4 ms·

This is probably going to be controversial. I find salary to be really weird for many reasons. One of them is that I just can't imagine a sustainable world whe

This is probably going to be controversial. I find salary to be really weird for many reasons. One of them is that I just can't imagine a sustainable world where salary is proactively offered, raised, etc. I think it necessarily must be negotiated. I say this as a person who spent most of my 20y career negotiating for my salary and hating the process. It feels attractive on the surface to see a concrete number, kind of like coming to a car website and seeing cars sold at a fixed price, no bargaining. Or kind of like searching for loan refinancing and seeing a bank website show you the standard menu of rates they offer. You just pick from the menu. However, the issue is that you're probably overpaying for the car, and getting a bad refinance rate every time. And your blanket "salary tier" is probably some safe hedge for the worth you may or may not be bringing. An estimation of vague plans they might have on where you may help. Shouldn't this be reversed? Shouldn't it be you to tell them what you can do, the plans, explain how much you're worth? How can they know your salary if you haven't told them this stuff yet? Aren't you supposed to be an expert at something? That's just one of a few weirdnesses about salary. Maybe it depends on a job, and some jobs are really _that_ predictable, but feels like in software dev industry it doesn't add up, except maybe for junior positions. I used to be in the opposite camp, but nowadays every time I see a concrete salary range listed, it makes me feel silly. We all know that humans running the place can probably decide to pay whatever they want based on how they feel. I can't imagine a situation where they go "sorry, we really think we need you, but our job listing only goes up to this number, oops".

hitsurume 3y ago
Your mindset doesn't count for the wasted time on being lowballed by companies. Say you have your 20 years of experience, you go through several rounds of interviews and they offer you a junior level salary with their big fat smile. Now what? They wasted your time from the very beginning hoping to charm you into wanting to work there. The people interviewing you are all getting paid, yet you are the one who have time loss and no gain. Now imagine if multiple companies did that to you throughout your job search, wouldn't you rather the company start with honesty from the very beginning?
- hakunin 3y ago
  I see your point, but not sure if a number up front would be honesty, seems more of a gamble. They need to find a number that's not too low, not too high, for an abstract average human. I've managed to detect a lowball danger fairly early on in my past negotiations, but can't claim that it's easy. That said, maybe knowing their "hedge rate" is a useful tell, even if you don't entirely trust it.
  - hitsurume 3y ago
    Another better alternative is for these companies who can't afford the top talent, to train new talent (new grads, new juniors or people with less then 3 years experience) and upgrade them into where they need to be for the companies long term benefit. Also if you are going to say next that these people will just eventually leave, the number one reason people leqve a job is because of a shitty boss/manager. A company who invests in their employees will hopefully not develop bad managers, who can keep good individual contributors. Hell that's in my situation, i'm underpaid, but I also am working for the best manager i've had so far in my career, so I trade off stress and money for a relaxed and longer life.
    - SergeAx 3y ago
      Training new talent requires a lot of time and resources, and, of course, some "old" talent with those time and resources on hands, except if you plan to outsource the training part.
lapcat 3y ago
> However, the issue is that you're probably overpaying for the car On the contrary. People have options for cars. You don't have to buy a specific brand or a specific model. If every car's price is listed publicly, then consumers can easily shop around for the best price, and it would be difficult for a dealer to get away with overcharging everyone with a publicly listed price. People just won't buy from a dealer with inflated prices. When there's price negotiation, dealers mostly win at that game, because they usually have far more information than the consumer.
- hakunin 3y ago
  That's probably more true for simple products like toasters. For products where each one is almost always unique (has tons of optional choices, details) you can't easily shop around and compare apples to apples. You end up narrowing down to a few _mostly acceptable_ products in your vicinity, and then negotiating among those few. To add: it's already difficult for a dealer to overcharge because even for complex/unique products we do have stats. I just don't like the circular dependency of it. Companies follow an industry-wide stat to push all the people into preset salary tiers. The industry-wide stat is based on these same companies. The only way out is when some "rogue" companies allow some "rogue" employees to negotiate, and push the industry upwards.
  - psyfi 3y ago
    I like the rogue idea.
soupfordummies 3y ago
>>I can't imagine a situation where they go "sorry, we really think we need you, but our job listing only goes up to this number, oops". But that happens often. Maybe not as much for very senior (10+ years) but I’ve been there myself. I do highly agree with your points and analogies about negotiation however
- hakunin 3y ago
  What I saw happen is “we can’t afford you”, not “we can’t go over the number we posted”. I think that’s fine.
iExploder 3y ago
> I think it necessarily must be negotiated it cant be negotiated fairly. negotiating works for people who are "in the know" and have been in the industry for years such as yourself. everyone else gets shit end of the stick, because the company is negotiation from position of power with much more knowledge. thats why some governments mandate minimum salary based on collective agreement or make it a law to provide salary range (for example Austria)
- hakunin 3y ago
  I agree that senior experience is probably important, but also it’s knowing how to negotiate. What does it mean to be negotiated “fairly”? If you don’t like the rate, you come with a counter proposal, for which ideally you have leverage. The leverage is another job offer you found. If you don’t have leverage, you could negotiate a few other ways but they’re less effective. In the end, if you feel you can’t get a competing offer and you can’t wait, essentially you have to accept the terms, but also you can continue the search, and quit when you find something better. This is why companies don’t like to lowball you - they don’t want you to come in with one foot out the door. So one of those “less effective” ways is to explain honestly how their offer might not be sufficient for you to be able to focus on your work without worrying about rent and food. It’s in the best interest of both of you for you to focus on work.
  - iExploder 3y ago
    I believe this "dance" to be quite ineffective for both employers and employees, as the best strategy is standard 2 years somewhere then monkey branch for 20% bump in another company. I guess this is a debate as old as time "invisible hand" vs "socialism". I understand both sides of the argument, but think it makes sense to have a bit of government oversight or workers initiatives here to make sure people are not getting shafted.
    - hakunin 3y ago
      In the beginning of your career, I do think well-timed jumps are very effective. But overall yes, in capitalism (whether you like it or not, this is what we got) the most important skill is getting people to agree/compromise with you. And for people who (for perfectly valid reasons) can't develop this skill, we have institutions such as unions and recruiters that help delegate it somewhat. I don't think standardized non-negotiable tiers of deals are as helpful to us as we seem to think.
badpun 3y ago
The salary in the ad is always a jumping off point for negotiations. They can go always lower than that if they feel like you don't meet the criteria given in ad, or higher if you're particularly attractive. But, at least, it gives the ballpark. Personal anecdote - for the past couple of years, I've complelety stopped applying to offers which don't advertise salary. My salary expectations are at the top end of the market and, I've found, if the companies are willing to pay as much, they usually put it in the job ad, as it draws more candidates. And conversely, if the company doesn't advertise their salary, it's usually because it's "market level" or below, i.e. nothing to brag about. There are of course exceptions such as FAANGs, where they don't have to advertise their high salaries because they're practically public information anyway.
schwartzworld 3y ago
> I can't imagine a situation where they go "sorry, we really think we need you, but our job listing only goes up to this number, oops" Lots of big companies have very well-defined salary bands, and you can only negotiate up to the top of that band. There are other things you can negotiate for, hiring bonus, time off, WFH, equipment budget, etc, but you don't get higher salary unless you get a higher title too. > I just can't imagine a sustainable world where salary is proactively offered, raised, etc Flex your imagination muscles a little harder. Companies already know how much they want to pay you, but are hoping you'll accidentally lowball yourself by quoting them a lower number. That's what the negotiation is. The average working dev only has so much power in a situation like this. The problem comes from the non-standardization of titles and salaries across the industry. Two "senior engineers" can have widely varying salaries and sets of responsibilities. So if a dev can't or won't take any job that pays under $125k, it might helpful find out that the maximum salary for the role is $95k before going through the application process and speaking to a recruiter.
- hakunin 3y ago
  > Lots of big companies have very well-defined salary bands It's true, but I'm not sure that it's good. That's going back to salary being weird. They are making themselves deliberately inflexible, locking themselves out of potentially good agreements (probably in response to public pressure). Perhaps big names can get away with it. Worth noting that the same "bands" probably don't apply to hiring consulting businesses. Ask yourself why, and how's that different from striking a deal with an individual. > Companies already know how much they want to pay you That's not true. They don't know how much they want to pay _you_. They know how much they want to pay an average abstract employee doing the job they vaguely envision in a satisfactory manner. Then when the actual _you_ come in, that abstract employee becomes a concrete advocate for themselves. They'll have to think about you specifically now, and it changes the whole calculus.

hitsurume 3y ago

Your mindset doesn't count for the wasted time on being lowballed by companies. Say you have your 20 years of experience, you go through several rounds of interviews and they offer you a junior level salary with their big fat smile. Now what? They wasted your time from the very beginning hoping to charm you into wanting to work there. The people interviewing you are all getting paid, yet you are the one who have time loss and no gain. Now imagine if multiple companies did that to you throughout your job search, wouldn't you rather the company start with honesty from the very beginning?

hakunin 3y ago
I see your point, but not sure if a number up front would be honesty, seems more of a gamble. They need to find a number that's not too low, not too high, for an abstract average human. I've managed to detect a lowball danger fairly early on in my past negotiations, but can't claim that it's easy. That said, maybe knowing their "hedge rate" is a useful tell, even if you don't entirely trust it.
- hitsurume 3y ago
  Another better alternative is for these companies who can't afford the top talent, to train new talent (new grads, new juniors or people with less then 3 years experience) and upgrade them into where they need to be for the companies long term benefit. Also if you are going to say next that these people will just eventually leave, the number one reason people leqve a job is because of a shitty boss/manager. A company who invests in their employees will hopefully not develop bad managers, who can keep good individual contributors. Hell that's in my situation, i'm underpaid, but I also am working for the best manager i've had so far in my career, so I trade off stress and money for a relaxed and longer life.
  - SergeAx 3y ago
    Training new talent requires a lot of time and resources, and, of course, some "old" talent with those time and resources on hands, except if you plan to outsource the training part.

lapcat 3y ago

> However, the issue is that you're probably overpaying for the car On the contrary. People have options for cars. You don't have to buy a specific brand or a specific model. If every car's price is listed publicly, then consumers can easily shop around for the best price, and it would be difficult for a dealer to get away with overcharging everyone with a publicly listed price. People just won't buy from a dealer with inflated prices. When there's price negotiation, dealers mostly win at that game, because they usually have far more information than the consumer.

hakunin 3y ago
That's probably more true for simple products like toasters. For products where each one is almost always unique (has tons of optional choices, details) you can't easily shop around and compare apples to apples. You end up narrowing down to a few _mostly acceptable_ products in your vicinity, and then negotiating among those few. To add: it's already difficult for a dealer to overcharge because even for complex/unique products we do have stats. I just don't like the circular dependency of it. Companies follow an industry-wide stat to push all the people into preset salary tiers. The industry-wide stat is based on these same companies. The only way out is when some "rogue" companies allow some "rogue" employees to negotiate, and push the industry upwards.
- psyfi 3y ago
  I like the rogue idea.

soupfordummies 3y ago

>>I can't imagine a situation where they go "sorry, we really think we need you, but our job listing only goes up to this number, oops". But that happens often. Maybe not as much for very senior (10+ years) but I’ve been there myself. I do highly agree with your points and analogies about negotiation however

hakunin 3y ago
What I saw happen is “we can’t afford you”, not “we can’t go over the number we posted”. I think that’s fine.

iExploder 3y ago

> I think it necessarily must be negotiated it cant be negotiated fairly. negotiating works for people who are "in the know" and have been in the industry for years such as yourself. everyone else gets shit end of the stick, because the company is negotiation from position of power with much more knowledge. thats why some governments mandate minimum salary based on collective agreement or make it a law to provide salary range (for example Austria)

hakunin 3y ago
I agree that senior experience is probably important, but also it’s knowing how to negotiate. What does it mean to be negotiated “fairly”? If you don’t like the rate, you come with a counter proposal, for which ideally you have leverage. The leverage is another job offer you found. If you don’t have leverage, you could negotiate a few other ways but they’re less effective. In the end, if you feel you can’t get a competing offer and you can’t wait, essentially you have to accept the terms, but also you can continue the search, and quit when you find something better. This is why companies don’t like to lowball you - they don’t want you to come in with one foot out the door. So one of those “less effective” ways is to explain honestly how their offer might not be sufficient for you to be able to focus on your work without worrying about rent and food. It’s in the best interest of both of you for you to focus on work.
- iExploder 3y ago
  I believe this "dance" to be quite ineffective for both employers and employees, as the best strategy is standard 2 years somewhere then monkey branch for 20% bump in another company. I guess this is a debate as old as time "invisible hand" vs "socialism". I understand both sides of the argument, but think it makes sense to have a bit of government oversight or workers initiatives here to make sure people are not getting shafted.
  - hakunin 3y ago
    In the beginning of your career, I do think well-timed jumps are very effective. But overall yes, in capitalism (whether you like it or not, this is what we got) the most important skill is getting people to agree/compromise with you. And for people who (for perfectly valid reasons) can't develop this skill, we have institutions such as unions and recruiters that help delegate it somewhat. I don't think standardized non-negotiable tiers of deals are as helpful to us as we seem to think.

badpun 3y ago

The salary in the ad is always a jumping off point for negotiations. They can go always lower than that if they feel like you don't meet the criteria given in ad, or higher if you're particularly attractive. But, at least, it gives the ballpark. Personal anecdote - for the past couple of years, I've complelety stopped applying to offers which don't advertise salary. My salary expectations are at the top end of the market and, I've found, if the companies are willing to pay as much, they usually put it in the job ad, as it draws more candidates. And conversely, if the company doesn't advertise their salary, it's usually because it's "market level" or below, i.e. nothing to brag about. There are of course exceptions such as FAANGs, where they don't have to advertise their high salaries because they're practically public information anyway.

schwartzworld 3y ago

> I can't imagine a situation where they go "sorry, we really think we need you, but our job listing only goes up to this number, oops" Lots of big companies have very well-defined salary bands, and you can only negotiate up to the top of that band. There are other things you can negotiate for, hiring bonus, time off, WFH, equipment budget, etc, but you don't get higher salary unless you get a higher title too. > I just can't imagine a sustainable world where salary is proactively offered, raised, etc Flex your imagination muscles a little harder. Companies already know how much they want to pay you, but are hoping you'll accidentally lowball yourself by quoting them a lower number. That's what the negotiation is. The average working dev only has so much power in a situation like this. The problem comes from the non-standardization of titles and salaries across the industry. Two "senior engineers" can have widely varying salaries and sets of responsibilities. So if a dev can't or won't take any job that pays under $125k, it might helpful find out that the maximum salary for the role is $95k before going through the application process and speaking to a recruiter.

hakunin 3y ago
> Lots of big companies have very well-defined salary bands It's true, but I'm not sure that it's good. That's going back to salary being weird. They are making themselves deliberately inflexible, locking themselves out of potentially good agreements (probably in response to public pressure). Perhaps big names can get away with it. Worth noting that the same "bands" probably don't apply to hiring consulting businesses. Ask yourself why, and how's that different from striking a deal with an individual. > Companies already know how much they want to pay you That's not true. They don't know how much they want to pay _you_. They know how much they want to pay an average abstract employee doing the job they vaguely envision in a satisfactory manner. Then when the actual _you_ come in, that abstract employee becomes a concrete advocate for themselves. They'll have to think about you specifically now, and it changes the whole calculus.