• reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    124
    ·
    2 months ago

    Only the salary ranges for a position become public. They aren’t going to publish what they pay each employee.

    • errer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      2 months ago

      And if it’s anything like California the ranges will be useless. My salary “range” is quoted as $80k - $170k. Real fucking useless.

        • slazer2au@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          2 months ago

          $81K because they have 5 years experience in a technology that has been out for 3 years.

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve looked at some California ranges. They tend to be well below what levels.fyi claims these companies pay (I’m thinking Netflix, Microsoft, Google).

        I’m assuming they lowball the range in the ad so if they get a candidate that doesn’t fit the original criteria they were thinking of but they still want to onboard, they can pay less. If they get a candidate that they really like, maybe they’ll pay more? I know we’re supposed to be all doom and gloom here, but there’s plenty of folks making ludicrous salaries in tech.

    • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thats true, you can ask the average salary for the role within the firm though. Having seen the pisstaking done in America with ranges, they got out ahead of it.

    • Technofrood@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I assume there may be some cutoff point, but what if you have a low number of people in the role say for example 2. Wouldn’t that be pretty much narrowing it down to being per employee?