[starttoaster]

> Nothing about you really stands out as problematic, but in my own opinion your heavy startup/crypto background makes you seem like someone only interested in money/getting rich quickly.

> You might be a great candidate, but I'd fully expect you to check out if a better offer even looked in your direction. Given a choice between you and a more-conservative candidate, I'd pick them.

Something about this seems... off to me. Yes, many of us are in tech because it's our passion. But I can almost guarantee that at least most of us work for companies _for money_, because _we need money_. And when people talk about money, in general, they're wanting _more of it._ How out of touch with reality do we think people that hire staff are? Even more than that, how do we gauge what a more conservative candidate looks like? I don't exactly put in my resume or cover letters (when I bother to write one) "I like money." But I can tell you that I very much do. Actually, nothing quite makes you start liking money the same way that growing up poor does.

Anyway, this rant wasn't necessarily focused towards you, so much as that line of reasoning, which I've seen before. In particular, "I'd fully expect you to check out if a better offer even looked in your direction." If we're discussing similar (or better) workplace culture and benefits, an offer for more money will usually do this. There aren't too many engineers in tech that are providing a company value out of the kindness of their hearts, they want a pay check, the bigger the better.

[strken]

I like money too, but I also like other things. I have a bias towards staying at a company because of the non-monetary value of knowing other employees and knowing the work, and because I prefer stable steady money to a (slightly) greater amount of riskier new job money. There's a number where I'll leave, but I won't jump ship over e.g. a $5k difference unless I already want to quit for other reasons.

I don't think it's wrong to have a preference for employees like me when hiring. Churn has a cost and employees with a history of churn inflict that cost more often.

[jstarfish]

> Yes, many of us are in tech because it's our passion. But I can almost guarantee that at least most of us work for companies _for money_, because _we need money_. And when people talk about money, in general, they're wanting _more of it._

I don't disagree, but I'm just being practical. The hiring process sucks. I appreciate not being made to do it more often than necessary.

Further, reqs are not guaranteed. Suppose I have an open req now and hire you. You ditch us three months later. Now there's a risk that I'll have to renegotiate for that req-- and may not get it again if another team makes a better pitch. Or, you shake me down for more money than we agreed to retain you-- your loyalty is clearly for sale; even paying you again doesn't guarantee your commitment, and it makes me look like a goddamn idiot when you leave anyway shortly after that. Not worth the risk!

I'd rather give the spot to someone who'll stick around for a minimal level of commitment, stick to the negotiated terms and won't waste my time with drama. I'm hiring you to make less work for myself. If your insatiable pursuit of money is going to create more work for me, our interests do not align from the start.

[dragonwriter]

> your loyalty is clearly for sale

Employees aren't feudal servants who are subject to their masters, they are suppliers from whom you are purchasing labor. Obviously that labor is for sale, otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy it in the first place. Sure, you'd like to be treated as a monoposony purchaser, rather than an option in a marketplace, but equally obviously any supplier of labor would be foolish to treat you that way.

[starttoaster]

> Or, you shake me down for more money than we agreed to retain you-- your loyalty is clearly for sale

Who doesn't have a dollar amount that they're willing to walk away from a job for? I've been personal friends with many of my old managers; not one of them didn't understand when I left for a role for a significant pay increase. One of them was even joking with me one day about the talk he had with his manager on what they would have to do to retain me, and his answer was, "they offered him $50k more than we pay him, we won't be retaining him." And most of them were talking to me about their next role's pay bump at one point or another too. And let's say I was working for you, and out of the blue a friend from a previous job is hiring for their team and offers me a similar position for $50k more per year than you're paying me, I'm not going to not take it out of some sense of loyalty. In the words of the wise, "there's always a price and everything is for sale." The products your company offers is generally for sale for as much as is economically feasible, the same way your engineers are selling you their time.

Anyway, your overall point is that as a hiring manager you don't want to stake your time and reputation on people that seem disloyal. My point is both that people are inherently disloyal with their employers (in that their loyalty costs money), and that the signals you use to judge loyalty are, in my opinion, flawed. I can go into why I'm of that opinion, but it's my lesser of the two opinions.

[ponector]

Suppose you hired him. Three month later your CEO decided to please shareholders and announce lay offs. But laid off people were loyal. Is their loyalty for sale? Worth nothing?

Is loyalty actually a tale to tell to your employee to keep them in while suppressing pay rise?

[hx8]

How much extra money would you need to leave your job and go to another one, with similar culture/benefits/other considerations? Most people wouldn't go for 1%. Many people wouldn't go for 15%. You have to take into consideration things such as the risk of moving to an unknown situation, the intangible benefit of your work place reputation where you currently are, the value of how your experience will look on your resume, etc. If given the choice between two candidates, the one that I suspect will leave for a 1% raise and the one that will need 15%, I'll hire the 15%.

Then there's the fact that some people have a perception that those in crypto/startups value promises of future money very highly. You wouldn't hire someone that you think will leave for a bit of equity the next time a hype wave hits tech.

[starttoaster]

Speaking in percentages in this context is generally not super useful, in my opinion. For example, 15% on top of a $200k/yr salary is a pretty decent increase if we're talking about a similar role/set of responsibilities, and seemingly similar culture/benefits. That's almost an extra $800 take-home per paycheck. Assuming a semi-monthly payroll cycle. I just bought a new induction stove and oven for $900, that pay increase would have almost covered it by itself in 2ish weeks. We're talking about a lifestyle change with that bump.

15% on top of a $80k/yr salary on the other hand is a pretty measly $350 extra per paycheck. I wouldn't give up my current workplace culture for that, no.

> If given the choice between two candidates, the one that I suspect will leave for a 1% raise and the one that will need 15%, I'll hire the 15%.

I guess I want to know what magic intuition this hiring manager possesses to gauge what dollar amount a person they just met would be willing to walk away for, though, where they are sure the other person would surely walk for a 1% bump.

I work for a startup today, and can tell you that I've certainly considered looking to FAANG positions for a higher salary. I don't know how much other people pay attention to the performance of IPOs lately, but equity is not as nice as cash in hand right now. And I don't know how much people here pay attention to crypto news beyond the headlines, but DevOps/SW Engineers that work for failed crypto startups don't typically get the same dissolution payouts that the CEO/founder did. I believe using either background as a signal for a person's level of greed is hugely misleading.

[rsynnott]

Most people will move jobs at a certain point for more money. Some people will move jobs every six months if it means getting more money, though, and no-one wants to hire someone who'll only stay six months.

[71a54xd]

Thanks, I'm mostly confused when I don't even make it to the intro stage with a recruiter. This is why I'm paranoid that hiring managers see something structurally wrong with my work history.