High Salaries Haunt Some Job Hunters
wsj.com
wsj.com
I never answer that question.
Almost always it's been recruiters asking that (and only some recruiters, the less reputable ones).
This is a seller's market for IT talent. You don't have to give in to bullying tactics to get a good job. I've had to walk away exactly once when a recruiter wouldn't accept that I wasn't going to tell him my previous salary and refused to work with me on that basis. The other recruiters who've asked accepted my refusal to reveal that information. They're generally more interested in getting paid for recruiting you than in finding out what you used to be paid.
I also never reveal the salary I'm looking for and insist on doing my own salary negotiations with the employer. I let the employer make an offer they think is reasonable and go from there.
You do have to be willing to walk away in the handful of times when this leads to an impasse. Fortunately, the way the IT job market is right now, there are plenty of other fish in the pond, and not showing your hand prematurely puts you in a much stronger negotiating position.
I've been contacted by many many recruiters offering interesting jobs but won't discuss the salary range targeted for that position. So how much time are you willing to spend on resume polishing, phone screens, on-site interviews, getting to an offer...just to find out that they can't even come close to your current salary?
So now I just flat out say what my jump-number is. Any answer other than "yeah, we can work with that" is a reason to end the conversation and save everybody's time.
Last time I worked at a BigTechCo, salary ranges were $85-100K for juniors, 120-130 mid-level, and 150-165 for senior devs. Bonuses tend to hover around 30%. Of course, stock grants varied widely.
The largest IC pay I saw was $2M/year for a someone who years ago was part of a famous project -- semi-known guy. More recently, I've seen (indirectly) BigTechCo's offering $300-350/year total comp to mid-levels, and 5-600K to seniors.
Anyone else wanna share?
The $600K+ figure is for director level and above.
The $2M/year individual contributor was an outlier.
And of course 150 sal != 300 sal. 300+ is total comp, as I already said.
They get less accurate the higher up you go (where you also have less data points), I think mainly it's a combination of sparse data + older data points being way out of whack with recent increases due to the competitive market.
I've personally seen numbers at several places that some people on HN vehemently tell me I shouldn't believe... and sometimes, even Glassdoor seems to give numbers that a lot of commenters here don't always seem to believe (like that $268k number).
I know personally I was more loose about talking money when I was being paid a lot less than I am now.
The big players like AmaGooFaceSoft are routinely paying $300-400k for mid-level talent (5-10 yrs exp), and more for more senior.
In any case, these numbers ought to be known - much of startup-dom hinges on engineers not knowing what the big players are actually paying. If you can successfully convince someone that Facebook doesn't pay more than $200k, a startup salary suddenly seems more attractive. As someone who spent a lot of time in startups personally, I know my jaw hit the floor when I first found out about how high comp can get in BigTechCo.
And then I jumped ship.
Also worth noting: BigTechCo itself hinges on engineers not knowing what they pay ranges are. They absorb tons of talent coming out of startups and academia who were being paid a pittance, and even if they're willing to pay top dollar for this talent, they surely won't volunteer. All the more reason to not answer the "how much are you making right now" question, ever! Revealing your (comparatively low) startup/academia salary is a good way to make sure the "$300-400k" range immediately gets pulled off the table.
Looking back, I still made some mistakes, because my comp shot up by over 10% in a mid-year adjustment after they found out how well I was performing as the job itself was a really good fit for both of us.
Anyhow, that's some incredibly valuable advice and I'm glad for threads like these cluing me in on how the game works.
Source - I'm a mid-level engineer at Google and my total comp is within the stated range.
Yes please do (everyone). The reason is to drive wages up. Hiding this knowledge doesn't protect YOU, it raises the bar for your next job. They're going to outsource and insource you anyway so that's nothing to fear.
Looking for an entry level Django gig and have always wondered what it should be (of course market matters). Generally stated, finding -any- developer under 85K is a bargain IMO and you pretty much confirmed that. I know many make less than 85 (like me), but I've had it with being taken advantage of as well. Only have so many healthy years to provide, next job is going to be the right deal to take care of my family.
Interesting point and totally valid. I agree with your sentiment, though sitting back, it reads idealistic to me. Easier stated than done. But I did exactly that last year. My manager and his, our director responded well to it. I was prepared to walk if they feigned offense/anger (had that happen once years ago at another place). I got a decent raise, 10%. I don't expect any existing job to go much further than that TBH. Usually asking for 10% or more will earn you a good laugh.. your initial salary usually sets the pace till you leave.
I felt that was them being generous as a very large corporation such as mine goes. It was out of bounds, did not affect this year's standard raise and so forth. I've made them a lot of money, hundreds of thousands a year in direct billables for 5 years now, I think I peaked there in 2013 at $400,000 for the company. At my rate, $220 that's almost billing all day everyday for the year. Of course, I have a support system but you still have to bill the time and do the work. Plus the intangible benefits of my employment there and have been getting "exceeds expectations" for the last couple of years. I don't think there's a time that I didn't come through, and I never say/said "I don't know" to things (which drives me nuts to hear from people as I'm a stubborn researcher). I mentioned all of this, had hard numbers ready and so forth when asking for the raise.
I didn't hesitate to ask for it when the time was right. 4 years of pretty clutch contributions (if I must say so myself) and a large, critical project coming up that only I could accomplish for them (they foolishly let everyone else go with knowledge of the product). But you can't keep going back time and time again asking for bigger raises, and that 10% was determined by HR doing their market research. I didn't get to give any input. To put me where I should be would've been a 20K raise. I knew that was a pretty tough task though- that's a switching jobs raise.
So at this point, I pretty much have to drop the salary point and continue working. I don't think it's right to keep asking for more without a role change, promotion or significant time passing, it kind of shows they never should've played ball the first time IMO. If I want a big raise again, I'll just have to move on one day. I wouldn't mind switching stacks anyway to something Python. I'm also able to work from home, so I'm looking for the best place to put down some roots and start looking for that role. Austin, Vancouver, WA (Portland) or Chicago. So that freedom has a lot of value.
I'm only hesitant to do that because most of my career has been abusive, long unpaid overtime and I've been fairly easy to exploit because I was your typical virtuous midwesterner who has been turned fairly cynical when I found said values like "work hard, get the money" weren't really true. I have a strong sense of justice, so when I feel wronged I get fired up.
My belief was that if I came through on every job and project, I'd be recognized and taken care of. It's not true, you're just the dummy who works his ass off sacrificing your health in the process. When you're burned, they dump you for a new model. No one cares about you. You just need to shut the laptop down at 5:30PM and walk out the door. Damn what everyone else does or thinks, as unpaid overtime is the root of all evil.
The last couple of years it's been the first time I've received humane treatment and spooked to start over somewhere else. :)
Like I said, it's a very large corporation and I highly dislike the lack of passionate employees for the tech. It's a technical graveyard. But there's not much drama and nonsense going on, which I appreciate. So many offices are full of clowns and egos and I'm glad to be out of that. Not to mention, after 5 years everyone knows me, and I know I'm not perfect either.
It's a balance, money isn't everything but getting as much as possible without being made miserable is the goal. I almost got so burned up that I didn't want anything to do with tech-anything, and I'm really glad I didn't quite reach that threshold.
Some point I'll seek out that new role for the bigger raise, and get out of the tech graveyard. I'm bored, capable of more and I need to do it for my wife and kids we're aiming to have.
The last couple of years it's been the first time I've
received humane treatment and spooked to start over
somewhere else.
I think the trap I fall into is telling myself that the long hours are for my own good. "Well, at least this 58302-hour week is helping me to really polish my skills in this stack." Which is actually fucking true to an extent, which is why it's a seductive trap. I mean, there really is no substitute for putting in the hours if you're looking to hone a craft. And honing that craft is a big part of what will allow one to earn for one's family 5, 10, 20 years down the line.
But people say, "so look for a new job if this one's unhealthy!" like it's as easy as changing a pair of socks.
Changing jobs is challenging and disruptive and it's very difficult to ensure you'll wind up at a company with a healthier culture, particularly if you're already working at a company with a culture that's already above average for your field. And especially if the workaholism problem largely comes from inside yourself, like it does for me. Changing companies won't fix that.
It's even more complicated when explaining myself to family because of the bizarre image that people have of the tech industry! People see Google's "adult playground for engineers" workplace image in stories on 60 minutes and think the life of a programmer is just playing around all day long. It's not even that way at Google, much less your average tech company.
These daus I don't even want it to pay off financially, I just want to make something to be proud over and stability. I remember seeing an article on how Marissa Mayer was displeased with being demoted to Maps. I thought how amazing one has to be, to be demoted to Maps.
Can't upvote that enough! I've been doing this for years. I don't have time to waste and if they won't talk the numbers there is no point in having the conversation. Statements like "we are competitive" or my other favorite "can you send us proof of your current salary" are hilarious. The proof is my favorite. What is the point of that? If I won't talk to you for less than x dollars there is no value in proving what I currently make.
Taking on a fuck you pay me attitude is the best thing that ever happened to my life.
I took a decent cut in pay just to be able to work for a company I actually really like. And while I can't afford to buy a new computer nearly as often I do get to work with really fun people and on projects that I really care about.
If a company is willing to pay $100K and you throw out a number, say $80K for example, then how much are you out?
If your first thought is $20K, then you'd probably be wrong. You would be correct if you stayed only one year with the company. However, every year you're with the company you're out another $20K not to mention any salary bumps or profit share that is a percentage of your salary, etc... After 5 years, you're out $100K.
You never give out your number.
When you are asked, "what's it going to take", you should always answer with something like: you're most competitive offer. I don't feel this is rude at all.
I usually recap how key points from the interview. Come back with how you believe you would add value to X and would love to work on Y and that your best competitive offer would get the ball rolling.
Your job is to find out the maximum a prospective employer is willing to pay. Likewise, a prospective employer is attempting to get the best bang for their buck.
Never show your hand. I've interviewed probably 15-20 times in my career and have never strayed from this course. Now I'm a business owner. I've interviewed 100s of people over the years and it never ceases to amaze me how many candidates flat out give me a number when I ask.
Head hunters are pain in the ass to deal with. They insist on knowing where you're at because they don't want you wasting their time. Well, tough shit! Head hunters need to figure out what the going rates are for whatever it is they are seeking candidates for. A good head hunter will let you negotiate for yourself.
If you expect $X and only 5% of employers out there are willing to pay >=$X, it might very well be worth your time to state $X at the start to avoiding wasting countless hours in an interviewing process.
Recruiters already have a massive advantage: they have much better knowledge of the market (many more datapoints), why give them for free an additional advantage they can only use against you?
That space is full of very shady people, and that's before we get into immigration issues and foreigners. If you don't have the billing rate, and can confirm with the company that yes, that's the billing rate they are paying, beware.
The thing I've never understood about this approach is the reason it's suggested not to give your number first is, presumably, it can anchor your salary negotiations lower than what the company was originally prepared to offer.
I've switched jobs a few times for no other reason than to get a huge salary jump, and I've always given my salary requirements to a recruiter or during the interview process based on the high, high end of industry salary surveys in my field based on my years of experience. Sometimes the conversation will stop then and there, but a few times they've bitten and I've gotten the huge raise. Not to be smug or anything, but I'm fairly sure I'm making quite a bit more than most of the co-workers I've had in similar roles, even if they have more experience than me.
From my perspective, I'm anchoring the salary negotiations on the high end, as opposed to letting the recruiter spit out a number first and anchor the negotiation on the low end. What would I gain from letting them make an offer first?
Most people can look at payscale or glassdoor though. If I'm putting out a Junior req for a front end position for a CRUD product, then I know pretty well what I'm looking for, and the salary range is pretty set. When someone comes in the game they're playing is "let me convince you why I'm worth the upper end of the range (or even a bit more)", and my game is "let me get you down to the lower end of the range by convincing you how awesome we are, etc." The underlying assumption is that our mental ranges overlap somewhat. If someone comes in and their range doesn't overlap with mine, even if they are supremely talented and worth it, it still won't work out, because I'm not looking for a Senior person, remember? People, most often, hire for best fit not let's get the best person possible. If someone comes in and their expectations are grossly out of sync with my own, it's better to just have it out. If I'm out of sync with reality then the market will correct me or I'll perish, either way it's no skin off the back of the candidates who said, "way too low, see ya later!"
"If someone comes in and their range doesn't overlap with mine"
Right there is where I think both sides need to do their homework. I have interviewed many candidates over the years that had no clue what the going rate was for a given market and given area.
Example: Oracle DBAs in New York and SanFran command more than the same Oracle DBA working in Detroit at one of the big 3 automotive companies. If you don't understand these dynamics, you're pretty much at a disadvantage and that goes for both sides.
As a headhunter, I wholeheartedly agree that you should never give out a number in negotiations. By doing so, you either sell yourself short or price yourself out. These days, especially, technical talent has the leverage and should use it to their advantage. When the market cycle shifts and employers have more strong applicants than necessary, it will be different. That's why, like you said, the $20K difference today will pay huge dividends over the long-term.
I disagree on "going rates." That lumps candidates into an average, which is unfair to them. Salary negotiations are complex and presumptions on the part of a headhunter will backfire.
Above all, I want transparency upfront. My ideal situation is when I know that the candidate's and employer's approximate compensation ranges are aligned. Granted, it's rare, but there's nothing worse than a positive interview process followed by the surprise reveal that both parties were way off in their expectations. The time wasted for the headhunter is negligible compared to that of both the employer and candidate. This is why I want to know the rough ranges at the onset. However, I agree that headhunters are trained to place undue pressure on candidates for specific numbers and it's a poor practice.
I wouldn't necessarily walk away from a candidate who wouldn't share approximate salary requirements early on in the process but it would probably be an added red flag if it was someone where I already had this concern.
Personally, for me there are no salary-based dealbreakers. There's always room for negotiation, after both sides determine there's a good fit.
They also dislike candidates that show proficiency in business for a few reasons.
First, the candidate is more likely to move on for a better opportunity.
Second, people with a business background like to 'shake things up' and head in new directions looking to maximize the potential of a company. Considering that HR's other primary responsibility is protecting the business from legal action, it's in their best interest to choose candidates who will stay on the straight and narrow and not shake things up.
Third, business types ignore the 'gatekeepers' and take action on their own. They may make a groundbreaking decision that takes the business in a new and more profitable direction. Unfortunately for HR, it's hard to ride on the back of an accomplishment that they weren't aware of to begin with. Worse yet, that same type of personality may have the potential to climb up the chain to a level where they're the boss of the HR person one day.
They aggressively select for 'code monkeys' because code monkeys do what their told, don't have enough soft skills to be a threat, suck at negotiation, and are too busy nerding out to look for something better.
Debating whether a disconnect on $$ is a "fit" issue seems kind of silly. If it's not a job they would take because of pay, it's not a good fit for them.
I've been on the hiring side as a manager in a number of companies, and I've NEVER seen a situation where a candidate was so uniquely awesome that the company was willing to make an offer drastically larger than their normal range for that role. A bit more? Sure. Some more stock or something? Often. But not, say, 50% more salary than anyone else at that level is getting.
After many years in this industry on both the candidate and hiring manager side, I believe that it's in everyone's best interest to make sure you can at least get in the right ballpark early in the process before you waste everyone time.
Fyi, at $DayJob we have one guy at my level who makes 50% more than anyone else at the level he is at.
So it does happen but its unusual. [e.g. Developer A-Z get $60-80k, Developer Unicorn gets $120k]
We pretty much have Developer -> Senior Developer -> CTO.
Don't underestimate this. Being a better code doesn't make you a better employee.
There are allot of ways that a company can monetize their employees and allot of factors that end up being calculated to come up with the figure they end up paying for them, being socially well adjusted and attractive can have a good effect on your salary as people both tend to equate intelligence to good looks oddly enough and that they could use you for other things as well.
In some cases it also might be ticking a box kind of thing I've seen companies recruit attractive females before to both tick the diversity box and to keep some of the more social awkward coders working harder (this came directly from the mouth of a female headhunter that even boasted she specializes in hiring office eye candy that can do some coding on the side).
Many people at the end tend to do other things than the basis they were hired on, how many times have you seen some "X guru" or "Y expert" and "Z evangelist" being hired at a premium only to end up doing the same crap as everyone else once that specific project fell through?
Salaries can be quite "arbitrary" mostly because that while there is some fine tuned formula behind it on many occasions it doesn't really survives it's with meeting reality, the more traditional "old school" enterprises are probably the best at actually maintaining some logical relationship between experience, responsibilities and salary while the newer tech companies tend to be more erratic and considerably dislike rocking the boat even in cases when an employee does no longer deserve their initial starting salary.
Why? The underperformer w/high-salary was brought in by some idiot manager x years ago - that manager has since lost their job - but this ok performer still pretty good and still in their job.
Have had rock stars contact the company - willing to work for 50% under market and we'd be crazy not to put them on. Without even having an open position at the time.
It is ALL negotiation. Don't assume there is solid logic and "fair" salaries.
I think something often unsaid in conversations about stuff like this is that ageism is rampant in the tech sector. I haven't experienced it first-hand (and I'm probably just now approaching the age where it might be a factor, and I haven't looked for a full-time job in a couple of decades), but I know several folks who have. Even when they've been willing to take lower salaries, when applying for startups, in particular, older folks often get passed over. It gets called things like "cultural fit", etc.
But, the thing is, we're talking about a "low six-figure salary" here, which is not that high for engineering work. In fact, in many markets, it's the baseline for anyone with more than a couple of years experience. I can't believe salary is the primary motivating factor, if it is a reasonable salary, well within the bounds of expected pay for people with experience.
I haven't been in the job market since I was quite young (I've run my own companies since my 20s, with some contract work along the way to make ends meet), but, I know my dad experienced this to some degree; and he was an engineer in an industry that was not nearly as ageist as high tech fields often are (he worked in the oil and gas industry). His salary climbed through his 30s and 40s, and then finding work became more difficult in his 50s, and he retired early partly due to health issues, but also because of difficulty finding good long-term work.
I don't think salary is the only factor here, especially given that most of the folks I know who've experienced this aren't insisting on making more than their peers doing the same work. The people motivated by money tend to rise up to management roles. The engineers who are driven by the desire to build things just want to make a decent salary while being in an environment where they get to build things. The most productive software engineer I think I've ever worked with was in his late 50s, and was making less than a number of developers in the company (but he had a private office and a few other perks that no one else got, and got to work on stuff that excited him, so he seemed reasonably content).
All that said, a candidate that knows their market value should never have to fear talking about salary history or expectations. If you know your market rate, and you stick to that as your expectation, you never have to worry about being underpaid. Market rate can be hard to define sometimes, and there are clearly companies that are willing to pay above market rate in certain scenarios, but candidates who do their research (or trust the knowledge of others) never have to worry about talking compensation.
The main article starts with an anecdote about how talking about salary history prevents a guy from getting work.
I see this all the time in applicants. They've spent 15-20 years on the job and have less than 5 years of useful experience. The rest is stagnation where they haven't grown their skills. And yet they expect to be paid as if they've got 15-20 years of useful experience. That's why answering the salary question derails the negotiation. There may be an odd recruiter that is willing to accept the premise that an older worker is able to complete the job's tasks at enough above the acceptable level to justify the increase in cost. But most will opt for a younger worker willing to do an acceptable job.
It also doesn't stop me from negotiating hard, since I have turned down drastically higher numbers than most companies are willing to pay, so they know I easily have options. I'm more than willing to walk away from recruiters (and employers) who want to coerce me into accepting bad deals. Setting number expectations upfront with knowledge of the market saves me time, and tends to be enough to weed out the crap.
I kept telling him how odd it was to be negotiating salary upfront, and he told me "that's just how recruiting works." I just shrugged and let him do his job. If I'd wanted to negotiate my salary myself, I wouldn't be using a recruiter. Truth be told, I'd take $95K.
I learned from the art world, a lot of times "market value" is a fiction created by people whose job it is to manage expectations on all sides. It's in everybody's best interest to simply accept the status quo. Sure, you can buck the system and gain an additional $10-20K, but that takes a lot of effort and I'd rather put that effort elsewhere.
People buy into the cult of individualism too much. There was an article a month or so back about the maple syrup cartel. People here were applauding the renegades bucking the cartel. Not me. I'd get on very good terms with my cartel rep, get him a very good gift basket for Christmas, jump through every hoop they want me to jump through. The cartel takes a nasty, volatile market and smooths it out and makes it into a nice, reliable engine. That's what I want to be a part of. Not a damn free-for-all.
Any other career field, it would be 10+ years before I can make $100K. Here I managed to do it in 3 years. Be a team player. Climb the ladder, pay your dues. It doesn't take as long as you think.
For me, recruiters are useful for two reasons: to find me interesting opportunities and to help me get an interview.
When they've served those two functions, I'd prefer them to just get out of my way. From that point on, I feel my own interests are best served by me representing myself.
The recruiter's real customer is not really any one particular candidate, who they might see just once in their whole career, but the employer, who will likely be a repeat customer if the recruiter satisfies their needs. Looked upon from that perspective, it's not always in the recruiter's interest to land the candidate the highest salary possible. That might get the recruiter a higher cut that one time, but their real customer might not be too pleased if the recruiter keeps sending them expensive candidates. They'd be far happier if the recruiter managed to get them a sweet deal on a good worker.
So I'll just keep doing my own negotiations, thank you very much.
And I'm cool with that. Recruiters do an important job for me at the point in my career that I'm at. Cut through the bullshit. I don't want to deal with a wishy-washy employer. I don't want it to be my whiny voice they hear asking them for more money.
I want a buffer. Because if there's one thing I know about corporations it's that there's a lot of stupid thinking going around when it comes to hiring. Employers think they want things when the things they want, once they had, they'll realize they didn't really want that, and you're the one that has to pay the price for that. Using a recruiter means you're serious about hiring.
I want to stay in my own little world and just code. Job hunting is stressful. I'm happy to let the recruiter do the stressful parts for me. Far as I'm concerned it's a fair trade.
This attitude is why engineers get bullied and steamrolled into working for a small fraction of the value they create for their employers, leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table over the course of their careers. Being a team player is for after you're on the team -- but before that happens it's not personal, it's business. Anyone who takes it personally and not as a purely business negotiation is not someone you should work for.
Until then, why not just work for market rate or just slightly below? Don't stress yourself out, there's no reason to and it'll hurt your bargaining position. 90% of it is done before you even get to the table anyway.
Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody's has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class scientist.
From http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
There's a couple more quotes like that. Very similar to your point.
Sure, you can buck the system and gain an
additional $10-20K, but that takes a lot of
effort and I'd rather put that effort
elsewhere.
I, jack up the rate Im currently making, which has worked once; got a better paying gig.
If recruiters are chasing me while I'm looking for my next gig...
I make up a fair livable wage salary that won't push me out of consideration
I've known folks who "grew up" in a single company; joined out of college, worked there 15+ years, got annual raises, then got laid off and then couldn't find work at their previous salary. And the expectation of an annual raise kept forcing up their salary but I don't think the company was actually evaluating whether or not the person was getting more valuable over time.
I once had an interesting conversation with a recruiter who wanted me to pony up my current compensation. I asked, "Why is that relevant? You are the one with the job, and you are willing to pay some amount for someone to do that job, isn't it up to me to decide if I would be willing to do that job at the price offered?" There are jobs I would do for free, and jobs that you almost couldn't pay me enough to take, and that has nothing at all to do with what I'm currently being paid.
And if someone insists, I really do think they are looking to have something on paper that they can point to which will give them a safe "out" for hiring someone else while minimizing lawsuits. So much safer than "we are looking for someone who has more time to spend in this position", or "we were really hoping for a masculine point of view", or "we don't think you could relate culturally to our customers." All of which would violate the equal opportunity guidelines.
Your experience in exactly what your current company does, the way it does it, the relationships you have within the organisation etc may mean that part of your worth within the organisation is related to how long you've been there.
However, I have also observed that this value is also quite hard to quantify. I have seen the key individual to a particular process get transferred or leave after a management change resulted in their "food chain" not understanding this value. Only later when they ask "Why can't we ship X any more?" do they find out that person they felt was over paid and under utilized was in fact quite essential. Sadly, management that clueless is prone to yelling at everyone else rather than do a little introspection.
A job situation is no different. If it's a role requiring only "commodity" experience which dozens of qualified candidates are available for and wanting, they're going to pick the best combination of price and performance that they can find. If you have special talents that only you are uniquely suited for, you're the one who will be asking them about their offer.
Patrick MacKenzie's article on salary negotiations is excellent (I would maybe even say "required") reading on the subject.
> [Editor’s note: At nearly 7,000 words, you probably don’t want to try reading this on an iDevice. Bookmark it and come back later.]
My iDevice is a 13" 5.6K screen that I hold in my hands like a magazine. Surely better suited to long form reading than a lower res rMBP I generally read at a desk or table.
iPad had Retina display since iPad 3rd Gen released in 2012 when this was written.
I think the quoted moral still applies - you obviously have to disclose what you want to earn if you expect to actually earn that. However, what I made at my last job had zero bearing on my expected salary at my current job. If a recruiter is just trying to find out what I want, they can ask. However, I think more often than not they're getting paid on the spread and if they can place me in a job with a cap of $180 for $150, they'll do so and pocket whatever their percentage of the spread is.[0]
[0] I know this isn't how all recruiters are paid, but many are.
I realize those places were likely toxic, but it can be never-wracking to someone who needs a job.
If I heard that and felt I was going to walk away anyway, I'd be tempted to throw back "How much do you make?" And watch to see if they squirm to not share.
If they came back with "what I make has nothing to do with this position you're being interviewed for" come back with "then neither does my previous salaries, if they do then I need to know how much other folks in other positions in this company make so I can gauge whether I think this company will still be here in the future."
Your goal should be to get several competitive offers rather than simply taking the first thing that somewhat fits. As such you should expect to walk away from several companies.
In any major city you should easily be able to burn bridges it's simply not a big deal.
This. If you're asked early on just flip the question back to them.
Companies don't publish salaries for jobs because they're afraid of turning people off from applying to the job in the first place. They know applicants are more likely to take a lower offer after they've invested time into the process and maybe have a little rapport with the interviewers. You can use the exact same strategy as a job seeker. Companies can be more likely to accept a higher ask after they've put resources into interviewing you and gotten to know you a bit.
That said, an honest chat about expectations early on - where the hirer says roughly how much they're looking to pay and asks if it's something you'd be interested in - can be a really nice way to save everyone's time.
As for big companies, I've never had any of them even notice that I didn't fill in that field. So that's never been an issue.
Where is it that late-career engineers are barely pulling in six figures? Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of money (3x mean personal income in the US, and ~1.75x mean HHI, give or take), but I'd expect most senior folks in any engineering field to be in the mid 100k range if not pushing 185ish.
> Time and again, he says, employers seem to lose interest after he answers a question that they ask early on: “What was your last salary?”
Your last salary has absolutely no bearing on what you are worth or what the market rate is for the position for which you're applying. You have absolutely nothing to gain by sharing a previous salary.
> A survey by AARP last year found that of job seekers between 45 and 70 years old who found work after a spell of unemployment, nearly half earned less than before.
I don't think this is that surprising, is it? If I make $100k and lose my job, often with little notice, I will take $80k. If I make $100k and leave of my own volition, it's unlikely I'll entertain anything below $110 or $115.
Almost everywhere in the Midwest, except Chicago perhaps.
Unless your remote working, low cost of living doesn't come without a big catch.
It boils down to simple economic rules. If you're good at developing software, there aren't a lot of people like you looking for a job and the market has a high demand for your skill then you are probably doing something wrong if you're not earning well into the 100's or higher (if that is what you're trying to optimize for).
I've been doing embedded/firmware engineering in this area my entire career and, right now, 100K is typical for a senior position with very few positions available over 125K. The only way to go higher is to consult.
Perhaps it's the glut of ex-Moto/ATT/Lucent/Tellabs people floating around. I dunno.
I knew a guy who was about 50, brilliant, brilliant engineer working for one of the big IT players. Well respected and trusted advisor to many customers. He got vaporized in some big restructuring that hit his division.
Because of non-compete and what he did, he was basically out of work for almost a year, and was stuck in career purgatory for a few years doing random contract work.
However, in any case, the reality is that for small companies, for all but the most senior and/or desired employees (and even then), a potential non-compete issue just isn't worth dealing with. Doesn't matter whether it would ultimately lose in court, you're just not prepared to go there. That's the real issue with non-competes.
I've worked for a small firm and a candidate with even the most peripheral non-compete was just a non-starter.
Anyone older cut their teeth on assembly or C, NetBIOS, and CLI and may or may not have stayed current afterwards. Consider that the industry was a lot "older" (just look at old pictures) until those technological shifts happened and shook out all the people that learned in the 60s or 70s.
If something like quantum computing or a parallel functional computing revolution or VR/augmented interfaces or anything else grossly disruptive to current development practices comes around, we're all going to be in the same boat: learn or die. Getting through that is not so much a factor of age as the circumstances around age and one's willingness to keep at it.
Is there something wrong with these in that they are not useful anymore? I see a lot of jobs that require these, and I think they're still very relevant. Actually, I'm relatively young and love that stuff and work with that stuff... I'd love to work with someone who's been working with those for decades, experience really does show.
IBM was particularly brutal about this stuff when they were eliminating people still on the pension plan.
It's one thing to be at the low end of the totem pole, where anonymity and insecurity force you to hedge against the possibility of suddenly losing your job. But once you clear all that and find a bit of professional success, you're still not necessarily secure.
So you have to extend this hedging behavior further out. Keep building your skills, expand into other fields so that you are more employable. Complacency will put you into this position eventually, it's just a matter of time.
Don't leave a secure position to take one with more earning potential but less security. Constantly keep building bridges at your current job and don't give them a reason to fire you.
Above all, try not to hate your job. You may find 5 years down the road that it was the best thing you had going for you. As nasty as the work world can get, it's better than not working.
Pull your weight and support the people around you but don't grovel to your company! You're a free-thinking human being with value creating skills!
Masking how you feel and trying to work the system will only lead to regret. Find out who you are and what your principles are and stand by them, only then will you be able to live with yourself when you get old.
Also work can happen outside of the bounds of a company. Your post makes you sound really burned out, I hope you're doing ok = )
If you do that then you have two things in your favor already..
1. you are cheaper to hire because there are no recruitment feeds associated with you.
2. you showed some initiative to zero them out, and you demonstrated that you have creative writing skills which are an important trait in software development
As the realtors I worked with used to say about houses, "there's no problem that price won't fix", and that works for labor as well as real estate.
If you're having trouble hiring, it's probably because you're not paying enough. It turns out that talented people are worth paying a lot for.
Sometimes companies will pay for experience but often they'll hire someone younger who screws up more because they cost less.
Now I'm continueing the search, but openly talk about what I'm looking for salary wise, I've wasted quiet a lot of my own time this past month.
It does need to be mutual though. I expect employers to include some salary guidance in a job ad. And if they claim to offer market rates, I expect them to live up to that.
No it doesn't. The hiring company needs to be upfront, but the candidate doesn't. The company has a budget range set for the position whereas the candidate is asking the question 'Am I willing to do this job for the money they are offering me.'
The problem would occur when someone had lots of years working but their skill level is below par. Basically people who have done a narrow set of skills over the years and haven't broadened their knowledge. If we give them a low salary, it would be insulting and if it is too high for their skill then it would be unfair to some of the current employees (salary inversion.)
In the UK a ballpark pay figure is normally expected information
The number I told him I was being paid at the time was actually the number it would take for me to leave my job. He came back with an offer that was slightly higher than that and I accepted.
Perhaps that's not the best idea?
It looks like Google stopped punishing journalist sites that do this, or the sites don't care anymore.
After more than 20 years as an electronics engineer, Pete Edwards reached the low six-figure pay level. Now, as he looks for a job following a layoff, he finds that salary success a burden.
Although his experience includes the sought-after field of 3-D printing, the 53-year-old hasn’t been able to land a permanent full-time job. Time and again, he says, employers seem to lose interest after he answers a question that they ask early on: “What was your last salary?”
That question comes up sooner than ever nowadays. Hiring managers used to broach salary history or requirements only in later stages, after applicants had a chance to make an impression and state their case.
Today, pay increasingly is mentioned early in the process, either as a required field in online applications—which are used more often—or during initial interviews, say recruiters, compensation consultants and job seekers.
The shift is vexing applicants, mostly those of a certain age and pay level, who are concerned that a salary they worked to attain now gets in the way of having a job at all. “I’m unemployable now as a result of getting to the top of the tree,” Mr. Edwards lamented.
ENLARGE Josh Rock, a recruiter at Fairview Health Services, a 20,000-employee health system in Minnesota, said that during the last recession, recruiters used compensation queries as a quick way to cull the large numbers of candidates for open jobs. The habit has stuck, he said. “Why not figure out what’s going on sooner in the process than doing a dance?”
Human-resources executives say asking about pay right off the bat helps contain compensation costs, ensures that candidates have reasonable expectations and spares recruiters from chasing prospects they can’t afford.
“Unfortunately, some clients use salary as a pre-screening question,” said Susan Vitale, chief marketing officer at iCIMS Inc., a provider of recruiting software in Matawan, N.J. “So if the role tops out at $55,000 and they say they want $60,000, it might knock the candidate out of consideration” even if the person would be open to salary negotiations.
Screening candidates this way may be a factor in wage stagnation, some analysts suggest. Average hourly earnings rose 2.5% in 2015, modest by historical standards. Wage growth has averaged only about 2% for the past five years.
Focusing on compensation history “holds down wages because now the jobs are being filled by people with lower salary expectations,” said Thomas Kochan, a professor of employment research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management. “We have a whole generation of people who are permanently adversely affected.”
ENLARGE Though hiring tactics have received little attention in the economic debate about wage stagnation, Mr. Kochan said they could have profound effects: “The decisions of firms individually are…creating collectively this macro phenomenon of stagnation,” yet are hard to measure because they are shrouded in secrecy.
U.S. employers continue to hold the line on wages despite six years of economic recovery and an unemployment rate of 5%. Finance chiefs are “probably looking ahead and saying they want to keep the escalation of labor costs from going up in a way that will put pressure on earnings,” said Ajit Kambil, global research director of Deloitte’s CFO Program.
In Deloitte’s most recent quarterly survey, 47% of chief financial offers said they plan to work to lower or control labor costs this year, by taming compensation growth, reducing benefit costs or other means. Moreover, employers may feel they can lowball applicants because they believe there is still a surplus of qualified candidates.
“Workers are still a little discounted” in most fields, said Linda Barrington, executive director of the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University’s ILR School. “Employers won’t pay what the last person in the job was paid because labor is now on sale.”
Steve Carpinelli recently applied for a public-relations position with a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C. The role called for a minimum of five-to-seven years of experience. He has more than 14.
RELATED
How to Field Questions About Salary Expectations Mr. Carpinelli’s pay reached high five figures before the 45-year-old switched to the generally lower-paying field of nonprofits. While preparing for a phone interview with the Washington organization, he discovered that the last person in the job earned $101,000. So when asked early on about his salary expectations, he put his range squarely around what the last employee earned, seeking $85,000 to $110,000.
“After that, the conversation was very robotic, not a two-way conversation about what they’re truly looking for,” Mr. Carpinelli said. “I definitely got the impression that I’d priced myself out.”
In his experience, “there has been a definite shift or emphasis on beginning the conversation with: ‘What is your salary range?’” Mr. Carpinelli said. “I was always told you never talk about salary until you’re given an offer. But I’ve noticed the salary-range question comes up far earlier in the conversation.”
The organization ultimately hired a young woman with five years’ experience. Mr. Carpinelli is still looking for a permanent job.
Older job seekers sometimes see such outcomes as evidence of bias. But “employers can make financial decisions and it’s not necessarily age discrimination,” said Raymond Peeler, a senior attorney-advisor at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “What an employee would have to prove…is that the employer is using the salary level as a proxy to disqualify all the older applicants.”
Businessolver Inc., a benefits-administration firm in West Des Moines, Iowa, recently hired more than 100 people for its Denver office. Human-resources staffers ask about compensation in the middle of a six-step hiring process and use the answers to gauge applicants’ “level of reality,” said Marcy Klipfel, senior vice president of HR. “A lot of times what you’re looking at is are we going to waste time and get to the end of the process, and it turns out the person is way out of our range?”
A majority of workers take a salary cut when they get a new job after a stretch of unemployment, but those over 45 usually take a bigger hit than workers under 35 years of age, according to research from Ms. Barrington and a Cornell colleague, Hassan Enayati.
A survey by AARP last year found that of job seekers between 45 and 70 years old who found work after a spell of unemployment, nearly half earned less than before.
Some employers hesitate to hire at far below a past salary, concerned that the employee would resent earning so much less. “If someone wants $100,000 and settles for $75,000, they’re not going to be happy,” said Steve Gross, a compensation specialist and senior partner at consulting firm Mercer.
Workers, however, say they would like the chance to decide for themselves.
“The presumption that I would walk into a job and get $150,000 is not there,” said Rosemary Lynch Kelleher, a baby boomer who has earned at that level during her 25-year career in international trade policy, and has been looking for a permanent job for several years.
“I realize very clearly that it’s not there. And I would take something for $100,000 or $75,000.”
In Austin, a woman who lost her six-figure position as a data architect in 2014 but recently landed a job, said she had been tempted to say she earned $60,000 to improve her chances of getting hired.
While she was searching, the 63-year-old said: “I hate putting down what I want” in salary. “If you put down too much, they think you’re expensive. If you don’t put down enough, they think you’re undervaluing yourself.”
Much of this ambiguity could be avoided if employers published a pay range for positions, but they don’t want to tip their hands. So experts suggest job seekers research market rates for particular positions and try to finesse salary questions.
“Say, ‘I’m open to a salary commensurate with the job,” recommended Blake Nations, a former recruiter who was laid off and then founded Over50JobBoard.com. “And if they keep going, ask: ‘What do you expect to pay someone with my experience and education for this position?’ ”
Some applicants, faced with a salary-history question they fear would exclude them from the start, have toyed with putting a bogus number in a required field in an online form.
Mr. Edwards, the electronics engineer, says he tried that once. Not hearing back from the company, he contacted its HR department and was told he was too expensive. That baffled him because he had listed $1,000 as his previous pay. It turned out HR had changed that to $100,000, assuming it was a mistake.
"a quick way to cull the large numbers of candidates for open jobs"
"holds down wages because now the jobs are being filled by people with lower salary expectations"
"U.S. employers continue to hold the line on wages"
"looking ahead and saying they want to keep the escalation of labor costs from going up in a way that will put pressure on earnings"
"47% of chief financial offers said they plan to work to lower or control labor costs this year, by taming compensation growth"
gauge applicants’ “level of reality"
Very interesting language in this piece.
Between culling applicants, testing their level of "reality", taming their unrealistic expectations, and holding the line, I think we can speculate that perhaps CFOs are panicking about rising wage pressure, using propaganda pieces like this one to reassure themselves, and trying hard to pressure applicants to be "realistic."
If employers want to try to save money by flying budget instead of first, they should be encouraged to do that. Maybe eventually they'll understand how that works out for them.
For me it's definitely negotiable. If you can't afford me then after negotiation then any gulf can be made up with a guaranteed longer contract or shorter hours; it's as simple as that.
Disqualifying off the bat is stupid, especially as some places pay extra because they need someone urgently for a short period.
Some companies are willing to pay top dollar, others are more interested in getting someone in their range, so name your price and move on if they blink.
This shows a lack of understanding of the market and poor self-awareness for someone who claims to be at the top of the tree.
The average company is looking to employ someone who will do the same job cheaper.
In order to earn more, it's necessary to identify employers who are willing to pay a premium for convenience or for an unusually skilled or experienced worker, and be aware of those before getting laid off.
This man seems particularly aggrieved that he lost a role to a "young woman with five years experience". A white man should not and does not automatically trump a woman - if he costs more (which he doesn't actually know for sure) then that's his problem.
Indeed.
After all, some companies suddenly become "flexible" once they find a candidate who really blows them away. Their alleged "top range" becomes malleable. So their range can be imaginary as well. In the information war that both sides are waging, similar tactics can be used.
That's it. I'll generally let them know it is open to negotiation as well.
Off topic, but I've said I won't answer it because of commercial in confidence reasons before.