12 ms·

Ten Commandments of Salary Negotiation

248 points by jger15 5y ago

ggoo 5y ago
The 1 commandment that has always worked for me: If you're happy with the salary and the work, take the job. Life is too short to fight for every penny.
- willis936 5y ago
  OTOH life is too short to forgo being able to own a home or raise kids because you forwent a bigger paycheck indefinitely.
  - hellisothers 5y ago
    OP didn’t say don’t negotiate a salary, they said when you’re happy with it take it. There is definitely a danger in driving a hard bargain just to “win” when you would have been happier accepting what you’ve been offered/negotiated so far.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - _jal 5y ago
    You pay opportunity costs no matter what you do. Including bargaining too hard.
    - maerF0x0 5y ago
      right, but some of them have a positive EROI . Negotiating well is one such thing.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    They said: If you're happy with the salary You said: life is too short to forgo being able to own a home or raise kids Why would you think someone would be happy with their salary if they wanted to own a home & have kids, if that salary didn't let them? Implicit in the caveat if you're happy are all of those the goals predicated on having a salary at a specific level. If the salary won't let you afford a home & kids, you're not going to be happy with it. So you don't take it.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      > Why would you think someone would be happy with their salary if they wanted to own a home & have kids, if that salary didn't let them? I think the clear implication is that if someone didn't realize that a small amount of negotiation on their part could have made the difference between being able to buy a home or not, they might regret not having negotiated when they do realize it, regardless of how happy they were in the past with their salary. Your interpretation is essentially "if you are as happy as you could possibly be, and a higher salary couldn't possibly make you any happier, then don't negotiate," which is logically valid but fairly unrealistic.
    - willis936 5y ago
      Being happy with a salary today/tomorrow doesn't mean you'll be happy with the concessions you made yesterday. Being able to afford a house and kids doesn't happen as soon as you decide you want a higher paying job: it happens a decade later.
- ianai 5y ago
  There’s a lot of potential in realizing that if you were happy with a transaction it doesn’t matter what other transactions are going on around you. You can replace “transaction” with many things in that statement. We’d probably be much further along as a species if we all let go of our egos a little more often (though not completely! I’m not arguing for that.)
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    The flip side of that is making yourself easily taken advantage of. Hence the cliche of the hapless, happy fool. If you're in a position to not care about 5-figure differences in salaries, job opportunities, preserving your existing resources, etc, then I agree it's not worth caring. However most people have pretty limited resources, it's important to be wary of getting taken advantage of at least, if not to try and maximize your gain.
    - ianai 5y ago
      Which is why I put “though not completely! I’m not arguing for that.” It’s probably helpful to not have your ego in the drivers seat absolutely all of the time, but also to check in with it. Kinda like a really close friend that you may spend a lot of time with but nonetheless still know when to step back from and not mindlessly follow. Edit-aka “mindfulness”
- devnulll 5y ago
  I've been on both sides of this. At large FAANG companies, I've seen candidates leave $100k+ on the table, as they simply accepted the first offer (on-hire stock awards and signing bonuses). On the other hand, I've seen candidates spend weeks negotiating over some trivial point and spoil their relationship(s) before they even started the job. Knowing the range for the role you're applying for (via Blind, or Levels.fyi, or similar) makes this process so much easier.
  - dustintrex 5y ago
    In any large company, the team you're negotiating comp with is almost entirely unrelated to the team you'll actually be working with. The only overlap is the hiring manager, and hearing that somebody I want to hire is negotiating comp is not going to make it think worse of them, quite the opposite. I once referred an acquaintance I knew was underpaid to a job on my team, with explicit instructions to negotiate their initial offer. They did not, and I was quite disappointed.
    - bobbiechen 5y ago
      I think the Patrick Mckenzie post is a great reference here: > It is Bob’s job to get you signed with the company as cheaply as possible, but Bob is not super motivated to do so, because Bob is not spending Bob’s money to hire you. Bob is spending Bob’s budget. Bob generally does not get large performance incentives for shaving money off of his hiring budget: you get a new Macbook if you convince Bob to give you $5k extra, but Bob gets (if he is anomalously lucky) a dinner at TGIFridays if he convinces you to take $5k less. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
      - cutemonster 5y ago
        Thanks! Found some other interesting posts over there as well
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- gscho 5y ago
  100% this. When I told some of my peers that I accepted a job with FAGNAM without negotiating I felt looked down on because “everybody does it”. I was happy with the salary, stock and terms /shrug.
  - xkcd-sucks 5y ago
    At least for the FG, consider it a matter of duty - Every dollar "wasted" on a supraoptimal salary is unavailable to further advance the mission of Being Evil :)
- slg 5y ago
  I agree with the sentiment and salary is not in my top few priorities in terms of job satisfaction. However I will also add that anecdotally I have never known anyone who had a company retract an offer because the candidate asked for more. The worst answer you will usually get is "that was our best offer". You don't have to make it a long drawn out negotiation. You can just make it a standard practice to respond to any job offer asking for at least 10% more. There is little downside and the difference will add up over a career.
  - Areading314 5y ago
    I have seen it happen, if a candidate is asking for so much that they seem entitled in the eyes of the hiring manager.
    - slg 5y ago
      I’m sure it can happen if you are rude about it or if you ask for a 50% increase or something, but any company that would be offended by asking for 10% more is probably not somewhere you want to work anyway.
  - reverend_gonzo 5y ago
    So, at least in my industry (softwares development in trading) your bonus can be more than your salary, so while they won’t pull the offer, it can have longer effects. I agree with the above poster which is, if you’re happy, take it. The great part about America and especially developed, if you become unhappy there’s 100 other jobs waiting.
    - hammock 5y ago
      Do you know someone who had a future bonus withheld because they had asked for more in the job negotiation?
      - valdiorn 5y ago
        That's actually fairly.cpmmom practice in finance. If you base is considered a bit high for your position, the bonus just gets docked a bit instead. It's all 100 percent discretionary so...
- arvinsim 5y ago
  The corollary is that if one is not happy with the salary or work, either ask for a raise or switch. Life is too short to subscribe to company loyalty.
- Moodles 5y ago
  Life is short, but is a back and forth and awkward phone call really that big a bother when it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars extra for you and your family? If anything, you probably maximize your utility by negotiating just a little bit before taking the job.
  - ggoo 5y ago
    I never said not to negotiate your salary, it's just not the number one thing to focus on in life. I've negotiated salaries successfully in the past. Did I squeeze every dollar possible out the situation? Probably not.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  I recently had the option to take a $200k/yr salary working on something that greatly appealed to me. Today, after a lot of negotiation, we've agreed that I'll be brought on as a contractor for 3 months at $200/hr. The difference between those two outcomes is nontrivial. By paying myself through an S corporation, and then distributing out 40% of the income as tax-free dividends, I'll be further magnifying this opportunity. In my opinion, I wasted too much of my life not doing this. And all it took was playing a little hardball and being willing to walk away. (For curious readers, my secret superpower was that I already had a banking job I was happy with. Sure, this was my dream job, but from a game theory POV that really doesn't matter. What matters is whether you're spending your days doing something you want. Are you sure you want to make small, lateral movements?) Part of the reason this is hard to discuss is because I truly never believed that opportunities like this were ever going to be available to someone like me. The choice between a $200k/yr salary and a $200/hr contract is so far of an outlier that you read it on HN and just roll your eyes. Right? Or at least, I did. For years. And then one day I woke up and realized I should've had kids about 8 years ago. It's a lot harder at 33. It means that by the time they're 18, you'll be so old they can barely relate to you. I try not to think about it too much or I'll get a bit sad. The real motive was that IVF costs $40k in America. $40k! Forty fucking thousand dollars to have a baby. That really lit a fire under my ass. I looked at it from the point of view of "Okay, my wife's salary pays the bills. I've heard of people making $40k. It's a thing that happens. How can I make $40k?" It's more tractable than it seems. But it requires you to be "selfless" in a certain sense: it's so tempting to take a cool programming job that you really enjoy. It was almost physically painful to decline their original offer. It was like, which would you rather do? Banking, or ML? Hell yes I'd rather do ML. Give me that ML! ... Except the salary would be the same. And unlike banking, where everyone is pretty chill (we're all here for the people and the money), ML is often on a time crunch that reminds me of gamedev. Which means I'd be trading a relaxing job for a stressful job, with no compensation other than "being happy with the salary and the work." Why? Why do that, when you don't need to? All you have to do is say no and shop around. But us programmers rarely seem to do it. By the way, if the amount of money here seems enormous, it turns out to be roughly standard salary for a Google ML engineer. That was my baseline: step one was to ask a buddy at Google "How much would you get paid for this?" and step two was to refuse offers less than that. Google pays RSUs, which startups can't offer. But they can pay you equivalent amounts of cash. Think of it like selling your stock today rather than waiting for it to vest: I won't be receiving stock, so I won't have the chance to become a millionaire, but I will be having a reliable stream of "holy crap, my bank account isn't negative for the first time in a decade" amounts of money. Honestly I think there's something wrong with me, because I can't even talk about this without feeling incredibly guilty. I know (too well) how much people struggle just to make end's meet. And I know how many programmers struggle too. I was one of them. Here I am, making it sound easy. ... but what do you do when it actually is easy? All it requires is for you to focus on it for a year or so. I am incredibly lucky, but I also know how to exploit opportunities that fall in my lap. I encourage you to do the same, dear reader; the diff between me and you isn't as big as you'd think. I'll console myself that this comment will be buried nice and far down the site, and that the story is falling off anyway. (For some reason, audiences are starting to scare me.) But I did want to encourage some lone reader to stop and think. Are you sure you're not inventing reasons why you can't do this? If you decided to buy a car for $100k over the course of a year, you'd probably wince. Yet I didn't realize I was doing the same thing. Turns out, you have to focus on making money if you want to make a lot of money.
- friedman23 5y ago
  Seems like an excuse to avoid negotiating because it makes you uncomfortable. Ironically, the life is too short argument is horrible in this context due to the fact that the amount of time you are forced to work while you live is dependent on the amount of money you make. If you can increase your salary by 10% by negotiating, the total amount of time you have to work in your life just decreased by 10%. Your next raise will also be 10% added to your salary that was already increased by 10%.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Ok, fine. But that how I realized that I grossly. Grossly underpay in my first job in the US.
- foogazi 5y ago
  I just read this on Blind: > Why are you even working if not money?
- vagab0nd 5y ago
  For me, the premise is that you are not taken advantage of by acting that way. And therein lies the conundrum.
88913527 5y ago
On this point: "Consider taxes on bonuses and stock." Yes, but consider taxes on your current total compensation (less 401k contributions, HSA, and Cafeteria plans (e.g., dental)) versus offers you receive. Stock and bonuses are W2 income and taxed at your marginal rate. They aren't special. They may withhold more, but once you file, it's marginal.
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  I never understood why this is considered a dunk. You get taxed on compensation, surprise!
- trimbo 5y ago
  > Stock and bonuses are W2 income and taxed at your marginal rate If you click on the link of that text, their point is that stock is not always W2 income. For example, if someone joins a startup, pre-exercises and files an 83b, that gives a vastly different tax outcome than RSUs at BigPublicTechCo. Conversely, if someone joins a startup and does not exercise their options, then wants to quit after the stock has gone up 10x but isn't liquid, they will have to pay a hefty AMT when they exercise. Many people aren't aware of startup stock tax implications, and they should learn more about it (i.e. click the link in the article).
- rahimiali 5y ago
  The article points out that Amazon offers pay cash for two years the stock, whereas Google pays a mix of stock and cash. The tax difference is that that with Amazon, your stock grows unvested for two years, and when you vest, it’s growth gets taxed as ordinary income. With google stock, you can hold the vested stock for those same two years and get taxed on that growth as long term capital gains.
  - pavas 5y ago
    Isn't it actually as simple as "how much do you get paid per year in total"? The reason being that you can convert cash to stocks (and pay capital gains taxes on its growth) at any time. So $100k salary + $50k cash bonus == $100k salary + $25k cash bonus + $25k vested stock. You can discount any future inflows of cash or stock to present value and compare offers quite easily. Some offers will be more but that has nothing to do with whether compensation is made up of stocks or cash.
WalterBright 5y ago
> Why can’t you just tell me how much it’ll be, and then we can move on? On the other hand, why don't you just tell them the lowest number you'll accept? > Well, the reason we have to play this game is because, like it or not, everyone else is playing it. The real reason is it is completely unworkable to require a best offer from one side and not the other side. Negotiation is central and inevitable to life with more than one person. Negotiating also means giving up things you don't value for things that you do value - making for much better allocation of resources.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > The real reason is it is completely unworkable to require a best offer from one side and not the other side. Only if you think the power dynamics between the two parties are equal. Or in other words, only if you think that both parties would get the same benefit (or harm) from some sort of mediated negotiation (e.g. both parties share their best offer with a third party who then follows some agreed-upon rule to settle the transaction at some price in the range of mutually-acceptable prices if any exist). What you're describing (both sides providing a best offer) obviously doesn't work without some sort of agreed-upon method for sharing the offers before knowing the other party's offer and then settling on a price if any mutually-acceptable prices exist. In reality, even an auction among a large set of workers and employers is unlikely to be have "ideal" outcomes (according to some reasonable definitions, although all definitions would be debatable), particularly when relevant qualities of the two parties are different (like how much information about the market each party has, how risk-averse each party is, etc.).
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > Only if you think the power dynamics between the two parties are equal. The power to walk away is all the power necessary. And we have that, at least in non-communist countries.
    - xboxnolifes 5y ago
      And in countries where not having a job doesn't lead to lack of shelter, food, water, healthcare, etc.
rubyist5eva 5y ago
Forgot the first and most important commandment: always force them to open. They will always low ball, so you know what they think of your skillset and you can negotiate upward if they really want you. If you open you have nowhere to go but down.
- LambdaComplex 5y ago
  > Forgot the first and most important commandment: always force them to open Uh...that's literally the first one though? > Do not — I repeat, do not — give them a number. > What to do instead: Ask for the range they’re budgeted for the role.
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    I’m talking about the actual negotiation. Asking for a range is good when deciding if I’m even going to bother spending my time interviewing but when the the actual offer is being made - always make them go first.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  I hear that advice often but I have had more success opening with a high number so the negotiation gets anchored within a certain range. I have never had much success negotiating an offer up by a significant amount.
  - pineaux 5y ago
    this is exactly right. negotiating up is hard.
  - querulous 5y ago
    the never give a number advice is good if you are early career and lack a track record or you have poor information with regards to your own value but terrible advice for most mid career developers who should have the tools to estimate their own worth (peers, levels.fyi, their current comp) opening with a high but not unthinkable number is way more likely to maximize your comp than playing games and refusing to give a number. the worst case is they deem you not worth it and stop the process but if you are confident in your worth that is a good outcome for you
tyingq 5y ago
Lots to like about the article, but it seems to hinge on the idea that the company will tell you the salary range. A lot of the article keys off off where the offer falls in the range. That works at many tech companies where the range is well known for a specific position. But, there are thousands of tech jobs at non tech companies too. The ranges aren't well known. Titles may mean completely different things at different companies,etc. So the advice to get good intel is key. Company specific intel, like what titles exist, how they compare to each other, ranges (if possible), etc. I suppose it's also possible to ask, after an offer is made, where it is in the range, though that may not get a clear answer either.
- mateo- 5y ago
  Not sure about other states, but in WA you can legally request the range once offered a position -- applies to applicants within and without.
  - mateo- 5y ago
    ugh, just remembered that this was kinda used against me as an internal candidate. I read about the new law and decided to exercise my rights. Turns out senior leadership in my department thought I might sue based and saw it as info gathering for that...
  - doktorhladnjak 5y ago
    Unfortunately I don’t think any of these laws extend beyond salary to bonuses or equity, which makes them all but useless for tech jobs in markets like the Bay Area or Seattle.
georgeecollins 5y ago
Here is a little tip that has given me an advantage in the "Why don't you tell me what you expect or what got paid at your last job" conversation. I say that every study I have read shows that basing a job offer on past salary is one of the most important ways employers -- unwittingly perhaps-- perpetuate unequal pay for women and other protected groups. Ask the employer or recruiter: Do you want your process to perpetuate unequal pay? They can't say yes to that. And it makes them feel bad for asking. If you don't do something like this they will often make you feel unreasonable for not sharing your salary history.
- blast 5y ago
  If you aren't personally one of those protected groups, exploiting their needs to get more money for yourself seems unscrupulous. That ought to make for a weaker negotiating position, not a stronger one, so I'm surprised none of these prospective employers have called your bluff.
- david38 5y ago
  Why protected groups? This isn’t true. It perpetuates low pay for EVERYONE. You don’t have to be a protected group to be shy, conflict averse, ignorant of salaries, etc
  - blast 5y ago
    The argument is that it impacts disadvantaged groups disproportionately. Also, there are lots of studies showing that women negotiate less than men do. I don't know how good the studies are but they've certainly been reported a lot.
- aynyc 5y ago
  In New York State, it’s illegal for them to ask your salary history.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  That doesn't give you the advantage that you believe it does.
- 5y ago
moltenguardian 5y ago
For those of you here that have hit your FIRE number: have you ever brought this up with your manager or potential new company? I'm in this position myself where I don't have to work any more, and mainly just want a fun job. I don't want to be underpaid for the value I'm providing, but I also don't want to be jerked around.
- Areading314 5y ago
  I would not bring it up as it would actually make you a less desirable candidate/employee because you could just quit at any time.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  I worked with a guy who made several million dollars from a prior startup and didn't need to work any more. He was a good guy, wrote good code, was fun to work with. But at the same time, his FIRE status was front and center every time it came to task assignment and other issues. His manager was always afraid to give him un-fun tasks or push back when he was behind schedule for fear he'd quit. Not a great dynamic for the rest of the team who didn't have as much leverage and therefore received a disproportionate amount of the un-fun work. If a candidate came to me suggesting that they didn't need this job but they only wanted to work if it was fun, I'd honestly have to proceed very cautiously. The last thing I want to do is hire a candidate who opens with an indirect threat that they're going to leave the second the job isn't fun any more. We have one of the better team environments, but I can't guarantee that work will always be fun and never require some hard weeks or months to get things done. I'd personally not mention it. It's not only irrelevant to the hiring discussion, but it's a weird warning shot to your future manager before you're even hired.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    Apparently -- I only heard this once, so take it with a grain of salt -- it's why a Walmart manager is typically cautious when someone with qualifications wants a job. "You want a job as a cashier? Uh huh, I bet you won't show up for your shifts, since you don't need to." I always thought that was kind of interesting, that being overqualified for a Walmart job might make it harder to just get a Walmart job. (I briefly considered it in a pinch but decided to drive for Uber instead.)
lucb1e 5y ago
"Ten Commandments of Salary Negotiation" ...for those looking for a position in the top 1% of salaries within rich companies within rich countries. E.g. "I’m talking $100K+ more" really? You think I can get $145k when they just offered me $45k and that was a good offer considering living expenses, what others in this role with similar experience get paid, well above national median income, more than what my higher-educated spouse was offered, etc.? In what world is 100k more realistic? If "I helped her get $5.4M more on her offer" does not sound like this might apply to you, this is where you can safely stop reading. Also, who needs $5.4M per year extra? It might be unfair not to get it for the same work, but either way: if that was in reach for most mortals, we'd all work one year and retire with literal boatloads of money to spare. At $5M/year (total, not extra), you need to work 2.4 months until you can safely withdraw 40 grand a year just from the interest. Work the remainder of that third month and you can buy a private helicopter in cash. This kind of negotiation advice is just not relevant to anyone here, bit disappointed in the article...
- munk-a 5y ago
  An interesting observation on the topic of salary disparity is that the more punishing taxes on high earners are the more it incentivizes companies to pay people more evenly since more of that money will actually end up in your employee's pockets.
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    More likely, above something like $150k/year you instead get the money via some legal construction that doesn't yet count as salary and is not taxed until you turn it into privately owned cash (since it's not as if you need that much money in the first place, so you don't need to tax it all now). I think the way I heard this works is that you aren't officially employed, but you start a company that is hired. Companies pay something like half of the highest tax bracket on profits (2x% vs. 50% iirc), and the name of the game is to make a loss: buy more houses, invest in a renovation of your properties, etc. so you don't even pay (most of) that reduced rate.
    - 5y ago
strange_things 5y ago
I have a feeling everyone at the FAANGs only cares about money and their TCs and levels and bands and... Just reading about it makes me cringe. We all want a lot of cash, me to, but being obsessed about it to this level makes me think people are forgetting to do their job... Also if you are not in a role where you are directly generating money, your compensation will always be based on politics and people relations. I dont know: just reading about it makes me sad and empty on the inside. If people were less focused on their TC and more on their work, we would live in a better world.
- 88913527 5y ago
  If I have to work in order to feed and house myself, a healthy discussion on compensation -- the primary reason why I choose to work for someone else in the first place -- should not be characterized as cringe. My work, and my time, is not charity given to a company.
  - strange_things 5y ago
    Me too, and also everyone else. A healthy discussion is good and especially if you change jobs you should try to make sure you know where you want to end up money wise. Also, if you feel undercompensated for the work you do you should tell your boss and demand an increase. But the fact that we have now a whole industry consulting on how to optimize for compensation is cringe to me: if it is normal to other people, so be it, but I don't like it. I think the whole "optimization process" is a combination or people skills & politics (win hearts & minds as the article author said). Also what people seem to forget is that this whole negotiation phase is just at the start. If you have a very good job, your compensation will grow over the years with a very high rate, otherwise you are at the mercy of team politics and people relations. I think the FAANGS know this and that's why they pay relatively low(as a % of TC) base salaries and even lower cash bonuses and pay with "promises" i.e equity. So far the party (bull market) has been going on and on so that's how people get the TC growth and that's why people negotiate so hard at the start: I get it. It's just not for me. I also feel cringe about it at the personal level: I often talk to talk to people at those or similar companies and some (not all) are ultra focused on their TC, but then we chat about technical stuff and they don't even know what zero-mq is (not my litmus test for developer ability but it's illustrative: they spend their time on levels fyi more than wanting to improve their job). Long story short, if people are happy to be paid in equity that you only get 1/4 of by definition then it leaves less competition for me in my field, so I should actually be grateful and not cringe. Thanks for making me realise this. edit: I never even touched on factors like productivity and its main explanation factors: intelligence and hard work. If I have more intelligence, and I work ultra hard, I should be paid more than you. That's why compensation is mega hetoroscedastic: that is why we have bands and why the bands are so wide and there are outliers. What made me also cringe is the people who are clearly not the "cream of cream" negotiate and get to such places: if the "process" did not exist and they were just interviewed technically for 5-6 rounds they would have flopped and the company would save itself some troubles. My 2 cents.
jmchuster 5y ago
> If you’re senior, get some press before you start meeting folks. Really helps contextualize how easily many of us throw around the term "senior" engineer.
- GlennS 5y ago
  It's just unrealistic to be honest. Most people don't want publicity.
- ggregoire 5y ago
  I was wondering while reading the article: what does "get some press" mean in that context? Literally getting people write articles about you?
tomnipotent 5y ago
I can only speak for start-ups (5-150 people), but here's some general advice given the context of how the business is likely managing the process. After internal stakeholders have agreed that new hires are needed, a salary range is agreed upon verbally or in email by the CEO/CFO and the person asking for the new hire (lets call them the hiring manager). Experienced hiring managers will probe for things they can offer that are non-cash compensation, like stock and benefits. Accounting/finance is then roped in to make sure everything being offered is sane, and we're just hoping they don't scare the CEO by telling them we're 25% above plan for new hires (this happens a lot). You end up with something like "Front-end Programmer $120-140k", and finance updates their models to include the new hires so that execs can see the impact to cash burn. Chances are high that many other roles are open at the same time, because doing this ad-hoc is a PITA. This can take a few days to a few weeks depending on the maturity of the team, and the end-result is some job requirements that get posted on the company website and used to push out to recruiters or personal networks. At this point the CEO is already updating org charts and thinking about how to communicate the new hires in the next board meeting deck, and how to market the work the new hires will be contributing to. Why is this all important? Because this is the weight of the work you're pushing against when your salary negotiation goes above the high-end of the range. You see, if your salary is within range then no extra work is needed by the hiring manager or company to make things work. Better yet, if you come in at the lower-end of the range then the company has saved money! Big win, since it always feel like cash burn is faster than expected. Maybe the "extra" cash is added to the remaining new hires pool, or better yet returned to the company for other uses But if you're above the high-end, the hiring manager has to go back to the business and "fight" to get approval. The CEO has already approved the updated financial model, which the team spent a week or more updating with furious back-and-forth and long nights. So when the hiring manager broaches the subject of needing an extra $X to make this new hire work, a dance begins with internal stakeholders that have already spent weeks on already-agreed-upon numbers. Going through the process of updating all of this can seem daunting. An inexperienced hiring manager may not know how to tackle this situation, so rather than deal with defending the extra money will just pass on the candidate. Maybe the candidate is a close friend or former colleague, so even an inexperienced hiring manager will figure out how to make a "plea" even if communicated poorly. Experienced hiring managers will have a few tricks, such as communicating the benefits of the extra cost in a way that appeals to management. Really context-dependent. I've even seen some offers doubled, because the candidate was so appealing and the hiring manager so good at marketing their contributions. Now here is the hard part - how do you, the candidate, know what the upper range is so that you can ask for it without telling them your prior salary which may anchor you to the lower-end? This is why you want the company to make the first offer, because then you know a bit more about the range. They offer $120k, so you know you can probably safely go to $130k without much trouble and $140k with a little effort. $150k? Well, now the hiring manager needs to begin to negotiate. There may also be a recruiter in the picture, which doesn't change the internal negotiation dynamics but does make the experience "lighter" for the hiring manager and candidate because there's less face-to-face emotional turmoil. My advice? Keep in mind the importance of the range, and that you're asking the hiring manager AND other people in the company do more work to accommodate your ask. Don't expect your hiring manager to know how to navigate this process, and be prepared to help them make the case that you're worth it.
Jemaclus 5y ago
We would be remiss not to mention patio11's excellent (if long) Salary Negotiation blog post[1] from years ago. Still holds up. I took a negotiation class last year, and it was pretty eye-opening. One of the things we discussed is how not every negotiation is an adversarial one. In fact, most negotiations are cooperative! In most cases, neither person wants the other to walk away. Let me put it this way: I'm a hiring manager. I want to hire you. You want to accept the job [for the right amount of money]. We have a mutual goal. It doesn't have to be power plays from either side. Look, it's not my money. What do I care if you make an extra 10K or 20K or get a sign-on bonus or not? It's not a zero-sum game for me. I don't make less money because you make more money; I'm hiring you to solve a problem I have. If giving you an extra 10K is what I need to do to get your brain into my codebase to produce code, then BY ALL MEANS, HAVE AN EXTRA 10K. (Yes, yes, my department does have a budget, and while there's usually a little wiggle room around salary ranges, I can't just pay you a bajillion dollars. But in my experience in Silicon Valley, there's almost always a will to hire great candidates, and if my budget is $200K and it takes $210K to get you in the door, I've yet to be told no.) TL;DR: this advice is decent, but at the end of the day, the simplest thing to do is just say, "That's a great offer, and for an additional 10K, I'll sign right now." Nine times outta ten that'll work. [1] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zz865 5y ago
https://www.levels.fyi/ https://www.levels.fyi/ is actually pretty good for this. My last job asked me what I wanted, I sent them some links then its pretty clear to both sides what normal is.
- rahimiali 5y ago
  The article explicitly comments on this. Search for “Glassdoor” in the text.
theshadowknows 5y ago
One time, many years ago now, I was interviewing and made it through several rounds. The topic of salary didn’t come up until the end when I spoke with the CEO and she asked how much I was looking for. When I told her she laughed and said “I think we can do better than that.” And my entire world view shifted and I realized I’d been undervaluing myself for years.
- semitones 5y ago
  That must have been such a serendipitous moment :)
- HNdev1995 5y ago
  Was it that big of a difference?
- ShakataGaNai 5y ago
  I had a similar hiring manager/boss a few years back. During the interview I took what I was getting previous and padded it a bit. He said something like "ok, I think we can work with that" and later came back with a offer that was at least 10% more than I asked. Knew I'd found a good place to be.
- bradlys 5y ago
  My first job doing software was in 2013 with a university - it was a student specific position. I had pretty low confidence in my ability to negotiate, had lost my previous IT job, and just wanted this job to break into software because I couldn’t get an internship. So, when it came to them asking how much I wanted, I asked for $0.25 more than what my last job was. So, $14/hr. He came back with, “why not $15?” At that point I realized I probably could’ve gotten 20-25. Felt like a complete idiot - should’ve done some digging around before that point but I didn’t. I’m still terrible at negotiating but mostly because I interview with too many companies that aren’t competitive with pay. I’m at one that’s more competitive now.
  - WelcomeShorty 5y ago
    > “why not $15?” At that point I realized I probably could’ve gotten 20-25 I hear this a lot, but always wonder why? You where happy with 14, got 15, so why feel like an idiot? If all you care about is the highest maximal rate, you will be job hopping forever, getting better at negotiations but will it make you feel less like an idiot? EDIT: I never cared for how much my fellow employees made. I know what I "need" and when I accept a certain rate, I can only be proud of being able to bring home what I make.
specialist 5y ago
Why aren't salaries negotiations treated like auctions? Could they be?
- lugged 5y ago
  Not really. You can get companies into bidding wars though. Went from 50k to 80k with a savvy recruiter doing the dirty work.
anamax 5y ago
I know people who have been happy with "One of your jobs as my manager is to make sure that my salary is competitive." The unstated follow-on is "if I find out that it isn't, I'm gone." BTW - The correct response to a counter-offer is "Retroactive to when?" Regardless of the answer, the end-state is "no" because once they think that you'll leave, they're looking for a way to replace you.
darth_avocado 5y ago
I recently started a 400k job. Let me tell you, my offer did not start there and I did not have a competing offer. Things that helped me: 1. Remembering as much as not getting this job is bad for me, not getting me is bad for them. 2. Work with the recruiter. I at all times reiterated that I completely trust him and that I know he’s trying to get the best offer for me. 3. Reminding them constantly that you are viewing this opportunity as a long term investment. You want to join and do good work for a couple of years and not have to think about money for a while. You’re not job hopping. They may save some money upfront, but in the long run it won’t matter if they paid me more. 4. Absolutely have your asks clear. Be prepared to say what matters to you and what doesn’t. Don’t try to get everything. People respect your ask if they realize you’re not fishing to see if you can get more, you already know you can and how much you can.
vzaliva 5y ago
As an employer I've learned never to lowball candiadates. It just does not work long-term. People will sooner or later realize that they are being underpaid and will be unhappy and leave. And there is a signigicant cost of losing an employee. Of course, at the same time you want to stay away from people asking for crazy salaries. These are usually an opportunists and rarely a keepers. Just a perspective from another side of the table...
4ad 5y ago
> Every recruiter worth their salt will ask about your salary expectations when you first start interviewing. Do not — I repeat, do not — give them a number. Very good advice if you live in the US, unfortunately this doesn't work in Europe if you expect to get US-level of compensation. Not being forthcoming with your expectation is a total waste of time when 99.9% of people don't have or aren't willing to give you the money that you want. Of course, tell that to your prospective employer, not to the recruiter. In fact, try to avoid recruiters altogether. Although I did happen to get the sporadic good lead through a recruiter, most e-mails from recruiters go straight to spam. Saying your expectations up front comes with the usual disadvantages, but in the EU you simply have to do it otherwise you waste all your time with employers that end up low balling you. Statistically speaking salaries in the EU are terrible compared to US, but there are the 0.1% outliers, so stop wasting time with prospective employers who don't value you. You have to filter them up front. Of course, all of the above is assuming that you are in the top 0.1% of the market, and it's your job to be able to prove that you are.

248 points by jger15 5y ago

ggoo 5y ago

The 1 commandment that has always worked for me: If you're happy with the salary and the work, take the job. Life is too short to fight for every penny.

willis936 5y ago
OTOH life is too short to forgo being able to own a home or raise kids because you forwent a bigger paycheck indefinitely.
- hellisothers 5y ago
  OP didn’t say don’t negotiate a salary, they said when you’re happy with it take it. There is definitely a danger in driving a hard bargain just to “win” when you would have been happier accepting what you’ve been offered/negotiated so far.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _jal 5y ago
  You pay opportunity costs no matter what you do. Including bargaining too hard.
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    right, but some of them have a positive EROI . Negotiating well is one such thing.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  They said: If you're happy with the salary You said: life is too short to forgo being able to own a home or raise kids Why would you think someone would be happy with their salary if they wanted to own a home & have kids, if that salary didn't let them? Implicit in the caveat if you're happy are all of those the goals predicated on having a salary at a specific level. If the salary won't let you afford a home & kids, you're not going to be happy with it. So you don't take it.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    > Why would you think someone would be happy with their salary if they wanted to own a home & have kids, if that salary didn't let them? I think the clear implication is that if someone didn't realize that a small amount of negotiation on their part could have made the difference between being able to buy a home or not, they might regret not having negotiated when they do realize it, regardless of how happy they were in the past with their salary. Your interpretation is essentially "if you are as happy as you could possibly be, and a higher salary couldn't possibly make you any happier, then don't negotiate," which is logically valid but fairly unrealistic.
  - willis936 5y ago
    Being happy with a salary today/tomorrow doesn't mean you'll be happy with the concessions you made yesterday. Being able to afford a house and kids doesn't happen as soon as you decide you want a higher paying job: it happens a decade later.
ianai 5y ago
There’s a lot of potential in realizing that if you were happy with a transaction it doesn’t matter what other transactions are going on around you. You can replace “transaction” with many things in that statement. We’d probably be much further along as a species if we all let go of our egos a little more often (though not completely! I’m not arguing for that.)
- silicon2401 5y ago
  The flip side of that is making yourself easily taken advantage of. Hence the cliche of the hapless, happy fool. If you're in a position to not care about 5-figure differences in salaries, job opportunities, preserving your existing resources, etc, then I agree it's not worth caring. However most people have pretty limited resources, it's important to be wary of getting taken advantage of at least, if not to try and maximize your gain.
  - ianai 5y ago
    Which is why I put “though not completely! I’m not arguing for that.” It’s probably helpful to not have your ego in the drivers seat absolutely all of the time, but also to check in with it. Kinda like a really close friend that you may spend a lot of time with but nonetheless still know when to step back from and not mindlessly follow. Edit-aka “mindfulness”
devnulll 5y ago
I've been on both sides of this. At large FAANG companies, I've seen candidates leave $100k+ on the table, as they simply accepted the first offer (on-hire stock awards and signing bonuses). On the other hand, I've seen candidates spend weeks negotiating over some trivial point and spoil their relationship(s) before they even started the job. Knowing the range for the role you're applying for (via Blind, or Levels.fyi, or similar) makes this process so much easier.
- dustintrex 5y ago
  In any large company, the team you're negotiating comp with is almost entirely unrelated to the team you'll actually be working with. The only overlap is the hiring manager, and hearing that somebody I want to hire is negotiating comp is not going to make it think worse of them, quite the opposite. I once referred an acquaintance I knew was underpaid to a job on my team, with explicit instructions to negotiate their initial offer. They did not, and I was quite disappointed.
  - bobbiechen 5y ago
    I think the Patrick Mckenzie post is a great reference here: > It is Bob’s job to get you signed with the company as cheaply as possible, but Bob is not super motivated to do so, because Bob is not spending Bob’s money to hire you. Bob is spending Bob’s budget. Bob generally does not get large performance incentives for shaving money off of his hiring budget: you get a new Macbook if you convince Bob to give you $5k extra, but Bob gets (if he is anomalously lucky) a dinner at TGIFridays if he convinces you to take $5k less. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
    - cutemonster 5y ago
      Thanks! Found some other interesting posts over there as well
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
gscho 5y ago
100% this. When I told some of my peers that I accepted a job with FAGNAM without negotiating I felt looked down on because “everybody does it”. I was happy with the salary, stock and terms /shrug.
- xkcd-sucks 5y ago
  At least for the FG, consider it a matter of duty - Every dollar "wasted" on a supraoptimal salary is unavailable to further advance the mission of Being Evil :)
slg 5y ago
I agree with the sentiment and salary is not in my top few priorities in terms of job satisfaction. However I will also add that anecdotally I have never known anyone who had a company retract an offer because the candidate asked for more. The worst answer you will usually get is "that was our best offer". You don't have to make it a long drawn out negotiation. You can just make it a standard practice to respond to any job offer asking for at least 10% more. There is little downside and the difference will add up over a career.
- Areading314 5y ago
  I have seen it happen, if a candidate is asking for so much that they seem entitled in the eyes of the hiring manager.
  - slg 5y ago
    I’m sure it can happen if you are rude about it or if you ask for a 50% increase or something, but any company that would be offended by asking for 10% more is probably not somewhere you want to work anyway.
- reverend_gonzo 5y ago
  So, at least in my industry (softwares development in trading) your bonus can be more than your salary, so while they won’t pull the offer, it can have longer effects. I agree with the above poster which is, if you’re happy, take it. The great part about America and especially developed, if you become unhappy there’s 100 other jobs waiting.
  - hammock 5y ago
    Do you know someone who had a future bonus withheld because they had asked for more in the job negotiation?
    - valdiorn 5y ago
      That's actually fairly.cpmmom practice in finance. If you base is considered a bit high for your position, the bonus just gets docked a bit instead. It's all 100 percent discretionary so...
arvinsim 5y ago
The corollary is that if one is not happy with the salary or work, either ask for a raise or switch. Life is too short to subscribe to company loyalty.
Moodles 5y ago
Life is short, but is a back and forth and awkward phone call really that big a bother when it could be hundreds of thousands of dollars extra for you and your family? If anything, you probably maximize your utility by negotiating just a little bit before taking the job.
- ggoo 5y ago
  I never said not to negotiate your salary, it's just not the number one thing to focus on in life. I've negotiated salaries successfully in the past. Did I squeeze every dollar possible out the situation? Probably not.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
I recently had the option to take a $200k/yr salary working on something that greatly appealed to me. Today, after a lot of negotiation, we've agreed that I'll be brought on as a contractor for 3 months at $200/hr. The difference between those two outcomes is nontrivial. By paying myself through an S corporation, and then distributing out 40% of the income as tax-free dividends, I'll be further magnifying this opportunity. In my opinion, I wasted too much of my life not doing this. And all it took was playing a little hardball and being willing to walk away. (For curious readers, my secret superpower was that I already had a banking job I was happy with. Sure, this was my dream job, but from a game theory POV that really doesn't matter. What matters is whether you're spending your days doing something you want. Are you sure you want to make small, lateral movements?) Part of the reason this is hard to discuss is because I truly never believed that opportunities like this were ever going to be available to someone like me. The choice between a $200k/yr salary and a $200/hr contract is so far of an outlier that you read it on HN and just roll your eyes. Right? Or at least, I did. For years. And then one day I woke up and realized I should've had kids about 8 years ago. It's a lot harder at 33. It means that by the time they're 18, you'll be so old they can barely relate to you. I try not to think about it too much or I'll get a bit sad. The real motive was that IVF costs $40k in America. $40k! Forty fucking thousand dollars to have a baby. That really lit a fire under my ass. I looked at it from the point of view of "Okay, my wife's salary pays the bills. I've heard of people making $40k. It's a thing that happens. How can I make $40k?" It's more tractable than it seems. But it requires you to be "selfless" in a certain sense: it's so tempting to take a cool programming job that you really enjoy. It was almost physically painful to decline their original offer. It was like, which would you rather do? Banking, or ML? Hell yes I'd rather do ML. Give me that ML! ... Except the salary would be the same. And unlike banking, where everyone is pretty chill (we're all here for the people and the money), ML is often on a time crunch that reminds me of gamedev. Which means I'd be trading a relaxing job for a stressful job, with no compensation other than "being happy with the salary and the work." Why? Why do that, when you don't need to? All you have to do is say no and shop around. But us programmers rarely seem to do it. By the way, if the amount of money here seems enormous, it turns out to be roughly standard salary for a Google ML engineer. That was my baseline: step one was to ask a buddy at Google "How much would you get paid for this?" and step two was to refuse offers less than that. Google pays RSUs, which startups can't offer. But they can pay you equivalent amounts of cash. Think of it like selling your stock today rather than waiting for it to vest: I won't be receiving stock, so I won't have the chance to become a millionaire, but I will be having a reliable stream of "holy crap, my bank account isn't negative for the first time in a decade" amounts of money. Honestly I think there's something wrong with me, because I can't even talk about this without feeling incredibly guilty. I know (too well) how much people struggle just to make end's meet. And I know how many programmers struggle too. I was one of them. Here I am, making it sound easy. ... but what do you do when it actually is easy? All it requires is for you to focus on it for a year or so. I am incredibly lucky, but I also know how to exploit opportunities that fall in my lap. I encourage you to do the same, dear reader; the diff between me and you isn't as big as you'd think. I'll console myself that this comment will be buried nice and far down the site, and that the story is falling off anyway. (For some reason, audiences are starting to scare me.) But I did want to encourage some lone reader to stop and think. Are you sure you're not inventing reasons why you can't do this? If you decided to buy a car for $100k over the course of a year, you'd probably wince. Yet I didn't realize I was doing the same thing. Turns out, you have to focus on making money if you want to make a lot of money.
friedman23 5y ago
Seems like an excuse to avoid negotiating because it makes you uncomfortable. Ironically, the life is too short argument is horrible in this context due to the fact that the amount of time you are forced to work while you live is dependent on the amount of money you make. If you can increase your salary by 10% by negotiating, the total amount of time you have to work in your life just decreased by 10%. Your next raise will also be 10% added to your salary that was already increased by 10%.
dopidopHN 5y ago
Ok, fine. But that how I realized that I grossly. Grossly underpay in my first job in the US.
foogazi 5y ago
I just read this on Blind: > Why are you even working if not money?
vagab0nd 5y ago
For me, the premise is that you are not taken advantage of by acting that way. And therein lies the conundrum.

88913527 5y ago

On this point: "Consider taxes on bonuses and stock." Yes, but consider taxes on your current total compensation (less 401k contributions, HSA, and Cafeteria plans (e.g., dental)) versus offers you receive. Stock and bonuses are W2 income and taxed at your marginal rate. They aren't special. They may withhold more, but once you file, it's marginal.

fidesomnes 5y ago
I never understood why this is considered a dunk. You get taxed on compensation, surprise!
trimbo 5y ago
> Stock and bonuses are W2 income and taxed at your marginal rate If you click on the link of that text, their point is that stock is not always W2 income. For example, if someone joins a startup, pre-exercises and files an 83b, that gives a vastly different tax outcome than RSUs at BigPublicTechCo. Conversely, if someone joins a startup and does not exercise their options, then wants to quit after the stock has gone up 10x but isn't liquid, they will have to pay a hefty AMT when they exercise. Many people aren't aware of startup stock tax implications, and they should learn more about it (i.e. click the link in the article).
rahimiali 5y ago
The article points out that Amazon offers pay cash for two years the stock, whereas Google pays a mix of stock and cash. The tax difference is that that with Amazon, your stock grows unvested for two years, and when you vest, it’s growth gets taxed as ordinary income. With google stock, you can hold the vested stock for those same two years and get taxed on that growth as long term capital gains.
- pavas 5y ago
  Isn't it actually as simple as "how much do you get paid per year in total"? The reason being that you can convert cash to stocks (and pay capital gains taxes on its growth) at any time. So $100k salary + $50k cash bonus == $100k salary + $25k cash bonus + $25k vested stock. You can discount any future inflows of cash or stock to present value and compare offers quite easily. Some offers will be more but that has nothing to do with whether compensation is made up of stocks or cash.

WalterBright 5y ago

> Why can’t you just tell me how much it’ll be, and then we can move on? On the other hand, why don't you just tell them the lowest number you'll accept? > Well, the reason we have to play this game is because, like it or not, everyone else is playing it. The real reason is it is completely unworkable to require a best offer from one side and not the other side. Negotiation is central and inevitable to life with more than one person. Negotiating also means giving up things you don't value for things that you do value - making for much better allocation of resources.

tshaddox 5y ago
> The real reason is it is completely unworkable to require a best offer from one side and not the other side. Only if you think the power dynamics between the two parties are equal. Or in other words, only if you think that both parties would get the same benefit (or harm) from some sort of mediated negotiation (e.g. both parties share their best offer with a third party who then follows some agreed-upon rule to settle the transaction at some price in the range of mutually-acceptable prices if any exist). What you're describing (both sides providing a best offer) obviously doesn't work without some sort of agreed-upon method for sharing the offers before knowing the other party's offer and then settling on a price if any mutually-acceptable prices exist. In reality, even an auction among a large set of workers and employers is unlikely to be have "ideal" outcomes (according to some reasonable definitions, although all definitions would be debatable), particularly when relevant qualities of the two parties are different (like how much information about the market each party has, how risk-averse each party is, etc.).
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > Only if you think the power dynamics between the two parties are equal. The power to walk away is all the power necessary. And we have that, at least in non-communist countries.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    And in countries where not having a job doesn't lead to lack of shelter, food, water, healthcare, etc.

rubyist5eva 5y ago

Forgot the first and most important commandment: always force them to open. They will always low ball, so you know what they think of your skillset and you can negotiate upward if they really want you. If you open you have nowhere to go but down.

LambdaComplex 5y ago
> Forgot the first and most important commandment: always force them to open Uh...that's literally the first one though? > Do not — I repeat, do not — give them a number. > What to do instead: Ask for the range they’re budgeted for the role.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  I’m talking about the actual negotiation. Asking for a range is good when deciding if I’m even going to bother spending my time interviewing but when the the actual offer is being made - always make them go first.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
I hear that advice often but I have had more success opening with a high number so the negotiation gets anchored within a certain range. I have never had much success negotiating an offer up by a significant amount.
- pineaux 5y ago
  this is exactly right. negotiating up is hard.
- querulous 5y ago
  the never give a number advice is good if you are early career and lack a track record or you have poor information with regards to your own value but terrible advice for most mid career developers who should have the tools to estimate their own worth (peers, levels.fyi, their current comp) opening with a high but not unthinkable number is way more likely to maximize your comp than playing games and refusing to give a number. the worst case is they deem you not worth it and stop the process but if you are confident in your worth that is a good outcome for you

tyingq 5y ago

Lots to like about the article, but it seems to hinge on the idea that the company will tell you the salary range. A lot of the article keys off off where the offer falls in the range. That works at many tech companies where the range is well known for a specific position. But, there are thousands of tech jobs at non tech companies too. The ranges aren't well known. Titles may mean completely different things at different companies,etc. So the advice to get good intel is key. Company specific intel, like what titles exist, how they compare to each other, ranges (if possible), etc. I suppose it's also possible to ask, after an offer is made, where it is in the range, though that may not get a clear answer either.

mateo- 5y ago
Not sure about other states, but in WA you can legally request the range once offered a position -- applies to applicants within and without.
- mateo- 5y ago
  ugh, just remembered that this was kinda used against me as an internal candidate. I read about the new law and decided to exercise my rights. Turns out senior leadership in my department thought I might sue based and saw it as info gathering for that...
- doktorhladnjak 5y ago
  Unfortunately I don’t think any of these laws extend beyond salary to bonuses or equity, which makes them all but useless for tech jobs in markets like the Bay Area or Seattle.

georgeecollins 5y ago

Here is a little tip that has given me an advantage in the "Why don't you tell me what you expect or what got paid at your last job" conversation. I say that every study I have read shows that basing a job offer on past salary is one of the most important ways employers -- unwittingly perhaps-- perpetuate unequal pay for women and other protected groups. Ask the employer or recruiter: Do you want your process to perpetuate unequal pay? They can't say yes to that. And it makes them feel bad for asking. If you don't do something like this they will often make you feel unreasonable for not sharing your salary history.

blast 5y ago
If you aren't personally one of those protected groups, exploiting their needs to get more money for yourself seems unscrupulous. That ought to make for a weaker negotiating position, not a stronger one, so I'm surprised none of these prospective employers have called your bluff.
david38 5y ago
Why protected groups? This isn’t true. It perpetuates low pay for EVERYONE. You don’t have to be a protected group to be shy, conflict averse, ignorant of salaries, etc
- blast 5y ago
  The argument is that it impacts disadvantaged groups disproportionately. Also, there are lots of studies showing that women negotiate less than men do. I don't know how good the studies are but they've certainly been reported a lot.
aynyc 5y ago
In New York State, it’s illegal for them to ask your salary history.
IncRnd 5y ago
That doesn't give you the advantage that you believe it does.
5y ago

moltenguardian 5y ago

For those of you here that have hit your FIRE number: have you ever brought this up with your manager or potential new company? I'm in this position myself where I don't have to work any more, and mainly just want a fun job. I don't want to be underpaid for the value I'm providing, but I also don't want to be jerked around.

Areading314 5y ago
I would not bring it up as it would actually make you a less desirable candidate/employee because you could just quit at any time.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I worked with a guy who made several million dollars from a prior startup and didn't need to work any more. He was a good guy, wrote good code, was fun to work with. But at the same time, his FIRE status was front and center every time it came to task assignment and other issues. His manager was always afraid to give him un-fun tasks or push back when he was behind schedule for fear he'd quit. Not a great dynamic for the rest of the team who didn't have as much leverage and therefore received a disproportionate amount of the un-fun work. If a candidate came to me suggesting that they didn't need this job but they only wanted to work if it was fun, I'd honestly have to proceed very cautiously. The last thing I want to do is hire a candidate who opens with an indirect threat that they're going to leave the second the job isn't fun any more. We have one of the better team environments, but I can't guarantee that work will always be fun and never require some hard weeks or months to get things done. I'd personally not mention it. It's not only irrelevant to the hiring discussion, but it's a weird warning shot to your future manager before you're even hired.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Apparently -- I only heard this once, so take it with a grain of salt -- it's why a Walmart manager is typically cautious when someone with qualifications wants a job. "You want a job as a cashier? Uh huh, I bet you won't show up for your shifts, since you don't need to." I always thought that was kind of interesting, that being overqualified for a Walmart job might make it harder to just get a Walmart job. (I briefly considered it in a pinch but decided to drive for Uber instead.)

lucb1e 5y ago

"Ten Commandments of Salary Negotiation" ...for those looking for a position in the top 1% of salaries within rich companies within rich countries. E.g. "I’m talking $100K+ more" really? You think I can get $145k when they just offered me $45k and that was a good offer considering living expenses, what others in this role with similar experience get paid, well above national median income, more than what my higher-educated spouse was offered, etc.? In what world is 100k more realistic? If "I helped her get $5.4M more on her offer" does not sound like this might apply to you, this is where you can safely stop reading. Also, who needs $5.4M per year extra? It might be unfair not to get it for the same work, but either way: if that was in reach for most mortals, we'd all work one year and retire with literal boatloads of money to spare. At $5M/year (total, not extra), you need to work 2.4 months until you can safely withdraw 40 grand a year just from the interest. Work the remainder of that third month and you can buy a private helicopter in cash. This kind of negotiation advice is just not relevant to anyone here, bit disappointed in the article...

munk-a 5y ago
An interesting observation on the topic of salary disparity is that the more punishing taxes on high earners are the more it incentivizes companies to pay people more evenly since more of that money will actually end up in your employee's pockets.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  More likely, above something like $150k/year you instead get the money via some legal construction that doesn't yet count as salary and is not taxed until you turn it into privately owned cash (since it's not as if you need that much money in the first place, so you don't need to tax it all now). I think the way I heard this works is that you aren't officially employed, but you start a company that is hired. Companies pay something like half of the highest tax bracket on profits (2x% vs. 50% iirc), and the name of the game is to make a loss: buy more houses, invest in a renovation of your properties, etc. so you don't even pay (most of) that reduced rate.
  - 5y ago

strange_things 5y ago

I have a feeling everyone at the FAANGs only cares about money and their TCs and levels and bands and... Just reading about it makes me cringe. We all want a lot of cash, me to, but being obsessed about it to this level makes me think people are forgetting to do their job... Also if you are not in a role where you are directly generating money, your compensation will always be based on politics and people relations. I dont know: just reading about it makes me sad and empty on the inside. If people were less focused on their TC and more on their work, we would live in a better world.

88913527 5y ago
If I have to work in order to feed and house myself, a healthy discussion on compensation -- the primary reason why I choose to work for someone else in the first place -- should not be characterized as cringe. My work, and my time, is not charity given to a company.
- strange_things 5y ago
  Me too, and also everyone else. A healthy discussion is good and especially if you change jobs you should try to make sure you know where you want to end up money wise. Also, if you feel undercompensated for the work you do you should tell your boss and demand an increase. But the fact that we have now a whole industry consulting on how to optimize for compensation is cringe to me: if it is normal to other people, so be it, but I don't like it. I think the whole "optimization process" is a combination or people skills & politics (win hearts & minds as the article author said). Also what people seem to forget is that this whole negotiation phase is just at the start. If you have a very good job, your compensation will grow over the years with a very high rate, otherwise you are at the mercy of team politics and people relations. I think the FAANGS know this and that's why they pay relatively low(as a % of TC) base salaries and even lower cash bonuses and pay with "promises" i.e equity. So far the party (bull market) has been going on and on so that's how people get the TC growth and that's why people negotiate so hard at the start: I get it. It's just not for me. I also feel cringe about it at the personal level: I often talk to talk to people at those or similar companies and some (not all) are ultra focused on their TC, but then we chat about technical stuff and they don't even know what zero-mq is (not my litmus test for developer ability but it's illustrative: they spend their time on levels fyi more than wanting to improve their job). Long story short, if people are happy to be paid in equity that you only get 1/4 of by definition then it leaves less competition for me in my field, so I should actually be grateful and not cringe. Thanks for making me realise this. edit: I never even touched on factors like productivity and its main explanation factors: intelligence and hard work. If I have more intelligence, and I work ultra hard, I should be paid more than you. That's why compensation is mega hetoroscedastic: that is why we have bands and why the bands are so wide and there are outliers. What made me also cringe is the people who are clearly not the "cream of cream" negotiate and get to such places: if the "process" did not exist and they were just interviewed technically for 5-6 rounds they would have flopped and the company would save itself some troubles. My 2 cents.

jmchuster 5y ago

> If you’re senior, get some press before you start meeting folks. Really helps contextualize how easily many of us throw around the term "senior" engineer.

GlennS 5y ago
It's just unrealistic to be honest. Most people don't want publicity.
ggregoire 5y ago
I was wondering while reading the article: what does "get some press" mean in that context? Literally getting people write articles about you?

tomnipotent 5y ago

I can only speak for start-ups (5-150 people), but here's some general advice given the context of how the business is likely managing the process. After internal stakeholders have agreed that new hires are needed, a salary range is agreed upon verbally or in email by the CEO/CFO and the person asking for the new hire (lets call them the hiring manager). Experienced hiring managers will probe for things they can offer that are non-cash compensation, like stock and benefits. Accounting/finance is then roped in to make sure everything being offered is sane, and we're just hoping they don't scare the CEO by telling them we're 25% above plan for new hires (this happens a lot). You end up with something like "Front-end Programmer $120-140k", and finance updates their models to include the new hires so that execs can see the impact to cash burn. Chances are high that many other roles are open at the same time, because doing this ad-hoc is a PITA. This can take a few days to a few weeks depending on the maturity of the team, and the end-result is some job requirements that get posted on the company website and used to push out to recruiters or personal networks. At this point the CEO is already updating org charts and thinking about how to communicate the new hires in the next board meeting deck, and how to market the work the new hires will be contributing to. Why is this all important? Because this is the weight of the work you're pushing against when your salary negotiation goes above the high-end of the range. You see, if your salary is within range then no extra work is needed by the hiring manager or company to make things work. Better yet, if you come in at the lower-end of the range then the company has saved money! Big win, since it always feel like cash burn is faster than expected. Maybe the "extra" cash is added to the remaining new hires pool, or better yet returned to the company for other uses But if you're above the high-end, the hiring manager has to go back to the business and "fight" to get approval. The CEO has already approved the updated financial model, which the team spent a week or more updating with furious back-and-forth and long nights. So when the hiring manager broaches the subject of needing an extra $X to make this new hire work, a dance begins with internal stakeholders that have already spent weeks on already-agreed-upon numbers. Going through the process of updating all of this can seem daunting. An inexperienced hiring manager may not know how to tackle this situation, so rather than deal with defending the extra money will just pass on the candidate. Maybe the candidate is a close friend or former colleague, so even an inexperienced hiring manager will figure out how to make a "plea" even if communicated poorly. Experienced hiring managers will have a few tricks, such as communicating the benefits of the extra cost in a way that appeals to management. Really context-dependent. I've even seen some offers doubled, because the candidate was so appealing and the hiring manager so good at marketing their contributions. Now here is the hard part - how do you, the candidate, know what the upper range is so that you can ask for it without telling them your prior salary which may anchor you to the lower-end? This is why you want the company to make the first offer, because then you know a bit more about the range. They offer $120k, so you know you can probably safely go to $130k without much trouble and $140k with a little effort. $150k? Well, now the hiring manager needs to begin to negotiate. There may also be a recruiter in the picture, which doesn't change the internal negotiation dynamics but does make the experience "lighter" for the hiring manager and candidate because there's less face-to-face emotional turmoil. My advice? Keep in mind the importance of the range, and that you're asking the hiring manager AND other people in the company do more work to accommodate your ask. Don't expect your hiring manager to know how to navigate this process, and be prepared to help them make the case that you're worth it.

Jemaclus 5y ago

We would be remiss not to mention patio11's excellent (if long) Salary Negotiation blog post[1] from years ago. Still holds up. I took a negotiation class last year, and it was pretty eye-opening. One of the things we discussed is how not every negotiation is an adversarial one. In fact, most negotiations are cooperative! In most cases, neither person wants the other to walk away. Let me put it this way: I'm a hiring manager. I want to hire you. You want to accept the job [for the right amount of money]. We have a mutual goal. It doesn't have to be power plays from either side. Look, it's not my money. What do I care if you make an extra 10K or 20K or get a sign-on bonus or not? It's not a zero-sum game for me. I don't make less money because you make more money; I'm hiring you to solve a problem I have. If giving you an extra 10K is what I need to do to get your brain into my codebase to produce code, then BY ALL MEANS, HAVE AN EXTRA 10K. (Yes, yes, my department does have a budget, and while there's usually a little wiggle room around salary ranges, I can't just pay you a bajillion dollars. But in my experience in Silicon Valley, there's almost always a will to hire great candidates, and if my budget is $200K and it takes $210K to get you in the door, I've yet to be told no.) TL;DR: this advice is decent, but at the end of the day, the simplest thing to do is just say, "That's a great offer, and for an additional 10K, I'll sign right now." Nine times outta ten that'll work. [1] https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zz865 5y ago

https://www.levels.fyi/ https://www.levels.fyi/ is actually pretty good for this. My last job asked me what I wanted, I sent them some links then its pretty clear to both sides what normal is.

rahimiali 5y ago
The article explicitly comments on this. Search for “Glassdoor” in the text.

theshadowknows 5y ago

One time, many years ago now, I was interviewing and made it through several rounds. The topic of salary didn’t come up until the end when I spoke with the CEO and she asked how much I was looking for. When I told her she laughed and said “I think we can do better than that.” And my entire world view shifted and I realized I’d been undervaluing myself for years.

semitones 5y ago
That must have been such a serendipitous moment :)
HNdev1995 5y ago
Was it that big of a difference?
ShakataGaNai 5y ago
I had a similar hiring manager/boss a few years back. During the interview I took what I was getting previous and padded it a bit. He said something like "ok, I think we can work with that" and later came back with a offer that was at least 10% more than I asked. Knew I'd found a good place to be.
bradlys 5y ago
My first job doing software was in 2013 with a university - it was a student specific position. I had pretty low confidence in my ability to negotiate, had lost my previous IT job, and just wanted this job to break into software because I couldn’t get an internship. So, when it came to them asking how much I wanted, I asked for $0.25 more than what my last job was. So, $14/hr. He came back with, “why not $15?” At that point I realized I probably could’ve gotten 20-25. Felt like a complete idiot - should’ve done some digging around before that point but I didn’t. I’m still terrible at negotiating but mostly because I interview with too many companies that aren’t competitive with pay. I’m at one that’s more competitive now.
- WelcomeShorty 5y ago
  > “why not $15?” At that point I realized I probably could’ve gotten 20-25 I hear this a lot, but always wonder why? You where happy with 14, got 15, so why feel like an idiot? If all you care about is the highest maximal rate, you will be job hopping forever, getting better at negotiations but will it make you feel less like an idiot? EDIT: I never cared for how much my fellow employees made. I know what I "need" and when I accept a certain rate, I can only be proud of being able to bring home what I make.

specialist 5y ago

Why aren't salaries negotiations treated like auctions? Could they be?

lugged 5y ago
Not really. You can get companies into bidding wars though. Went from 50k to 80k with a savvy recruiter doing the dirty work.

anamax 5y ago

I know people who have been happy with "One of your jobs as my manager is to make sure that my salary is competitive." The unstated follow-on is "if I find out that it isn't, I'm gone." BTW - The correct response to a counter-offer is "Retroactive to when?" Regardless of the answer, the end-state is "no" because once they think that you'll leave, they're looking for a way to replace you.

darth_avocado 5y ago

I recently started a 400k job. Let me tell you, my offer did not start there and I did not have a competing offer. Things that helped me: 1. Remembering as much as not getting this job is bad for me, not getting me is bad for them. 2. Work with the recruiter. I at all times reiterated that I completely trust him and that I know he’s trying to get the best offer for me. 3. Reminding them constantly that you are viewing this opportunity as a long term investment. You want to join and do good work for a couple of years and not have to think about money for a while. You’re not job hopping. They may save some money upfront, but in the long run it won’t matter if they paid me more. 4. Absolutely have your asks clear. Be prepared to say what matters to you and what doesn’t. Don’t try to get everything. People respect your ask if they realize you’re not fishing to see if you can get more, you already know you can and how much you can.

vzaliva 5y ago

As an employer I've learned never to lowball candiadates. It just does not work long-term. People will sooner or later realize that they are being underpaid and will be unhappy and leave. And there is a signigicant cost of losing an employee. Of course, at the same time you want to stay away from people asking for crazy salaries. These are usually an opportunists and rarely a keepers. Just a perspective from another side of the table...

4ad 5y ago

> Every recruiter worth their salt will ask about your salary expectations when you first start interviewing. Do not — I repeat, do not — give them a number. Very good advice if you live in the US, unfortunately this doesn't work in Europe if you expect to get US-level of compensation. Not being forthcoming with your expectation is a total waste of time when 99.9% of people don't have or aren't willing to give you the money that you want. Of course, tell that to your prospective employer, not to the recruiter. In fact, try to avoid recruiters altogether. Although I did happen to get the sporadic good lead through a recruiter, most e-mails from recruiters go straight to spam. Saying your expectations up front comes with the usual disadvantages, but in the EU you simply have to do it otherwise you waste all your time with employers that end up low balling you. Statistically speaking salaries in the EU are terrible compared to US, but there are the 0.1% outliers, so stop wasting time with prospective employers who don't value you. You have to filter them up front. Of course, all of the above is assuming that you are in the top 0.1% of the market, and it's your job to be able to prove that you are.