8 ms·

Ask HN: Why do most job sites hide salary?

• notkaiho 6y ago
  It's a two-way street. By not actively mentioning a salary on a job advert, they can invite potential applicants to pitch themselves at a level they'd be willing to do the work (the low end) all the way to what they'd like to get in an ideal world (the high end). Any efficiency gains from salary disclosure would be minor compared to the "inefficiency" of the hiring process in totality.
  • SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    > By not actively mentioning a salary on a job advert, they can invite potential applicants to pitch themselves at a level they'd be willing to do the work (the low end) all the way to what they'd like to get in an ideal world (the high end). That doesn't seem much like a two way street, that seems more like a blind silent auction where lowest bidder wins. Naturally skills and experience come into play in part, but if multiple people can meet the expectations of the role, then they are bidding against each other. I'm not sure what the employee gets out of it. > Any efficiency gains from salary disclosure would be minor compared to the "inefficiency" of the hiring process in totality. For the company possibly, but not for the employee. Being able to see what a company is willing to pay would really help refine an employees search.
    • notkaiho 6y ago
      You seem to be convinced that companies do things for employees or candidates, rather than for their own gain. ;)
      • SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        Let's just say I've yet to hear a compelling argument for the average employee.
        • notkaiho 6y ago
          Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.
          • SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
            I'm not trying to suggest unionization or a change in social order, but there's an information disparity here that I have yet to hear a compelling suggestion as to how it helps the employee - if it's a two way street, what advantages does the employee get out of it?
            • notkaiho 6y ago
              Sorry, not a native English speaker. I realise I may have used "two-way street" in the wrong way. It definitely provides advantages primarily for the employer. Maybe I should have called it a "two-pronged thing" or something.
• jonfw 6y ago
  Because often the salary isn't decided when they make the job opening, the salary is decided when they make the offer. At my company, for instance, there are a number of us who were hired at the same time under the same position. But we have varying levels of skill/experience, and our salaries can reflect that even though our title may not
  • SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    > At my company, for instance, there are a number of us who were hired at the same time under the same position. But we have varying levels of skill/experience, and our salaries can reflect that even though our title may not Do you know that the salaries match that skill/experience line? Did you all just happen to request the right amount of money that plots you correctly, even though you didn't know what the other people were requesting, nor what the company is willing to pay?
    • jonfw 6y ago
      I don't think anybody has figured out how to perfectly make salaries match skill/experience. But there is certainly a correlation. The job opening that I applied for cast quite a wide net. There are people who have masters degrees and 8+ years of experience, and there are people fresh out of boot camp, and everywhere in between. If you're required to post salaries, than suddenly you have to invent more job titles which lends itself to a more hierarchical organization
      • SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
        > But there is certainly a correlation. You know this because you see everyone's salary, or have all talked about it? And if you've got fresh grades and people with masters and 8+ years of experience, there's already a hierarchy there, not giving a name doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As someone who's far from a tech center, I honestly have no idea as to my worth as a developer - I have zero frame of reference. If I were to apply for a job tomorrow it would be basically a guess based upon what I'd like to be earning and could be vastly undervaluing or overvaluing myself. Sites like glassdoor kind of insight, though not really given the small sample size, reporting bias, and lack of requirements for truth, and no developers I know talk openly about their salary.
• tuckerpo 6y ago
  Whoever gives a number first loses leverage.
  • replyguy912 6y ago
    I hear this all the time and it's overly simplistic. Maybe if I give you a single number that is my true desired value, yes. If I give you a range where the low-end is 25% higher than that true value, I've now anchored discussion at a much higher value and it will be hard for you to reset the anchor.
    • mathnmusic 6y ago
      But you've now increased the probability of them stopping the conversation right-away. The higher anchor came at a cost. That's what loss of leverage is. You want to know as much as you can about the other party, while revealing as little as possible about yourself. This is exactly what employers are also doing.
      • ativzzz 6y ago
        That's good though, if an employer is unwilling to meet your anchor then you don't want to work there anyway so they save you time by pulling out early.
      • Ididntdothis 6y ago
        “But you've now increased the probability of them stopping the conversation right-away.” Or you won’t be wasting time with them.
  • throwaway042620 6y ago
    That maybe true. But many of us are contractors that sell our services and the entity doing the selling should quote their price. And if you don't feel slightly embarrassed about your quote probably doing it wrong.
    • beckingz 6y ago
• pezo1919 6y ago
  I think engineers are worse negotiators than companies. That way companies which want to gain on that can play the game.
• officemonkey 6y ago
  Because once they select you, they immediately want to low-ball you. Government Jobs are completely transparent in this regard. You know exactly what you're going to make when you apply for the job.
• golergka 6y ago
  A couple of times, I found myself in a situation where I'm just opening a position and haven't hired developers in this particular stack and this particular skill level for a while, I may not even know what's a current market rate for this position would be. I'd get an overall idea after talking to 5-10 candidates, estimating their skill level and listening to what's their asking price is. It's not even about trying to low-ball someone. Low-balling might be good in short-term, but not in long-term - both from perspective of a manager who's trying to do best by the company (because you want to build trust with your employees), and from a perspective of a political manipulator (when you inflate salaries of people you manage and budget of your department, you become more important in the hierarchy - saving company money won't earn you as much political points). What it is about is simply not having enough information about the market.
  • replyguy912 6y ago
    having sat on both sides of the table, this is a weak rationalization for wasting a lot of people's time. You're making candidates do so much work in terms of applications, preparation and interviews and you don't even know what the market looks like? Are the positions you're staffing so unique that you can't get comparable data from anywhere, or are you really just fishing for someone you can low-ball?
    • golergka 6y ago
      Why do you consider their application process a waste of time? After we get the taste of the market, I don't see any reason not to hire one of those early applicants if they're the best candidate for the position.
• AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
  The answer is very simple: they don't want to pay their prospective employees any more than they have to. If they put a job listing for $70k and a developer currently making $50k applies and gets it, he gets a 20 thousand dollar raise. On the other hand, if the employer requires the applicant's current salary on the application, and Mr. Qualified Engineer applies, they can offer him $55k instead (just enough to make him consider the offer if he's unhappy with his current job). Using this strategy, the employer can make sure their employees never know their real worth, since every raise/promotion/new job they get is based on a "just good enough" improvement over their current salary.
  • SkyPuncher 6y ago
    > if the employer requires the applicant's current salary on the application, I never apply to jobs that ask these questions. It shows they're more concerned about holding you back than competing with the market.
    • toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Under California law, it is unlawful for an employer to ask a candidate for their salary history. Also, California employers must provide applicants with the pay scale for a position upon reasonable request. Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not your lawyer.
      • bJGVygG7MQVF8c 6y ago
        > Also, California employers must provide applicants with the pay scale for a position upon reasonable request. This is very good to know, thanks. It's also unlawful to ask about current or past compensation in New York.
  • dmortin 6y ago
    So to defeat this you just write a higher current salary on your application, right?
    • 6y ago
• SkyPuncher 6y ago
  You might be able to find a small niche, like the remote work sites. You wouldn't have any competitive advantage or lasting business though. In general, salary disclosures don't lead to better outcomes. It's very hard to communicate numbers appropriately. Too low, you're skipped by candidates. Too high, you get candidates with no interest in the underlying business. For many companies, Glassdoor is effective. I've found companies stating "competitive" compensation are generally aware of the larger market and compensate appropriately. Most companies that pay terribly are pretty easy to pick out from their job offerings.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• derekp7 6y ago
  When you have to hire a professional, for example a plumber, do you put out an ad and say "I need to hire a plumber to fix a broken pipe by running a new sewer line out to the street, and the job pays $60.00 per hour". Or do you call around, describe your problem, and see what solutions and cost various plumbers can provide? Basically, "Here's my problem, what is the fix, and how much will it cost?"
  • gregd 6y ago
    What in the world does this have to do with hiring an employee with salary? Hiring a plumber on a per job basis isn't the same thing at all and getting bids for jobs like this, works. Do you seriously think that people should bid to fill positions at companies?
    • matz1 6y ago
      How is it different ? From the perspective of the companies, it is in their interest for the prospective employee to bid to fill position.
      • derekp7 6y ago
        Also, a good approach from the employee side is to explain during the interview what all they can do for the company. That's the approach I took last time around, I got in the mindset that I was a consultant that was there to solve their problems, and this is how. Got the job offer an hour later. Kind of like a plumber saying "We don't need to dig up your front yard and charge 9 grand, for 500 bucks we can robotically patch the pipe from the inside".
      • gregd 6y ago
        I see. So we should start listing benefits to doing our job for a plumber? "Hey there Plumber, if you do this job, I'll give you health insurance for the two days it takes you to do this job. I'll provide a gym membership, free coffee, and pay your taxes"
        • 6y ago
• pjc50 6y ago
  It's a two-sided market. Not showing salary range inhibits price discovery, preventing developers from asking for their real worth. So companies tend to reflexively hide it to give themselves an advantage.
• fecak 6y ago
  I was a recruiter for 20 years. In my experience, when a range was listed, every applicant expected to get offered at the top of the range. So if the range was 80-100K and you had a candidate at the lower end of the experience/skills range for the job, that candidate becomes attached to that 100K number. He tells his friends "I found a job that pays 100K". Candidates don't pay much attention to the low number in the real world. So the interviews happen, the candidate performs as expected (not superb) and gets an offer for 80K. He thinks he's leaving 20K on the table if he accepts, or that he's getting lowballed. If the job had been posted 60-80K, he wouldn't have felt shorted at all. This is a simplification of course, but posting salary led to lots of refused offers when the offer < the top figure.
  • twox2 6y ago
    That's a huge range though. 25% difference. Better to just have a junior listing at 80k and a senior listing at 100k and that simplifies it.
    • fecak 6y ago
      In theory it's a large range, but in practice it really isn't. Candidates regularly negotiate starting salary to 10-20% above an initial offer, so a range like this is pretty common. You also need to keep in mind that job ads can cost $, so a small company on a budget doesn't want to be placing a bunch of ads for each potential level of hire when all they want is someone who can do the job. "Junior" and "Senior" probably oversimplifies it. You could have a senior with 10 years and one with 20 years. The salary difference often won't be as pronounced (because salaries tend to plateau at a certain point), but there will usually (and should) be a difference.
  • PaulKeeble 6y ago
    Could just be the job is acceptable at the top of the range and not the bottom. A company might not value the employee to the top of the range but the employee may equally not value the job at anything but the top of that range.
    • 6y ago
• matt_s 6y ago
  There is little advantage for a company to list the salary, ones that do commonly state up to $high_figure for the right candidate. There are other factors in total compensation though, benefits coverage, bonus, perks, etc. As an applicant you could ask the recruiter/HR person what the salary range is for the position so you're both not wasting each other's time.
  • gregd 6y ago
    Having to reach out to find the salary range, is already wasting time.
• cushychicken 6y ago
  Probably to drive sign-ups on their platform by job seekers. It's a metric that they can show to investors that their business is providing a valuable service.
• pcmaffey 6y ago
  Not listing salary is a high indicator that the company will waste a candidate’s time.
  • gregd 6y ago
    Exactly. This process needs to stop. I have never applied for a job where the salary (or hourly) price wasn't listed up front. Why waste my time and why should I waste yours?
• nonidit 6y ago
  Simple: Because they want to get the cost as low as possible. Most employers know exactly what they are willing to pay, but speculate on the developer naming a lower number. There are few exceptions, like Berlin-based think-cell, who openly name their salary offer on their website. I think they can do that because they search for very few, very high-skilled developers - contrary to many larger companies who have less strict hiring policies.
• gregd 6y ago
  Why bother applying for jobs that don't list salary? The whole notion that it's a bargaining tool bothers me to no end. I'm not going to bother applying for a job that doesn't list their salary upfront. Listing the salary allows me to decide that I really want to work for that company, the salary is within my budget, and that I'd like to apply. All without bothering anyone else or wasting my time (or that companies time).
• mooreds 6y ago
  When you walk into a car dealership, do you announce "I want to pay $X for a car"? Or do you see what prices are, think about the options, make decisions based on what your needs are, change your desires based on what is on the car lot? Human beings aren't cars, but just like a car dealership is selling cars, workers sell labor. > With this in mind, how much value can a only-with-salary-disclosed-app bring? I think that you might have a supply issue (employers listing jobs) but it'd be interesting to try. I know of at least one employer who was so fed up with salary mismatches that they started listing a range on their job listings.
• pjdemers 6y ago
  As a hiring manager, I don't do that because it really does vary based on the applicant. I have a set of people in mind for a role, with a range of skills and experience. I may expand a junior role to mid level, or shrink a mid level to junior, based on who I find. In smaller companies, the number of engineers who just sit in a cube all day writing code in the same language is small. There are all kinds of side tasks, everything from sales and support to research and all kinds of sustaining work. How much I'm willing to pay is based on which of those side tasks I can give to the new hire.
• ngneer 6y ago
  I remember going in for an interview not knowing the salary range that would be on offer, but having at least an idea of my worth in the field. During the interview, right after explaining the benefit I could bring to the company, the most senior interviewer asked if I expect to be paid for that benefit. I said of course, but that the salary depended on my contribution, something best judged by the company. At the end of the interview, not pleased with not having a number, the same interviewer asked if I am not willing to give a number and I asked "would you want me to? I can" and that settled it. They came back and I got the job, with a sensible salary. Of course it is in the best interest of companies to have asymmetry of information, same as with car dealers, but two can play that game. An a priori number could end up limiting in both directions. Try to politely decline to give a number ahead of time and see how much your skills are needed. If the company takes the number in a form I try to write In Person or leave it blank. If the company does not contact me, I sometimes wonder whether it was as a result of that, and then remind myself that such inflexibility would not be a good trait for an employer to have, so we were both spared.
• duxup 6y ago
  I think it is because you don't know what you're going to get / and honestly a lot of places don't know the actual market until they start making offers. Maybe you're looking for a $100k type guy... but all you get are $70k applicants so you decide to hire one of them. You don't want to pay dramatically more than you should, or insult them by offering less than the job listed or set them up for thinking they're getting a raise shortly after or something. There are a lot of theories about negotiation and gamification and I think plenty of that is true, but I also think that for most places looking for a specific role, they're not 100% sure what they're going to get and thus can't say exactly what they'll pay. As much as I loath job hunting, trying to get through the hiring industrial complex before I get to talk to the technical guy... I also don't think every job offer thing is a sort of dark pattern. I think folks hiring are flying blind too to some extent and thus not willing to commit to a number until they know the person they want.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• sharemywin 6y ago
  I've always used a recruiter. They call me about a job. they usually ask me about pay. I say I want to make this. they can either get it done or not.
• vbtemp 6y ago
  Many other responses are absolutely true, but here's something else to consider: Over the last 12-14 years, I've never, ever had a "job" that had specific, clear requirements and duties. In the field we're in staff are not line-replaceable units. Each employee is like a box of chocolates, and you'll never know what's inside until you bite (hire them). Some staff will quickly exceed the expected duties and take on high levels of responsibilities and massively contribute to the organization far in excess in what anyone could have foreseen initially. Others will only do strictly what is asked of them (or less) and do the barest minimal to just get by, and basically be a disappointment. Some staff will be able to kind-of fill the job, but not entirely, and will need some training to get there. Others will hit the ground running. This is often why there is a large and ambiguous range for job posts. Basic IT jobs that do have specific, clear duties (and extremely limited growth potential) can have much more clear, lower, and narrow salary ranges.
• goldcd 6y ago
  Largest pay rise I ever got, was when my employer accidentally published the "internal/official/never-published" salary for my role. Quick trip to HR brandishing a print-out, and I got a 25% bump within the week. Of course, that only worked as I was seemingly good at my job, and my employer needed to get the head-count up. (and I might have muttered that if this got out, I guessed they'd have a lot of disgruntled people) Other reason they're kept hidden, is that (at least in my industry) a fair number of positions are filled with specialist recruiters. They are made aware of salary guidelines the employer is willing to pay and also have a rough idea of what people on their books are wanting. They prove their value to employers by filling interview sessions with the best people at the lowest cost.
• stakkur 6y ago
  Because: 1. Companies have no incentive or competitive advantage to do so 2. Salary is a negotiation, and you don't hand the person you're negotiating with information 3. Companies can control pay variations amongst current and future employees. Despite all this, some companies have chosen to be public about their salaries (GitLab, for example). Public institutions often have a legal requirement to establish and publish salary ranges; for example, you can see the salary steps for GS-* ladder employees, or the steps for a public school teacher. Even if you did create an 'app' to circulate 'only-with-salary-disclosed' jobs, I can't imagine more than a few companies wanting to participate. Why should they? What concrete, guaranteed incentive could you offer them?
  • anon13949019014 6y ago
    (Going anon for privacy reasons here) To add some anecdata: GitLab definitely deviates from the salaries they publicize at least in some cases. I was reached out to about a role with #s that were way below market for my area. At the time they did not have any employees in my state and advertised one low-ish statewide salary. When I mentioned the numbers were off-base for being in <one of the most expensive areas in my state>, they were quick to bump the salary by something like +50%. Note that this was before doing any interviewing (though a GitLab recruiter had reached out to me first).
• SecurityMinded 6y ago
  Companies may not want to people who are only after the money, but they also do not ant to pay more than the absolute minimum for the workforce, they can get away with. Say you are working at company A for $100K/yr for position X. Along comes company B, which needs to fill a Position A which you perfectly fit in. And assume they can pay $150K/yr to fill this position. But if you are like any average employee, a 10-15% increase in your salary can and will make you jump ship. So, if they announce $150K/yr compensation on the kb listing, your brain will switch to 50% increase mode and knowing that you can get this much from them, you will most probably not settle for something less. On the other hand, let's assume the salary is not in the job listing and you get to the interview and asked the dreaded question, "What is your expectation of a yearly compensation for this position?" I am sure you will dance around a bit saying things like "Market rate" or "I am sure you will pay me in accordance with industry norms" etc. but when the push comes to the shove, you will give them a figure like $120K, a 20% increase if you will, on your current salary, to give yourself a wiggle room. And if they are like any average employer, they will low-ball you a bit to see what you are amenable to and come back with something like $116K. You are happy that you've got 16% raise while 10% would suffice you to jump ship. The new employer saved $34K/yr on you. Only you by the way and this practice can be multiplied many, many times, ending up with a huge chunk of change. On the flip side, let's assume you were making $160K at your current position and you came to the interview to wrangle say, a $175K salary. When you say that, first they will dismiss your candidacy and look for someone cheaper. Failing to find this person, they know they can come back to you and say, yes we are willing to pay you $170K/yr, knowing your price. All they have lost is a few days or weeks in the process. It is like the prostitute story: The guy sees a pretty woman at the bar.He approaches her and says, "I will pay you a million dollars if you have sex with me tonight" Woman thinks for a moment and says "yes". The man turns around thinks for a minute and says "How about $100?" Woman frowns and feels insulted. Comes back saying "what are you thinking? I am a whore or something?" The guy answers. "We established that fact that you are a whore. I am just trying to figure out your price" Negotiating for a job is just that and as a company you do not want to trap yourself in a corner.
• _hao 6y ago
  Speaking for myself if a company doesn't list salary or a range it's less likely for me to even apply. If recruiters and HR's push me to tell my current salary or give expected salary and they're really pushy about it I just flat out stop the exchange. They're waste of my time. If a company wants the right person for the job then salary can be negotiated despite the fixed ranges they've told the recruiter. If a company wants a code monkey then I'm definitely not the right person for the job. If the reason between they want to get me or not is 10k then I'm sorry, but I'm not working for you. The current economical climate has already made it very hard to get a good raise if you stay in the same company and be loyal. The only way to get a big pay bump is to find another company that will pay you more from the get-go. It's very sad that that's the current state of things.