Hacker News Reader

Comment by wonderwonder | Hacker News Reader

They will pay you the range you ask for. If Joe is offered a job at 50k but he does not know the position range is 50 - 70k, he might accept it. Joe now has a job making 50k a year with the potential to earn 3% raises annually. Bob might be offered the same position, but right from the beginning he has indicated he expects to earn 67k or more, they will offer him 67k.

The company will hire you for as little as they can. Which is logical for the company. Often there is a range but the employee will not know it unless they insist on asking for what they perceive they are worth.

Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it. You should provide your salary expectations prior to reaching the interview stage otherwise you are potentially wasting your time.

View on HN

> The company will hire you for as little as they can. Which is logical for the company.

I know this logic is common, but I'm not at all sure it's true. Hiring at the minimum you can is a major source of turnover, at least in high-turnover industries like software. If someone is work 50k-70k and you offer them 50k, there's a real risk that they'll get a recruiter calling in 8 months talking about 70k. Hiring is expensive, both directly (several months salary in costs?) and indirectly (repeated ramp-up periods and a loss of institutional knowledge), which makes this into a serious false economy.

I've seen several companies get themselves into real trouble by striking too many 'good' salary deals. They ended up serving as springboards for people who didn't yet know their own value, and losing all their hires within a year or two. Well, almost all - the ones who stuck around were often the less-capable hires they'd overvalued in the first place!

I used to share the view that in a negotiation, never make the first offer. The fear is coming in way below as your example indicates. Over time, my attitude changed. I found that by constantly interviewing, I could get a feel for the local market, and have a much better idea of where the ceilings are.

For example over a few years and 3 jobs, I found that $120k was about the max for senior devs in my city and tech stack. When interviewing I would lead with "is 120k in the range for this position?". And getting that could sometimes be a stretch. When I found a company offering 10-15% above that, I took it. I knew they were desperate, and the work would probably suck (and I was right) but no overtime and lot's of vacation make up for it (for now).

That's just not how London works. It may be a cultural difference but a non-contractor candidate asking for salary during an interview is considered a big red flag.

I agree, salary should not be discussed during the interview, it should occur prior to the interview. It should take place with the hr rep. during the interview setup or initial contact conversation that way salary does not have to be discussed in the interview.

It does not have to be a detailed initial conversation, something as simple as "what is the salary range for this position, due to my current responsibilities and level I am looking for something in the range of x to y. Is that realistic?" HR will give you a yes or no, you say thank you and decide where to go from there.

You're agreeing, but not really. gncb was correctly stating that the red flag is asking too soon (the first interview) rather than the first interview being too late.

Yeah, I didn't make that clear, I don't ask that in the interview, but with HR or the person recruiting for the firm (before any interviews). One time had a recruiter lead me to believe the salary on offer was upto $X, then after interviewing and negotiating salary, found they would only go so high as $X - $Y. I declined and no one was happy with that situation.

> Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it.

This cuts both ways too. If a candidate asks the salary before the interview, many companies will perceive the candidate as not caring about the work, and being "only in it for the money".

And if a candidate doesn't wait until the interview to discuss money, they have very little to justify the average market-rate wage they're trying to convince the company to pay them.

I hear what you are saying and agree with you. A company though for the most part is "Only in it for the money" and I can't feed my family with work satisfaction. I would caution against working for a company that has a problem with me asking for the salary range. The entire point of a job is to earn money.

This is just my opinion though and is in no way a road map for others.

If a company believes I'm only in it for the money, I'm likely to think that company is using "caring about the work" as a way to reduce my salary. Salary translates to investment. Caring about the work won't grant me another 100k at retirement.

The only reason to show that I care about the work and take potentially less salary is if I think the economy is going to take a turn for the worse and I need a job for 3-10 years to ride out the storm. In which case I have to take a lower salary, but at least I have a job. Remember, I can't know how much the company is able/willing to afford.

And just to clarify, not caring about the work doesn't mean doing a terrible job. It means giving them what I'm paid for, but I'm not going to go the extra mile for them (overtime) because there's no incentive to do so.

> ...many companies will perceive the candidate as not caring about the work, and being "only in it for the money".

The owners, the shareholders, are "only in it for the money". It makes sense therefore that all other participants interacting with the company are also. Promulgating a behavior standard under the guise of propriety that doesn't align with the owners' position is shipping out an externality to everyone at the table who follows that standard, benefiting only the shareholders.

I'm not a fan of this approach to business myself, but that's the cards we've all been dealt, and until the system is changed, we learn how to play by the right rule book.

I don't worry so much about that. I'd hope in the modern world that everyone understands that no one really means everything they say when dancing around the "where do you see yourself in five years" kind of interview question.

My reason for not leading with salary is basically that I'm going to be asking them for the high end of what I hope I've accurately ascertained to be their range, and I'd rather the first impression I leave them with be "we have to get that guy" rather than "is he really worth what he's asking"?

Yes, it costs some time I suppose, but I find there are very few activities one can engage in that are more lucrative per hour than correctly doing a job hunt. I can eat the time if need be.

> Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it. You should provide your salary expectations prior to reaching the interview stage otherwise you are potentially wasting your time.

I once asked an internal recruiter the salary (as to not waste each other's time) and he returned a tirade of abuse about me not clearly being a good fit if money is my only focus. The guy organises a few meetups as well, fair to say I'll avoid anything he touches at all costs.

Edit: if you publish/ let me know the the range, I'm happy to interview.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com