Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Talking About Money

kalzumeus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 412 posts

Re: Talking About Money

#101

Post by tomp »

codingdave wrote: post #26
benmanns wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 2, if a reasonable salary is $X, and the company offers you $X-$Y, you're essentially investing $Y per year into the company (at worse terms than actual investors). How much equity do/did investors want for $Y?

It isn't that simple - investments and their returns have risks built in, and people expect more return for more risk. If you are an employee, you are not risking your own money, you are just losing some opportunities for cash. This lost opportunity does work into the equation, but not at the same risk level as an investor because if the company tanks, the investors lose every dime... But the employee still got paid…

Actually, as an employee, you're actually risking more, as your total wealth is (most likely) significantly less than an investor's, so according to the economic theory of diminishing marginal utility of income, $10k/year is a significantly greater loss for an employee.

Re: Talking About Money

#102

Post by mathattack »

tptacek wrote: post #84
cpeterso wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glassdoor.com seems to have fairly accurate salary reports across different companies, jobs, and geographies.

Glassdoor has never been accurate about any firm I had firsthand knowledge of.

I've seen it be remarkably accurate, but that was for a "Mostly cash, limited bonus" environment. I think one of their sources is H1B filings, which can be very accurate for those types of jobs. It misses equity and outsize bonuses.

Re: Talking About Money

#103

Post by calibraxis »

For anyone curious about the real roots of #talkpay, software developer Lauren Voswinkel kicked it off on Model View Culture: https://modelviewculture.com/news/lets-talk-about-pay (Background: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/01/talkpay-hasht...)

So basically, a software dev announced a Twitter campaign on a Silicon Valley startup's website. Naturally, it only hits Hacker "News" when some white man placates fellow uninformed ideologues with "I’m honestly troubled by joining a Marxist movement on May Day".

(Translating #talkpay into market theology — is this analogous to how Soviet commissars made bold ideas safe for consumption?)

BTW: May 1st commemorates the Chicago Haymarket affair, where workers went on strike for the 8-hour day. And four anarchists were martyred by the state via hanging.

Re: Talking About Money

#104

Post by tomp »

skizm wrote: post #99

If people knew everyone's salaries there would always be discontent. There will be people making less thinking that are better/more experience/worth more than person B making $X more than them.

I think it's reasonable to believe that the employer should have a good answer to the question "why is s/he making more than me, what does s/he do better?"

Re: Talking About Money

#105

Post by anigbrowl »

kamaal wrote: post #71
grecy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photoshop is a wonderful thing :)

You can get fired if they figure out you have been fudging the figures and 'lying' to them. I'm not sure how they would know, but if they do, it can create problems for you.

Error-level analysis of the Jpeg. As you say, if it comes out later that could have bad legal consequences - the term is 'detrimental reliance' and the dishonest person could conceivably face fraud charges. Even if not, it could easily become a a career-damaging topic of gossip.

Re: Talking About Money

#106

Post by dkrich »

chralieboy wrote: post #78
dkrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I actually prefer a lack of transparency. I fully recognize the right of others to discuss salaries openly and support their ability to do so. However, I think aside from benefiting companies, a lack of transparency around salaries benefits those who are good at negotiating, whereas complete transparency helps those who are not good at negotiating. If for example, you know company X's highest paid software deve…

>> However, I think aside from benefiting companies, a lack of transparency around salaries benefits those who are good at negotiating, whereas complete transparency helps those who are not good at negotiating. This is exactly why salaries _should_ be transparent. Skill at negotiating salaries, unless you are an agent, is not a relevant skill. If you are an engineer, for example, the company should not be rewarding o…

I disagree. If engineers are notoriously bad at negotiating (which we probably are), the solution is to improve that skill, not to seek to avoid negotiating in any form or fashion. The idea that you can willfully eschew any responsibility for asking for what you want (which is really what a negotiation is) and still get it, is both self-defeating and naive.

The reason lawyers/agents/salespeople are good at negotiating is not merely that their job requires it, it's because they have developed that skill.

Re: Talking About Money

#107

Post by alexqgb »

tormeh wrote: post #43
Nicholas_C wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar experience with a recruiter. I asked why and she couldn't come up with a compelling answer, she just said "That's just how it is, we need your salary." She escalated it to her manager and he pulled the same. I eventually complied but not without telling them I didn't ever receive a good reason and it makes zero sense and I couldn't see how it would do anything but hurt me. Funny enough I ended up gett…

It could be for intelligence purposes; they want to know what other firms pay their employees.

Exactly. One way to deflect the question is by saying that you're not about to provide any non-public information about an employer to anyone outside that company, and that includes specific details about their pay structure.

You can also note that while this may not be the answer the interviewer is looking for, it does represent the kind of discretion that the company is likely to appreciate in the event that you do take a job with them, then eventually go elsewhere.

If pressed, you can say your current pay is "unsatisfactory", and let them know that's what they can list on their form. You can add that you know the company has a range, that they're in the market for the skills you have, and that you're unhappy enough with your present number and long-term prospects to hear their offer.

All this should send a pretty strong signal that, pay aside, you're not in any immediate hurry to leave your current position, so trying to chisel you down to something close to your current number is just a waste of everybody's time. It also signals that lowballing you now means you'll probably move on sooner rather than later, which is something most HR departments prefer to avoid.

If pressed further - after all that - see the question for the red flag it is. This is probably not a company that has much interest in supporting your growth or professional development. Unless you're desperate (i.e., going nowhere is a better alternative than crashing hard) keep looking.

You can end the conversation on a positive note by saying you do understand policy, that you wouldn't be there if you didn't think the company had a lot going for it, and that they know where to reach you. If they can just find a way to keep you from having to compromise the privacy of your existing employer, you'd consider jumping ship.

If this doesn't produce a callback and you happen have friends who are already there and who want to see you hired, you can share the details of this exchange with them, and let them know why you ended the conversation with HR. Chances are, they'll be pissed. If they want you badly enough, and have the clout to pull rank, they can be sure that HR finds a way to accept your silence regarding your current pay.

Infighting 101.

Re: Talking About Money

#108

Post by jrs235 »

Nicholas_C wrote: post #74
nostrademons wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty strong signal that they want people who won't negotiate and aren't assertive. In some businesses, it's just counterproductive to hire an assertive employee: the business processes are in place, the command structure is well-established, and they just need bodies to fill places in the org chart. If it's one of those companies and you're one of those people, getting hired there will likely be painful for…

Hmmm, but this was the recruiter, not the company. The recruiter itself would want me to be assertive and negotiate as their compensation is calculated based on my starting salary. And this company was a very small and fast growing firm that would require a lot of hustle and assertiveness. My entire in person interview process was based on a case study that took 12 hours where I spent a large part of that arguing wit…

But the recruiting shop might get paid $100 an hour for your services so if you only demand $60 instead of $75 then they, the recruiter or recruiting company, pockets that extra $15 per hour. It all depends how the recruiter/recruiting company is getting compensated.

Re: Talking About Money

#109

Post by ghaff »

fecak wrote: post #95
ghaff wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of such a thing but it undoubtedly happens. Your pay stub is really just showing the floor though. For many positions, there are fairly regular bonuses, variable comp, etc. So, in reality, there's usually some wiggle room in providing current salary info while still being essentially truthful.

I've been recruiting engineers for almost 20 years, and I have probably had a dozen cases where a client asked for a pay stub around the time an offer is presented. It's obviously rare, and most of the time it was for high-ticket talent that seemed to be paid noticeably above market rate.

I have to say, I find that sorta weird. At that point, I would think if the pay stub didn't square with the claimed salary (and there was no convincing explanation for the difference), they'd almost have to not hire the person. And, if it did square, it's like they'd already decided the price tag was too rich for their blood.

Re: Talking About Money

#110

Post by MagicWishMonkey »

patio11 wrote: post #11
brador wrote: post #3

If consulting is making $30k/week/job then why keep running the personal businesses? Why not take the consulting and branch it out, and drop everything else as a distraction?

Because I enjoyed running the software business more than I enjoyed running the consultancy. Partly that is for difficult-to-explain personal reasons (I feel the sense of satisfaction with operating a software company that some people feel when painting things). Partly it is because of reasons which are endemic to consultancies, even successful consultancies. Feel free to ask if you're curious. I also have a quirky r…

How did you find your clients? Mostly through word of mouth?
Post reply on HN