The problem here arises that any company that isn't tiny has engineers with the same basic job description, but at multiple levels of seniority. And then multiplies the larger the company gets. I.e. we have a Software Engineer 1, Software Engineer 2, 3, 4 etc. It can be tough to know which specific role someone is going to end up in until they're interviewed (and even then it's a crapshoot....)
Not accusing you (or anyone) of this, but just a general observation- a lot of these 'companies should have salary ranges' discussions seem to come uncomfortably close to an old-school union or government employee system of 'if you have x years, you're at x level'. I think we should celebrate individual accomplishment- some engineers with 4 years of experience are just better & worth more than some engineers with 10 years, and that's OK. My point is- most companies are hiring at multiple levels, and we can't know what level you're at until we interview you. So we can say Software Engineer 1 makes this, Engineer 2 makes that, etc.- but we don't know where you're going to end up
It should be this easy for a company or recruiter:
- SDE 1 makes $X-Y
- SDE 2 makes $Y-Z
- SDE 3 makes $Z-A
- Sr Software Engineer makes $A-B
- Principal Engineer makes $B-C
For someone of your experience we'd typically be looking at an SDE 2 or SDE 3 role, but that can change as we move through the interview process. We'll let you know as we move through the process if we decide to change the level that we're evaluating you for.
--
Just, like, be transparent and honest with candidates. It's really really not hard.
I'm just tired of wasted time. I'm not bothering with code screens and interviews if it's not significantly more than I make right now.
The seniority thing misguided. People should be paid based on the value that is a product of that role. Maybe their seniority qualifies then for a better role. That's fine, then post a different job description for the other role.
Yeah I am convinced seniority is a kind of a scheme too. Sure, people get better, but there is also cost to switching jobs and that is probably even more pronounced and not priced in.
I think it is in large part way to underpay people earlier in life and overpay them later in order to incentive them differently. It also is a rough cudgel to match family vs single difference in needs.
I think for software there's also a part where the managers don't understand, or can't measure, skill/contribution. So it ends up just being seniority.
