Edit: I did not mean this as "only girls are unprofessional" so I removed that part. Teenage boys are equally as unprofessional, but I don't think they express it in the exact same way. If this was filled with dick jokes and the like I would have written "teenage boy".
"Trust me I know this already. I’m like barely 22."
We should not accept the meme of a "teenage girl" being a silly thing that doesn't know how to behave right, because it's just not true.
...is that better?
Or is it more obvious now that the original comment was an insult to girls?
> something worth [improving].
You are basically echoing the idea that women = unprofessional at such a young age.
We certainly do not want our teen girls to grow up believing that they are viewed as unprofessional in our industry.
Finding a job isn't just about getting paid the most money. You need to be in a job where you value the work and the people you work with. Because if I'm the one hiring for the role, if I detect that your only interest is in getting paid, I'm going to run away.
1. You're spoiled
2. You're overpriced
3. Your lack of humility is going to burn us one day
Technical folk and designers hold the whip hand right now, but that's no reason to abuse it.
You owe it to yourself to get the best possible compensation package, because no one else will do it for you.
I see people that truly understand their market value, have data backing it up, they are professional (I always tell people how I appreciate the time / offer, and I'm polite to recruiters), demanding about information (I have little tolerance for ambiguity in compensation, define everything, this is how I pay the mortgage and save for retirement / my kids college).
Some managers think that is spoiled (not that you are necessarily saying that), but this is a business transaction, I ask for market and turn it down if it's not that, or if the compensation is ambiguous.
Then I see those that don't know their value and just sort of take whatever because they don't like interviewing / negotiating. I don't see many of those at the high end.
The third group are who you are talking about, total babies. They complain about recruiters, or how much everyone wants them, place crazy demands on companies (I worked with a guy who literally had a rider like Van Halen in his LinkedIn profile, he ended up being a total prima donna who got fired because everyone hated him). Most people in this third group think they are in the first, and they aren't worth recruiting, even if they are strong technically.
Sometimes people believe this means startups / small companies can't compete, but the issue is, startups / small companies really aren't offering any sort of market comp, they don't give enough equity to employees to make the risk worth your while. You don't necessarily need to pay me what AmaGoogFaceSoft do, but you need to give me a significant chunk of equity and give me enough visibility into how that is cut up (preferences etc.) in the company for me to value it, otherwise its worth 0, even if I believe that the company will be successful. If you can't trust me enough with that sort of transparency, then it's not gonna work out. With a huge public company, I know what my stock is worth roughly.
I usually tell companies that I really do not like to negotiate compensation because this is logistics to me and is not worth the effort. Either a company is good and gives the right pay or I pass. I tell this early enough so that there is no expectation of haggling.
So far it worked.
I will be polite, but if you offer a dollar less in total compensation than the other person, I will accept the other offer and thank you for your time. Have to make hay while the sun is shining, and the music could stop at any time. Don't say someone is overpaid when the issue is you don't want to pay market rate; you're bringing emotion into a business transaction. Can't hire someone for a role? You're not paying enough or you're not willing to train someone to be as niche as you need.
Source: Infosec, ~2-3 contacts a week from recruiters.
EDIT: To those who are replying that I'm detached, not who you'd hire, etc, that's perfectly fine. Hire someone who undervalues their time and values your team or your working environment over getting paid what they're worth. I work hard to save up faster for financial independence; I want to spend my time working on what I want, not what someone else wants me to work on. Life is short.
Entirely possible. Luckily, someone's inability to properly value an employee's skills doesn't prohibit said employee from finding an employer who will pay the market clearing price for their time. Value is determined by the market, not an individual hiring manager.
> You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as being overpaid, which is pretty nonsensical.
There isn't such a thing. Someone is getting paid what they were able to negotiate between two willing parties.
The kind of thing that allows your lawyer or psychoanalyst (or your surgeon) to be not influenced in doing their work for (or on) you.
But you don't hire them, you pay them as consultants, and only when you actually need their professional services.
It is probably a good thing (for you) that you are so valued on the market that you can go for the highest bid on a virtual employment auction, and it is fair enough, still if someone is building a company I believe it is their right to limit the amount available for your wage to a given budget and looking for people that may bring with them (besides their professionality) something else to the company (be it enthusiams, good team playing, whatever).
In my experience (not connected to IT or related to it) it happened to me more than once to need to fire someone (or not hire him/her) not because they weren't good at their work (actually in some cases they were very good at it) but simply because they asked for a crazy amount of money or they had (or would have) made other people less productive, one way or the other.
I guess the bigger point is that, when an abstraction gets old and popular enough, it becomes first-class and its specifics get obscured by time. So employment isn't a marketplace anymore, because won't somebody think of the employers! but we just keep the aspects of employees being cogs in the business and call it "culture." Which, of course, the dissenting replies have shown in spades: ask not what your company can do for you, ask what you can do for your company!
Many people take into consideration much more factors, than just money, i.e. it is common to work on crappy project in hostile environment with no flexibility for excellent money, and - on the contrary - work for a little less but on fun projects, in friendly environment, with great perks, flexibility, etc.
Anyway, I hire lots of IT-related people and would most probably not want to have in one of my teams person of such attitude. (To be honest, I "inherited" one of such employees and he's really negative, materialistic and 24/7 complaining person. Not pleasant to work with at all, and he demotivates others with his attitude.)
How will you know if the VP of Engineering is a borderline raving lunatic who treats his staff like garbage until you've had the opportunity to witness their behavior first hand? How will you know if your manager likes to micromanage their reports, making your day job a living hell, until you actually work underneath of them? How do you know beforehand if there are toxic individuals, that may be your co-workers or others that you need to work closely with, who create negative work and a poor working environment? How will you know beforehand if any of these things will be addressed if they are present? What about places with ridiculous office politics and bureaucracy? For instance, it can take years to find out nepotism runs rampant through different layers or departments in a company.
The best you can do is word of mouth and things like GlassDoor. But, word of mouth requires access to people who have worked or currently work at that place, and you have to take those things with a grain of salt, especially coming from former employees. Even if you do have access to these things, it's been my experience that these things only get you approximately close to some truth.
It's a very big gamble and, having lived through some of the above scenarios, I completely understand why people optimize this problem for the highest pay.
However I do think politeness and an interest in long term mutual benefit is better.
The world you describe suggests a zero sum approach in which, indeed, the music must one day stop.
Assuming that one is interviewing for a benevolent and altruistic employer - who values and rewards positive, talented employees - one could afford to be accommodating during the hiring process.
Given those don't exist I would expect tech folk and designers to rinse employers for every penny as that is the treatment they will get when the table turns again.
Two of the points were detailing completely unprofessional and all too common practices from recruiters and - ghosting and not keeping appointments(flaking.)
I would be curious to hear how a candidate expressing frustration at those disrespectful practices might cause you to think that they are "spoiled", "overpaid" or "lack humility."
Edit: I am also a programmer
Can you answer the other part of my question?
Just a rough napkin-estimate, but I'd guess that out of the recruiters that URGENTLY REACH OUT WITH A GREAT OPPORTUNITY PLEASE RESPOND, 75% won't even get back to you after your polite "Thanks for getting in touch, I'm interested!" response.
Of those that get back to you and do a brief phone chat, you will never hear back from 75% of them about going forward with a phone screen with the company.
After the phone screen(s) with the company, 75% won't get back to you about going on-site for the "whiteboard hazing" interviews.
Of those, 75% will ghost you. So you should expect around a 0.4% hit rate.
Focus on your skills and what you want to do, and you will be fine. Stay away from 'priests' like this, they will not help you, you are only there to admire them.
One skill that I would always value in designer is that he can produce in medium we are using ie. html. Photoshop is bad starting point and this alone will put you above others (in my humble opinion).
I agree that people miss appointments etc, but this is again distraction from bigger picture, where you would focus on your skills and what you really want to do. And especially how you want to do it, process is also important.
1) The article is written for other members of the author's group, but wasn't really meant for broad consumption.
Yes, it's online, in public, etc, but either the author wasn't thinking about that and/or ignored it. I say this because it feels like something one would say when complaining to friends at a pub after hours. It's got this "we've all been here, don't you just hate it?" sorta vibe to it.
2) The article is written to be click-bait/incendiary on purpose.
A while back (a year or two?) someone else wrote something similar and it blew up big. More than anything it gave people something to shake their fist at. It gave older people an excuse to look down on "the kids today", younger folk could shake their fist at the poor treatment they receive from older people. I wonder if this author is also trying to go viral in a similar sort of way.
I feel like it takes a particular skill to write these sorts of things - it's gotta be believable that a 22 year old would write this, but also push enough of the older generation's buttons that it'll inflame them, too.
3) Obviously, there's other possibilities that I hadn't thought of that might be true :)
the last time this was posted
It's Medium, not an industry whitepaper. There's no expectation of Serious Business Writing™ here.