585
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 108 points 10 months ago

Was looking at a job posting for a role in CA and the range was, I shit you not, 75k-395k.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago

I kinda want to give them the benefit of the doubt because that's just odd it seems as if someone just fat fingered the 3, because 75-95 makes a lot more sense

But then again corporate gonna corporate soooo

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately, this level of job regularly pays 200k plus or minus a bit. So I doubt it was a fat finger unless they meant 175-395.

[-] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Maybe they did fat finger it, but they didn't care because they weren't being paid enough?

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 10 months ago
[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 10 months ago

We need to eliminate the expectation that underpaid workers will or should bust their butt for the potential of a raise.

You treat me right and pay me well (a sustainable income) then I'll move mountains for you. But treat me inhumanely or pay me a pittance and I'll assume you wish I wasn't here.

[-] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

I usually average out the two salaries and use that as their "intended" starting pay.

So (75 + 395)/2 = 235k a year avg starting salary for an average applicant.

The top end I consider the pay if the applicant meets all the requirements listed in the job ad.

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Good call. That’s exactly what I do. I haven’t applied to a job like this m, but it seems like a good enough way to estimate.

[-] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's no accident. I was out of a job for half the year and saw this so many times. In states where the laws aren't specific enough, posting an absurd salary range is how companies comply with the letter but not the spirit of it.

[-] sxan@midwest.social 12 points 10 months ago

You've never shopped for housing in California, have you? $95k doesn't give you rent for a room in a quad.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Well I wasn't really saying it was a fair or decent wage lol just that it made more sense for the range to be a difference of 20k instead of 320k lmao

[-] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

Completely agree. I had the same logic, only since it was CA I figured they fat-finger-dropped a "2" in front of the first number.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's way too low for CA. But 395 is senior-staff-level.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

That's very fat fingers to type a 3 next to a - or a 9.

[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

What that says to me is they are not looking to fill a specific position. They are collecting resumes for whatever internal backlog and, should they have a need, they'll fill any necessary positions at those salary brackets from their resume pile.

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
585 points (98.5% liked)

Work Reform

9823 readers
239 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS