No it doesn't. How do you write good specs for someone who is meant to own marketing for your business. You don't know marketing. You need someone who does.
Yeah, right. Independent of your mission (money, fame, doing something good), people need a lot of guidance and assistance and you will scramble to make them happy or productive. Maybe don't project your "every boss uses me to get rich" stick on to me.
It's because defining requirements is someone else's job, so if you get involved, you will be doing part of their job while you might already be working at your capacity.
The Agile style user stories that often lack technical details because the author doesn't know enough about the technical details means the developer is the one actually writing the requirements (usually as they are doing the work).
Well the people who don't give any fucks want to make their life easier so they do a minimally competent job and are usually supremely skilled avoiding pain. The disconnected people don't actually do any work at all. The incompetents cruise in, full of ego, poop everywhere and expect everyone else to clean it up and take responsibility for it. I don't mind that job because it's an open ended task. As for it being their fault, no it's not really, you're right. But management need butts on seats apparently so standards will be reduced until they are full.
Also many incompetent people, when faced with enough pain, will turn into competent people and eventually stop giving a fuck too.
It would be nice if only the people with real conviction were doing things by choice, but that isn't realistic. Most people are compelled to have a job, and the system has no guarantee of placing you in the job where you best fit.
It's possible he is right, but it is also possible that these traits aren't trainable, and without that, you may not have a population sufficient enough to sustain his ideal.
How far are they going to go to validate it’s legit if you make one up?
But say you don’t want to forge one for just any company because that might not be legal. You could make your own company with a site and make offer letters that way.
All you say in this case is that "the actual offer letters are proprietary information of the company that I'm applying to and I'm not at liberty to share them" or some similar verbiage.
FWIW I've done this several times (multiple offer scenarios where I have companies compete against each other for me) and never once has a company asked to see actual proof of the other offers on condition of hiring me. If that was a condition, I would say, sorry, I'll go with one of the other ones
Most people don't know what a $400k Security Engineer actually does to warrant that pay because you can probably find a similar job at another company that pays much less and probably makes you work more. I sure as fuck don't and I at least have one pentesting cert FWIW.
This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set. Otherwise why stop at the average? Just max it out and ask for $700k. Another $300k/yr won't break Netflix's bank and everyone else is getting rich that they won't care to call you out either.
Won’t they likely place you into a salary band once you actually start interviewing and they see what level you’re at? L1 starts at $100k and L7 tops out at $700k+. I would think a range that broad is using a single listing for all levels.
> This pricing scheme punishes people trying to be honest about their skill set.
I've really liked the rare company that advertises a narrow pay range and then makes a single, non-negotiable offer for the most they can get the candidate.
The company has more data. The company has an existing pay structure. The company knows its own budget. They should offer what they're willing to pay. Anything else is extremely disrespectful, frankly, despite being the norm.
Do ask for 700 but be prepared to be passed over for a candidate that's better but asked for less. And if you are exceptional (compared to others) then you damn well deserve it. Comparison to the rest of the market (on both sides) is the crux here, not being 'honest' or whatever (what does this even mean). Isn't it?
>Comparison to the rest of the market (on both sides) is the crux here, not being 'honest' or whatever (what does this even mean). Isn't it?
That market comparison is fraught with conditions and often only follows ill-defined job titles.
If you take a look at one of these postings - https://jobs.netflix.com/jobs/292552236 - you'll note that the way it's written, there aren't any exceptional job requirements here. It's hard to see why the salary range has such a high ceiling.
Obviously in the interview, they could have much higher requirements, but we don't know that unless someone from Netflix chimes in.
For example,
>You have knowledge of various regulations and controls (SOX, PCI, CCPA, GDPR, etc)
how much is knowledge of each of those worth towards the final salary? Pricing each of those would add more fidelity to the market's signals, but companies often don't do that. Same with technical skills or knowledge of individual products: how much is AWS knowledge worth at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels to a job that needs AWS knowledge?
This is like buying a publicly traded stock (not yolo'ing) with roughly 80% of the company information not available to you. That information is there for a reason because it promotes market efficiency. It allows you to more easily compare two companies that do similar work.
This is what is meant by honesty, but the job market hides this information. And the job market is often dishonest because it does not price these things, because it is hiding information from applicants, because that gives an advantage to employers. An extremely wide salary range here only serves that goal.
And on the employee side, it would mean that I can go learn AWS to a certain level, and I know that skill would contribute $X amount to the final salary that I can ask for. I don't have to play games trying to sell my skills for more than they're worth.
>The GPTs/GPT Agents and Assistants demos in particular showed that they are a black box within a black box within a black box that you can't port anywhere else.
This just rings hollow to me. We lost the fights for database portability, cloud portability, payments/billing portability, and other individual SaaS lock-in. I don't see why it'll be different this time around.
