Seems good for negotiation. If a company offers you $180k, (given that range) they're implying you're in the lowest 10% of your field. Ask why they're willing to hire you if you're so terrible. If you're in the top 25%, you should be worth $700k.
That assumes a very linear distribution, and there's no reason to believe that talent is remotely like that.
It's very possible that lots of people have $90k stills and only an extremely tiny handful have $700k skills.
After all that's how it is in the general population: Most people are $10/hour plumbers in terms of skills. Only a few people (we happen to mostly call them plumbers) are worth $200/hour or more.
The problem is that the salary range for the job isn't 90k to 900k. It's probably more like 100k to 150k. No amount of negotiation is going to change that. The range in the ad just means that a lot of more senior engineers will be wasting their time applying for the role.
That's exactly what I'm saying though (and everyone seems to have missed it, maybe I left too many dots unconnected)
Negotiation is typically lopsided in favor of the employer. With a range like that, they've handed you a piece of information that tilts the balance in favor of the candidate. Even better if it's a lie, it still works in your favor. Use that nugget of information to your advantage.
> The range in the ad just means that a lot of more senior engineers will be wasting their time applying for the role.
When I go through candidates for an open position, I find very little correlation between experience and salary demands. Propensity for audacity seems to have more to do with it.
So if a senior engineer applies successfully and gets offered a role at 150k then they will be motivated to tell people through whatever review site that the company is acting disreputably.
It would count as a red flag for the senior and negatively impact hiring.
