Comment on "The insultingly low salary you would have accepted is still too high."

imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I don’t get the skepticism. If you were deciding between two candidates of equal qualifications, and one asked for $65k, and one asked for $55k, and you chose the $55k one…what would you say to the $65k one?

  source

  • imposedsensation@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I was making a general comment that a lot of junior or entry-level jobs are being replaced by AI.

    source
  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Me?

    I’d go for the one that fit the “vibe” the best. If everyone can do the job itself equally, you step down to the people you think are going to mesh well with everyone else (and yourself). 10k a year is a small price to pay if picking the other one is less likely to result in a smooth workplace.

    After that, if those were as equal as guesswork can be, I’d look at things like proximity that might make one or other more reliable on a day-to-day basis, and if it was the higher pay request, try and negotiate. Again, that’s guesswork.

    But the point is that if you look at the qualifications for a job when considering pay, it can end up costing as much or more in hassles, or be a gain that exceeds the monetary price tag in other ways.

    Then again, I likely wouldn’t be in charge of hiring unless it was my own business. As an employee stuck in a hiring position, the choice would be based on policy, and a company big enough to hire and pay people to do hiring isn’t going to think the way I think.

    This isn’t an attempt to counter your position, it’s just an explanation of my priorities because it’s an interesting question.

    source

    • otp@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I definitely agree! There are a lot of other factors that should come into play. A corporation is more likely to focus on money. A smaller org would have more leeway to use human judgement.

      source