Hacker News Reader

You should simply ask for the range up front or state your requirements, if you don't do that and fly out to an interview without knowing if there is overlap that's sub-optimal, it also exposes you to the sunk-cost fallacy.

Remember: recruiters approach you, they are technically in the least favourable position during the negotiations and it will benefit you to keep them there as long as possible.

Asking them for their 'range' is perfectly ok, if they don't want to provide you with an answer then it is absolutely fine to wish them good day but to keep the door open in case they change their mind and wish to part with this important bit of information you require before you start to invest your valuable time in the relationship.

>You should simply ask for the range up front or state your requirements, if you don't do that and fly out to an interview without knowing if there is overlap that's sub-optimal, it also exposes you to the sunk-cost fallacy.

Have you actually tried that? I have. I have never got a number in reply to such a question. Usually the recruiter himself does not know neither does the hiring manager. All salary talks I had were with the CEO/GM/etc. If I refused to talk with any recruiter/hiring manager who does not have a range I'd never been employed.

>Remember: recruiters approach you, they are technically in the least favourable position during the negotiations and it will benefit you to keep them there as long as possible.

This is the thing I don't understand. The recruiter is still trying to hire me if I said or have not said my salary requirements. Not saying does not appear as a strong leverage, in fact, it does not seem like a leverage at all. I ask straight what I want and am willing to negotiate down for non-monetary perks and use the scarcity of qualified applicants on the market as a leverage (e.g. mention other offers I have). I'd love to strengthen my position but I just don't see what I gain with withholding my requirements.

You seem to be conflating your requirements with your current salary. Those are not necessarily the same number, your current salary could be significantly lower than what you require to jump ship.

Sorry I gave you this impression. I actually give two numbers: the salary that I already have and the salary which, if offered, I'd accept immediately and stop any other job search so I am quite aware of difference between two. I see no harm in disclosing my last salary unless it's against my employment policy. All it does is saving time and effort for myself. The cases when I am not asked for salary were when I am referred internally through friends.

Asking a recruiter for a range sounds like a good idea, but in my experience they often won't provide it (perhaps they don't have the authority). I gave up on one tech firm as the recruiter would not provide any salary range, other than the word "competitive" (which, in my experience, means nothing). The only way to find out an actual range involved traveling to their headquarters for a day long interview. I declined, unless they could provide a range. They declined to provide it. That was the end of that.

I suspect the hiring managers were never told the real reason I never interviewed there.

"Competitive" means "will beat an opening alternative offer. If your don't have one, the alternative is 0.

>So you don't tell your current salary or requirement or any number, fly to the interview and get an offer that is half of what you are making.

He said to go ahead and ask what their budget is, or to say what your requirement is:

>When asked this question I would suggest you ask the recruiter for his budget in return, or to simply state your salary requirement (rather than your current salary) instead.

Did you read the article? It says: tell them instead, what you want to earn.

Yes. I think the best way to handle this is to say, "It's tough to make apples to apples comparisons, but I really enjoy my current job, and it would take something in the range of X to Y to get me to move." The recruiter will fixate on the lower #, so it should actually be higher than what you'd be willing to accept.

If you're the one that applied for the job outright, then there is more pressure on you to give up what you're current making.

One other comment - if they come in with, "Well, they're only looking to pay between W and X" and X is lower than you'd like, you can then play the, "Well, I'm making Y, and would need to make Y + Z% to consider a move. I'm happy to give you a name or two of some more junior folks who may be interested."

> I'm happy to give you a name or two of some more junior folks who may be interested.

That's a polite way to tell them to shove it off. I like it.

It doesn't always work. This is what I got back from the last "I'm not interested" note I sent.

Thank you so much for the reply message. I was hoping I would have a few moments to talk on the phone but looking at my upcoming schedule I figured I better get some details out to you right away regarding a position one of my client's is looking to get filled. Thank you again for your replied message. JM is committed to helping small and large businesses with all of their needs, specializing in social media marketing. We are not a staffing agency but from time to time we are asked for help with staffing for everything from restaurant staff to office managers.

Yes I did. I was addressing other commenters here who advertise the idea of the "first to call a number loses". Thanks for your consideration though, it's indeed not very clear from my message.

The article advised just that: state the salary range that would be ok for you. In your example, you could have said just that: my current experience makes me feel comfortable with a range between X and Y. Serves both yours and the recruiter's purposes very well.

Yes that stinks but you did gain valuable experience nonetheless. You should get as much interviewing practice as you can, it's an investment in your career. The situation has happened to me too and it's frustrating and demoralizing to find out they want to pay you what is to you completely unrealistic, but here is an alternate ending: they regrade the job req to meet your requirement. They won't always be able to do this, but when they can you win big.

I am of the opinion that the successful interviews are not improving my job hunting skills. Only failures do. Since in these cases I got to the money talk I consider this successful.

> but here is an alternate ending: they regrade the job req to meet your requirement. They won't always be able to do this, but when they can you win big.

I find it very unlikely that a company that cannot even afford my minimum rate is going to turn around and "win big" unless winning big means getting what I already have with less job security on top (if I am pushing well beyond the salary range - I am the first one to go when the money runs dry).

I am not a celebrity programmer who is worth keeping around just for the bragging rights, I survive by selling the value I add at discount. If this value is unfavorable then neither myself nor the counterparty benefit from such a business.

But don't sell yourself short just because you're not Vint Cerf! You don't have to be a celebrity programmer to demand to be compensated what you're worth. Let them decide if you're capable of adding value on top of what they pay you, but don't try to do the math for them and try to short sell yourself.

In the long run $30k won't break them, if it does then they have bigger problems. Most firms that intend to gain a competitive advantage realize they should pay a little extra to attract talent. Be that talent.

What I am saying is only a celebrity programmer can keep a job where he or she is producing less value than his or her salary. This math won't go away just because you did not do it.

But neither you nor they can do that math with sufficient precision. Certainly not to the degree of accuracy where 150k vs 130k will make or break them. There are a lot of unknowns: your raw talent + their code base + how well you will work with others + market opportunities + experience you have that could help them break into new markets + your ability to mentor and hire friends from your network + a lot of other factors. Your job is to present yourself as top of market, worth the gamble to pay you extra to secure your talent. Again you don't have to be a celebrity. And they simply can't reduce your potential value so accurately.

I did not notice where "twice" became 20% in the course of this discussion but I agree, it's hard to estimate the maximum affordable salary with 20% precision. It's quite easy to estimate within 100% though if you had been in the field long enough.

More importantly, it does not even have to be in any error band as all it takes to suffer from anxiety over being paid too much is to believe your own estimate. It is not worth it for me as there are plenty of jobs where I'd get just as much or more and be confident the company can afford it.

"Value" is spectacularly subjective, though, and there are lots of people who can talk up their perceived value enough to be on the happy side of this calculus.

How are successful interviews not improving your job hunting skills? You have another data point for both salary negotiation and the knowledge/communication bar for people in your field (for better or worse). That just makes no sense to me.

To pass an interview I had to correctly answer certain questions and behave in a certain way, right? So the success means I already knew the correct answers to the questions and my behavior was adequate hence I'd better not to change anything. An improvement is a change by definition. I don't see how reaffirming the status quo causes a change.

> To pass an interview I had to correctly answer certain questions and behave in a certain way, right?

There isn't always "1 truth". There are multiple ways to answer most development questions. A range of answers are usually acceptable. A reaffirmation that an answer is effective is a change for me. It's an additional weight for those answers that are successful (even if I have to reason out to the interviewer why). That's just my algorithm.

> I am of the opinion that the successful interviews are not improving my job hunting skills. Only failures do. Since in these cases I got to the money talk I consider this successful.

I really don't agree with this. I've gotten a ton of value out of seeing what works--and even when I don't go to work for somebody, I've usually stayed in contact and made a lot of acquaintances that way.

But I treat interviewing as a game, and a game I enjoy; last time I was looking I interviewed at thirty-five places just to keep meeting people.

Ask the firm what their budget is for the position. Negotiate from there.