Suzzer,

Links to all the places you learned about all the javascripts?

The top companies in my space are all about headless Drupal and piping the presentation layer through something like node + react/angular and leaving Drupal as the backend.

I'm interested in getting some data about how hard it is to maintain and how resource intensive it is. From what I understand, you basically sacrifice server/db resources for a faster user experience.

While in many instances it sounds like over-engineering and focusing energy on the wrong types of issues that most sites have (making no intuitive sense, having a terrible UI/UX) but as I work with better and bigger clients I feel like you kinda have to do gimmicky things.

If the use-cases called for headless we could and would do it, but a lot of my competitors kinda go all out on the architecture of their company sites even though they are basic content sites.

I would have to be super wasted while being transported back in time to the first release of Netscape Navigator to consider PHP 'cool' or 'awesome'.

and of course nevermind, this question has to be asked.

Really can't wait until I run my own business

That's depressing, sorry man.

Send her an anonymous email

Not to keep liveblogging this obviously boring story, but I think I am back to winning and not asking.

Had to go a little hard in the paint, but sometimes you gotta go after it.

Why is your company is insistent on knowing her salary? What if she used to work at McDonald's? Does this mean her work is not worth $12 per hour because that's a 50% raise?

Google, for example, throws out salary history if it is below their standard offer.

People are reluctant to change things they have seen done

I've mentioned this before but, I don't understand this attitude here. Aren't you assuming that whatever you're making is well below-market and an excuse for other employers to lowball? Why would you assume that? Why can't this question be an attempt to ensure that you're happy with your new compensation? For example, maybe the standard offer is 160K but they'd be willing to go to 175K if they knew you were already making 165K. In the absence of information regarding your salary and expectations, they pretty much have to make their first offer the lowest possible offer for the position.

Google does ask for your current salary though. And I'm pretty sure that acting dodgy about your current compensation is a red flag everywhere.

In this case, what do they lose by asking?

Part of the conversation:

Him "Almost every company asks current salary to base the offer on, this is super common and a standard part of hiring people"

Me "That means it is very likely to be the wrong way to do things"

In this instance, I think we could lose some of the employee's motivation to come work with us.

I thought she was assertive and firm while being professional in how she handled the salary requirements discussion.

Going to her now and requiring knowing her current comp to make an offer signals weakness and traditional process over modernity and I also find it disrespectful.

I think "basing the offer on previous compensation" is not always standard, but asking for past salary information absolutely is. It's often even part of the background check - it's fairly hard to verify that you did X and Y in your previous job and your title Z means you were responsible for A and B but it's relatively easy to verify your compensation.

Interviewing and hiring, especially past the junior level where you care about experience, are a totally inexact science and people rely heavily on what you've done in the past without being able to check exactly what it is that you did. Once you adjust for industry, life/work balance and company type, etc, past compensation is not the worst indicator of your level of responsibilities.

1. the company has a hiring range of 160-175k
2. they will be willing to pay you 175k if you say a magic word. Otherwise they will offer 160k
3. you don't know the magic word

If they want to make sure I'm happy with my compensation, they can offer me the top end of their range. They don't want to do that. Therefore the question can only be used to give me an offer that is lower than the top end of their compensation.

Why does "not wanting to disclose your current salary because it has nothing to do with what you want to make in your next role, what the company is looking to pay for the role you're interviewing for, and can only negatively impact your bargaining position" = dodgy?

Why do you assume in the absence of information they'll offer the lower amount? It's almost surely the reverse. If they want you to take the job, they will be afraid of making their first offer too low.

Yeah I think that's a separate issue and could be awkward especially if you had the conversation very recently but assuming that you hadn't already gone rogue, what would have been the harm in asking for her salary?

But by not answering, you already gave them the answer. They want to offer you the least you will be happy with. If you don't play ball or act like you are going to play games, you will be offered the least amount possible because they don't want to lose the game either.

Because this will only negatively impact your bargaining position if you make too little or way too much.

How? Can employers actually divulge that??

But they are not working in the absence of information - that you would refuse to answer a standard question is very valuable information. If you refuse to give the number, in their mind, you're almost certainly or making far too little or prioritizing winning negotiations over mutually beneficial outcomes. In both cases, they are justified to lowball because in the former case, a lowball offer may still be way better than what they are getting and in the latter case, you'd be expected to counter so there's no reason for them to put a strong offer on the table.

Often times companies will ask for W2s.

In sales related jobs it is super common because they want you to say what your compensation model was and determine your production. It is a good way to verify that you actually sold everything you claim.

Yes and generally with your consent:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/09/15...ory/index.html

Looking at how you think the conversation should go:

If you make 150k, they offer you 160k and that's beneficial for precisely one of you.