The secret to a higher salary is to ask for nothing at all

Throughout my career and my life I've followed this strategy disparagingly called being a doormat below. I have a friend who has followed the opposite strategy, always asking for and fighting for the most he can squeeze out of an employer and life. Strangely, I have often been paid more, been given more benefits and been generally happier. I think this works because unlike what many people seem to think, the other side aren't typically sociopaths trying to squeeze the last drop of blood out of the employees. But they will respond that way when pushed.

People generally have a solid understanding of what is fair and what isn't. When we start a negotiation from a point of unfairness and unreasonableness, both sides are then on the defensive which anyone who has read Dale Carnegie knows is a recipe for failure. I'm not sure I buy into the OP's idea of asking for $0 since that's just as unreasonable but it's unreasonable in a way that brings the other side closer instead of pushing them away. If you sincerely say you want to work for what you make, the majority of people will want to give you what you deserve. Are there people out there who will immediately try to screw you? Yes but that happens, you get as far away from them as possible. And if you can't recognize those people, you have far bigger problems than learning how to maximize your negotiations.

Negotiations seems to work best when they are discussions, not attempts to get the most of of the other side. Of course, if you're working for a boss who used to be a used car salesman or a sociopath, by all means, be prepared to have to fight for everything you want. And be prepared to be miserable to boot.

"Seventeen years later, I'm still with the same firm."

This isn't a small sample, it's a single sample. It barely qualifies as an anecdote. OP just had the good luck to find a good company and recruiter.

He didn't ask for nothing. He asked for zero salary along with the highest profit sharing percentage in the industry. He works as a prop trader and hedge fund manager, so his value delivered is totally quantifiable. In othe words, he offered to take on more risk in exchange for a higher percentage return in a business where it's hard for your employer to be dishonest about exactly how much value you delivered.

Here's another, equally replicable secret to a higher salary: Go for a walk. Run into a billionaire. You both get knocked down. Tell the billionaire to watch where he's walking. The billionaire stands up, says, "Hey, kid, you got moxie. I'm now going to hire you at twice your current salary." Say, "That's insulting." The billionaire responds, "All right, make it quadruple your current salary." Enjoy your new career and 4x pay raise!

It's that simple.

This seems like the secret to get paid minimum wage.

I think HN is reaching a tipping point with spam on this one.

> "Brooke Allen has worked for 30 years in the securities industry as a proprietary trader and hedge fund manager."

Let me translate:

"Brooke Allen has worked for thirty years in a industry dedicated to fleecing the stupid rich. Hedge funds uniformly deliver lower-than-average returns with high volatility, but high payouts to the staff involved sucking from other people's money. Mr. Allen believes that working in an extremely-well-paid industry where he managed to get extremely-well-paid makes him a good salary negotiator."

Okay, this is a very interesting article with a high risk approach used by somebody who hasn't ever had to change jobs so comes from the point of view of somebody with a single data point. I'm not saying disregard it, just that...your mileage will vary. As an employer, I'd never ever play these games with a prospect.

As an employee, I've used a different approach (note: this is not intended to be reflected on the very strange environment of a startup, but on more established businesses)

When you start the job, ask for a salary that you'd be happy with, in fact give them $5-7 thousand dollar range with your ideal salary somewhere on that range (usually on the low end), and would stay happy with so long as it continued to rise at a reasonable percentage slightly higher than inflation. You also get information based on where they come in on your range.

The very first time you get a pay raise under that percentage or that doesn't keep up with inflation? Change jobs. If your pay raise isn't even keeping up with inflation, congratulations your reward for your last year's work is a de facto pay cut. That's what your employer thinks about you. Time to leave, period.

In one case I secured a better paying job in another part of the company, gave my intent to leave and was given a counter offer with a promotion and a double digit pay raise that beat where I was going. I told them that if I stayed, I would be committing to 12 more months, if my pay raise was again unacceptable I would leave. The next year the raise was below inflation, and I left for a much better job.

If the economy is good, give yourself a raise when changing jobs, treat it like a promotion, give yourself two years worth of pay raises for the new job when getting down to salary negotiations.

If you get promoted, expect at least two years worth of pay increase percentages. If you don't receive that, it's not a promotion, it's just more work for you. Never take-on additional responsibility without additional reward.

If they don't ask for your salary requirement, see what they offer, if it's low don't feel afraid to point that out and ask for a more realistic salary. In many cases I've worked in expensive cities, in small offices, that are part of very large companies in different states. Their salary expectations may be great where their HQ is, but might stink in the city. Point that out.

I've also worked in places where the yearly raise percentages reduce as your pay increases. So a starting employee on a starting salary might easily see double digit increases year over year, while an experienced employee might barely keep up with inflation. They struggled to keep experienced talent around.

If you're offered a choice between a small bonus and a pay raise, take the pay raise. That increased base pay makes a difference forever. Say the bonus is $5000 and the pay raise amounts to $2000 the next year. In three years it's worth $6000. In ten it's worth $20000 even if you never get another pay raise again. It's pretty much the best guaranteed investment you can ever make. Now, consider that it'll become part of your base pay history that you then make raises off of, which are percents of your salary, that raise is worth even more! Employers know this and try and convert pay increases into bonuses all the time, it's a one time payment that then gets off their books if they have a bad year the next year. Don't fall for it. There are exceptions, extraordinarily large bonuses shouldn't be turned down of course.

One you accept a salary (this includes your pay increase), commit to working there for at least 12 months. It can suck sometimes, but long term it looks better on your resume. I've typically put in 3-5 years at most places. I've never had to have one of those "why did you leave this prior employer after 3 months?" discussions, but I have had to have "why did you leave this place after working there so long?". In this market, working too short or too long can be unusual. The employee who's working someplace for 17 years and then suddenly wants to change jobs is a red flag. It wasn't boredom that made them change their job, any job is boring after a few years. Getting to 17 means they can beat that problem. Something else happened.

Following this plan, Over the last 18 or so years, starting out with a yearly pay of under $18k, I've managed to get consistent pay increases that are more than double inflation while working for bigCos, year over year pay increases of 15 to 20% have not been uncommon (if you aren't too stuck to a single company). I'm not "rich" by any means, but I live a very comfortable boring suburban life free from any debt beyond a rapidly disappearing mortgage on a very comfortable home with enough left over for lots of overseas travel every year. In about 5-6 years I'll have paid off my home, gone completely debt free, and then will literally have more money than I can spend in a normal day-to-day life. I still have to work, but I rarely have to think much about what things will cost when going out shopping. I went to normal boring state school for university, and have managed to consistently make (or grow my salary faster) than every single one of my peers who went to a "better school". Any advantage they had starting out has more than disappeared over the years.

Startups are a very different beast. And I know that alot of this won't be popular with the startup founders here ;)

#1 Don't accept a bad salary. You'll get all the lines about equity and stock options etc. In the end, unless you are one of the first employees and you happen to hit the lottery and end up at the next billion dollar company, your equity will be worth at or less than most normal bonus packages you'd receive anyway if it's worth anything at all. Take a normal salary. A company with good funding shouldn't squawk at paying their people decent salaries. But you might take a small hit on the salary. Keep a mental note of what this hit is if you go back to a BigCo. Correct for it, act like you were paid the higher amount, when negotiating your new salary with BigCo.

#2 You are very tied to the ups and downs of the company. Expect not to get a pay raise from time to time, especially in the early days until the company starts making a profit. If the goal of the company is not to make a profit and that you'll get your reward out of options, consider your payout divided by the number of years you'll have to put in and see if that makes you happy. Consider what would happen if the payout is $0.

#3 If the business booms, time to renegotiate your salary. Sometimes the company hits super profitability, point out that you took a smaller salary to get the company through the lean years and now it's no longer lean. If you went multiple years without a pay increase, expect the first increase to be unusually large (to make up for it) and future increases to be more normal.

#4 Don't accept ridiculous paycaps. They're stupid. A couple very well known startups cap their employee pay at $120k. One I know of hasn't paid raises for years. The employees who took a pittance first-out-of-college salary are still getting paid that 3,4 and 5 years later -- but now many are married and quite a few are having kids. Their company recently advertised that their valuation is nearing double digit billions (but now in their 5th or 6th funding round with no public plans to sell or go public so equity these days is almost worthless). Does that sound right?

Remember, what's your payout going to be divided by years. Suppose bigCo buys this startup tomorrow, many of those employees might see a sweet $150k payout. Or $30k per year for 5 years of work. Suppose their starting salary was $50k that means they've been working for $80k the entire time. Instead of 5 lean years they could have had 5 satisfied pay years elsewhere.

Even worse, when moving on to another company, especially a bigCo, their suppressed salary puts them way down at the bottom of the pay scale. It's "diseased" their future salary prospects. Just like taking a small raise instead of a bonus "boosts" your future salary prospects, they've managed the inverse...and because the caps and pay policy of this startup are very publicly known, they can't negotiate or talk their way it.

#5 All is not lost, perks are awesome, figure out how much it would cost you out of pocket for the perks you use and then figure that into your total compensation. Some places are receptive to "my total compensation at my last place was $xyz, but I'm looking for a different kind of mix of $qrzw". These are more complicated, but you can say "my last employer gave me about $5k a year in perks that I used. I'd rather have that as salary here". It's reasonable, even if not every place is receptive to it.

>"I explained that my goal is to live a debt-free life, and therefore I wanted to give value before receiving compensation."

Really, "live a debt free life" by letting other people pile HUGE debts on you?

So the top dogs get lear jets, nice Jaguars and golden parachutes with the fruits of the work you and others like you contribute, since they get to keep all the extra profits off of your work (besides those needed to keep the company going and moving forward).

If you really want to eliminate debt, eliminate it on BOTH sides.

I am a "taker" and, strangely, I love this approach. Why? Because this strategy leaves both parties feeling the opposite of driving off a used car lot (where someone got squeezed, and someone did the squeezing). Yet, it maximizes value.

For most of my career I've made more than my peers, simply because I asked, and asked, and asked. More often than not, when I asked my salary went up. It's that simple. The problem is that eventually my employers have begun to felt a little squeezed and when a rough spot came around, that smoldering ember lit a fire that sometimes ended with me leaving the company. It's not easy being the highest paid person in the company by a margin of 30%. I don't say that to boast. I mean it. Theres a massive expectation placed upon you.

I think I'll use this new negotiation strategy in the future instead.

Part of what the OP is saying is true: I've been rewarded by employers (especially at the beginning) by working hard, not making demands, and delivering more "value" than I received in compensation.

Working hard and delivering more value than your receive is generally a good strategy.

However, eventually you will need to learn the art of asking for things: raises, benefits, etc... In my experience the squeaky wheel DOES get the grease.

tl;dr employers will like you if you tie all your compensation with performance. For some positions this is a good thing when you have control over the outcome and you're confident you're upto par. Sales and trading for example are good areas as the performance is easy to quantify. Creative professions... not so much.

This seems like a very long way to describe the very old advice of never being the first to say a number. There are better articles online, specific to salary negotiation and how to refuse to give a number without being a dick about it.

Reason for posting on HN: "come to our start-up and work for free. We will compensate. Maybe. Sometime. See that one hedgie-trader did that and was OK!"

I'm certainly going to try this in future negotiations. However I'm sceptical that a prospective client/customer is going to show their hand by revealing (albeit on a swapped piece of paper) their maximum bid in many cases.

No-one wants to pay the maximum for any commodity. It runs contrary to game theory.

I strongly disagree with this. If you think that you can bring a good value to a company, you should price yourself at a premium level. If you don't believe in yourself, why would you expect the company to do that? After you get hired, every raise will be based on your current salary (so a 5% increase of a higher starting point will get you to a higher salary). After that, the only way to have a significant raise is to change jobs. At least this is what I've noticed in my case.

I know what I'm doing, I'm good at that and I know that it's hard for companies to find good people (most of them either lack experience or they simple don't care about the quality of their code). Why shouldn't I ask for more? I care about the job I'm doing and I'm expecting the same thing from my employer.

A job where I can swing that type of contract and have the onus completely on me to prove my worth sounds perfect. The sad reality is that it seems like in my field of work the dependencies on others is enough to make such a move very risky. From my experiences I can imagine a few situations which of results in a "you didn't have a good year" kind of reward even though it wasn't my fault and I truly did the best that anybody could have.

When your work in a job that requires leverage and you have dependencies you need your entire dependency chain to do their job so yours can be judged accurately.

The article says that the OP 'developed an approach'. If I'm to believe that this is a technique, and not just a fortunate hiring for employee and employer, then there would need to be more examples of how this works, not just one.

From the content of the article alone it seems like finding a good employer might be a way of securing a good salary. No shit.

This theory should be strongly coupled to a culture. In many countries this will just never work.

I'm forced to admit that this strategy reads like something out of the Vorkosigan Saga. Then again, there's a reason the Vorkosigan Saga is awesome. The question is, can it really be made to work outside the sample size of one?

In the securities industry high salaries are common because they usually are paired with lower percentage payouts. If you want a higher payout, you are generally expected to take a small or no salary (in the extreme case)

"I explained that my goal is to live a debt-free life, and therefore I wanted to give value before receiving compensation."

Why? If someone is hiring you to do something, they're taking the risk of you not delivering enough value, but they're also entitled to whatever rewards they can get from your work, which can be several times what they're paying you. Basically the author wants to take all the risk, and if he doesn't have a substantial bonus, very little of the rewards.

Well, of course anyone can live to make other people profit more, but it's a bit strange to tell everyone to live like that.

Excerpt from the link:

"We started with base pay. I wrote down the least I would work for and asked them to write down the most they would offer a perfect person, irrespective of whether I was that person or not. If when we exchanged papers, their number wasn’t higher than mine then we could stop there and save time. Their number was twice the best base pay I had ever received in past jobs, and my request was for $0."

I am not understanding. The least he would work for is nothing? That can't be a "start base pay", can it? Could someone clarify? Thanks!

Hahaha, go ahead and try it, and then you wonder why you are getting paid less than 100k while a incompetent new hire is making 150k fresh off of school.

Slightly off topic, but not too much: the article offers good advice as far as compensation goes. I have found another trick works really well in consulting: avoid locking in customers. Document everything, be willing to help train replacements, train employees to take over your tasks, etc. This gives customers a warm-fuzzy feeling about using your services, which seems to attract more work.

Why does Ghostery[1] keep the blog content from showing up at all?

Hmm, seems to be in particular "Adobe Digital Marketing (Omniture) [2]. If you have ghostery block this, you can not see the blog text.

[1] http://www.ghostery.com/

[2] http://www.ghostery.com/apps/adobe_digital_marketing_(omnitu...

Does anyone else have trouble reading this on Android? Every time I touch the screen to scroll it bumbs the text to an unknown location.

anyone else feel like qz.com's layout is awful and cramped?

I can’t read the article. This URL ends up showing me “All the paths to immigration” or something. Does anyone have a copy of the actual content I can read?

Ironic that someone who has spent his life working as a trader (i.e. producing nothing) is so concerned with "debt and honor."

in france, you cant

fuck my life

I think of it differently. There are maximizers, satisficers, and doormats. Maximizers are the ones who will go all-out to get the best deal, and sometimes even play the system. They're the ones who know that you can get a box of cereal for $3.79 instead of $5.29 at another store. They'll also come up with excuses to line their job interviews on the same week so the offers roll in at the same time and they can start a "bidding war".

Most people look at maximizers, in the context of negotiation, as being a bit sociopathic. I disagree; I think it's sometimes quite reasonable to take a maximizing strategy. It can be exhausting, but I wouldn't call it sociopathic.

Satisficers have a goal and a sense of "good enough" and, as long as they're north of it, they're happy. Doormats are the ones who take what's given to them. Being a doormat is the worst. You never win by being a doormat.

The problem with "ask for nothing at all", in the workplace, is that it makes you a doormat, not a satisficer.

On the other hand, you have to know when to maximize and when to satisfice (is that a word? It is now.) There's a time for each. Usually, you want to satisfice on salary and maximize on project quality and work culture. But there are exceptions to that rule.