4 ms·

Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered candidate ahead of time. This depends on a few things, but the main points here ar

Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered candidate ahead of time. This depends on a few things, but the main points here are that: 1 - The company is willing to hire a range of skill levels and qualifications for this position, and the compensation will vary depending on the actual qualifications of the candidate. The company might set out looking for say, a generalist senior engineer, but end up interviewing a machine learning expert. Alternatively, the company posts a listing for a senior engineer but end up deciding that they need someone more junior. In both cases stating a compensation range upfront will cause difficulties - the domain expert is dissuaded from applying because the range seems low, and the junior has an acrimonious negotiation because the stated range is above what they are being offered. There is always a lot of uncertainty when companies set out to hire, and companies very often end up hiring someone different than the initial job posting's description. This is the nice-sounding and reasonable-sounding reason, here's the less-nice reason that is also true: 2 - Tech employees suck at negotiating. For two people of equal skill, one may accept a quarter the compensation of another - this is not an exaggeration. I've seen engineers making $70k a year while their peer at the same employer makes $250k, without a significant ability gap. The company doesn't want to pay someone more than they have to, so in a market where a large percentage of employees have no idea how to negotiate, obfuscation around compensation is an advantage to the company. This is true even on HN - every time compensation/salary threads come up people continually are shocked that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of generalist senior engineers making $300k+ at major companies all over the industry.

justboxing 9y ago
> Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered candidate ahead of time. Not true in all cases. In fact many big corporations and tech firms have specific roles slotted into specific tier, and each tier / job title has a very specific salary range. I once tried to negotiate my base at an IT shop (IT Division of Large Bank) and was shown an HR document that had various tiers and the low and high end of salary ranges. I thought I was getting stifled, but found out it was common knowledge within the company and was posted on the intranet (as I later discovered once I joined the company). So when these corps put out a job listing, their HR and Hiring manager knows well ahead of time what is the max they are willing to pay as base salary (excluding other "benefits", 401K match etc which is standard across the board, with little difference again based on your tier / title) and in 9 out of 10 cases, they won't budge from that range. Just that most such corps also go through recruiters and middle-men to do the hiring and these middle-men mostly withold the information and not tell you till the very end, when, like someone else has mentioned here, the candidate has invested a lot of time and efforts in the process and will likely accept a base salary at the lower end of the said salary range for the job title / tier.
- potatolicious 9y ago
  > "many big corporations and tech firms have specific roles slotted into specific tier, and each tier / job title has a very specific salary range" Even these cases are highly variable, because companies often end up hiring someone into a different role or tier than the specific job they applied to. You applied to a Tier 5 job with Team A, but upon interviewing they decide your skillset is that of a Tier 4, and Team B has an opening for a Tier 4. A premature statement of salary range here will simply compromise your ability to close the candidate, who is expecting Tier 5 pay. Heck, even singular job reqs frequently change levels depending on interview. You post a job for a Tier 5, but the person interviewing winds up assessed at Tier 6 - the hiring manager does some maneuvering to raise the tier of the position to close the deal. This happens daily. The compensation is always negotiable. Wrapping compensation around strict tiers is a common practice in BigCo, yes, but that doesn't stop people from negotiating. Instead of "I need $150k", it's now "I need this position to be a Tier 5". Companies may claim that their postings are tier-locked, but that is practically never actually the case.

justboxing 9y ago

> Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered candidate ahead of time. Not true in all cases. In fact many big corporations and tech firms have specific roles slotted into specific tier, and each tier / job title has a very specific salary range. I once tried to negotiate my base at an IT shop (IT Division of Large Bank) and was shown an HR document that had various tiers and the low and high end of salary ranges. I thought I was getting stifled, but found out it was common knowledge within the company and was posted on the intranet (as I later discovered once I joined the company). So when these corps put out a job listing, their HR and Hiring manager knows well ahead of time what is the max they are willing to pay as base salary (excluding other "benefits", 401K match etc which is standard across the board, with little difference again based on your tier / title) and in 9 out of 10 cases, they won't budge from that range. Just that most such corps also go through recruiters and middle-men to do the hiring and these middle-men mostly withold the information and not tell you till the very end, when, like someone else has mentioned here, the candidate has invested a lot of time and efforts in the process and will likely accept a base salary at the lower end of the said salary range for the job title / tier.

potatolicious 9y ago
> "many big corporations and tech firms have specific roles slotted into specific tier, and each tier / job title has a very specific salary range" Even these cases are highly variable, because companies often end up hiring someone into a different role or tier than the specific job they applied to. You applied to a Tier 5 job with Team A, but upon interviewing they decide your skillset is that of a Tier 4, and Team B has an opening for a Tier 4. A premature statement of salary range here will simply compromise your ability to close the candidate, who is expecting Tier 5 pay. Heck, even singular job reqs frequently change levels depending on interview. You post a job for a Tier 5, but the person interviewing winds up assessed at Tier 6 - the hiring manager does some maneuvering to raise the tier of the position to close the deal. This happens daily. The compensation is always negotiable. Wrapping compensation around strict tiers is a common practice in BigCo, yes, but that doesn't stop people from negotiating. Instead of "I need $150k", it's now "I need this position to be a Tier 5". Companies may claim that their postings are tier-locked, but that is practically never actually the case.