Fellow Blinders, I'm curious to hear your thoughts: 1) I have no doubt that budgets are down with the higher cost of borrowing 2) There's also a well-documented understanding of the huge gap between exec and non-exec pay So there's a high probability of "skimming" for profits, and we have reason to question motives behind these layoffs. But let's say for the sake of argument that drastic decreases in operational budget are fully justified. Does that mean our market values have gone down from 6-8 months ago? Not at all! Because we offer the same skills and experiences now that we did then. If anything, our market values have only increased - between net new learnings, and this thing called inflation. The only major variable so far is budget. Companies seem to be offering less for the same positions. My workaround is: if they're not able to cough up equal pay for equal work due to supposed budget constraints, I'm not able to commit equal time for lesser pay due to time constraints. In other words, I propose a similar pay to my full market value on a prorated basis. It's still early in the game, but most recruiters are seemingly receptive to this alternative. To take this a step further, if this tactic is successful it offers an easier OE opportunity (assuming stability is your thing). Have you attempted this tactic before? If so, what are some of your experiences? TC: 185k
Comp = supply and demand, and companies just pay firms for this data “budget” is silly, many of these companies have billions, the bank vault is full Lots of laid off people (and many desperate on visa) and fewer positions mean lower pay. If people will readily accept this new lower pay, then market value has dropped. That is current state of the market
I agree that the bank vault is full and the "budget" excuse is greatly exaggerated. That's the issue - people accept pay cuts too easily. I suppose I should say actual value hasn't gone down, while "perceived" market value has decreased by virtue of people's willingness to make major concessions. Barring some widespread movement to push back, I'd say the only workaround is asking to go prorated. It's not ideal but it beats taking a huge cut AND working 5 days a week.
Consider from hiring manager perspective If you are willing to accept $X for 30 hours a week, and another applicant will accept $X but work 40+, then it provides you with no relative leverage furthermore by telling a company you won’t work more than Y hours (while other salaried employees have no such constraint) you devalue yourself as a resource
Tech Industry
Yesterday
1237
Women, help me understand why this is inspirational
Tech Industry
Yesterday
2118
What happens when most of your team is Indian?
Tech Industry
3d
58992
Crossed a line with my boss
Health & Wellness
Yesterday
344
Lasik cost
Health & Wellness
3d
44682
High performers, how often do you have slack off days?
I think this is advanced copium sorry bud
Ok then, I suppose that means you have nothing of substance to add.