3 ms·

> "Were my compensation public, I would forfeit the option to increase it significantly again." Not at all; you might feel that way, companies will certainly t

> "Were my compensation public, I would forfeit the option to increase it significantly again." Not at all; you might feel that way, companies will certainly try to make you feel that way, but it's up to you to negotiate and ask for whatever salary you want and companies will generally pay it if it's within their budget. Specially if the company trying to hire you also had public salaries, why do you think it'd limit your growth?

Jarwain 4y ago
It gives you a chance to argue that asked - current salary=how much that lifestyle is worth to you, and it's the price they have to beat.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
Yes and no. Of course I can argue my way out of it just like I have done here, but it will summon a number in the head of others on valuable your productivity is. There is no way around that and this then also extends beyond the company you work for. It won't feel right for them to increase my salary by 100% just because I now work in a large corporation. They might still hire me for more, but the relation will be influenced by this, like a productivity debt that I have to compensate for. Especially also if my relation to my employer is in good standing. There are some benefits with openness of compensation, but I would like to keep it private for me. I believe the lower end of salaries might profit from more transparency. As I have said, it should be possible to reveal it. Making it public by default wouldn't be my preference and I would feel the need to demand more from my current employer. I am aware the secrecy is most often a vehicle for companies to supress wages. But I think selective and voluntary transparency can alleviate this.
- wink 4y ago
  100% agreed and I've witnessed this, it may be more common here in Europe. Some companies are very focused on your last salary (if you're desperate or careless enough to tell it to them) and will outright laugh you out the door if they think you demand a jump that's too high. To the person you were replying to: Please remember this is not the valley, sometimes an increase of 10k per year is noticeable.
  - franciscop 4y ago
    I am actually from Spain and I agree; my point though is that you normally would want to negotiate and work for companies based on value, not on your cost. That has many implications and it's not for everyone ofc, but it's generally true IMHO [article pending...]. Put it the other way; if you know a company is paying 60k/employee (at your level/role ofc), and they offer you 40k "based on your previous salary", wouldn't you also laugh on their face?
- bulatb 4y ago
  > it will summon a number in the head of others For anyone interested, a good search term is "anchoring" or "anchoring effect."
amadvance 4y ago
A common interview suggestion is to not give the first number. But if salaries are public, the potential employer already has it.

Jarwain 4y ago

It gives you a chance to argue that asked - current salary=how much that lifestyle is worth to you, and it's the price they have to beat.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

Yes and no. Of course I can argue my way out of it just like I have done here, but it will summon a number in the head of others on valuable your productivity is. There is no way around that and this then also extends beyond the company you work for. It won't feel right for them to increase my salary by 100% just because I now work in a large corporation. They might still hire me for more, but the relation will be influenced by this, like a productivity debt that I have to compensate for. Especially also if my relation to my employer is in good standing. There are some benefits with openness of compensation, but I would like to keep it private for me. I believe the lower end of salaries might profit from more transparency. As I have said, it should be possible to reveal it. Making it public by default wouldn't be my preference and I would feel the need to demand more from my current employer. I am aware the secrecy is most often a vehicle for companies to supress wages. But I think selective and voluntary transparency can alleviate this.

wink 4y ago
100% agreed and I've witnessed this, it may be more common here in Europe. Some companies are very focused on your last salary (if you're desperate or careless enough to tell it to them) and will outright laugh you out the door if they think you demand a jump that's too high. To the person you were replying to: Please remember this is not the valley, sometimes an increase of 10k per year is noticeable.
- franciscop 4y ago
  I am actually from Spain and I agree; my point though is that you normally would want to negotiate and work for companies based on value, not on your cost. That has many implications and it's not for everyone ofc, but it's generally true IMHO [article pending...]. Put it the other way; if you know a company is paying 60k/employee (at your level/role ofc), and they offer you 40k "based on your previous salary", wouldn't you also laugh on their face?
bulatb 4y ago
> it will summon a number in the head of others For anyone interested, a good search term is "anchoring" or "anchoring effect."

amadvance 4y ago

A common interview suggestion is to not give the first number. But if salaries are public, the potential employer already has it.