zoning and business laws prevent market based solutions, so we don't know that there aren't market fixes. The retail space prices are so absurd because there was only a limited part of the city where you can do retail. Go to 'third world countries' and there are plenty of groceries in neighborhoods as well as street vendors that are illegal in the US.
You are right, but kind of proving their point by not engaging with the content and dismissing it. As a women you can sit back passively and pass on people, while the men have to put in the effort and come to you.
Edit: The question was added to their comment after I clicked reply.
I was told, more or less: "We don't think you're qualified for level X, but we still want to hire you into this specific specialized role we advertised as level X, doing all the same specialized work, with all the same expectations and requirements, at level X-1. We pinky promise you we'll promote you quickly because we are confident you are already qualified to handle these level X responsibilities, even though you're not qualified to be level X yet".
That reads like something straight out of McSweeney's.
Right but was it still going to be a big raise? I guess that's what I'm trying to figure out? Did you reject the job because it was a step down in pay, or simply because of the tile?
Usually reqs at Google are for two levels. So a manager can hire a lead, and it can either be senior or staff. G has strict perf requirements so people are much quicker to downlevel and then promote vs. hire at L6 and then fire.
It's not a bait and switch, it's called leveling. People can come with 20 YOE and get an L4 offer at google (mid level). and some people take it, because it's still a compensation increase.
Others try for staff and they get senior, which has a wide pay band and can sometimes pay as much as lower staff offers. So calling it a "bait and switch" isn't really accurate at all.
The people who decide your level are not the hiring manager or the interviewers too.
I've been watching this Adult Swim sketch for years and every time I notice another thing that they predicted getting problematic. AI, crypto, ad-bots, captcha, higher-ed, etc. Stuff that wasn't on peoples' radar when the sketch came out.
I think it is a great cultural artifact that really predicted a lot of the past 10 years and is really funny. It's not new, but I haven't seen it discussed on HN and it is very relevant.
My guess is that they meant: If you give a lot of people that previously couldn't afford a house more money it will increase the demand and prices. The issue is that there is a shortage of housing which is primarily due to zoning preventing the construction of houses in a lot of areas.
That service is called unemployment, but unfortunately the state unemployment agency defers to the company for the reason of termination rather than what you say. So if they say you quit voluntarily rather than because they violated their promises or OSHA rules, you don't get anything.
- Decent working environment. I was moved into a single person office with another person that was so cramped I had to move if they needed to use the bathroom and ended up begging to be moved into the open office plan (which was so distracting but less humiliating.)
- Performance based bonuses/promotions
- Not working on weekends/holidays.
- Company Transit (a spot wasn't guaranteed or reservable so it wasn't reliable)
- 40 hour work week. Expected that I will go over 40 hours sometimes but under was taboo. And of course the 2 hours of commuting doesn't count.
- Plenty of other passive aggressive stuff by management during meetings
So I don't think people should feel that bad about negotiating the work environment on their terms. If companies don't follow the rules, why should people always be expected to fulfill your requirements that are something they never wanted.
