this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
160 points (98.8% liked)
memes
16673 readers
2991 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My last job had close to that range. There is a hiring range is typically 50-70% of the maximum. Below 50% is the developmental range for laddering underqualified internal hires. Over 70% is for very experienced, overqualified candidates. Generally employers won't go more than 85% of max because they need a couple years of cushion for salary increases. If they hire at max they know the candidate is going to be back on the market in a year.
It almost seems like it would be better to quote only the range at which they intend to actually hire, rather than dangling the best case maximum you could ever potentially earn at the absolute pinnacle of your tenure in the position. But maybe other smarter-than-me people expect the top number to mean that?