Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdmiralAsshat | Hacker News Reader

The answer is very simple: they don't want to pay their prospective employees any more than they have to. If they put a job listing for $70k and a developer currently making $50k applies and gets it, he gets a 20 thousand dollar raise.

On the other hand, if the employer requires the applicant's current salary on the application, and Mr. Qualified Engineer applies, they can offer him $55k instead (just enough to make him consider the offer if he's unhappy with his current job).

Using this strategy, the employer can make sure their employees never know their real worth, since every raise/promotion/new job they get is based on a "just good enough" improvement over their current salary.

View on HN

That's an interesting theory that sounds like what you'd read in an economics textbook, but I'm not sure what that happens. My experience working at a big tech company is that they pretty much pay everyone the same thing, per job level. When I applied to Google, they basically offered me total comp that was probably about $100k per year more than I made at my previous job (but would not add an extra $10k to my salary to match Amazon's offer). I have a suspicion, but no proof, that people that ask for more money tend to be placed into a higher job level so as to get a salary match with their previous job. So there is room to negotiate, but it can backfire (and you just fail out with bad performance reviews; I've seen that).

Meanwhile, on the other side of the coin, I can show up at salary negotiation with a stack of W2s that said I made ~$280k per year while I was at Google, and they will still offer me something like $140k. That is good money and all, but I have data that I can do better ;)

So I am not sure that everyone is economics-textbook efficient. Rather they have some number in their head, and nothing will change their mind. ("Everyone we interview is so awful, it was so nice to meet you!" then "No way we'll pay you that." It's cute.)

I think the issue here is that for a given rank or role there are salary ranges that are defined, and effectively immovable. Those act as floor and ceiling functions on the salary that can be offered.

So, even if you made $280K at Google, you'll get the $140K offer for that role because $140K is the top end of that range. You could get targeted into a different rank to get into a different range if you're work it. This is where you end up in a different title or level. It's much easier in the HR system to click the different title in the drop-down for you, than it is to get escalations and approvals to pay you outside the defined salary bands.

Note there are definitely some places with weirdly wide job bands. eg. some of the big banks has ranges that vary hugely to account for differences between the trading and back-office salaries - eg. VP on a trading desk with high salary vs VP in IT with low to middling.

Yeah. I wonder if this sounds somewhat correct:

1) Big companies already decided what your job position is worth, and don't have time to negotiate. They have 75,000 other employees, growing that to 75,001 is not worth special-casing you.

2) Small companies have not realized how expensive custom software is yet, and are low-balling you out of general ignorance. Or, when they're aware of the true price, they decide they don't need custom software anymore. (Which I think, in many cases, is the right decision.)

I think so.

I still think that making the employer put a number or a range down, which might translate into some market research, would benefit everyone.

It's also to stop existing employees knowing what your range is when hiring additional staff.

I just ask my coworkers what they make, and share what I make. Isn't everyone doing this? Doing so is protected by federal law.

You've never encountered any animosity from this?

Only once or twice. Other people's feelings are for them to own, doesn't bother me. The power asymmetry doesn't change between employer and employees if you don't make efforts to do so. That's more important to me than if you like me as a person, or want to have lunch with me.

Based on anecdata, no, not everyone is doing this.

I welcome salary discussions with any coworker who wants to talk about it, but I almost _never_ initiate the conversation. It's still too much of a taboo with many people to be worth the risk.

I am also pretty open about salary but a lot of people seem to get really nervous talking about it. Seems the employer propaganda is working.

By co-workers do you mean people in your same position or you mean you also walk in to your bosses office or your bosses bosses offie and ask them how much they make? Other than companies with unique cultures, I would imagine very few would do that (or get a pleasant response), but if amounts are listed on job descriptions you would know how much everyone above you is making. Even asking 'co-workers' how much they make would vary greatly based on the type of company and job you work in, where that would be deemed acceptable behavior, or result in the person happily telling you. As would also depend on if the person you are asking makes more than you or less, if more they would presumably be less likely to tell you or tell your as honestly.

There is some nuance. Coworkers at my level are always fair game. A boss? Depends on the boss. Well adjusted bosses I have a great working relationship with? Definitely. Those have been the majority of my managers over my 20 year career. Bosses with an unhealthy demeanor or an axe to grind? Or executive leadership? No, unfortunately not. In those situations, I've found success in conversations with their peers or someone from HR lets a pay band slip. People like to talk, people like attention. YMMV.

When someone asks me, to show I'm honest, I provide my paystub. I accept that the data I receive might not be accurate, but that doesn't stop me from trying.

I also show my paystub when asked. It’s my little part of working against the information asymmetry.

> if the employer requires the applicant's current salary on the application,

I never apply to jobs that ask these questions. It shows they're more concerned about holding you back than competing with the market.

Under California law, it is unlawful for an employer to ask a candidate for their salary history. Also, California employers must provide applicants with the pay scale for a position upon reasonable request.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not your lawyer.

> Also, California employers must provide applicants with the pay scale for a position upon reasonable request.

This is very good to know, thanks.

It's also unlawful to ask about current or past compensation in New York.

This is it, precisely.

My friend and I interviewed for the same job, he was working making 45k. They offered him 50, he declined. I was unemployed, so they inexplicably offered me 120k.

So to defeat this you just write a higher current salary on your application, right?

No. To defeat this, you politely refuse to provide your current salary.

And be ok with a 10-50% chance of the new place declining to make you an offer?

It won't stop all places, but it will stop some places. You have to be OK with that.

Then you are lying on your application (never a good idea), and that can be considered fraud in some situations.

I'd never assume that your salary is a secret. It's pretty easy to figure it out. Making a material misstatement about it will be perceived as a character defect at best if you are caught, which may happen in the future when you are in some stupid internal dispute.

Many employers attempt to verify your salary (maybe even if you didn't give one). Lying would give them a reason to withdraw an offer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com