|
|
|
|
|
|
by benawabe896
4718 days ago
|
|
|
I definitely understand the sentiment in this comment, but if 60k annual is a good salary, think about 120k annually for just being a parasitic worm recruiter. Most folks at that "30 buck" rate have no idea that the employers would pay then much higher directly, and merely assume that the recruiter just took a flat fee. When it's understood that the recruiter took a percentage of the income, and that said percentage equates to double what the employee is actually getting paid... that's when the hatred starts. |
|
|
If someone has been getting offers and interviews for $60k positions and a recruiter can get them an $80k position, what does it matter to the developer if the recruiter gets $20, $40 or even $80k on top of that? I think with the right incentives recruiting can help everyone involved. The problem is when the incentives aren't aligned. If a company is giving Recruiter A $100k to find a developer no matter what, A's incentive is to push the developer's salary as low as possible. If Recruiter B gets a lump sum of 50% of the first year salary, B is going to fight for an extra few thousand dollars on my bottom line.
I'm on the opposite side of the country so it's very possible the recruiters in the Valley are leeches like they appear to be based on the general consensus on HN. My experience with them has been varied, from the former classmate with a degree in Fine Art suddenly trying to learn the difference between Java and JavaScript to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.