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

321–330 of 412 posts

Re: Talking About Money

#321

Post by ownagefool »

heleph wrote: post #284
a_c_s wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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.

By the time they have the p45, you've already negotiated a salary, thus unless you lied about previous salary the new company won't really care.

Re: Talking About Money

#322

Post by alkonaut »

maaku wrote: post #308
alkonaut wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really because of the tax rates being equal, there are many other reasons. For example, higher education is free, and labor organization is very high. This keeps blue-collar pay closer to white collar, flattening pay structures.

He didn't say anything about tax rates. What he said was that tax returns are public information, meaning you or I can look up anyone's income.

Yes. And I argued that in order to claim that this is what flattens structures rather than the many other factors, you need a control sample that has Scandinavian labor market structure (High tax, free higher education, single payer healthcare) BUT with non-public income. I'm not sure such a country exists.

Re: Talking About Money

#323

Post by vladimirralev »

nostrademons wrote: post #66
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'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…

It's not really a sign of anything. Most likely some director is A/B testing a strategy or they just want data. If they want salary give it to them and see what they have to say for 5 mins. Everybody knows it is a shitty move to put you on the spot like this. And they can't be just looking for stupid people to hire. If they are willing to take the risk to piss you off may be they will have the decency to make up for it later on.

Re: Talking About Money

#324

Post by notahacker »

nodelessness wrote: post #293
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy. I'd definitely send a quick note to someone higher up if you can get a hold of him/her. I know, not worth the time, a hassle etc. But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire. I mean, hell, asking the question is one thing. I can live with that. But turning that into some kind of litmus test…

>> But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire That is actually not true. This kind of employee low balling is condoned behavior. I applied for a position at Automattic and had Matt Mullenweg (CEO) pull this on me. Everything seemed to have gone perfectly well - everyone involved in the process see…

> I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere

In a climate where most companies are afraid to disclose quite reasonable reasons for not making a hire, it's remarkable that someone would think this kind of comment is appropriate.

Re: Talking About Money

#325

Post by omegavesko »

nodelessness wrote: post #293
IkmoIkmo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy. I'd definitely send a quick note to someone higher up if you can get a hold of him/her. I know, not worth the time, a hassle etc. But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire. I mean, hell, asking the question is one thing. I can live with that. But turning that into some kind of litmus test…

>> But a typical CEO worth his salt will crush something silly like that in no-time, if you really want to hire good people this is the type of person you want to fire That is actually not true. This kind of employee low balling is condoned behavior. I applied for a position at Automattic and had Matt Mullenweg (CEO) pull this on me. Everything seemed to have gone perfectly well - everyone involved in the process see…

>> I was told "I seem to be senstive about being Indian" out of nowhere.

Jesus. It's amazing to think someone who's worked so long in the tech industry can think like this. If anything, we're the ones who should know best how little race means when you have the skills to get the job done.

Re: Talking About Money

#326

Post by hackerboos »

marktangotango wrote: post #9

>> Most important takeaway about salary negotiation, by the way: disclosing a previous salary is almost always against your interests because it pegs your new salary to that plus 5% rather than your value to the new firm minus a discount, which is a brutal mistake I had a phone screen with an HR drone once (Cerner Inc. to be exact \waves) part way thru she asked me my current salary. I declined to provide that inform…

I've had recruiters do this (Explore LTD in London).

The 'data collector' asked me my current salary and I refused to state it. She became very hostile saying "How are we meant to negotiate for you if you won't disclose what salary you are on?". I told her to let me negotiate my own salary.

Re: Talking About Money

#327

Post by bluedino »

eropple wrote: post #236
bigtunacan wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While dealing with recruiters can be a hassle their goals align much more closely with ours if we are maintaining the fallacy that only the money counts. Recruiters are typically paid a percentage of your salary so they want you to receive the highest salary possible since that is the best payout for them as well. My experience with recruiters is they want to know how little it will take for you to accept the job, bu…

> While dealing with recruiters can be a hassle their goals align much more closely with ours if we are maintaining the fallacy that only the money counts. Recruiters are typically paid a percentage of your salary so they want you to receive the highest salary possible since that is the best payout for them as well. No, this isn't true, and this misconception is explicitly why I invoked the realtor problem. If the re…

Just like why a real estate agent pushes you to sell the house at any price and not wait for our counter a slightly higher offer

Re: Talking About Money

#328

Post by kremlin »

ownagefool wrote: post #321
heleph wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By the time they have the p45, you've already negotiated a salary, thus unless you lied about previous salary the new company won't really care.

But the question is explicitly about lying about previous salary.

Re: Talking About Money

#329

Post by nhaehnle »

dkrich wrote: post #106
chralieboy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 negotiatin…

This is true, but it's also inefficient for society as a whole. Basically, what the other side is saying is that yes, negotiating is a skill, but the reason why our economy works so efficiently is that we instituted division of labor. If everybody specializes in some skill, then they will be better at it than a jack-of-all-trades. On average, an engineer should be able to become a better engineer if they do not simultaneously have to worry about improving their negotiation skills. That would be overall beneficial to society.

So it might actually be better for society if the range of potential income is much smaller, because individuals in such a society would spend less time on skills like negotiation, which are not directly productive.

Depending on your outlook on life and how much anxiety the knowledge about income differentials causes you, the situation can look very much like a prisoner's dilemma.

Re: Talking About Money

#330

Post by hnrem »

patio11 wrote: post #79
bcg1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not snark... serious question... its not clear to me what sort of services anyone could offer for 30k per week... what sort of thing commands that kind of price tag?

Making $20 million a year SaaS companies into $22 million a year SaaS companies. If you have reasonable expectation that I can actually deliver on that, then you're pretty much willing to say yes to any rate I quote. If you're curious "How does one turn a $20 million a year SaaS company into a $22 million a year SaaS company?", there exist many options depending on the specifics of the company and virtually all of th…

Those are the standard skills of marketing people I've worked with, getting paid around £30000/year. I find this very peculiar, maybe the companies particularly dysfunctional, but there seems to be a missing variable.
Post reply on HN