Hacker News Reader

> That’s where recruiters come in. They know the range and you can ask them before you even start the interview process.

True, with the caveat that all benefits of (external) recruiters depend on the degree of alignment between your respective interests.

For example, if you choose a recruiter who only works with positions up to $X, I guarantee the top of the range he will assess you is going to be... you guessed it, $X.

Some recruiters also get paid more by some employers for some positions. So a recruiter may steer you towards a position that is inferior, including pay-wise, because he'll personally get paid more if you take it.

This can end really bad for you, since some of the employers who pay recruiters the most are those with the highest turnover... which usually has its own good reasons.

Always remember: recruiters ultimately get paid by the employers, not by you.

The best strategy is to work with several external recruiters, and ideally also interview with some employers directly.

True. When I’m looking for a job, I am working with 7 or 8 different companies most of the time.

But if you already know your range. All the steering in the world is not going to convince you to take a lower paying job.

My experience is that recruiters get paid a percentage of your first years salary from the company. They have an incentive to get you a higher wage, but like real estate agents, that incentive isn’t perfectly aligned. (http://freakonomics.com/2008/02/26/real-estate-agents-revisi...)

> But if you already know your range. All the steering in the world is not going to convince you to take a lower paying job.

Sure. But if the top of my range is $150k, and I'm talking to a company that would be willing to pay me $175k, it's not in my best interest to tell them that $150k is enough to hire me.

> My experience is that recruiters get paid a percentage of your first years salary from the company.

Generally, yes. But the exact percentage may differ from company to company.

Typical example are bad employers with high turnover. They need the recruiters to get a lot of new people in the door every year, while convincing these candidates to walk in the door is typically harder due to the employer's poor reputation. So they end up paying recruiters more, sometimes a lot more, per successful candidate.

Sure. But if the top of my range is $150k, and I'm talking to a company that would be willing to pay me $175k, it's not in my best interest to tell them that $150k is enough to hire me.

Unless you are special snowflake, why would the company’s range be that far outside of the range for the local market? Either the company is incompetent, you’re about to step into some crap, or the employee doesn’t actually know the market.

Generally, yes. But the exact percentage may differ from company to company. Typical example are bad employers with high turnover. They need the recruiters to get a lot of new people in the door every year, while convincing these candidates to walk in the door is typically harder due to the employer's poor reputation. So they end up paying recruiters more, sometimes a lot more, per successful candidate.

Every job I’ve gotten through recruiters, the employer was adding people not replacing them. Well, except for one where they fired the most senior developer, three weeks after I came in. I didn’t know I was being watched as his replacement and being made the team lead.

In hindsight it was obvious when half the interview was asking me to come up with a 90 day plan to create a modern software development shop on the spot after he told me about the challenges they were having....

> why would the company’s range be that far outside of the range for the local market?

Because the "range", as a concept, only goes so far.

In reality, there are companies willing to pay above market for various reasons.

For example, they're highly selective, and you're the first candidate to pass their interviews in months. Congrats!

Or maybe you just successfully completed the exact same technology project they're looking to do themselves.

Or maybe they're just doing really well and willing to pay above-market.

> Every job I’ve gotten through recruiters, the employer was adding people not replacing them.

Trust me, there are companies out there with crazy-high turnover. They typically will not tell you that as an interviewee, for obvious reasons.

These companies are always recruiting, always in touch with multiple recruiters, and always pay them well - because they need them the most.

For example, they're highly selective, and you're the first candidate to pass their interviews in months. Congrats!

Most jobs aren’t that selective and aren’t doing work so specialized that that need someone in the 90th percentile.

Or maybe you just successfully completed the exact same technology project they're looking to do themselves.

Congratulations - you are then that “special snowflake”. You would know that if you ask the standard “what type of challenges are you facing” question when you are interviewing.

Or maybe they're just doing really well and willing to pay above-market.

Why would a company pay above market value for a new employee out of the goodness of thier heart? I could see the paying a bonus to existing employees.

Trust me, there are companies out there with crazy-high turnover. They typically will not tell you that as an interviewee, for obvious reasons.

I found that out the hard way during my second outing after my awkening. It was a contract to perm job that was so bad. That I just up and quit in a month without having anything lined up or even in the pipeline. I had an offer for what was then a Fortune 10 company within 4 days. Thanks to a recruiter. It also paid more than I was making.

> Why would a company pay above market value for a new employee out of the goodness of their heart?

Several reasons:

1. They want to minimize the chance of the candidate declining. Every employer had a bunch of candidates go through the entire process (at the cost of multiple $k each) and then decline the offer, because you were a good boyscout and gave them their "market value" offer, exactly like all their other options, and slightly less than some. If I'm flush with cash, I may put a little extra on top of my offers, to ensure this doesn't happen, especially in a tight market where I'm competing against multiple other employers.

2. I want the employee to be motivated right off the bat, by knowing he's getting paid above market rate. One of the dangers with new employees nowadays is that they know they can easily get 3-4+ offers that pay the exact same (or a bit more) elsewhere. That causes lack of motivation, and some of them will quit if more disadvantages emerge. Paying above market ensures this won't happen.

> I found that out the hard way during my second outing after my awkening.

What is your "awakening"? :-)

What is your "awakening"? :-)

After working hard for one company for 7 years and only getting 3% raises and feeling the effects of salary compression and inversion. Also I realized the lack of optionality when your skills aren’t a fit for the market.

The first job I detailed above after I left, was a great decision. I chose technology over money - I also met my now wife.

After that company laid everyone off [1], and I did a short stint as a contractor with one of our former customers, I got a job at a horrible company and all of the signs were there in hindsight. But I had never worked at a bad company before then. I had only worked for 3 companies in the past 16 years. I didn’t put that company on my resume and I explained the three month gap ase deciding to take some time off to get situated after getting married.

After that, I jumped shipped from a company as soon as I saw a market opportunity. People worry too much about job hopping. If you interview for a job and they are concerned about job hopping, they won’t give you a job. If they do hire you in spite of your work history you leave. What harm is interviewing? The next job either hires you or you stay where you are until the job hopping stench wears off.

[1] They were very up front with us and the investors promised us that they would keep paying our salaries until they either found a buyer or officially gave us notice. We wouldn’t have to worry about not getting paid while we working. All of us stuck around because why not? We knew based on the tech stack we were using, that we could get another job before our final check cleared.

1. They want to minimize the chance of the candidate declining. Every employer had a bunch of candidates go through the entire process (at the cost of multiple $k each) and then decline the offer, because you were a good boyscout and gave them their "market value" offer, exactly like all their other options, and slightly less than some. If I'm flush with cash, I may put a little extra on top of my offers, to ensure this doesn't happen, especially in a tight market where I'm competing against multiple other employers.

This is where your recruiters come in...

I have three criteria for choosing a job - technology, environment, and money in that order.

If three separate recruiters are representing separate companies and all other things are equal except the money (they rarely are), you tell the recruiter representing the job you want the most that you will take it if they can get you $market_value + $x.

I’ve had cases where the recruiting company offered me a signing bonus out of thier commission to convince me to take an offer. It didn’t work. Usually there is one company out of the offers that is offering a better tech stack/shorter commute/preferred environment.

I think the more general version of this argument is that jobs achievable via recruiters are a fairly small subset of the job market, and you don't have a good sense (as a job-seeker) of how exactly that subset is shaped, so this doesn't actually solve the problem of not having enough information. You now have significantly more information about a subset of the market and no idea what that subset is.

If you were to go trade, say, tech stocks, but you didn't know how profitable the companies were until after you had made a bid, and you decided to solve the incomplete-information problem by working with brokers who were paid by some of the companies, you would be making a mistake by thinking you're now in possession of enough information to make the EMH kick in.

Your argument is well-phrased, and theoretically correct, but in reality recruiters often work with a large subset of the job market in their area. The market is tight right now, and hiring managers have no reason to only work with one recruiter. On the contrary: they will cast the widest net, talk to any viable recruiter, and typically disclose comp information to that recruiter.

I agree it's not perfect information, but in reality if you job hop, work closely with several recruiters, and negotiate well - you'll get a pretty good idea of your market value, imho.

Employees who have the least idea of their market value are those who stayed in the same job for a long time, and haven't interviewed or talked to recruiters in years.

I completely agree with your earlier assertion that it's quite possible that entire sectors of the tech industry are underpaid, but the employers' frantic and often limited efforts to keep comp data secret are just one reason for that.

Recruiters don't know, or often lie about the true range. They are incentivized more to get you in the door than to get every last $, because that will sour their future with that company and will only net them a % of that increase.

I’ve been on the hiring side working with recruiters. We tell them the range up front.

If they don’t tell you or they don’t know, stay away from them. They don’t have a direct relationship with the company.

Any recruiter that you tell what your range is and they still try to steer you below the range stay away from them. That’s like dealing with real estate agents who try to steer you above your range or your expressed preferences.

Recruiters do know the range, almost always.

We just tell people in a fairly detailed document we share with everyone. Comp is not completely open, but everyone lives in a band for the position and we stick to it.

One company I left tried that too. They established “bands”, made it hard to get out of the band, and 5 developers jumped ship within 6 months to jobs paying from $10K -$20K more....

It has drawback, and you can't do it in an unfair way. It works fine for us. It isn't hard to get out of the band. The criteria are reasonably objective and people move upward with ease when they demonstrate capability / qualification. It is far more transparent than not disclosing the information.