this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
1471 points (99.2% liked)
memes
13069 readers
3809 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My last job had close to that range. There is a hiring range is typically 50-70% of the maximum. Below 50% is the developmental range for laddering underqualified internal hires. Over 70% is for very experienced, overqualified candidates. Generally employers won't go more than 85% of max because they need a couple years of cushion for salary increases. If they hire at max they know the candidate is going to be back on the market in a year.
It almost seems like it would be better to quote only the range at which they intend to actually hire, rather than dangling the best case maximum you could ever potentially earn at the absolute pinnacle of your tenure in the position. But maybe other smarter-than-me people expect the top number to mean that?
I don't entirely disagree with you. But the higher range is there to attract those hyper-qualified candidates. If you drop the bottom then candidates feel that you are offering them the bare minimum. There's kind of no winning here.