|
|
|
|
|
|
by autalpha
5519 days ago
|
|
|
This "we only hire the best in [city name]" truly frustrates me and frankly it is such a big turn off for me. I've interviewed with a few of these, and when it comes to salary negotiation they always give the reason: "we really want you, but the number you give us would create disparity/inequity between the current employees." Alright, let's look at the word "best." Is there anything better than best? Maybe bestest or most best? Come on, you CANNOT have a team of people where everyone is "the best." If you decided to make an offer to me, that means I am the best then? Everyone's best is different, therefore salary needs to be different for each "best." If I am the best, then what's the problem with me getting what I asked? If you want to give off the hype that you're a "big boy" company then back it up with real big boy money! But oh no, if you work for us, then that means you can use our "awesome" brand to sell yourself later. Like Google or Facebook. This is exactly like the usual situations: "I have a great idea, could you make this web app for me for free or for 2 small bags of peanuts? It will be the BEST addition to your portfolio." Remember those people? I know, it is negative. But I get so enraged sometimes thinking about this kind of cliche and messaging some new "startups" are using. If you want to hire the best, then pay top money. You're not Google--get over it! |
|
|
it is absolutely right check. People tend to say a lot of things until it is time to put money where their mouth is. If they don't pay the best [salary + bonus + RSU/options], then they don't hire the best - that applies to any company that has a real valuation (typically it'd be if company is past round A - i.e. at least some people bought into its valuation with real money)