Yup.. me too. Companies do love low balling though i noticed and it's hilarious when u get an offer and a few months later your salary exceeds the offer made due to annual increase. Shame.. i feel sorry for the recruiter.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Main reasons you wouldn't get an EV?
California bans salary question
- Thread starter spiff
- Start date
Yup.. me too. Companies do love low balling though i noticed and it's hilarious when u get an offer and a few months later your salary exceeds the offer made due to annual increase. Shame.. i feel sorry for the recruiter.
I agree, I have just become a Charted Accountant. And the recruiters say it means nothing lol. But luckily I'm in a position that I don't need to leave straight away, I want to way up options correctly.
I'm not missing, the point - I am making a statistical argument (that people who are better at their jobs tend get paid better), while your argument is anecdotal.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
That's fine. But when a position is advertised for a specific range, the offer should be within that range.
If you as a high performer feel aggrieved that some noob is going to fall within that range and be on par with your salary, it would be time for you to look elsewhere, not them...
People who do their jobs very well in one company, tend to do similar jobs very well in future companies.
"More likely"
So then let the hiring company decide. If they think that an 18 year old with a PhD in maths is worth $450k despite having no previous experience, let them pay him that.
I don't get why you are so against the free market. The free market is what determines the CURRENT value of your skills. The market will pay what it is willing to pay and not a cent more.
Why so sour about it?
airborne
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 29,420
- Reaction score
- 15,762
Can't prospective employers just buy a candidates credit report to get a pretty good idea of what they earn?
Granted credit reports can at times be full of very old data and it'll be quite hard to negotiate in bad faith like that, we aren't allowed to ask what you earn so we pulled your report and....
Granted credit reports can at times be full of very old data and it'll be quite hard to negotiate in bad faith like that, we aren't allowed to ask what you earn so we pulled your report and....
Clearly I've been out the job hunting for far too long.
I've always told them what I expect = X.
What I currently earn is none of their business as I expect X.
Then again I've had only gone for 1 interview in the last 10 years.
*Edit* When I was looking and filled in recruiters sheets or job application, the current remuneration section I always leave blank.
I've always told them what I expect = X.
What I currently earn is none of their business as I expect X.
Then again I've had only gone for 1 interview in the last 10 years.
*Edit* When I was looking and filled in recruiters sheets or job application, the current remuneration section I always leave blank.
Might be so, but there isn't a direct correlation between what people get paid and how well they do their jobs. Take Jacob Zuma, for instance.
That's nonsense. People move jobs for many reasons, not just money.
Because all that matters, is what the previous company paid... lousy straw man.
Not a straw man if many employers use that to determine the potential offer
There is a direct correlation. Correlation is relationship computed from the population, not selected individuals.
If this was all they used, there would be no need for interviews.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
Of course it's not just about money. I'm just countering your argument that's based on money. But don't call it a strawman just because you have no counter of your own...
... and the measure if someone is doing their job well is subjective. People earn large salaries for many reasons, including but not limited to whether they do their job well - individuals who play office politics well also earn a lot - which has no bearing on how well they do their job
To counter my argument, you would have to show that salary is completely unrelated to performance or that people who are better at their jobs get paid less. I am not arguing that the correlation coefficient is 1, I am claiming that it is positive. This is hardly a stretch.
Your argument is the epitome of a straw man. It only makes any sense if it's all about money, and as you just said it is not.
I never said that it is "completely unrelated" - so don't put words in my mouth.
Its not a reliable factor, especially considering that companies abuse it, as a lot of people have experienced. Also - with many companies the interviewer (or panel) who determine if the candidate has a suitable skill set and experience are not the same people responsible for determining the offer amount - that is some idiot at HR, who has no clue about the skill of the candidate and proceeds to base the offer on whatever the candidate earned in the past.
I sympathize with you. Some of us never managed to get that far back then. The problem is that it seems, at least to some of us in the field, that it is far more easier to be a CA these days than it used to be. It might be bias or jealousy but unfortunately that is the perception. I know so many young CAs nowadays than I know Accountants who are not CAs, so in a way the profession is losing prestige. But let me tell you one thing, its much better to be a CA with experience than have experience without CA. If I had CA then I would probably be earning double my salary right now given my experience. So you'll come orite later on.
For many HR staff it is all about the previous offer, see my previous post