Quote:
Originally Posted by Hektore
If you can recognize that the salary is pitifully small it's because you know you can do much better. If you know that you can do much better, then so does the company you're applying to and they don't want to spend the time/money getting you into the groove at their place only to have you pack up and leave in 18-24 months if things turn around.
|
I suppose that's true, assuming businesses think long-term - but few do. The goal of any good business is to make money. Therefore, hiring an employee should be an exercise in getting the best product for the least expense. If the talent pool is shallow, the salary can vary; if the salary is fixed, then the job should go to the most qualified person, right?
Of course, my profession is historically cheap. I graduated college at the tail end of a mild recession, and many companies at the time were hiring two part-time workers instead of one full-time employee - just to avoid paying benefits such as health care and sick/vacation pay. As mentioned above, it's certainly a buyers' market out there. I wouldn't hesitate to accept a job at half my former salary; my hope would be that whenever the economy turns around, the company would consider my true value and raise my salary to avoid me 'packing up and leaving.' After all, the only reason I'd bail would be if someone was willing to pay me a lot more. If that were the case, it's a fairly competitive profession - I'm sure my present employer would match the offer.
When it's all said and done, however, "you're overexperienced" is usually just a legal way of saying, "we're looking for someone younger."