Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are definitely living in an era of underemployment for most fields. I can tell you that in my area near the West Coast employers are paying the bare minimum of what the market will bear. I have a child graduating with a masters in May and have told her that she should continue to network as that is a better way of finding a better job these days. For most college grads, they are being required (in most fields) to work in unpaid internships for a while before they get paid job offers. When the job market turns around (more jobs than people to fill them) then employers will not be able to get unpaid interns and will start to raise wages overall. Even for those of us who are employed, we have lost quite a bit of value in our jobs. Several large employers here are no longer matching 401k, have not given raises for a few years, vacation and sick are now lumped into PTO with fewer days overall, and medical insurance premiums have increased significantly as the employers are no longer subsidizing them as heavily.
For the time being, if you are unemployed, I would take something to be employed. Then give yourself a chance to network in the field, give 110% even though you are being paid peanuts because you will need them to say good things for you to move up, and be grateful that you have a job. Even though all the news says we are in a better place with jobs right now, I know three people who were just laid off before Christmas.
If time savings is the issue, the job seeker can always indicate their salary requirement and/or make that a point of discussion at the intro call. However, I think while nobody wants to waste time, the bigger issue is securing leverage. Each side wants the other to 'blink first'. They don't list the compensation info for the same reason most job seekers don't freely divulge our salary.
Thats fine, this is a negotiation. However, employers aren't providing jobs as a service. They're the ones shopping for talent. If they feel that putting the salary down would benefit them, I'm sure they would. This isn't to say their decision to provide or conceal the salary is always correct. But they're doing it for their sake, not the jobseekers.
It's because their only focus is on getting the best talent for the least amount of money. The problem is that employers typically end up compromising on talent without realizing it.
The employer typically has more leverage because they don't have to hire you, no matter what unless they're truly desperate. If I post a range, and you ask for the highest amount, nothing says that I have to give it to you. I can simply offer you the number I want you to have and hold firm. There are always more candidates. If you think the offer is too low, someone else will think it's just fine. Employers end up outsmarting themselves.
Their strategy is to lure the best candidates into the net and then essentially pull a bait and switch. They figure if you get so far into the process, you'll just accept the offer because you're tired of interviewing and looking. The problem is that top candidates that know their worth will just decide not to accept the offer if it's not fair. You end up hiring the same people but spend more time trying to snag people that won't take your offer whether they knew the deal upfront or not.
And when you have mouths to feed and struggle to find a new job, you don't have a choice and there's no point complaining about it. We just have to take what is given to us in order to survive.
Again, this mentality is the reason why companies can get away with reducing pay for many incoming positions. If you're qualified and have substantial experience, companies shouldn't be trying to get you to sell yourself short, especially if it pays less than your current job.
Or, you are welcome to indicate your salary requirement in your response to their ad.
Just curious what you or others think about this... I've applied for a few jobs, in which the online applications ask for expected salary. There was space for a yearly amount & another space to type additional info related to salary. I searched for similar jobs on glassdoor.com & indeed.com & listed the mid-range, because I really need a job, now.
On a few other applications, I listed $1K & in the space below wrote, 'Salary is negotiable'. The reason was I thought perhaps my salary amount might have been too high (how do I know if they don't list a range) & it might increase my chances for an interview, if they feel they can negotiate downwards.
On others, I listed the higher range & below wrote, 'Current income includes salary, commission & bonuses'.
Of course I'd like to negotiate a higher rate, but I'd like to get in the door for an interview, before being excluded. For myself & others, what is our best strategy to get an interview, when such a question is asked upfront? Thanks very much.
I've got to ask, how can the same job (duties, expectations) have a range that broad. There's a huge difference between a $90K job and a $210K job. I could see a logical range something like $90K-$110K depending on the candidate, but not that broad. How can you even do a logical comparison between candidates since the expectations would be so different on each end?
Pay style whether it is hourly or salary, full with no comissions or the possibilities for comissions, spiffs and bonuses and most importantly, company size. A small company may offer 90k but it is much easier to move up if there is expansion and that is 90k guaranteed with the opportunity for bonuses based on performance that are bigger due to the size. The 210k maybe the largest competitor who maximized market share and cannot expand beyond where they are without mergers and acquisitions.
Just curious what you or others think about this... I've applied for a few jobs, in which the online applications ask for expected salary. There was space for a yearly amount & another space to type additional info related to salary. I searched for similar jobs on glassdoor.com & indeed.com & listed the mid-range, because I really need a job, now.
On a few other applications, I listed $1K & in the space below wrote, 'Salary is negotiable'. The reason was I thought perhaps my salary amount might have been too high (how do I know if they don't list a range) & it might increase my chances for an interview, if they feel they can negotiate downwards.
On others, I listed the higher range & below wrote, 'Current income includes salary, commission & bonuses'.
Of course I'd like to negotiate a higher rate, but I'd like to get in the door for an interview, before being excluded. For myself & others, what is our best strategy to get an interview, when such a question is asked upfront? Thanks very much.
If you just need a job put the low end range. I recently got an offer for 20k less than what I put on my salary requirements so it doesn't matter what you put down to some companies, they will offer you whatever they want.
Because the range is meaningless. I have a job posting right now where the range is $90K - $210K based on experience and preference. If I put that range, I would have everyone requesting to get paid $210K. The reality is that you have to be exceptional to get the higher rates.
I am every curious as to what type of job as they broad of a pay range. What would differentiate a canidate from one end of that to another? I get experience but what do you mean by preference?
I've seen high ranges before. Recently one of 35-85 and some from 40-110k. Sometimes there might be a trial of a position and then increase. Some communities have a police/fire chief as one position for example. I know one state that merged planning organizations to the point where the head of this one has jurisdiction of practically the western half of the state! The pay is comparable to being a town manager and yet the responsibilities are practically a governor. There's no way they can keep someone at that pay for awhile. Otherwise they'll leave with that experience to a place that pays more.
There's always factors in compensation. Benefits, working conditions, overall environment. I've heard of situations in academia where it gets down the little things. More assistants, more TA's, a better office even a better view.
I am every curious as to what type of job as they broad of a pay range. What would differentiate a canidate from one end of that to another? I get experience but what do you mean by preference?
Are you looking for more than what I already posted?
Some bigger corps have a huge salary disparity for the same position, city-to-city. You know a job in RTW Tennessee is going to pay way less than the same job in Philadelphia, for instance . . . I imagine not posting the salaries openly might be a factor in keeping disgruntled workers from making noise on the subject(?)
But yes, it is annoying. Not to go off-topic, but it is also hilarious the certifications/experience some positions require and then when you ask what the pay is, it is 12.00 an hour or something like that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
