13 ms·

Show me the salary!

128 points by pauloteixeira 12y ago

collyw 12y ago
The culture of hiding salaries can only work in an employers interest. I can't see situations where it would be in the interest of the worker (unless they are earning silly money and feel they need some kind of "protection").
austenallred 12y ago
We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate. Interviewing, for example, someone with seven years experience vs. fifteen (I'm simplifying what matters greatly for the sake of argument - years experience is the easiest thing to put a number to) and we would pay way more for one than the other. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't think we've ever chosen not to hire someone because of the salary level they wanted.
- e-dard 12y ago
  Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary they might expect to earn.
  - michaelt 12y ago
    Someone who applied hoping for the top of the salary bracket, and who gets an offer for the bottom of the salary bracket, is still going to be upset. And if you advertise "Salary range: $0-$10,000,000" you aren't really telling people much anyway :)
    - Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
      A range tells you if you and your potential employer are on the same page. I don't apply for a job expecting the top end of the range, but at the same time if the top end is less than what I'm willing to take then I don't waste my (and the employer's) time with an application. If I saw a range like $0-$10,000,000, I wouldn't apply since it's clear that they are not taking the hiring process seriously.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    Because if you can afford to stretch your range up to attract an elite candidate you will do. Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.
    - rmc 12y ago
      > Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation I would imagine having to explain to your employees why you're underpaying them is a difficult conversation. But the problem is that's the employee's know, the problem is that you're underpaying them.
      - notahacker 12y ago
        Sure. But just because you're more likely to pay a new hire more than your existing staff than less doesn't mean they're underpaid, or indeed not paid comfortably above market rates for their skillset (above-market payers often have the most opaque salary structures) Most employers able to pay market rate or better would rather attract candidates for a position that are substantially better than their existing employees than substantially worse, so the feasible salary range is naturally skewed upwards even if you pad it at the bottom. Most employees don't think they belong in the bottom half of the salary range for their position, even if they do. Something has to give, and its usually transparency.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      This is bull. It's about concealing from the people who are at the bottom of the range who don't deserve it. THAT'S an awkward conversation to have.
      - notahacker 12y ago
        Sure, that's also awkward, but it doesn't alter the reality that many firms are perfectly happy with their existing employees, expect to fill positions with similar calibre candidates, but are prepared to pay a lot more for better.
- CalRobert 12y ago
  This is counter to a lot of advice given, but because of this I try to address salary as one of the first questions during the initial contact I have with a potential employer. I'm fine with a range, but if they're not even in the same ballpark we've both just saved a lot of time. Similarly, if there's no way they can afford me it does us both good to wish each other well and move on.
  - leeoniya 12y ago
    yes, i've had major issues with this. i know what i will and will not accept and if my number is not something the employer is willing to pay, that should be the first thing discussed so we don't waste each other's time. it's very annoying to be dragged through interviews for what turns out to be a laughable offer at the end.
    - LoSboccacc 12y ago
      once it happened worse to me, I specified my minimum acceptable price at the first contact, went trough three interviews, then they offered 87% of what I asked.
      - ovulator 12y ago
        Of course they did, that is how negotiation works. You don't go up from the sticker price. You don't say what the minimum you will work for is, you tell them what your other offers are, then you have an auction and they have to bid up.
        CalRobert 12y ago
        This works really well with a liquid market. It can be harder for people who are talented in specialized professions. My wife, for instance, is highly skilled in a very specialized skillset, but it's academic, and jobs that match her skills come up a few times a year in the whole state. Even though the applicant pool is small, the illiquidity means it's difficult to say you're going to someone else. Actually, I wonder to what extent markets with very specialized (and comparatively rare) talents are affected by this illiquidity as opposed to mere supply and demand?
- WhitneyLand 12y ago
  Seems like an awe shucks kind of answer, if that were truly the primary concern you could post the highest and lowest salaries you hire at and explain the range. I do agree with your policy but for different reasons. For one I haven't seen a scalable way to roll out total salary transparency with a net gain in company psychology. The problems seem to outweigh the benefits, although I think it may be possible and just not figured out yet.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >I haven't seen a scalable way to roll out total salary transparency with a net gain in company psychology #1 Make sure everybody is paid as much as they deserve as far as you can tell. #2 Roll out total salary transparency. Not being "scalable" sounds like another way of saying "we don't want to do #1, it sounds expensive. Secrecy is cheaper.".
    - WhitneyLand 12y ago
      This implies some sort of unfairness is being hidden, which should be the easy part of the problem. The hard part is that equitable salaries do not mean equal salaries. If you there are large differences based completely on merit it's very difficult to make someone feel good about being lower than the person sitting next to them, even if it's objectively fair.
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        >This implies some sort of unfairness is being hidden, which should be the easy part of the problem. You seem to be implying that voluntarily giving out pay rises to the underpaid is easy. It isn't easy. >The hard part is that equitable salaries do not mean equal salaries. If you there are large differences based completely on merit it's very difficult to make someone feel good about being lower than the person sitting next to them, even if it's objectively fair. This would be the hard part if American were mostly all secret communists.
      - s73v3r 12y ago
        If those differences actually exist, they should be pretty easy to demonstrate.
- odonnellryan 12y ago
  The problem is, and this has happened to me personally, is you'll be told the salary is "competitive" without further details even when pushed. Of course, everyone wants to save a buck, but when you've gone through multiple rounds of interviews...spending personal days...personal time doing projects.. then you get an offer that is 1/2 the starting range for the industry and location, you have a problem!
  - steverb 12y ago
    The two times I've had that response, I've just taken my current estimate of high salary, added $20,000 and then asked them to confirm that that amount is in their definition of competitive. First time, they said no and we stopped talking. Second time got me my current job. YMMV.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      That is an excellent approach to this problem. Thanks.
- Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
  You should have a budget for the position that you're hiring for, so a salary range should fall out of that. If you don't have a budget, how do you know what you CAN offer?
- johnward 12y ago
  You are probably missing a lot of candidates. Maybe that's ok because employers seem to be ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid one false positive. I can't count how many positions that don't list salary that I came to find out pay about half what I expected. It's almost of waste of time for job seekers, actually for both of us.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  "We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate." This sounds reasonable. But just to play devil's advocate for a second -- for any given role, is your variance really that high? Do you expect to field a dramatically variable range of candidates for the same level, title, or position? So variable, in fact, that establishing a ballpark range is an exercise in futility? If you're fielding candidates with N years of experience, 1.5N years of experience, or 2N+ years of experience for the same role, maybe it's worth recalibrating your expectations for that role. Fine-tune them a bit. If your expectations are all over the map, then you're going to make a lot more work for yourself by taking on variance and trying to sift through it. It's totally fine, even admirable, to take the position that each candidate is unique. But how unique, really? Unless we're talking about very high-level or rare positions, a reasonable and market-appropriate range will usually cover most of the variance. (That's not to say that you can't have some sort of discretionary, secondary range available for rockstars or competitive bidding situations. But aren't those typically the edge cases, and not the norm?)
amelius 12y ago
I wonder what happens if test-engineer Bob finds out that there is a new job-opening for a test-engineer in his company, with a salary that is significantly higher than his own current salary.
- MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
  He does what I did in the same situation, spend 5 minutes finding a new job before turning in his 2 week notice. I don't do the "lets re-negotiate my salary" bit, it's up to my employer to keep me at or above market rate for my skills, I shouldn't have to ask for it.
  - amelius 12y ago
    Ok, with the strategy of employers to be reluctant with publishing salary info, how do you currently determine your market rate? And given the fact that this market rate is not a clearly defined value (also thanks to employers' reluctance), don't you think it is necessary to at least negotiate with your current employer if you believe you're being paid below par?
    - MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
      The last time this happened to me (in 2011) I was with one of the big consulting firms and the guy in charge of recruiting put up notices everywhere with a job listing for my current position except with a 5-10% higher salary. That being said, if I wasn't privy to this information it wouldn't take much to find out what the other people on my team are making. I don't think I've ever worked in an environment where salaries were considered top secret information.
- vkjv 12y ago
  He asks for his salary to be re-aligned with industry standards and in many cases they will oblige. In most cases, businesses are reasonable. They aren't going to volunteer to pay you more out of the goodness of their heart, but (most) of the time it doesn't hurt to ask. Just don't go threatening to leave if they don't.
solve 12y ago
"Resentment" Good call on that. Resentment is the #1 factor in practically everything in internal people dynamics. Poor managers and founders just don't realize it yet. This tends to be less bad in major cities than in small towns though. Young people, get out of the small town you're living in.
Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs: - I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc, but the salary range tells me if getting what I want is even possible. - I also don't apply for jobs that don't list an annual salary. I get the vibe, rightly or wrongly, that when you only list a monthly salary you don't expect to keep your new hire around very long. - Jobs that are listed as "xx months with possibility of extension" are also right out. A job, for me anyway, represents a huge commitment and if the employer isn't willing to make that same commitment then I'm not interested.
- johnward 12y ago
  I usually follow all of these. The one thing that gets me is when a recruiter calls me up. I usually talk to them because I don't want to be a dick and you never know they my actually be valuable one day. I tell them my salary. "oh well this one pays about 70% of that and it's an 8 month contract. I'd like to put you in for this". I'm not leaving a full time position for a contract position with less pay. I might consider a contract position at about 150-200% of my current pay.
  - bhayden 12y ago
    I find telling recruiters my salary is a really bad idea. They then tell the company I am applying to what my salary is, which is a really shitty way to start off salary negotiations. I actually just don't work with recruiters anymore due to such a shitty experience.
    - sukilot 12y ago
      You can tell them a high target that would absolutely get your interest in the job. If it hits, great next step in your career. If it misses, no skin off your back.
    - 12y ago
inthewoods 12y ago
My experience is it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications. As for the article, I think the author lists a lot of real concerns that exist at companies - and then sort of dismisses them as if they are invalid because they aren't ideal. I'm sorry - but companies aren't ideal. Let's also look at the function of job postings - from my point of view, the goal is to get as many candidates into the pipeline as possible and then get them qualified. I want to minimize the number of filters whenever possible. Finally, he doesn't provide a lot of benefit from doing these actions aside from perhaps not having to wade through a lot of resumes - but as I mentioned above, I don't think that turns out to be the case.
- runako 12y ago
  >> it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications. One of the points in the post is that not posting salary information is also a filter. Some would argue that the absence of even a salary range filters out the top end of candidates, leaving you with a pipeline of mediocrity.
  - inthewoods 12y ago
    That's a fair point - for myself applying for jobs (vs. being the hirer), I more often did not apply for jobs based on stated salary range. Anecdotal at best, of course.
MikeTaylor 12y ago
This is simple. I won't waste my time applying for a job that doesn't even bother to tell me what they're going to pay -- any more than I would buy a car without knowing its engine capacity, mileage, etc. The idea is idiotic. So: the only people who will apply for jobs with no salary listed are the ones desperate for any job. Are they the people you want to hire?
- rmc 12y ago
  > So: the only people who will apply for jobs with no salary listed are the ones desperate for any job. And people who hire complain about the bad standard of applicants!
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  There's a difference between not posting salary and not telling a potential candidate when asked. Given that in America at least incredibly few companies post salary ranges to the public it is a stretch (and insulting) to claim applicants for positions with no posted salary are desperate.
  - serve_yay 12y ago
    Also the analog to buying a car would be signing the contract. Not interviewing.
  - randomdata 12y ago
    That approach is still flawed though. In a seller's market, which I do believe the developer market currently is, the buyer is the one who has to do the marketing. Supplying expected compensation up front is one of the best ways to market your business to developers. If I, a developer, am making $100K and you make it known that you are willing to pay $200K, I'm going to get excited and get in touch with you. If I am left to assume that you are also only offering $100K, because you "pay market rates" or haven't said otherwise, I'm not even going to waste my time getting in touch with you. It seems like a lot of businesses feel like they are in a buyer's market, which comes with completely different rules, and then cannot figure out why it isn't working for them.
alecco 12y ago
In my experience, if you are useful to the company where you are, job hopping is the only way to a meaningful salary increase or career change. Also, when you do a good job programming and are not an attention whore you become wall paper. See previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940820
andrewstuart 12y ago
The salary isn't a predefined amount that is a secret. It's usually a broad range, negotiable to skills and experience. Usually jobseekers have an idea if their market value and can and do name the salary they re looking for. Often there's some movement up or down to get a final deal in place. So the entire premise that there is a defined salary and it's being kept secret is flat out wrong.
MatthewWilkes 12y ago
I like it when they say the salary is £competitive. Presumably that's in base36, in which case they've got loads of money.
BrentOzar 12y ago
As a small business owner who's done a few successful casting calls, the problem with this article comes down to their first answer: > Yes, you have quantity, but what about quality? How much time will you spend sorting the wheat from the chaff? How much application spam will you have to review and dispose of? And of the relevant ones, how many under- and over-qualified candidates do you need to sift through because they lacked the vital piece of information that is a salary range? It's easy: filter the incoming candidates based on who you want to hire. Send your favorite candidates a simple email saying what you want to pay for that position, and ask if they're still interested. Interview the ones that are. (This way, you're not posting the salary number to the public, but you're still filtering candidates quickly and respecting their time.) If none of your favorite candidates are interested at your targeted price, there's your answer. Either lower your standards and take one of the other applicants, or ask all of your favorite candidates what number it would take to get them interested. (No interviewing - you don't have the right to take up their time until you can come up with the money - you're just asking for the salary number they would need to even step into an interview.) When the numbers come back, that's what it would take to hire your favorite candidates.
- joncalhoun 12y ago
  I would respect a company significantly more if this is how the negotiations started. It addresses their need to determine if their range is on par with the market rate, and it allows both parties to minimize wasted time if they aren't. Sadly I rarely see this happen in practice. It would be nice to see studies about how this affects the average cost to recruit a new employee.
- odonnellryan 12y ago
  This is the opposite of how a lot of hiring managers I know think. The tactic they use (how can anyone think this is a good idea...) is to hope by the end of the interview process the candidate will be so attached to the position (or invested at this point! see: throwing good money after bad, or the sunk cost fallacy) to refuse! Or maybe they'll just ask for 5k more, or something.
- NickPollard 12y ago
500and4 12y ago
I would argue that in London it's the fact that talking about salaries is considered rather taboo in tech that perpetuates non-disclosure. I wrote a post about it a while ago: http://blog.zonino.co.uk/on-salaries-in-london-startups/ http://blog.zonino.co.uk/on-salaries-in-london-startups/
- exelius 12y ago
  It's still common practice in the US not to discuss salaries. Which is total BS because transparency on salary can only benefit the workers; the "taboo" nature of the discussion is perpetuated by big companies who try to discourage collective bargaining (btw, forbidding employees from discussing salaries with their co-workers is illegal in the US - despite what your employment contract may say).
  - 500and4 12y ago
    I couldn't agree more. If we want more transparency from employers we (as engineers) should start with being transparent with each other. I had no idea that legislation existed in the US - that's really interesting!
- aries1980 12y ago
  It is not industry-specific, but rather culture specific. Your wife will chase you if she figures out the neighbour earns more than you. :)
specialdragon 12y ago
My understanding of 'competitive' salaries are that the employer doesn't know what range they should be offering. The quickest method of resolving that is to phone them up and go, "You've specified a competitive salary range, I'm looking for a salary of £X for that position, if you feel that's sensible then I'll forward my CV", at which point my CV is then updated to reflect the amount I just specified. If I'm applying for a job it's because what's there sounds interesting, if the salary backs it up then brilliant. If the salary is poor then maybe I didn't want to work there after all and that's very much their loss.
serve_yay 12y ago
It could backfire - if I saw a salary stated on a job ad, I would consider it firm. So it it was too low I wouldn't even consider applying, when perhaps they would have been willing to work something out with me if I did.
- randomdata 12y ago
  The figure need not be set in stone. If they find nobody responds, they can keep upping the price until they get what they are looking for. If they do find someone happy to work for them at that lower level, then everyone wins. As a farmer, this is pretty much how we sell our crops in most cases. The buyer posts how much he is willing to pay, and if I like what I see, I make the deal. If I don't, I wait and hope the price goes up to something that matches my expectations. Sometimes someone else will sell for less and that never happens.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Usually they're not. Either because they don't have the budget, or "We just don't do that here".
- s73v3r 12y ago
  Usually they're not. Either because they don't have the budget, or "We just don't do that here".
mgkimsal 12y ago
This one bugs me "Recruiter: “Why don’t you tell me how much you think you’re worth?”" Well... what I'm worth to a company depends a whole hell of a lot on how good they are operationally. Company A may be able to extract $500k of value per year from my skills. Company B may only be able to extract $80k of value from my skills. What am I "worth"? It's largely dependent on the environment I'm operating in, and how good they are at organizing everyone's skills to produce/extract value.
- harperlee 12y ago
  This is a very interesting comment. I've never thought of it that way, but you could argue - for big corporations at least, where they are sufficiently mature - that lower pay expectations on their side signals structural problems. Raising that point on the negotiation might even be useful, as you move from "what can I prove /how much can I convince them that I am worth?", where all the burden is on me, to a more equitable position where they need to put guesstimates on the table.
- rmc 12y ago
  > "Recruiter: “Why don’t you tell me how much you think you’re worth?”" My response: You're the recruiter. You should know more about this company, the industry in general, the industry in this city, current skills, etc than me. It's your job to know what I'm worth.
- sukilot 12y ago
  Patio11's famous advice article includes this great point and others, IIRC
  - mgkimsal 12y ago
    At some point in one's career of working for other people, it will dawn on most people. Came a bit faster for me when I've been working for myself. 'Hourly billing' is a perennial issue - people want to compare hourly rates on stuff, and yet I'm typically able to get stuff done far far far faster than many others (perhaps not the average HN reader, but def compared to many people I know). "What are you worth?" is, likely, only something that can be readily answered by those in the sales arm of an organization, as it's most readily tracked and accounted for in those terms.
gambiting 12y ago
I work in the games industry in the UK and if there is any greater secret than the games we work on, it's definitely our salaries. NO ONE will even mention how much they make, and that's because the industry pays much worse than anything else. I was even openly told in the interview that yeah, they know that this position pays 10k(GBP) less than a similar position anywhere else,but it's the games industry so that's what is it. And that's with one of the largest games studios in the world. If I didn't love what I do, I would have left ages ago.
- lione 12y ago
  To be fair, isn't the games industry one of those industries where lower salary is one of the tradeoffs for a "fun" job? I mean so many young coders want to go into the games industry to make games and do what their passionate about. The majority of them realize that being underpaid and overworked isn't their cup of tea, and that they are more likely to be working on the next Super Street Sweeper instead of Halo, but those that remain tough it out because it's their dream/ambition in life and they hope that they can put their name and effort behind a big game. The supply for games people outstripes the demand by far, so they can pay lower rates.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Everything you said is true, and that's exactly why I am here. I get to work on one of the biggest games of 2015, but the financial hit I am taking for having a "fun" job is huge. And the demand/supply is a problem,but I think it's overplayed. Like I've said, I work for one of the largest studios in the country, so there is a thousand people applying for every junior position we have, but we have some intermediate/senior positions which we can't fill for at least 5-10 months now.
    - crpatino 12y ago
      The problem with senior positions being that older people have usually seen better and saner than you can offer, so your recruit pool is limited to within-industry pouching?
pixelcort 12y ago
Would a solution to Yao's Millionaires' problem help? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Problem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Probl... The candidate puts in the minimum they're willing to take into one side of the solution, and the employer puts in the maximum. Both then securely find out if the minimum is less than the maximum, without revealing the two numbers to each other. The socialist millionaire solution is used in OTR, but this solution seems to have not caught on yet.
- baby 12y ago
  A lot of crypto have actual use in the real life :) I guess there is a zero knowledge solution to this problem as well
- sukilot 12y ago
  As a bonus, anybody who can implement the algorithm is a strong hire.
  - ryandrake 12y ago
    So, anyone who knows how to use the greater-than operator is a strong hire?
imaginenore 12y ago
Every job spam email I get that has the salary listed gets my respect, and I immediately forward it to my friends and ex-coworkers (if the role fits). To the interesting job spam I usually reply with the question of the salary range, and 95% of the time there's no reply back.
- logicallee 12y ago
  >To the interesting job spam I usually reply with the question of the salary range, and 95% of the time there's no reply back. have you tried giving them a call and verbally stating that you find it interesting, state why you're a match, but say that you don't want to apply if it's outside your range. then ask if (number) is within what they would consider? since you've pre-qualified yourself they must answer, and will be looking forward to your application if you match.
fukupayme2 12y ago
A big problem here in London is the willingness of big firms, especially financial ones to pay market rate in all conditions. An example: I work at an IB, doing Python/Quant development. We are presented with two candidates to interview. Candidate 1 is ok, has a year or two of Python but otherwise mostly Java background. Did so-so in the algo and numerical discussions, was ok in the problem solving categories. He was currently earning 75k and was asking for a 5k bump. HR were fine with this. Candidate 2 was unbelievable, has authored and contributed to many open source Python libraries, was well known in the community, did very well in the questions, would have been an absolute asset to the team and business. He is currently earning 50k at a Django shop. HR rejected his application as hge asked for 70k, on the grounds that the jump was too big. Even though it was less than the overall pay for candidate 1. Employers suck hard sometimes!
- MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
  That's pretty ridiculous. I guess I don't feel bad about being less than honest when asked by a potential employer about my current salary. It's really none of their business.
  - fukupayme2 12y ago
    It can get worse - I know of people who have been asked by the IB to prove their current salary/bonus levels, to avoid inflation or overstated earnings. They do also verify via the P45 as well. Best bet is to join one, if you have to, from a contractor route. Then you have an advantage, as they know you are most likely on a higher rate and are not willing to muck around with the usual HR demands.
    - MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
      So a potential employer can verify your current salary through the government? That's terrible. I don't think employers have that ability here in the states, but I could be wrong.
      - 12y ago
wallflower 12y ago
It is all about the employer maintaining the power in salary setting. Think of airlines. In the handful of times, I've asked how much people have paid for their seat. I've gotten ranges of a couple hundred dollars in both directions for a cross-country flight. Some of it was when the ticket was bought. And I thought I was getting a deal on Priceline... There are always disparities in salary. The most glaring and entrenched - being that of males and females of near equivalency being paid different amounts. If all salaries were made public, you would have to equalize salaries to prevent the fomenting dissension. This can be done at smaller organizations. For larger organizations (think Fortune 500), the higher-ups could not keep their larger salaries because a) they would not be able to justify them (as much) and b) their larger salaries may have been largely due to 'taking a larger share of the pot'.
- grecy 12y ago
  > It is all about the employer maintaining the power in salary setting. I agree 100% and I've always found it kind of creepy - like giving candy to a kid levels of creepy. "Here is your pay check Mr. Jones - but be sure not to tell anyone how much it is" is very similar to "Here is some candy Jonny, but make sure you don't tell anyone else I gave you that candy, or how much I gave you" In both scenarios why is the "giver" trying to conceal the details of the transaction? Because they've got something to gain by keeping it a secret.
logicallee 12y ago
Guys, there are countries where the candidate is expected to state their salary and not the company. The thinking is that the candidate is the seller (i.e. receives cash) and the company is the buyer (i.e. pays cash)!! We can use an ISO99-standard car analogy here for their thinking: Think of the candidate as the salesman of a car (themselves), and the employer as the buyer of the car, who wants to use it for something. Then this actually makes perfect sense. Doesn't the seller usually list their price rather than the buyer? (who keeps their range a secret, or even has a much wider range as they have a choice of cars.) It would be like walking into an auto showroom and the seller (get your mind around this: in the analogy the job candidate is the car/salesperson, but selling themselves rather than a car) asking the shopper to state how much the shopper is willing to pay (shopper = employer in this case, since employer is the one paying, and has a choice of 'cars'). Or at least state a range. Shopper (=employer) don't have to do it - you can ask what the cars are going for first. Who is at more fault: if a car salesperson refuses to tell you what the cars are going for (job candidate doesn't say how much he or she will work for) or if a buyer refuses to tell you what they have budgeted (the shopper doesn't say how much they're willing to pay, and just wants to see some cars.) Like all ISO99 car analogies, it's quite a good one, in this case because in fact the buyer and seller both do have a range, i.e. the buyer can consider different prices, and the seller can often be flexible within a single car. Also there is another reason not to list salary ranges: absurdity. We can conceive of a buyer of a car, given certain circumstances such as a new well-paid job they must drive to or near, but being broke after a period of unemployment, considering everything from $500 to $50,000. It's conceivable, depending on the terms involved, for this particular purchase ("hire"). But that is a range of two orders of magnitude. Sound absurd? A one-person startup might hire someone from an intern salary all the way through six figures, even doing similar things (if not much has been built), depending on age, experience, whether any of the salary can be deferred, who they can find, etc.. You don't need much imagination to realize that a cofounder salary range is: $0-$100K salary, 0%-50% equity. With a little imagination, that range actually widens considerably, but I don't want to make your brains explode. (With negative salaries or much higher than 50% effective equity, etc.) It's all on the table. If you don't want to interview for positions outside of your salary range, here's a thought: 1) call up whoever posted the advertisement and tell them you don't want to apply if it's far outside of your salary range. tell them what it is - you don't even have to identity yourself. if it's outside their range they'll tell you. 2) (I don't really recommend this.) Send your CV (your car or house brochure) with a price range. It's somewhat rude, sure, but I guarantee it's better than not letting 100 employers see your resume/CV at all, because you've filtered them out based on a lack of listed salary and refuse to take even 5 seconds to drop an email with an attachment. The line "Expected salary: ___" is guaranteed to filter out anyone whose budget is less. On the other hand, you might filter out people whose budgets are more or people who consider this very rude, and forward.
hippich 12y ago
I spent quite a bunch of time on interviews with employers who promised to pay above market salary to end up with an offer 30% less than i am making. Put another way - salary is big item in job description for me - amount employer ready to pay too often correlates with problems/technologies/colleagues/innovations i am going to work with. So naturally first question I always ask recruiter - how much. And naturally most of them shy away from answering it straight. As a result I created job form[1] and, unless it is someone's recommendation, or i had previous relationships with recruiter, I send all of them to this form to fill it first. [1] https://e.l1t3.com/pavelkaroukin https://e.l1t3.com/pavelkaroukin
- cozuya 12y ago
  Do you get a lot of responses?
  - hippich 12y ago
    zero :) granted, sent there typical spammy "job opportunity" recruiters and responded in usual way to someone who really spent some time on reading my resume :)
Dirlewanger 12y ago
And then there's the unspeakables that companies wouldn't tell someone like Jobbox: withholding salaries allows suppresses talk about it and makes it borderline-taboo to talk about in the workplace. This is the status quo for many American companies unfortunately. It's an unfortunate consequence of dealing with a highly individualistic society. You as a person are an asset and you always have to be selling yourself. Your previous salary is seen as leverage when it comes to finding a new job. Once you find one, you'll most likely find that salary discussion is a very sore thumb with everyone in the workplace. I see it as competitive collaboration that's gone cancerous.
- serve_yay 12y ago
  But I see almost nothing written in this whole thread from the perspective of the person who is making more than their coworkers (or believes that to be the case). I don't want to discuss salaries! In fact, one time earlier in my career I was in a group of coworkers who all went around and said their salaries, and mine was 2x all of them, so I kept quiet. My point is just that I don't think it only benefits the employers.
  - ryandrake 12y ago
    Did you keep quiet because you believed you were being paid unfairly or because you believed THEY were being paid unfairly? If you thought they were underpaid, you were kind of doing them a disservice by keeping quiet. Knowledge of a pay disparity within a group of similar employees tends to help the negotiating power of those who are making less, but does not tend to hurt those who are making more.
    - serve_yay 12y ago
      I guess you won't be a fan of this, but I don't really care if I did them a disservice. I hate that engineers do themselves a disservice by not getting the money they can get. Though if it's any consolation, I have started talking to my current coworkers who I know are good and who are not happy with the pay they currently make. I encourage them to get what they can get - but I still don't tell them what I make. About being paid unfairly - I don't think I agree with this as a basic concept, at least in the context of software development. They were getting paid what they agreed to when they signed on the dotted line.
S_A_P 12y ago
So I am in the early stages of starting a consulting business. Currently this business is just me, myself and I, but at some point I want to bring in and mentor junior people. I've kicked around a few ideas around salary and one of them is to tell them what I want to pay them first thing, up front. Hey, this job pays X dollars. If we move past that, then I will work to see if there is a skill/personal fit. This is as yet unproven, but my thought is you can set expectations, get the haggling out of the way first and then try to end up on a positive note instead of trying to play nice and then play the salary game.
- exelius 12y ago
  It's a little easier to do this in professional services -- you know pretty much what you can bill that person out for, so you know what you can pay them. Employee pay has a pretty direct contribution to margins (and to revenue). This is not the case in most industries - adding an employee does not add a predictable amount of revenue in most cases.
shanemhansen 12y ago
I'm not too concerned with companies not listing salaries because I think a job posting isn't actually a posting for a job. It's really just a way to let me know that a company has certain needs. They may fill that position with a senior developer, or a junior developer. Quite often there is currently one person wearing many hats who needs to hand off responsibilities in one area. However I've found I get the best results by stating my salary requirements up front.
mallyvai 12y ago
This is exactly why we are launching the Offer Drive: http://offerletter.io/drive.html http://offerletter.io/drive.html . In short - submit your offer and equity information, get back access to a statistical pool showing where you stand. A few notes on this subject from my perspective as the founder of http://OfferLetter.io http://OfferLetter.io (we provide negotiation advice and career matchmaking to developers and other techies). Companies also oftentimes just don't know what someone is worth, and don't want to publicly publish numbers that are too high or low for fear miscalibrating expectations w.r.t. large swaths of potential candidates. 0) If a company tries to play the, "What do you make?" game, it's important to deflect, deflect, deflect and if they insist, simply state, "I expect a competitive offer to be on the order of $X" 1) Market rates are complicated. As I've written about before, the outcomes that people can see because of outsize startup exit scenarios means that their market rate can be very very high. Google doesn't publish this kind of info because they can and will match even crazy startup exit numbers, but don't broadcast this for fear of screwing up expectations. 2) At the end of the day it is contingent on the individual to define their own basis and see what places are willing to offer what compensation, and how much they are willing to budge. This is how markets work. 3) On a related note, oftentimes, companies will try and prohibit discussion of compensation by saying it's confidential, or a trade secret. Confidentiality and wage secrecy requirements in the workplace are illegal under California law. The exact statue is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=232 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... As we have seen repeatedly, these kinds of requirements tend to disproportionately harm people from many kinds of non-privileged backgrounds. And, under national labor legislation, companies cannot prohibit discussion within the workplace.
mallyvai 12y ago
This is exactly why we are launching the Offer Drive: http://offerletter.io/drive.html http://offerletter.io/drive.html . In short - submit your offer and equity information, get back access to a statistical pool showing where you stand. A few notes on this subject from my perspective as the founder of http://OfferLetter.io http://OfferLetter.io (we provide negotiation advice and career matchmaking to developers and other techies). Companies also oftentimes just don't know what someone is worth, and don't want to publicly publish numbers that are too high or low for fear miscalibrating expectations w.r.t. large swaths of potential candidates. 1) Market rates are complicated. As I've written about before, the outcomes that people can see because of outsize startup exit scenarios means that their market rate can be very very high. Google does't publish this kind of info because they can and will match even crazy startup exit numbers, but don't broadcast this for fear of screwing up expectations. 2) At the end of the day it is contingent on the individual to define their own basis and see what places are willing to offer what compensation, and how much they are willing to budge. This is how markets work. 3) On a related note, oftentimes, companies will try and prohibit discussion of compensation by saying it's confidential, or a trade secret. Confidentiality and wage secrecy requirements in the workplace are illegal under California law. The exact statue is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=232 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... As we have seen repeatedly, these kinds of requirements tend to disproportionately harm people from many kinds of non-privileged backgrounds. And, under national labor legislation, companies cannot prohibit discussion within the workplace.
mau_rs 12y ago
Totally disagree with the final conclusion. In a market where people (specially technical people) are in need and advertising inviting people to living on to the edge, makes Jr. Developers, Jr. Designers, Jr. Business person, think that they are more Senior than Junior. So trust me, they will apply cause they have nothing to loose.
endergen 12y ago
I don't agree with the assertion that listing filters out candidates on the low end. I think many dillusuonal, overly ambitious, and financially desperate under qualified candidates apply hard for salaries way above their last/current salary.
- ryandrake 12y ago
  Correct. There is pretty much no incentive not to try to punch above your weight class. If it was common for employers to list salaries on their job boards, I'd spend an hour each day applying for every job that pays more than I make now. There's literally no down side.
  - seestheday 12y ago
    Opportunity cost and the potential of leaving a good company for a potentially toxic work environment are two bad outcomes that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to better your position, but saying that there isn't a possibility of a downside is not fair.
xivzgrev 12y ago
I think a big reason people get into poker is Expectation of negotiation. If employee talks first, the number can only go down. If the employer talks first, the number can only go up. It's unfortunately wide spread. I wish we lived in a world where people saw a fair offer and accepted it without automatically asking for more (employee) less (employer). If something's not fair then fine negotiate, but I think people negotiate even if an offer is fair to "win" or "its expected" or "everyone else would". So employers come in below budget and employees are hesitant to give salary numbers. Heres a good post on it: http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/183/does-the-first-person-to-mention-a-number-in-a-salary-negotiation-lose http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/183/does-the-fi...
- Silhouette 12y ago
  The solution in that case is simple: as an employee, you come in with what you regard as a fair level, and then you don't negotiate and just state that you think it's a fair offer and they can take it or leave it. This does away with all the upside where you could have achieved something higher, but the only other downside is if you run into an employer whose policy requires their staff to get an initial number from a candidate and then agree on a reduced level, and you know what to tell them when you discover that is the kind of employer they are.
- solarmist 12y ago
  Vinnyroe's anecdote at the end of his answer is EXACTLY why people negotiate what's a fair offer is almost completely (within 10's of thousands of dollars) SUBJECTIVE. I've had places where if I had mentioned a number first I'd have lost more than $10k off my salary. Honestly many times I do accept the salary offered because it was above the range I was expecting (although nowadays I'm better calibrated to my area... Well, I hope so). If there was an objective way to determine then people and companies would be much happier not negotiating for the most part.
shanemhansen 12y ago
Here's a little bit of a horror story of what happens when the reverse question (engineer's current salary) is asked and answered honestly. Disclosure of current salary ultimately hurts both parties. I was once offered a position by a certain well known Las Vegas based ecommerce company while I was living in Salt Lake and working in Park City. They asked my current salary and I told them (like a chump). When my offer finally came through it was for less than my current salary (ouch). I assumed this was a really weird way of telling me "no", so I declined the offer. I immediately got a call from their HR wondering what the problem was. When I informed them that I wasn't going to move to Las Vegas and take a pay cut they dug in their heels and argued that their offer was really more than I was currently making since Las Vegas is so much cheaper than Park City (as I mentioned above, I never actually lived in Park City but that didn't seem to dissuade them). If I had responded to the "how much do you make?" question by telling them how much they needed to pay me then instead of wasting everyone's time they could have terminated the interview process or even better, made their offer without being confused by irrelevant salary data. At my most current job I told the recruiter right up front what my requirements were and told her I didn't want to fly out for an in-person interview unless we agreed on ballpark numbers. She came back with an acceptable number (which I accepted when I later saw it on the offer letter) and nobody's time was wasted. I also won't be job hopping for a tiny pay bump any time soon. Win/win.
- mallyvai 12y ago
  This is exactly the right answer - if multiple rounds of deflection fail to work then you should state, "I expect a competitive offer to be $X".
Vinod_Chandra 12y ago
In India, We have launched a site to promote salary transparency! KitnaDetiHai.in (coincidentally means the same as show me the money in Hindi) The site has gone viral in top bschools in India. The idea was born out of the thought, just for a simple mobile purchase or for a meal, we compare prices and reviews to get the best deal. Whereas for one year of blood and sweat, when HR says this is the best in the industry they are no accurate sites to refer to ask for a fairer deal. How do I trust the HR words, when one of her prime KPI is also how much money she could save for the company while rolling an offer out. I would be happy to hear feedback from you folks! p.s. In Glassdoor I can post as CEO of Apple, there is no authentication and why the data is so inaccurate, whereas in KitnaDetiHai after initial search its a compulsory LinkedIn Login to search more and even after that Machine Learning Algorithm's are used to identify outliers. If found so the user's access is removed and he cannot be a part of community at all. Another Incentive here for users to enter right salaries is, we will suggest jobs which 1. Match hiked up no's from current salary. 2. Also fairly matching skills of the job against skills listed/endorsed on LinkedIn.
brendangregg 12y ago
I'm sure these reasons happen, however, the most common reason recruiters don't talk salary to me seems to be that they know it is below market, and want time to sell all the other benefits. I treat it as a warning sign of a very low salary. It also often wastes everyone's time. After going through multiple rounds of communication, the salary is finally revealed: often way too low, even after hearing about the benefits. Other recruiters will talk salary early, and those jobs are usually the ones that pay well. I don't waste time (mine and theirs) talking to recruiters who don't share salary information (expectations or ranges). There's a major tech company that needed my expertise (systems performance), for whom I never got past the recruiters because they wouldn't talk salary. (After several months, I don't think they ever filled that role.) This all doesn't matter much to me now, as I'm at Netflix and very happy. Netflix does talk salary expectations.
dennisgorelik 12y ago
---- http://jobbox.io/ http://jobbox.io/ This webpage is not available ---- You should redirect users to https://www.jobbox.io/ https://www.jobbox.io/
mwanamayi 12y ago
Like the point of view. I find that many companies really neglect corporate culture and feeling of belonging when it's decisive for productivity. The salary example shows this well as instead of cooperating, it's already about "confrontation, strategy and often times disappointment at a very early stage with your employer. Probably why I've always had it hard with Corporate culture. Work has to be passionating, whatever the reason.

128 points by pauloteixeira 12y ago

The culture of hiding salaries can only work in an employers interest. I can't see situations where it would be in the interest of the worker (unless they are earning silly money and feel they need some kind of "protection").

austenallred 12y ago

We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate. Interviewing, for example, someone with seven years experience vs. fifteen (I'm simplifying what matters greatly for the sake of argument - years experience is the easiest thing to put a number to) and we would pay way more for one than the other. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't think we've ever chosen not to hire someone because of the salary level they wanted.

e-dard 12y ago
Then have a range? Of course you need to pay different employees different salaries, but that doesn't mean you can't expose potential employees to the salary they might expect to earn.
- michaelt 12y ago
  Someone who applied hoping for the top of the salary bracket, and who gets an offer for the bottom of the salary bracket, is still going to be upset. And if you advertise "Salary range: $0-$10,000,000" you aren't really telling people much anyway :)
  - Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
    A range tells you if you and your potential employer are on the same page. I don't apply for a job expecting the top end of the range, but at the same time if the top end is less than what I'm willing to take then I don't waste my (and the employer's) time with an application. If I saw a range like $0-$10,000,000, I wouldn't apply since it's clear that they are not taking the hiring process seriously.
- notahacker 12y ago
  Because if you can afford to stretch your range up to attract an elite candidate you will do. Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation... much more uncomfortable than explaining why an actually-hired elite candidate whose been given additional responsibilities earns 50% more salary.
  - rmc 12y ago
    > Explaining to people who are perfectly well qualified for the job including your own existing employees why they're at the bottom of the range is an uncomfortable conversation I would imagine having to explain to your employees why you're underpaying them is a difficult conversation. But the problem is that's the employee's know, the problem is that you're underpaying them.
    - notahacker 12y ago
      Sure. But just because you're more likely to pay a new hire more than your existing staff than less doesn't mean they're underpaid, or indeed not paid comfortably above market rates for their skillset (above-market payers often have the most opaque salary structures) Most employers able to pay market rate or better would rather attract candidates for a position that are substantially better than their existing employees than substantially worse, so the feasible salary range is naturally skewed upwards even if you pad it at the bottom. Most employees don't think they belong in the bottom half of the salary range for their position, even if they do. Something has to give, and its usually transparency.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    This is bull. It's about concealing from the people who are at the bottom of the range who don't deserve it. THAT'S an awkward conversation to have.
    - notahacker 12y ago
      Sure, that's also awkward, but it doesn't alter the reality that many firms are perfectly happy with their existing employees, expect to fill positions with similar calibre candidates, but are prepared to pay a lot more for better.
CalRobert 12y ago
This is counter to a lot of advice given, but because of this I try to address salary as one of the first questions during the initial contact I have with a potential employer. I'm fine with a range, but if they're not even in the same ballpark we've both just saved a lot of time. Similarly, if there's no way they can afford me it does us both good to wish each other well and move on.
- leeoniya 12y ago
  yes, i've had major issues with this. i know what i will and will not accept and if my number is not something the employer is willing to pay, that should be the first thing discussed so we don't waste each other's time. it's very annoying to be dragged through interviews for what turns out to be a laughable offer at the end.
  - LoSboccacc 12y ago
    once it happened worse to me, I specified my minimum acceptable price at the first contact, went trough three interviews, then they offered 87% of what I asked.
    - ovulator 12y ago
      Of course they did, that is how negotiation works. You don't go up from the sticker price. You don't say what the minimum you will work for is, you tell them what your other offers are, then you have an auction and they have to bid up.
      - CalRobert 12y ago
        This works really well with a liquid market. It can be harder for people who are talented in specialized professions. My wife, for instance, is highly skilled in a very specialized skillset, but it's academic, and jobs that match her skills come up a few times a year in the whole state. Even though the applicant pool is small, the illiquidity means it's difficult to say you're going to someone else. Actually, I wonder to what extent markets with very specialized (and comparatively rare) talents are affected by this illiquidity as opposed to mere supply and demand?
WhitneyLand 12y ago
Seems like an awe shucks kind of answer, if that were truly the primary concern you could post the highest and lowest salaries you hire at and explain the range. I do agree with your policy but for different reasons. For one I haven't seen a scalable way to roll out total salary transparency with a net gain in company psychology. The problems seem to outweigh the benefits, although I think it may be possible and just not figured out yet.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >I haven't seen a scalable way to roll out total salary transparency with a net gain in company psychology #1 Make sure everybody is paid as much as they deserve as far as you can tell. #2 Roll out total salary transparency. Not being "scalable" sounds like another way of saying "we don't want to do #1, it sounds expensive. Secrecy is cheaper.".
  - WhitneyLand 12y ago
    This implies some sort of unfairness is being hidden, which should be the easy part of the problem. The hard part is that equitable salaries do not mean equal salaries. If you there are large differences based completely on merit it's very difficult to make someone feel good about being lower than the person sitting next to them, even if it's objectively fair.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      >This implies some sort of unfairness is being hidden, which should be the easy part of the problem. You seem to be implying that voluntarily giving out pay rises to the underpaid is easy. It isn't easy. >The hard part is that equitable salaries do not mean equal salaries. If you there are large differences based completely on merit it's very difficult to make someone feel good about being lower than the person sitting next to them, even if it's objectively fair. This would be the hard part if American were mostly all secret communists.
    - s73v3r 12y ago
      If those differences actually exist, they should be pretty easy to demonstrate.
odonnellryan 12y ago
The problem is, and this has happened to me personally, is you'll be told the salary is "competitive" without further details even when pushed. Of course, everyone wants to save a buck, but when you've gone through multiple rounds of interviews...spending personal days...personal time doing projects.. then you get an offer that is 1/2 the starting range for the industry and location, you have a problem!
- steverb 12y ago
  The two times I've had that response, I've just taken my current estimate of high salary, added $20,000 and then asked them to confirm that that amount is in their definition of competitive. First time, they said no and we stopped talking. Second time got me my current job. YMMV.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    That is an excellent approach to this problem. Thanks.
Mister_Snuggles 12y ago
You should have a budget for the position that you're hiring for, so a salary range should fall out of that. If you don't have a budget, how do you know what you CAN offer?
johnward 12y ago
You are probably missing a lot of candidates. Maybe that's ok because employers seem to be ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid one false positive. I can't count how many positions that don't list salary that I came to find out pay about half what I expected. It's almost of waste of time for job seekers, actually for both of us.
jonnathanson 12y ago
"We don't broadcast our salaries with our job listings because reality is how much we're willing to pay varies candidate to candidate." This sounds reasonable. But just to play devil's advocate for a second -- for any given role, is your variance really that high? Do you expect to field a dramatically variable range of candidates for the same level, title, or position? So variable, in fact, that establishing a ballpark range is an exercise in futility? If you're fielding candidates with N years of experience, 1.5N years of experience, or 2N+ years of experience for the same role, maybe it's worth recalibrating your expectations for that role. Fine-tune them a bit. If your expectations are all over the map, then you're going to make a lot more work for yourself by taking on variance and trying to sift through it. It's totally fine, even admirable, to take the position that each candidate is unique. But how unique, really? Unless we're talking about very high-level or rare positions, a reasonable and market-appropriate range will usually cover most of the variance. (That's not to say that you can't have some sort of discretionary, secondary range available for rockstars or competitive bidding situations. But aren't those typically the edge cases, and not the norm?)

amelius 12y ago

I wonder what happens if test-engineer Bob finds out that there is a new job-opening for a test-engineer in his company, with a salary that is significantly higher than his own current salary.

MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
He does what I did in the same situation, spend 5 minutes finding a new job before turning in his 2 week notice. I don't do the "lets re-negotiate my salary" bit, it's up to my employer to keep me at or above market rate for my skills, I shouldn't have to ask for it.
- amelius 12y ago
  Ok, with the strategy of employers to be reluctant with publishing salary info, how do you currently determine your market rate? And given the fact that this market rate is not a clearly defined value (also thanks to employers' reluctance), don't you think it is necessary to at least negotiate with your current employer if you believe you're being paid below par?
  - MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
    The last time this happened to me (in 2011) I was with one of the big consulting firms and the guy in charge of recruiting put up notices everywhere with a job listing for my current position except with a 5-10% higher salary. That being said, if I wasn't privy to this information it wouldn't take much to find out what the other people on my team are making. I don't think I've ever worked in an environment where salaries were considered top secret information.
vkjv 12y ago
He asks for his salary to be re-aligned with industry standards and in many cases they will oblige. In most cases, businesses are reasonable. They aren't going to volunteer to pay you more out of the goodness of their heart, but (most) of the time it doesn't hurt to ask. Just don't go threatening to leave if they don't.

solve 12y ago

"Resentment" Good call on that. Resentment is the #1 factor in practically everything in internal people dynamics. Poor managers and founders just don't realize it yet. This tends to be less bad in major cities than in small towns though. Young people, get out of the small town you're living in.

Mister_Snuggles 12y ago

I've got a handful of general rules around salary that tell me not to apply for certain jobs: - I don't apply to jobs that don't list a salary range. This is a red flag that tells me that the employer doesn't have the budget to pay market rates and that applying and interviewing could be a colossal waste of time for both of us. I get that the employer may not be willing to pay what I want based on my experience, etc, but the salary range tells me if getting what I want is even possible. - I also don't apply for jobs that don't list an annual salary. I get the vibe, rightly or wrongly, that when you only list a monthly salary you don't expect to keep your new hire around very long. - Jobs that are listed as "xx months with possibility of extension" are also right out. A job, for me anyway, represents a huge commitment and if the employer isn't willing to make that same commitment then I'm not interested.

johnward 12y ago
I usually follow all of these. The one thing that gets me is when a recruiter calls me up. I usually talk to them because I don't want to be a dick and you never know they my actually be valuable one day. I tell them my salary. "oh well this one pays about 70% of that and it's an 8 month contract. I'd like to put you in for this". I'm not leaving a full time position for a contract position with less pay. I might consider a contract position at about 150-200% of my current pay.
- bhayden 12y ago
  I find telling recruiters my salary is a really bad idea. They then tell the company I am applying to what my salary is, which is a really shitty way to start off salary negotiations. I actually just don't work with recruiters anymore due to such a shitty experience.
  - sukilot 12y ago
    You can tell them a high target that would absolutely get your interest in the job. If it hits, great next step in your career. If it misses, no skin off your back.
  - 12y ago

inthewoods 12y ago

My experience is it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications. As for the article, I think the author lists a lot of real concerns that exist at companies - and then sort of dismisses them as if they are invalid because they aren't ideal. I'm sorry - but companies aren't ideal. Let's also look at the function of job postings - from my point of view, the goal is to get as many candidates into the pipeline as possible and then get them qualified. I want to minimize the number of filters whenever possible. Finally, he doesn't provide a lot of benefit from doing these actions aside from perhaps not having to wade through a lot of resumes - but as I mentioned above, I don't think that turns out to be the case.

runako 12y ago
>> it doesn't matter what you post in the job description - you still have to wade through applications. One of the points in the post is that not posting salary information is also a filter. Some would argue that the absence of even a salary range filters out the top end of candidates, leaving you with a pipeline of mediocrity.
- inthewoods 12y ago
  That's a fair point - for myself applying for jobs (vs. being the hirer), I more often did not apply for jobs based on stated salary range. Anecdotal at best, of course.

MikeTaylor 12y ago

This is simple. I won't waste my time applying for a job that doesn't even bother to tell me what they're going to pay -- any more than I would buy a car without knowing its engine capacity, mileage, etc. The idea is idiotic. So: the only people who will apply for jobs with no salary listed are the ones desperate for any job. Are they the people you want to hire?

rmc 12y ago
> So: the only people who will apply for jobs with no salary listed are the ones desperate for any job. And people who hire complain about the bad standard of applicants!
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
There's a difference between not posting salary and not telling a potential candidate when asked. Given that in America at least incredibly few companies post salary ranges to the public it is a stretch (and insulting) to claim applicants for positions with no posted salary are desperate.
- serve_yay 12y ago
  Also the analog to buying a car would be signing the contract. Not interviewing.
- randomdata 12y ago
  That approach is still flawed though. In a seller's market, which I do believe the developer market currently is, the buyer is the one who has to do the marketing. Supplying expected compensation up front is one of the best ways to market your business to developers. If I, a developer, am making $100K and you make it known that you are willing to pay $200K, I'm going to get excited and get in touch with you. If I am left to assume that you are also only offering $100K, because you "pay market rates" or haven't said otherwise, I'm not even going to waste my time getting in touch with you. It seems like a lot of businesses feel like they are in a buyer's market, which comes with completely different rules, and then cannot figure out why it isn't working for them.

alecco 12y ago

In my experience, if you are useful to the company where you are, job hopping is the only way to a meaningful salary increase or career change. Also, when you do a good job programming and are not an attention whore you become wall paper. See previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940820

andrewstuart 12y ago

The salary isn't a predefined amount that is a secret. It's usually a broad range, negotiable to skills and experience. Usually jobseekers have an idea if their market value and can and do name the salary they re looking for. Often there's some movement up or down to get a final deal in place. So the entire premise that there is a defined salary and it's being kept secret is flat out wrong.

MatthewWilkes 12y ago

I like it when they say the salary is £competitive. Presumably that's in base36, in which case they've got loads of money.

BrentOzar 12y ago

As a small business owner who's done a few successful casting calls, the problem with this article comes down to their first answer: > Yes, you have quantity, but what about quality? How much time will you spend sorting the wheat from the chaff? How much application spam will you have to review and dispose of? And of the relevant ones, how many under- and over-qualified candidates do you need to sift through because they lacked the vital piece of information that is a salary range? It's easy: filter the incoming candidates based on who you want to hire. Send your favorite candidates a simple email saying what you want to pay for that position, and ask if they're still interested. Interview the ones that are. (This way, you're not posting the salary number to the public, but you're still filtering candidates quickly and respecting their time.) If none of your favorite candidates are interested at your targeted price, there's your answer. Either lower your standards and take one of the other applicants, or ask all of your favorite candidates what number it would take to get them interested. (No interviewing - you don't have the right to take up their time until you can come up with the money - you're just asking for the salary number they would need to even step into an interview.) When the numbers come back, that's what it would take to hire your favorite candidates.

joncalhoun 12y ago
I would respect a company significantly more if this is how the negotiations started. It addresses their need to determine if their range is on par with the market rate, and it allows both parties to minimize wasted time if they aren't. Sadly I rarely see this happen in practice. It would be nice to see studies about how this affects the average cost to recruit a new employee.
odonnellryan 12y ago
This is the opposite of how a lot of hiring managers I know think. The tactic they use (how can anyone think this is a good idea...) is to hope by the end of the interview process the candidate will be so attached to the position (or invested at this point! see: throwing good money after bad, or the sunk cost fallacy) to refuse! Or maybe they'll just ask for 5k more, or something.
NickPollard 12y ago

500and4 12y ago

I would argue that in London it's the fact that talking about salaries is considered rather taboo in tech that perpetuates non-disclosure. I wrote a post about it a while ago: http://blog.zonino.co.uk/on-salaries-in-london-startups/ http://blog.zonino.co.uk/on-salaries-in-london-startups/

exelius 12y ago
It's still common practice in the US not to discuss salaries. Which is total BS because transparency on salary can only benefit the workers; the "taboo" nature of the discussion is perpetuated by big companies who try to discourage collective bargaining (btw, forbidding employees from discussing salaries with their co-workers is illegal in the US - despite what your employment contract may say).
- 500and4 12y ago
  I couldn't agree more. If we want more transparency from employers we (as engineers) should start with being transparent with each other. I had no idea that legislation existed in the US - that's really interesting!
aries1980 12y ago
It is not industry-specific, but rather culture specific. Your wife will chase you if she figures out the neighbour earns more than you. :)

specialdragon 12y ago

My understanding of 'competitive' salaries are that the employer doesn't know what range they should be offering. The quickest method of resolving that is to phone them up and go, "You've specified a competitive salary range, I'm looking for a salary of £X for that position, if you feel that's sensible then I'll forward my CV", at which point my CV is then updated to reflect the amount I just specified. If I'm applying for a job it's because what's there sounds interesting, if the salary backs it up then brilliant. If the salary is poor then maybe I didn't want to work there after all and that's very much their loss.

serve_yay 12y ago

It could backfire - if I saw a salary stated on a job ad, I would consider it firm. So it it was too low I wouldn't even consider applying, when perhaps they would have been willing to work something out with me if I did.

randomdata 12y ago
The figure need not be set in stone. If they find nobody responds, they can keep upping the price until they get what they are looking for. If they do find someone happy to work for them at that lower level, then everyone wins. As a farmer, this is pretty much how we sell our crops in most cases. The buyer posts how much he is willing to pay, and if I like what I see, I make the deal. If I don't, I wait and hope the price goes up to something that matches my expectations. Sometimes someone else will sell for less and that never happens.
s73v3r 12y ago
Usually they're not. Either because they don't have the budget, or "We just don't do that here".
s73v3r 12y ago
Usually they're not. Either because they don't have the budget, or "We just don't do that here".

mgkimsal 12y ago

This one bugs me "Recruiter: “Why don’t you tell me how much you think you’re worth?”" Well... what I'm worth to a company depends a whole hell of a lot on how good they are operationally. Company A may be able to extract $500k of value per year from my skills. Company B may only be able to extract $80k of value from my skills. What am I "worth"? It's largely dependent on the environment I'm operating in, and how good they are at organizing everyone's skills to produce/extract value.

harperlee 12y ago
This is a very interesting comment. I've never thought of it that way, but you could argue - for big corporations at least, where they are sufficiently mature - that lower pay expectations on their side signals structural problems. Raising that point on the negotiation might even be useful, as you move from "what can I prove /how much can I convince them that I am worth?", where all the burden is on me, to a more equitable position where they need to put guesstimates on the table.
rmc 12y ago
> "Recruiter: “Why don’t you tell me how much you think you’re worth?”" My response: You're the recruiter. You should know more about this company, the industry in general, the industry in this city, current skills, etc than me. It's your job to know what I'm worth.
sukilot 12y ago
Patio11's famous advice article includes this great point and others, IIRC
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  At some point in one's career of working for other people, it will dawn on most people. Came a bit faster for me when I've been working for myself. 'Hourly billing' is a perennial issue - people want to compare hourly rates on stuff, and yet I'm typically able to get stuff done far far far faster than many others (perhaps not the average HN reader, but def compared to many people I know). "What are you worth?" is, likely, only something that can be readily answered by those in the sales arm of an organization, as it's most readily tracked and accounted for in those terms.

gambiting 12y ago

I work in the games industry in the UK and if there is any greater secret than the games we work on, it's definitely our salaries. NO ONE will even mention how much they make, and that's because the industry pays much worse than anything else. I was even openly told in the interview that yeah, they know that this position pays 10k(GBP) less than a similar position anywhere else,but it's the games industry so that's what is it. And that's with one of the largest games studios in the world. If I didn't love what I do, I would have left ages ago.

lione 12y ago
To be fair, isn't the games industry one of those industries where lower salary is one of the tradeoffs for a "fun" job? I mean so many young coders want to go into the games industry to make games and do what their passionate about. The majority of them realize that being underpaid and overworked isn't their cup of tea, and that they are more likely to be working on the next Super Street Sweeper instead of Halo, but those that remain tough it out because it's their dream/ambition in life and they hope that they can put their name and effort behind a big game. The supply for games people outstripes the demand by far, so they can pay lower rates.
- gambiting 12y ago
  Everything you said is true, and that's exactly why I am here. I get to work on one of the biggest games of 2015, but the financial hit I am taking for having a "fun" job is huge. And the demand/supply is a problem,but I think it's overplayed. Like I've said, I work for one of the largest studios in the country, so there is a thousand people applying for every junior position we have, but we have some intermediate/senior positions which we can't fill for at least 5-10 months now.
  - crpatino 12y ago
    The problem with senior positions being that older people have usually seen better and saner than you can offer, so your recruit pool is limited to within-industry pouching?

pixelcort 12y ago

Would a solution to Yao's Millionaires' problem help? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Problem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yao%27s_Millionaires%27_Probl... The candidate puts in the minimum they're willing to take into one side of the solution, and the employer puts in the maximum. Both then securely find out if the minimum is less than the maximum, without revealing the two numbers to each other. The socialist millionaire solution is used in OTR, but this solution seems to have not caught on yet.

baby 12y ago
A lot of crypto have actual use in the real life :) I guess there is a zero knowledge solution to this problem as well
sukilot 12y ago
As a bonus, anybody who can implement the algorithm is a strong hire.
- ryandrake 12y ago
  So, anyone who knows how to use the greater-than operator is a strong hire?

imaginenore 12y ago

Every job spam email I get that has the salary listed gets my respect, and I immediately forward it to my friends and ex-coworkers (if the role fits). To the interesting job spam I usually reply with the question of the salary range, and 95% of the time there's no reply back.

logicallee 12y ago
>To the interesting job spam I usually reply with the question of the salary range, and 95% of the time there's no reply back. have you tried giving them a call and verbally stating that you find it interesting, state why you're a match, but say that you don't want to apply if it's outside your range. then ask if (number) is within what they would consider? since you've pre-qualified yourself they must answer, and will be looking forward to your application if you match.

fukupayme2 12y ago

A big problem here in London is the willingness of big firms, especially financial ones to pay market rate in all conditions. An example: I work at an IB, doing Python/Quant development. We are presented with two candidates to interview. Candidate 1 is ok, has a year or two of Python but otherwise mostly Java background. Did so-so in the algo and numerical discussions, was ok in the problem solving categories. He was currently earning 75k and was asking for a 5k bump. HR were fine with this. Candidate 2 was unbelievable, has authored and contributed to many open source Python libraries, was well known in the community, did very well in the questions, would have been an absolute asset to the team and business. He is currently earning 50k at a Django shop. HR rejected his application as hge asked for 70k, on the grounds that the jump was too big. Even though it was less than the overall pay for candidate 1. Employers suck hard sometimes!

MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
That's pretty ridiculous. I guess I don't feel bad about being less than honest when asked by a potential employer about my current salary. It's really none of their business.
- fukupayme2 12y ago
  It can get worse - I know of people who have been asked by the IB to prove their current salary/bonus levels, to avoid inflation or overstated earnings. They do also verify via the P45 as well. Best bet is to join one, if you have to, from a contractor route. Then you have an advantage, as they know you are most likely on a higher rate and are not willing to muck around with the usual HR demands.
  - MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
    So a potential employer can verify your current salary through the government? That's terrible. I don't think employers have that ability here in the states, but I could be wrong.
    - 12y ago

wallflower 12y ago

It is all about the employer maintaining the power in salary setting. Think of airlines. In the handful of times, I've asked how much people have paid for their seat. I've gotten ranges of a couple hundred dollars in both directions for a cross-country flight. Some of it was when the ticket was bought. And I thought I was getting a deal on Priceline... There are always disparities in salary. The most glaring and entrenched - being that of males and females of near equivalency being paid different amounts. If all salaries were made public, you would have to equalize salaries to prevent the fomenting dissension. This can be done at smaller organizations. For larger organizations (think Fortune 500), the higher-ups could not keep their larger salaries because a) they would not be able to justify them (as much) and b) their larger salaries may have been largely due to 'taking a larger share of the pot'.

grecy 12y ago
> It is all about the employer maintaining the power in salary setting. I agree 100% and I've always found it kind of creepy - like giving candy to a kid levels of creepy. "Here is your pay check Mr. Jones - but be sure not to tell anyone how much it is" is very similar to "Here is some candy Jonny, but make sure you don't tell anyone else I gave you that candy, or how much I gave you" In both scenarios why is the "giver" trying to conceal the details of the transaction? Because they've got something to gain by keeping it a secret.

logicallee 12y ago

Guys, there are countries where the candidate is expected to state their salary and not the company. The thinking is that the candidate is the seller (i.e. receives cash) and the company is the buyer (i.e. pays cash)!! We can use an ISO99-standard car analogy here for their thinking: Think of the candidate as the salesman of a car (themselves), and the employer as the buyer of the car, who wants to use it for something. Then this actually makes perfect sense. Doesn't the seller usually list their price rather than the buyer? (who keeps their range a secret, or even has a much wider range as they have a choice of cars.) It would be like walking into an auto showroom and the seller (get your mind around this: in the analogy the job candidate is the car/salesperson, but selling themselves rather than a car) asking the shopper to state how much the shopper is willing to pay (shopper = employer in this case, since employer is the one paying, and has a choice of 'cars'). Or at least state a range. Shopper (=employer) don't have to do it - you can ask what the cars are going for first. Who is at more fault: if a car salesperson refuses to tell you what the cars are going for (job candidate doesn't say how much he or she will work for) or if a buyer refuses to tell you what they have budgeted (the shopper doesn't say how much they're willing to pay, and just wants to see some cars.) Like all ISO99 car analogies, it's quite a good one, in this case because in fact the buyer and seller both do have a range, i.e. the buyer can consider different prices, and the seller can often be flexible within a single car. Also there is another reason not to list salary ranges: absurdity. We can conceive of a buyer of a car, given certain circumstances such as a new well-paid job they must drive to or near, but being broke after a period of unemployment, considering everything from $500 to $50,000. It's conceivable, depending on the terms involved, for this particular purchase ("hire"). But that is a range of two orders of magnitude. Sound absurd? A one-person startup might hire someone from an intern salary all the way through six figures, even doing similar things (if not much has been built), depending on age, experience, whether any of the salary can be deferred, who they can find, etc.. You don't need much imagination to realize that a cofounder salary range is: $0-$100K salary, 0%-50% equity. With a little imagination, that range actually widens considerably, but I don't want to make your brains explode. (With negative salaries or much higher than 50% effective equity, etc.) It's all on the table. If you don't want to interview for positions outside of your salary range, here's a thought: 1) call up whoever posted the advertisement and tell them you don't want to apply if it's far outside of your salary range. tell them what it is - you don't even have to identity yourself. if it's outside their range they'll tell you. 2) (I don't really recommend this.) Send your CV (your car or house brochure) with a price range. It's somewhat rude, sure, but I guarantee it's better than not letting 100 employers see your resume/CV at all, because you've filtered them out based on a lack of listed salary and refuse to take even 5 seconds to drop an email with an attachment. The line "Expected salary: ___" is guaranteed to filter out anyone whose budget is less. On the other hand, you might filter out people whose budgets are more or people who consider this very rude, and forward.

hippich 12y ago

I spent quite a bunch of time on interviews with employers who promised to pay above market salary to end up with an offer 30% less than i am making. Put another way - salary is big item in job description for me - amount employer ready to pay too often correlates with problems/technologies/colleagues/innovations i am going to work with. So naturally first question I always ask recruiter - how much. And naturally most of them shy away from answering it straight. As a result I created job form[1] and, unless it is someone's recommendation, or i had previous relationships with recruiter, I send all of them to this form to fill it first. [1] https://e.l1t3.com/pavelkaroukin https://e.l1t3.com/pavelkaroukin

cozuya 12y ago
Do you get a lot of responses?
- hippich 12y ago
  zero :) granted, sent there typical spammy "job opportunity" recruiters and responded in usual way to someone who really spent some time on reading my resume :)

Dirlewanger 12y ago

And then there's the unspeakables that companies wouldn't tell someone like Jobbox: withholding salaries allows suppresses talk about it and makes it borderline-taboo to talk about in the workplace. This is the status quo for many American companies unfortunately. It's an unfortunate consequence of dealing with a highly individualistic society. You as a person are an asset and you always have to be selling yourself. Your previous salary is seen as leverage when it comes to finding a new job. Once you find one, you'll most likely find that salary discussion is a very sore thumb with everyone in the workplace. I see it as competitive collaboration that's gone cancerous.

serve_yay 12y ago
But I see almost nothing written in this whole thread from the perspective of the person who is making more than their coworkers (or believes that to be the case). I don't want to discuss salaries! In fact, one time earlier in my career I was in a group of coworkers who all went around and said their salaries, and mine was 2x all of them, so I kept quiet. My point is just that I don't think it only benefits the employers.
- ryandrake 12y ago
  Did you keep quiet because you believed you were being paid unfairly or because you believed THEY were being paid unfairly? If you thought they were underpaid, you were kind of doing them a disservice by keeping quiet. Knowledge of a pay disparity within a group of similar employees tends to help the negotiating power of those who are making less, but does not tend to hurt those who are making more.
  - serve_yay 12y ago
    I guess you won't be a fan of this, but I don't really care if I did them a disservice. I hate that engineers do themselves a disservice by not getting the money they can get. Though if it's any consolation, I have started talking to my current coworkers who I know are good and who are not happy with the pay they currently make. I encourage them to get what they can get - but I still don't tell them what I make. About being paid unfairly - I don't think I agree with this as a basic concept, at least in the context of software development. They were getting paid what they agreed to when they signed on the dotted line.

S_A_P 12y ago

So I am in the early stages of starting a consulting business. Currently this business is just me, myself and I, but at some point I want to bring in and mentor junior people. I've kicked around a few ideas around salary and one of them is to tell them what I want to pay them first thing, up front. Hey, this job pays X dollars. If we move past that, then I will work to see if there is a skill/personal fit. This is as yet unproven, but my thought is you can set expectations, get the haggling out of the way first and then try to end up on a positive note instead of trying to play nice and then play the salary game.

exelius 12y ago
It's a little easier to do this in professional services -- you know pretty much what you can bill that person out for, so you know what you can pay them. Employee pay has a pretty direct contribution to margins (and to revenue). This is not the case in most industries - adding an employee does not add a predictable amount of revenue in most cases.

shanemhansen 12y ago

I'm not too concerned with companies not listing salaries because I think a job posting isn't actually a posting for a job. It's really just a way to let me know that a company has certain needs. They may fill that position with a senior developer, or a junior developer. Quite often there is currently one person wearing many hats who needs to hand off responsibilities in one area. However I've found I get the best results by stating my salary requirements up front.

mallyvai 12y ago

This is exactly why we are launching the Offer Drive: http://offerletter.io/drive.html http://offerletter.io/drive.html . In short - submit your offer and equity information, get back access to a statistical pool showing where you stand. A few notes on this subject from my perspective as the founder of http://OfferLetter.io http://OfferLetter.io (we provide negotiation advice and career matchmaking to developers and other techies). Companies also oftentimes just don't know what someone is worth, and don't want to publicly publish numbers that are too high or low for fear miscalibrating expectations w.r.t. large swaths of potential candidates. 0) If a company tries to play the, "What do you make?" game, it's important to deflect, deflect, deflect and if they insist, simply state, "I expect a competitive offer to be on the order of $X" 1) Market rates are complicated. As I've written about before, the outcomes that people can see because of outsize startup exit scenarios means that their market rate can be very very high. Google doesn't publish this kind of info because they can and will match even crazy startup exit numbers, but don't broadcast this for fear of screwing up expectations. 2) At the end of the day it is contingent on the individual to define their own basis and see what places are willing to offer what compensation, and how much they are willing to budge. This is how markets work. 3) On a related note, oftentimes, companies will try and prohibit discussion of compensation by saying it's confidential, or a trade secret. Confidentiality and wage secrecy requirements in the workplace are illegal under California law. The exact statue is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=232 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... As we have seen repeatedly, these kinds of requirements tend to disproportionately harm people from many kinds of non-privileged backgrounds. And, under national labor legislation, companies cannot prohibit discussion within the workplace.

mallyvai 12y ago

This is exactly why we are launching the Offer Drive: http://offerletter.io/drive.html http://offerletter.io/drive.html . In short - submit your offer and equity information, get back access to a statistical pool showing where you stand. A few notes on this subject from my perspective as the founder of http://OfferLetter.io http://OfferLetter.io (we provide negotiation advice and career matchmaking to developers and other techies). Companies also oftentimes just don't know what someone is worth, and don't want to publicly publish numbers that are too high or low for fear miscalibrating expectations w.r.t. large swaths of potential candidates. 1) Market rates are complicated. As I've written about before, the outcomes that people can see because of outsize startup exit scenarios means that their market rate can be very very high. Google does't publish this kind of info because they can and will match even crazy startup exit numbers, but don't broadcast this for fear of screwing up expectations. 2) At the end of the day it is contingent on the individual to define their own basis and see what places are willing to offer what compensation, and how much they are willing to budge. This is how markets work. 3) On a related note, oftentimes, companies will try and prohibit discussion of compensation by saying it's confidential, or a trade secret. Confidentiality and wage secrecy requirements in the workplace are illegal under California law. The exact statue is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=232 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection... As we have seen repeatedly, these kinds of requirements tend to disproportionately harm people from many kinds of non-privileged backgrounds. And, under national labor legislation, companies cannot prohibit discussion within the workplace.

mau_rs 12y ago

Totally disagree with the final conclusion. In a market where people (specially technical people) are in need and advertising inviting people to living on to the edge, makes Jr. Developers, Jr. Designers, Jr. Business person, think that they are more Senior than Junior. So trust me, they will apply cause they have nothing to loose.

endergen 12y ago

I don't agree with the assertion that listing filters out candidates on the low end. I think many dillusuonal, overly ambitious, and financially desperate under qualified candidates apply hard for salaries way above their last/current salary.

ryandrake 12y ago
Correct. There is pretty much no incentive not to try to punch above your weight class. If it was common for employers to list salaries on their job boards, I'd spend an hour each day applying for every job that pays more than I make now. There's literally no down side.
- seestheday 12y ago
  Opportunity cost and the potential of leaving a good company for a potentially toxic work environment are two bad outcomes that I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to better your position, but saying that there isn't a possibility of a downside is not fair.

xivzgrev 12y ago

I think a big reason people get into poker is Expectation of negotiation. If employee talks first, the number can only go down. If the employer talks first, the number can only go up. It's unfortunately wide spread. I wish we lived in a world where people saw a fair offer and accepted it without automatically asking for more (employee) less (employer). If something's not fair then fine negotiate, but I think people negotiate even if an offer is fair to "win" or "its expected" or "everyone else would". So employers come in below budget and employees are hesitant to give salary numbers. Heres a good post on it: http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/183/does-the-first-person-to-mention-a-number-in-a-salary-negotiation-lose http://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/183/does-the-fi...

Silhouette 12y ago
The solution in that case is simple: as an employee, you come in with what you regard as a fair level, and then you don't negotiate and just state that you think it's a fair offer and they can take it or leave it. This does away with all the upside where you could have achieved something higher, but the only other downside is if you run into an employer whose policy requires their staff to get an initial number from a candidate and then agree on a reduced level, and you know what to tell them when you discover that is the kind of employer they are.
solarmist 12y ago
Vinnyroe's anecdote at the end of his answer is EXACTLY why people negotiate what's a fair offer is almost completely (within 10's of thousands of dollars) SUBJECTIVE. I've had places where if I had mentioned a number first I'd have lost more than $10k off my salary. Honestly many times I do accept the salary offered because it was above the range I was expecting (although nowadays I'm better calibrated to my area... Well, I hope so). If there was an objective way to determine then people and companies would be much happier not negotiating for the most part.

shanemhansen 12y ago

Here's a little bit of a horror story of what happens when the reverse question (engineer's current salary) is asked and answered honestly. Disclosure of current salary ultimately hurts both parties. I was once offered a position by a certain well known Las Vegas based ecommerce company while I was living in Salt Lake and working in Park City. They asked my current salary and I told them (like a chump). When my offer finally came through it was for less than my current salary (ouch). I assumed this was a really weird way of telling me "no", so I declined the offer. I immediately got a call from their HR wondering what the problem was. When I informed them that I wasn't going to move to Las Vegas and take a pay cut they dug in their heels and argued that their offer was really more than I was currently making since Las Vegas is so much cheaper than Park City (as I mentioned above, I never actually lived in Park City but that didn't seem to dissuade them). If I had responded to the "how much do you make?" question by telling them how much they needed to pay me then instead of wasting everyone's time they could have terminated the interview process or even better, made their offer without being confused by irrelevant salary data. At my most current job I told the recruiter right up front what my requirements were and told her I didn't want to fly out for an in-person interview unless we agreed on ballpark numbers. She came back with an acceptable number (which I accepted when I later saw it on the offer letter) and nobody's time was wasted. I also won't be job hopping for a tiny pay bump any time soon. Win/win.

mallyvai 12y ago
This is exactly the right answer - if multiple rounds of deflection fail to work then you should state, "I expect a competitive offer to be $X".

Vinod_Chandra 12y ago

In India, We have launched a site to promote salary transparency! KitnaDetiHai.in (coincidentally means the same as show me the money in Hindi) The site has gone viral in top bschools in India. The idea was born out of the thought, just for a simple mobile purchase or for a meal, we compare prices and reviews to get the best deal. Whereas for one year of blood and sweat, when HR says this is the best in the industry they are no accurate sites to refer to ask for a fairer deal. How do I trust the HR words, when one of her prime KPI is also how much money she could save for the company while rolling an offer out. I would be happy to hear feedback from you folks! p.s. In Glassdoor I can post as CEO of Apple, there is no authentication and why the data is so inaccurate, whereas in KitnaDetiHai after initial search its a compulsory LinkedIn Login to search more and even after that Machine Learning Algorithm's are used to identify outliers. If found so the user's access is removed and he cannot be a part of community at all. Another Incentive here for users to enter right salaries is, we will suggest jobs which 1. Match hiked up no's from current salary. 2. Also fairly matching skills of the job against skills listed/endorsed on LinkedIn.

brendangregg 12y ago

I'm sure these reasons happen, however, the most common reason recruiters don't talk salary to me seems to be that they know it is below market, and want time to sell all the other benefits. I treat it as a warning sign of a very low salary. It also often wastes everyone's time. After going through multiple rounds of communication, the salary is finally revealed: often way too low, even after hearing about the benefits. Other recruiters will talk salary early, and those jobs are usually the ones that pay well. I don't waste time (mine and theirs) talking to recruiters who don't share salary information (expectations or ranges). There's a major tech company that needed my expertise (systems performance), for whom I never got past the recruiters because they wouldn't talk salary. (After several months, I don't think they ever filled that role.) This all doesn't matter much to me now, as I'm at Netflix and very happy. Netflix does talk salary expectations.

dennisgorelik 12y ago

---- http://jobbox.io/ http://jobbox.io/ This webpage is not available ---- You should redirect users to https://www.jobbox.io/ https://www.jobbox.io/

mwanamayi 12y ago

Like the point of view. I find that many companies really neglect corporate culture and feeling of belonging when it's decisive for productivity. The salary example shows this well as instead of cooperating, it's already about "confrontation, strategy and often times disappointment at a very early stage with your employer. Probably why I've always had it hard with Corporate culture. Work has to be passionating, whatever the reason.