Dear Programming Job Applicant

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19946358
Posted by jacquesm (karma: 150228)
Post stats: Points: 64 - Comments: 87 - 2019-05-18T08:34:14Z

\#HackerNews #applicant #dear #job #programming
HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 71 - Loop: 53 - Rank min: 60 - Author rank: 40

2017 Video Interview: Prof. Dr. Dirk H. Ehnts about the future of the Euro France Macron - money out of nowhere and solutions to the crisis-capitalism and democracy in conflict - what to do against the recession

A state cannot save itself from (financial)crisis by austerity.




the book: [url=https://www.metropolis-verlag.de/Geld-und-Kredit%3A-eine-%E2%82%AC-paeische-Perspektive/1219/book.do]https://www.metropolis-verlag.de/Geld-und-Kredit%3A-eine-%E2%82%AC-paeische-Perspektive/1219/book.do[/url]

this dog could rescue the western economies and democracy itself

VideoInterview with Prof Dr Dirk Ehnts

(in German)

• Our current theory of money is wrong:
  • With every new credit (purely digital Giral-Fiat-book) banks generate new money out of nothing
  • How God created the world, Bankers create money from pure nothing, “creatio ex deo” (imho: this explains why many bankers think they are god-like)
    • the intermediary function (banks lend only saved money to others) is a folk tale, which even one or the other Banker and finance minister still believes
    • Banks are not “Intermediaries”
    • the Bank does not check how much savings money is in the stocking – this fact can not be ignored anymore
    • Fiat money: since 1971 (Nixon, Vietnam) Gold guarantee for dollars over
      now it’s just “modern money,” “Fiat Money” (paper/ones-and-zeros on hard drives without the guaranteed value/exchange for gold/oil/potatoes… you name it)
    • If the state forces you to pay taxes in a certain currency, this currency gains value just because of this fact
  • founding idea of the European Union was to create a “United States of Europe” with a single currency.
  • Problem: asymmetric shock at the abandonment of the National currency
    • One argument was that the Euro would provide protection against financial markets, the exact OPPOSITE was the case. (Bug or intention? Could also be a Goldman Sachs intention )
    • (Youth)Unemployment in many euro-zone countries too high: 2019-01 Statista: youth unemployment in Europe (src: [url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/]https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/)[/url]
      • 20% France
      • 32.6% Spain
      • 33% Italy
      • 40% Greece
      • 23% Croatia
      • 15% EU total
      • 6% Germany
      • German Ex-Minister of Finance Scheuble: “Has called the widening of the wealth gap between rich and poor – fake news”
    • if private households and private banks and companies save in the crisis, that’s okay, but if the state saves in the crisis, it’s just wrong because the whole economy comes to a halt.
    • Portugal with left government has ended the austerity course, has returned to growth, contrary to austerity policies of Greece, Spain, Italy but also Germany (“black zero” / zero debt policy)
    • “state intervention is necessary” “the free market does not guarantee full employment”
    • either the Euro will be reformed, that unemployment will fall again
    • “Macron must deliver” or: “Le Pen” is elected
      • the countries are forced for political reasons to finish the Euro project
      • “fun” fact: France’s President Mitterand (until 1995) has made/demanded the introduction of a single currency as a condition for the reunification of Germany. 😬 (i would say this backfired badly accross Europe)
      • a current account/export surplus always leads to a debt accumulation abroad and “at some point, that’s not good”
      • “Money and credit are social constructions without regulation would be unthinkable”
      • In times when many people take loans, there is also a lot of money created, incomes strongly correlates with debt
      • In 1929, two crises hit at once:
        - the largest real estate bubble ever
        - the largest stock market bubble ever
        - when people use the money they have for debt eradication instead of consumption, then of course, everywhere the income and also the GDP falls, because the sales of businesses (internal market) stagnates
      • Glass-Seagell Act:
        - Separation of banks in:
        - speculative banks with high yealds but also high risks (hedge fund start collecting at $1Mio)
        - Consumer banks with state Deposit insurance
        - so people don’t have to be afraid, that in the next crisis the whole banks die and people run to the Bank, because they are afraid that they can no longer withdraw their money
        - was de facto cancelled under Bill Clinton but also inactivated before
        - reason:
        - Deutsche Bank was not subject to this regulation (it is a universal Bank (consumer – but speculators-Bank))
        - New York banks complained that this regulatory competition is unfair competition
        - Consensus during the Soviet Union:
        - the inequality of income could not be too high
        - we wanted to show the GDR:
        - “here we are all rich, even our poor are richer than your middle class”
        - this consensus has ensured that the redistribution of wealth was “Scandinavian” (massive redistribution)
        - Consensus: It is good, if the German middle class has more income
        - In 1970, probably triggered by oil shock crisis, the consensus broke up, corporate profits have fallen, and companies started to downwind wages
• breaking with old thinking/paradigm:
  ====================================
• lowering wages increases company’s profits
  • because you think -> company’s investments would also increase -> with increasing wages -> productivity also increases
    • but this classic “Adam Smith theory” concept has reached limits
    • Markets can:
      • produce Innovation, productivity and beautiful product
      • but you expected too much of them
      • they simply do not care about society
        - if you believe that the companies invest so much that we have full employment you are mistaken / taken for a ride.
        - “Entrepreneurs (unfortunately) technically are not in charge/feel responsible for raising the public well beeing, all they care about is profits” (so do the Banks) (i partly disagree, everyone has responsibility to take, nobody can 100% outsource responsibility)

Solution for the financial crisis: public spending, more government deficits – black Zero exactly wrong policy, therefore recession follows

The concept of the Euro:

• we need a European Central Bank, Yes, but we also need a European Ministry of Finance (Paul de Grauwe 1990 Brussels)
• because:
  • if money creation in the private sector is not high enough (as now) i.e. if private investment are lagging – unemployment follows
  • which can only be removed by government expenditure increase
  • In my opinion the logical conclusion:
    • in this structural crisis (which we still feel since 2008)
      • the state should not only spend more, in a way, so it reaches the “real” economy
      • the state should also give loans (without large collateral) for:
        - real existing people who want to build a house (to inhabit themselves)
        - real existing people who want to pursue a corporate idea
        - real existing people that have had a company for serveral years and now look for refinincing old loans, more invest more into their own (maybe with a fine, if they just take the money and run… never let them back into the country)
        - there is no European contract, that austerity policies are the only allowed answer in the crisis
        - Prof Dr Ehnts sees responsibility to act correctly (like Portugal) and counter-steer until private investment starts again with politicians (that unfortunately are hiring consultants from private Banks and McKinsey and advocate exactly the wrong thing)

Prof. Dr. Dirk H. Ehnts explains the debt-money economic system:

What is debt? – state countercyclical expenditure

• In capitalism, we have companies that want to make profits, i.e. their revenues must be above expenditure
• in other words, we need another sector where expenditure is (constantly) above revenue (debt)
• that means, we always need someone in the economy who is indebted, only then production which is sold and is produced more
• only then are companies happy
• there must be someone in this System who will inject more money into the system ( long term ) than he pulls out
• there are only two options:
  • private sector: households and businesses spending/debt
  • state spending/debt
• that is, the savings of households and profit of companies are actually generated by government deficits (governmental deficit usually increases by +3% per year, state usually never makes a surpluses, but in Germany now government debt is reduced by Austerity methods, actually not good X-D, will create recession)
• the idea behind this: state indebts itself until private investment starts, the state can withdraw with investment again, the state always has the possibility to take money out of the system via tax
• Most people would agree, that unemployment is a bad thing
  • (we can assume that it causes political instability i.e. crime and riots)
  • if we do not want unemployment:
    • then one would have to use the state in such a way that the state makes expenditure when the private sector is restrained with expenditure (counter-cyclical)
    • if you believe that unemployment is nothing bad, because people can do something else, well…

Macron: The last Democrat of France?

if Macron can not deliver an improvement in financial-economic Situation: The winner is nationalism and Le Pen

The election of Le Pen will be the end of the Euro project and will probably lead to a new nationalism in France, but also in Germany, just like Hitler’s election results were always good when the (financial)economy was non functional and many people were unemployed. (after 1929 crisis)

“Fun” fact: France’s president until 1995 Mitterand has made/demanded the introduction of a single currency as a condition for the reunification of Germany, now, among other things, France is also suffering economically from this financial merger.

If France leaves the Euro-Projekt and reestablishs a national currency “New Franc” it could devaluate as much as 30% and thus get an competition gain of +30% ahead of Germany.

Prof Dr Ehnts does not believe that the Euro is a deliberate faulty construction “we all make mistakes” X-D (well some mistakes you only make once… )

One hope associated with the Euro was more protection against financial markets – the exact opposite happened. (who brought this in circulation? Goldman Sachs? another “unwritten” but commonly believed lie?)

The main victims of the crisis: the young people

“we are creating a lost Generation that will rise up against Europe”

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

About Prof Dr Ehnts

Born and raised in Bremen, he studied economics from 1997 to 2002 after graduating from the Georg-August-University in Göttingen.

From 2006 to 2012 he was assistant professor at the Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg.

In 2008 he was awarded the doctorate with the grade “summa cum laude”. [1]from 2012 to 2014, he taught macroeconomics, money and currency in Berlin as a visiting professor at the Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin.

From 2017 to 2018 he taught at Chemnitz University of technology.

Ehnts lives with his wife and two children in Berlin.

Memberships:

• Institute for International Political Economy (IPE), Berlin
• Samuel-Pufendorf-Gesellschaft für politische Ökonomie E. V. (spokesman of the board)

Books:

• Dirk H. Ehnts: Modern Monetary Theory and European Macroeconomics. Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking, 2017
• Dirk H. Ehnts: money and credit: a €-European perspective Ehnts. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag, 2016, 2., revised edition
• Hans-Michael Trautwein, Dirk H. Ehnts: innovation and international economic relations. Oldenburg: Carl-von-Ossietzky-Univ. Training and education management, 2010
• Ole Christiansen, Dirk H. Ehnts, Hans-Michael Trautwein: Industry relocation, linkages and spillovers across the Baltic Sea. Oldenburg: Inst. for Economics, 2007

auto translated from src: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Ehnts

Links:

https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/614448/c0acb63e33120467bbb3615c63dc7e1a/mL/2017-04-geldschoepfungsprozess-data.pdf

Thanks:

I thank all those involved who are active against self-destruction of humanity and all life on this planet and in the universe (as long as it is friendly).

\#money #alternative #systems #altcoopsys #alternatives #OsOfSociety #OperatingSystemsOfSociety #SystemPhilosophy #dinero #dollar #euro #yen #rubel #sustainability #resilience #complementary #complementarycurrency #cooperation #monetaryreform #financialreform #financialsystemreform #financialcrisis #mortagecrisis #debtcrisis #occupywallsreet #finance #moneysystem #financialsystem #economics #ecologicaleconomics #economy #capitalism #kapitalismus #system #democracy #macron #france #income #loan #debt #unemployment #youthunemployment #work #jobs #job #company #companies #profit #moneytheory #theoryofmoney #portugal #spain #italy #germany #trade #eu #scheuble #export #exports #deficit
Originally posted at: https://altcoopsys.org/2019/03/19/2017-video-interview-prof-dr-dirk-h-ehnts-about-the-future-of-the-euro-france-macron-money-out-of-nowhere-and-solutions-to-the-crisis-capitalism-and-democracy-in-conflict-what-to-do-against-th/

2017 Video Interview: Prof. Dr. Dirk H. Ehnts about the future of the Euro France Macron - money out of nowhere and solutions to the crisis-capitalism and democracy in conflict - what to do against the recession

A state cannot save itself from the (financial)crisis (austerity)




the book: [url=https://www.metropolis-verlag.de/Geld-und-Kredit%3A-eine-%E2%82%AC-paeische-Perspektive/1219/book.do]https://www.metropolis-verlag.de/Geld-und-Kredit%3A-eine-%E2%82%AC-paeische-Perspektive/1219/book.do[/url]

this dog could rescue the western economies and democracy itself

VideoInterview with Prof Dr Dirk Ehnts

(in German)

• Our current theory of money is wrong:
  • With every new credit (purely digital Giral-Fiat-book) banks generate new money out of nothing
    • How God created the world, created by Banker money from Nothing, “creatio ex deo” (God Created the world in 3 days, out of Nothing)
    • (this explains the “drawback” / reality distance of many bankers)
    • the intermediary function (banks lend only saved money to others) is a folk tale, which even one or the other Banker and finance minister still believes
    • Banks are not “Intermediaries”
    • the Bank does not check how much savings money is in the stocking
    • you can’t ignore this fact anymore
  • Fiat money: since 1971 (Nixon, Vietnam) Gold guarantee for dollars over
    now it’s just “modern money,” “Fiat Money” (paper/ones-and-zeros on hard drives without the guaranteed value/exchange for gold/oil/potatoes… you name it)
    • If the state forces you to pay taxes in a certain currency, the currency of some value
  • Idea of the European Union: “United States of Europe” which could theoretically also have a single currency.
  • Problem: asymmetric shock at the abandonment of the National currency
    • it was wiser for Sweden and the British to have rejected the Euro
    • One argument was that the Euro would provide protection against the financial markets, the exact OPPOSITE was the case. (Bug or intention? Could also be intention )
    • Unemployment in many euro-zone countries too high: 2019-01 Statista: youth unemployment in Europe (src: [url=https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/]https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/)[/url]
      • 20% France
      • 32.6% Spain
      • 33% Italy
      • 40% Greece
      • 23% Croatia
      • 15% EU total
      • 6% Germany
      • German Ex-Minister of Finance Scheuble: “Has called the widening of the wealth gap between rich and poor – fake news”
    • if private households and private banks and companies save in the crisis, that’s okay, but if the state saves in the crisis, it’s just wrong because the whole economy comes to a halt.
    • Portugal with left government has ended the austerity course, has returned to growth, contrary to austerity policies of Greece, Spain, Italy but also Germany (“black zero” / zero debt policy)
    • “state intervention is necessary” “the free market does not guarantee full employment”
    • either the Euro will be reformed, that unemployment will fall again
    • “Macron must deliver” or: “Le Pen” is elected
      • the countries are forced for political reasons to finish the Euro project
      • “fun” fact: France’s President Mitterand (until 1995) has made/demanded the introduction of a single currency as a condition for the reunification of Germany. 😬 (i would say this backfired badly accross Europe)
      • a current account/export surplus always leads to a debt accumulation abroad and “at some point, that’s not good”
      • “Money and credit are social constructions without regulation would be unthinkable”
      • In times when many people take loans, there is also a lot of money created, incomes strongly correlates with debt
      • In 1929, two crises hit at once:
        - the largest real estate bubble ever
        - the largest stock market bubble ever
        - when people use the money they have for debt eradication instead of consumption, then of course, everywhere the income and also the GDP falls, because the sales of businesses (internal market) stagnates
      • Glass-Seagell Act:
        - Separation of banks in:
        - speculative banks with high yealds but also high risks (hedge fund start collecting at $1Mio)
        - Consumer banks with state Deposit insurance
        - so people don’t have to be afraid, that in the next crisis the whole banks die and people run to the Bank, because they are afraid that they can no longer withdraw their money
        - was de facto cancelled under Bill Clinton but also inactivated before
        - reason:
        - Deutsche Bank was not subject to this regulation (it is a universal Bank (consumer – but speculators-Bank))
        - New York banks complained that this regulatory competition is unfair competition
        - Consensus during the Soviet Union:
        - the inequality of income could not be too high
        - we wanted to show the GDR:
        - “here we are all rich, even our poor are richer than your middle class”
        - this consensus has ensured that the redistribution of wealth was “Scandinavian” (massive redistribution)
        - Consensus: It is good, if the German middle class has more income
        - In 1970, probably triggered by oil shock crisis, the consensus broke up, corporate profits have fallen, and companies started to downwind wages
• breaking with old thinking/paradigm:
  ====================================
• lowering wages increases company’s profits
  • because you think -> company’s investments would also increase -> with increasing wages -> productivity also increases
    • but this classic “Adam Smith theory” concept has reached limits
    • Markets can:
      • produce Innovation, productivity and beautiful product
      • but you expected too much of them
      • they simply do not care about society
        - if you believe that the companies invest so much that we have full employment you are mistaken / taken for a ride.
        - “Entrepreneurs (unfortunately) technically are not in charge/feel responsible for raising the public well beeing, all they care about is profits” (so do the Banks) (i partly disagree, everyone has responsibility to take, nobody can 100% outsource responsibility)

Solution for the financial crisis: public spending, more government deficits – black Zero exactly wrong policy, therefore recession follows

The concept of the Euro:

• we need a European Central Bank, Yes, but we also need a European Ministry of Finance (Paul de Grauwe 1990 Brussels)
• because:
  • if money creation in the private sector is not high enough (as now) i.e. if private investment are lagging – unemployment follows
  • which can only be removed by government expenditure increase
  • In my opinion the logical conclusion:
    • in this structural crisis (which we still feel since 2008)
      • the state should not only spend more, in a way, so it reaches the “real” economy
      • the state should also give loans (without large collateral) for:
        - real existing people who want to build a house (to inhabit themselves)
        - real existing people who want to pursue a corporate idea
        - real existing people that have had a company for serveral years and now look for refinincing old loans, more invest more into their own (maybe with a fine, if they just take the money and run… never let them back into the country)
        - there is no European contract, that austerity policies are the only allowed answer in the crisis
        - Prof Dr Ehnts sees responsibility to act correctly (like Portugal) and counter-steer until private investment starts again with politicians (that unfortunately are hiring consultants from private Banks and McKinsey and advocate exactly the wrong thing)

Prof. Dr. Dirk H. Ehnts explains the debt-money economic system:

What is debt? – state countercyclical expenditure

• In capitalism, we have companies that want to make profits, i.e. their revenues must be above expenditure
• in other words, we need another sector where expenditure is (constantly) above revenue (debt)
• that means, we always need someone in the economy who is indebted, only then production which is sold and is produced more
• only then are companies happy
• there must be someone in this System who will inject more money into the system ( long term ) than he pulls out
• there are only two options:
  • private sector: households and businesses spending/debt
  • state spending/debt
• that is, the savings of households and profit of companies are actually generated by government deficits (governmental deficit usually increases by +3% per year, state usually never makes a surpluses, but in Germany now government debt is reduced by Austerity methods, actually not good X-D, will create recession)
• the idea behind this: state indebts itself until private investment starts, the state can withdraw with investment again, the state always has the possibility to take money out of the system via tax
• Most people would agree, that unemployment is a bad thing
  • (we can assume that it causes political instability i.e. crime and riots)
  • if we do not want unemployment:
    • then one would have to use the state in such a way that the state makes expenditure when the private sector is restrained with expenditure (counter-cyclical)
    • if you believe that unemployment is nothing bad, because people can do something else, well…

Macron: The last Democrat of France?

if Macron can not deliver an improvement in financial-economic Situation: The winner is nationalism and Le Pen

The election of Le Pen will be the end of the Euro project and will probably lead to a new nationalism in France, but also in Germany, just like Hitler’s election results were always good when the (financial)economy was non functional and many people were unemployed. (after 1929 crisis)

“Fun” fact: France’s president until 1995 Mitterand has made/demanded the introduction of a single currency as a condition for the reunification of Germany, now, among other things, France is also suffering economically from this financial merger.

If France leaves the Euro-Projekt and reestablishs a national currency “New Franc” it could devaluate as much as 30% and thus get an competition gain of +30% ahead of Germany.

Prof Dr Ehnts does not believe that the Euro is a deliberate faulty construction “we all make mistakes” X-D (well some mistakes you only make once… )

One hope associated with the Euro was more protection against financial markets – the exact opposite happened. (who brought this in circulation? Goldman Sachs? another “unwritten” but commonly believed lie?)

The main victims of the crisis: the young people

“we are creating a lost Generation that will rise up against Europe”

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

About Prof Dr Ehnts

Born and raised in Bremen, he studied economics from 1997 to 2002 after graduating from the Georg-August-University in Göttingen.

From 2006 to 2012 he was assistant professor at the Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg.

In 2008 he was awarded the doctorate with the grade “summa cum laude”. [1]from 2012 to 2014, he taught macroeconomics, money and currency in Berlin as a visiting professor at the Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin.

From 2017 to 2018 he taught at Chemnitz University of technology.

Ehnts lives with his wife and two children in Berlin.

Memberships:

• Institute for International Political Economy (IPE), Berlin
• Samuel-Pufendorf-Gesellschaft für politische Ökonomie E. V. (spokesman of the board)

Books:

• Dirk H. Ehnts: Modern Monetary Theory and European Macroeconomics. Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking, 2017
• Dirk H. Ehnts: money and credit: a €-European perspective Ehnts. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag, 2016, 2., revised edition
• Hans-Michael Trautwein, Dirk H. Ehnts: innovation and international economic relations. Oldenburg: Carl-von-Ossietzky-Univ. Training and education management, 2010
• Ole Christiansen, Dirk H. Ehnts, Hans-Michael Trautwein: Industry relocation, linkages and spillovers across the Baltic Sea. Oldenburg: Inst. for Economics, 2007

auto translated from src: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Ehnts

Links:

https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/614448/c0acb63e33120467bbb3615c63dc7e1a/mL/2017-04-geldschoepfungsprozess-data.pdf

Thanks:

I thank all those involved who are active against self-destruction of humanity and all life on this planet and in the universe (as long as it is friendly).

\#money #alternative #systems #altcoopsys #alternatives #OsOfSociety #OperatingSystemsOfSociety #SystemPhilosophy #dinero #dollar #euro #yen #rubel #sustainability #resilience #complementary #complementarycurrency #cooperation #monetaryreform #financialreform #financialsystemreform #financialcrisis #mortagecrisis #debtcrisis #occupywallsreet #finance #moneysystem #financialsystem #economics #ecologicaleconomics #economy #capitalism #kapitalismus #system #democracy #macron #france #income #loan #debt #unemployment #youthunemployment #work #jobs #job #company #companies #profit #moneytheory #theoryofmoney #portugal #spain #italy #germany #trade #eu #scheuble #export #exports #deficit
Originally posted at: https://altcoopsys.org/2019/03/19/2017-video-interview-prof-dr-dirk-h-ehnts-about-the-future-of-the-euro-france-macron-money-out-of-nowhere-and-solutions-to-the-crisis-capitalism-and-democracy-in-conflict-what-to-do-against-th/

ivan zlax - 13 minutes ago

I want to tell you something clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.

looks like hoax, there is no documented sources
https://www.camera.org/article/exposing-false-zionist-quotes-quote-busters/

camera.org article's author:



Steve Stotsky is a senior research analyst at CAMERA. He monitors news coverage, academic studies, school curriculum about Israel and documentaries on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. His analyses have appeared in journals, magazines, newspapers and online news sites, including Time Magazine, Middle East Quarterly, American Thinker, Algemeiner and the Jewish Advocate. Stotsky lectures widely about Middle East media coverage and was interviewed on CNN about the topic.

This guy's #JOB is to patrol the internet for anti-Israel news and write refutation pieces.

Is it also yours?

---

The quote itself is well known.

Just search for it.

One of many:

"Occupied Jerusalem: 3 October, 2001 (IAP News)

An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying "don't worry about American pressure, we control America."

According to Israel radio (in hebrew) Kol Yisrael, Peres warned Sharon Wednesday that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and "turn the US against us."

At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

The radio said Peres and other cabinet ministers warned Sharon against saying what he said in public because "it would cause us a public relations disaster."

https://www.wrmea.org/old-html/sharon-to-peres-don-t-worry-about-american-pressure-we-control-america.html

Top five regrets of the dying



1. I wish I’d had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me.

“This was the most common regret of all. When people realize that their life is almost over and look back clearly on it, it is easy to see how many dreams have gone unfulfilled. Most people had not honoured even a half of their dreams and had to die knowing that it was due to choices they had made, or not made. Health brings a freedom very few realize, until they no longer have it.”

2. I wish I hadn’t worked so hard.

“This came from every male patient that I nursed. They missed their children’s youth and their partner’s companionship. Women also spoke of this regret, but as most were from an older generation, many of the female patients had not been breadwinners. All of the men I nursed deeply regretted spending so much of their lives on the treadmill of a work existence.”

3. I wish I’d had the courage to express my feelings.

“Many people suppressed their feelings in order to keep peace with others. As a result, they settled for a mediocre existence and never became who they were truly capable of becoming. Many developed illnesses relating to the bitterness and resentment they carried as a result.”

4. I wish I had stayed in touch with my friends.

“Often they would not truly realise the full benefits of old friends until their dying weeks and it was not always possible to track them down. Many had become so caught up in their own lives that they had let golden friendships slip by over the years. There were many deep regrets about not giving friendships the time and effort that they deserved. Everyone misses their friends when they are dying.”

5. I wish that I had let myself be happier.

“This is a surprisingly common one. Many did not realise until the end that happiness is a choice. They had stayed stuck in old patterns and habits. The so-called ‘comfort’ of familiarity overflowed into their emotions, as well as their physical lives. Fear of change had them pretending to others, and to their selves, that they were content, when deep within, they longed to laugh properly and have silliness in their life again.”

What’s your greatest regret so far, and what will you set out to achieve or change before you die?

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top-five-regrets-of-the-dying

\#philosophy #philosophie #MutZurWahrheit #SystemPhilosophy #SystemPhilosophie #happiness #happy #happyness #death #courage #deams #work #job #career #feelings #friends
Originally posted at: https://declaration-of-happyness.org/top-five-regrets-of-the-dying/

Red Flags in Software Developer Job Descriptions

Developer and Author from Austin, TX.

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19268989
Posted by webappsecperson (karma: 69)
Post stats: Points: 66 - Comments: 53 - 2019-02-28T04:40:02Z

\#HackerNews #descriptions #developer #flags #job #red #software

---

Article content:

For [1]some reason I’ve been reading a lot of job descriptions for junior devs lately and that has naturally left me with an inordinate number of opinions. I have, with great effort, condensed them here for you, dear reader.

The following aren’t pulled from any specific listings because these types of awfulness transcend the individual - and because that would be dickish. But their spirit should ring true to anyone in the trenches of the job search process.

“Wordpress Developer - Degree + 10 years experience required”

This is not to dunk on Wordpress but - it is not the LHC. There’s a certain amount of inflation to be expected when it comes to job requirements (you should always cut the number of years asked for in half when considering applying somewhere) but people get ridiculous. Rigorous compiler work is not a prerequisite for building a shopify theme. In addition to being a potential tell for a demanding workplace culture in general - or a complete lack of technical understanding on the part of leadership - inflated expectations can set you up for failure.

Those the gods wish to destroy they first call promising.

“PHP Contractor - 2 Months”

Short, time-bound, contracts can be a great stepping stone for a young developer, or a good stint for a freelancer looking to focus on one project for a while, but they can also be sources of ennervating, aggravating legacy work. And the presence of a lot of contractors employed on short terms can also be indicative of a short-termist culture: There’s a natural inclination to burn through people that way, because of the financial and organizational incentives.

“Early Stage Emmployee / Technical Co-founder / Person to Make My Thing”

Being a technical co-founder or “First Engineer” often means that someone has a brilliant, unicorn-level idea and they just need that tiny part of the entire product / platform / paradigm-shifting technology to be built by someone technical (like you). Ideas are incredibly cheap. Don’t invest significant effort unless there’s compelling market validation, great compensation, or both.

“Technologies: Coldfusion + jQuery”

Your job search shouldn’t be driven by what’s fashionable in tech, but popularity and the market for a skill are important factors, since they influence a career track’s employability and profitability. The market for Coldfusion devs isn’t too hot (or even a thing) and jQuery simply doesn’t have the complexity or potential power of a full JS MVC. Companies advertising outdated stacks open you up to the risk of building the wrong sorts of skills, which can have far-reaching effects on your career.

These have just been a few of the red flags that I’ve encountered, but there are many and more every day. Just like in any relationship, one red flag might be offset by a redeeming trait or focus (maybe?) but in a certain variety, or combination, it becomes too much to ignore.

And you deserve better!

References

Visible links
1. https://jobletter.io/

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 61 - Loop: 30 - Rank min: 60 - Author rank: 14

Harder programming questions do a worse job of predicting outcomes

tl;dr Programming interview questions can feel unnecessarily difficult. Sometimes they actually are. And this isn't just because they make interviews excessively stressful. Our data shows that harder…
Article word count: 1255

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192676
Posted by Harj (karma: 4561)
Post stats: Points: 187 - Comments: 159 - 2019-02-18T18:04:09Z

\#HackerNews #harder #job #outcomes #predicting #programming #questions #worse

---

Article content:




tl;dr Programming interview questions can feel unnecessarily difficult. Sometimes they actually are. And this isnʼt just because they make interviews excessively stressful. Our data shows that harder programming questions actually do a worse job of predicting final outcomes than easier ones.

Programming under time pressure is difficult. This is especially true during interviews. A coding exercise that would seem simple under normal circumstances somehow becomes a formidable challenge under the bright lights of an interview room. Stress hormones cloud your thinking during interviews (even though, sadly, neither fight nor flight is an effective response to a menacing programming problem). And it can almost feel like the questions are designed to be perversely difficult. I actually think this is more than just a feeling.

Interview questions are designed to be hard. Because the cost of hiring a bad engineer is so much higher than the cost of rejecting a good engineer, companies are incentivized to set a high bar. And for most companies that means asking hard questions. Intuitively this makes sense because harder questions seem like they should result in a more rigorous screening process. But intuition turns out to be a poor guide here. Our data shows that harder questions are actually less predictive than relatively easy ones.

Interview Questions Are Too Hard

Hard questions do filter out bad engineers, but they also filter out good engineers (that is, they have a high false-negative rate). Easy questions, in contrast, produce fewer false-negatives but more false-positives (since more engineers get them right, including some bad ones). Balancing these two signals is the core problem you face when selecting the optimal difficulty level for interview questions. Companies—seeking to avoid false positives at all cost—tend to skew towards the harder end of this spectrum.

However, whether or not a candidate answers a question correctly is not the only source of signal during an interview. You can also evaluate their process by, for example, observing how long it takes them to finish, how clean their code is, and how much they struggle while finding a solution. Our analysis shows that this second source of signal (process) is almost as predictive as the first (correctness).

But there is an additional trade-off here. The questions that carry the most process signal are significantly easier than the questions that carry the most correctness signal. The reason for this becomes clear when you distill process down to how much a candidate struggles while finding a solution (the aspect of process most directly related to question difficulty). If a question is hard enough to carry a strong correctness signal, then all candidates will struggle with it (even those who eventually answer it correctly). So struggle will carry no signal.

Conversely, questions that carry a strong process signal will be easy enough for most candidates to answer them correctly, thus having little to offer in terms of correctness signal. An optimally difficult question is one that balances process and correctness to extract the maximum signal from the combination of these two factors (which may not be the peak signal for either).

We interviewed thousands of engineers and scored their answers along multiple dimensions, including process and correctness, and compared these scores with later performance. And, after regression analysis (looking at both process and correctness signal) our data showed that the most predictive questions were actually much easier than we expected (and easier than the questions that many companies ask).

Harder questions ultimately filter out too many qualified candidates to be optimal. So, if you want to make your hiring process more accurate, you should probably ask easier questions.

I want to state clearly, however, that this doesnʼt mean you should lower the bar and pass more people. Asking easier questions doesnʼt necessarily mean making your interviews easier. The difficulty level of the questions you ask and where you set your decision-threshold are independent decisions. You can still implement an extremely rigorous hiring process by asking relatively easy questions and evaluating them demandingly. Our finding is simply that easier questions provide more signal. But what you do with that signal is up to you.

Easier interview questions are also less stressful, which is an important advantage. Stress causes candidates to under-perform. But, on the other hand, when candidates are more comfortable, they perform their true best, which actually makes interviews more predictive. I think that interviewers tend to under-estimate the effects of stress on candidates while over-estimating their own abilities. When youʼre the one asking the questions, itʼs easy to forget how hard it is to get much real programming done in 30-60 minutes. To counter this bias, weʼve adopted a rule at Triplebyte stating that interviewers have to give candidates 3X as much time to answer a question as they think it would take to solve it themselves. Usually this works out to be the right amount of time.

Interview Questions Are Too Short

Easier questions are beneficial for another important reason. They allow you to fit more content into your interviews. This means you can use longer, multi-part problems which have compounding benefits in terms of prediction. You can ask questions that ramp up in difficulty over time, and these longer, real-world questions are more predictive than their shorter and harder cousins.^[1]

[1]This is partly because longer questions serve as better proxies for real-life programming. Production programming involves working with a relatively large codebase over a long period of time, and longer questions just do a better job of approximating this reality.

Additionally, longer questions allow you to offer hints when a candidate gets stuck. I think this is vital because even strong engineers can get tripped up at some point during a coding problem. Asking longer questions gives candidates the chance to recover from errors and show off their skills later on during an exercise. A single misstep shouldnʼt ruin an entire interview. Finally, being able to offer help makes interviews less stressful which, again, results in more accurate outcomes.

Conclusion

Companies can get stuck in a vicious cycle when it comes to question difficulty. They start out asking questions that are already too hard and too short, which leads them to make sub-optimal hiring decisions based off noisy signals. When they experience poor outcomes, they may attempt to correct by making their process even more rigorous (which generally means asking even harder questions). But this only makes their interviews less accurate. And so on. Both companies and candidates are hurt by this cycle. I see companies missing out on talent and candidates missing out on jobs—and everyone getting more stressed than they need to be.

I hope interviewers will embrace this finding. Not only can it make their work more accurate, but easier as well. Itʼs much less time intensive to come up with straightforward, multi-step problems than perversely difficult short challenges.

So, hereʼs our advice, if you actually want to make your interviews more accurate, you probably need to start asking easier programming questions. This doesnʼt mean lowering the bar. It just means getting a better signal so you can hire the right people.

If you decide to ask easier questions during programming interviews, or find this post helpful in some other way, Iʼd love to hear from you! Email me at [2]charlie@triplebyte.com

^[1]“The best predictor of how someone will perform in a job is a work sample test (29 percent). This entails giving candidates a sample piece of work, similar to that which they would do in the job, and assessing their performance at it.” - [3](Wired Magazine) [4]↩

References

Visible links
1. https://triplebyte.com/blog/interview-questions-are-too-hard-and-too-short#fn1
2. mailto:charlie@triplebyte.com
3. https://www.wired.com/2015/04/hire-like-google/
4. https://triplebyte.com/blog/interview-questions-are-too-hard-and-too-short#ref1

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 177 - Loop: 92 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 106

From #Mike #Rowe:
Back in 1990, The #QVC Cable Shopping Channel was conducting a national #talent search. I had no qualifications to speak of, but I needed a job, and thought TV might be a fun way to pay the bills. So I showed up at The Marriott in downtown #Baltimore with a few hundred other hopefuls, and waited for a chance to audition. When it was my turn, the elevator took me to the top floor, where a man no expression led me into a suite and asked me to take a seat behind a large desk. Across from the desk, there was a camera on a tripod. On the desk was a digital timer with an LED display. I took a seat as the man clipped a microphone on my shirt and explained the situation.

“The purpose of this #audition is to see if you can talk for eight minutes without stuttering, blathering, passing out, or throwing up. Any questions?”

“What would you like me to talk about,” I asked.

The man pulled a pencil from behind his ear and rolled it across the desk. “Talk to me about that pencil. Sell it. Make me want it. But be yourself. If you can do that for eight minutes, the #job is yours. Ok?”

I looked at the pencil. It was yellow. It had a point on one end, and an eraser on the other. On the side were the words, #Dixon #Ticonderoga Number 2 SOFT.

“Ok,” I said.

The man set the timer to 8:00, and walked behind the tripod. He pressed a button and a red light appeared on the camera. He pressed another button and the timer began to count backwards. “Action,” he said. I picked up the pencil and started talking.

“Hi there. My name’s Mike Rowe, and I only have eight minutes to tell you why this is finest pencil on Planet Earth. So let’s get right to it.”

I opened the desk drawer and found a piece of hotel stationary, right where I hoped it would be. I picked up the pencil and wrote the word, QUALITY in capital letters. I held the paper toward the camera.

“As you can plainly see, The #2 Dixon Ticonderoga leaves a bold, unmistakable line, far superior to the thin and wispy wake left by the #3, or the fat, sloppy skid mark of the unwieldy #1. Best of all, the Ticonderoga is not filled with actual lead, but “madagascar graphite,” a far safer alternative for anyone who likes to chew on their writing implements.”

To underscore the claim, I licked the point. I then discussed the many advantages of the Ticonderoga’s color.

“A vibrant yellow, perfectly suited for an object that needs to stand out from the clutter of a desk drawer.”

I commented on the comfort of it’s design.

“Unlike those completely round pencils that press hard into the web of your hand, the Ticonderoga’s circumference is comprised of eight, gently plained surfaces, which dramatically reduce fatigue, and make writing for extended periods an absolute delight.”

I pointed out the “enhanced eraser,” which was “guaranteed to still be there – even when the pencil was sharpened down to an unusable nub.”

I opined about handmade craftsmanship and #American made quality. I talked about the feel of real wood.

“In a world overrun with plastic and high tech gadgets, isn’t it comforting to know that some things haven’t evolved into something shiny and gleaming and completely unrecognizable?’”

After all that, there was still five minutes on the timer. So I shifted gears and considered the pencil’s impact on Western Civilization. I spoke of Picasso and Van Gogh, and their hundreds of priceless drawings – all done in #pencil. I talked about Einstein and Hawking, and their many complicated theories and theorems – all done in pencil.

“Pen and ink are fine for memorializing contracts,” I said, “but real progress relies on the ability to erase and start anew. Archimedes said he could move the world with a lever long enough, but when it came to proving it, he needed a pencil to make the point.”

With three minutes remaining, I moved on to some personal recollections about the role of pencils in my own life. My first legible signature, my first book report, my first crossword puzzle, and of course, my first love letter. I may have even worked up a tear as I recalled the innocence of my youth, scribbled out on a piece of looseleaf with all the hope and passion a desperate 6th grader could muster…courtesy of a #2 pencil.

With :30 seconds left on the timer, I looked fondly at the Dixon Ticonderoga, and sat silently for five seconds. Then I wrapped it up.

“We call it a pencil, because all things need a name. But today, let’s call it what it really is. A time machine. A match maker. A magic wand. And let’s say it can all be yours…for just .99 cents.”

The timer read 0:00. The man walked back to the desk. He took the pencil and wrote “YOU’RE HIRED” on the stationary, and few days later, I moved to West Chester, PA. And a few days after that, I was on live television, face to face with the never-ending parade of trinkets and chotchkies that comprise QVC’s overnight inventory.

I spent three months on the graveyard shift, five nights a week. Technically, this was my training period, which was curious, given the conspicuous absence of supervision, or anything that could be confused with actual instruction. Every few minutes a stagehand would bring me another mysterious “must have item,” which I’d blather about nonsensically until it was whisked away and replaced with something no less baffling. In this way, I slowly uncovered the mysteries of my job, and forged a tenuous relationship with an audience of chronic insomniacs and narcoleptic lonely-hearts. It was a crucible of confusion and ambiguity, and in hindsight, the best #training I ever had.

How I negotiated a software-engineering job offer in Silicon Valley

I had job offers to work as a software engineer at Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, LinkedIn, and Yelp. Here’s how I negotiated them.
Article word count: 4163

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19057514
Posted by sanj (karma: 5526)
Post stats: Points: 99 - Comments: 102 - 2019-02-01T19:22:52Z

\#HackerNews #how #job #negotiated #offer #silicon #software-engineering #valley

---

Article content:




[1]Go to the profile of Bay Area Belletrist
What if I told you… that negotiating isn’t as scary as it sounds?

You’re almost finished with the long grind of interviewing. You’re almost free of the stress associated with interviewing at big tech companies. You’re practically envisioning sending off a final “I’ll sign” email.

But you’re not quite there yet.

There’s one last hurdle to clear: negotiating an offer.

You’ve shown that you can interview, but how well can you close a deal?

[2]Late last year I interviewed at six top companies in Silicon Valley in six days, and stumbled into six job offers. I had one last task to make sure my work wasn’t in vain. Here are the principles I had, the rules I followed, and what I did to negotiate an offer worth $100,000/year more than I planned on.

First, some assumptions on my part:
\* Your mileage may vary. I’m obviously not stating that everything I went through is easily reproduced. I am using it as a backdrop to color some advice that I think anyone totally new to this to keep in mind.
\* You have offers, plural. This can be two or this can be ten, but you need to have more than one offer concurrently. I’ve negotiated on behalf of (many) friends in the past with no leverage, but I’m not going to focus on that scenario.
\* You’re not afraid to negotiate. The night before my Google interview I spoke with another candidate in my hotel. His strategy was to low-ball himself to increase his chances of getting an offer. That’s not the path that I took, it’s not a path I’d advocate, and it’s not one I’m going to even entertain. You should always be willing to see what you can get.
\* You won’t practice the Dark Arts of Negotiation™. I’m pretty sure you can negotiate by lying your way through the process. From a moral perspective, though, c’mon. From a practical perspective, getting caught in a lie is not going to help you.
\* You won’t renege on an offer. Could I have squeezed a bit more out of the eventual offer I signed if I had? Maybe. But I’m not comfortable accepting an offer and later rejecting it. I’m sure other candidates do it and I don’t think it gets you banned from the Valley. It’s just not something I wanted to do.
\* You’re willing to work at any of the companies if the price is right. I definitely had a personal ranking of which companies I’d prefer over each other, but each company had a chance. No one was just there to beef up offers.
\* I’m going to both anonymize the companies I negotiated with and fuzz their numbers. My goal is not to answer “how much does MegaCorp offer if you have competing offers.” My goal is to answer “how do I respectfully ask for a larger comp package?” for people that don’t know where to start. The total compensation for each offer is accurate (within 5%).
\* You’re starting at square one. I give my personal experience in this article and some examples of conversations I’ve had when negotiating. I don’t draw on decades of experience with very in-depth detail. I link some pieces at the end that are more suited towards that type of read.
Congrats! You have multiple interviews. I’m sure you’re nervous. I’m sure you’re telling yourself you don’t deserve it, that you got lucky. You think you’re going to fail miserably. The last thing on your mind is how to talk numbers with recruiters.

Chill out. We all go through that! 🙂

It’s understandable. But you don’t want to shoot your future self in the foot. There’s only a few things you need to keep in mind at this point, anyway.

My first major piece of advice: do not make this process adversarial.

I’ve read a lot of people that view this very cynically.

It’s us against them.

Candidate versus recruiter.

You’re trying to extract the absolute most out of a company and they’re trying to cheat you out of the most they can. Right?

I bet you didn’t know that Google recruiters wore capes, did you?

Wrong. This may be the case sometimes, I guess, but that mindset will not lend itself to a healthy negotiating phase. I had very good relationships with my recruiters and in the end it paid off. Maybe it would have gone better if I were more aggressive or lied to them. I won’t ever know how that alternative universe played out. But I do know that I have no regrets about it all. I’m confident I could ping any of those recruiters to kick off the process again. Also, recruiters are people, too. 😅 Be nice!

Next, make it clear throughout the process that you’re interviewing elsewhere. This is critical to make sure that your offers are overlapping. I had to deal with one exploding offer. I had to pass on because the company refused to move the deadline. It took a piece of leverage away from me. If I didn’t let everyone know about my situation I may have lost even more.

It’s up to you if you want to disclose where you’re interviewing. I would share it you think it’s “impressive”. Keep in mind that you should be proud of interviewing anywhere. You’ll have more leverage, though, if you don’t remove the possibility of a Google. My recruiters were very respectful about asking. Companies understand that who you talk to is your business and only theirs if you decide it is. With that said — the threat of getting (and signing) an offer elsewhere is fantastic leverage for everything from scheduling to getting an offer.

Alright, it’s the moment of truth. You’re going to hear how you did. 😱

My recruiters all opted to deliver the news over the phone. Nearly every call followed the same pattern:
Do you have any updates from other companies? Do you have a range you’re expecting from us? How does something in the neighborhood of $package sound? What do you think?
Pretty much anything you read will say never give a range. I mostly agree with that, but sometimes it makes sense to give something. It takes some experience and familiarity with comp packages to do so comfortably. I only gave the first numbers to one or two companies and it was because I was familiar enough with the companies to know they would come in around $50k/yr lower than other offers I had.

I would never give a range to a company that sends out sky-high offers. With that said, I’m not going to waste a back-and-forth cycle with a recruiter when I know they’re not going to come close to an existing offer. Recruiters won’t want to go back-and-forth and back-and-forth writing up new offers for you. If they won’t be close, let them know where the range is going to start. Wasting time waiting on a non-competitive offer isn’t advantageous to anyone.

That being said, if you are dealing with a company whose budget is infinite, be smart. [3]Levels.fyi is the best resource I’ve seen (far better than Glassdoor) when it comes to learning what’s typically offered. Shoot for the sky and never, ever assume you can’t get a top offer. Watch the situation play out and be willing to adapt to it. I ended up getting far, far more than I ever though a company would offer me, and a lot of that is due to never anchoring myself mentally to a “top value”. 👍

Trust me, recruiters will do their best to limit your offer. You don’t need to help them out!

Never sound “giddy”. Remain measured, even if you’re confident you’d accept an offer. It’s a lot to take in on the phone — especially if it’s an offer that surpasses what you ever expected — and you’re probably not thinking straight. Always think on any package for awhile.

Make it clear you won’t accept an offer until you hear back from everyone. In my experience, recruiters understood. I made it clear I would like to go to any of the companies I was interviewing at. I definitely had a dream company throughout the process, but that wasn’t really anyone’s business but my own. 🙂

I don’t see actual examples of things to actually say in these situations. I’ll provide here what it sounded like for me. That should help those that don’t know where to start. Don’t follow this as a script (because that’s weird and unnatural), but this is the sort of thing I would say to remain respectful and open to negotiate. Let’s assume the offer you’ve heard is something you might sign (that is, it meets your bar to go work there):
Recruiter: So, what do you think?

You: That’s an interesting offer. I think it’s probably in the ballpark, but it’s not something I’m going to sign right now. I’m going to wait until I hear back from the other places I’m speaking to.
In the above, you let your recruiter know that they’re “in the running”, but that it’s not enough to blow you away. You’re respectful but firm. This is the blueprint for how your discussions should go.

Don’t give away more information than you need to, don’t be aggressive, and don’t give numbers if it doesn’t make sense. The above is all honest, too, so you don’t need to worry about getting caught in a lie. Essentially, you’re trying to maintain good standing with your recruiters and avoid getting into the nitty-gritty until you have all of your offers on the table. That’s the fun part!

So, you’ve got numbers from everyone that you’re considering. Now you can start counter-offering based on what information you have. When I counter-offered, I never used solid numbers — I gave ranges. I don’t like the idea of committing to a solid number until the very end.

There’s a few reasons for this:
\* For one, giving a solid number feels weird; why is $120,000 acceptable, but $119,000 is a bit low? I’d much rather present that as “somewhere between $120,000 and $140,000”. It also leaves room for a company to move upward if you keep things a bit in the dark. Note that once you have numbers from a company it makes a lot more sense to be more explicit in what you’re looking for.
\* To me, there’s an implication when giving a solid number that it’s “the one.” If a company can hit “your number”, you’ve lost out on the chance to negotiate much more unless more offers coming in. Companies can still hit your number if they offer the top of your range; keep that in mind. If you give a $5,000 range, don’t be surprised if companies meet your demands and expect to get a signed offer.
Some may object to how I presented the above, as recruiters have a lot of flexibility. You can always give a number, have them match it, and then ask for higher. I’m not denying that. But it was a goal throughout my negotiations to keep on very good standing with my recruiters and it paid off very well in the end.

I definitely looked this cool while negotiating.

My initial counter-offers sounded something like this (I made up the numbers here and provide a few examples):
Bar, Inc.: We were thinking of offering a base salary of around $120,000 with a four-year RSU package of $150,000 and a signing bonus of $10,000. What do you think of that?

Me: How flexible is Bar, Inc. on equity? I’m really looking to stay and grow at a company, and equity is something I really interested in wherever I go. I’m comfortable with something in the neighborhood of $120,000 on base, but I’d definitely like to sign an offer with a larger equity package.

FooCorp: We were thinking of offering a base salary of around $100,000 with a four-year RSU package of $150,000 and a signing bonus of $10,000. What do you think of that?

Me: I think the base is a little bit lower than what I’d like based on my offer from Bar, Inc. for $120,000, and base salary is really important to me. As for the equity package, I was looking for something closer to $200,000. The signing bonus is around what I was looking for.
There’s a lot of actionable information above for a recruiter without you giving any implicit commitment to any number. FooCorp knows they need to get to $120,000 to meet your other offer. Bar knows that equity is important to you, and equity is something that companies tend to move a lot more willingly. You now have two companies moving in tandem to get a better offer to you and neither of them is talking to each other. This is pretty much how you want this entire process to go.

It makes sense to change an established range once another company ups the ante. This is how that discussion went for me:
Me: Hey, I finally heard back from Baz LLC. Their offer came in a lot higher than I was expecting. They offered $150,000 in base, $200,000 in stock, and $40,000 in signing. That being said I think the work FooCorp aligns more closely with my interests, so I’d really like to make something work with you guys. Can we do what we can to get to those numbers? I’d love to figure this out.

FooCorp: Wow, that’s a good offer. Keep in mind FooCorp is {making the world a better place / has amazing potential / is better for your career} and I would hope you wouldn’t be deciding based on a paycheck. I don’t know if we can match that offer exactly, but I’ll see what we can do.
I went through the above sample conversations so many times and they all went pretty similarly.

They always sounded very doubtful about moving their numbers. They always said it was more than they would typically give up.

They always explained why their company’s mission and culture made up for the difference in comp.

But almost always, they upped the package.

Sometimes they’ll match it. Sometimes they won’t. Sometimes they’ll come close enough that you’ll pull the trigger because it’s such an exciting opportunity. You should always give it a shot, though.

I’m including this because lots of people have pinged me about it. I don’t know how much people can take away from it, but I’ll put it out there anyway. I’ll include what tips I can.

I was able to get ballpark numbers from every company before I disclosed any numbers. Here they are, anonymized and randomized. The format is base salary+bonus / 4yr stock package / signing bonus.
Alpha: 180k / 150k / 0k (218k/yr)

Bravo: 180k / 200k / 30k (238k/yr)

Charlie: 140k / 180k / 30k (193k/yr)

Delta: 160k / 220k / 50k (228k/yr)

Echo: 160k / 200k / 30k (218k/yr)

Foxtrot: 165k / 210k / 30k (225k/yr)
I thought it was pretty interesting how closely most of the numbers aligned despite not being able to see each other’s initial offers. That must be the going rate… or something.

Anyway, once I had all of the offers, it was time for constant communication for me. I called my least-favorite offer and told them what the best offer was and asked them to close the gap as much as possible. Once those numbers moved, I talked to more companies. I usually had daily or every-other-day update calls with my recruiters, and they sounded like this:
Bravo: Any updates from your end?

Me: Yeah, I was able to get some preliminary numbers from Foxtrot. They were thinking somewhere in the ballpark of $225k TC, but Delta says they will comfortably beat that. I wasn’t blown away by the offer, but given Delta’s position on it, that’s probably the low end of what I’ll end up signing.

Bravo: Great, thanks so much for sharing that. I’ll talk to the team and see what I can do. We’d love to have you!
Alpha refused to negotiate and refused to move their deadline, so they were out of the running pretty quickly.

Once everyone had a chance to move their numbers, it looked like this:
Bravo: 180k / 220k / 75k (254k/yr; +16k)

Charlie: 140k / 200k / 30k (198k/yr; +5k)

Delta: 160k / 220k / 50k (228k/yr; no movement)

Echo: 160k / 250k / 30k (230k/yr; +12k)

Foxtrot: 180k / 240k / 30k (248k/yr; +18k)
More rinse and repeat. My goal was to whittle down the offers once I had things moving in the direction I wanted. It was a logistical nightmare keeping up with six companies during this. It was also becoming clearer that there was a gap that some companies couldn’t overcome.

I also had a lot more time to think about company culture and perks/benefits, so certain companies began to pull away from each other. I didn’t formally reject any offers until I signed my final offer, but mentally, I wrote off a few of the companies and stopped negotiating with them. I just asked them for a few more days to decide.

Recruiters constantly told me they couldn’t up their packages anymore, but inevitably, they always did. I’m sure a ceiling exists and I’m sure it’s rarer to get number past a certain point, but it was dangerously close to a lie to continuously tell me they couldn’t go any higher (“you don’t have the experience”) and then watch them up their offer by 10%. Part of doing business, I guess. 🤷‍️

After another round of negotiation (and a few days), it was down to three:
Bravo: 180k / 250k / 75k (261k/yr; +23k/yr from initial)

Delta: 170k / 250k / 50k (245k/yr; +17k/yr from initial)

Foxtrot: 180k / 250k / 50k (248k/yr; +18k/yr from initial)
At this point, it had been something like a week and a half of negotiation, and this after months of interviews/prep. I was so ready to be done. I had decided based on product, culture, pay, perks, benefits, reputation that it was between Bravo and Delta.

Delta wanted me to give a final number and commit to it. They were extremely insistent that I provide one.

I told them to give me a few hours and called my recruiter from Bravo.

I explained that Bravo had a lot that I respected more than Delta, but that Delta wanted me to verbally commit to a number to move forward.

I was going to work at Bravo or Delta. They were offering similar packages, but I didn’t know how high I could push Delta on the last counter. I also wasn’t comfortable playing that game.

Break in case of emergency

Everyone gets one last ask. You’ve been building up to a point where you get to launch your most powerful salvo — use it wisely.

For me, this was that moment. It was time.

I asked Bravo to up their package by a meager $5k yearly in stock (a very small ask in retrospect…), something companies are far more flexible on. I said if they could do that, I would sign and be confident I didn’t leave too much on the table. He said he’d get back to me and that he was confident we could work something out.

Bravo’s recruiter emailed back and said he worked out a new package for me and wanted to run it by me over the phone. I already knew at this point that if he met my ask (180k / 270k / 70k, TC 265k) that I would sign right then and there. I’d thought long and hard about this last little dance.
Bravo: I heard back and got approval for a new offer and I wanted to see what you thought. We’d like to offer you a {salary + annual bonus} of $180,000. In addition to that, we would like to offer $400,000 in RSUs that vest over four years. Lastly, I was able to get approval for a $90,000 {signing bonus + relocation expenses} package. That would put your four-year compensation package at around $1,210,000, or an annual compensation package of around $300,000. What do you think?
Uh, what do I think? What do you think I think?
Me: Yeah, I’ll sign that.

Bravo: Really? Awesome!
And that was that. No, there’s no embellishment here. My final ask was for $265k/yr and I was offered around $300k/yr. I don’t know if that was due to the goodwill I had built up with the recruiter or if they were concerned I’d defect. Whatever it was, I’m fine with it. :)

I’m going to summarize a lot of the above in a more digestible way:
\* 🤑 Get multiple offers. Obviously this is way easier said than done, but even if it adds a lot of stress to your life, it certainly pays off. With interviews being quite a bit of a crapshoot, it’s tough. If you want to get a new job, though, don’t put your eggs in one basket and do what you can to try to get at least two offers.
\* 🙊 Don’t lie. I wasn’t personally asked to provide evidence of other offers, but my friends definitely have been. It’s not worth it to lie, especially when your candidate profile is saved at various companies. Good luck getting into a company that catches you.
\* 🤗 Be kind and respectful. Recruiters are people, too. They’re also the people that act as the path for you getting into your dream company. You don’t need to schmooze them, but be friendly. Help them help you! You may have competing philosophies, but both of you want the same thing in the end: a signed offer from their company.
\* 🗣 Be (selectively) communicative. Make it very clear to everyone what your timelines are and if you’re waiting on other companies. Keep people in the loop. We hate getting ghosted by recruiters and I’m sure recruiters hate being ghosted by us. Let them know if you’ve signed another offer or if you’re no longer considering theirs. Let them know if other companies have sent you offers and share the names if you think it’ll help your case.
\* 👎 Don’t give a minimum (unless it makes sense). You don’t want to give a lower number than a company would have offered you, but you also don’t want to waste anyone’s time. If you know a company won’t be competitive at first, let them know what the other company’s range is. If they’re out, they’re out. Your time is better spent talking to companies you’d actually go to.
I imagine this is what whiteboard interviews looked like in the 1950s
\* 🌠 Shoot for the sky. Transparently, my goal was to get a total comp of around $180k. That was the number where I’d quit my current job. I ended up getting over 50% more than that. I didn’t think it was possible for someone with two years of experience to do so. Don’t set a limit in your head of what you can think you can get or it may discourage negotiating.
\* 🚫 Don’t reject an offer until you’ve signed another one. You never know what could happen. You don’t want to leave someone hanging on your decision when there is no way on earth you’d sign their offer. But even if an offer isn’t competitive, you’d still sign it if the other companies lost their headcount. Keep your options open. You earned it.
\* 🤔 Think a lot and whittle down your offers. Over the course of your negotiations you’ll converge on the one or two offers you think are “best”. As that happens, focus your time on the ones that make sense, and don’t waste brain cycles on the ones that don’t.
\* 🤦🏻‍♂️ Bonus: don’t tell teams you’re disinterested in them. I’ve seen people “negotiate” by asking for a larger packages by saying they’re less interested in the company. This sounds like a recipe for disaster — why would you tell a company you don’t want to work for them? Find a new slant.
* 🎉 Everything above worked. The final offer I signed was ~$300,000 in total yearly compensation (over four years, including a variable annual bonus, and amortizing the signing/relo package). I negotiated it up from ~$225,000*, an increase of 33%.
After my previous post, I primarily saw three questions:
\* How did I negotiate?
\* How much was I offered?
\* Which offer did I take?
I answered two of those three here. Maybe you can piece together the rest. I’d rather provide value than advertise for my employer. I don’t want the focus here to be on the decision I made for my life. I’d rather help everyone else get to make the same decision.

There’s also much more in-depth, less-anecdotal pieces I’d recommend reading. There’s [4]this legendary one from [5]Patrick McKenzie and [6]another from [7]Haseeb Qureshi. What you see here is more of a collection of my personal thoughts (and a response to all of the questions I got regarding numbers).

[8]Please follow (and chat with!) me on Twitter if you want to provide feedback or if you have any questions. I’d love to hear if there are other topics you’d like to read about. I’ve been getting a ton of DMs on Twitter and Discord and I’ve tried to help out where possible. I vastly prefer responding on Twitter, though, so if you want to chat, try there first.

Happy negotiating. 😊
\* the initial offer didn’t talk about a relocation package; my guess is I would have received it anyway, so the starting value was likely higher
References

Visible links
1. https://blog.usejournal.com/@bayareabelletrist?source=post_header_lockup
2. https://blog.usejournal.com/i-interviewed-at-six-top-companies-in-silicon-valley-in-six-days-and-stumbled-into-six-job-offers-fe9cc7bbc996
3. http://www.levels.fyi/
4. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
5. https://medium.com/@patio11
6. https://medium.freecodecamp.org/ten-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer-ee17cccbdab6
7. https://medium.com/@hosseeb
8. https://www.twitter.com/bayareabell

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 100 - Loop: 298 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 43

64 and unemployed: One man's struggle to be taken seriously as a job applicant

David Wimsett's resume is expansive, and potential employers are always keen to meet with him. When they finally do, however, the interviewer's disposition quickly switches from enthusiastic to…
Article word count: 859

HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19022000
Posted by myth_drannon (karma: 4770)
Post stats: Points: 126 - Comments: 86 - 2019-01-28T23:09:10Z

\#HackerNews #and #applicant #job #mans #one #seriously #struggle #taken #unemployed

---

Article content:



by David A. Wimsett

Itʼs an unpleasant routine. I send out resumes. I am careful to make sure my details go back only 20 years. There are no dates attached to my education history. Phone calls come. We talk about my background and experience. Some respond enthusiastically. We arrange a physical meeting.

I dress in a suit. My hair is cut in a business style. I rehearse answers to questions I will likely be asked and practice responding in a professional, personable manner.

I arrive. "Hello. I applied for your position as a software project manager." I extend my arm.

The interviewer pauses and looks at me for a moment. "Iʼm the head of human resources. Please sit down."

David Wimsett is from Kentville, N.S., and works every day to find a job. (Submitted by David Wimsett)

They work hard to maintain a blank expression. Theyʼre trained to do that. But I can see past that right away. Their eyelids drop slightly, almost imperceptibly. So do their inner eyebrows. Few would notice. But I am a project manager. Iʼve learned to constantly and carefully observe people to detect subtle, unconscious facial expressions that reveal hidden emotions.

The signs I inevitably get from interviewers are ones of disapproval and disappointment. The decision has already been made: too old. Out of touch with technology and youth. Not with it.

Actually, I am very much with it. Every year, I read the equivalent of a university semesterʼs worth of books and attend seminars to keep up with the industry and its latest trends. As a project manager, I work well with younger colleagues and form effective teams. My experience of nearly four decades allows me to spot patterns and trends to deliver effective solutions through wisdom and good judgment.

This does not seem to matter. I am 64. I am too old.

"Weʼll get back to you," they say. They never do.

I have used all of my savings, including retirement accounts. Iʼve sold everything I own of value. The one asset I have left is a 10-year-old car. It is my only means of transportation to job interviews out of my area. I have extended my credit to pay bills and purchase prescription medications. I am now deeply in debt and behind on payments. I get constant phone calls from the bank.

"I have used all of my savings, including retirement accounts. Iʼve sold everything I own of value," David Wimsett said. (Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press)

"Sir, you are behind on your scheduled payment. When can we expect to see the money?"

"I donʼt have any money I can give you at the moment. I have been unemployed for a long time."

The callerʼs voice takes on a belligerent tone. "You have a contractual agreement to pay a minimum amount every month. When will you make a payment?"

"As I said, I have no income and I donʼt know when I will have any."

Now, the voice become threatening. "If we donʼt see a payment soon we will be forced to send the account to an outside collection service, who will sue you."

"If you do, you will be paying lawyers and getting no money because I have none. But I have an interview next week and they were very enthusiastic on the phone."

A pause comes. The voice returns with authority. "Very well. We will check back in two weeks."

The calls come from a different person each time. I have to repeat the same story over and over. A credit counsellor advised me to be polite and answer truthfully. It takes huge effort to control my anger when callers insinuate that Iʼm hiding money somewhere. I only lost my composure once.

All my efforts are focused on getting work. I subscribe to internet job boards and make contacts every day. It can take hours to craft a custom version of my resume and cover letter to hit all the right points a company has put in its job description. And whatever I write has to get through automatic screening programs that look for keywords before they are ever get into human hands.

I work to nearly midnight, seven days a week, to reach as many people as I can.

Wimsett says the application process always goes well until heʼs face-to-face with an interviewer. (CBC)

Of course, not having a job takes much more than a financial toll. It causes me deep emotional distress. It is highly embarrassing. I donʼt talk to anyone about it. It can sometimes take me half the night to fall asleep while my mind runs over my situation and I search for options. When I do doze off, I sleep for nine or more hours. I question my worth and abilities. The stress is unrelenting. It affects my blood pressure, my heart and my digestion. My usual disposition is positive, but I have felt the smothering claws of depression on more than one occasion.

In my twenties I went through a divorce, at which time I took sole custody of my six-year-old son and raised him on my own. I entered the computer industry. The pay was good and the work steady.

That was then.

I am now 64 years old.

Click "listen" above to hear the essay.

HackerNewsBot debug: Calculated post rank: 112 - Loop: 75 - Rank min: 100 - Author rank: 51