] <gulp> I think the market rate should be much higher, based on my experience and skills. [Co] We don't agree. [Me] Can you be flexible with the equity? [Co] No. [Me] Can you offer a signing bonus? [Co] No. [Me] Can you be flexible with the base pay? [Co] LOL No. [Me] What about hours, time off flexibility, and so on... [Co] Look, do you want the job or not? There's a line forming behind you, my dude. I hate that a skill (negotiation) that is unrelated to my actual job has to be one of the primary drivers of my compensation.

JamesianP 4y ago

You can gather info on companies just as well.

WalterBright 4y ago
As a bonus, you're more likely to get an offer by researching the company beforehand and demonstrating familiarity with it.