Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamdave | Hacker News Reader

I was asked once (and in a 15 year career, only once) in an interview "How much do you need, and how much do you want?".

This question was almost devastating to my otherwise composed and in-the-moment mindset because it was so shockingly frank and signaled a sense of authenticity coming directly from the owner I had never seen before interviewing for tech jobs. I gave them both. He in turn gave me something in the middle, but much closer to the 'want' than I expected. What was more unexpected was how quickly I gave him numbers-they weren't just random numbers, it was a range that I had decided for myself would be the moonshot salary and "thanks but I'll pass" salary floor.

It was definitely a first being asked such a critical question in such a tactical way-I appreciated it for what it was.

That job lasted for four years until acquisition. We all walked away happy with the accomplishments made, that owner and I are still great friends to this day.

View on HN

Interesting, but I think how much you need is none of their business at the beginning of your relationship. How much you need depends largely on your healthcare needs, child or adult care needs including educational and developmental needs, current level of debt, etc. There's also a lot of subjectivity involved - do you need to travel across the country to visit your parents? Do you need to take a $1000 webinar to refresh/expand your skills? Do you need gigabit connectivity? Do you need a fuel efficient car?

How would he have responded to one of these replies?

"I need x dollars annually. That's also how much I want."

"How much I need is a personal question that I don't feel comfortable answering. How much I want is ..."

Or even,

"How much effort do you want me to put into my work? How much effort do you need me to put into my work?"

Oh, I hadn't considered that interpretation of "need." I thought of "need" as being "the low floor below which I wouldn't accept an offer," which has nothing to do with how much I "need." I need so much less than I make to stay alive lol, cause I been there before.

"How much effort do you want me to put into my work?"

I would hope that a candidate with that sort of response when handed an olive branch would have been screened out of the hiring process at an earlier stage than salary negotiation.

It's very easy to see how the want vs need question could be yet another ploy. For a small company I could be inclined to believe the owner asking the question, but could I ask them if they're living within their wants or needs? I think skepticism can be warranted...

There is also zero chance that I will accept an offer for the amount I need because there are plenty of people who are willing to pay me more than that.

The variation of this that I usually ask is, "What salary do you need to maintain a comfortable cost of living and what do you consider a fair salary given your experience and the job requirements?"

Depending on my flexibility in the hiring process I may give them a realistic estimate of my budget as well.

I want to set the stage for the best information symmetry I can (given the circumstances). This makes salary negotiations closer to a collaborative game than a competitive one. I've even told candidates that their ask is unrealistically low for their experience level.

Salary negotiation is the first moment in a trust-based relationship. To me it's very odd that we start that trust-based relationship with a very high-stakes competitive problem that relies heavily on information asymmetry.

It has nothing to do with trust. They just vetted your abilities and decided you can make them money. Now you're fighting for your cut. This also has nothing to do with how much you "need". I need a cabin and an axe. I want half of what I'm bringing to the table, and that's what matters to both of us.

What you said is "I don't trust you so i'm instead going to assume you are out to get me and screw me as hard as i let you".

That has everything to do with trust.

A twenty-two year old straight out of school might think you're his friend.

I know, and you know, we aren't friends.

Don't ask me what I need. That's none of your business. I don't need anything. Tell me what I'm worth to you, then pick a respectful cut. I already have a good idea about the right number, and I'll fight for it, because I've already made people a lot of money. They weren't friends either, but we've sure as hell shaken hands with genuine shit-eating grins on our faces because we're capable professionals, and we didn't pretend. That's the recipe for success.

You seem like the kind of person i would never hire.

You'd never date me. You'd hire me at a fair price.

> What salary do you need to maintain a comfortable cost of living

That is a stupid question to ask. For anyone competent that I would ever want to hire, the amount that they need (unless they have a bad gambling habit or have made some terrible financial decisions) will be much less than the amount that they would ever accept.

Plenty of people, especially engineers with families, have lifestyle costs that exceed what a startup will comp in cash. (Lifestyle is supported by current job offering bonuses or liquid equity).

Maybe you and parent have a differing interpretation of what 'comfortable' means in such a context.

I mean, they’re welcome to the answer for this, but it’s not particularly applicable to the salary negotiation.

If I ever heard "What salary do you need to maintain a comfortable cost of living and what do you consider a fair salary given your experience and the job requirements?" I'd be walking straight out of the interview. That just screams "cheap" and gives off the impression that you don't value your technical talent. If I wanted a "fair" salary that just covered my cost of living I'd be doing something other than software engineering

Fairness is a good value to build a relationship of trust.

I worked with an engineer with this mindset of, "the company is out to get me" at an early stage startup. They left after a few years and started their own company. They couldn't recruit and grow. I turned down their offer because I didn't trust them. I didn't trust them because I was well aware of their distrustful mindset when working in a small group setting.

I had a different mindset during the early stages of the startup, one closer to a model of trust with the company on compensation, quality, and level of effort. I also left to start my own company and I've had no trouble attracting people, both employees and sub-contractors.

There is some merit to an adversarial mindset but it's a liability in the early stages of a company and it leaves a lasting impression on your reputation.

I've had a colleague with that mindset too. I didn't join his next venture. I'm glad I didn't.

And if your response to an open and honest question is to immediately assume a whole bunch of stuff about the intent/etc of the people asking, i'm pretty sure they wouldn't want you.

The only issue on the table is, what are the job and my skills worth? How I spend the money, as a job candidate, is an irrelevant personal question.

The employer is the one bringing the job and money to the table. I'm bringing skills and the potential for success to the table. No employer would imagine they could not describe the job, why is it they can imagine they can not describe the money? Its all in their court.

I'm with the folks who are suggesting, say nothing about the money, let them do the talking.

This is absolutely terrible advice.

I've had several very frank salary discussions with people I work for based on mutual trust. It doesn't always happen, but it's perfectly possible.

I am afraid that this whole "mutual trust" aspect is missing in the OP and some of the comments. As a person who hires more than quite a few people, I definitely do not like to hire people with the mindset "The company is out to screw me, and I absolutely will stick for the absolute best for myself". If the mindset is established "the company is out to screw me", I actually do not want that person, regardless of how hot they are or how low a pay they want to accept (at that point, it is not about the pay). That spirit of mutual trust has served me well and I believe has served the people I have hired well.

Trust is earned. You don't actually have trust when you first meet someone.

It's a savvy negotiating tactic to start with behaviors based on an assumption of good faith, but only if you aren't cutting your own throat in the process.

I'm not all that great at job hunting, so I have hesitated to jump in to this discussion. But perhaps that says something important. I mean, the fact that I'm pretty good at negotiating generally, yet not so great at the job hunting process. Perhaps that is important commentary in its own right on some of the problems in the job market with asymmetrical info and how that can impact job applicants.

This is an embarrassing comment. You were wise to use a throwaway. Not a single talented engineer would ever knowingly work for someone who thought expecting and negotiating for fair market compensation is an attitude problem.

You still don't get it here, and elsewhere. The parent you complain about is completely correct. As they said, if your goal is to view all of this as a completely adversarial relationship, with no reason to do so given to you by me, i probably don't want you. I want people who stop to understand the perspective and situations of other people rather than just assume them. If i'm adversarial, fine, i have no problem with you being the same. But you shouldn't assume it.

Interestingly, most talented engineers i know in fact operate the same way. They try to understand the perspective of the other person first (in a meeting, in a negotiation, etc) instead of assuming what it is.

Your framing of this viewpoint as an attitude problem does not look great. It's not an attitude problem, it's a way of operating problem.

You want to hire people who don't just say "well this other team that isn't doing what i want, so they are clearly stupid, etc". You want to hire the person who says "hey, i wonder why team x feels differently when we both probably want success", and tries to understand their perspective and how they can work together towards some goal.

That is what the most talented engineers do.

An honest actor doesn't ask irrelevant questions that just so happen to put you in a weaker negotiating position.

When you do this to a naive kid, you might win out. When you do this to a seasoned professional, you burn any chance of him assuming good faith (which is almost never the case to begin with, given that negotiations are inherently adversarial), and he's going to enjoy playing hardball with you.

Listen, I know how this works. And I tell your employees and potential employees because I like when knowledge, dedication, and skill enrich people, and I hate when lesser-minded snake-charming enriches people.

Asking a question that directly changes the negotiating relationship is adversarial from the start.

I think there's a world of difference between "the company is out to screw me" and "I want the best possible result". And I think that the throwaway account you're agreeing with has trouble differentiating between the two (see my other responses to him).

It is absolutely reasonable to enter a negiotiation with the intent to base the resulting partnership on mutual trust. But "I will renege on this offer if you attempt to negotiate" doesn't scream trustworthy to me.

I would.

Self-abnegation can work for people who don't have to worry about their family or retirement.

The mindset isn't "The company is out to screw me." The mindset is closer to "Some companies are out to screw me. I don't know what kind this is." They aren't assuming the worst of you.

Hell, I don't think they're even necessarily assuming that the worst is common. They are assuming that it's common for employers to not pay them fairly if they don't take these tactics. They aren't assuming you will do that, but they are just worried you might might be.

What mutual trust?

We live in a capitalist society where the literal goal of an enterprise is to exploit the labour of workers and pay them less than what they create in terms of value.

There are young graduates who haven't worked that out yet and there are veterans who know the game well. At no point is trust involved in this equation. Employment is a mutually beneficial arrangement where the worker's self interest to maximize their wealth is always orthogonal to the employer's self interest of maximizing their wealth.

Just be a grownup and negotiate a fair cut. I fucking hate employers acting like we have some kind of trust, or worse, friendship. We're in a business arrangement. The only mutual trust is that I will do what I can to make as much money off you as possible, and you will do what you can to make as much money off me as possible. So long as that arrangement benefits us both, we have a working relationship. There's a reason why you will find a paragraph along the lines of 'don't be friends with your employees' in every book for founders.

People who say stuff like you're saying fall into one of two categories: the naive who haven't yet figured out how the world actually works, and the disingenuous preying on the naive who haven't figured out how the world works. I won't work with either.

That's interesting. I could see it having the same effect on me. Glad it worked out for you.

If I got that question I’m not sure I’d say it was “frank”. Sure, it’s asking me to be honest, but that isn’t the same thing.

Maybe just me, but I don’t think asking the same question in a different way should be expected to elicit a different answer. My bottom number would be whatever it would normally be and the top number would be a bit higher.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com