Talking About Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Talking About Money

#281

Post by jacquesm » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

dkrich wrote: post #59

calcsam wrote: post #23

"Salaries are not just internally transparent at Japanese megacorps but so predictable that any middle-class adult in central Japan can accurately predict my salary history. I mention this partly to say that salary transparency by itself does not guarantee happy outcomes for employees." Yes. Salaries at Buffer might be transparent but also quite low.

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…

It's ok to discuss your salaries with your colleagues, especially with the ones that are currently being shafted. But don't discuss your salary with recruiters for other firms, no need to make their lives any easier than they already are. Make them work for their money and disclose a range instead.

Re: Talking About Money

#282

Post by pekk » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

bobjordan wrote: post #228

civilian wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't legally ask for proof, no. Bluff away! (I'm not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice.) I did a small bluff to try it out, just 5k above what I was making. The recruiter was surprisingly skeptical! I know I've done an good job of bumping up my salary in a short amount of time, but it was kind of off-putting to have him question it.

I'm a bootstrapped entrepreneur CEO with ~30 employees in my company now, growing quickly, expect to have ~60 in next 12 months. I am not so interested in previous salary. Rather, I always directly ask "what is your salary requirement". I think it is good business sense to not underpay what people think they require, though sometimes this means we must pass on what could otherwise be good employees, so requesting moo…

If you are asking me to start a negotiation and I give too high a number for your tastes, that isn't my fault, it's your fault for not just offering what I'm worth to you. How am I supposed to know what you consider to be a moonshot?

Re: Talking About Money

#283

Post by alwold » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:39 AM UTC

learnstats2 wrote: post #86

Something which I think is only hinted at here: negotiating pay requires a willingness to lose the job if the negotiation doesn't go well. If hirer has an equally good candidate or consultant who quotes a lower rate: you're out of the running. Even if you're better, you have to be better value according to the employer's own assessment. There are few employers who are price insensitive and you have to be in an overwh…

I don't think this is really that big of a concern. If you try to negotiate for more pay, I don't think anyone is going to rescind the offer. The worst case is that they won't budge, in which case you can still take it.

If someone is willing to rescind an offer because they are upset that you tried to negotiate, it's probably not someone you want to work with anyway.

Re: Talking About Money

#284

Post by heleph » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:40 AM UTC

a_c_s wrote: post #179

j_lev wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the original post Patrick already touched on the Japan case, but one thing I'd add is that one of the pieces of paperwork you must hand to your new employer is your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year. From there it's trivial to calculate your previous salary. There are ways around it but it seems most people go with "my base was XX.... and that's one o…

"...one of the pieces of paperwork you must hand to your new employer is your final tax slip from your previous employer showing how much tax you have paid in the current year..." Are you referring to Japan? I've worked in two states in the USA and never been required to produce such documentation.

I've always had to do that in the UK. Your previous employer gives you a form called a P45 when you leave that has information about your tax code and your earnings for the previous year.

Re: Talking About Money

#285

Post by beachstartup » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:43 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #217

beachstartup wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

huh? what distinction? who says you have to tell them the truth? obviously if you make 40k you're not going to be competent enough to jump to 200k, but if you were making 150k and ask for 200k, just tell them you were making 190 before. who cares? when it comes to this kind of topic on HN, sometimes i feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

The reason you're a co-founder is because you take risks and are willing to push the limits of what's socially acceptable, and have face-to-face discussions about personally-difficult topics. Most engineers want to "stay within the rules", which is why they get walked on. (I'm not for one second saying you do that, personally)

well, no. the reason i'm a co-founder is because i want to make a shitload of money.

pushing social boundaries is practiced by all sorts of different people.

Re: Talking About Money

#286

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:44 AM UTC

rgovind wrote: post #226

marktangotango wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, one might think so, but this was the CEO in question[1]. Edit, and so far as bluffing, could an employer legally ask for W2's to verify? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/business/stinging-office-m...

I don't know about US, but in India, its standard practive to ask for previous paychecks.

[deleted]

Re: Talking About Money

#287

Post by pekk » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:47 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #234

fredkbloggs wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, you should always value equity at zero. Neither your landlord nor the guys at the farmers' market want your stock certificates, which are overwhelmingly likely to end up worthless (if they aren't already). Second, most companies don't pay bonuses. Those that do usually have a bonus pool that depends in some way on the company's success in the marketplace, and they can almost always abolish bonuses at ma…

Serious question: if you value equity at 0, then ( ceteris paribus ) given a choice between (1) an offer at $150,000 and 50 basis points and (2) an offer at $150,100 and 0 basis points, you should choose option (2). Given that: why should any employer offer equity?

Why do people play the lottery?

Re: Talking About Money

#288

Post by pekk » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:48 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #195

fredkbloggs wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a corporate lawyer and/or experienced HR director, you do the same thing everyone does: inform the questioner of the individual's dates of employment and nothing else.

And if you don't have intelligent HR/legal counsel, you're on the receiving end of a lawsuit by said previous employee.

Only if that employee has the time and money to waste on the lawsuit, and has any evidence in hand to make it go. How is that employee supposed to discover this? By fraudulently pretending to be a prospective employer?

Re: Talking About Money

#289

Post by wonderthrowaway » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:57 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #234

fredkbloggs wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, you should always value equity at zero. Neither your landlord nor the guys at the farmers' market want your stock certificates, which are overwhelmingly likely to end up worthless (if they aren't already). Second, most companies don't pay bonuses. Those that do usually have a bonus pool that depends in some way on the company's success in the marketplace, and they can almost always abolish bonuses at ma…

Serious question: if you value equity at 0, then ( ceteris paribus ) given a choice between (1) an offer at $150,000 and 50 basis points and (2) an offer at $150,100 and 0 basis points, you should choose option (2). Given that: why should any employer offer equity?

Great question.

To the parent to your post: look, when you're picking a job, you're essentially buying the stock with your time, if not with part of your comp. Unless you're a true W2 mercenary, you should accept upside at a discount like tptacek's hypothetical.

So the GP got burned in 2001? That's a dumb reason to swear off all exposure to life-changing upside, forever, no matter what the expected return.

Unless you are a mercenary or shark who has to keep moving, think like a savvy investor first. Then indulge your preference for the type of work. And only after all of that worry about the W2 money.

Successful companies will breed opportunity to do the kind of work you want. Successful companies will also build your equity and increase your base rate to eventually catch up to market. Growth will create professional opportunities. Pick based on the prospects of the company first.

ITT people are too focused on the salary negotiations that patio11 brought up, and not enough on the aspects that build true wealth. Don't get trapped in local optimizations...you have to create exposure to outsized upside. If not through equity, then through side-projects and entrepreneurial activity.

Re: Talking About Money

#290

Post by cperciva » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:59 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #231

cperciva wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you will almost surely not be found out. ... unless, like patio11, you decide to blog about your salary history at some point. The problem with lies is that you need to remember what they were so that you don't contradict yourself later.

I'm flattered you responded to my comment cperciva! patio11 is unusually (yet refreshingly) open with his financial information. If you're going to blog about your intimate financial details, you should of course "have your ducks in a row".

I'm flattered you responded to my comment

Don't be -- I don't think there's any correlation between the quality of a comment and whether I respond to it. ;-)

If you're going to blog about your intimate financial details, you should of course "have your ducks in a row".

Right, but once you've lied about something it's impossible to put that particular duck back where it belongs.