4 ms·

On what basis? Knowing the candidates job history may do so, but what signal does the salary itself give? The company is highly unlikely to answer the question

On what basis? Knowing the candidates job history may do so, but what signal does the salary itself give? The company is highly unlikely to answer the question, "what did you pay the previous employee in this position?"; why should I answer "what did the company that previously employed me pay me?"

WalterBright 5y ago
> what signal does the salary itself give? That someone else thought you were worth that much. > why should I answer You don't have to answer any question you don't want to. But if your previous salary was high, mentioning it will frame the negotiations in a higher salary bracket.
- kyralis 5y ago
  You're looking at this consistently through the lens of someone coming in with an existing high salary who can exploit that during negotiations. But someone coming in from that perspective is likely already in a strong enough economic position to negate some of the leverage that the company starts with. > That someone else thought you were worth that much. No, it suggests that someone thought you were worth at least that much. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. If that floor is high, then it may be a valuable signal as long as others corroborate it. If it's low, however, that signal is effectively meaningless. And yet, employers start assuming that a low existing salary does imply a ceiling on - or even accurate measure of - worth, as you seem to be doing.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > that signal is effectively meaningless No, it isn't. > or even accurate measure of I didn't say it was accurate. I said it wasn't meaningless. Nobody is dumb enough to think that it's exact. > employers start assuming You're doing a lot of assuming. But at least you kinda sorta agree now that it is a signal, so, progress!
    - mlyle 5y ago
      The problem is, it's not just a signal of your economic value to companies. It's also a signal of: * Your past skill at negotiation * Any past economic disadvantaged background or discrimination It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any. What is going to help is making an effort to learn how to do it. A relatively small effort can yield lifetime benefits.
        mlyle 5y ago
        Yes, but you're saying that even if someone improves, a rational actor will use the signal of the history of poor negotiation to collude with others to pay that person less.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        And you can demonstrate that you are worth a higher salary and not accept less.
        mlyle 5y ago
        Surely you understand the entire argument, including parts you glossed over: > It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field. I have done quite well for myself. But I am concerned that this is one more way that the field is tilted against disadvantaged groups. Past history of being discriminated or of screwing up negotiation stays with you indefinitely, and that's not great. The data asymmetry is not great, either. Peoples' personal financial information should not be aggregated and shared with employers without their consent.

WalterBright 5y ago

> what signal does the salary itself give? That someone else thought you were worth that much. > why should I answer You don't have to answer any question you don't want to. But if your previous salary was high, mentioning it will frame the negotiations in a higher salary bracket.

kyralis 5y ago
You're looking at this consistently through the lens of someone coming in with an existing high salary who can exploit that during negotiations. But someone coming in from that perspective is likely already in a strong enough economic position to negate some of the leverage that the company starts with. > That someone else thought you were worth that much. No, it suggests that someone thought you were worth at least that much. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. If that floor is high, then it may be a valuable signal as long as others corroborate it. If it's low, however, that signal is effectively meaningless. And yet, employers start assuming that a low existing salary does imply a ceiling on - or even accurate measure of - worth, as you seem to be doing.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > that signal is effectively meaningless No, it isn't. > or even accurate measure of I didn't say it was accurate. I said it wasn't meaningless. Nobody is dumb enough to think that it's exact. > employers start assuming You're doing a lot of assuming. But at least you kinda sorta agree now that it is a signal, so, progress!
  - mlyle 5y ago
    The problem is, it's not just a signal of your economic value to companies. It's also a signal of: * Your past skill at negotiation * Any past economic disadvantaged background or discrimination It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      If you have poor negotiating skills, hiding your salary history isn't going to help any. What is going to help is making an effort to learn how to do it. A relatively small effort can yield lifetime benefits.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        Yes, but you're saying that even if someone improves, a rational actor will use the signal of the history of poor negotiation to collude with others to pay that person less.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        And you can demonstrate that you are worth a higher salary and not accept less.
        mlyle 5y ago
        Surely you understand the entire argument, including parts you glossed over: > It's also just dirty pool: employers seek to shame / threaten employees to not share compensation data (and, in circumstances where state laws do not prohibit this, terminate employees for discussing comp), and then want to have all the data themselves. It creates a very tilted negotiation field. I have done quite well for myself. But I am concerned that this is one more way that the field is tilted against disadvantaged groups. Past history of being discriminated or of screwing up negotiation stays with you indefinitely, and that's not great. The data asymmetry is not great, either. Peoples' personal financial information should not be aggregated and shared with employers without their consent.