Hacker News Reader

She’s not saying she doesn’t have responsibility here, she’s saying women in general are less likely to do what you advise - it’s a systematic bias difference in the sexes and / or being raised in our culture.

Yes, we could, as you advise, teach women to navigate this system. But isn’t that what we’ve been trying, and where has that gotten us?

I think she has a unique point here pointing how companies are hypocritical - they want more diversity and transparency, yet actively take advantage of candidates by not being transparent, which overly falls harder on under represented groups.

I agree.

It's also the fact that diversity isn't about what letters people have in their passports. What we want is a diversity of perspectives, opinions, and philosophies toward life and everything.

Part of why we want more women is tightly interwoven with the reasons they are less likely to negotiate hard on salary. If we hire only women who negotiate like men, we aren't getting that diversity at all.

Obviously I speak in stereotypes now, but I think the general point still stands; we can't keep hiring with the exact same criteria and expect to magically get different hires. We want diversity in terms of who the person is, not what their biological sex or social gender is.

> What we want is a diversity of perspectives, opinions, and philosophies toward life and everything.

If only...

My personal experience is that the folks who are most vocal about “diversity” (i.e., the letters in the passport you refer to) tend to be the least supportive of different perspectives, opinions, philosophies of life, etc.

“Agree with the way I think, or you are part of the problem” sadly is a common rallying cry.

I think this is somewhat reductive, as it make a few blanket assumptions that I don't think can be assumed.

The first is that better candidates will get the maximum salary out of a company, and less qualified candidates will get less. This seems to indicate that people who are qualified for a given job will also be excellent at negotiating for it. I don't think these two skills are in any way related.

The second assumption I see in this is that candidates should "women/bipoc can't navigate this system." I think what you're missing (and the article states this) is that minority candidates will be looked at differently when asking for money. There's also the difficulty of determining one's worth, especially when companies don't post average salaries. It can be a difficult guessing game to even ballpark what your value is (even with companies like Glassdoor posting salaries), and if you made less money in your previous job, you're likely to ask for less again. This naturally disadvantages minority and female candidates that have made less historically.

Yes, white men aren't born being able to navigate it. But this ignores the fact that our society is set up to encourage confidence in straight white men and discourage it in many other groups.

In addition, posting a salary range has many positive downstream effects as mentioned in the article. My brother recently benefited from this, as his company posted a job listing for a similar position to his with a starting salary of 20,000 dollars more. He was able to use this to advocate for higher pay.

Bottom line, posting a salary range just adds transparency to the process and evens the playing field a bit. Needing negotiation skills to even get in the ballpark of your true value is crazy; even car companies give you a price point to start from.

> posting a salary range has many positive downstream effects

I agree. I'm just not sure if I agree that it particularly benefits underprivileged groups. I don't see a compelling argument being made by the author that the system of negotiation specifically is biased. Whether a salary range is posted or not everyone has to negotiate and engage the market. There is no way to get around this and if you aren't willing to do it you are going to be taken advantage of.

A salary range posted by the company who is trying to hire you is not going to tell you how much you should be making there. They are going to try to pay you less. It seems like what people really want is for employers to magically pay everyone exactly what they should be making without negotiating, which is simply not possible, because nobody knows what they should be making until the market sets a price.

> The first is that better candidates will get the maximum salary out of a company, and less qualified candidates will get less.

I'm not assuming this. In my experience whether someone negotiates more or not at all has more to do with their experience around the process in general. More junior candidates or candidates who haven't switched jobs more than once or twice are more likely to be underpaid. I personally screwed this up about 4 times before learning my lesson.

> minority candidates will be looked at differently when asking for money

I don't disagree with this. I don't see how posting a salary range changes this. If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not.

> There's also the difficulty of determining one's worth

The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay. There is no other way to do it. For someone looking for a job you should try to get multiple offers, negotiate them, and see how much you end up with. That number is as close to your market value as you are going to get.

> this ignores the fact that our society is set up to encourage confidence in straight white men and discourage it in many other group

I guess I really just don't buy this argument as it pertains to this topic. Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing. If you can't become comfortable doing this, you are going to make less.

> If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not.

A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system.

> The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay.

I don't see how posting salary ranges is any different from negotiation. If a company posts a salary range and gets no qualified candidates, they now know that the offer was too low. Instead of putting the onus on the prospective employee, why not put it on the corporations? I think it probably makes more sense to have companies competing against each other in a transparent and open market, instead of requiring employees to do that work for themselves.

> Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing.

Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs. If you go to the link related to the Howard and Heidi case study [1], you'd see that there is at least anecdotal evidence that women are seen as less likable and selfish if doing the same thing as men. It's not just about a matter of confidence, but how that confidence is perceived. Combine those two issues together and you can see how negotiation can negatively impact some groups.

> Howard and Heidi case study

This is the crux of the argument, and it is something that needs stronger evidence from the author. The Howard and Heidi case study is not related at all to how someone will be perceived negotiating a salary. It is a very weak piece of evidence.

It also doesn't make any sense to me, and doesn't match up with my experience hiring or being part of the process. Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have. If the employer wants to hire them, they will pay what they are willing to pay them. If someone wants to work for a company, they will take the amount they are willing to be paid.

> A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system.

Maybe salary ranges do help people that are being absolutely fleeced by their employers. Again, I do not buy that has anything to do with gender or race. This happens when people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise. It is true that many, many people do this and end up being underpaid. There is no barrier for someone in an underprivileged group from learning that they need to negotiate and shop around.

As you said, a salary range might help a small amount for people who are being taken advantage of but they will still be underpaid. The only way to actually get what you are worth is to navigate the market. It is a very simple process.

> Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs.

It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are at your job. But it does have something to do with how much you get paid for doing your job. The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.

> The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.

You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range. Is there a downside to requiring companies to be transparent in their salary offers? It makes companies directly compete with each other, as companies offering low salaries will receive less-qualified applicants. This also allows employees to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy, as applicants won't be required to complete the application and interview process before discovering the salary of the job.

Bottom line, most markets start with the seller providing a price. Auctions begin with a set starting price and bidders are able to tell when the reserve price has been met, car negotiations generally start from a sticker price, and most retail stores I've been to have listed prices. This doesn't stop competition; in fact, grocery store profit margins seem to hover around the 2-4% range according to Google. This is backed up by the FY 2019 results for Ahold Delhaize, which indicate that the operating margin is around 4% [1].

> Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have.

The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's. A meta-analysis of psychological studies [1] indicate that dominant behavior can absolutely affect hireability. Does this affect salary? I can't imagine it has a positive effect. In addition, another link present in the article [3] indicates that women and minorities expect to make anywhere from 7-11% less than white men. This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.

> people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise.

I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.

[1] https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases...

[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001

[3] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...

> You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range.

I'm not arguing this. Again, I agree that these practices are good for employees.

>I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.

I agree that providing an average salary or range gives transparency, I just don't buy the idea that it somehow benefits underprivileged groups more.

There is nothing stopping anybody from negotiating or trying to find a good value in the market. If being a woman means they are less likely to negotiate (which I don't believe), they need to learn to negotiate, because they don't have a choice. It is how the market sets prices, and there is no way around it. Setting a range helps, but it doesn't remove the need for negotiating.

> The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's

I agree with this, even if the "study" itself is laughably weak. But basically all the study is saying is "sexism exists".

Based on my experience I do not believe this has a connection with negotiating. Everyone can and should negotiate. Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.

Employers understand that negotiation is necessary as it is the only way to set fair prices. I would need a lot more evidence to buy the idea that it is somehow discriminatory. The author provides none.

> This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.

This is correlation and not causation. The fact that women and minorities make less has been established many times. I just don't see any evidence that this is because they can't negotiate. The author needs to provide evidence that the process of negotiation itself is discriminatory, and that salary ranges will somehow alleviate this problem. Based on my fairly extensive experience I don't think it makes sense intuitively.

> I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.

These aren't mutually exclusive

> This is correlation and not causation.

Is it correlation when studies show that women and minorities are likely to underestimate their worth? The linked section of this article [1] indicates that women and minority are actively asking for less. I don't buy that this is primarily due to women or minorities being inherently less naturally able to negotiate, but rather societal expectations that women should earn less.

By posting an average salary, this can hopefully decrease this gap by allowing employees to avoid voluntarily short-changing themselves by asking for less. Standardizing pay ranges can absolutely prevent disadvantaged groups, as it prevents them from asking for what amounts to somewhere around 8-10% less than their white male counterparts.

> Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.

The meta-analysis I linked [2] indicates that aggressive behaviors negatively impact women from both a likeability and hireability standpoint, with the effect size on hireability showing a solid relationship. I fully believe that you haven't perceived a woman as being less hireable or likable, but the evidence indicates that as a whole this type of behavior is perceived more negatively in women.

I would agree that so far, my personal experiences wouldn't lead me to feel that women are disadvantaged by this process. But, based on personal experience, I also wouldn't have assumed that women are seen as less likable if they exhibit more dominant behaviors (as that isn't something that I personally feel). But there is evidence that some behaviors can be perceived differently by gender. I can't ignore this even if it's not something that I've personally experienced.

[1] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...

[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001

A lot of context was trimmed out of that quote:

> As a woman, society brought me up to be polite — not to ‘stir the pot’— and certainly not to talk about money. I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss. If I look too money-driven, I’ll likely be seen as cold and ruthless where a man might be seen as ambitious and straight-shooting (if you don’t believe me, read the ‘Howard vs Heidi’ study).

While it is easy to tell people to negotiate, some people are not equipped to negotiate in that particular context since they have not been brought up to negotiate in that context. It also turns out that it is very difficult to control this upbringing. I have had conversations with mothers who want their daughters to be strong and self-reliant, yet express frustration with teachers and child care workers conveying the exact opposite message. If they have difficulty in contexts where they can express their concerns directly to the people involved, their battle is utterly hopeless when it comes to society as a whole.

The "cold and ruthless" comment also illustrates that the attitudes of the party being negotiated also plays a role here. If you are walking into a negotiation where your asks are perceived as ambition, you are more likely to be seen in a positive light. If you're walking into a negotiation where your gender automatically implies that the same asks are going to be seen as ruthless, you are more likely to be seen in a negative light. Unfortunately, social expectations mean that gender will play a role in how a candidate is perceived even if they are asking for the same thing in the same way.

I would argue that she is right, but for the wrong reasons. Whether the lack of salary ranges disproportionately affects this or that identity group (or doesn't) is a red herring.

I'm a "white" man, I find it hard to navigate the very idea of salary negotiation, and I would very much appreciate salary ranges being required in job advertisements. I might very well be underpaid, and I'm sure that many individual women and people of other ethnicities find it much easier than me, be it because of experience, personality, or conscious effort to overcompensate. Others might find it harder than me. Regardless, it doesn't matter.

What does matter is that opaque salary ranges on job advertisements are detrimental to the income of certain individuals, and the result of this is:

- People with a personality more suited to negotiate their salary are paid better than those without, and (with a few exceptions) it is not correlated with the skill or abilities relevant to the job.

- Other people may decide to learn and become fully comfortable with the process, with more or less success, by expending time and effort.

- Businesses financially profit at the cost of less assertive workers, thanks to the information asymmetry [0] of salaries in the job market.

None of these features generate any kind of value to society or to the economy at large, and there would be no downside to introducing a requirement to publish salary ranges in every job advertisement. Would it make salary negotiation obsolete? Absolutely not! Would it eliminate putative salary gaps between identity groups? I don't know. But would it make salary better correlate with skill at ones job, and improve the income of workers? I think so, yes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry

I mean, you're free to buy or not buy whatever ideas you want.

But it's not really arguable at this point that women and people of color (especially black & indigenous) are treated less well, assumed to do a poorer job, and generally at a disadvantage when negotiating salaries.

(This all completely aside from the fact that "good negotiation skills" should not be the reason Employee A gets a better salary than Employee B, unless the job itself is significantly about negotiation.)

Let's not forget class privilege (this may sound like a heresy, but difference in income between rich and poor people is probably even greater than between men and women). If you are a programmer born in a working-class family, it may be difficult for your parents to teach you proper interviewing and negotiation skills.

Indeed. Not just "difficult to teach," but such skills are simply not among those generally valued among the middle and working classes, in my experience (having grown up in them). This is part of why I speak so against them: to me, the idea that they're just "something everyone should have" seems so alien, extravert-centric, and elitist.

> If you have that attitude you are going to make less money than someone who negotiates

You may also end up being rejected [1].

> Companies will try to pay anyone, no matter their race, gender, or religion, less

I tend to agree, but also in my experience there are some companies that try to pay people based on their experience not how well the someone negotiates.

> Would publishing a salary in a job description make things more equitable? I don't think so

Like you said before, some companies optimise towards lowest pay. By publishing salary ranges it creates a level playing field and people can still negotiate if they want. Gitlab does this pretty well: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...

[1] https://www.teamblind.com/post/Shopify-Offer-Rescinded-Due-t...

There's a negotiation involved, once you decide you want to offer the job to someone. They might think they are less likely to get the job if they ask early, yet they might also not want to go through the whole interview process to find that your range is too low for them.

What is the downside, from any employee’s perspective, to knowing what the range is upfront? I certainly attempt to find that information before entering negotiations.

A downside to an employer is it limits their options before they have all the information. They might be able to get a bargain on an employee who would have taken the job for less than the minimum.

It can also be a bad starting point for a hire who takes a job for pay at the very low end, that their value has been pegged at the bare minimum. The new hire may be fine with it when the position is clearly an advancement for them but for others they may resent the assessment of their worth even though it's more likely based on market realities and/or the organization's finances.

I meant employee but flubbed it and totally flipped around my post. Sorry!

No problem.

A possible downside for a potential employee is they could be a very qualified candidate who passes on applying for a position because the high end of the range isn't high enough but they didn't sufficiently factor in the other benefits. Salary is only one part of the value of taking a particular job, there are other monetary (lower out-of-pocket heath coverage, profit participation) and non-monetary (better work-life balance, more interesting work, better workplace relationships, etc.) factors.

Even if that's the case, it seems better to know those things up-front, and be OK with that tradeoff, than to waste time getting to the end and then have the whole thing fall apart because of lower than expected compensation.

Yes, it's a pretty minor downside and employers can share and emphasize benefits beyond salary to attract people for whom they are appealing.

I work for a university and the job application system requires people to provide a desired salary range (I think it's a dropdown list of ranges, each $20,000 wide). I wish applicants could pick the top and bottom of the ranges themselves but it does weed out some people with unrealistic expectations (usually they're overestimating their worth but even if they're not, there are hard limits on what a department can pay).

The university also publishes salary ranges but they can create problems because they are very much not hiring ranges; the hiring ranges are mostly in the bottom third, the upper limit of the salary range represents what someone might make after a long career in such a position. When I was a hiring manager, I would explain the difference in salary range and hiring range in interviews without being too specific about what the actual hiring range might be in their case (I also wasn't responsible for what a candidate was offered).

You attempt to find the information before the interview, but some people don't. The downside is that the employer would also have to pay those other people a market salary.

EDIT: I don't see a downside for an employee. If they don't like the advertised range, they can try to negotiate regardless.

I completely agree. Just let the market be. Trying to optimize it will just create other unforeseen consequences.

A normal part of an interview process is discussing salary, and if they won't give an answer then you know they are not trying to be competitive and it's not worth continuing the process.

Classical free markets rely on information transparency.

This is making the market more efficient.

Fair point, however there is so, so much that is ambiguous and indeterminate. Some jobs, let's say line-chef or administrative assistant where roles are very clear and variance between a individuals is relatively low, often do have salaries or wages stated up front. In the line of work I'm familiar with, hiring developers is Pandora's Box - you have absolutely no idea what it's going to be like a year down the road. I've worked at startups, big tech companies, research labs - at absolutely none of those places did the work I end up doing match the specific requisition I had applied to. Furthermore, in almost all cases each staff member has an extremely unique specialty that do drastically different work - despite having the same job title and classification.

Edit: Also, when a company does not disclose the salary range for the position it actually provides a very useful data point., You can pretty much be sure it's at most average -- but probably less-than-competetive -- market rates. The major and popular tech companies don't need to do this because they have a reputation, but the smaller companies can either show they too are competitive (by publishing above-market rates) or show they do not offer competitive salary (by not publishing their salary target).

Yeah, this is like a market where you need to enter the shop, stand in a long line, and only at the cash register you are told how much the items cost. If you think they are too expensive, feel free to try your luck at the next shop, and if the day is long enough you might even try three or four shops. Great for people who have enough vacation days!

What exactly is the merit of knowing how to negotiate a salary?

For me, it was 25% more first-year total comp. I'd say that has merit.

Do you think that, if you didn't know how to negotiate, you should be getting 25% less for the same work input?

Doesn't really matter what I think: companies will offer you the absolute minimum they think you will accept. If you accept their first offer, you're probably leaving money on the table. If their first offer meets or exceeds what you're willing to work for, fine. If not, you either negotiate or decline.

You can get paid a lot more over the course of your lifetime.

I think it is stupid that you have to negotiate salary before you have even written 1 line of code, and then are stuck with it for like at least a year.