Ask HN: Should HN require/encourage job postings to have a salary range?
172 comments
If these were extremely specific job postings (e.g. "We're hiring a Senior Software Engineer II with 2-3 years of experience") then it would make more sense.
But most of the "Who is hiring" posts aren't job postings. They're literally answering the question "Who is hiring" and inviting a wide range of people to apply.
Requiring salary ranges would significantly elevate the amount of work that goes into answering the "Who is hiring" question and therefore would reduce the number of postings significantly.
The smallest companies and startups would be the most negatively impacted. Big companies could probably kick it over to HR and legal and have them spend a week drafting up a post that complies with all of the various requirements in different states, but the average poster in that thread isn't going to want to touch a salary requirement posting for something that isn't a specific job ad.
But most of the "Who is hiring" posts aren't job postings. They're literally answering the question "Who is hiring" and inviting a wide range of people to apply.
Requiring salary ranges would significantly elevate the amount of work that goes into answering the "Who is hiring" question and therefore would reduce the number of postings significantly.
The smallest companies and startups would be the most negatively impacted. Big companies could probably kick it over to HR and legal and have them spend a week drafting up a post that complies with all of the various requirements in different states, but the average poster in that thread isn't going to want to touch a salary requirement posting for something that isn't a specific job ad.
I'm hiring for a very small startup, and this is 100% correct for us. The exact position isn't even super defined. If I had to add salary, I just wouldn't do it, because I know that saying something like 80k to 150k depending on experience/ability would invite criticism from people who would immediately assume that I'm trying to dodge the requirement with a big range, and I don't want to deal with that.
Maybe post a position when it's defined? As more jurisdictions require salary information with postings, employers will inevitably have to do so. California, NYC, Colorado, and Washington state are leaders in this, it'll only be a matter of time before more population heavy states follow (Illinois next, and eventually Texas and Florida).
Sure, it's useful to go fishing as a hiring org, but the market is moving against such an approach.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/states-and-cities-where-empl...
Sure, it's useful to go fishing as a hiring org, but the market is moving against such an approach.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/states-and-cities-where-empl...
In an early stage startup, there are relatively few "defined" positions.
Wanted: Smart people who will figure out what to do. Pay commensurate with added value.
Wanted: Smart people who will figure out what to do. Pay commensurate with added value.
> Pay commensurate with added value.
In a statement like that they have an idea of what is valuable and what they would be willing to pay for it. Seems like a perfect opportunity to give a salary range.
In a statement like that they have an idea of what is valuable and what they would be willing to pay for it. Seems like a perfect opportunity to give a salary range.
Why would smart people want to apply to a job with ambiguous compensation ranges? In what ways are being ambiguous better than being direct in a job listing?
I'm going to remind everyone of this important idiom: As a business owner, nobody is as invested in your company as you. Even if your employees have a lot of passion for your business, even if they have a little "what-if" equity, they're never, ever going to have the same level of dedication to your role as you, the founder/owner/creator of that business.
All of this is also to say: it is not a buyers market for skilled tech labor right now. If you're an early-stage, my advice is to start competing with the open market.
I'm going to remind everyone of this important idiom: As a business owner, nobody is as invested in your company as you. Even if your employees have a lot of passion for your business, even if they have a little "what-if" equity, they're never, ever going to have the same level of dedication to your role as you, the founder/owner/creator of that business.
All of this is also to say: it is not a buyers market for skilled tech labor right now. If you're an early-stage, my advice is to start competing with the open market.
> Why would smart people want to apply to a job with ambiguous compensation ranges?
People are motivated by many things, not just money. I took a major paycut to do something I believe strongly in. We're not a for-profit startup trying to make our founders rich. We're a non-profit trying to help people. To some people the feel-goods of that is worth a smaller paycheck.
> In what ways are being ambiguous better than being direct in a job listing?
Well, if the salary range is very broad then at best it's no helpful, at worst it's misleading. If we found a truly incredible person, we could potentially try to raise funding to meet a higher salary, particularly if hiring this person meant we didn't have to hire another person. In addition, if it's going to be really useful it takes precious time/effort away from engineering work (building the product and putting out fires) to try and create a matrix of salary ranges depending on all the factors. Some of the factors we probably don't even know yet.
People are motivated by many things, not just money. I took a major paycut to do something I believe strongly in. We're not a for-profit startup trying to make our founders rich. We're a non-profit trying to help people. To some people the feel-goods of that is worth a smaller paycheck.
> In what ways are being ambiguous better than being direct in a job listing?
Well, if the salary range is very broad then at best it's no helpful, at worst it's misleading. If we found a truly incredible person, we could potentially try to raise funding to meet a higher salary, particularly if hiring this person meant we didn't have to hire another person. In addition, if it's going to be really useful it takes precious time/effort away from engineering work (building the product and putting out fires) to try and create a matrix of salary ranges depending on all the factors. Some of the factors we probably don't even know yet.
It’s great that you found a non-profit, and that its mission motivates you.
I realize that different motivators exist for different people, but I still don’t understand how not knowing the pay range upfront benefits anyone but the employer.
The Chan Zuckerberg foundation is a non-profit. The NFL is a non-profit. Non-profits aren’t excluded from labor market conditions. Non-profits aren’t even obligated to be all that charitable in most cases.
My employer could give me a massage every day but I’d still want to know the pay range.
I realize that different motivators exist for different people, but I still don’t understand how not knowing the pay range upfront benefits anyone but the employer.
The Chan Zuckerberg foundation is a non-profit. The NFL is a non-profit. Non-profits aren’t excluded from labor market conditions. Non-profits aren’t even obligated to be all that charitable in most cases.
My employer could give me a massage every day but I’d still want to know the pay range.
As a candidate, I don’t mind opaqueness with regards to salary. My time outside of work is pretty much worthless. I don’t mind talking to someone for an hour or however long if it’s a job I might like doing. If the price is right, great, if not, well whatever. The benefit to me is that if they get invested in hiring me, I can push them on salary if I choose to do that.
Ambiguous compensation allows more room for negotiation - that's why.
One job I had had no defined plan for compensation so I asked for a number and they gave it because they had no idea anyway. I also pushed other benefits and got those because
I went from a job that paid ~$80K in 1995 to this new job at ~$120K thanks to the ambiguity. This was Hewlett-Packard as a lateral transfer from a defined job role to a brand new job role that didn't even have a "pay curve" at HR.
As it turns out I'm pretty good at reading situations and thinking outside of the box so it was "easy". Not everyone has that skill so they want things "safe" and "defined". That's not me and never will be.
One job I had had no defined plan for compensation so I asked for a number and they gave it because they had no idea anyway. I also pushed other benefits and got those because
I went from a job that paid ~$80K in 1995 to this new job at ~$120K thanks to the ambiguity. This was Hewlett-Packard as a lateral transfer from a defined job role to a brand new job role that didn't even have a "pay curve" at HR.
As it turns out I'm pretty good at reading situations and thinking outside of the box so it was "easy". Not everyone has that skill so they want things "safe" and "defined". That's not me and never will be.
But you didn’t know their budget. What if $150k was reasonable for their budget? You don’t really know. For all you know $120k was low for them.
Maybe it was high for you, and that’s fine. But “negotiation” is a facade for the vast majority of jobs. Companies know exactly how much money each role in the field commands. They pay research firms and do their own google searches to gauge local salary expectations.
They’ll also happily take advantage of candidates who accidentally give them a low ball salary expectation out of pure naivety or inexperience. That’s why ever recruiter under the sun asks for your desired salary first.
I’d argue that negotiation has nothing do to with whether the pay range was stated. Either the company has the money or they don’t. Might as well just say it up front.
Maybe it was high for you, and that’s fine. But “negotiation” is a facade for the vast majority of jobs. Companies know exactly how much money each role in the field commands. They pay research firms and do their own google searches to gauge local salary expectations.
They’ll also happily take advantage of candidates who accidentally give them a low ball salary expectation out of pure naivety or inexperience. That’s why ever recruiter under the sun asks for your desired salary first.
I’d argue that negotiation has nothing do to with whether the pay range was stated. Either the company has the money or they don’t. Might as well just say it up front.
[deleted]
So you don’t want that, assume you are smart, and that all smart people are like you?
How pleasant your life must be.
How pleasant your life must be.
I never said any of those things, and I wasn’t trying to be inflammatory.
My questions are serious. In what situation is a stated pay range a detriment to the job posting? It’s my belief that just about every company who is competitive with compensation benefit from stating it up front, while all the companies that are sub-standard benefit from hiding compensation.
In other words, anyone unwilling to state their salary range is afraid or aware that they don’t pay competitively.
My questions are serious. In what situation is a stated pay range a detriment to the job posting? It’s my belief that just about every company who is competitive with compensation benefit from stating it up front, while all the companies that are sub-standard benefit from hiding compensation.
In other words, anyone unwilling to state their salary range is afraid or aware that they don’t pay competitively.
[deleted]
You may not have specific positions in mind, but if you don't have a rough idea "here are the kinds of things my startup will need to do in the near-to-medium term" and "this is roughly the amount I can afford to spend annually on positions I haven't yet hired for, in aggregate", then that doesn't sound like a company that's got a good future to me.
Early stage startups are a very small slice of all employers (and the returns flow predominately to founders and VCs), probably best not to optimize labor law for their specific needs. And real talk, the pay is very unlikely to be commensurate with added value [1] [2].
EDIT: @stickfigure: I don't disagree. My comments are for the benefit of employees, not early startup owners/founders/investors. Sell the dream, I'm pointing out reality.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25488751 (cherry picked subthread, but the whole thread is very helpful on this topic)
[2] https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/ | https://danluu.com/startup-options/
EDIT: @stickfigure: I don't disagree. My comments are for the benefit of employees, not early startup owners/founders/investors. Sell the dream, I'm pointing out reality.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25488751 (cherry picked subthread, but the whole thread is very helpful on this topic)
[2] https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/ | https://danluu.com/startup-options/
Early stage startups are prevalent on HN, which is the subject at hand.
Also, half of Americans work for small businesses. It is probably best not to optimize labor law for megacorps either.
Also, half of Americans work for small businesses. It is probably best not to optimize labor law for megacorps either.
We're a non-profit. Any "VCs" are donating with no expectation of return, and the founders are the ones that bound their hands with the non-profit status in the first place.
For many “positions” in tech, job descriptions are merely useful fictions. Except my first job, I didn’t stick with the elements of my job description beyond a month or two. This is especially true for my current FAANG job.
This is even more true with early startups. You need pseudo-founders that are willing and capable to do whatever.
This is even more true with early startups. You need pseudo-founders that are willing and capable to do whatever.
I doubt Texas and Florida follow, I see no reason Republicans would support a law that so blatantly reduces negotiating power for business owners.
It could also be framed as Texas and Florida aren't in a rush to restrict the freedoms of employers.
I would frame it as <insert entities who want to obfuscate prices> are not in a rush to enable the market to allocate resources more efficiently per supply and demand. Because the more efficient a market gets, the less profit (the inefficiency) there is to be had.
Might not reduce the power. I read that austria or so has such a rule, but this only lead to that everybody posting the lowest possible salary for that position with the implicit assumption that the real salary will be different.
That just means Austria has a huge supply of labor relative to demand. A low number for minimum pay indicates that employers are not having to compete to attract candidates, which is a sign to sellers of labor to sell a different type of labor. If a whole country is like that, then they have bigger problems to solve.
What I read was that everybody just knew the posted numbers were not what will be paid later.
Well, they may not be Governed by Republicans forever.
Plus the defining characteristics of Democrats and Republicans is changing and in many ways both parties are quite similar. Republicans are showing less reluctance to restrict people for national purposes (eg epidemic) while this has traditionally been the domain of individual freedom minded liberals/democrats like hippies for example.
Furthermore, in most significant ways, Republicans and Democrats are unified especially when it comes to engaging in war, surveillance, and mucking with elections and politics of other nations.
In short, not sure it matters very much which one is the governing party.
Furthermore, in most significant ways, Republicans and Democrats are unified especially when it comes to engaging in war, surveillance, and mucking with elections and politics of other nations.
In short, not sure it matters very much which one is the governing party.
Think about all the work involved in talking to prospective applicants and figuring out it's not a match based on compensation. If you had the process in place to post salary ranges it would be totally worth it for everybody involved.
> and I don't want to deal with that.
And applicants with options will not want to deal with figuring out if the minimum you are offering is worth it for them to bother applying.
And applicants with options will not want to deal with figuring out if the minimum you are offering is worth it for them to bother applying.
conveniently left out of your quote, I was talking about criticism (from people on the internet who know nothing about us or our situation yet want to jump to conclusions and assumptions based on little to no information). You've perfectly proven my point.
Sorry, I did not intend to come off as criticizing you. I was simply conveying that people who have options will select to apply to employers that are offering a range with a minimum at or above what they are willing to accept. If the labor you are interested in purchasing is in sufficient demand, then you may be forced to state at least a minimum price to get the applicants you want.
no problem, sorry I'm a bit defensive and I no doubt read more into your message than is actually there.
what you say is perfectly reasonable, and I think you make a good point. No doubt there are people who might be interested and qualified who won't bother without salary info.
what you say is perfectly reasonable, and I think you make a good point. No doubt there are people who might be interested and qualified who won't bother without salary info.
Couldn't you say something like we're hiring one person and we're open to many experience levels but here's the grades:
New Grad (Software Developer I):X-Y
Sr. (Software Developer II): Y-Z
10+ Yrs Experience or whatever (Software Developer III): Z-ZZ
New Grad (Software Developer I):X-Y
Sr. (Software Developer II): Y-Z
10+ Yrs Experience or whatever (Software Developer III): Z-ZZ
Yes kind of, but it's a matrix of variables and level is only one column. Breadth and depth of technology is also a factor. For example, a hastily written description:
Looking for smart, motivated people of varying skill levels and expertise who want to make an actual difference in the world using technology to improve lives. Technologies particularly desired are typescript, react, php, laravel, elixir, kubernetes app dev, kubernetes infra (especially linkerd, logging, monitoring), terraform, cloud infra, ansible, web app security, infra security, experience with SOC2 requirements. Prefer senior candidates but open to less experienced but motivated people.
If we get a seasoned pro with experience in many of those, it could mean we only have to hire one or two people and the budget can go to salary. If we have to hire 4 to 5 new grads and train them, there's a whole lot less available for salary.
Looking for smart, motivated people of varying skill levels and expertise who want to make an actual difference in the world using technology to improve lives. Technologies particularly desired are typescript, react, php, laravel, elixir, kubernetes app dev, kubernetes infra (especially linkerd, logging, monitoring), terraform, cloud infra, ansible, web app security, infra security, experience with SOC2 requirements. Prefer senior candidates but open to less experienced but motivated people.
If we get a seasoned pro with experience in many of those, it could mean we only have to hire one or two people and the budget can go to salary. If we have to hire 4 to 5 new grads and train them, there's a whole lot less available for salary.
It is clear to me a lot of folks posting haven’t tried to hire a developer lately.
The tack you’re taking is the only one I’ve found that works for small orgs: be flexible about experience and try to build a team around whom you can find.
The tack you’re taking is the only one I’ve found that works for small orgs: be flexible about experience and try to build a team around whom you can find.
Yes, exactly my feeling as well.
That seems reasonable, but at the same time it does sound like there would just be a disproportionate difference between the bottom and top levels. I can see how gray area mixes would require more careful calibration.
One way to do this would be to look at your best and worst (group) cases and set the ranges according to those numbers. Having a fixed budget makes planning a lot easier. Probably more difficult if the budget is more fuzzy.
One way to do this would be to look at your best and worst (group) cases and set the ranges according to those numbers. Having a fixed budget makes planning a lot easier. Probably more difficult if the budget is more fuzzy.
I kinda think it is good that you would be discouraged. Think about it a lot more before you post. Are you willing to pay 150k or not? Do you really need two hires? Who will be the new hire's boss?
You aren't ready to hire somebody yet.
You aren't ready to hire somebody yet.
Well is the person we hire a new grad, a junior, a senior, a principal? Do they have Kubernetes and Terraform experience and can help with devops work or is their experience breadth limited to app dev? Do they have experience in security, particularly OWASP rules and the like? Do they know linux or only macos?
Every one of those combinations is gonna get a different offer. We have a set budget that is limited by donations and we need to cover all of those skillsets. It would be awesome and worth a lot more to us to find one jack-of-all-trades, but probably that wont' happen. It definitely won't happen if I post 4 different job descriptions as though it's set in stone that we hire 4 separate people.
Every one of those combinations is gonna get a different offer. We have a set budget that is limited by donations and we need to cover all of those skillsets. It would be awesome and worth a lot more to us to find one jack-of-all-trades, but probably that wont' happen. It definitely won't happen if I post 4 different job descriptions as though it's set in stone that we hire 4 separate people.
Like I said, you aren't ready to hire. You don't even know if you need a new grad, a junior, a senior, or a principal. You don't know if they need Kubernetes and/or Terraform experience.
Here, let me help. You need a principal with Kubernetes, Terraform, security (particularly OWASP) experience on linux and macos. Salary: $500K.
If you want one person, advertise for one person.
Here, let me help. You need a principal with Kubernetes, Terraform, security (particularly OWASP) experience on linux and macos. Salary: $500K.
If you want one person, advertise for one person.
Yep we tried that. The high number attracted a mountain of unqualified applicants that we had to sort through, none of whom were actually qualified. Also if this is one person todo all, they're gonna need a lot more than just k8s, terraform, security, and linux. this person will need to at least familiar with typescript, react, cloud infrastructure, and be a good shell scripter.
Do you have experience in a hiring role? or is your advice purely theoretical?
Do you have experience in a hiring role? or is your advice purely theoretical?
You're worried about hiring a junior developer and offering them $80k and them getting mad because they just spent 4 years coding in college and are now experts that should be starting at $150k?
FYI: $150K salaries for new grads are extremely rare. Only a select few companies offer that range and they're highly selective for a very small number of graduates.
The median salary for all software engineers in the United States is quite a bit less than $150K. Only within a tiny bubble are new grads paid $150K+
The median salary for all software engineers in the United States is quite a bit less than $150K. Only within a tiny bubble are new grads paid $150K+
Is 5% "extremely rare"? I bet at least 5% of new grads are making that kind of money, given that the companies that pay that kind of money employ 8-10% of the engineers in the country, and I suspect hire a disproportionately large % of new grads relative to the industry as a whole. (So that number could be as high as 10-15%.)
For Silicon Valley, New York, and Seattle, at least, $150k yearly is below average market value for new grads. (I may even be missing some development centers.) "Salary" may be lower than that, but not total compensation including cash and stock bonuses.
I was trying to say that a junior developer may not have a realistic idea of how much experience they actually have. They don't know what they don't know.
Tiny geographic bubbles, maybe, but I would hazard to guess a whole lot more software jobs exist in those bubbles compared to the landmass they occupy.
So, I'm going to be more pragmatic than most to say there are differences in pay based on a huge number of factors, but I'm going to use my example based where I live, my history in IT (clinical research, energy sectors), cost-of-living, and technical schools in my area and how it all plays out on pay in my general area vs. the large metro in NY -> New York City.
1. Location - location dictates above all else, what you can earn. The local economy, and what it produces and how much income / wealth the area can support is what I see is the biggest factor. With remote work being a BIG COVID outgrowth driving up homes in rural towns with great internet connectivity, being the exception in recent memory (housing process are blowing up in crazy areas, because tech workers are moving out of big cities - real deal, ya'll). If an economy can support a tech force and pay them well, then that's a huge reason why pay can be unusually high in some areas. I call this this cyclone catalyst, because diversified industries of skilled knowledge workers make it rich with talent. Think Charlotte is a good example of this. Keeping it short, and sweet because we have more ground to cover.
2. I have 20+ years in tech, and not seeking management I am often yearly compensated accordingly, so my prospects for 150k+ are promising. Now, Junior engineers / developers in my general region will make between 60-100K depending on experience (in a stack), degree (industrial players in the area) and who you know (small town politics). But my economy in Buffalo doesn't attract the proper amount of talent it should despite being diversified in industrial and start-ups (but that's changing with 43N in the last 5 years), because of the taxes business have to pay in a pro-employee environment like our state [not a bad thing, but staying out of the politics naturally]. We are healthy though, because of #3.
3. Cost-of-Living - it's still very cheap to live in Buffalo. Much like any of the Rust Belt (aka any manufacturing city in the Great Lakes region from the 1900-2000s that lost industry to China, etc), we have seen revitalization by necessity and since attracting big industry players w/o billion-dollar tax breaks for what seems forever (think Riverbend project for Tesla/Panasonic) we are a multi-industry city, but we have an ever expanding older population and top-notch medical / healthcare industry that is slaying it between Cleveland and Buffalo (not to mention Toronto's influence). However, much like the rest of the country its starting to become unbearable to buy a house, with recent outbids in my own experience on our 2nd house by 30-50K (houses such as $300K can easily fetch $375K in a bidding war - VERY OFTEN!). I can't see this being sustainable, however. COVID really did a number on our housing market, but its gotta crater at some point.
Lastly ...
4. Technical degree programs in the area are just insanely high for the Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo area and with deep ethnical roots with family, I find a lot of people really yearn to return to the area. As 43N and other industries like banking and clinical research, and in a smaller part energy (hydro, solar, geothermal, and the like) keep putting deeper stakes in the ground (almost doubling down), we'll continue to retain more and more of our never ending supply of computer science grads from University at Buffalo in particular.
Bottom like, there are like 100 factors, but for me, these 4 seem to drive pay around here. We can't support the $150-200K jobs in tech, no matter how you spin it. However, we have more than our share of 80-100K jobs to go around. I think Buffalo's play is quantity over scarcity because of the 4 major factors in our area.
This is different for different people, but I think its fairly accurate for our town.
1. Location - location dictates above all else, what you can earn. The local economy, and what it produces and how much income / wealth the area can support is what I see is the biggest factor. With remote work being a BIG COVID outgrowth driving up homes in rural towns with great internet connectivity, being the exception in recent memory (housing process are blowing up in crazy areas, because tech workers are moving out of big cities - real deal, ya'll). If an economy can support a tech force and pay them well, then that's a huge reason why pay can be unusually high in some areas. I call this this cyclone catalyst, because diversified industries of skilled knowledge workers make it rich with talent. Think Charlotte is a good example of this. Keeping it short, and sweet because we have more ground to cover.
2. I have 20+ years in tech, and not seeking management I am often yearly compensated accordingly, so my prospects for 150k+ are promising. Now, Junior engineers / developers in my general region will make between 60-100K depending on experience (in a stack), degree (industrial players in the area) and who you know (small town politics). But my economy in Buffalo doesn't attract the proper amount of talent it should despite being diversified in industrial and start-ups (but that's changing with 43N in the last 5 years), because of the taxes business have to pay in a pro-employee environment like our state [not a bad thing, but staying out of the politics naturally]. We are healthy though, because of #3.
3. Cost-of-Living - it's still very cheap to live in Buffalo. Much like any of the Rust Belt (aka any manufacturing city in the Great Lakes region from the 1900-2000s that lost industry to China, etc), we have seen revitalization by necessity and since attracting big industry players w/o billion-dollar tax breaks for what seems forever (think Riverbend project for Tesla/Panasonic) we are a multi-industry city, but we have an ever expanding older population and top-notch medical / healthcare industry that is slaying it between Cleveland and Buffalo (not to mention Toronto's influence). However, much like the rest of the country its starting to become unbearable to buy a house, with recent outbids in my own experience on our 2nd house by 30-50K (houses such as $300K can easily fetch $375K in a bidding war - VERY OFTEN!). I can't see this being sustainable, however. COVID really did a number on our housing market, but its gotta crater at some point.
Lastly ...
4. Technical degree programs in the area are just insanely high for the Rochester / Syracuse / Buffalo area and with deep ethnical roots with family, I find a lot of people really yearn to return to the area. As 43N and other industries like banking and clinical research, and in a smaller part energy (hydro, solar, geothermal, and the like) keep putting deeper stakes in the ground (almost doubling down), we'll continue to retain more and more of our never ending supply of computer science grads from University at Buffalo in particular.
Bottom like, there are like 100 factors, but for me, these 4 seem to drive pay around here. We can't support the $150-200K jobs in tech, no matter how you spin it. However, we have more than our share of 80-100K jobs to go around. I think Buffalo's play is quantity over scarcity because of the 4 major factors in our area.
This is different for different people, but I think its fairly accurate for our town.
Even a small company - or especially one - will certainly have a ballpark range in mind for what's possible. Even if a wide one, they could offer quick guidance with something like:
Looking for help! CTO / VP ($100-$150k), Developers / PMs ($80-120k).
Bam, everyone gets a range, and the small company can cast a wide net. It doesn't have to be so complicated.
Bam, everyone gets a range, and the small company can cast a wide net. It doesn't have to be so complicated.
> Even a small company - or especially one - will certainly have a ballpark range in mind for what's possible. Even if a wide one, they could offer quick guidance with something like: Looking for help! CTO / VP ($100-$150k), Developers / PMs ($80-120k).
In the tech startups I've worked for, we did not actually have fixed, pre-approved salary ranges like that. Startups tend to gather a wide range of talent from recent grads through ex-FAANG employees and you need to be prepared to rise to whatever level is necessary to hire whoever comes through your application process.
But the real problem is that requiring specific positions and specific job postings changes the thread from something where anyone can invite people to apply to something that is essentially an extension of their company's HR department.
> Even if a wide one, they could offer quick guidance with something like: Looking for help! CTO / VP ($100-$150k), Developers / PMs ($80-120k).
You may think those ranges are wide, but they don't even come close to the variation we got at startups. When you're hiring developers straight out of college and also straight out of FAANG companies your compensation range from low to high can extend to a 5X difference or more.
In the tech startups I've worked for, we did not actually have fixed, pre-approved salary ranges like that. Startups tend to gather a wide range of talent from recent grads through ex-FAANG employees and you need to be prepared to rise to whatever level is necessary to hire whoever comes through your application process.
But the real problem is that requiring specific positions and specific job postings changes the thread from something where anyone can invite people to apply to something that is essentially an extension of their company's HR department.
> Even if a wide one, they could offer quick guidance with something like: Looking for help! CTO / VP ($100-$150k), Developers / PMs ($80-120k).
You may think those ranges are wide, but they don't even come close to the variation we got at startups. When you're hiring developers straight out of college and also straight out of FAANG companies your compensation range from low to high can extend to a 5X difference or more.
> When you're hiring developers straight out of college and also straight out of FAANG companies your compensation range from low to high can extend to a 5X difference or more.
I wonder whether that kind of variation in compensation is really good, presuming we're talking about hiring into comparable roles. I'm familiar with the whole "10x performer" trope, and I get that there's value in flexibility rather than sticking to a rigid "Someone with this title and this many years of service in the company gets paid this much with 5% variance" formula. But it seems like "Agatha, George, and Bob are all 'Software Engineer II' but George makes 2x what Agatha does and Bob makes 2x what George does, because we hired Bob away from Google, George has no experience but he just graduated from Stanford, and Agatha was a star performer wasting her time at an office park in Boise" is a setup for some pretty hard feelings -- or worse -- if the pay disparity becomes known.
I wonder whether that kind of variation in compensation is really good, presuming we're talking about hiring into comparable roles. I'm familiar with the whole "10x performer" trope, and I get that there's value in flexibility rather than sticking to a rigid "Someone with this title and this many years of service in the company gets paid this much with 5% variance" formula. But it seems like "Agatha, George, and Bob are all 'Software Engineer II' but George makes 2x what Agatha does and Bob makes 2x what George does, because we hired Bob away from Google, George has no experience but he just graduated from Stanford, and Agatha was a star performer wasting her time at an office park in Boise" is a setup for some pretty hard feelings -- or worse -- if the pay disparity becomes known.
The hard feelings only come if there was already a veil of equal pay. No one in finance or sales balks at coworkers earning much more than others, because the expectation is that individuals have different market prices.
If Agatha and George are unhappy they are earning less than others, then they are free to go find another job. When, and if they cannot, they will quickly learn to be happy with the maximum they can get, even if someone else is earning more. Just like they already are happy with sports and movie stars earning more.
If Agatha and George are unhappy they are earning less than others, then they are free to go find another job. When, and if they cannot, they will quickly learn to be happy with the maximum they can get, even if someone else is earning more. Just like they already are happy with sports and movie stars earning more.
> Agatha was a star performer wasting her time at an office park in Boise
Why is Agatha being paid less here? Just because she has not FAANG experience? Also, lumping them all under SWE II is dishonest (to hide the disparity)
Why is Agatha being paid less here? Just because she has not FAANG experience? Also, lumping them all under SWE II is dishonest (to hide the disparity)
Probably Agatha is being paid less at the new job because she was paid a comparatively low salary at her previous one. To a degree, companies have to consider the candidate's salary history when they make an offer -- say their target for a position is a $175K salary, and someone they really want to hire is already making that at their current company. They have to decide whether or not they can offer more and, if so, whether to. The flip side of that, though, is that if someone in a much, much lower-salary market than Silicon Valley (e.g., virtually all of them) is making $80K, you could offer the the $175K you'd offer someone locally, but you could just offer $120K. Look! It's a 50% salary increase! Fantastic...?
> Also, lumping them all under SWE II is dishonest (to hide the disparity)
While I picked SWE II arbitrarily, the notion that there was such a wide range of salaries offered for essentially the same position seem to be the point of the comment I was replying to. If it's a startup they'll probably have squishier titles, like just "Developer" or "Engineer", but the point is that if you can have two people on the same team ostensibly at the same level where one is making three times what the other does, it's…curious.
> Also, lumping them all under SWE II is dishonest (to hide the disparity)
While I picked SWE II arbitrarily, the notion that there was such a wide range of salaries offered for essentially the same position seem to be the point of the comment I was replying to. If it's a startup they'll probably have squishier titles, like just "Developer" or "Engineer", but the point is that if you can have two people on the same team ostensibly at the same level where one is making three times what the other does, it's…curious.
> To a degree, companies have to consider the candidate's salary history when they make an offer
This BS practice is why these transparency laws are being enacted, and I fully support laws that make requesting/searching for past salary illegal. The only number potential employers should be concern themselves with is the one the candidate will accept.
Companies get away with this due to information asymmetry: it's not that they want the flexibility to pay people "what they deserve" on a case-by-case basis, its that they want to avoid paying market rates by low-balling candidates who don't know better. "Free market for me, but not for thee".
This BS practice is why these transparency laws are being enacted, and I fully support laws that make requesting/searching for past salary illegal. The only number potential employers should be concern themselves with is the one the candidate will accept.
Companies get away with this due to information asymmetry: it's not that they want the flexibility to pay people "what they deserve" on a case-by-case basis, its that they want to avoid paying market rates by low-balling candidates who don't know better. "Free market for me, but not for thee".
Not in favour of any mandatory salary labels. But:
> But the real problem is that requiring specific positions and specific job postings changes the thread from something where anyone can invite people to apply to something that is essentially an extension of their company's HR department.
If you have managers inviting people to apply, but without any approval by HR, you're setting yourself - and particularly your candidates - up for some hideous experiences.
Of course if you're so small you don't have any HR then fine, you're a classic startup, do whatever works.
> But the real problem is that requiring specific positions and specific job postings changes the thread from something where anyone can invite people to apply to something that is essentially an extension of their company's HR department.
If you have managers inviting people to apply, but without any approval by HR, you're setting yourself - and particularly your candidates - up for some hideous experiences.
Of course if you're so small you don't have any HR then fine, you're a classic startup, do whatever works.
Sounds lovely -- if you want to exclude every medium to high performing IC from considering your posting. I don't know any IC's at my company that make less than 120k. (In fact I believe the starting salary for college grads is right around 120k)
> But most of the "Who is hiring" posts aren't job postings
What the hell are they then?
They better be job postings, because that's what 'hiring' implies - a job.
Regarding various requirements - what requirements? Cry me a river - nobody is getting sued over posting a salary range and if someone does sue for that, we should have a 'Who is a giant piece of shit suing people for providing salary ranges' to solve that problem.
When you don't post a salary range - you waste everyone's time. It's why it's so hard to hire competent people - because only the desperate are willing to jump through the bullshit hoops of talking to employers playing games. The competent ones will jump through the bullshit FAANG hoops once and never again.
What the hell are they then?
They better be job postings, because that's what 'hiring' implies - a job.
Regarding various requirements - what requirements? Cry me a river - nobody is getting sued over posting a salary range and if someone does sue for that, we should have a 'Who is a giant piece of shit suing people for providing salary ranges' to solve that problem.
When you don't post a salary range - you waste everyone's time. It's why it's so hard to hire competent people - because only the desperate are willing to jump through the bullshit hoops of talking to employers playing games. The competent ones will jump through the bullshit FAANG hoops once and never again.
It's not impossible to say "Positions vary from $20k to $600k, DOE." for these cases, if you really are hiring your new CTO and also a janitor. The nice thing about having to put _some_ kind of range is that there is some the poster will have to choose whether or not to reveal they _might_ pay well. And there are balanced incentives to go either direction. If you post low, you miss out on talent, and if you post high you have to convince every noob that might be useful they aren't worth $1M/yr. But having to decide that balance is useful.
> It's not impossible to say "Positions vary from $20k to $600k, DOE."
What value would that bring to the thread?
> The nice thing about having to put _some_ kind of range is that there is some the poster will have to choose whether or not to reveal they _might_ pay well.
Yes, and the least scrupulous companies will put a $500K upper limit when they don't plan on paying anyone more than $120K/year.
What value would that bring to the thread?
> The nice thing about having to put _some_ kind of range is that there is some the poster will have to choose whether or not to reveal they _might_ pay well.
Yes, and the least scrupulous companies will put a $500K upper limit when they don't plan on paying anyone more than $120K/year.
Less scrupulous companies doing that might but be all bad because they can be called out.
With no salary range, there's nothing to call then out on.
With no salary range, there's nothing to call then out on.
Maybe make separate postings for the door greeter and CEO?
> Requiring salary ranges would significantly elevate the amount of work that goes into answering the "Who is hiring" question and therefore would reduce the number of postings significantly.
So like ... 30 seconds more of work?
If you know you want/need to hire someone, but you haven't so much as glanced at your numbers to see how much you might need to pay such a person, and you're also legally an adult, it seems to me like you need to have your head examined.
This is dumb, just post a salary range. It's HN, it's just a web forum.
So like ... 30 seconds more of work?
If you know you want/need to hire someone, but you haven't so much as glanced at your numbers to see how much you might need to pay such a person, and you're also legally an adult, it seems to me like you need to have your head examined.
This is dumb, just post a salary range. It's HN, it's just a web forum.
Most of the who's hiring posts offer remote work. The issue with posting a salary range is that the salary is very depending on the location of the person applying.
Which is dumb. If you're hiring remotely and a small company, pay for the role not the candidates address. Want to save money? Then offer a lower salary but still get insane talent from Asia. Want to get some of the most insane candidates from Europe? Offer Bay Area rates and get top-tier PhDs with 20 years industry experience applying for your $130k role.
I never liked this argument, does your company charge differently based on the location to the people who is using its products? No. So why does it pay differently based on location?
Yes its not an uncommon practice to price products depending on the users location. https://www.steamregionalprices.com/ https://www.comparitech.com/blog/vpn-privacy/countries-netfl...
you know that in some examples the company sells more expensive the products in the regions where they pay less salary. In that example the games are more expensive in euros than in dollars, but the companies from states probably will offer less salary to someone from Europe. So it is even worse with your example.
I think you are implying that goods should cost less if you get paid less but that is not the case and is not what I was suggesting.
Actually the justification to pay you less in some places is because cost of life is lower. Which is true because food and rent is less expensive, but some products are the same or more expensive (like technology). So quality of life is worse.
Is that really the case? Everyone seems to be talking about geopay but from what I heard it magically doesn’t apply to core contributors.
There’s a hunger for talent right now. While some businesses try to cut every corners, others are simply raising more money and hiring talent to innovate faster.
There’s a hunger for talent right now. While some businesses try to cut every corners, others are simply raising more money and hiring talent to innovate faster.
Why should salary be dependent on where I live if it’s in the US?
Because they feel they can get away with paying you less if you live in an area with a "lower cost of living". It's a way for the company to extract more value from the employee without having to pay the employee what they're actually worth.
Remember: you are an asset to the company only worth what you're willing to fight to be paid for. A company will pay you the least amount of money they can to keep you.
If the job is not remote or has on-site duties the argument becomes moot.
Remember: you are an asset to the company only worth what you're willing to fight to be paid for. A company will pay you the least amount of money they can to keep you.
If the job is not remote or has on-site duties the argument becomes moot.
Then be honest about it.
A response to "Who's hiring" that is so vague as to not indicate whether it is hiring a Graphic Artist or a cafeteria Dish Washer is a waster of everyone's time, anyway. Hundreds of developers polish up their two-page resume and send it in because a company couldn't have their HR staff write up a proper one paragraph response?
Companies with 4 employees have an HR department. I guess these days everyone wants to call themselves a founder without having to work like a founder?
Companies with 4 employees have an HR department. I guess these days everyone wants to call themselves a founder without having to work like a founder?
First example I’ve seen of why not to do this, that I have considered a legitimate point. Thanks!
Thanks. It's a difficult topic to broach on HN because most commenters here are coming from an IC perspective, not a hiring manager or even startup perspective.
Big companies posting official job listings can make sure they comply with all of the relevant laws simply because they have HR and legal teams to do all of the legwork.
If you're a startup who really just wants a wide range of enthusiastic candidates to apply, you either:
1) Don't participate at all, lest you accidentally violate the rules or, worse, the law.
2) Post a huge range of salaries (This position pays $80K to $500K) so you don't exclude any candidates, but then your risk angering the readers.
3) Break every listing into multiple positions with different salary bands (Software Engineer I: $100K - $150K, Software Engineer II: $150K - $200K, Software Engineer III: $200K - $300K and so on). This barely provides any more signal to the reader, but it complies with the rules and laws.
Personally, I'd be most afraid of making it complicated enough that HR has to get involved. I'd rather allow engineers to post up generic invitations to apply to a company, not change the rules to require highly specific job postings or nothing.
Big companies posting official job listings can make sure they comply with all of the relevant laws simply because they have HR and legal teams to do all of the legwork.
If you're a startup who really just wants a wide range of enthusiastic candidates to apply, you either:
1) Don't participate at all, lest you accidentally violate the rules or, worse, the law.
2) Post a huge range of salaries (This position pays $80K to $500K) so you don't exclude any candidates, but then your risk angering the readers.
3) Break every listing into multiple positions with different salary bands (Software Engineer I: $100K - $150K, Software Engineer II: $150K - $200K, Software Engineer III: $200K - $300K and so on). This barely provides any more signal to the reader, but it complies with the rules and laws.
Personally, I'd be most afraid of making it complicated enough that HR has to get involved. I'd rather allow engineers to post up generic invitations to apply to a company, not change the rules to require highly specific job postings or nothing.
Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law.
Hiring managers / business owners simply do not want sellers of labor to know the minimum they are willing to pay. Naming the minimum is a loss of negotiating position for the purchaser of labor, and that is why employers do not like the idea.
Employers also do not like the idea of having to increase their current employees' pay if market prices are rising. I know, because I have benefited greatly from paying different people different amounts simply because they do not know what I am willing to offer other employees.
Hiring managers / business owners simply do not want sellers of labor to know the minimum they are willing to pay. Naming the minimum is a loss of negotiating position for the purchaser of labor, and that is why employers do not like the idea.
Employers also do not like the idea of having to increase their current employees' pay if market prices are rising. I know, because I have benefited greatly from paying different people different amounts simply because they do not know what I am willing to offer other employees.
No Colorado has explicitly called out this practice as illegal. You have to be actually willing to hire someone for that role at that salary.
How do they prove "willingness"? Like if you put $100K-$700K, but you just don't have any employees that are good enough for $700K, how would you prove you're nevertheless willing to hire someone (the right person) at that salary?
Also, what about the converse - what if the range is actually wider? Does anything prevent them from putting something narrower?
Also, what about the converse - what if the range is actually wider? Does anything prevent them from putting something narrower?
True, I did not notice that CO required a "good faith" range for the job. Ideally, the law would be that the employer simply has to state a range and then let the market forces dictate the ranges employers advertise. In competitive labor markets, the bottom of the range will naturally rise, and if they do not, then sellers of labor know that it is not a business worth going into.
[deleted]
> Violating the law is not a concern. You can simply put $50k/year to $1B/year and you comply with the law.
Right! Which is completely useless and would just clutter the thread.
Right! Which is completely useless and would just clutter the thread.
No, it is not useless. The lower bound is most of the information that sellers of labors are interested in, and that buyers of labor want to hide.
The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings.
If buyers of labor were not going to lose anything by putting $50k/year to $1B/year, then they would be doing just that. But they correctly calculate that they would lose big time if existing employees are easily able to find out what the real time minimum market prices for labor are.
The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings.
If buyers of labor were not going to lose anything by putting $50k/year to $1B/year, then they would be doing just that. But they correctly calculate that they would lose big time if existing employees are easily able to find out what the real time minimum market prices for labor are.
> The proof is employers excluding Colorado residents from their job listings.
FYI this happens because they don't want to risk legal action in a remote state that contains less than 1% of the workforce anyone.
Excluding CO from the job listing is the quick and easy way to ensure you don't violate Colorado law.
It really doesn't make sense to add another state's entire legal requirements to your startup unless you have to. It may seem simple, but it's actually a pain to bring in yet another legal code you have to understand and check just to do anything.
FYI this happens because they don't want to risk legal action in a remote state that contains less than 1% of the workforce anyone.
Excluding CO from the job listing is the quick and easy way to ensure you don't violate Colorado law.
It really doesn't make sense to add another state's entire legal requirements to your startup unless you have to. It may seem simple, but it's actually a pain to bring in yet another legal code you have to understand and check just to do anything.
That is true, it would unnecessarily open one up to legal costs from CO, and is a good reason to exclude CO residents from job listings.
It would have been better if the CO pay disclosure laws were simpler and only came into play if applicants are bamboozled, i.e. if they apply for a job and then are offered lower than the minimum advertised.
It would have been better if the CO pay disclosure laws were simpler and only came into play if applicants are bamboozled, i.e. if they apply for a job and then are offered lower than the minimum advertised.
I don't think you should use the same brush to paint giant 100,000+ employee companies and 4 person startups.
Every for profit company wants to decrease the cost of goods and labor and increase profit - or at least sucker enough money out of investors by giving the illusion of profitability whether they are a four person startup or a 100,000 person company.
I feel like you're making it more difficult than it has to be.
If your company is hiring a software engineer, but doesn't know:
A) what salary you can afford B) what skills level you need (SE I, SE II, SE III)
I would be worried about your company. If you feel you could pay up to $300,000 for someone with the right qualifications the problem is easily solved:
> Software Engineer - Salary range: $100,000 - $300,000 dependent upon skills and work experience.
BOOM! Super simple!
If for some reason you have a posting for a position with the salary range moving between $80k - $500k, I would think you don't know what it is you're looking for in a candidate or what type of position you're trying to fill. That would really lead me to question the leadership of a company and wonder about the longevity of it as well.
If your company is hiring a software engineer, but doesn't know:
A) what salary you can afford B) what skills level you need (SE I, SE II, SE III)
I would be worried about your company. If you feel you could pay up to $300,000 for someone with the right qualifications the problem is easily solved:
> Software Engineer - Salary range: $100,000 - $300,000 dependent upon skills and work experience.
BOOM! Super simple!
If for some reason you have a posting for a position with the salary range moving between $80k - $500k, I would think you don't know what it is you're looking for in a candidate or what type of position you're trying to fill. That would really lead me to question the leadership of a company and wonder about the longevity of it as well.
> Personally, I'd be most afraid of making it complicated enough that HR has to get involved.
That doesn't sound like a little company that doesn't have an HR and legal department. That sounds like a bureaucratic headache of a big company. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.
Why do you try so hard to make it sound so complicated? If you can't explain the job responsibilities in one paragraph with a salary range, you are broken. Admit that you are broken. You aren't afraid of HR. You are afraid of looking like you don't know what you are doing because you don't know what you are doing.
That doesn't sound like a little company that doesn't have an HR and legal department. That sounds like a bureaucratic headache of a big company. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.
Why do you try so hard to make it sound so complicated? If you can't explain the job responsibilities in one paragraph with a salary range, you are broken. Admit that you are broken. You aren't afraid of HR. You are afraid of looking like you don't know what you are doing because you don't know what you are doing.
I go to work to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter. Knowing how much money my labor is worth to you is the primary filter.
As a hiring manager, I wouldn’t want to waste my time interviewing a candidate when our salary expectations are completely misaligned.
As a hiring manager, I wouldn’t want to waste my time interviewing a candidate when our salary expectations are completely misaligned.
If a company doesn't have clear the positions they are offering, and so, they are more less know how much should they pay. I don't want to apply.
I have applied to so many companies which didn't know very well what they wanted to hire that it was a completely waste of time. I you know how much value the position is going to add to your company you have a clear defined role and a range to spend in that role.
So yes, it will be more difficult for startups, but it will clear some undefined roles that wont be translated into jobs in the future.
So because you don’t want to “elevate the amount of work” to add salary ranges, i as a candidate should waste time going through the interview process just to find out whether I am interested?
I find that salary data is pretty well known anyways. Everyone talks about it around the Bay. Not hard to reach out to people inside and really figure out what's going on.
Yeah, that's a terrible justification: that just means that people who are connected and friends get better pay, and those who are outsiders and less connected get worse pay: because they don't know what to ask for they'll likely be wrong, but it's only in one direction: if they go too high they'll get told no, if they go too low they won't know it.
Yes. As someone in the hiring space, salary ranges are a huge time saver to candidates and companies.
For companies, remember you're not just wasting a candidates time. You're also wasting company time paying people to interview a candidate that won't accept a lowball salary.
For companies, remember you're not just wasting a candidates time. You're also wasting company time paying people to interview a candidate that won't accept a lowball salary.
Yes, absolutely. Job postings are required in Colorado, and will soon be required by law in New York City and Washington State. Every listing that doesn't follow the law should be removed.
I also think if companies are allowing remote except for those particular states the job posting should be removed, but that's more of a personal opinion.
I also think if companies are allowing remote except for those particular states the job posting should be removed, but that's more of a personal opinion.
I'm sure a startup from Mumbai will enjoy following the laws of Colorado on Hacker News...
Should HN follow all applicable laws from every country, state, and county?
Everywhere they are required to, yes. Just as Amazon and Walmart has to collect taxes on behalf of those municipalities.
But they don't. HN isn't even compliant with the EU law regarding cookie notices. There are none. There's nothing indicating that logging in or registering will use cookies.
Nor there are any checkboxes stating that you agree to the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy or anything of the sort.
Besides, cookie notices have to be explicit anyway. It can't be a thing buried deep within ToS or Privacy Policy.
Nor there are any checkboxes stating that you agree to the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy or anything of the sort.
Besides, cookie notices have to be explicit anyway. It can't be a thing buried deep within ToS or Privacy Policy.
The “all applicable laws” clause is an interesting little conundrum when drafting contracts: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/applicable/
I would be really surprised if most of the replies in the “Who’s Hiring” threads violated these laws. I can’t imagine an employee writing on a message board that their company has job openings is within the scope. The law is aimed at employers posting job openings not at individuals commenting on the internet.
The /r/cpp subreddit will ask for salaries on job postings soon: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/sz0cd5/c_jobs_threads_...
I've been pushing this for months. At the very least it should be part of the template in the text at the top. Companies can feel free to ignore it if they want, but it would be a good nudge.
It's a matter of fairness. Not everyone is good at negotiating salary, and they shouldn't have to be just to get a fair paycheck. There is tons of data showing that women and minorities get paid less for the same work in part because they are afraid to do so.
Posting the salary up front goes a long way towards pay equity for people who are traditionally underpaid.
One thing I do personally to help the situation is go through the Who's hiring threads and upvote any post with a salary listed. I encourage everyone to do the same.
It's a matter of fairness. Not everyone is good at negotiating salary, and they shouldn't have to be just to get a fair paycheck. There is tons of data showing that women and minorities get paid less for the same work in part because they are afraid to do so.
Posting the salary up front goes a long way towards pay equity for people who are traditionally underpaid.
One thing I do personally to help the situation is go through the Who's hiring threads and upvote any post with a salary listed. I encourage everyone to do the same.
Of course,
I spent too much time talking to people who couldn't afford me. What's the point?
On the other hand, if you know the person is not the right fit, why would you waste your time, just out of respect to other people's life
On the other hand, if you know the person is not the right fit, why would you waste your time, just out of respect to other people's life
Why does everyone believe that jobs should be so cookie cutter that you can decide the salary range up front? Generally, I would like the option to pay a lot more for someone a lot better and putting up a salary range like Founding Engineer, $150-500k+ isn't that useful.
It is extremely useful, for everyone that considers $150k too low, and for people who are aspiring to earn $150k.
The downside is for the employer, who if they already employ comparable people earning $120k, and now they are advertising a new person earning $150k, then the person earning $120k needs to be raised to $150k because the market price is now easily visible.
The downside is for the employer, who if they already employ comparable people earning $120k, and now they are advertising a new person earning $150k, then the person earning $120k needs to be raised to $150k because the market price is now easily visible.
The way the Colorado law is written there is nothing wrong with posting what you think the salary range is and then actually hiring someone outside of that range _if you can justify it_. Someone didn't meet a required skill in the posting, feel free to offer them less. Someone is severely overqualified for the position you posted but you still want them, feel free to pay them more.
Yes. Full stop. A reasonable range (say +/- ~$25k?) with “DOE” is fine here. Totally omitting it is not. Should have been federal law 25+ years ago.
If you’re unwilling to tell people what you’re willing to pay, you’re willingly telling them that you’re looking to screw somebody over. Either way, we’re getting a valuable signal about your company and whether or not you’re trustworthy.
If you’re unwilling to tell people what you’re willing to pay, you’re willingly telling them that you’re looking to screw somebody over. Either way, we’re getting a valuable signal about your company and whether or not you’re trustworthy.
I agree with this sentiment. Every company has a budget, they know exactly what range they can and will pay, even if it's a wide range.
Even better, I've encountered some companies who have a "everyone at the same level has the same salary" policy and I think that's most likely a net positive. I would personally like pay to be less about your personal risk factors and negotiating leverage and more about the value you bring to the company.
Here's an incredibly common example: if I am currently employed, I know I can risk losing a job offer by asking for a higher counter-offer. If I am unemployed, I might not want to take that risk. The previously-unemployed worker doesn't bring any more or less value to the company than the one with negotiating leverage.
Companies that have pay equity policies probably have a lower risk of running into discrimination lawsuits, too, so I think it benefits the company to be transparent.
Even better, I've encountered some companies who have a "everyone at the same level has the same salary" policy and I think that's most likely a net positive. I would personally like pay to be less about your personal risk factors and negotiating leverage and more about the value you bring to the company.
Here's an incredibly common example: if I am currently employed, I know I can risk losing a job offer by asking for a higher counter-offer. If I am unemployed, I might not want to take that risk. The previously-unemployed worker doesn't bring any more or less value to the company than the one with negotiating leverage.
Companies that have pay equity policies probably have a lower risk of running into discrimination lawsuits, too, so I think it benefits the company to be transparent.
I don’t even read the ‘Who is hiring?’ threads because my time is valuable when looking for a new job and it seems to promote window shopping for candidates, regardless of commitment to actually hiring them. If the salary amounts were required, I would take the threads much more seriously.
If they share a salary range, and then hire a candidate for a salary outside that range, does that expose the business to a lawsuit?
Is there any concern about the fact that posting a salary range (ie, setting the initial reference point for negotiations) weakens the candidate's bargaining power?
I personally expect (or at least hope) that these measures finally end the goldrush and bring tech salaries down to reasonable levels. What kind of lifestyle must one lead to worry if a developer job is _remotely_ within their range?
Is there any concern about the fact that posting a salary range (ie, setting the initial reference point for negotiations) weakens the candidate's bargaining power?
I personally expect (or at least hope) that these measures finally end the goldrush and bring tech salaries down to reasonable levels. What kind of lifestyle must one lead to worry if a developer job is _remotely_ within their range?
> If they share a salary range, and then hire a candidate for a salary outside that range, does that expose the business to a lawsuit?
In the context of HN, the problem is that as soon as you even have to think about this question it's a non-starter for a lot of posters.
Once you have to get the go-ahead from legal and HR just to share job listings, a lot of people are going to stop. Then it's just the biggest companies and/or professional recruiters with the time and resources to push the posts through, which isn't really what I want out of that thread.
In the context of HN, the problem is that as soon as you even have to think about this question it's a non-starter for a lot of posters.
Once you have to get the go-ahead from legal and HR just to share job listings, a lot of people are going to stop. Then it's just the biggest companies and/or professional recruiters with the time and resources to push the posts through, which isn't really what I want out of that thread.
I posted this elsewhere in this thread but it applies here as well: The way the Colorado law is written there is nothing wrong with posting what you think the salary range is and then actually hiring someone outside of that range _if you can justify it_. Someone didn't meet a required skill in the posting, feel free to offer them less. Someone is severely overqualified for the position you posted but you still want them, feel free to pay them more.
It also only applies to companies with at least one employee in Colorado.
It also only applies to companies with at least one employee in Colorado.
Who do I have to justify it to? What makes said entity qualified and competent to evaluate my justification? What criteria will be used to determine if my justification is valid?
Exactly, Colorado should have kept the law nice and clean. As long as the job offer is above the minimum pay advertised, then the employer has nothing to worry about. The market would have sorted out the rest (forcing employer to list "appropriate" salary ranges). If it did not force employers to list appropriate salary ranges, then that is a sign to not sell that type of labor.
That or refuse to offer a candidate the max in the range and invite all sorts of speculation as to why.
Ultimately it's just going to end up with salary tables that are based on objective and easily defensible metrics. Which is fine too, the world will keep spinning.
Ultimately it's just going to end up with salary tables that are based on objective and easily defensible metrics. Which is fine too, the world will keep spinning.
For "Show HN"? I sure hope not, this website has no power to create laws O.o.
If you're asking about Washington, Colorado or the EU; well, those laws will probably have specific details about that in each of their implementations and isn't the topic of this thread. There was a topic on this on HN yesterday, though.
If you're asking about Washington, Colorado or the EU; well, those laws will probably have specific details about that in each of their implementations and isn't the topic of this thread. There was a topic on this on HN yesterday, though.
> Is there any concern about the fact that posting a salary range (ie, setting the initial reference point for negotiations) weakens the candidate's bargaining power?
No, more information only makes the candidates bargaining position stronger.
No, more information only makes the candidates bargaining position stronger.
The more transparency, the better for everyone, including and especially under-represented groups.
I might agree (or rather give a hoot) if salaries weren't so contingent on location.
Years ago when I suggested lowering or raising salary based on precisely where the employee lives is a demi-scam, HN told me I was wrong.
So is it practical or useful to advertise a salary range and be okay with paying someone $80k instead of $200k because they live in Des Moines instead of San Francisco? Or even just San Jose instead of San Francisco?
Years ago when I suggested lowering or raising salary based on precisely where the employee lives is a demi-scam, HN told me I was wrong.
So is it practical or useful to advertise a salary range and be okay with paying someone $80k instead of $200k because they live in Des Moines instead of San Francisco? Or even just San Jose instead of San Francisco?
It's bizarre that this isn't already the expectation. A job posting contains the company name, location, description of the role, tech stack, education and skill requirements, what the expectation from the employee is, sometimes even benefits – all key info that helps both sides with their decision making. But as soon as people mention salary suddenly it's some big taboo.
Many already do. If they don't want to, why force them, job seekers can just choose to avoid places like that if they value transparency.
I predict that this trend towards requiring companies to include information in job postings that leaves them in a legal grey area (what if I end up hiring someone and paying above the range? can I be sued for discrimination by a unrepresented minority if the unrepesented minority gets an offer on the low end? what if I don't find anyone that is near the top of the range? can I be sued for that too? what if my current staff isn't in the salary range?) is just going to result in less public job postings and more use of recruiters and good-old-boy networks. The fact is, as a company, you can be sued for anything at any time by any one and all these requirements do is add new lines of attack for no benefit.
How does this work for companies where a significant portion of comp is bonus and equity? And this is not a rhetorical question, I'm curious how existing laws (e.g. Colorado) treat this. I did a quick search and couldn't find a good answer.
Base: x
On target earnings: y
Equity: yes, z
OTE is how sales gets their compensation communicated. Your base is $60k, with commission and hitting predefined goals your OTE is $200k.
On target earnings: y
Equity: yes, z
OTE is how sales gets their compensation communicated. Your base is $60k, with commission and hitting predefined goals your OTE is $200k.
I think so. Transparency leads to greater levels of properly calibrated pay to skills ratios.
Hiding pay merely let’s the employer pay as little as possible for the same work.
I found out recently I make more than my team lead. He didn’t know any better.
I found out recently I make more than my team lead. He didn’t know any better.
Yes for real salary ranges with detailed parts like base, bonus, equity and type of contract, but hard NO for the broad ranges I can see everywhere.
In my country (Poland) it's not an unusual thing to hear after the interview that the salary from the posting is with some vague bonus which "nobody ever seen".
I don't want to waste my time (hours or sometimes even days/weeks) with some convoluted multipart interviews and offline "coding exercises" only to hear that I would get just a lower/small part of the range which nobody ever gets from the start as they're there only to encourage you to apply.
In my country (Poland) it's not an unusual thing to hear after the interview that the salary from the posting is with some vague bonus which "nobody ever seen".
I don't want to waste my time (hours or sometimes even days/weeks) with some convoluted multipart interviews and offline "coding exercises" only to hear that I would get just a lower/small part of the range which nobody ever gets from the start as they're there only to encourage you to apply.
The salary range requirement makes complete sense to me for jobs that only pay a wage/salary with little else guaranteed as part of your contract.
I don’t think they’re necessary or helpful for software jobs where bonuses and equity compensation can make up such a large portion of your pay, and are still highly variable but not covered under such rules. It doesn’t add a lot to require just salary info, and then a lot of companies will not post here because they don’t want to give up that info. So overall I believe it would be a net negative.
I don’t think they’re necessary or helpful for software jobs where bonuses and equity compensation can make up such a large portion of your pay, and are still highly variable but not covered under such rules. It doesn’t add a lot to require just salary info, and then a lot of companies will not post here because they don’t want to give up that info. So overall I believe it would be a net negative.
Equity compensation in a private company is statistically worth nothing to me. I would be very happy to know just the base.
[deleted]
Agreed, it's a colossal waste of time when the ranges don't overlap at all.
Also important that startup employees in particular understand market pay in terms of equity and salary. This tool is helpful for that: https://topstartups.io/startup-salary-equity-database/
Also important that startup employees in particular understand market pay in terms of equity and salary. This tool is helpful for that: https://topstartups.io/startup-salary-equity-database/
I remember a few years back there were people who were encouraging to upvote job postings that showed salary ranges and downvote posts that didn't. Including a "friendly reminder" post in the who's hiring threads. Whatever happened to that? It seemed fairly effective. In fact, I thought the who's hiring template was supposed to have a salary range
No. They should leave it up to the commenter/company, and people can handle that however they would like, including by not applying.
Because of the changes in the forum over time, it has become less valuable as a recruiting channel. This would just kill "Who is hiring?", rather than affecting change.
Because of the changes in the forum over time, it has become less valuable as a recruiting channel. This would just kill "Who is hiring?", rather than affecting change.
Yes. Even better, I would like some sort of feedback mechanism for jobs posted here. I would like to know how often someone actually gets hired through these posts, and how accurately does the posted description and salary range match with reality? Hopefully it would cut down on the BS.
Might as well do it, it appears almost everyone here would like that. Try it for a few months and see?
I don't have a strong pro or against view at the moment, but I do think people ought to consider the privacy aspects - what you earn, at least for a while, becomes easily derived from the job listing for your role.
That is the goal. Markets do not function well without price transparency. If a society wants to best allocate resources according to supply and demand, then prices must be visible to market participants in order to discern the movements of supply and demand curves.
I can give you an example from a cousin in my family. Pharmacists in the US did very, very well from 1980s to 2000s. That started changing rapidly starting in 2010 or so. The cousin spent $200k+ in the mid 2010s to obtain the necessary certifications to become a pharmacist, only to find out that pay and quality of life at work was decreasing for years due to an oversupply of pharmacists.
However, the US government's BLS website had pharmacists listed as a very promising career until 2021, with positive growth. Even though wages had been declining since 2010, easily searchable via sdnforum and reddit pharmacy forums.
So now, said cousin is depressed with their life's outlook. They likely will not have children, or purchase a home as they are still busy paying off very hefty loans. This may have been prevented if 20 year olds had access to accurate price movements for the type of labor they are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in selling.
It is not only bad for the individual making the bad investment, it is bad for the country in the long run to misallocate such precious resources, all because price movements are too opaque.
I can give you an example from a cousin in my family. Pharmacists in the US did very, very well from 1980s to 2000s. That started changing rapidly starting in 2010 or so. The cousin spent $200k+ in the mid 2010s to obtain the necessary certifications to become a pharmacist, only to find out that pay and quality of life at work was decreasing for years due to an oversupply of pharmacists.
However, the US government's BLS website had pharmacists listed as a very promising career until 2021, with positive growth. Even though wages had been declining since 2010, easily searchable via sdnforum and reddit pharmacy forums.
So now, said cousin is depressed with their life's outlook. They likely will not have children, or purchase a home as they are still busy paying off very hefty loans. This may have been prevented if 20 year olds had access to accurate price movements for the type of labor they are investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in selling.
It is not only bad for the individual making the bad investment, it is bad for the country in the long run to misallocate such precious resources, all because price movements are too opaque.
At the end of the day people just want to lowball. Anything else is just making excuses.
whatever criteria and mechanism used to actually determine the final comp can simply be said before hand with said ranges.
whatever criteria and mechanism used to actually determine the final comp can simply be said before hand with said ranges.
It would make filtering listings much easier, granted the long tail issue here is associating an expectation of velocity / experience with a salary range.
Maybe recommending it? I get the first comments resistance based on the variety of posters, having any requirements isn't really enforceable anyways.
This will soon be law in all of the EU so I say why not.
Isn't this just going to end up causing companies to post large salary ranges with no intention of paying the higher part of the range?
We have the best job market in decades right now. If a company tells me a range and gives me an offer in the 50% percentile or lower I'm going to ask why, and what it will take to increase it. If the answer is obviously crap then I'm just not going to work for those people.
Advertising something and then ripping it out from underneath people in the final stages will build resentment- it's a horrible strategy.
Advertising something and then ripping it out from underneath people in the final stages will build resentment- it's a horrible strategy.
Then hopefully those companies get fewer applications and they learn to be honest- or, if their salary bands are that wide for a single title, maybe they need to think about how they’re treating their employees. Maybe there’s some racial or gender bias they need to work on.
ofc as always.
why not the simple explanation: they are cheapscates ?
why not the simple explanation: they are cheapscates ?
Because this is the bigger and more important one that each company needs to evaluate itself on: Maybe there’s some racial or gender bias they need to work on.
and maybe there isn't. just because there's problem it doesnt mean its a race/gender problem.
are we now going to enter a loop?
are we now going to enter a loop?
If they do a thorough and genuine review of themselves and find themselves without fault, that's one thing :)
Can't know what you don't measure and evaluate, though; and ultra-wide salary bands for a single title is a smell worth investigating.
Can't know what you don't measure and evaluate, though; and ultra-wide salary bands for a single title is a smell worth investigating.
That's kind of what happens in Colorado now that listing salary range is compulsory. A company will say something like 110k-250k commensurate with experience, but you can bet they're not actually going to shell out anything close to the high posted range. Just my anecdote.
So the great thing is, people won’t accept those jobs, and so they’ll have to correct the ranges.
Not a chance imo.
When I get a salary range it means the top of that range. Anybody asking for less is making an error. Sometimes I get a range and I talk to the recruiter/company and tell them I need significantly more than that. In this market, demand more.
When I get a salary range it means the top of that range. Anybody asking for less is making an error. Sometimes I get a range and I talk to the recruiter/company and tell them I need significantly more than that. In this market, demand more.
In NYC, you can be sued for that. There is some standard of proof that you have to meet (not a lawyer) that there are reasonable candidates for that position who would get the top of the range.
Yes, this saves everybody involved from wasting their time and is generally interesting even for people not looking for a job change.
I think Schiff's perspective[0] applies here. It seems a popular opinion on HN that all programmers should be paid SV salaries (which are astronomical), but I don't think the wider market works like that.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6LtyFTEdis
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6LtyFTEdis
Yes. Next question?
No.It is not good for founders.
Yes
Yes.
Would be nice
Yes, indeed!
Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
I often read the “Who is hiring?” posts but I have no idea if the jobs are even remotely within my range. I think it would save everybody a lot of time if a range was posted.