Isn't salary a basic piece of information that every job listing should have?
-They hope to wow you with the position so you'll accept a pay lower than you wanted. This doesn't work when the salary range is listed up front and is so low you won't bother to respond.
-They're going to base their offer on how much you make now. This works when you're trying to move up in your career, they can offer you a little more then you make now but not as much as if you're already getting paid well. Again, they lose this position if they're up front with their range.
When the question "How much do you make right now?" comes up in an interview, I answer "How much I make right now is irrelevant, here is how much I want if I'll be working for you" (said with more tact, obviously).
There's no point using it as a basis if they are not, but if they are, it's a good starting point.
How would you react if the candidate gave you the answer I typically give in this situation? ("my current salary is irrelevant, here is how much I want")
I think you're doing more things right than just not mentioning your previous salary...
When you list out a salary without giving any thought as to the applicant, I would imagine that you'd a lot of resumes from people who treat job searches like college applications (reach, backup, safety), while also weeding out potential winners with an arbitrary value on the job listing that could easily fluctuate to accommodate people who fit great with the company but need more than market compensation to sign on.
That said, I think that a company should be up front about how much they were looking to spend on a new hire when asked. I remember being e-mailed by a family friend who was looking for a developer. I let him know that I was happily employed and that I wasn't interested in leaving unless the price was right. He e-mailed back saying that he didn't want to talk about salary at all until he was convinced that I was a good fit for the company. Sorry, bud, but I'm not putting myself through 3 months of interview hell just to satisfy my curiosity.
"Since we're just going into another fundraising round the most we can offer is $80k."
Didn't take that job.
If you do an amazing job, and I pay you an amazing amount. That amazing amount could vary depending on your cost of living.
I agree in a perfect world that you should get paid the same no matter where you are, and globalisation will probably head in that direction. But so will cost of living balancing out too (if people in lower cost of living countries are earning lots more money, the price of things will go up.... supply/demand).
I guess ultimately, when comparing what you pay people, why use the dollar amount as opposed to the benefit to their lives. Shouldn't you be paying everyone an amount that equally benefits them? Why should one person be far greater benefited from their salary? Ultimately it's what you do with the money that matters, not the number on the note.
Because that's entirely subjective and can't be calculated objectively.
Person A in SF might be paying $3000/mo in rent but also has top bands, a lot of popular culture, great shops, and so forth at their front door. These things counteract the lack of much disposable income for them.
Person B in Vietnam might pay $200/mo for a house but may also have frequent power cuts, poor access to healthcare, etc.. but the extra money counteracts these negative points for them.
This is one of many reasons Westerners get paid colossal salaries to work in places like Iraq or pockets of the Middle East. Cultural and security issues (in varying measures) are compensated for by a higher income.
Only the employee knows the amount that is right for them.
Is that really how it would work? What if the Warsaw guy demanded $100k, would you pick the NY guy.
This stuff about cost of living or finding the salary they would be happy with is all baloney. Employers want to pay as little as the candidate will accept. Candidate want the maximum salary an employer is willing to pay them. Anywhere between those two an agreement is possible. Negotiation is (a) figuring out if that range exists and (b) trying to get as close as possible to your ideal place in that range. Same as any other market. Employers (and recruiters are even worse) are trying get have more information than the candidate earlier to help them win at this game.
Employers do the initial advertising, control the process, do it more times, have less at stake. There are some markets where candidates have the stronger hand, but they're unusual. To me, not advertising a salary range is like having separate tourist prices, charging a couple walking into a hotel reception late at night double price, etc. It feels like a dirty trick played by the pro on the amateur.
Not all employers want to pay as little as the candidate will accept. I can state this as fact as I am an employer and I do not do that.
As an employer, I want a happy and loyal staff member. Negotiating them down on price doesn't achieve that. I have never offered less than someones initial asking price, and sometimes paid more.
I think it's wrong to assume the employer and employee have differing objectives. We hopefully both want a successful relationship/partnership. Achieving a salary that both are happy with is part of that.
As for your example, again you assume that the employer makes an offer or the employee demands something. Can't it just be a discussion to find the most appropriate salary? That's how I do it.
However, there is an underlying economic reality here. It's a negotiation over price. The employee has a minimum salary they would accept, some larger amount where they feel satisfied and less likely to look for an alternative job. But, they always want more and if they think they can get more, they will often try. You as the employer also most likely have maximum you are willing to pay and a lower amount that you would prefer to pay.
Even if it manifests as a discussion, this is in many real ways just a veneer over that underlying reality. You are not really offering the Warsaw candidate less then the NY one because they have a lower cost of living. You are offering it because it matches their expectations and they are likely to accept it which is in turn because their alternative are probably comparable. Not advertising a salary range leaves you the opportunity to take advantage of that possibility.
I do think we should be civil and nice and ethical. After all, my problem with undisclosed salary is that it isn't nice. Lets be honest though.
I guess it would feel more fair if the deal explicitly contained a note like "and if you move elsewhere for whichever reason, we'll adjust the salary so that you have at least as good a standard of living as you do now".
Also, if the job posting doesn't explicitly mention remote/WFH, then we try to avoid posting the job.
I often get recruiters who try to sell me a job based purely on technologies and not what the company actually does. I'll ask them who the company is and they usually wont say, either due to the fact that I haven't sent my CV/resume or they think I am another recruiter that is trying to steal the details.
Browse Secretly · No Middlemen · See Salary Upfront