Node haha? Dang. As mentioned in an answer to another comment, perhaps framework was the wrong terminology to use, and something more all-encompassing to reflect what is wanted would've been better.
What do you think a developer using Javascript should use/know right now?
He is saying that Node is not a JavaScript framework. It is technically a back end scripting language. So maybe you would do well with a better umbrella term like skills or tools.
Noted – use of terminology could've been more accurate, but for the purpose of this article we tried to keep it quite simplified. Perhaps the wrong approach with regards to accuracy.
What were your thoughts on the broader points of the post?
I agree with it in terms of generally desired skill sets. Angular rose to prominence very quickly and Node has had a very steady grassroots climb. Backbone has been on the decline for a while now. I don't think React has the klout to really become a commonplace skill. We will see what happens with Angular after 2.0 though.
Either demand will explode again, or there won't be much new adoption outside of proof of concept projects. They basically will be losing much of the continuity other frameworks have.
I personally/professionally will consider using CanJs and EmberJs from now on.
It is admittedly not a totally methodical study, but the discussion is sort of compelling.
Human nature would suggest as much (we'd certainly hope for reciprocations of actions that demonstrate trust in the everyday at least). But as others have mentioned - there are drawbacks to being transparent, even with the potential benefits from the created virtuous circle.
a-d are all valid points, and (c) is certainly one crux when it comes to listing a higher-paying jobs - is listing 'competitive' the only way of combatting this (what about the application process finding the most compatible skill-wise, person-firm fit-wise, etc)?
It's very easy for me to be critical when I haven't faced the very real problems that hiring companies face but I think there is some justification for being skeptical of an employers true motivations.
Just thinking out loud; what does it really mean when a company doesn't want to attract someone who wants to get paid a lot?
Does it mean that they are afraid of getting "spammed" with applicants that they have to weed out in the interview processes?
Does it mean that they want to select for people who won't ask for what they are worth i.e. someone they can get at a bargain?
I think both followup questions are valid. As others have mentioned in addition to yourself, there is wariness of companies' intentions, which ties into getting someone for less/value/than what they're worth.
On the flip side, case may be they genuinely can't afford to pay as much - but potential applicants may be swayed if they trust in them, and choose to forgo a higher salary or accept other compensation methods or benefits.
Company "A" pays less but actually offers a higher total happiness level, lets call it "quality".
Company "B" pays more but is has a lower "quality", all things considered.
Applicants are going to tend to apply to Company B because salary is a simple metric that doesn't have to be explained. Company "A" needs to educate their applicants/"consumers" in order for the applicant to see their value proposition - and that is something that is hard to do in a job ad.
This sort of thing is very common in the retail market. For example, (in the U.S.) if you are under 30 you probably have never even seen a quality shovel. Good luck finding a shovel today that you can use without wearing gloves.
Great point re: salary bands, and existing employees reading listed job openings.
Each side of the bands/'competitive' debate has +/-s for sure. By 'bid to play' do you mean a 'race to the bottom' sort of thing re: salary/compensation?
I'm not clear on what "race to the bottom" is implying to in this particular sense so excuse me if I fail to properly answer your question. What I mean by "bid to play" is lets say Google and Apple are looking for the same developer and located within the same general vacinity of each other. After going through both interviews, one is willing to pay me $125k and other $130k. Their predeterminded budget number. My current skillset is greater than what the job description is asking for. With such both orgs should be open to discussing going above the 125 or 130 slighly so I can join the team because the ball is favorably in my favor. What I'm refering to is there should be an open door there for this to happen. Seeing the word competitve or open implys to me that the negotiations are open for the right person. Hence why they do not advertise salary on their postings. They're attempting to attract the best talent possible. A range stops that from happening because you are not willing to "bid to play".
Ah sorry, I've muddled myself somewhat with 'bid to play.'
But what you've said here would be appropriate when it comes to the best in their fields. And not just with salary (other compensation, care packages, etc). But would 'competitive' be less appropriate than something like 'negotiatiable?'
I would not say less apporpriate. I view both as equal. My example does not have to refer to the best in their fields. I just used that as the best case example to prove a point. It can refer to any level(jr., mid., sr., etc.) of qualified talent.
A range would at least give me a good idea of whether the salary is more or less than what I'm currently getting paid. If the high end of the range is well below my current salary, I know I shouldn't waste my time. "Competitive" can mean just about anything, so it gives me absolutely no information.
'Decent' is brilliant haha! :) Not seen that one yet. Your modus operandi, and note of caution are also spot on IMO.
Transparency (not just on salary, but role/skill expectations too) would appear to build trust. What can firms that can't offer as much do, do you think?
If you publish a job description and already know that your budget won't let you match market value I would just not mention salary at all in the ad.
Stating "competitive" while you know very well you're not is harmful in 2 ways:
- candidates who know the market will be very disappointed after taking the time to interview, most likely resentful and they will spread the word
- if someone actually accepts the low ball offer presented as "competitive" it means that they have no clue what the market is and you probably don't want to hire them.
You can be very upfront about it though, "salary below market value but most of our compensation package is composed of options/equity".
That's a reasonable assumption in all fairness. And I would agree that the other 'perks/benefits' need championing in cases where firms can't match market value (whether it be equity, healthcare, daycare, or even free beers/billiards on Fridays).
Heh, "Decent" is more likely to make me apply than "Competitive" because it shows that they know what good developers cost and are acknowledging they're not paying top rate.
I don't think "decent" is any more meaningful than "competitive". Based on my experience, "competitive" has proven to be sometimes way below market value, I don't see why "decent" would be any different.
Some companies have no clue what "competitive"/"decent" really is, some do but are just trying to find someone to milk for cheap.
'Decent' could have a connotation of 'good' (though that depends on the source, and the location targeted) - it's in my vernacular, but would agree, it can certainly be offputting, and a case of your second point - milking for cheap.
How might companies tackle the issues some have listed here of displaying salaries, while not deterring people (assuming they're being fair, not exploitative).
