Hacker News Reader

No. A salary range requirement isn't customary in the U.S., and I'm in no position to enforce one at such an early stage.

I'll make it an option though, and I'll include the salary data that StackOverflow ads make available when they do. I definitely prefer seeing a salary range when I look for jobs.

>> I'd never ever create a website like this with hidden salaries. ...what if they do so, because they're offering 10, 20, 40% less because it's a place for "old geeks that noone wants"?

In my experience, the risk of wage exploitation decreases with age. Unfortunately, a lot of younger workers are paid lower than less skilled, but older workers simply because of lack of seniority and/or negotiating skills.

But, I must say such "what ifs" are silly in business. What if your anticipation of a nonexistent problem is the cause of your inaction?

I'm not being snarky so much as serious. I've been in a number of meetings where I had to cede to someone's "what if" when the alternative was a cheap and measurable test. Cheap and measurable tests are the primary thrust of my blog post.

>Unfortunately, a lot of younger workers are paid lower than less skilled, but older workers simply because of lack of seniority and/or negotiating skills.

I'd say that younger workers were exploited a bit historically because they were largely unaware of their own market rates and didn't have a viable way to find out. That is changing remarkably fast through sites like Glassdoor and self-reported salary data on various other sites.

You could add "salary range provided" as a filter, or place those with salaries filled in higher in the list.

I think it would be good to add an optional salary range field and then you could test how many people fill it in. You could even try and scrape existing posts to see who has put it in the description.

Then you could allow candidates to filter/sort on it. Or even better, prioritise jobs with salary above those keeping it secret, highest at the top.

We require a salary on Cleanweb Jobs and it hasn't put that many companies off. However, we're mainly UK focused and a lot of job ads already list a salary here.

Just my 2c -- I'm in the US and I disagree. For example, many of the jobs allow for a very broad experience.

For example, in my current job, we are often looking for a smart, energetic people to work on X. Someone with a BS just out of college? An engineer with 10 years of matching experience? Tech lead wo just built X elsewhere? We will take either (if we like them) and adjust responsibilities instead.

This approach requires either creating multiple postings (a pain; we do not need so many people; it confuses the heck out of HR on why a single hire needs 3 postings), posting ridiculously wide salary range or saying "salary commensurate with experience" (which nowadays says nothing at all). My 2c.

What the hell is wrong with posting a wide salary range and stating you are looking at all sorts of people then? We're trying to prevent people wasting their time chatting to people when the remuneration will never be sufficient.

Honest question: Is a salary range of $50 - $100k really valuable to you as a job seeker?

If you're after a salary greater than $100k, then yes, absolutely. Some (factual) information is always better than no information.

Yeah, because then I know to ignore the listing.

If I came from a place that paid $50k, I'd expect them to be able to give me a small bump but likely land me in the low-to-mid part of the range and I'd apply. If I came from 75k I'd expect higher end of the range, and I'd apply. That could be unreasonable depending on how they place different tiers of engineer on that range, but if it is then it's better to split out the jobs by title (Software Eng Jr./Sr/Staff/Principal). If I came from over 100k I'll pass because I don't think they can afford me regardless of title.

Because the second you post a wide salary range, people assume they are going to land on the mid-upper end of it no matter what the range is. If somebody lands on the lower end of it, they are going to feel slighted or insulted for just about all cases aside from new grads.

If I post a salary range of $50,000-$150,000 most people are going to look at it and decide that it probably pays $100,000-120,000. If somebody applies for that job and you offer them $60,000-70,000 they are going to be insulted just by the offer because of how much was left on the table (even if it's a perfectly good salary for the job).

Nobody wants to hear they are on the lower end of anything. That's why most people view themselves as "middle class".

If you post something that wide we're either looking at a sales position or at a company that does not differentiate between a Jr. and a Sr. Developer and lumps them all into Developer.

In itself it might be enough of a red flag not to work there.

Why can't a project just need developers? Maybe you need 2 or 3 across many skill ranges.

I think the best option is different posts with different salary ranges... but I do see how that can be a pain to copy paste data around (say 3 postings x 10 job sites = 30 copy pastes of the same data with a few different skills and a few different numbers)

>people assume they are going to land on the mid-upper end of it no matter what the range is

Well who's fault is that? And that statement in itself is a (factually incorrect) assumption.

How does that apply in this case, in a job posting for "old geeks"?

> posting ridiculously wide salary range

why is this wrong?

if your actual, real wide salary range is not acceptable, people won't apply. if it is, and they agree with your philosophy, they will.

I tend to agree, but I think the argument against is basically that when you put a range, candidates' eyes go toward the high end and employers' eyes go toward the low end and then nobody ends up happy.

Then don't put a high range and put what you are actually expecting to spend on your new hire?

It sounds to me like the argument for not putting a salary is because the business doesn't actually know what they are looking for.

But the OP is saying that they might genuinely consider a huge range depending on who applies.

Honestly I think he'd be better off just listing multiple positions in this case.

But if you don't provide a range, I also won't apply as a general rule (I'll make exceptions for the big tech companies, but they probably contacted me via a recruiter).

I don't want to waste my time going through the now pretty much standard long and grueling interview process for a company that's likely going to give me a lowball figure, which seems to be what 'competitive salary' really stands for on most of these job postings.

If I'm going to apply, I want to know there's at least a chance I'm not wasting my time.

> Someone with a BS just out of college?

> An engineer with 10 years of matching experience?

> Tech lead wo [sic] just built X elsewhere?

Sounds like you have three job postings crammed into one listing. Y'all on that tight of a budget?

Some of the reasons below are somewhat artificial constraints, but that's just our environment. I suspect they are not that infrequent either.

We cannot post three postings with intent to hire one person: Our group works on X. There is a group working on Y across the hall (and a bunch of others) and if we advertise three postings they will go to top management and HR and argue that one of our postings should be theirs.

Competition between groups on lab space, office space and good employees is friendly but extremely tough. Hiring someone who is a good fit and will likely work in our group for at least a few years is a huge benefit. Thus we would rather spend extra time trying to find a person who is smart, likes what we do and is genuinely interested in working on X, at whatever experience level, and snag him. This makes us open the "skills" window pretty wide.

It also makes it very easy to suppress wages...

It sounds like an unappealing place to work and I think you've put yourself in the market for lemons. Low paid lemons.

You know the easiest way to find smart and interested people? Pay above market wages and advertise it. You'll have your pick.

Your internal open positions need not match your external open positions.

We all get that you really are saying "salary is dependent upon experience". The argument made above is simply that each of those ranges ought to be called out explicitly.

It sound weird to me that a company that has a role to fill will take anyone from "just graduated and can type" to "experienced tech lead". Doesn't sound like a role that is clearly thought out.

If you have stuff for a junior hire to do and stuff for a senior hire to do, and you end up hiring the junior hire, what happens to the "senior" work? Same question if you end up hiring the senior guy.

We work on applied R&D and the seniority boundaries are fuzzy. In practice if we take a junior engineer we can get a senior engineer or two off lab work (who in principle should not be spending any time in the lab, but does a little). If we hire a lead it frees folks doing high level concepts (and powerpoint) for more hands on stuff.

I haven't applied for a job in over a decade but when I have a peruse of job listing websites in the US of A I'm always amazed when the only salary information is "extremely competitive" and "excellent benefits". I've heard people argue that a reputable company will pay market rates and that's all you need to know - but I totally disagree.

If I ever found myself back on the job market (unlikely, so perhaps I'll change my tune if it happened) I wouldn't ever apply for a job that didn't post a salary.

As the previous poster pointed out - in the UK the vast majority of jobs are posted with a salary. All the way up to C-level positions. I don't know about you, but the main reason I work is to get paid! So if a company isn't upfront about this primary benefit, I'm not going to engage with them.

Honestly, companies should pay what the employee is worth, rather than employees agreeing to some artificial number the company pulled out of their ass. If you're a good fit for the role, you should be able to negotiate your salary. You shouldn't be rejecting a job because the salary is too low, you should be rejecting that job because they're looking for a junior programmer and you're a senior programmer.

That jobs are posted with a salary and what company is actually going to offer are different stories. There is a lot of time wasters around. A lot of companies use that as a bait and hope that once you go through lengthy interview process you will agree to a significantly lower offer from the advertised one and will make up bs reasons for that. One of the best I heard is that after completion of the interview process company said "our requirements changed in the meantime and we want to hire more developers that we initially needed, therefore we can offer x, so that we can fill all the positions", where x is significantly lower amount.

I will usually just flat out ask up front.. and if it's a cagey response, I'll kindly decline.

I usually decline to interview people that ask my recruiter too early about salary. We work hard to post very clear job descriptions and requirements so if you read it and apply and get through the initial screening, then that's a pretty good indicator that we are in range on salary even if we've never discussed it.

Undoubtedly you're turning away the best candidates and almost exclusively interviewing candidates whom have extreme difficulty finding work elsewhere; so much so that the applicants value their own time so poorly that they believe it worthwhile to interview for a job which may not meet their personal financial requirements. I'd strongly suggest you change your practices and observe the improved calibre of interviewees.

EDIT: Also, if you really want good candidates, stop using a recruiter.

How exactly does passing through the initial screening make for a good indicator on salary range match?

It'd seem more likely to be the opposite, in fact.

When ever I see a posting with out a range I figure they're just trying to hire someone they just aren't willing to pay for. They think they're going to wow someone with their great culture and/or the awesome technology their working on. Good luck on that.

Or get a person who trains up in your environment and then bails once they can prove to another employer that they have the skills and know they're underpaid. And god knows how much internal work/knowledge/skills they take with them.

It is unlikely that you will learn something worthwhile in a company using such practices.

Why? Recruiters aren't shy about asking about pay expectations up-front and it lets you know if you're all on the same page before wasting everybody's time.

> if you...get through the initial screening, then that's a pretty good indicator that we are in range on salary even if we've never discussed it.

What possible evidence could you have that shows that to be the case?

Maybe the initial screening is designed to weed out people who are good, so that the only people who pass screening are not worth very much money.

I ask because most of the approaches that I get, or even when I approach (I'm actively looking) tend to fall short of where I've been in terms of income for the past several years. And culture, cool tech, and neat opportunities only count for so much. Until companies return to a cradle to the grave mentality (like IBM of old), then I'll reconsider.

Until then... I like technology and have some preferences, but for the most part, I'm a mercenary for hire, looking for the highest payout. There's some wiggle room for a cool company, working with cool people and dealing with cool technology, but more than a 20% cut in pay isn't something I'm likely to go for.

In the Phoenix area, a "Senior" or "Lead" developer can range from $40/hr or $75k/year on the low end to $80/hr or $150k/yr on the high end... I've been at the higher end, and have no intention of hitting the lower end. That's a very large gap for equivalent titles and job descriptions... so yeah, I ask.

Alternatively, if it was more like parts of Europe where I'm working 30-35 hour weeks, and getting a month and a half a year off, it might be different.

This is what we do on https://cleanwebjobs.com - no recruiters and salary always stated. However, you could keep it optional but promote jobs that list it above those that just say 'competitive' or 'market rate' (euphemisms for we want to pay you as little as we can get away with).

This approach has put off some potential employers but I think the benefits outweigh the downsides. It's like having an opt-in mailing list on user sign-up rather than an opt-out trick (un-tick this box). You get higher quality leads.

P.S. Thanks to the OP for posting this story. It's inspired me to revisit Cleanweb Jobs again and post a Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12759415

Whenever I've seen job ads mention a salary range, it's almost always been ridiculously low (huge red flag for an dysfunctional company trying to get something for nothing) or way too high (red flag that it's probably a recruiter trying to do a bait-and-switch).

All the Polish IT jobs groups I'm on (iOS dev + JS mostly) require a salary range. If nothing else, it's useful to see where we need to be while hiring.

Also, it's a legal requirement in Austria to post the salary.

@Austria: which is normally just the "Kollektivvertrag" which (hopefully) nobody works for. And that renders it useless unfortunately too.

Hear hear.

I agree completely and I think this is solid advice for OP.

Salary ranges on job listings benefit employers not employees.

Effectively; Salary is what the company values your contribution at. That's why when you hand your notice in you might be offered a pay rise.

By setting a public range you agree informally to be constrained by that range; asking for more once you've interviewed is harder.

Without salary range it is the opportunity that interests you. It lets you set expectations in the first (or later) conversation. Effectively giving you more power in the negotiation.

As an aside; always bid a tad high (for obvious reasons).

>Salary ranges on job listings benefit employers not employees.

I guess that's why most companies in the US don't list salaries, out of the goodness of their hearts.

Ranges on jobs benefit employees. It's simple negotiation. You want the other person to put out the first number. If the employer is thinking $100K for a position, but a qualified candidate starts with $80K, they just saved $20K a year. If they put $100K, they started first, so an employee who would have taken $80K now gets $100K.

As a side note, all IT people should watch Pawn Stars, American Pickers or any reality show that is part negotiation. It will give you a feel of small things to help negotiate. If all IT people learned to negotiate better, everyone's salaries would go up.

I've been on both sides of this, as employer and employee.

Salaries are arbitrary; it is what an employer values you as an employee, and what you value yourself at.

The best time to talk about salaries is when the company has offered you the role. Before then you have limited power. The reason companies set salary ranges is to frame the conversation on their terms.

> If they put $100K, they started first, so an employee who would have taken $80K now gets $100K.

This broadly assumes companies are not able to appropriately understand market salaries. I've never found this to be the case (certainly in large companies).

Large companies will have a salary range. But they will definitely also not want to publish them, for hopefully obvious reasons ("what do you mean my job title is on the market for $10K more??"). Its the same reason your contract probably says something about not revealing salary/renumeration.

I stand by my thesis; jobs with salary ranges I've always had more trouble negotiating. Where jobs without salary ranges I've found myself earning 10-15% more than peers. I'd argue the problem is that employees undervalue themselves and are risk averse in negotiating ("If I ask too much they will not hire me").