6 ms·

Don't be so literal about it. I used to get defensive about that question too, but the truth is they aren't asking you how much you are making, they are asking

by wdewind 11y ago

Don't be so literal about it. I used to get defensive about that question too, but the truth is they aren't asking you how much you are making, they are asking you to start the salary negotiation so they can get a feel for what it's going to take to hire you and describe you adequately to a hiring manager. It's just an opportunity for you both to ballpark the situation and eject early if there's going to be a wide disagreement about comp. It can be equally advantageous to both parties if you use it properly.

mgkimsal 11y ago
No... there are recruiters who are a lot more invasive and pushy (and a couple employers I've run across). "Proof of previous income" was required at one place I applied years back, and I've heard similar stories from colleagues. No, of course, I don't bother going forward in those situations. "What are you making now?" is crass. The good recruiters I've worked with phrased it as "what are your salary expectations?" or "the range is $x-$y - are you OK with that?" I've taken it literally in situations where they actually meant it literally. "We will not pay you $80k until you can prove you were making $80k at your previous job". Insane, but it does happen on occasion. How those companies ever manage to hire anyone... I'm not sure.
- wdewind 11y ago
  I guess you're right, that does happen sometimes. In those cases you also shouldn't be mad, though, because they just gave you a crystal clear sign they aren't worth working for.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  > "Proof of previous income" was required at one place I applied years back It's best to immediately walk away from a situation like this.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    Yes; proof that everything that comes out of your mouth isn't a lie suggests a lack of trust.
- rhizome 11y ago
  I've gotten "I need a number for us to continue" multiple times.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    > I've gotten "I need a number for us to continue" multiple times. "Considering your obnoxious lack of professionalism and the fact that your approach is apparently acceptable to the company, I'm not sure there's any offer you could make that I'd be excited to accept. But everyone has his price, so write down $500,000 for now and I'll decide how much to increase it after I hear the rest of what you have to say."
  - meric 11y ago
    Just say "my salary expectations for this position is $XY0,000". I use it as an opportunity to set the ballpark for the negotiation. Sometimes bosses don't know what people are worth so they ask these kind of questions. Once we opened an office in a new country, and when we hired people, we asked them what they expected and gave them that + 20% because we really had no idea how much we should be paying.
  - eru 11y ago
    Threaten to walk away.
  - kriro 11y ago
    42
- lectrick 11y ago
  > recruiters Dude, that right there is the problem. They make a commission off your starting salary, so OF COURSE their primary concern is your past and future financials. This is why I hate recruiters.
  - incepted 11y ago
    I disagree. Recruiters have a conflict of interest that often goes to the candidate's advantage and against their employer's interest. The higher your salary, the higher their commission. And employers are fine with that because a good hire is better than no hire.
    - eru 11y ago
      The conflict of interest is more complicated: For the recruiter, getting you in at 160k is twice as good as getting you in at 80k, and infinitely better than you walking away. As a candidate that currently earns 100k, an 80k offer is worthless. (Threatening to) walking away from a deal is one of the strongest strategies in negotiation. But that's the one thing a recruiter will never want you to do. Candidate: High salary > no deal > low salary. Recruiter: High salary > low salary > no deal. You are right, that the recruiter has an even bigger conflict of interest with their employer. But that conflict does not mean the recruiter's interests are aligned with the candidate. (One way to align any interests is generally to repeat games. That's why internal recruiters are usually less sleazy than the external kind: they are at least clearly on the site of the employer. And honourable employers have a reputation to defend---another repeated game.)
    - cgio 11y ago
      That is what you would expect, but they want to optimise both on commission and on throughput. If a slightly lower salary makes it easier to position you and get you hired fast, the cost of the lower commission is less than the cost of working on your case for a long time. It is the same with real estate agents. From that perspective, their knowledge of the market should theoretically set the price at the optimal short-term, hiring decision point. Nevertheless, for the employee and employer this is a long term relationship and it works out bad on both sides (lower salary than could be achieved for the employee, greater employee turnover for the employer.)
- koide 11y ago
  What's really fun about that is that most people I interview, when asked "what are your salary expectations?" answer with "I'm currently at XYZ a year"
avmich 11y ago
In addition to other reasons, it can also be beneficial for any side to postpone this discussion for a later phase.
- wdewind 11y ago
  Yeah I mean it really depends on where you are applying to work. If you are trying to join as a senior member of an organization negotiations have way fewer rules, but if you are applying to Google etc. below a level 4 position it seems pretty reasonable to not need to assert your individuality as an engineer by disrupting the system since you'll be ending up with a standard package anyway. Sometimes you just need to learn how that game is played and play it instead of changing it.
  - eru 11y ago
    Even at Google you should negotiate: their base is pretty standard, but the stock grants differ. A lot.
monochromatic 11y ago
> equally advantageous to both parties There ain't no such thing. Salary negotiations are pretty close to zero-sum.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- wdewind 11y ago
  The actual dollar value is usually literally zero sum, but if you have a family and need a $200k salary with specific benefits as a hard requirement it's going to be helpful to get that out of the way up front. On the same note, if you want a $200k salary and only make $180k it can be useful to say you are currently making $200k. So again, this moment can be advantageous to both parties.
  - crpatino 11y ago
    No, please don't sugar coat it. HR people do actually see current income as 'social proof' of your actual worth. This is not necessarily out of a desire to take advantage of employees, but they find it hard to justify to their bosses why they did no negociate a better deal. I learned it the hard way, by trying to work part time (like 10hrs per week) while studying and then having employers unable to grasp that I was demanding a much higher salary because I was offering my undivided attention in a full time position. This was explained to me by a simpathetic (though probably naive) recruiter, who literally coached me to lie on my application so she could process me as a viable candidate. I did not get that job anyways, but at least I learned to avoid mentioning the fact that I had been "working for peanuts" in the recent past.
    - fredkbloggs 11y ago
      It is, in fact, possible that some aspect of a negotiation can be beneficial to both parties, but not for the reasons the parent suggested. If we assume that your minimum bid is in fact below their maximum offer, then the market should clear: you should get hired. Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving. Therefore, anything eliminating or preventing such an obstacle from arising is beneficial to both parties. The corollary is that employers who insist on "social proof" place themselves at a disadvantage; they're less able to hire, and the people they do hire will likely be inferior. They are giving up value every time they enter negotiations, not by overpaying but by failing to engage in beneficial transactions. Those hidden costs can be, and often are, far greater than overpaying by some small percentage on the transactions in which they do engage.
iopq 11y ago
I would say "only if you tell me what you have budgeted for this position" Has nobody here played poker? You don't just say what your hand is when you start betting.
mikeash 11y ago
That sounds a lot like a friendly way of saying "you should lie." I don't really disagree, but we might as well be honest about it here.
- paulddraper 11y ago
  Or give the the answer to what they want to know, not to what they asked.
- eru 11y ago
  Either lie or refuse to answer.
starmole 11y ago
Totally agree. Getting a salary ballpark out early can save both sides a lot of time. As a potential employee it's important to phrase it right as "If you are not going to pay at least X we are wasting our time". Where X does not need to be your current salary - but really what would be least it would take for you to work there. If they insist on current salary be firm on X. Point out that this is based on what it would take you to consider them, and you are already taking into account a lot of factors like company prestige, type of work, location, lost options etc. It is important to realize that you are not giving away any negotiating power by putting out a lower bound. One easy trick is to mention that you are also talking to other companies that already agreed to the same lower bound. Also do not ask for or let them tell you an upper bound from the hiring company. If they end up really wanting you it will be harder for them to change that. Getting a lower bound will help both parties. An upper bound you do not walk away from will hurt your position a bit though.
specialist 11y ago
the truth is they aren't asking you how much you are making Correct. They're just trying to figure out how little you will accept. they are asking you to start the salary negotiation Never be the first to give a number.
- eru 11y ago
  > Never be the first to give a number. Always be the first to give a number and conditions. Setting the stage is too important to let the other party do it.
onion2k 11y ago
None of what you say has anything to do with someone's current salary. If I'm in a job paying $50,000 in a market where the typical salary is $80,000 and I want $100,000 then asking for the $50,000 number doesn't help anyone. It's just meaningless data that clouds the issue of what you are willing to pay to hire me. I can understand asking a candidate what salary they're looking for. That's useful. It's got nothing to do with their current situation.
- thomasahle 11y ago
  How do you know what the typical salary is?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    How do you find out anything at all? Talk to other people in the same profession, glassdoor etc.

by wdewind 11y ago

mgkimsal 11y ago

No... there are recruiters who are a lot more invasive and pushy (and a couple employers I've run across). "Proof of previous income" was required at one place I applied years back, and I've heard similar stories from colleagues. No, of course, I don't bother going forward in those situations. "What are you making now?" is crass. The good recruiters I've worked with phrased it as "what are your salary expectations?" or "the range is $x-$y - are you OK with that?" I've taken it literally in situations where they actually meant it literally. "We will not pay you $80k until you can prove you were making $80k at your previous job". Insane, but it does happen on occasion. How those companies ever manage to hire anyone... I'm not sure.

wdewind 11y ago
I guess you're right, that does happen sometimes. In those cases you also shouldn't be mad, though, because they just gave you a crystal clear sign they aren't worth working for.
brandonmenc 11y ago
> "Proof of previous income" was required at one place I applied years back It's best to immediately walk away from a situation like this.
- kazinator 11y ago
  Yes; proof that everything that comes out of your mouth isn't a lie suggests a lack of trust.
rhizome 11y ago
I've gotten "I need a number for us to continue" multiple times.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  > I've gotten "I need a number for us to continue" multiple times. "Considering your obnoxious lack of professionalism and the fact that your approach is apparently acceptable to the company, I'm not sure there's any offer you could make that I'd be excited to accept. But everyone has his price, so write down $500,000 for now and I'll decide how much to increase it after I hear the rest of what you have to say."
- meric 11y ago
  Just say "my salary expectations for this position is $XY0,000". I use it as an opportunity to set the ballpark for the negotiation. Sometimes bosses don't know what people are worth so they ask these kind of questions. Once we opened an office in a new country, and when we hired people, we asked them what they expected and gave them that + 20% because we really had no idea how much we should be paying.
- eru 11y ago
  Threaten to walk away.
- kriro 11y ago
  42
lectrick 11y ago
> recruiters Dude, that right there is the problem. They make a commission off your starting salary, so OF COURSE their primary concern is your past and future financials. This is why I hate recruiters.
- incepted 11y ago
  I disagree. Recruiters have a conflict of interest that often goes to the candidate's advantage and against their employer's interest. The higher your salary, the higher their commission. And employers are fine with that because a good hire is better than no hire.
  - eru 11y ago
    The conflict of interest is more complicated: For the recruiter, getting you in at 160k is twice as good as getting you in at 80k, and infinitely better than you walking away. As a candidate that currently earns 100k, an 80k offer is worthless. (Threatening to) walking away from a deal is one of the strongest strategies in negotiation. But that's the one thing a recruiter will never want you to do. Candidate: High salary > no deal > low salary. Recruiter: High salary > low salary > no deal. You are right, that the recruiter has an even bigger conflict of interest with their employer. But that conflict does not mean the recruiter's interests are aligned with the candidate. (One way to align any interests is generally to repeat games. That's why internal recruiters are usually less sleazy than the external kind: they are at least clearly on the site of the employer. And honourable employers have a reputation to defend---another repeated game.)
  - cgio 11y ago
    That is what you would expect, but they want to optimise both on commission and on throughput. If a slightly lower salary makes it easier to position you and get you hired fast, the cost of the lower commission is less than the cost of working on your case for a long time. It is the same with real estate agents. From that perspective, their knowledge of the market should theoretically set the price at the optimal short-term, hiring decision point. Nevertheless, for the employee and employer this is a long term relationship and it works out bad on both sides (lower salary than could be achieved for the employee, greater employee turnover for the employer.)
koide 11y ago
What's really fun about that is that most people I interview, when asked "what are your salary expectations?" answer with "I'm currently at XYZ a year"

avmich 11y ago

In addition to other reasons, it can also be beneficial for any side to postpone this discussion for a later phase.

wdewind 11y ago
Yeah I mean it really depends on where you are applying to work. If you are trying to join as a senior member of an organization negotiations have way fewer rules, but if you are applying to Google etc. below a level 4 position it seems pretty reasonable to not need to assert your individuality as an engineer by disrupting the system since you'll be ending up with a standard package anyway. Sometimes you just need to learn how that game is played and play it instead of changing it.
- eru 11y ago
  Even at Google you should negotiate: their base is pretty standard, but the stock grants differ. A lot.

monochromatic 11y ago

> equally advantageous to both parties There ain't no such thing. Salary negotiations are pretty close to zero-sum.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wdewind 11y ago
The actual dollar value is usually literally zero sum, but if you have a family and need a $200k salary with specific benefits as a hard requirement it's going to be helpful to get that out of the way up front. On the same note, if you want a $200k salary and only make $180k it can be useful to say you are currently making $200k. So again, this moment can be advantageous to both parties.
- crpatino 11y ago
  No, please don't sugar coat it. HR people do actually see current income as 'social proof' of your actual worth. This is not necessarily out of a desire to take advantage of employees, but they find it hard to justify to their bosses why they did no negociate a better deal. I learned it the hard way, by trying to work part time (like 10hrs per week) while studying and then having employers unable to grasp that I was demanding a much higher salary because I was offering my undivided attention in a full time position. This was explained to me by a simpathetic (though probably naive) recruiter, who literally coached me to lie on my application so she could process me as a viable candidate. I did not get that job anyways, but at least I learned to avoid mentioning the fact that I had been "working for peanuts" in the recent past.
  - fredkbloggs 11y ago
    It is, in fact, possible that some aspect of a negotiation can be beneficial to both parties, but not for the reasons the parent suggested. If we assume that your minimum bid is in fact below their maximum offer, then the market should clear: you should get hired. Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving. Therefore, anything eliminating or preventing such an obstacle from arising is beneficial to both parties. The corollary is that employers who insist on "social proof" place themselves at a disadvantage; they're less able to hire, and the people they do hire will likely be inferior. They are giving up value every time they enter negotiations, not by overpaying but by failing to engage in beneficial transactions. Those hidden costs can be, and often are, far greater than overpaying by some small percentage on the transactions in which they do engage.

iopq 11y ago

I would say "only if you tell me what you have budgeted for this position" Has nobody here played poker? You don't just say what your hand is when you start betting.

mikeash 11y ago

That sounds a lot like a friendly way of saying "you should lie." I don't really disagree, but we might as well be honest about it here.

paulddraper 11y ago
Or give the the answer to what they want to know, not to what they asked.
eru 11y ago
Either lie or refuse to answer.

starmole 11y ago

Totally agree. Getting a salary ballpark out early can save both sides a lot of time. As a potential employee it's important to phrase it right as "If you are not going to pay at least X we are wasting our time". Where X does not need to be your current salary - but really what would be least it would take for you to work there. If they insist on current salary be firm on X. Point out that this is based on what it would take you to consider them, and you are already taking into account a lot of factors like company prestige, type of work, location, lost options etc. It is important to realize that you are not giving away any negotiating power by putting out a lower bound. One easy trick is to mention that you are also talking to other companies that already agreed to the same lower bound. Also do not ask for or let them tell you an upper bound from the hiring company. If they end up really wanting you it will be harder for them to change that. Getting a lower bound will help both parties. An upper bound you do not walk away from will hurt your position a bit though.

specialist 11y ago

the truth is they aren't asking you how much you are making Correct. They're just trying to figure out how little you will accept. they are asking you to start the salary negotiation Never be the first to give a number.

eru 11y ago
> Never be the first to give a number. Always be the first to give a number and conditions. Setting the stage is too important to let the other party do it.

onion2k 11y ago

None of what you say has anything to do with someone's current salary. If I'm in a job paying $50,000 in a market where the typical salary is $80,000 and I want $100,000 then asking for the $50,000 number doesn't help anyone. It's just meaningless data that clouds the issue of what you are willing to pay to hire me. I can understand asking a candidate what salary they're looking for. That's useful. It's got nothing to do with their current situation.

thomasahle 11y ago
How do you know what the typical salary is?
- jacquesm 11y ago
  How do you find out anything at all? Talk to other people in the same profession, glassdoor etc.