Salary Negotiation • Hacker News Board

Re: Salary Negotiation

#201

Post by OhHeyItsE » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

OhHeyItsE wrote: post #61

I've had multiple situations where I did answer (honestly, too - before I knew any better) the "dreaded" question up front and had the recruiter tell me: "Wow. You must work for a really great company! We can't even come close to matching that." Process ended right there, countless time saved. So, as with all things, YMMV.

To clarify my original comment - I was talking about in-house recruiters. Ones that have a vested interest in negotiating you down.

3rd-party recruiters? They just want you to take the first offer you get so they get paid. Tell them whatever you want.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#202

Post by brazzledazzle » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

designtofly wrote: post #197

carc wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A person with some fixed 'value' X can be worth much higher to one company than some other company. In fact that is extremely common. Value is relative here so I completely disagree with your "a professional knows their value" sentiment.

I don't understand your argument. I never said any value is fixed. Of course a person's value changes from role to role and from company to company. Part of doing your research is understanding the pain points for the company and the value you bring by fixing those pain points. If you disagree with "a professional knows their value," what are you arguing? That "a professional doesn't know their value?"

I think they're arguing that you can't really be sure how valuable you are to a company since there's a significant amount of information disparity. Given your typical company that doesn't discuss much about internal issues or pain points publicly how do you do that research needed to understand those things?

Re: Salary Negotiation

#203

Post by potatolicious » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

chefkoch wrote: post #174

potatolicious wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a similar boat - and definitely not naming a number first has caused friction when the initial offer ends up coming in way below my existing comp. But I'm sticking with the strategy. Ultimately the jobs where, in a vacuum and asked to value the job themselves, they come up with a number a sad fraction of your current comp, there was simply no scenario in which you would have been happy with comp at that place.…

>personally I wouldn't even bother interviewing at places where I know for certain the comp won't hit my expectations Why would anyone do that?

I dunno, yet people do.

More commonly though I think people just aren't aware of the market situation, and comp ranges for specific jobs at specific companies.

Knowing the lay of the compensation land in your area is pretty critical to negotiating well - from both sides of the table. And this goes beyond generalities like "market salary" but to specific recent offers made for specific jobs at specific companies.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#204

Post by quaffapint » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

Biggest problem I have is base salary vs overall 'salary'. Recruiters always ask what salary I'm looking for.

How does one answer that, when you consider benefits, 401k, average bonus, etc. It could be $10k difference. So, I usually say I need to see the whole package they are offering to get you a number.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#205

Post by Tactic » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

In my mind not naming your number first is advise given only if you are trying to maximize the negotiation. And even then it is quite debatable.

I view it instead that I am offering a service. I am well aware of what my service is worth, what my financial needs are and what amount would make me feel satisfied with what I am being paid. So I tell them that number.

I also tell them that the number is only negotiable in the sense of benefit trade-offs. I have built into my "price tag" such things as medical payments, etc. If they can offset some of those from salary to benefits that does not bother me. In the end my needs are met and I am happy.

I refuse to see the relationship with an employer as adversarial. It is a business relationship, I treat it as such and demand they do as well. Otherwise I don't do business with them.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#206

Post by withdavidli » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

daxfohl wrote: post #144

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

Perhaps try turning it on its head. Ask the interviewer what their salary range is, before they ask you.

Adding to linkregister's reply. Unless it's the hiring manager, the interviewer likely doesn't have access to that information.

The interviews are to judge skill and if everyone wants to work with one another. There are also different leveling with the title, so they won't know the range until all the interviews are finished. And while money is important, it comes off as you're only interested in the money to the interviewer.

Your statement also says interviewer instead of recruiter, was that a mistake? I have never had an interviewer discussing salary range, maybe cost of living in the area, but not salary range for the role.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#207

Post by marssaxman » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:20 PM UTC

What a gross, unpleasant world this article describes.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#208

Post by nissimk » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:23 PM UTC

Tactic wrote: post #205

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

In my mind not naming your number first is advise given only if you are trying to maximize the negotiation. And even then it is quite debatable. I view it instead that I am offering a service. I am well aware of what my service is worth, what my financial needs are and what amount would make me feel satisfied with what I am being paid. So I tell them that number. I also tell them that the number is only negotiable in…

Very well said. I don't find it necessary to maximized my result in a negotiation. I'd like to feel that I did well, but maxing out is not necessary. I've done very well for myself with this strategy so it really can work. I've seen the "refuse to say a number" tactic fail for candidates in the past. I distinctly remember hearing a manager on the phone with an agency recruiter saying that he wasn't going to interview someone if they wouldn't disclose their current comp.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#209

Post by cookiecaper » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #10

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead, we run a pay evaluation process internally, including feedback about the value of the role and the person from all the people who interviewed the candidate. We publish all that feedback, as well as the suggestion/reasoning of our pay trustees (a group of people who use that feedback to try to place the candidate on our pay scale) None of those factors are why someone is worth $X salary. You say I'm worth $X.…

No one is worth any intrinsic amount. The amount is relative to the work they do, the industry they're in, the state of the economy, how many other people can do that job, how many have actually applied, etc. Any salary formula is entirely arbitrary. We have a pay scale simply because it is a useful tool for conversation, not because it represents any sort of intrinsic property of the person being placed on the pay s…

What percentage of the revenue derived from an employee's labor would he receive, in an ideal world? The correct answer to this is probably something between 30 and 70 percent, depending on a variety of factors. The real-world answer to this is "however little we can possibly share, because we want to hoard it all for ourselves", and personally I find that to be a distasteful reality (I find most investors' justifications for their wealth very hollow, they usually all boil back down to "well, I started with more money than them"). Employees have way undersold themselves; I think objectively, most professional employees would probably still be quite profitable to the company if their salaries were quadrupled. And to answer a likely-reflex response to this, yes, I have run companies with employees before.

Considering that founders are making themselves fabulously wealthy on the backs of their employees, I think we'd all appreciate a little bit more respect than you're showing when you poo-poo employees who want something more closely approximating 1/4 of the share they actually deserve.

Re: Salary Negotiation

#210

Post by 15155 » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:26 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #150

whack wrote: post #139

I've heard this "don't name a number first" advice so many times, but personally, it never seems to work. My current comp is significantly higher compared to others with my level of experience. So when I refuse to give a number, the recruiter ends up guessing a number that is significantly lower, and making a lowball offer. I've also had many other experiences where after many hours of interviews, I find out that the…

I'm in a similar boat - and definitely not naming a number first has caused friction when the initial offer ends up coming in way below my existing comp. But I'm sticking with the strategy. Ultimately the jobs where, in a vacuum and asked to value the job themselves, they come up with a number a sad fraction of your current comp, there was simply no scenario in which you would have been happy with comp at that place.…

> Side note: Glassdoor is incredibly bad for this kind of intelligence. Their medians lean low and the upper end of the envelope is in my experience almost entirely unrepresented. If you go in assuming the comp envelope is what Glassdoor says it is, you will lowball yourself severely.

I concur wholeheartedly. Glassdoor is the absolute worst representation of salary ranges available. One could speculate as to why, but anecdotally, I've never received an offer that fell below their "reported" top-end.

AngelList is similarly bad for top-end comp representation, with the added twist of permanent anchoring: if you apply to a company that's listed an unreasonably low salary range, even if you know they'll (logically have to) pay more, they'll know that you can be bought cheap.