> Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters.
HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend.
> Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates.
We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.
HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend.
> Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates.
We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.