593
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

I kinda want to give them the benefit of the doubt because that's just odd it seems as if someone just fat fingered the 3, because 75-95 makes a lot more sense

But then again corporate gonna corporate soooo

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, this level of job regularly pays 200k plus or minus a bit. So I doubt it was a fat finger unless they meant 175-395.

[-] DoomBot5@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Maybe they did fat finger it, but they didn't care because they weren't being paid enough?

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago
[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago

We need to eliminate the expectation that underpaid workers will or should bust their butt for the potential of a raise.

You treat me right and pay me well (a sustainable income) then I'll move mountains for you. But treat me inhumanely or pay me a pittance and I'll assume you wish I wasn't here.

[-] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I usually average out the two salaries and use that as their "intended" starting pay.

So (75 + 395)/2 = 235k a year avg starting salary for an average applicant.

The top end I consider the pay if the applicant meets all the requirements listed in the job ad.

[-] hightrix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Good call. That’s exactly what I do. I haven’t applied to a job like this m, but it seems like a good enough way to estimate.

[-] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's no accident. I was out of a job for half the year and saw this so many times. In states where the laws aren't specific enough, posting an absurd salary range is how companies comply with the letter but not the spirit of it.

[-] sxan@midwest.social 13 points 1 year ago

You've never shopped for housing in California, have you? $95k doesn't give you rent for a room in a quad.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Well I wasn't really saying it was a fair or decent wage lol just that it made more sense for the range to be a difference of 20k instead of 320k lmao

[-] sxan@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

Completely agree. I had the same logic, only since it was CA I figured they fat-finger-dropped a "2" in front of the first number.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's way too low for CA. But 395 is senior-staff-level.

[-] bouh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's very fat fingers to type a 3 next to a - or a 9.

this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
593 points (98.4% liked)

Work Reform

9857 readers
822 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS