Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicolashahn | Hacker News Reader

Kind of off topic but should one always hide their current salary, even if it's above market rate (given their experience on paper)? It seems as though if an employer were only looking to spend so much on a hire, then if you're already likely above that number, wouldn't it save both you and the employer's time?

I can see the obvious downside of sharing a relatively low salary, but it seems like there could be benefit to sharing a high salary (again, relative to your on-paper experience and value).

View on HN

No, there isn't, unless you're okay with short-selling yourself.

If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad situation. If you share and your amount is < the employers, you'll be underpaid. Bad situation. If you share and your amount = the employers, you may have a job, but you'll never know if you left money on the table because you offered first. Bad situation.

If you offer the number first, the employer becomes the customer - and the customer is always right. If you wait for them to make you an offer, they have to make an offer that is compelling, in the same way sales people go above-and-beyond to close their deal.

Literally the only way sharing your salary first is advantageous is if you need a job immediately. If you can wait, it's best to hold onto your number. If they cared so much about "saving time" they would have put the salary range in the posting - the reason they don't is because it's disadvantageous to do so!

I think that holds only if your time is worth nothing. I don't want to go through weeks of interviews just to find out that my salary demands are $50K more than they're willing to pay.

This is exactly why I made the comment. Recently went through 4 calls and a full day on site just to be met with an offer they wouldn't budge on that's 20% lower than what I currently make.

The time everyone puts into it is part of the negotiating process. A company will budge if it's worth it for them -- and your job is to convince them it's worth it.

If the first thing out of your mouth is salary and they balk at that then you never even get to the negotiating phase.

A few failures, like you had, is simply part of the process. I don't think it's reasonable to expect to be successful a job hunting every time you go into the interview process. The time you put in is part of that process.

I've been through a similar situation: big mistake. They key is to validate you are in range on salary before committing to an interview process. Companies should have the same goal, but many will waste their own time—as you experienced.

This doesn't mean you should share current salary information, but does mean you should be prepared to state your salary expectations. This can be a good thing, as you can anchor high.

If you're in demand and are taking phone screens on a whim, you can always ask the recruiter to share their range. Odds are good they won't, and you can have some "fun" by expressing concern that they don't know what they're hiring for.

They need to convince you it's worth going through that much effort. It's also completely reasonable to ask what a position pays.

This law requires them to provide salary ranges on demand to applicants, which addresses that without you giving them any info.

That's why part of this law states that the employer has to provide the salary range upon request.

"Saving time" during the interview process doesn't make sense if you're going to spend the next X years being UNDERpaid at your job.

If we assume that your time has some amount of value, you are always better off withholding your desired salary.

If you want to see whether or not they're going to be a potential employer, ask them for a ballpark of what they're willing to pay. But there is no reason for telling them free information.

> If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job.

FWIW, I have never had this happen to me in the Valley. Companies will either make projections on what their stock will be worth in the future to make their offer look as attractive as my current pay, or they'll straight up tell me that they have a leveling chart and $X is the maximum they can offer.

Asking me is a rational thing for them to do because they have nothing to lose - same outcome if I decline, win if I accept.

Exactly, it's game theory. The trick to getting high salaries is not to try to win individual negotiations but to win in the general marketplace. I always disclose and ask for their pay so that we can get that out of the way quickly, and I can move on to somewhere that pays what I'm looking for.

"If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job. Bad situation."

If I'm currently employed, that saves me taking time off for interviews, etc.

Depends on how desperately you want to leave, in that case, I guess.

This is true - there's a time value included in this. If you can't take off work, or have a family/obligations and need to transition immediately, you may not be able to afford to withhold this information.

> If you share and your amount is > the employers, you have no job.

If I don't share and my amount is > than the employer's, I still have no job. The sharing just saves time.

I never consider interviewing to be a waste of time. At the very least I get some very valuable practice out of it, learn more about what's out there, and meet some interesting people.

Even if they wind up not hiring you because they find out you're too expensive for their current budget, their budget might increase in the future and they might try to hire you again. Or the people who you made a favorable-enough impression to want to hire you might look to hire you when they're working for some other employer with a bigger budget. If you disqualify yourself by naming too large a number at the outset you'll never get the chance to make that great impression.

Finally, not everything's always about money. If you wind up at the point where they want to hire you and finally you start talking numbers, if their best salary offer is below what you're looking for there might be able to compensate you in some other ways that you could both find acceptable -- that is the essence of negotiation. Here once again, if you had disqualified yourself by naming too high a number at the outset, you'd never get the chance to negotiate.

> I never consider interviewing to be a waste of time.

Most on-site interviews require you to take a day off. If you've got 10 days of PTO, you can do a maximum of 10 interviews a year, and that's if you don't get sick or take any vacation. There is definitely a cost to interviewing.

The idea of only getting 10 days PTO a year continues to be incredible to me.

> If you've got 10 days of PTO, you can do a maximum of 10 interviews a year

Well, at no cost. Whether you can do more without adverse employment consequences depends on your company's unpaid leave policy.

Of course, if you only have 10 annual PTO days, that's a problem in itself.

Previous discussion for this comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14060327

The only consideration when it comes to salary should be for the employer to consider how much they're willing and able to pay for the average productivity of the next hire vs. that hire's contribution to the company's profitability. They already have the right to fire at any time thanks to lax employment laws; it's only right that pay reflects the profitability an employee brings to a company (rather than the average market rate for an employee). If that employee isn't profitable, then they can be fired. If they are, then they'll be paid commensurate with it. Everybody's happy.

That same employer could save MUCH more time by posting a salary range in the job posting..

I kind of consider salary numbers posted in job ads to be a bit of a red flag. In my experience, when that happens, the company's usually trying to preclude negotiation on a salary that is way below market rate -- and there's amost always room for negotiation, so I see companies that try to do this as probably kind of sketchy (except in the case of some government jobs where they may be required by law to post salaries, and there really is no room for negotiation as their salaries are also set in stone).

The other situation that I've seen this in is job ads posted by recruiters who post way-above market-rate salaries and then try to bait-and-switch you when you answer the ad. Also a big red flag.

Mostly, though, I am interested in negotiating, and don't want to commit to a number even before I've had a chance to make a favorable impression on the employer, because then they could say "well, you knew ahead of time what we were paying, so why are you trying to negotiate?" Well, if they had posted a realistic number or their best possible offer, maybe there'd be no need to negotiate -- but that is virtually never the case.

Posting a range "job pays X to Y" runs the risk of every candidate assuming they'd be on the "Y" side, not the lower "X" side. If a candidate wows you, you want to impress them, so you have to have room to go above your posted range, in that case. But then you're being less transparent, once again.

"Posting a range "job pays X to Y" runs the risk of every candidate assuming they'd be on the "Y" side"

Employers know this, so they just adjust their advertised range downwards so that the "Y" in "X to Y" is actually at the low end of the range they're actually willing to pay.

Yes, I mentioned that, but how does that help the candidate filtering lack-of-transparency problem? I as candidate no longer know their real range, so I have little useful information. I as employer can't win sharing the true range or the false range.

I've always been upfront and honest about my current salary and expectations. It keeps me from getting lowballed on an offer, and reduces time wasted in talking to employers that can't meet my expected salary. The starting point is what I'm being paid now, plus a bit. Then we can negotiate additional salary, benefits and perks. My salary growth trajectory has been good over my career as a result.

When I made below-market rates, I withheld any salary data whatsoever. Now that I'm well above the median, I tell them as soon as they ask so as to avoid wasting my time.

I'd recommend hiding it. Here's why:

Your future salary expectations likely have a basis in your current salary. Prospective employers know this. Prospective employees know this. If expectations are stated, with that understanding, then your current salary should be irrelevant. If you're having trouble signaling your value to a prospective employer, then your current (good) salary, seems like an easy way to communicate your value, but it's flawed. Salary is far too reductive of a valuation of yourself. If your value is so difficult to communicate, then perhaps a little self-reflection would help you to pinpoint your strengths to better showcase them.

Further, there are few positive reasons for a prospective employer to seek that number. While it offers them market research into salaries to be competitive, it mostly lets them optimize their offer for the bare minimum to bring you on board. It lets them offer in such a way that you'll compromise your expectations for something slightly better salary-wise and different. I liken it to purchasing a vehicle from a dealer and knowing their margins before hand. This is an oversimplification, and they can say 'no' to a low margin, but it's far easier to persuade them to say 'yes' when you still know they're getting something positive out of it.

> Your future salary expectations likely have a basis in your current salary.

Not necessarily true. My future salary expectations (or _needs_) may have to do with a previous salary, my cost of living, my recent experience or education, or my financial situation.

I've worked in different cities with different COL and also taken cuts in a down-turned market. My current employer is getting a bargain.

If I apply for a job and am asked for this information, I may say, I make $X but I need $2X for reasons A, B, C.

This benefits me because the response tells me if I am out of their range or if they can help me pay my bills, potentially.

If you’re far above (outside the range of most positions) it can be useful to disclose but only from a time saving perspective. It’s generally a poor tactic for optimizing salary.

> It seems as though if an employer were only looking to spend so much on a hire, then if you're already likely above that number, wouldn't it save both you and the employer's time?

Do you think you'll be able to convince an employer post-interview that you're actually worth that much? If so, then don't let them decide otherwise before they actually interview you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com