1. 17
  1. 13

    Exploding offers (offers that expire 5 business days or less from the day you receive them) are unfortunate but they exist, and not just from companies that are not ideal places to work. There’s not much that can be done in these cases besides ask for an extension, and if you don’t receive one, spend some time figuring out whether your expected value increase from more recruiting will be worth turning it down.

    This is a pretty good summary, IMO. I hate exploding offers as a candidate, and also dislike them as a hiring manager. Unfortunately you do get some candidates that hum and haw, drag their feet, or shop your offer around for something better. Which is their prerogative, but it wastes your time and delays your hiring process.

    I think honest and open communication is key here. Don’t go silent on the offer, or be vague - tell them you have another interview, and you want to wait to see if you get an offer. If they don’t want to give you an extension and try to strong-arm you it’s a pretty good sign that they know they’re under-offering (and, also, gives you some insight into the nature of the people involved).

    Still, it’s not a clear-cut signal to walk away, and I like that this section captures that nuance.

    1. 8

      I can only assume the figures cited are in USD, but the article is on a .ca domain (Canada), so there’s some ambiguity there.

      1. 4

        Yes, apologies if that wasn’t clear - these are California-centric offers (and can probably be extended to include Seattle and New York). They are not across the US, or across all software jobs.

        1. 2

          Startup-centric offers, too, it looks like.

          1. 2

            google and facebook aren’t startups.

            1. 1

              Startup- and FAANG-centric offers then? Or is nearly every IT job in the state of California, including big non-tech firms, something giving ownership of the company? Genuine question as I assumed there were lots of boring ones out there with just salary and benefits.

              1. 2

                Tech industry offers.

                1. 1

                  So, it is California-wide in tech industry that you get equity and stuff? And not just Silicon Valley?

                  That’s nice cuz it’s nearly non-existent down here. You just get wages and basic benefits.

                  1. 1

                    Oh! Where do you live/work?

                    1. 2

                      I’ve mainly been in “Tri-State Area” of East Arkansas, West Tennessee, and Northern Mississippi. Generally close to Memphis, TN.

                      See, I noticed a bubble effect on tech forums where people think most IT jobs are like theirs. Not limited to startup or FAANG folks. So, Im pressing this out of curiosity if California, throughout the state, is really that different or localized to specific areas/companies. I doubted bank, insurance companies, warehouses, etc were making these offers.

                      Another person said just tech companies. So, my next question would be whether it’s all or most consulting firms, SaaS suppliers without VC-funding, etc outside Silicon Valley. It would be very advantageous if they were all doing good pay, benefits, and equity in areas with lower cost of living and less churn (job security). I’m doubting it by default but would happy to be wrong.

                      EDIT: Btw, good to see you again. I was thinking about messaging you this week asking where you been.

                      1. 2

                        Consulting firms aren’t generally considered tech companies. See https://stratechery.com/2019/what-is-a-tech-company/

                        1. 2

                          I’m talking specifically about the ones that build, deploy, and maintain software/systems for clients. That linked definition looks like a high-scale-at-no-cost, tech company. A subset of them.

                          Perhaps there’s a different definition of “tech company” in your area or even most areas. Here and in many places I read, a tech company is a company that primarily makes money on tech as a product or service, esp IT. These massively-scaling, tech companies are rare. Silicon Valley is itself rare in nature. I wouldn’t favor using them as the general definition of “tech companies.” I’m also not sure there was a nation-wide consensus on them being tech companies vs broader definition that includes IT-focused businesses.

                          I’m thinking most business people and developers outside Silicon Valley would call a software shop a tech company even if it didn’t meet Stratechery’s definition. I’m not sure, though. Worth a survey. Meanwhile, I’m guessing you’re saying the jobs that have the extra benefits are just the “tech companies” that meet that site’s definition in California. That does narrow it down from “tech in California (statewide)” to that type of tech company that’s mostly in one area.

                          1. 1

                            The fancy tech companies do also exist outside the Bay Area, in NYC, Seattle, Boston, etc.

                            1. 1

                              There’s a few more places sure. The point is that limiting the term to one type of company doesn’t make a lot of sense given other kinds specialize in building and delivering tech. The deliverables are one-off custom, semi-custom, and mass market. The finance models range from venture to built up from loans or personal investments.

                              On the label itself, Inc quotes people using my definition, including Gartner Research. Broader investigation with the Alex Payne quote looking the most solid (and supporting my definition). If going by that definition, virtually no tech companies offer some of the benefits in the linked article outside specific kinds in big cities that are themselves not representative of most places. A good argument for moving to them, maybe, but not going to a “tech company” in general for those benefits.

      2. 2

        It’s articles like this that make me question the viability of remote work. These big, savvy companies, who could theoretically grow their workforce almost anywhere in the world, seem to be willing to pay a premium for engineers who are located not just in the US, but a specific area of the US.

        If remote software developers were truly as effective as co-located developers, you’d expect salaries to even out. Instead, there are differences of an order of magnitude, seemingly mostly based on location.

        1. 2

          It’s hard to be an effective remote engineer. Some people can do it but it’s not for everybody.

          1. 1

            There is a group of people (even more vocal in my country, I think) who argue that remote work is the future, and it’s true that remote work, aided by the availability of broadband, has been growing. And it’s a very attractive idea.

            On the opposite side of that argument, the component of people’s compensation that is location-based seems to be increasing, not decreasing. This is assuming that fresh grads in SV are at least somewhat comparable to fresh grads elsewhere.

            1. 1

              Remote work is growing precisely because it’s so much cheaper to hire engineers in places outside the Bay Area but that’s where the VCs are.

        2. 1

          Note that these [signing] bonuses are always taxed at a much higher rate than regular income, to try and insulate you from additional taxes you’d have to pay from being put in a higher tax bracket.

          Can you explain what this means? Are bonuses somehow different from regular income in the government’s eyes? The government is the entity that sets the tax rates; why would they try to “insulate you from additional taxes”?

          1. 1

            You’re taxed in brackets in the US. If your income is zero, and you earn 1k buck, you’d often get to keep the whole kbuck to yourself.

            If you’ve already earned 1M this year, then you’re in the highest tax bracket, often amounting to 50%, meaning, that the next 1M you get, you gotta pay half of that in taxes (whereas for the first kbuck you’ve earned, you still owe 0).

            Hence a much higher deduction on bonuses compared to normal pay.

            1. 1

              Okay, that makes sense for the first part of the sentence (“bonuses are always taxed at a much higher rate than regular income”), although I think that’s a somewhat misleading way to say it: bonuses and “regular income” are the same thing as far as the government is concerned. But I still don’t understand the second part of the sentence in the OP.