I’m applying for a position that would require relocation. So far I’ve been through:
- A quick “resume buzzwords” screening call with the recruiter.
- A 45-minute tech screening call with a senior developer to test me on platform basics.
- An in-depth tech round, administered as an assignment to do a full-stack vertical slice of code.
- An in-person interview with the CTO and a HR person.
The tech round alone took me two all-nighters, so about 4-5MDs of work to complete, not to the full extent of the assignment by the deadline, but enough to pass the round apparently.
The last round involved a total of 8 hours of a train ride. My impression from it was it wasn’t really a test to pass anymore, as much as getting more details on what I’d be doing and to get the usual talk about the perks, which I believe strongly hints I’m going to get some offer.
The HR lady did ask me about my money expectation, I said my numbers which research tells me aren’t outlandish. In other interviews, by this point, I’d get some sort of feedback to the tune of “oh that sounds doable.” Here the HR lady segued to “what else besides money would motivate you to move across a country?”
Now, I’m not a twenty-something that just needs to drop a lease and pack a duffle bag. I’d be moving for the third time in four years: crashing on somebody’s couch in a new city until I find a place there; pay three months’ rent or so just to get the keys to that; keep paying the rent on my home until I’m certain I’m established and staying for a while; and then sublet my home, possibly at a loss to keep it occupied. And as cynical about capitalism as I am, I think it’s disingenuous to talk about moving for a new job as if it’s a fun adventure they’re letting me have and not fundamentally a business transaction where they offer me money for my skilled efforts and I weigh that against the costs incurred by me.
Am I just being paranoid and is what I saw as evasive behavior just standard HR nonsense where said person just wanted to do her thing of gauging my attitude? Were they simply being oblivious of my part of the equation? Or is the lack of transparency a sign that they aim to try and lowball me?