Job descriptions should show a salary or salary range(sifted.eu)
sifted.eu
Job descriptions should show a salary or salary range
https://sifted.eu/articles/job-advert-salary-range/
300 comments
I do the same. I won't take a call from recruiters until they tell me the company name and salary range. Both are like pulling teeth with some of the shitty recruiters out there! I'm pretty happy with my good mission, fairly cushy, well paid role, so it'd take a significant pay bump for me to consider leaving, and we're wasting both of our (but mostly my) time if the role won't give me the salary I'd want.
I do that too. It works most of the time, but sometimes they would reply "what salary are you currently on?", if they do then I either ignore them or I reply that I don't think it's relevant or I that don't feel comfortable answering that question.
I mean, it depends what market you're in. If you're desperate for the job, maybe you should reveal your salary (and bump it a bit?)
I mean, it depends what market you're in. If you're desperate for the job, maybe you should reveal your salary (and bump it a bit?)
My first response to any recruiter is always asking for the compensation range. Recruiters have reached out with insanely varying ranges. The best was one day where I was offered one opportunity for $80k-$90k and another for $350k-$600k (different recruiters).
I simply tell recruiters what my current going rate is, and most of them leave me alone after that. This is great for separating the wheat from the chaff.
This is one of the main benefits to the candidate of a recruiter. They tell you what the salary is, and they know it because their pay for placing you is tied to it. It also allows them to decide whether you're worth putting forward, or whether there might be some other role they can place you for.
I've done basically that but with auto-email reply and a short survey: https://gregor11.typeform.com/to/CjaodBIc (I call it my recruiter-shield)
I copied the Slashdot spam checklist thing and repurposed for work stuff. I don't have that handy, but the original is here:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/04/04/06/1629219/analysis-of-spam-and-a-proposed-solutionThis is really smart, I'm going to start doing this.
This is kind of like a prisoner’s dilemma problem. There’s no real reason to post a salary in a job ad, it can only hurt the company.
I suppose there's the risk of losing out on candidates that get bad info from somewhere else on what the salary might be, and never apply. Or wasting time on candidates you'll lose out on after the offer is made.
Personally I won’t bother to apply to a job for a company I haven’t heard of without a listed salary but I have the luxury of taking this stance.
There is also the possible benefit where you might attract talent that otherwise would pass on you thinking you can't/won't afford them.
Having a good dollar amount listed on your job listings draws eyes. This is especially valuable if people don't know what your company is because you're smaller or just lesser known. Which is honestly most companies.
Having a good dollar amount listed on your job listings draws eyes. This is especially valuable if people don't know what your company is because you're smaller or just lesser known. Which is honestly most companies.
I have seen this first-hand before. Corps with good salaries but no public ranges. Every time they have to hire out of core competencies and the local market is not too strong for the roles, it can take up to a year for the whole process.
It's not even the prisoner's dilemma. It's just two actors with different incentives.
In places where it's not illegal to talk about your salary to your coworkers - just heavily frowned upon, and possibly still illegally sanctioned by your boss - , it certainly is not too far. Just knowing what your peers make, especially your immediate team where you probably have better insights on how much relative value they provide, can give you a good feel for being overpaid or underpaid.
Oh ok, the prisoner's dilemma is about whether you should tell your coworkers your salary.
Mandated salary transparency does wonders to this issue. Norway, going even further with all salaries being public has one of the narrowest gender pay gap in the world[1] (in addition to narrow gaps in fields like software engineering that usually have an unusually wide band, even when accounting for similar seniority)
1: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
1: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40669239
Salary information comes out sooner or later, so I don’t see how simply posting the information up front hurts anyone.
But if the information comes out sooner or later, what's wrong with not disclosing it on the job page?
Given that companies have perfect freedom to publish the salary information, and yet most choose not to, it probably benefits them somehow.
Some people simply underestimate their market value, and companies are happy to keep them in dark, sometimes for years. Other people don't have unlimited time to do job interviews, so if they find something that seems okay and the provided salary is maybe 90% of what they originally wanted, they may choose to take it anyway. If they don't, the interview was a wasted time -- both for them and for the company, but because the company had the option to choose otherwise and decided not to, it's probably a net win for the company.
I have no idea about specific numbers, but if the company spends 2× as much time interviewing in return to saving 10% of salary costs, it may be worth it. If the employee wants to spend 2× much time interviewing in return to getting 10% higher salary, they will probably quickly run out of vacation days. The process is usually asymmetrical; the company spends 1 hour interviewing the candidate, the candidate spends some time preparing for the interview, traveling there and back... also, if the interview is in the middle of working time (it usually is), for the company that's 1 hour lost, for the candidate it is 1/2 day off.
Some people simply underestimate their market value, and companies are happy to keep them in dark, sometimes for years. Other people don't have unlimited time to do job interviews, so if they find something that seems okay and the provided salary is maybe 90% of what they originally wanted, they may choose to take it anyway. If they don't, the interview was a wasted time -- both for them and for the company, but because the company had the option to choose otherwise and decided not to, it's probably a net win for the company.
I have no idea about specific numbers, but if the company spends 2× as much time interviewing in return to saving 10% of salary costs, it may be worth it. If the employee wants to spend 2× much time interviewing in return to getting 10% higher salary, they will probably quickly run out of vacation days. The process is usually asymmetrical; the company spends 1 hour interviewing the candidate, the candidate spends some time preparing for the interview, traveling there and back... also, if the interview is in the middle of working time (it usually is), for the company that's 1 hour lost, for the candidate it is 1/2 day off.
Sure there is. If the salary is above-market, the employer can afford to pay, and wants to attract interest/applicants, that number will do so.
The orgs that hide their salary generally offer below market (but think they can fool you by telling you that they offer a rebate on fitness plans and other extraneous stuff amounting to mere hundreds per year), or they're trying to hide salaries from their own employees. Both are excellent indicators that it isn't worth applying there unless you're out of options.
Plenty of companies that pay above market rate also hide salaries. I don’t know what the theory is (perhaps some attempt to not attract people only in it for the money, but really that just filters out the people who are in it for the money and lack the social network to know that the company pays well, which doesn’t seem better)
I also don't know the theory but I'd guess part of it is that it increases loyalty? I know if I got an offer that was substantially higher than expected I'd be much more likely to think that the company valued me specifically/thought I was special, even if they paid everyone else the same.
This depends on what the company needs more: Employees, or money.
If they need high quality employees (or any employees at all depending on their industry and location), they need to post their salaries to even get people to consider applying.
If they need low quality employees, are in an industry that has high demand, and in a good location: maybe it hurts them.
If they need money, why are they hiring?
If they need high quality employees (or any employees at all depending on their industry and location), they need to post their salaries to even get people to consider applying.
If they need low quality employees, are in an industry that has high demand, and in a good location: maybe it hurts them.
If they need money, why are they hiring?
There are also people who are good employees but aren’t good at marketing and selling themselves, lack negotiation skills, or suffer from the imposter syndrome. I would guess that the lack of transparency allows to take advantage of that.
Well everyone’s all about empowering women until they need to put their money where their mouth is (not that anything in this article wouldn’t be beneficial for pretty much everyone working for a wage, but the gender discrimination aspect seems to be the focus of the author).
How does this empower women? Sounds like lowering the bar for everyone.
The author even said she’s likely to undervalue her own worth. This proposal is a business straight up telling them their worth. Opposite of empowering. She wants prices listed like a McDonalds drive thru. She wants it easy.
Real empowerment would be teaching women how to properly negotiate a salary.
It’s not empowering to stay in t-ball.
The author even said she’s likely to undervalue her own worth. This proposal is a business straight up telling them their worth. Opposite of empowering. She wants prices listed like a McDonalds drive thru. She wants it easy.
Real empowerment would be teaching women how to properly negotiate a salary.
It’s not empowering to stay in t-ball.
The measures she proposes would likely raise wages for everyone, especially women, because the employer’s chief advantage in salary negotiations is information asymmetry. They know what their budget is and want to go even further to have you tell them what you’ll accept (happily pocketing the difference if that was less than they would have paid). They also have a much better understanding of the market and comfort negotiating since they are doing this a lot more than you are.
I also think that helping women negotiate is more complicated than just teaching them techniques, because people will not necessarily react the same way to the same behavior from men as from women.
I also think that helping women negotiate is more complicated than just teaching them techniques, because people will not necessarily react the same way to the same behavior from men as from women.
> The measures she proposes would likely raise wages for everyone
Then it’s not realistic. How can companies afford to raise their highest expense?
This will put a cap on skilled negotiators since it creates a fixed range.
Call it a “benefit”. I could see how it “benefits” more workers, but I wouldn’t call it “empowering”.
It does make good negotiators more powerless.
Then it’s not realistic. How can companies afford to raise their highest expense?
This will put a cap on skilled negotiators since it creates a fixed range.
Call it a “benefit”. I could see how it “benefits” more workers, but I wouldn’t call it “empowering”.
It does make good negotiators more powerless.
> This will put a cap on skilled negotiator
So what?
So what?
So it’s not “empowerment”. It’s equal outcomes. It’s not “leveling the playing field”, it’s removing the playing field. If that’s your goal whatever, but dressing it up behind platitudes is dishonest.
If there’s a band it’s still negotiable where in the band you end up.
> Then it’s not realistic. How can companies afford to raise their highest expense?
So we’re back to my original point then.
So we’re back to my original point then.
Looks like the site hijacks the back button to show some kind of an ad.
It used to be the case that salary was always advertised and the company would pay expenses if they asked to interview you.
However in the era of “more people than jobs” that has drifted away.
If you don’t value my time now then why is it going to be any different if I work for you?
Lack of salary and clarity on the role is an instant “not wasting my time with that” signal for me.
However in the era of “more people than jobs” that has drifted away.
If you don’t value my time now then why is it going to be any different if I work for you?
Lack of salary and clarity on the role is an instant “not wasting my time with that” signal for me.
Are we actually in an era of “more people than jobs?”
Obviously there is some (long term) unemployment so in some sense the answer is yes. But that sense is also not relevant to job seekers: if I’m looking for a job then I would only be concerned if that were the case for the sort of jobs I’d be applying to (eg computer programming). And I think in that area there are generally more jobs than people.
Obviously there is some (long term) unemployment so in some sense the answer is yes. But that sense is also not relevant to job seekers: if I’m looking for a job then I would only be concerned if that were the case for the sort of jobs I’d be applying to (eg computer programming). And I think in that area there are generally more jobs than people.
It is not that companies want to waste (your) time. It boils down to the principle that a company will almost always, given the chance, choose to pay you x100$ less (arbitrary figure). Why? Because you are just a cog in the machine in their eyes. A number. You are replaceable. AI can now render the work you do inefficient (and subsequently take your job).
Colorado has passed legislation around this, so we'll have a test case soon.
> The Guidance makes clear that employers must disclose compensation and employee benefits information in each job posting for (i) positions that are to be performed in Colorado, or (ii) remote positions that could be performed in Colorado.
My employer posts salary for all positions and for me its been net negative. I was always aware that my odds of getting more money are low, but now seeing how much (and little) others are compensated makes me feel worse about my job. It will be very nice when applying for jobs, but has created a lot of frustration for me.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/colorado-releases-guidance...
> The Guidance makes clear that employers must disclose compensation and employee benefits information in each job posting for (i) positions that are to be performed in Colorado, or (ii) remote positions that could be performed in Colorado.
My employer posts salary for all positions and for me its been net negative. I was always aware that my odds of getting more money are low, but now seeing how much (and little) others are compensated makes me feel worse about my job. It will be very nice when applying for jobs, but has created a lot of frustration for me.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/colorado-releases-guidance...
I found out my company is willing to pay people with the same experience I have more money. Just not me.
I found the opposite. I was hired mid-pandemic, but now my team is hiring someone with <20% of my experience for the same title and compensation. My manager has not addressed directly the point when I've brought it up.
Depends also on how desperate was the company to fill the position when you were hired vs now.
Good point. Still, once it's known it speaks to how desperate they are too keep the talent they have. Turn over usually has significant costs.
I got layoff about a month ago. While looking for jobs, the average pay increased about 20‰. I think it is either a reflection of the inflation, or that the companies are recognizing the need of more qualified employees amid the "great recovery".
Update: I was a Lead Software Eng.
same. i switched jobs last june but now have offers 20-30% more.
2% over what period? Did you see enough jobs to draw such a conclusion (2%, or 20‰, is pretty insignificant)
I saw something similar. I wonder if its continuing.
You need software engineers to make software, we are the necessary commodity of the future economy, nee grads arent getting in person experience, bootcamps arent doing as great at teaching during the pandemic, the visa program was also reduced. Are we sreing a supply side squeeze and a demand side rush on devs?
You need software engineers to make software, we are the necessary commodity of the future economy, nee grads arent getting in person experience, bootcamps arent doing as great at teaching during the pandemic, the visa program was also reduced. Are we sreing a supply side squeeze and a demand side rush on devs?
Experience isn’t the only variable in determining compensation.
Some companies will simply pay people whatever it takes to convince them to join the company, which results in compensation that’s all over the place.
Some companies have surprisingly uniform compensation, some to the extreme that all developers are paid the same compensation in lock-step. This is usually an attempt to make things fair, but it creates a lot of animosity when people feel they deserve more than their coworkers.
And some times, it really does make sense to hire less experienced people into high-paying roles of their career trajectory looks promising. Hiring isn’t just about selecting for the height of experience on a bar chart. It’s also about looking at the slope. Less experienced employees who are growing very fast are best hired at high salaries, otherwise they’re just going to leave in a year when they grow even more. Conversely, if they fail to grow into the role they might need to be let go to make room for someone more appropriate for the position.
One of the tricky things about teams sharing compensation is that there is almost never a specific ordering of salaries that everyone on the team would agree is appropriate. It’s one of those situations where 80% of people on a team might see themselves as being in the top 20%.
As always, it helps to collect competing offers elsewhere. It helps even more to be prepared to take those offers if they pay more and higher salary is your highest priority.
Some companies will simply pay people whatever it takes to convince them to join the company, which results in compensation that’s all over the place.
Some companies have surprisingly uniform compensation, some to the extreme that all developers are paid the same compensation in lock-step. This is usually an attempt to make things fair, but it creates a lot of animosity when people feel they deserve more than their coworkers.
And some times, it really does make sense to hire less experienced people into high-paying roles of their career trajectory looks promising. Hiring isn’t just about selecting for the height of experience on a bar chart. It’s also about looking at the slope. Less experienced employees who are growing very fast are best hired at high salaries, otherwise they’re just going to leave in a year when they grow even more. Conversely, if they fail to grow into the role they might need to be let go to make room for someone more appropriate for the position.
One of the tricky things about teams sharing compensation is that there is almost never a specific ordering of salaries that everyone on the team would agree is appropriate. It’s one of those situations where 80% of people on a team might see themselves as being in the top 20%.
As always, it helps to collect competing offers elsewhere. It helps even more to be prepared to take those offers if they pay more and higher salary is your highest priority.
> Conversely, if they fail to grow into the role they might need to be let go to make room for someone more appropriate for the position.
How many places fire people because they thought they might be a star performer but turn out to be only average? I thought Netflix was newsworthy for being "ruthless" in that way, that it was rare and that few companies have followed their example.
How many places fire people because they thought they might be a star performer but turn out to be only average? I thought Netflix was newsworthy for being "ruthless" in that way, that it was rare and that few companies have followed their example.
I mean Stack Ranking is still a thing in a lot of places.
Couple rotations through the ranking process and if you're not jumping you're on the way out. Smart devs will read the room and find a new gig before then.
Netflix also offers amazing, most-cash, compensation, and demands results up front. Throw 300k cash at me and I'll play those games for a while, too.
Couple rotations through the ranking process and if you're not jumping you're on the way out. Smart devs will read the room and find a new gig before then.
Netflix also offers amazing, most-cash, compensation, and demands results up front. Throw 300k cash at me and I'll play those games for a while, too.
It comes down to your budget.
If you have virtually unlimited budget then keeping an over-leveled person in an overpaid position can slide if they’re still adding some value. However, it’s still better to demote them (difficult) or remove them to prevent animosity from brewing in their peers.
If you only have the budget to hire a few people, then having an overpaid and underperforming person taking up a valuable slot in your limited budget is a pressing issue. You need to get them off the team to free that budget up for someone who can earn it appropriately.
If you have virtually unlimited budget then keeping an over-leveled person in an overpaid position can slide if they’re still adding some value. However, it’s still better to demote them (difficult) or remove them to prevent animosity from brewing in their peers.
If you only have the budget to hire a few people, then having an overpaid and underperforming person taking up a valuable slot in your limited budget is a pressing issue. You need to get them off the team to free that budget up for someone who can earn it appropriately.
Not exactly the opposite... Paying someone else with the same experience more money is very similar to paying someone with less experience the same money. In either case, they are paying other people more for equivalent experience.
Experience is multi-faceted and I think often over-valued (I say this as someone who would benefit a lot if experience was highly valued).
Plenty of engineers effectively have 1 year of experience 12 times.
Plenty of engineers effectively have 1 year of experience 12 times.
> Plenty of engineers effectively have 1 year of experience 12 times.
Do you mean they've been doing the same things year after year? I.e. without growing their skills in breadth or depth?
Do you mean they've been doing the same things year after year? I.e. without growing their skills in breadth or depth?
Yes. They’re capable of handling about as complex task now as they were 11 years ago. If that’s the case, their relative value has not increased beyond that of their 1-year experienced peer.
If it’s the same role and they can do the role why would they get paid less?
Experience alone doesn’t mean much.
Experience alone doesn’t mean much.
Why would you expect your manager to “address” the point that you think one of your peers is overpaid?
The strongest plausible interpretation of what they said is they think they're under paid.
Well, rule number one of trying to ask for more money is don't make it about how you think you deserve more than so-and-so.
In my experience, the easiest way to get a substantial raise is to switch companies.
Your existing one will bump your salary by like 5-10%. A new one won't have that baseline, making it easy to go above that. My salary increased by like 45% in the last year. I've seen posts of people claiming they've doubled their salary with this one simple trick.
Your existing one will bump your salary by like 5-10%. A new one won't have that baseline, making it easy to go above that. My salary increased by like 45% in the last year. I've seen posts of people claiming they've doubled their salary with this one simple trick.
This is largely because managers don't understand just how in demand people are in tech. They think you are replaceable, until you quit, then they realize the market is insane and they have to increase their offer significantly.
At least here in Montreal software engineers are almost as high in demand as doctors.
At least here in Montreal software engineers are almost as high in demand as doctors.
I’m not sure that’s true. Anyone who has had any attrition knows the cost of turnover.
Has it actually been established to matter all that much?
As attrition rates are surging throughout society. People are quitting faster. More and more people are on temp contracts. I find it kinda nuts that the sign that it is time to leave a company for a raise is hitting a productive stride. It is common knowledge that the best way to get a raise is to switch employers.
Yet absolutely nothing is being done with this information by employers. It isn't secret. So they seemingly have determined that preventing attrition isn't worth it.
As attrition rates are surging throughout society. People are quitting faster. More and more people are on temp contracts. I find it kinda nuts that the sign that it is time to leave a company for a raise is hitting a productive stride. It is common knowledge that the best way to get a raise is to switch employers.
Yet absolutely nothing is being done with this information by employers. It isn't secret. So they seemingly have determined that preventing attrition isn't worth it.
No one wants to pay more for what you already have even though it is offering more. We see this with cable bills. Everyone expects more channel but static prices. Companies expect more out of a developer who has been with them 5 years over someone who has been there a year. But they want to continue to pay them the same as they did 5 years ago so they never give them raises.
It's not managers. The board sets a budget, the budget gets subdivided, and by the time low-level managers have an opportunity to chime in, an Overton window has been established and I have the power to give a 0-9% raise.
Upper management doesn't have the visibility or the introspection to know one single individual contributor is truly worth 30% more to their business.
I coach my reports to sell themselves. Tell the directors how they individually are adding value to the company. They are completely allowed to speak with higher ups, and usually they're more than willing to take 15 minutes and listen to ICs on virtually any topic they wish to speak about. Then, the directors will remember you when it comes time to making pay decisions. Most engineers are modest, but nobody gets penalized for communicating and highlighting the great work they do.
Upper management doesn't have the visibility or the introspection to know one single individual contributor is truly worth 30% more to their business.
I coach my reports to sell themselves. Tell the directors how they individually are adding value to the company. They are completely allowed to speak with higher ups, and usually they're more than willing to take 15 minutes and listen to ICs on virtually any topic they wish to speak about. Then, the directors will remember you when it comes time to making pay decisions. Most engineers are modest, but nobody gets penalized for communicating and highlighting the great work they do.
I mean, this may be true where you are, and it may be true in some other similar companies, but it's definitely not universally true.
Some companies are smaller than yours, or have better visibility, or give managers more budgetary latitude. Speaking as if this is The One Way It Always Works is unhelpful.
Some companies are smaller than yours, or have better visibility, or give managers more budgetary latitude. Speaking as if this is The One Way It Always Works is unhelpful.
We (tech people) are replaceable, just that replacing us takes a lot of time, effort and money.
I know it feels like nitpicking, but I never felt that any of the developers were actually hard to replace: it takes some money, time spent on recruiting, interviewing, then training, but in the end, the new people catch up in a matter of months and the resources needed to invest in a replacement can be relatively easily estimated.
I usually don't see that with very good business and product people. When they left the company, the team became demotivated, the lack of company and product vision caused frustration, the company couldn't find a replacement at all, caused turnover. In my experience, good business people leaving is the early sign of the company going south.
The causation can go in both directions, though: 1. product and business people are the first to see if a product/business model isn't working out, so they leave. 2 they leave, then they can't be replaced, replacement is only half as good, people quit because of lack of vision, things go even worse, more people quit, company has to shut down.
I know it feels like nitpicking, but I never felt that any of the developers were actually hard to replace: it takes some money, time spent on recruiting, interviewing, then training, but in the end, the new people catch up in a matter of months and the resources needed to invest in a replacement can be relatively easily estimated.
I usually don't see that with very good business and product people. When they left the company, the team became demotivated, the lack of company and product vision caused frustration, the company couldn't find a replacement at all, caused turnover. In my experience, good business people leaving is the early sign of the company going south.
The causation can go in both directions, though: 1. product and business people are the first to see if a product/business model isn't working out, so they leave. 2 they leave, then they can't be replaced, replacement is only half as good, people quit because of lack of vision, things go even worse, more people quit, company has to shut down.
Senior leadership is the hardest to replace. Marketing managers or sales agents or the director of HR or a jr accountant or product managers are easy to replace and change happens often. Changing the CEO can be a big transition but replacing the product owner on the main app shouldn't be too difficult and happens often enough.
In your example if the product manager sees the plan is not working out so they leave. Is it their business model? If so they are running away from a mess they created. If the model comes from above than senior leadership is lacking.
Not being able to replace would point to a problem with either HR or senior leadership .
In your example if the product manager sees the plan is not working out so they leave. Is it their business model? If so they are running away from a mess they created. If the model comes from above than senior leadership is lacking.
Not being able to replace would point to a problem with either HR or senior leadership .
> Senior leadership is the hardest to replace.
[Citation needed]
I'm sure there are senior leaders who are amazing, and would be extremely difficult to replace. My experience of "senior leadership", however, has been, almost universally, that they're in that position because they were born into money, their organizational skills are crap, and they think "vision" means "sticking with the status quo (with maybe one oddball quirk) and "leadership" means "yelling at people until they do what you want."
That kind of "senior leadership" isn't hard to replace at all.
[Citation needed]
I'm sure there are senior leaders who are amazing, and would be extremely difficult to replace. My experience of "senior leadership", however, has been, almost universally, that they're in that position because they were born into money, their organizational skills are crap, and they think "vision" means "sticking with the status quo (with maybe one oddball quirk) and "leadership" means "yelling at people until they do what you want."
That kind of "senior leadership" isn't hard to replace at all.
I see where you're coming from, but consider the cost of the replacement process itself: it can be chaotic jumping from one set of crap organizational skills to another. Point being, it's not so much that the person is very valuable themselves, but more that higher position = bigger disruption.
In fact there might be a slightly counterintuitive relation here: assuming good intent on all sides, transition from a leader with good organizational skills would be less disruptive.
In fact there might be a slightly counterintuitive relation here: assuming good intent on all sides, transition from a leader with good organizational skills would be less disruptive.
You're not wrong, and I think that your last point is actually very true—and that this is part of what lets the leaders with crap organizational skills get away with it. It's not immediately obvious that their terrible leadership is ruining the organization.
What's needed, IMO, is a cultural shift away from the idea that we need a singular, extremely powerful CEO/president/chairman, and toward more group-oriented decision-making processes and devolution of both responsibility and power.
We abandoned absolute monarchies for a lot of very good reasons, and one of them is that having one guy who can just walk into any room in the kingdom/company and exercise the power of (in this case, financial, but that often becomes very literal) life and death over anyone else in there is a bad thing.
What's needed, IMO, is a cultural shift away from the idea that we need a singular, extremely powerful CEO/president/chairman, and toward more group-oriented decision-making processes and devolution of both responsibility and power.
We abandoned absolute monarchies for a lot of very good reasons, and one of them is that having one guy who can just walk into any room in the kingdom/company and exercise the power of (in this case, financial, but that often becomes very literal) life and death over anyone else in there is a bad thing.
A lot of the ability for senior leadership to get things done is due to the network they've built inside the company, and their understanding of the power dynamics within that company. This is less and less true the lower you go in the ranks. Therefore it might cost some extra money to replace that IC, but nothing like the hit to productivity that switching senior management could cause. One way to guard against that would be to adopt a model where senior management are routinely switched so that the working level becomes robust against changes in management.
Lol, no. They understand exactly how in demand developers are. But they also understand that most people are reluctant to switch jobs because of the effort, the uncertainty, and the bad feeling of letting your teammates down.
You can save a lot of budget by not giving competitive raises.
You can save a lot of budget by not giving competitive raises.
This, especially with women, they don’t quit as often and are much more likely to stay, even if the environment is bad.
If company Y is willing to pay 50% more to hire someone from company X, it's often because they want to bring in someone with external experience. A person already working at company X has that to offer to company Y, but not to their current company.
If company X isn't looking for external experience (because they figure they already have that experience in their senior management, other team members, etc), then they'll be happy to let the person leave for company Y and hire some new entry level / fresh grad / minimally qualified person for the position and start over.
If company X isn't looking for external experience (because they figure they already have that experience in their senior management, other team members, etc), then they'll be happy to let the person leave for company Y and hire some new entry level / fresh grad / minimally qualified person for the position and start over.
The demand in Montreal is... different. I'm in tech in Canada and I consider it from time to time -- Montreal, I mean -- and it's often a no-go. My wife is French-Canadian, ethnically speaking, and kinda interested, and I'd like the city all of the times we've visited.
Taxes are high in Canada but are the highest in the QC. By a lot. You get good stuff, like free or subsidized daycare, but you lose a lot of $$$ out of that paycheck.
COL in Montreal is low, but it's a cold place. Like, why go to Canada when I could go to Austin or the NC Research Triangle? Low COL means lower salaries. "Easier to be a human but harder to be a consumer" is what I've heard about COL and taxes in QC.
The CAD is weaker than the USD by around 20-30%, which makes it less cool for US-based devs. You can work around that by upping that CAD number, but remember the taxes are much higher and you'll be paying comparatively more, %-wise, at 210k CAD than you would at 150k USD.
Most jobs expect some degree of French, ranging from "learning but can get by" to "full-fluency in English and French". The city as a whole is kind of like that.
So yeah, of course there are jobs. They pay mediocre rates, need a second language, and mean you'll get taxed a lot. And if you're not in Canada, moving north presents logistical issues on top of months of snow.
Taxes are high in Canada but are the highest in the QC. By a lot. You get good stuff, like free or subsidized daycare, but you lose a lot of $$$ out of that paycheck.
COL in Montreal is low, but it's a cold place. Like, why go to Canada when I could go to Austin or the NC Research Triangle? Low COL means lower salaries. "Easier to be a human but harder to be a consumer" is what I've heard about COL and taxes in QC.
The CAD is weaker than the USD by around 20-30%, which makes it less cool for US-based devs. You can work around that by upping that CAD number, but remember the taxes are much higher and you'll be paying comparatively more, %-wise, at 210k CAD than you would at 150k USD.
Most jobs expect some degree of French, ranging from "learning but can get by" to "full-fluency in English and French". The city as a whole is kind of like that.
So yeah, of course there are jobs. They pay mediocre rates, need a second language, and mean you'll get taxed a lot. And if you're not in Canada, moving north presents logistical issues on top of months of snow.
I can't disagree with much of what you're saying, and still as a Canadian there is no realistic amount of money that could incentivize me to move to the US.
For Montreal, the French thing is largely true, meaning you would generally have to at least pretend to be learning French. I find that the requirement gets ignored regularly however when yours is the only decent CV in the pile.
For Montreal, the French thing is largely true, meaning you would generally have to at least pretend to be learning French. I find that the requirement gets ignored regularly however when yours is the only decent CV in the pile.
I wonder if transparent salaries across the board could help shift that? Companies may be then forced to offer competitive raises to retain their current workforce.
Or perhaps they’ll just find a way around it by using other forms of compensation that skirt transparency laws in spirit.
Or perhaps they’ll just find a way around it by using other forms of compensation that skirt transparency laws in spirit.
I think companies trail the market in a quickly rising market (like this one for SWEs) out of laziness and inertia (on both the company and employee side; employees don’t want to bother looking for a job if everything is otherwise good and the comp is “close enough”).
This was the case for me as well, up until my current employer. At my current employer, I have been consistently getting 30-40% raises each year (mostly in the form of RSUs). I am not sure if this is because the market has changed, or if this is specific to my current employer (probably a bit of both).
The best way to get a raise is to switch, but the side-effect cost goes up as you get older, especially when you're in "family, house" territory. Remote work helps enormously with this, but there are other issues as well. To wit, a new job always comes with new social group and almost always with new tech, and both have a learning curve that can be quite stressful - and, hopefully, transient. There's also risk, like when you try to move a tree: sometimes the roots just don't take to the new soil, no matter how prepared you are or how good your analysis was. You ran the experiment, and you missed something and/or got unlucky, and theme's the breaks -- which is fine when you're single, and absolutely not fine when you have dependents. Hence: the traditionally risk-averse family man. It's not cowardice, it's love mixed with reason.
If you're in a job dense area like the Bay Area, you can often find a new job that is the same or easier to commute to.
There is risk to switching companies, but a signing bonus helps compensate for that risk.
There is risk to switching companies, but a signing bonus helps compensate for that risk.
Same here. When I found out, I asked my manager for a raise but didn't get it so I resigned. When I did, he offered to raise my salary with 30%. Left anyway and was hired again at same company a few years later for 50% above my original salary. Still felt like I was originally tricked into a low salary.
Sounds like information that you could act on by finding a new job.
Probably because they were hired after you. Normally newer hires have much higher salaries than old timers for equivalent role/experience, it's like that everywhere
Is part of the lesson here that software engineers (or maybe just typical HN readers) are bad at negotiating?
I'm outside of the typical hn-crowd, but was hired mid pandemic and was stonewalled when negotiating. I do plan on trying to re-negotiate rather than just talking about the issue when the hire is made though.
But if nothing comes of it, I end up just frustrated knowing I'm either under-payed or more likely just under-employed.
But if nothing comes of it, I end up just frustrated knowing I'm either under-payed or more likely just under-employed.
I'd be more likely to point the finger at human nature: if there are five engineers in a given role at a company, and they're paid different salaries, four of them are going to feel cheated.
All five of them may feel cheated. The best compensated one may consider themselves as more than that much better than the other four.
But, abstractly, maybe four of them are getting cheated. Shouldn't they be told?
But, abstractly, maybe four of them are getting cheated. Shouldn't they be told?
[deleted]
Why is it person A’s business what anyone else is paid? IMO, they’re only getting cheated if they’re being paid worse than as agreed.
What's the harm to person B of person A getting to know person B's salary?
In a more general sense, more information makes for better decisions.
In a more general sense, more information makes for better decisions.
What’s the harm to any person if private information of theirs is shared?
Person B should be (and is) free to tell person A their salary iff they want. If they don’t want to share that private information with A, no else should either.
Person B should be (and is) free to tell person A their salary iff they want. If they don’t want to share that private information with A, no else should either.
You're thinking about an individual supply of information between two actors, not a sea-change by making it common knowledge among all market participants.
I wonder if you’re carefully thinking through the privacy concerns. Share anonymized (and non-de-anonymizable) information all you want. Don’t share private, individual information without that individual’s affirmative consent.
Same reason that it’s OK and informative to share how many people in your state have +COVID or +STD tests, but not how many in your household do.
Same reason that it’s OK and informative to share how many people in your state have +COVID or +STD tests, but not how many in your household do.
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the privacy concerns.
On the one hand I do very much support privacy in many areas. Facebook is a cancer that seeks to spy on me every second of the day and needs to be regulated for that reason. People need privacy for a lot of very important reasons.
On the other, I'm not sure how I feel about privacy in financial matters. Do people's salaries need to be secret? Yes, having other people's financial information is an advantage in negotiations, but wouldn't that even out if you both knew more about each other's finances? And make lots of other negotiations easier too.
Edit: I'm actually not sure it's a valid privacy state to conceal how many people have COVID in your household. It think that information being public has a lot of value and I don't know if I support privacy in that case. Where they were when the caught it is a dangerous thing to leak. But I don't see any reason to conceal it. Certainly, I wouldn't want COVID+ people around me, and I wouldn't want them hiding their status to sneak back to work and continue the pandemic either. "I am currently under quarantine" seems like an important message that needs to be broadcasted.
On the one hand I do very much support privacy in many areas. Facebook is a cancer that seeks to spy on me every second of the day and needs to be regulated for that reason. People need privacy for a lot of very important reasons.
On the other, I'm not sure how I feel about privacy in financial matters. Do people's salaries need to be secret? Yes, having other people's financial information is an advantage in negotiations, but wouldn't that even out if you both knew more about each other's finances? And make lots of other negotiations easier too.
Edit: I'm actually not sure it's a valid privacy state to conceal how many people have COVID in your household. It think that information being public has a lot of value and I don't know if I support privacy in that case. Where they were when the caught it is a dangerous thing to leak. But I don't see any reason to conceal it. Certainly, I wouldn't want COVID+ people around me, and I wouldn't want them hiding their status to sneak back to work and continue the pandemic either. "I am currently under quarantine" seems like an important message that needs to be broadcasted.
I couldn't care less what anyone else at my company makes for any practical reason. In the best case, I know I'm the highest paid person in circumstances X. In the worst case, I get jealous or enraged that someone else is either making more for the same contribution or making the same and contributing less (in my estimation).
I think it's pretty clear we just have different views on privacy. I view health and financial information as being nobody else's business, except as required disclosures to the government and those disclosures should be minimal so as to serve a valid government purpose and not be disclosed to random members of the public. Sure, the IRS needs to know how much I made last year. My neighbor or my non-supervisory, non-payroll, non-HR co-worker has no business knowing it.
Likewise, if there are quarantine restrictions for people with +CV19 test results, I support the government having enough information to enforce their quarantine restrictions, but not for the local Nosy Upinmybusiness to have that information.
I think it's pretty clear we just have different views on privacy. I view health and financial information as being nobody else's business, except as required disclosures to the government and those disclosures should be minimal so as to serve a valid government purpose and not be disclosed to random members of the public. Sure, the IRS needs to know how much I made last year. My neighbor or my non-supervisory, non-payroll, non-HR co-worker has no business knowing it.
Likewise, if there are quarantine restrictions for people with +CV19 test results, I support the government having enough information to enforce their quarantine restrictions, but not for the local Nosy Upinmybusiness to have that information.
> I think it's pretty clear we just have different views on privacy.
I'm not sure we do. I'm normally on the pro-privacy reflexive side. But the best way to test your beliefs is to have a discussion. I was hoping to take the opposite side on a few issues I'm more ambivalent about and clarify my own position.
In the case of "person X needs to be quarantined", I find myself leaning away from privacy by default because it interferes with people's ability to protect themselves. That's not suggesting I would be okay with knowing other people's cancer diagnoses or blood pressure.
Similarly, I'm not sure of the downside of your coworkers knowing what you make. It seems that openness will lead to everyone making more money. Possibly except the company, but honestly they may make more than enough extra revenue to make up for slightly higher salaries with more motivated workers.
> if there are quarantine restrictions for people with +CV19 test results, I support the government having enough information to enforce their quarantine restrictions,
Pragmatically, there just isn't sufficient government surveillance (thank goodness) for the government to enforce quarantine restrictions without the population's cooperation. That's why it's so scary to be in pockets of anti-maskers. It's also why I feel safe knowing that it's hard for the government to enforce similar measures outside of a pandemic.
I'm not sure we do. I'm normally on the pro-privacy reflexive side. But the best way to test your beliefs is to have a discussion. I was hoping to take the opposite side on a few issues I'm more ambivalent about and clarify my own position.
In the case of "person X needs to be quarantined", I find myself leaning away from privacy by default because it interferes with people's ability to protect themselves. That's not suggesting I would be okay with knowing other people's cancer diagnoses or blood pressure.
Similarly, I'm not sure of the downside of your coworkers knowing what you make. It seems that openness will lead to everyone making more money. Possibly except the company, but honestly they may make more than enough extra revenue to make up for slightly higher salaries with more motivated workers.
> if there are quarantine restrictions for people with +CV19 test results, I support the government having enough information to enforce their quarantine restrictions,
Pragmatically, there just isn't sufficient government surveillance (thank goodness) for the government to enforce quarantine restrictions without the population's cooperation. That's why it's so scary to be in pockets of anti-maskers. It's also why I feel safe knowing that it's hard for the government to enforce similar measures outside of a pandemic.
It's possible to tell the four being cheated without telling them the fifths salary.
How do you determine that any are “being cheated”?
Once you do, how do you share the salary information of five people such that four of them working together can’t de-anonymize the fifth? (I’m facing this exact issue at work; I do want to publish more info about salaries without risking even the slightest possibility to expose private information of any of our employees.)
Once you do, how do you share the salary information of five people such that four of them working together can’t de-anonymize the fifth? (I’m facing this exact issue at work; I do want to publish more info about salaries without risking even the slightest possibility to expose private information of any of our employees.)
Two options spring to mind:
1. Don't worry about that failure mode. There will always be ways for collusion among employees to gain salary information.
2. Publish the methodology by which compensation is calculated. That is, it is presumably some combination of algorithm based on location and role, performance, and discretion. Make the calculation methodology transparent (internally). This will also set a range you can publish externally.
This allows people to ask informed questions ("why is my perceived performance not being rewarded") instead of being completely baffled by numberwang. Transparency about the process and forces the company to do better, which is a good thing.
1. Don't worry about that failure mode. There will always be ways for collusion among employees to gain salary information.
2. Publish the methodology by which compensation is calculated. That is, it is presumably some combination of algorithm based on location and role, performance, and discretion. Make the calculation methodology transparent (internally). This will also set a range you can publish externally.
This allows people to ask informed questions ("why is my perceived performance not being rewarded") instead of being completely baffled by numberwang. Transparency about the process and forces the company to do better, which is a good thing.
Re: 1. I don’t view it as my place to disclose (or allow to be disclosed) any information that any of my employees would reasonably consider private.
They can choose disclose it. I will not decide to do so on their behalf.
They can choose disclose it. I will not decide to do so on their behalf.
Then don't. But publishing aggregate salary information is not that. You're making an excuse to avoid sharing information that would help your employees.
You might, for example, try asking them, and seeing how many feel that their privacy would be violated by publishing aggregate anonymous salary data. The answer will be 0.
Keep in mind if you have a reasonable belief that all but one of your employees will collaborate to unmask another's salary, they have ample support to form a union and require internal transparency in the contract. Your threat model is illegitimate.
You might, for example, try asking them, and seeing how many feel that their privacy would be violated by publishing aggregate anonymous salary data. The answer will be 0.
Keep in mind if you have a reasonable belief that all but one of your employees will collaborate to unmask another's salary, they have ample support to form a union and require internal transparency in the contract. Your threat model is illegitimate.
It depends on how you're aggregating, of course. If I publish an indicative range, I agree that I'm not divulging any private information. (That also happens to be exactly what I'm personally fighting HR/comp in order to be able to do. I want my employees to have this information, but I want that less than I want to protect the privacy of employees who have not chosen to share their information on their own.)
If I publish a names-redacted list of everyone's salary and track/level/job code, or a mean & std-deviation per track/level/job code, I am almost certain to divulge private information of at least one employee. I have spoken with employees on this topic. Publishing their data, even inadvertently (as in the Netflix contest example), does not have anywhere near 100% support.
If I publish a names-redacted list of everyone's salary and track/level/job code, or a mean & std-deviation per track/level/job code, I am almost certain to divulge private information of at least one employee. I have spoken with employees on this topic. Publishing their data, even inadvertently (as in the Netflix contest example), does not have anywhere near 100% support.
Why do you care if four people can unmask the fifth? Isn't allowing them to figure out the range part of the impetus to share the data? Do you feel that one person is dramatically over/under paid? Is there a reason you wouldn't want to just put all that information in a spreadsheet with people's names and publish it?
But that failure mode seems pretty similar to the failure mode where all 5 share their salary. At least in my mind.
To really answer your question, I ask wonder what your goal is? Because that determines how to set up your information publishing.
But that failure mode seems pretty similar to the failure mode where all 5 share their salary. At least in my mind.
To really answer your question, I ask wonder what your goal is? Because that determines how to set up your information publishing.
My goal is to publish something that addresses questions roughly of the form: "Where am I in the overall salary range for my current role?", "Where would my current comp be relative to the next most likely role for me?" (to know if I "have room" in the current level or if the only large raise is to get a promotion/change role/change company), and [if possible] "How wide is the current band/are the bands in general? Are people paid within 10% of each other or 100% of each other?"
It's not a failure mode if all 5 people volunteer to share their salary information with each other. It is a failure mode if one of their salaries is exposed against their willing participation in the sharing.
I believe we are paying people fairly. (That specifically does not mean paying people equally, because the scope and value of their contributions to the company differ.)
It's not a failure mode if all 5 people volunteer to share their salary information with each other. It is a failure mode if one of their salaries is exposed against their willing participation in the sharing.
I believe we are paying people fairly. (That specifically does not mean paying people equally, because the scope and value of their contributions to the company differ.)
On your last point, the biggest reason I can see not to share salary information (unless you want to take advantage of people) is that everyone tends to overvalue their own contributions.
Almost any aggregate statistics can be reversed by N-1 datapoints. Even something like Mean and Std. Deviation have a unique solution for the missing datapoint. Even just a band fails in the case that the missing person is one of the two extremes.
If that's the information you want to provide, does it matter how much the data directly reflects reality? Is there a reason to provide an actually min-max band as opposed to your budgeted min-max band (except that basing it on actual data keeps you honest and makes your employees trust the numbers more.)
Almost any aggregate statistics can be reversed by N-1 datapoints. Even something like Mean and Std. Deviation have a unique solution for the missing datapoint. Even just a band fails in the case that the missing person is one of the two extremes.
If that's the information you want to provide, does it matter how much the data directly reflects reality? Is there a reason to provide an actually min-max band as opposed to your budgeted min-max band (except that basing it on actual data keeps you honest and makes your employees trust the numbers more.)
That’s likely the solution we’re going to go with. If the scatter plot of actual salaries is $190-280K, I think saying “anywhere from $180-300K” or “$200-275K with rare outliers” or “centers around $240K, typically within 20%” would all be fine and would communicate more than nothing.
If the employees don’t trust the numbers unless you give them to the penny, why would they trust anything we said? If you don’t trust any of your employer’s statements, you should probably find another employer.
If the employees don’t trust the numbers unless you give them to the penny, why would they trust anything we said? If you don’t trust any of your employer’s statements, you should probably find another employer.
I wasn't talking about trusting your word if you're rounding or otherwise tweaking real numbers. I was talking about the tendency to lie to yourself (universally, not about you specifically) if you were trying to come up with a "reasonable" range. As in "sure, we never gave someone $385,000 for this position, but of course we would if a sufficiently good candidate arrived or when one of employees improves enough" with your 190-280k range you quoted.
Honestly, I think if you're going to do that to give me some idea of what the future holds (and it's not too much work) tell me how likely I am (individually) to move up in the band. It can be part of the annual review, or something as general as "we typically move people who are developing on track 15% of the way up the band as they progress from bottom to top". It gives a picture going forward and, if an employee doesn't advance, sends a powerful signal that they need to improve.
Honestly, I think if you're going to do that to give me some idea of what the future holds (and it's not too much work) tell me how likely I am (individually) to move up in the band. It can be part of the annual review, or something as general as "we typically move people who are developing on track 15% of the way up the band as they progress from bottom to top". It gives a picture going forward and, if an employee doesn't advance, sends a powerful signal that they need to improve.
This only works if both sides have access to all the info. The employer has all the info, but the employee had no info. They may agree to a lower wage because they think it is the best they can get. But with more info up front they may not have made that agreement.
I remember accidentally finding out a coworker (with about half my experience by the way) was being paid 50% more than me, and yea it totally felt like I was being cheated. Likely just because he was a smooth talker and not from any real technical talent. All hat and no cattle, as they say. Next review time I hinted that I thought there was a lot of upward room in the salary band for my experience level, but the conversation went nowhere so I quit and got a significant bump elsewhere.
>Is part of the lesson here that software engineers (or maybe just typical HN readers) are bad at negotiating?
How do you know you are a good negotiator if everything is hidden? Is there a correlation between self proclaimed 1-x devs and self proclaimed great negotiators?
How do you know you are a good negotiator if everything is hidden? Is there a correlation between self proclaimed 1-x devs and self proclaimed great negotiators?
I think a lot of people don’t attempt to negotiate at all.
"the hourly or salary compensation, or a range thereof"
That's something of a loophole, though it often ends in an awkward standoff where the company has to explain why it offered you something other than the top of the range.
That's something of a loophole, though it often ends in an awkward standoff where the company has to explain why it offered you something other than the top of the range.
Situations aren't awkward - people are. Some people can handle being told they aren't the best possible candidate. If they don't want the compensation, they can say no and walk away.
I'd venture that it's usually awkward for at least one of the people in the discussion.
There are plenty of cases where a factor of two or more difference could be reasonable depending on the candidate and their fit for the position. If someone sees a role posted as $200K-$400K and balks if offered less than $400K, I hope they have other $375K+ offers in their back pocket.
Is this not a good thing? It lets you see that you are being underpaid and allows you to negotiate from that position (or accept that you don’t think you’re worth what newer hires are.) I honestly don’t see a downside.
To me, this sounds like a net negative in the same way that going to the dentist for a checkup reveals you have cavities. The root cause ( sorry) seems to be that your employer plays favorites, not that they reveal the fact they play favorites by being transparent.
This isn't about publicizing salaries of existing employees, it's about publicizing salary ranges in job postings. How does one "play favorites" with a generic job posting?
“Play favorites” is probably a poor choice of phrases. I meant that OP can tell if they are being treated unfairly.
First step in preventing unfair treatment is to know you are being treated unfairly.
Thanks for sharing that, it does seem like a large risk for companies with open salary structure.
Do you see any benefits in being able to compare your own salary and work output with those of your colleagues?
Do you see any benefits in being able to compare your own salary and work output with those of your colleagues?
On the positive side you can make a better informed decision if it is time to move on.
> remote positions that could be performed in Colorado.
This will be interesting. So if a company doesn't explicitly exclude Colorado from their remote job description this applies to them.
This will be interesting. So if a company doesn't explicitly exclude Colorado from their remote job description this applies to them.
Oracle has this in some (all?) of their new postings:
> This is a remote/office based position which may be performed anywhere in the United States except for within the state of Colorado.
> This is a remote/office based position which may be performed anywhere in the United States except for within the state of Colorado.
Man, fuck Oracle. For a lot of reasons, but this one too.
I'd just point out that this is largely a cultural phenomenon. In some countries it is normal to post everyone's salary (similarly, student grades are posted on the wall after exams).
A lack of transparency really only aids the employer (after all, the employer knows what everyone makes, and with salary comparison services they know exactly how competitive their salaries are).
A lack of transparency really only aids the employer (after all, the employer knows what everyone makes, and with salary comparison services they know exactly how competitive their salaries are).
Price transparency is a basic requirement of functioning markets. It’s funny that it’s so taboo in the US, with such a significant voting population espousing pro “free” market, pro business sentiments.
Yup. By keeping salaries secret it’s how companies create inefficient markets to screw over candidates from making true market rates.
This bothers me all the time. Several of the assumptions required to have a "free market" aren't met in the United States. If you try to have a conversation around that, you're a "communist", even though you're literally discussing how to have a free market.
Communism is basically orthogonal to the whole free market thing, though. Capitalism is defined as a system in which you can pay somebody a wage that's less than what you get from selling the products of their labour. Other than some basically technocratic stuff (how do you make sure workers are properly compensated) there's no specific communist problem with free markets I can think of. There's also no shortage of capitalist nations that were extremely anti free markets.
It's at least somewhat coincidence that communists have typically gone for high state involvement - Russia was, before it was communist, basically an entirely non-free market, and most industry happened at the behest of the Tsarist bureacracy, which was massive. So the USSR was big on state planning kind of as a continuation of that.
It's at least somewhat coincidence that communists have typically gone for high state involvement - Russia was, before it was communist, basically an entirely non-free market, and most industry happened at the behest of the Tsarist bureacracy, which was massive. So the USSR was big on state planning kind of as a continuation of that.
> Price transparency is a basic requirement of functioning markets
Is it, and does it apply here? The employee is the seller who would declare the price. Employers are purchasing workers and I don't blame them for not trying to apply prices to products too much.
Flipping those roles is like telling customers to name their price when they enter a store. Customers would pay as little as possible, such businesses would fail to keep losses at bay, and other businesses that don't behave this way would survive.
The burden is on the employee to name their value, and the business can decide whether or not they want to buy. When employees don't name their value upfront, they're the ones acting like a shady business that wants customers to guess the price, since an unknowledgeable patron is likely to overpay.
Is it, and does it apply here? The employee is the seller who would declare the price. Employers are purchasing workers and I don't blame them for not trying to apply prices to products too much.
Flipping those roles is like telling customers to name their price when they enter a store. Customers would pay as little as possible, such businesses would fail to keep losses at bay, and other businesses that don't behave this way would survive.
The burden is on the employee to name their value, and the business can decide whether or not they want to buy. When employees don't name their value upfront, they're the ones acting like a shady business that wants customers to guess the price, since an unknowledgeable patron is likely to overpay.
> Is it, and does it apply here?
Yes, price movements are how buyers and sellers in the market know the supply and demand curves are moving.
> The employee is the seller who would declare the price.
Both buyers and sellers can declare the price they are willing to buy and sell at. But that’s not important, only the price the transaction clears at is important for others to know.
> Flipping those roles is like telling customers to name their price when they enter a store.
Price transparency has nothing to do with whom puts out the first price in the negotiation. It’s only about knowing what other transactions cleared at so you have an accurate idea of supply and demand. Also, people looking for long term employment is not analogous to purchasing a low cost item in a store.
> Customers would pay as little as possible, such businesses would fail to keep losses at bay, and other businesses that don't behave this way would survive.
This is not true. Depending on supply and demand, buyers or sellers can have the upper hand in a transaction and who is naming the price first has nothing to do with which price is accepted by both parties, and certainly does not predict what business survives and not.
> When employees don't name their value upfront, they're the ones acting like a shady business that wants customers to guess the price, since an unknowledgeable patron is likely to overpay.
Bartering on price is not shady business. People do it all the time with large purchases, such as cars, real estate, wages and in poorer countries, even clothing and food. When employees don’t name their value, they’re simply might be doing so because they don’t have the clear upper hand in the negotiation, and are not willing to upset the other party. Or they want to let the other party name their price, and go from there. There’s nothing wrong with various negotiating strategies.
What is clear, is that 90% of people have very little information of supply and demand for the labor market compared to employers, so they obviously are at a disadvantage. The solution is websites like levels.fyi, that even the playing field so employees know how the supply and demand curves are actually moving.
Yes, price movements are how buyers and sellers in the market know the supply and demand curves are moving.
> The employee is the seller who would declare the price.
Both buyers and sellers can declare the price they are willing to buy and sell at. But that’s not important, only the price the transaction clears at is important for others to know.
> Flipping those roles is like telling customers to name their price when they enter a store.
Price transparency has nothing to do with whom puts out the first price in the negotiation. It’s only about knowing what other transactions cleared at so you have an accurate idea of supply and demand. Also, people looking for long term employment is not analogous to purchasing a low cost item in a store.
> Customers would pay as little as possible, such businesses would fail to keep losses at bay, and other businesses that don't behave this way would survive.
This is not true. Depending on supply and demand, buyers or sellers can have the upper hand in a transaction and who is naming the price first has nothing to do with which price is accepted by both parties, and certainly does not predict what business survives and not.
> When employees don't name their value upfront, they're the ones acting like a shady business that wants customers to guess the price, since an unknowledgeable patron is likely to overpay.
Bartering on price is not shady business. People do it all the time with large purchases, such as cars, real estate, wages and in poorer countries, even clothing and food. When employees don’t name their value, they’re simply might be doing so because they don’t have the clear upper hand in the negotiation, and are not willing to upset the other party. Or they want to let the other party name their price, and go from there. There’s nothing wrong with various negotiating strategies.
What is clear, is that 90% of people have very little information of supply and demand for the labor market compared to employers, so they obviously are at a disadvantage. The solution is websites like levels.fyi, that even the playing field so employees know how the supply and demand curves are actually moving.
Other than salaries, where do you see a lack of pricing transparency in the US that can be found elsewhere?
About salaries you can get a good idea by talking to people and with sites like glassdoor. The ballpark range of salaries isn't such a secret.
And, to elaborate on my previous comment, if a business were to advertise salaries, it'd be easy for a competitor to outbid them for employees they really want. So that system just wouldn't ever become the norm.
About salaries you can get a good idea by talking to people and with sites like glassdoor. The ballpark range of salaries isn't such a secret.
And, to elaborate on my previous comment, if a business were to advertise salaries, it'd be easy for a competitor to outbid them for employees they really want. So that system just wouldn't ever become the norm.
> Other than salaries, where do you see a lack of pricing transparency in the US that can be found elsewhere?
I’m not sure what the relevance of this question is, but I presume there might be countries where real estate sale prices are not public record. I think this is the case even in the US state of Texas.
> About salaries you can get a good idea by talking to people and with sites like glassdoor. The ballpark range of salaries isn't such a secret.
The internet is helping a little, but forums and sites like levels.FYI are much better than Glassdoor I think, which sells to employers so I would not trust it.
> And, to elaborate on my previous comment, if a business were to advertise salaries, it'd be easy for a competitor to outbid them for employees they really want. So that system just wouldn't ever become the norm.
If every business had to do it, then everyone is similarly advantaged/disadvantaged. The internet is already helping. For example, I would welcome a Swedish style system.
I’m not sure what the relevance of this question is, but I presume there might be countries where real estate sale prices are not public record. I think this is the case even in the US state of Texas.
> About salaries you can get a good idea by talking to people and with sites like glassdoor. The ballpark range of salaries isn't such a secret.
The internet is helping a little, but forums and sites like levels.FYI are much better than Glassdoor I think, which sells to employers so I would not trust it.
> And, to elaborate on my previous comment, if a business were to advertise salaries, it'd be easy for a competitor to outbid them for employees they really want. So that system just wouldn't ever become the norm.
If every business had to do it, then everyone is similarly advantaged/disadvantaged. The internet is already helping. For example, I would welcome a Swedish style system.
That question was in regards to your comment about price transparency being taboo in the US. I don't see that. What I see is, if you choose to do it, that is your right. However, forcing every employer to disclose salaries of every employee would be a significant change. There would need to be a good portion of the voting public backing that, in addition to consideration as to whether it's even enforceable. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Glassdoor isn't a magical truth ball, it depends on 1) random users putting in info, and 2) putting in correct info.
For issue 1) you have a selection bias, and for issue 2) you have no way of knowing if that salary is for a hotshot with a great resume, 6+ years old and out of date, or anything else has changed within the company or field. And in a lot of cases the ranges are crazy large, almost uselessly so.
With a number in the actual job ad you know exactly where you're at: "SWE 2 @ 120k + 20% bonus + misc."
For issue 1) you have a selection bias, and for issue 2) you have no way of knowing if that salary is for a hotshot with a great resume, 6+ years old and out of date, or anything else has changed within the company or field. And in a lot of cases the ranges are crazy large, almost uselessly so.
With a number in the actual job ad you know exactly where you're at: "SWE 2 @ 120k + 20% bonus + misc."
Glassdoor/others are good for ballpark ranges which is good enough for me. If you want to know ahead of time, there are some employers who opt into that. IMO the value brought by a human being is complex and they deserve a chance to argue their worth, so there is no sense in advertising a price point that may vary. We are all primarily competing against ourselves in a sense, and allowing wiggle room on compensation lets employers and employees make better connections.
If you don't want that, go to a union, work for a government, or do something with an hourly wage.
If you don't want that, go to a union, work for a government, or do something with an hourly wage.
You can just ignore the question and answer "I'd be looking for a TC of x". See what they say. Make sure to add 20% to the TC because they didn't answer the question
I see this sentiment a lot, but it seems blatantly false.
This assumes that employees are a fungible commodity whose price should be set by some efficient market rate, but that's not true at all.
Under the current regime, the setup helps top performers be compensated more highly, without torpedoing morale.
You can fantasize about a world in which the salaries are transparent and everyone has frank conversations like "Yes Jill makes 50% more than you even though you're nominally at the same level. Her compensation reflects her superior contributions to the company." But that's just not how it is.
This assumes that employees are a fungible commodity whose price should be set by some efficient market rate, but that's not true at all.
Under the current regime, the setup helps top performers be compensated more highly, without torpedoing morale.
You can fantasize about a world in which the salaries are transparent and everyone has frank conversations like "Yes Jill makes 50% more than you even though you're nominally at the same level. Her compensation reflects her superior contributions to the company." But that's just not how it is.
At my previous job the most highly paid developer used to regularly say at standups "yesterday I did nothing, today I will do nothing". However he was confident at good at negotiating
Was he actually doing nothing?
I think your point is that not everyone who gets paid a lot deserves it on merits? I agree with that.
Still, do you think that compensation and merit are correlated? I do.
Still, do you think that compensation and merit are correlated? I do.
It's weird that you call this "blatantly false" and talk about "the current regime", but my whole point is this "regime" only exists, culturally, in a relatively small subset of countries. I don't need to "fantasize" about how this would work because many other countries are already completely transparent about salaries. Not to mention that even in the US there are some locales that post everyone's salaries in government jobs, from the mayor down to the teaching assistant at the local university.
Also, FWIW, Joel Spolsky pretty famously detailed his company's transparent compensation plan, which took into account both experience and unique skill set.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/30/fog-creek-compensa...
Also, FWIW, Joel Spolsky pretty famously detailed his company's transparent compensation plan, which took into account both experience and unique skill set.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/30/fog-creek-compensa...
Yes, the solution in different regimes is to homogenize compensation, as government jobs do. And my point is that doing so is worse for top performers who would tend to be paid more than the homogeneous compensation would give them.
In Sweden, everyone’s tax records are public information. It does not seem to be a destabilizing force for their society.
If anything, I think the taboo nature of people’s economic worth and the games played to around it are what’s toxic to society.
If anything, I think the taboo nature of people’s economic worth and the games played to around it are what’s toxic to society.
There is that old Steinbeck gem about how poor or middle class Americans don't think of themselves as that, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Hence wanting to hide their real worth.
How do you sell conspicuous consumption / Veblen goods to people if you can know, for sure, that they're really broke af?
How do you sell conspicuous consumption / Veblen goods to people if you can know, for sure, that they're really broke af?
I think that if you took the US exactly as it is, then make tax records public, after the initial explosion of interest, nothing particularly would change. The reason is that although the records would be available, only a tiny fraction of people would look at them a tiny fraction of the time.
On the other hand if you took Sweden as it currently exists, and put up a real time scoreboard on every office wall with the name and total comp of all employees (or all employees of that particular department, or whatever), you'd have pandemonium--except in workplaces with homogenized, formulaic compensation.
On the other hand if you took Sweden as it currently exists, and put up a real time scoreboard on every office wall with the name and total comp of all employees (or all employees of that particular department, or whatever), you'd have pandemonium--except in workplaces with homogenized, formulaic compensation.
[deleted]
While it is interesting that your experience has been negative, I would be curious to know how many people in your company look at this information in a positive light and have put it to work to their advantage.
I don't mean to minimize your struggles, but perhaps this is a case where the exception should not be the rule? Do the benefits to the people positively impacted outweigh the loss to the people negatively impacted?
I don't mean to minimize your struggles, but perhaps this is a case where the exception should not be the rule? Do the benefits to the people positively impacted outweigh the loss to the people negatively impacted?
Very interesting thank you. This seems to have only partial compliance so far. If I do a search on a random location specific job board I'm seeing some companies with salary bands and some without. Datadog, for example, does not have the band listed where Xero and Snapdocs do.
https://www.builtincolorado.com/jobs/dev-engineering
https://www.builtincolorado.com/jobs/dev-engineering
> we'll have a test case soon.
It already exists and is called Austria. The effect is that every job advertisement since 2011 says:
"The minimum salary amounts to xxxx € according to law/ordinance/collective labour agreement. According to candidate's skill set a recompense higher than that is possible."
The first sentence is mandatory. The second is not, but has become a stable trope.
Question for HN readers: do you think this is useful? Why/why not?
It already exists and is called Austria. The effect is that every job advertisement since 2011 says:
"The minimum salary amounts to xxxx € according to law/ordinance/collective labour agreement. According to candidate's skill set a recompense higher than that is possible."
The first sentence is mandatory. The second is not, but has become a stable trope.
Question for HN readers: do you think this is useful? Why/why not?
The second sentence actually even goes more like 'We will pay higher than that based on experience". As in they know that the collective bargaining agreement minimums will not get them anyone and they know this and will obviously pay more. Please apply! ;)
The system is basically an automatically fully unionized labour market.
I think it's valuable. Very much so actually. Not necessarily for software engineering jobs at the moment, because companies will have to pay above that to get someone anyway. In general though I think this helps people be paid more fairly overall. It might not result SV salaries anytime soon.
I'd say it helps newcomers to the job market a lot (both career start wise as well as moving to Austria from somewhere else. Again don't just think SWE here.
This kind of system also goes with other social stability benefits that might be strange to North Americans. Overall it should result in better care for everyone (health care, pensions etc) while it also equalizes the top towards the bottom more.
Germany isn't Austria but close. I know there for example, state pension and health care were top notch. You didn't have to have a 401k or an RRSP or an expensive extra health insurance/a good employer. The state took care of it (you paid higher taxes overall though). Then the system broke and they told people in their 50s: oh btw the pension system is broken and broke. You have to start saving up for yourself. Oh and we will also tax your pensions now! (which they didn't before). Oh and btw this and this and this will no longer be covered by your health insurance. You better get extra insurance. Screwed a good many people over that believed they were taken care of. Never mind the people that just can't start saving for themselves or buy the extra insurance. But there's also no 401k/RRSP system. The "Riester Rente" and the current 401k/RRSP "equivalent" basically just funnels your money into insurance companies. No way to invest yourself while being tax sheltered.
The system is basically an automatically fully unionized labour market.
I think it's valuable. Very much so actually. Not necessarily for software engineering jobs at the moment, because companies will have to pay above that to get someone anyway. In general though I think this helps people be paid more fairly overall. It might not result SV salaries anytime soon.
I'd say it helps newcomers to the job market a lot (both career start wise as well as moving to Austria from somewhere else. Again don't just think SWE here.
This kind of system also goes with other social stability benefits that might be strange to North Americans. Overall it should result in better care for everyone (health care, pensions etc) while it also equalizes the top towards the bottom more.
Germany isn't Austria but close. I know there for example, state pension and health care were top notch. You didn't have to have a 401k or an RRSP or an expensive extra health insurance/a good employer. The state took care of it (you paid higher taxes overall though). Then the system broke and they told people in their 50s: oh btw the pension system is broken and broke. You have to start saving up for yourself. Oh and we will also tax your pensions now! (which they didn't before). Oh and btw this and this and this will no longer be covered by your health insurance. You better get extra insurance. Screwed a good many people over that believed they were taken care of. Never mind the people that just can't start saving for themselves or buy the extra insurance. But there's also no 401k/RRSP system. The "Riester Rente" and the current 401k/RRSP "equivalent" basically just funnels your money into insurance companies. No way to invest yourself while being tax sheltered.
Well, it's been 10 years now. What has happened as compared to before?
Nearly all tech job in the UK have salaries shown (example
job boards: https://www.cwjobs.co.uk/ and https://www.monster.co.uk/). Those that dont need not apply. It’s so weird when a salary is not shown.
[deleted]
"Nearly all" is definitely inaccurate. The sites you've linked to are collections of third-party recruiter ads which should be avoided by anyone who isn't completely desperate for a job.
[deleted]
Twice in the past 5 years I interviewed at companies which did “salary leveling” to make sure that there was no discrimination in salaries (moz and zoom). Salaries were all published to prevent gender / age / race discrimination.
Both were about 20% below all of my other offers, if I livdd in the usa. Worse still, I expect make a San Francisco salary working remotely from other countries. They were both shocked when I laughed out loud when their offers were based on the country where I live rather than USA where I pay my taxes.
I’m all for equality, but, fuck you, pay me. I work in tech for the money, nothing else. Cash rules everything around me.
Both were about 20% below all of my other offers, if I livdd in the usa. Worse still, I expect make a San Francisco salary working remotely from other countries. They were both shocked when I laughed out loud when their offers were based on the country where I live rather than USA where I pay my taxes.
I’m all for equality, but, fuck you, pay me. I work in tech for the money, nothing else. Cash rules everything around me.
> I expect make a San Francisco salary working remotely from other countries
I don't even making a San Francisco salary working not remotely in the US. It should be illegal to pay people different wages based on where they live, but it's not. Companies pay the market value of labor in a given region.
I don't even making a San Francisco salary working not remotely in the US. It should be illegal to pay people different wages based on where they live, but it's not. Companies pay the market value of labor in a given region.
I dont think it should be illegal, companies exist to make as much profit as possible. I work to make as high of a salary as possible. My life us privileged, right now I make almost 5x what a local engineer would make. I also pay more than a local engineer’s salary in child support and get fuck-all in benefits for my americam taxes so I have to save more.
It’s just business.
It’s just business.
Why should it be illegal? Framed from the other side, people are willing to take less salary if they live somewhere more affordable. My mortgage is half the price of my last apartment in the Bay Area, and while I won't take half the salary of my Bay Area job I'm not going to cry over the 15% difference between what companies are paying for locals out there and working remote out here (which is competitive with local companies). In some ways it makes me more marketable as a candidate.
There are many things about employment that should be illegal (at-will employment, enforceable non competes, ownership over IP, etc) but taking away the ability of either company or candidate to determine their compensation is a terrible idea that makes outcomes worse. It's as bad as banded salaries or any other kind of standardized pay scales.
There are many things about employment that should be illegal (at-will employment, enforceable non competes, ownership over IP, etc) but taking away the ability of either company or candidate to determine their compensation is a terrible idea that makes outcomes worse. It's as bad as banded salaries or any other kind of standardized pay scales.
Or perhaps you could argue living in a cheap place in the middle of nowhere allows a more spacious and comfortable work environment which is more productive and thus produces better work, so someone living like that should get more money, not less.
You could argue that, but the data disagrees.
Perhaps a controversial perspective, but if you aren't working in the same timezone, and can't synchronously communicate with your colleagues, can you provide as much value with respect to your California-based peers?
Sure, you can watch Zoom recordings, but when folks have to connect, it'll be a 24-hour turn around to get questions answered, and those lags could materially impact business outcomes.
Sure, you can watch Zoom recordings, but when folks have to connect, it'll be a 24-hour turn around to get questions answered, and those lags could materially impact business outcomes.
The flip side is if problems exceed their original time zone, then employees outside the time zone can continue to work the problem and a business might get a solution sooner than they would have
Most remote teams are well setup for async communication. If you have employees across a bunch of timezones it is a must.
Why wouldn't they be able to work at the same time? People adjust their schedules for work when necessary. I work the standard 9-5 nowadays, but several years ago I worked at a warehouse from 6pm - 4am. I slept from 5am to 1pm as a result. Sure, there are outside pressures, like family obligations, but the job usually trumps all schedule conflicts in my experience
In my current situation I have the added benefit of being in a close time zone to our team which was in Belarus (who now are in Ukraine and Netherlands). I manage an 8-person devops team and act as liason to our backend and frontend dev teams, as wrll as manage the customer relationship.
Before this job I was an individual contributor getting 3-5 hours of overlap at a company distributed all over the USA.
This afforded me more than enough overlap, extra on-call coverage hours and a solid 4 hours of uninterrupted project time. It is actually a huhe benefit that I get that much uninterrupted project time.
Again, if a company sees value in my skillset and multiple decades of experience then they will have to pay me the salary I want. If not, another one will.
It has been at least a decade sincr I have spent more than 2 weeks per year in-office or worked in a team that wasn’t distributed over 4-10 time zones.
Before this job I was an individual contributor getting 3-5 hours of overlap at a company distributed all over the USA.
This afforded me more than enough overlap, extra on-call coverage hours and a solid 4 hours of uninterrupted project time. It is actually a huhe benefit that I get that much uninterrupted project time.
Again, if a company sees value in my skillset and multiple decades of experience then they will have to pay me the salary I want. If not, another one will.
It has been at least a decade sincr I have spent more than 2 weeks per year in-office or worked in a team that wasn’t distributed over 4-10 time zones.
I think this is a bit oversimplified.
Another perspective is that your skills are worth X to the company, and when they felt constrained to hire in the SF market, they found they had to increase pay by Y. So your resulting salary of X+Y might be artificial.
Also, moving to a different timezone/non-local presence might actually diminish your value to the company. It might even cost them money, though usually a small amount. So your new rate might reasonably be X-Z.
Regardless, when you turn yourself into a different product, your value to the buyer changes, and is reevaluated in the context of competing products. Relocating is just a qualifying event for triggering that reevaluation.
Another perspective is that your skills are worth X to the company, and when they felt constrained to hire in the SF market, they found they had to increase pay by Y. So your resulting salary of X+Y might be artificial.
Also, moving to a different timezone/non-local presence might actually diminish your value to the company. It might even cost them money, though usually a small amount. So your new rate might reasonably be X-Z.
Regardless, when you turn yourself into a different product, your value to the buyer changes, and is reevaluated in the context of competing products. Relocating is just a qualifying event for triggering that reevaluation.
why would a company pay and offshored resource the same as localy?
Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it
Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it
I’m pretty fat, so yes, I love earing cake.
I’m an American with American expenses and my terms are that I only work for an American wage. If a company wants to pay me based on the payscale of how much people make in the country where I live, yet they don’t have a presence here, it tels me they’re low balling shuysters and I laugh them off.
The primary restriction limit is I cannot work for companies which have a presence in the country where I live, or then I would pay taxes in that country and would require a work permit. I also cannot work this way frok countries which do not allow for “digital nomad” arrangements.
I’m an American with American expenses and my terms are that I only work for an American wage. If a company wants to pay me based on the payscale of how much people make in the country where I live, yet they don’t have a presence here, it tels me they’re low balling shuysters and I laugh them off.
The primary restriction limit is I cannot work for companies which have a presence in the country where I live, or then I would pay taxes in that country and would require a work permit. I also cannot work this way frok countries which do not allow for “digital nomad” arrangements.
Because they want that specific offshore resource.
Some people can have their cake and eat it too. Most people can’t, but everyone like to think they can. The former won’t complain about having to accept lower wages, because they will have options at higher wages and will not have to accept lower wages.
Some people can have their cake and eat it too. Most people can’t, but everyone like to think they can. The former won’t complain about having to accept lower wages, because they will have options at higher wages and will not have to accept lower wages.
Fuck you, pay me for those of you uninitiated, this talk by Mike Monteiro is awesome - about not getting paid in creative services: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U
Actually, for me I am always referencing Goodfellas, but thanks for the link!
https://youtu.be/3XGAmPRxV48
https://youtu.be/3XGAmPRxV48
Alternatively companies can make an offer without asking for salary expectations. They know the market and their pay range, so it's not a large loss for them to do so.
To make sure expectations are in ballpark, use a confidential salary survey.
https://payscope.io (I made this)
Why Employers Should Use Confidential Salary Surveys: https://payscope.io/blog/employers
To make sure expectations are in ballpark, use a confidential salary survey.
https://payscope.io (I made this)
Why Employers Should Use Confidential Salary Surveys: https://payscope.io/blog/employers
[deleted]
That will never happen, unless some overreaching government makes it mandatory (e.g. CO). There are at least three reasons:
1) A candidate's expectation for salary might be lower than the advertised range, but if they see the range, they'll expect more money.
2) The company might be able to convince a good candidate to accept a salary below their expectations if they can sell the company and culture. These candidates won't apply if they see a range below their expectations.
3) It makes the company's salary ranges public, which little startups will use to create comparison websites, driving even more candidates away from smaller companies to the tech giants and monopolies who can afford to pay above market in order to kill their competition.
Overall, I'ld say it would be convenient at first, but a horrible idea in the long run if it's made mandatory. It should be up to individual businesses.
1) A candidate's expectation for salary might be lower than the advertised range, but if they see the range, they'll expect more money.
2) The company might be able to convince a good candidate to accept a salary below their expectations if they can sell the company and culture. These candidates won't apply if they see a range below their expectations.
3) It makes the company's salary ranges public, which little startups will use to create comparison websites, driving even more candidates away from smaller companies to the tech giants and monopolies who can afford to pay above market in order to kill their competition.
Overall, I'ld say it would be convenient at first, but a horrible idea in the long run if it's made mandatory. It should be up to individual businesses.
I don't know, maybe things are different in the UK but I'd say that about 50% of the job ads I see have a salary range.
Is there any point in applying for a job without a good idea that they can match your salary expectations?
Is there any point in applying for a job without a good idea that they can match your salary expectations?
I disagree that it’s overreaching. It improves the power dynamic and information asymmetry between employer and candidate/employee.
> A candidate's expectation for salary might be lower than the advertised range, but if they see the range, they'll expect more money.
A client expected price for a product might be higher than the advertised price, but if they see the price, they'll pay less.
I do not say this is a good idea, but I do not think it is obvious that this particular issue is a reason for it to fail. This is how selling products work so, why wouldn't it work for the job market?
A client expected price for a product might be higher than the advertised price, but if they see the price, they'll pay less.
I do not say this is a good idea, but I do not think it is obvious that this particular issue is a reason for it to fail. This is how selling products work so, why wouldn't it work for the job market?
In fact, in enterprise sales, the product price is usually hidden behind a phone call step, for precisely the reason that it enables customer segmentation and price discrimination. People complain about this, but it’s not going away, as it materially benefits the business.
It doesn't aid them that much, especially for new customers. People still shop around - you're just making it more of a hassle for them
Shopping around addresses only a small part of the purpose of “call us” pricing. It’s not so much about hiding the price of a vendor relative to the competition, as it is about hiding the price offered to one customer relative to other customers. All vendors are incentivized to price discriminate, the better they can do so the better they will do in the marketplace. Importantly, there’s a set of skills and tactics a salesperson will bring to that call to strike a deal that leaves the least amount of money on the table. Eg, a good salesperson will listen to the customer’s needs and tell a compelling story tailored to those needs justifying the product’s price (not unlike a recruiter trying to close a candidate at a salary lower in the range, by talking up other ways the opportunity is a great fit for them).
If a number of large companies are paying that salary that's not "above market" that is the market.
None of your points seem like a negative for potential candidates. Is your argument that under paying devs is a requirement so startups can be competitive so that innovation happens?
Mitigating these is the whole point. We should be making it harder for companies to underpay people.
Most job offers I see have a maximum salary listed and most of the time is not clear what that depends. I’ve even once had it that it is the maximum for the role and that you need to “grow” into it....
It already partially happened in California where job interviewees are required to get salary ranges.
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/California_Equal_Pay_Act.htm
“Pursuant to Labor Code section 432.3, upon reasonable request, an employer shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. Recent amendments define a reasonable request as one made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer.”
https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/California_Equal_Pay_Act.htm
“Pursuant to Labor Code section 432.3, upon reasonable request, an employer shall provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant applying for employment. Recent amendments define a reasonable request as one made after an applicant has completed an initial interview with the employer.”
> Overall, I'ld say it would be convenient at first, but a horrible idea in the long run if it's made mandatory. It should be up to individual businesses.
You start off saying it will never happen because unless it's mandatory. And you're probably right about that. That's why it should be mandatory.
Point 1 sounds like a great issue. People getting paid more sounds good.
Point 3 just means small companies will have to have some explicit additions to salary (profit sharing for established companies, more equity for smaller ones).
I don't know how to respond to your second point. What does "sell the company and culture" even mean? It's doing a mission you would accept a paycut to be at? Great, that's not hurt at all. It's a company with a lot of future growth? Great, spell out how (via equity or other ways) I participate in that growth. It's a fun place to work?
I do agree we would want some more compensation information than just a dollar sign. You offer free laundry and hanggliding on your lunch break?
You start off saying it will never happen because unless it's mandatory. And you're probably right about that. That's why it should be mandatory.
Point 1 sounds like a great issue. People getting paid more sounds good.
Point 3 just means small companies will have to have some explicit additions to salary (profit sharing for established companies, more equity for smaller ones).
I don't know how to respond to your second point. What does "sell the company and culture" even mean? It's doing a mission you would accept a paycut to be at? Great, that's not hurt at all. It's a company with a lot of future growth? Great, spell out how (via equity or other ways) I participate in that growth. It's a fun place to work?
I do agree we would want some more compensation information than just a dollar sign. You offer free laundry and hanggliding on your lunch break?
1) So what? In your example, the candidate doesn't know what the fair market salary is (precisely because these data aren't transparent now), but once they're hired and they find out, they'll instantly become unhappy and more likely to move. "they'll expect more money" == "employer won't be able to screw the employee over".
2) Oh these poor poor companies who won't be able to screw their employees out of their fair compensation.
3) Do you mean the startups that get crazy stupid valuations? Or those startups who pay peanuts and have little benefits? People already know the risk they're taking with the latter, and the former can afford to pay competitive salaries or sell the other benefits harder.
No, it should not be up to individual businesses. You are clearly comfortable with exploiting people for the benefit of the business.
If your business can't afford to pay for top talent, then perhaps it's ok if it doesn't get the top talent. Businesses should purchase what they can pay for, just like we do when we go to the store.
2) Oh these poor poor companies who won't be able to screw their employees out of their fair compensation.
3) Do you mean the startups that get crazy stupid valuations? Or those startups who pay peanuts and have little benefits? People already know the risk they're taking with the latter, and the former can afford to pay competitive salaries or sell the other benefits harder.
No, it should not be up to individual businesses. You are clearly comfortable with exploiting people for the benefit of the business.
If your business can't afford to pay for top talent, then perhaps it's ok if it doesn't get the top talent. Businesses should purchase what they can pay for, just like we do when we go to the store.
Everyone who is interested in earning the most money (without the startup gamble) is already driven toward the top tech companies. Everyone in tech already knows (at least roughly) which companies are in a market apart from the rest.
You can list benefits alongside salary to try and make up for anything you want, but mandatory salary postings won't change anything except waste fewer people's time on interviews for offers they won't accept and make people working for too little money aware of the fact.
You can list benefits alongside salary to try and make up for anything you want, but mandatory salary postings won't change anything except waste fewer people's time on interviews for offers they won't accept and make people working for too little money aware of the fact.
Who cares what's good for the companies; I care about what's good for labor.
To your 3rd point:
First off, the bigger tech companies are already known for having much higher salaries/compensation, hence the whole FAANG goal that many applicants aim for.
Generally, people have an incentive to pick a startup vs a big tech company for several reasons, such as preferring the startup work environment, the fact that their equity has the potential to grow in value much faster than equity at an established tech company, etc.
On top of all that, even with big tech paying the biggest salaries and attracting talent, they still have a finite number of positions. All the applicants who aren't FAANG level will go to work for those other companies that don't pay as high.
Adding transparency to job posting salaries is a net benefit.
First off, the bigger tech companies are already known for having much higher salaries/compensation, hence the whole FAANG goal that many applicants aim for.
Generally, people have an incentive to pick a startup vs a big tech company for several reasons, such as preferring the startup work environment, the fact that their equity has the potential to grow in value much faster than equity at an established tech company, etc.
On top of all that, even with big tech paying the biggest salaries and attracting talent, they still have a finite number of positions. All the applicants who aren't FAANG level will go to work for those other companies that don't pay as high.
Adding transparency to job posting salaries is a net benefit.
4) You will lose out on candidates who are disappointed by the upper bound. Under normal circumstances, there might have been room for negotiation, but once an upper bound is set, that goes out the window.
You can have the opposite problem with no information — If I see a job advertised without a salary range I presume the upper bound is lower than my expectations & don't apply.
Even if a company would happily hire me & pay more than I'd expect, I haven't even gone into their funnel at all.
Even if a company would happily hire me & pay more than I'd expect, I haven't even gone into their funnel at all.
>It makes the company's salary ranges public, which little startups will use to create comparison websites, driving even more candidates away from smaller companies to the tech giants and monopolies who can afford to pay above market in order to kill their competition.
This may not always be the case. If startup funding sources know that salaries are more transparent and there's more competition, they know they need to offer more to the companies to be able to hire the talent to actually ship. I personally have no qualms about increasing funding amounts that go directly into developers' pockets.
This may not always be the case. If startup funding sources know that salaries are more transparent and there's more competition, they know they need to offer more to the companies to be able to hire the talent to actually ship. I personally have no qualms about increasing funding amounts that go directly into developers' pockets.
So business has much more power that us employees have why are you taking their side here?
> If you’re worried that your current staff will find out they’re underpaid, stop underpaying them
> There’s no excuse for not publishing a salary or salary range
There is nuance around what is competitive comp for different departments (eg. engineering vs customer support), and how current employees in the lower paid departments will perceive the difference in comp across departments. I am all for publishing salary ranges, but it doesn’t come for free, you will wind up with more ill feelings among team members in lower paid departments, even if you pay everyone market compensation. It’s probably still worth publishing salary ranges though, for all the reasons cited in the article, and that it saves everyone time.
> There’s no excuse for not publishing a salary or salary range
There is nuance around what is competitive comp for different departments (eg. engineering vs customer support), and how current employees in the lower paid departments will perceive the difference in comp across departments. I am all for publishing salary ranges, but it doesn’t come for free, you will wind up with more ill feelings among team members in lower paid departments, even if you pay everyone market compensation. It’s probably still worth publishing salary ranges though, for all the reasons cited in the article, and that it saves everyone time.
Do you think that, if you don't publish those salary bands, the employees in those different departments will somehow _not know_ that the other departments get paid more?
Because, trust me, as someone who's worked at multiple B2C companies with large customer service departments, everyone absolutely knows, which is why us in the engineering department were always happy to buy the rounds at cross-company happy hours.
Because, trust me, as someone who's worked at multiple B2C companies with large customer service departments, everyone absolutely knows, which is why us in the engineering department were always happy to buy the rounds at cross-company happy hours.
Yea, on the margin, they will be less likely to know the exact magnitude of the difference and (probably more importantly) less likely to be reminded (IE every time leadership asks “Refer your friends!” and they click the engineering job postings, they will be reminded when they see the salary range).
Transparency coming in would solve this.
If departments know what they get paid — and what other departments get paid — before accepting a job, then they either accept that there are differences for a reason, or reject the offer due to the reasons.
If the reasons are fair/reasonable, then there’s nothing to worry about. If they’re not and can’t hire anyone, they’ll figure that out and adjust the salaries for those departments.
If departments know what they get paid — and what other departments get paid — before accepting a job, then they either accept that there are differences for a reason, or reject the offer due to the reasons.
If the reasons are fair/reasonable, then there’s nothing to worry about. If they’re not and can’t hire anyone, they’ll figure that out and adjust the salaries for those departments.
Just a tip that I have used, take it or leave it. The US govt. publishes their pay scale openly and the level of experience for jobs that go with them. I say to the recruiter: "If I took this position with govt., I would get paid xty-thousand... And that's just bare minimum... That comes with insane levels of job security... Does this position offer that kind of security? No? Hmmm... also govt comes with crazy high pension benefits that you don't have... What do you think we should do to bring that number closer to market reality?"
Where do you find these pay scales?
Wow. Is there any resource on what the tiers correspond to in terms of title and experience?
You can cross-ref that with the USA Jobs site, which usually (I think?) lists the O-level of the position. What I usually do is: Find job on USAJOBS most like the one you're applying for and take note of the GS- or O- level and then go to the other site and see how much a GS-12 or whatever makes where you live: This is now your absolute floor if the company you're applying to offers the same level of benefits as the govt. (Hint: they don't)
https://www.usajobs.gov/ is a good resource as well , for example, for a software engineering position: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/590441900
This is a great strategy. You're using a concrete example and asking them to help you solve the problem.
It also takes away from them the riposte of "you're full of shit" or "that number is crazy" because it comes from the biggest Human Resources dept on the planet. It's maybe my favorite interview tactic I've come up with, both for negotiation value and from keeping people from wasting my time. "You're not even going to pay more than the government, even though you have shit benefits by comparison? Adios. Don't call yourself competitive."
In strategic terms it also "inverts the information asymmetry" they like to exploit; "We're a company and you're just one person with an idea of how much you should make" becomes "You're just a little company, this is what the largest employer anywhere thinks I'm worth".
Unfortunately the government matrix for programmers underpays entry level positions. For example, here’s an open entry level programming job open right now: http://usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/599153100
But at least it’s out in the open, saves people time if they are expecting more then that.
But at least it’s out in the open, saves people time if they are expecting more then that.
That is not at all underpaid for an entry level position unless you are comparing solely to FAANG. There are plenty of experienced engineers in OH or NC making that level of salary.
No, not in Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC. FMV for an entry level software engineer is at least 15% higher than that.
Payscale.com says 47k-95k
Monster.com doesn’t have a filter for years of experience, but says 70k at the low end
Dice.com says 62k-84k
Monster.com doesn’t have a filter for years of experience, but says 70k at the low end
Dice.com says 62k-84k
yeah, 72k (+15k bonus) is what I make as entry level data engineer in Arkansas. It's underpaid for the industry but twice the median pay in my city.
What's the cost of a house in them parts?
In the tech industry (for companies that employ at least several hundred engineers), we have https://levels.fyi which is far more helpful than having a firm salary range will ever be due to the prevalence of stock/bonuses in compensation packages which aren't usually included in legislated requirements.
Albeit the salary data on levels.fyi is far less authoritative than an official salary range in a job description.
Edit: Also for the larger tech companies, you can trivially see how much they pay their H1B visa holders in salaries, differentiated by company, title, location, and date. This site is unofficial, but it's a lot easier to use than the massive Excel files that the official data is provided as: https://h1bdata.info
Albeit the salary data on levels.fyi is far less authoritative than an official salary range in a job description.
Edit: Also for the larger tech companies, you can trivially see how much they pay their H1B visa holders in salaries, differentiated by company, title, location, and date. This site is unofficial, but it's a lot easier to use than the massive Excel files that the official data is provided as: https://h1bdata.info
My employer tries to keep salary ranges secret even internally.
In my country, providing the salary range is required by law.
But companies soon found out that providing a range like "between $1 and infinity" is technically legal, so these days half of job advertisements contain some form of that. :(
But companies soon found out that providing a range like "between $1 and infinity" is technically legal, so these days half of job advertisements contain some form of that. :(
Big tech already has that in https://levels.fyi, which to my understanding is updated by their comp analysts (though they will not admit as such). Tech right now is a seller's market for labor, and so buyers comparing notes on prices is IMHO not in the worker's advantage. In fact, it's worth asking ourselves whether levels.f is turning into tech's new mechanism for collusion.
It would be a great idea to stop companies from taking advantage of people who might lowball themselves and take a lower offer just out of desperation to get a job.
Companies should also publish where they stand on the whole equality and equity thing. Some people just want to work, without being harassed for their gender!
The problem the article is trying to solve is already solved.
Sites like Hired let people bid for you with salaries first.
Places like Glassdoor post salary ranges.
And all the companies I've worked for have had internal salary ranges for a position which cannot be negotiated around. Just because they aren't public, doesn't mean they don't exist. I had a job offer that was lower than my current salary but they wouldn't match my current salary since it was out of their range. And I'm a straight, white male.
Sites like Hired let people bid for you with salaries first.
Places like Glassdoor post salary ranges.
And all the companies I've worked for have had internal salary ranges for a position which cannot be negotiated around. Just because they aren't public, doesn't mean they don't exist. I had a job offer that was lower than my current salary but they wouldn't match my current salary since it was out of their range. And I'm a straight, white male.
I didn't quite understand your point about being straight white male.
The point about the "straight white male" was about how minorities and women are paid less. (I haven't seen any data about straightness). However, I have no idea how well that statistic normalizes the data for position/education/experience/etc.
I will say that studies have demonstrated that starting out is often harder for minorities, and therefore it is harder for them every step of the way (because if you are always moving one rung up at the same pace, but you started one rung back...)
But ultimately, that issue seems far easier to study if we had open salary data.
I will say that studies have demonstrated that starting out is often harder for minorities, and therefore it is harder for them every step of the way (because if you are always moving one rung up at the same pace, but you started one rung back...)
But ultimately, that issue seems far easier to study if we had open salary data.
[deleted]
People are still trying to underpay him despite potential privilege.
Neither Hired nor Glassdoor make it a requirement
Hired also doesn’t make it enforceable either. I received an offer lower than what the company said it would offer in the beginning.
The minority and underrepresented perspective is really important here.
But it takes a while to learn how to evaluate your skills against a particular company's needs, market at large and learn to negotiate. I know few people who were 'brought up [...] to stir the pot'. Talking to people, putting yourself out there, doing research and then finding a workable deal is not something that just comes as a given. But yes, privilege exists.
Having said that, in a competitive market a salary range simply makes a potential employer more trustworthy, and avoids wasting time for both parties.
But it takes a while to learn how to evaluate your skills against a particular company's needs, market at large and learn to negotiate. I know few people who were 'brought up [...] to stir the pot'. Talking to people, putting yourself out there, doing research and then finding a workable deal is not something that just comes as a given. But yes, privilege exists.
Having said that, in a competitive market a salary range simply makes a potential employer more trustworthy, and avoids wasting time for both parties.
This seems like a generally good thing but also unlikely to become the norm without significant effort. Capitalism, as we practice it currently in America, frequently hinges on exploiting asymmetries of information, so anything that reduces that is generally going against the tide. No one really likes "perfect information" when they are benefitting from the imperfect type.
It surprising to me how much of society is adversarial. Game theory is fun but goes boring quickly.
Nature is adversarial. Everyone and everything is constantly bumping up against each other’s boundary conditions.
That's one way to see it, you can also see Nature as synergistic very often.
A Polish job board https://nofluffjobs.com took over the market in several years simply by forcing employers to include the range when posting the offer. So there is a supply/demand argument here - at least for some markets.
I hope they expand to other countries. Specifically to Slovakia.
I think a salary range should be provided to candidates once the employer decides to start the interview process. This would greatly reduce discovery abuse by other companies seeking that info for their own use/gain.
True, the candidate does not know initially when they first see the job posting (or are contacted by a recruiter) but most of the time/effort/hardwork is after getting someone to acknowlege your resume is a good fit.
True, the candidate does not know initially when they first see the job posting (or are contacted by a recruiter) but most of the time/effort/hardwork is after getting someone to acknowlege your resume is a good fit.
I was surprised to see that the article says that "straight white males" would be the beneficiary of continuing to fail to post salary ranges. I understand the white male part, but I don't understand the straight part.
Could someone enlighten me here?
Could someone enlighten me here?
It's probably just a memorized phrase -- the archetypal boogeyperson for the politically correct -- that author's fingers typed automatically, without thinking whether it actually makes sense in this context.
Discrimination against women makes sense. Discrimination against non-whites makes sense. But how specifically is the interviewer supposed to find out the sexual orientation? Maybe indirectly, by asking about marital status (in countries without gay marriage), but is that even legal? Also, many straight while males are not married, especially the young ones.
Discrimination against women makes sense. Discrimination against non-whites makes sense. But how specifically is the interviewer supposed to find out the sexual orientation? Maybe indirectly, by asking about marital status (in countries without gay marriage), but is that even legal? Also, many straight while males are not married, especially the young ones.
Standard talking point these days. If you don't flex on race / gender / LGBTQ points people don't react. Especially the SF tolerance and diversity crowd.
It's a lever to get the bourgeoisie to make changes.
If you question it, then you're some sort of -ist, e.g. racist, sexist, etc. Woe be to thee who is on the wrong side of wokeness.
It's a lever to get the bourgeoisie to make changes.
If you question it, then you're some sort of -ist, e.g. racist, sexist, etc. Woe be to thee who is on the wrong side of wokeness.
So, now everyone knowa the salary of the recently hired but the recently hired won't know the salary of those already hired?
I completely agree. I won’t take a message from a recruiter without a salary band listed.
What is suggested in the article will never fly with the capitalism crowd (USA). It is too easy to point at it and say "equality of outcome".
I used to be like this myself until I saw with my own eyes the cronyism at play in hiring and compensation.
The day I stopped believing that SV is or could be a meritocracy was a sad one indeed.
I used to be like this myself until I saw with my own eyes the cronyism at play in hiring and compensation.
The day I stopped believing that SV is or could be a meritocracy was a sad one indeed.
Without transparency in salary ranges it will be very difficult to close the gap between white men and everyone else. It evens the field in negotiations and allows people who typically would not negotiate the ability to do so. Of course the downside would be the employer knowing your salary where you last worked, but that is often requested anyhow in my experience.
The article is not clear about whether this is in the companies interest or in the work forces interest. In some parts it sounds like it's better for the company, but an actual argument for that is missing. Most of the article demands it though so that women, people of color and other disadvantaged groups are less disadvantaged. It would have been more honest to be clear about it.
And it's not really honest either to just put the blame on the company. "I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss." Well, then change that. Before demanding something from a company that you would like to work for, start demanding something from yourself. It's basically the attitude "I have a problem, I could directly contribute to the solution, but I prefer ranting about that somebody else is not doing that for me."
And it's not really honest either to just put the blame on the company. "I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss." Well, then change that. Before demanding something from a company that you would like to work for, start demanding something from yourself. It's basically the attitude "I have a problem, I could directly contribute to the solution, but I prefer ranting about that somebody else is not doing that for me."
you missed that as the article says, if women bring up salary issues, then that is seen as very negative. so in order for a woman to be able to change that, the rest of us need to change our attitude towards women about money first.
you can not expect a person to speak up about something when they have to fear negative consequences. we first need to ensure that there are no negative consequences, and then assure those affected that this change happened. a way to do that in this case is by stating salaries up-front.
you can not expect a person to speak up about something when they have to fear negative consequences. we first need to ensure that there are no negative consequences, and then assure those affected that this change happened. a way to do that in this case is by stating salaries up-front.
> if women bring up salary issues, then that is seen as very negative
I have a hard time believing that this is actually the case, at least more than for men.
I have a hard time believing that this is actually the case, at least more than for men.
And that disbelief is part of why its so hard to correct.
What she is saying does not line up with my experience regarding how this works.
> As a woman... I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss.
If you have that attitude you are going to make less money than someone who negotiates. Period. Companies will try to pay anyone, no matter their race, gender, or religion, less. There is also no reason to feel bad about discussing salary - it is a part of the process, just like submitting your resume and interviewing.
Would publishing a salary in a job description make things more equitable? I don't think so. The keyword in job market is MARKET. It is not as simple as publishing a salary. Every role I've interviewed candidates for had a range we were willing to pay. The best candidate will get the maximum of the range, and a candidate that we are less excited about will get the low end. The candidates are always being judged against other candidates, and how much we think they will cost. What we are willing to pay fluctuates and depends on how we feel about the candidate after the interview, how badly we need someone, and how many other candidates there are at a given time.
Just like in any market that is this small, there is negotiation involved. Employers want to pay less, employees want to make more. The way you arrive at a price is making offers until both sides agree.
That is simply the way it works. It is a barter system. I don't buy the idea that women / bipoc can't navigate this system. It is something you have to learn. White men aren't born being able to navigate it - it took me about 5 years to be fully comfortable with the process. Before that I was underpaid.
> As a woman... I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss.
If you have that attitude you are going to make less money than someone who negotiates. Period. Companies will try to pay anyone, no matter their race, gender, or religion, less. There is also no reason to feel bad about discussing salary - it is a part of the process, just like submitting your resume and interviewing.
Would publishing a salary in a job description make things more equitable? I don't think so. The keyword in job market is MARKET. It is not as simple as publishing a salary. Every role I've interviewed candidates for had a range we were willing to pay. The best candidate will get the maximum of the range, and a candidate that we are less excited about will get the low end. The candidates are always being judged against other candidates, and how much we think they will cost. What we are willing to pay fluctuates and depends on how we feel about the candidate after the interview, how badly we need someone, and how many other candidates there are at a given time.
Just like in any market that is this small, there is negotiation involved. Employers want to pay less, employees want to make more. The way you arrive at a price is making offers until both sides agree.
That is simply the way it works. It is a barter system. I don't buy the idea that women / bipoc can't navigate this system. It is something you have to learn. White men aren't born being able to navigate it - it took me about 5 years to be fully comfortable with the process. Before that I was underpaid.
I completely agree. Just let the market be. Trying to optimize it will just create other unforeseen consequences.
A normal part of an interview process is discussing salary, and if they won't give an answer then you know they are not trying to be competitive and it's not worth continuing the process.
A normal part of an interview process is discussing salary, and if they won't give an answer then you know they are not trying to be competitive and it's not worth continuing the process.
Classical free markets rely on information transparency.
This is making the market more efficient.
This is making the market more efficient.
Fair point, however there is so, so much that is ambiguous and indeterminate. Some jobs, let's say line-chef or administrative assistant where roles are very clear and variance between a individuals is relatively low, often do have salaries or wages stated up front. In the line of work I'm familiar with, hiring developers is Pandora's Box - you have absolutely no idea what it's going to be like a year down the road. I've worked at startups, big tech companies, research labs - at absolutely none of those places did the work I end up doing match the specific requisition I had applied to. Furthermore, in almost all cases each staff member has an extremely unique specialty that do drastically different work - despite having the same job title and classification.
Edit: Also, when a company does not disclose the salary range for the position it actually provides a very useful data point., You can pretty much be sure it's at most average -- but probably less-than-competetive -- market rates. The major and popular tech companies don't need to do this because they have a reputation, but the smaller companies can either show they too are competitive (by publishing above-market rates) or show they do not offer competitive salary (by not publishing their salary target).
Edit: Also, when a company does not disclose the salary range for the position it actually provides a very useful data point., You can pretty much be sure it's at most average -- but probably less-than-competetive -- market rates. The major and popular tech companies don't need to do this because they have a reputation, but the smaller companies can either show they too are competitive (by publishing above-market rates) or show they do not offer competitive salary (by not publishing their salary target).
Yeah, this is like a market where you need to enter the shop, stand in a long line, and only at the cash register you are told how much the items cost. If you think they are too expensive, feel free to try your luck at the next shop, and if the day is long enough you might even try three or four shops. Great for people who have enough vacation days!
What exactly is the merit of knowing how to negotiate a salary?
For me, it was 25% more first-year total comp. I'd say that has merit.
Do you think that, if you didn't know how to negotiate, you should be getting 25% less for the same work input?
Doesn't really matter what I think: companies will offer you the absolute minimum they think you will accept. If you accept their first offer, you're probably leaving money on the table. If their first offer meets or exceeds what you're willing to work for, fine. If not, you either negotiate or decline.
You can get paid a lot more over the course of your lifetime.
I mean, you're free to buy or not buy whatever ideas you want.
But it's not really arguable at this point that women and people of color (especially black & indigenous) are treated less well, assumed to do a poorer job, and generally at a disadvantage when negotiating salaries.
(This all completely aside from the fact that "good negotiation skills" should not be the reason Employee A gets a better salary than Employee B, unless the job itself is significantly about negotiation.)
But it's not really arguable at this point that women and people of color (especially black & indigenous) are treated less well, assumed to do a poorer job, and generally at a disadvantage when negotiating salaries.
(This all completely aside from the fact that "good negotiation skills" should not be the reason Employee A gets a better salary than Employee B, unless the job itself is significantly about negotiation.)
Let's not forget class privilege (this may sound like a heresy, but difference in income between rich and poor people is probably even greater than between men and women). If you are a programmer born in a working-class family, it may be difficult for your parents to teach you proper interviewing and negotiation skills.
Indeed. Not just "difficult to teach," but such skills are simply not among those generally valued among the middle and working classes, in my experience (having grown up in them). This is part of why I speak so against them: to me, the idea that they're just "something everyone should have" seems so alien, extravert-centric, and elitist.
There's a negotiation involved, once you decide you want to offer the job to someone. They might think they are less likely to get the job if they ask early, yet they might also not want to go through the whole interview process to find that your range is too low for them.
I think this is somewhat reductive, as it make a few blanket assumptions that I don't think can be assumed.
The first is that better candidates will get the maximum salary out of a company, and less qualified candidates will get less. This seems to indicate that people who are qualified for a given job will also be excellent at negotiating for it. I don't think these two skills are in any way related.
The second assumption I see in this is that candidates should "women/bipoc can't navigate this system." I think what you're missing (and the article states this) is that minority candidates will be looked at differently when asking for money. There's also the difficulty of determining one's worth, especially when companies don't post average salaries. It can be a difficult guessing game to even ballpark what your value is (even with companies like Glassdoor posting salaries), and if you made less money in your previous job, you're likely to ask for less again. This naturally disadvantages minority and female candidates that have made less historically.
Yes, white men aren't born being able to navigate it. But this ignores the fact that our society is set up to encourage confidence in straight white men and discourage it in many other groups.
In addition, posting a salary range has many positive downstream effects as mentioned in the article. My brother recently benefited from this, as his company posted a job listing for a similar position to his with a starting salary of 20,000 dollars more. He was able to use this to advocate for higher pay.
Bottom line, posting a salary range just adds transparency to the process and evens the playing field a bit. Needing negotiation skills to even get in the ballpark of your true value is crazy; even car companies give you a price point to start from.
The first is that better candidates will get the maximum salary out of a company, and less qualified candidates will get less. This seems to indicate that people who are qualified for a given job will also be excellent at negotiating for it. I don't think these two skills are in any way related.
The second assumption I see in this is that candidates should "women/bipoc can't navigate this system." I think what you're missing (and the article states this) is that minority candidates will be looked at differently when asking for money. There's also the difficulty of determining one's worth, especially when companies don't post average salaries. It can be a difficult guessing game to even ballpark what your value is (even with companies like Glassdoor posting salaries), and if you made less money in your previous job, you're likely to ask for less again. This naturally disadvantages minority and female candidates that have made less historically.
Yes, white men aren't born being able to navigate it. But this ignores the fact that our society is set up to encourage confidence in straight white men and discourage it in many other groups.
In addition, posting a salary range has many positive downstream effects as mentioned in the article. My brother recently benefited from this, as his company posted a job listing for a similar position to his with a starting salary of 20,000 dollars more. He was able to use this to advocate for higher pay.
Bottom line, posting a salary range just adds transparency to the process and evens the playing field a bit. Needing negotiation skills to even get in the ballpark of your true value is crazy; even car companies give you a price point to start from.
> posting a salary range has many positive downstream effects
I agree. I'm just not sure if I agree that it particularly benefits underprivileged groups. I don't see a compelling argument being made by the author that the system of negotiation specifically is biased. Whether a salary range is posted or not everyone has to negotiate and engage the market. There is no way to get around this and if you aren't willing to do it you are going to be taken advantage of.
A salary range posted by the company who is trying to hire you is not going to tell you how much you should be making there. They are going to try to pay you less. It seems like what people really want is for employers to magically pay everyone exactly what they should be making without negotiating, which is simply not possible, because nobody knows what they should be making until the market sets a price.
> The first is that better candidates will get the maximum salary out of a company, and less qualified candidates will get less.
I'm not assuming this. In my experience whether someone negotiates more or not at all has more to do with their experience around the process in general. More junior candidates or candidates who haven't switched jobs more than once or twice are more likely to be underpaid. I personally screwed this up about 4 times before learning my lesson.
> minority candidates will be looked at differently when asking for money
I don't disagree with this. I don't see how posting a salary range changes this. If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not.
> There's also the difficulty of determining one's worth
The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay. There is no other way to do it. For someone looking for a job you should try to get multiple offers, negotiate them, and see how much you end up with. That number is as close to your market value as you are going to get.
> this ignores the fact that our society is set up to encourage confidence in straight white men and discourage it in many other group
I guess I really just don't buy this argument as it pertains to this topic. Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing. If you can't become comfortable doing this, you are going to make less.
I agree. I'm just not sure if I agree that it particularly benefits underprivileged groups. I don't see a compelling argument being made by the author that the system of negotiation specifically is biased. Whether a salary range is posted or not everyone has to negotiate and engage the market. There is no way to get around this and if you aren't willing to do it you are going to be taken advantage of.
A salary range posted by the company who is trying to hire you is not going to tell you how much you should be making there. They are going to try to pay you less. It seems like what people really want is for employers to magically pay everyone exactly what they should be making without negotiating, which is simply not possible, because nobody knows what they should be making until the market sets a price.
> The first is that better candidates will get the maximum salary out of a company, and less qualified candidates will get less.
I'm not assuming this. In my experience whether someone negotiates more or not at all has more to do with their experience around the process in general. More junior candidates or candidates who haven't switched jobs more than once or twice are more likely to be underpaid. I personally screwed this up about 4 times before learning my lesson.
> minority candidates will be looked at differently when asking for money
I don't disagree with this. I don't see how posting a salary range changes this. If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not.
> There's also the difficulty of determining one's worth
The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay. There is no other way to do it. For someone looking for a job you should try to get multiple offers, negotiate them, and see how much you end up with. That number is as close to your market value as you are going to get.
> this ignores the fact that our society is set up to encourage confidence in straight white men and discourage it in many other group
I guess I really just don't buy this argument as it pertains to this topic. Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing. If you can't become comfortable doing this, you are going to make less.
> If the company / market is willing to pay less to an underprivileged group, that is going to be reflected in compensation regardless of whether a salary range is posted or not.
A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system.
> The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay.
I don't see how posting salary ranges is any different from negotiation. If a company posts a salary range and gets no qualified candidates, they now know that the offer was too low. Instead of putting the onus on the prospective employee, why not put it on the corporations? I think it probably makes more sense to have companies competing against each other in a transparent and open market, instead of requiring employees to do that work for themselves.
> Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing.
Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs. If you go to the link related to the Howard and Heidi case study [1], you'd see that there is at least anecdotal evidence that women are seen as less likable and selfish if doing the same thing as men. It's not just about a matter of confidence, but how that confidence is perceived. Combine those two issues together and you can see how negotiation can negatively impact some groups.
A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system.
> The way you determine what the market is willing to pay is to find out what the market is willing to pay.
I don't see how posting salary ranges is any different from negotiation. If a company posts a salary range and gets no qualified candidates, they now know that the offer was too low. Instead of putting the onus on the prospective employee, why not put it on the corporations? I think it probably makes more sense to have companies competing against each other in a transparent and open market, instead of requiring employees to do that work for themselves.
> Negotiating compensation shouldn't be a matter of confidence after a certain point in your career. After you have done it a few times it is not very intimidating. It is a fact of life and something everybody needs to learn to be comfortable doing.
Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs. If you go to the link related to the Howard and Heidi case study [1], you'd see that there is at least anecdotal evidence that women are seen as less likable and selfish if doing the same thing as men. It's not just about a matter of confidence, but how that confidence is perceived. Combine those two issues together and you can see how negotiation can negatively impact some groups.
> Howard and Heidi case study
This is the crux of the argument, and it is something that needs stronger evidence from the author. The Howard and Heidi case study is not related at all to how someone will be perceived negotiating a salary. It is a very weak piece of evidence.
It also doesn't make any sense to me, and doesn't match up with my experience hiring or being part of the process. Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have. If the employer wants to hire them, they will pay what they are willing to pay them. If someone wants to work for a company, they will take the amount they are willing to be paid.
> A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system.
Maybe salary ranges do help people that are being absolutely fleeced by their employers. Again, I do not buy that has anything to do with gender or race. This happens when people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise. It is true that many, many people do this and end up being underpaid. There is no barrier for someone in an underprivileged group from learning that they need to negotiate and shop around.
As you said, a salary range might help a small amount for people who are being taken advantage of but they will still be underpaid. The only way to actually get what you are worth is to navigate the market. It is a very simple process.
> Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are at your job. But it does have something to do with how much you get paid for doing your job. The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.
This is the crux of the argument, and it is something that needs stronger evidence from the author. The Howard and Heidi case study is not related at all to how someone will be perceived negotiating a salary. It is a very weak piece of evidence.
It also doesn't make any sense to me, and doesn't match up with my experience hiring or being part of the process. Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have. If the employer wants to hire them, they will pay what they are willing to pay them. If someone wants to work for a company, they will take the amount they are willing to be paid.
> A salary range effectively puts a floor on how much you can underpay someone. Does that fix every problem? No, but it's certainly better than the current system.
Maybe salary ranges do help people that are being absolutely fleeced by their employers. Again, I do not buy that has anything to do with gender or race. This happens when people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise. It is true that many, many people do this and end up being underpaid. There is no barrier for someone in an underprivileged group from learning that they need to negotiate and shop around.
As you said, a salary range might help a small amount for people who are being taken advantage of but they will still be underpaid. The only way to actually get what you are worth is to navigate the market. It is a very simple process.
> Why does this have to be a prerequisite for getting your full worth? Negotiation skill has nothing to do with the actual ability to do most jobs.
It doesn't have anything to do with how good you are at your job. But it does have something to do with how much you get paid for doing your job. The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.
> The market sets the price of your labor, and you have to engage with the market as best you can. That is just the reality of working in a market.
You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range. Is there a downside to requiring companies to be transparent in their salary offers? It makes companies directly compete with each other, as companies offering low salaries will receive less-qualified applicants. This also allows employees to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy, as applicants won't be required to complete the application and interview process before discovering the salary of the job.
Bottom line, most markets start with the seller providing a price. Auctions begin with a set starting price and bidders are able to tell when the reserve price has been met, car negotiations generally start from a sticker price, and most retail stores I've been to have listed prices. This doesn't stop competition; in fact, grocery store profit margins seem to hover around the 2-4% range according to Google. This is backed up by the FY 2019 results for Ahold Delhaize, which indicate that the operating margin is around 4% [1].
> Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have.
The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's. A meta-analysis of psychological studies [1] indicate that dominant behavior can absolutely affect hireability. Does this affect salary? I can't imagine it has a positive effect. In addition, another link present in the article [3] indicates that women and minorities expect to make anywhere from 7-11% less than white men. This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.
> people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise.
I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
[1] https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases...
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001
[3] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...
You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range. Is there a downside to requiring companies to be transparent in their salary offers? It makes companies directly compete with each other, as companies offering low salaries will receive less-qualified applicants. This also allows employees to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy, as applicants won't be required to complete the application and interview process before discovering the salary of the job.
Bottom line, most markets start with the seller providing a price. Auctions begin with a set starting price and bidders are able to tell when the reserve price has been met, car negotiations generally start from a sticker price, and most retail stores I've been to have listed prices. This doesn't stop competition; in fact, grocery store profit margins seem to hover around the 2-4% range according to Google. This is backed up by the FY 2019 results for Ahold Delhaize, which indicate that the operating margin is around 4% [1].
> Women and bipoc have the same leverage in negotiations that white men have.
The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's. A meta-analysis of psychological studies [1] indicate that dominant behavior can absolutely affect hireability. Does this affect salary? I can't imagine it has a positive effect. In addition, another link present in the article [3] indicates that women and minorities expect to make anywhere from 7-11% less than white men. This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.
> people are simply not doing basic things like applying to multiple companies or negotiating at all, or staying at the same company for years without a raise.
I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
[1] https://www.aholddelhaize.com/en/media/latest/media-releases...
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001
[3] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...
> You've conveniently not addressed the concept of forcing companies to transparently compete by requiring a salary range.
I'm not arguing this. Again, I agree that these practices are good for employees.
>I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
I agree that providing an average salary or range gives transparency, I just don't buy the idea that it somehow benefits underprivileged groups more.
There is nothing stopping anybody from negotiating or trying to find a good value in the market. If being a woman means they are less likely to negotiate (which I don't believe), they need to learn to negotiate, because they don't have a choice. It is how the market sets prices, and there is no way around it. Setting a range helps, but it doesn't remove the need for negotiating.
> The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's
I agree with this, even if the "study" itself is laughably weak. But basically all the study is saying is "sexism exists".
Based on my experience I do not believe this has a connection with negotiating. Everyone can and should negotiate. Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.
Employers understand that negotiation is necessary as it is the only way to set fair prices. I would need a lot more evidence to buy the idea that it is somehow discriminatory. The author provides none.
> This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.
This is correlation and not causation. The fact that women and minorities make less has been established many times. I just don't see any evidence that this is because they can't negotiate. The author needs to provide evidence that the process of negotiation itself is discriminatory, and that salary ranges will somehow alleviate this problem. Based on my fairly extensive experience I don't think it makes sense intuitively.
> I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
These aren't mutually exclusive
I'm not arguing this. Again, I agree that these practices are good for employees.
>I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
I agree that providing an average salary or range gives transparency, I just don't buy the idea that it somehow benefits underprivileged groups more.
There is nothing stopping anybody from negotiating or trying to find a good value in the market. If being a woman means they are less likely to negotiate (which I don't believe), they need to learn to negotiate, because they don't have a choice. It is how the market sets prices, and there is no way around it. Setting a range helps, but it doesn't remove the need for negotiating.
> The Howard and Heidi case study indicates that aggressive behavior impacts a woman's likeability more than a man's
I agree with this, even if the "study" itself is laughably weak. But basically all the study is saying is "sexism exists".
Based on my experience I do not believe this has a connection with negotiating. Everyone can and should negotiate. Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.
Employers understand that negotiation is necessary as it is the only way to set fair prices. I would need a lot more evidence to buy the idea that it is somehow discriminatory. The author provides none.
> This is relatively strong evidence that minorities and women ARE being disadvantaged in an environment where the average pay isn't specified.
This is correlation and not causation. The fact that women and minorities make less has been established many times. I just don't see any evidence that this is because they can't negotiate. The author needs to provide evidence that the process of negotiation itself is discriminatory, and that salary ranges will somehow alleviate this problem. Based on my fairly extensive experience I don't think it makes sense intuitively.
> I think a lot of where we disagree is that you believe that shopping yourself around and asking for a raise is the proper way to obtain your full worth in a market, whereas I believe (and the author believes) that providing an average salary or salary range gives transparency to the process.
These aren't mutually exclusive
> This is correlation and not causation.
Is it correlation when studies show that women and minorities are likely to underestimate their worth? The linked section of this article [1] indicates that women and minority are actively asking for less. I don't buy that this is primarily due to women or minorities being inherently less naturally able to negotiate, but rather societal expectations that women should earn less.
By posting an average salary, this can hopefully decrease this gap by allowing employees to avoid voluntarily short-changing themselves by asking for less. Standardizing pay ranges can absolutely prevent disadvantaged groups, as it prevents them from asking for what amounts to somewhere around 8-10% less than their white male counterparts.
> Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.
The meta-analysis I linked [2] indicates that aggressive behaviors negatively impact women from both a likeability and hireability standpoint, with the effect size on hireability showing a solid relationship. I fully believe that you haven't perceived a woman as being less hireable or likable, but the evidence indicates that as a whole this type of behavior is perceived more negatively in women.
I would agree that so far, my personal experiences wouldn't lead me to feel that women are disadvantaged by this process. But, based on personal experience, I also wouldn't have assumed that women are seen as less likable if they exhibit more dominant behaviors (as that isn't something that I personally feel). But there is evidence that some behaviors can be perceived differently by gender. I can't ignore this even if it's not something that I've personally experienced.
[1] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001
Is it correlation when studies show that women and minorities are likely to underestimate their worth? The linked section of this article [1] indicates that women and minority are actively asking for less. I don't buy that this is primarily due to women or minorities being inherently less naturally able to negotiate, but rather societal expectations that women should earn less.
By posting an average salary, this can hopefully decrease this gap by allowing employees to avoid voluntarily short-changing themselves by asking for less. Standardizing pay ranges can absolutely prevent disadvantaged groups, as it prevents them from asking for what amounts to somewhere around 8-10% less than their white male counterparts.
> Having been on both sides of the table many times in negotiating compensation, I have never felt that "this candidate is too aggressive or no longer likeable because they are negotiating" was a factor.
The meta-analysis I linked [2] indicates that aggressive behaviors negatively impact women from both a likeability and hireability standpoint, with the effect size on hireability showing a solid relationship. I fully believe that you haven't perceived a woman as being less hireable or likable, but the evidence indicates that as a whole this type of behavior is perceived more negatively in women.
I would agree that so far, my personal experiences wouldn't lead me to feel that women are disadvantaged by this process. But, based on personal experience, I also wouldn't have assumed that women are seen as less likable if they exhibit more dominant behaviors (as that isn't something that I personally feel). But there is evidence that some behaviors can be perceived differently by gender. I can't ignore this even if it's not something that I've personally experienced.
[1] https://hired.com/h/wage-inequality-report/#impact-expectati...
[2] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-56707-001
> If you have that attitude you are going to make less money than someone who negotiates
You may also end up being rejected [1].
> Companies will try to pay anyone, no matter their race, gender, or religion, less
I tend to agree, but also in my experience there are some companies that try to pay people based on their experience not how well the someone negotiates.
> Would publishing a salary in a job description make things more equitable? I don't think so
Like you said before, some companies optimise towards lowest pay. By publishing salary ranges it creates a level playing field and people can still negotiate if they want. Gitlab does this pretty well: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...
[1] https://www.teamblind.com/post/Shopify-Offer-Rescinded-Due-t...
You may also end up being rejected [1].
> Companies will try to pay anyone, no matter their race, gender, or religion, less
I tend to agree, but also in my experience there are some companies that try to pay people based on their experience not how well the someone negotiates.
> Would publishing a salary in a job description make things more equitable? I don't think so
Like you said before, some companies optimise towards lowest pay. By publishing salary ranges it creates a level playing field and people can still negotiate if they want. Gitlab does this pretty well: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...
[1] https://www.teamblind.com/post/Shopify-Offer-Rescinded-Due-t...
She’s not saying she doesn’t have responsibility here, she’s saying women in general are less likely to do what you advise - it’s a systematic bias difference in the sexes and / or being raised in our culture.
Yes, we could, as you advise, teach women to navigate this system. But isn’t that what we’ve been trying, and where has that gotten us?
I think she has a unique point here pointing how companies are hypocritical - they want more diversity and transparency, yet actively take advantage of candidates by not being transparent, which overly falls harder on under represented groups.
Yes, we could, as you advise, teach women to navigate this system. But isn’t that what we’ve been trying, and where has that gotten us?
I think she has a unique point here pointing how companies are hypocritical - they want more diversity and transparency, yet actively take advantage of candidates by not being transparent, which overly falls harder on under represented groups.
I agree.
It's also the fact that diversity isn't about what letters people have in their passports. What we want is a diversity of perspectives, opinions, and philosophies toward life and everything.
Part of why we want more women is tightly interwoven with the reasons they are less likely to negotiate hard on salary. If we hire only women who negotiate like men, we aren't getting that diversity at all.
Obviously I speak in stereotypes now, but I think the general point still stands; we can't keep hiring with the exact same criteria and expect to magically get different hires. We want diversity in terms of who the person is, not what their biological sex or social gender is.
It's also the fact that diversity isn't about what letters people have in their passports. What we want is a diversity of perspectives, opinions, and philosophies toward life and everything.
Part of why we want more women is tightly interwoven with the reasons they are less likely to negotiate hard on salary. If we hire only women who negotiate like men, we aren't getting that diversity at all.
Obviously I speak in stereotypes now, but I think the general point still stands; we can't keep hiring with the exact same criteria and expect to magically get different hires. We want diversity in terms of who the person is, not what their biological sex or social gender is.
> What we want is a diversity of perspectives, opinions, and philosophies toward life and everything.
If only...
My personal experience is that the folks who are most vocal about “diversity” (i.e., the letters in the passport you refer to) tend to be the least supportive of different perspectives, opinions, philosophies of life, etc.
“Agree with the way I think, or you are part of the problem” sadly is a common rallying cry.
If only...
My personal experience is that the folks who are most vocal about “diversity” (i.e., the letters in the passport you refer to) tend to be the least supportive of different perspectives, opinions, philosophies of life, etc.
“Agree with the way I think, or you are part of the problem” sadly is a common rallying cry.
[deleted]
I think it is stupid that you have to negotiate salary before you have even written 1 line of code, and then are stuck with it for like at least a year.
I would argue that she is right, but for the wrong reasons. Whether the lack of salary ranges disproportionately affects this or that identity group (or doesn't) is a red herring.
I'm a "white" man, I find it hard to navigate the very idea of salary negotiation, and I would very much appreciate salary ranges being required in job advertisements. I might very well be underpaid, and I'm sure that many individual women and people of other ethnicities find it much easier than me, be it because of experience, personality, or conscious effort to overcompensate. Others might find it harder than me. Regardless, it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that opaque salary ranges on job advertisements are detrimental to the income of certain individuals, and the result of this is:
- People with a personality more suited to negotiate their salary are paid better than those without, and (with a few exceptions) it is not correlated with the skill or abilities relevant to the job.
- Other people may decide to learn and become fully comfortable with the process, with more or less success, by expending time and effort.
- Businesses financially profit at the cost of less assertive workers, thanks to the information asymmetry [0] of salaries in the job market.
None of these features generate any kind of value to society or to the economy at large, and there would be no downside to introducing a requirement to publish salary ranges in every job advertisement. Would it make salary negotiation obsolete? Absolutely not! Would it eliminate putative salary gaps between identity groups? I don't know. But would it make salary better correlate with skill at ones job, and improve the income of workers? I think so, yes.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
I'm a "white" man, I find it hard to navigate the very idea of salary negotiation, and I would very much appreciate salary ranges being required in job advertisements. I might very well be underpaid, and I'm sure that many individual women and people of other ethnicities find it much easier than me, be it because of experience, personality, or conscious effort to overcompensate. Others might find it harder than me. Regardless, it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that opaque salary ranges on job advertisements are detrimental to the income of certain individuals, and the result of this is:
- People with a personality more suited to negotiate their salary are paid better than those without, and (with a few exceptions) it is not correlated with the skill or abilities relevant to the job.
- Other people may decide to learn and become fully comfortable with the process, with more or less success, by expending time and effort.
- Businesses financially profit at the cost of less assertive workers, thanks to the information asymmetry [0] of salaries in the job market.
None of these features generate any kind of value to society or to the economy at large, and there would be no downside to introducing a requirement to publish salary ranges in every job advertisement. Would it make salary negotiation obsolete? Absolutely not! Would it eliminate putative salary gaps between identity groups? I don't know. But would it make salary better correlate with skill at ones job, and improve the income of workers? I think so, yes.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
A lot of context was trimmed out of that quote:
> As a woman, society brought me up to be polite — not to ‘stir the pot’— and certainly not to talk about money. I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss. If I look too money-driven, I’ll likely be seen as cold and ruthless where a man might be seen as ambitious and straight-shooting (if you don’t believe me, read the ‘Howard vs Heidi’ study).
While it is easy to tell people to negotiate, some people are not equipped to negotiate in that particular context since they have not been brought up to negotiate in that context. It also turns out that it is very difficult to control this upbringing. I have had conversations with mothers who want their daughters to be strong and self-reliant, yet express frustration with teachers and child care workers conveying the exact opposite message. If they have difficulty in contexts where they can express their concerns directly to the people involved, their battle is utterly hopeless when it comes to society as a whole.
The "cold and ruthless" comment also illustrates that the attitudes of the party being negotiated also plays a role here. If you are walking into a negotiation where your asks are perceived as ambition, you are more likely to be seen in a positive light. If you're walking into a negotiation where your gender automatically implies that the same asks are going to be seen as ruthless, you are more likely to be seen in a negative light. Unfortunately, social expectations mean that gender will play a role in how a candidate is perceived even if they are asking for the same thing in the same way.
> As a woman, society brought me up to be polite — not to ‘stir the pot’— and certainly not to talk about money. I’m unlikely to bring up the topic of salary with a potential boss. If I look too money-driven, I’ll likely be seen as cold and ruthless where a man might be seen as ambitious and straight-shooting (if you don’t believe me, read the ‘Howard vs Heidi’ study).
While it is easy to tell people to negotiate, some people are not equipped to negotiate in that particular context since they have not been brought up to negotiate in that context. It also turns out that it is very difficult to control this upbringing. I have had conversations with mothers who want their daughters to be strong and self-reliant, yet express frustration with teachers and child care workers conveying the exact opposite message. If they have difficulty in contexts where they can express their concerns directly to the people involved, their battle is utterly hopeless when it comes to society as a whole.
The "cold and ruthless" comment also illustrates that the attitudes of the party being negotiated also plays a role here. If you are walking into a negotiation where your asks are perceived as ambition, you are more likely to be seen in a positive light. If you're walking into a negotiation where your gender automatically implies that the same asks are going to be seen as ruthless, you are more likely to be seen in a negative light. Unfortunately, social expectations mean that gender will play a role in how a candidate is perceived even if they are asking for the same thing in the same way.
What is the downside, from any employee’s perspective, to knowing what the range is upfront? I certainly attempt to find that information before entering negotiations.
A downside to an employer is it limits their options before they have all the information. They might be able to get a bargain on an employee who would have taken the job for less than the minimum.
It can also be a bad starting point for a hire who takes a job for pay at the very low end, that their value has been pegged at the bare minimum. The new hire may be fine with it when the position is clearly an advancement for them but for others they may resent the assessment of their worth even though it's more likely based on market realities and/or the organization's finances.
It can also be a bad starting point for a hire who takes a job for pay at the very low end, that their value has been pegged at the bare minimum. The new hire may be fine with it when the position is clearly an advancement for them but for others they may resent the assessment of their worth even though it's more likely based on market realities and/or the organization's finances.
I meant employee but flubbed it and totally flipped around my post. Sorry!
No problem.
A possible downside for a potential employee is they could be a very qualified candidate who passes on applying for a position because the high end of the range isn't high enough but they didn't sufficiently factor in the other benefits. Salary is only one part of the value of taking a particular job, there are other monetary (lower out-of-pocket heath coverage, profit participation) and non-monetary (better work-life balance, more interesting work, better workplace relationships, etc.) factors.
A possible downside for a potential employee is they could be a very qualified candidate who passes on applying for a position because the high end of the range isn't high enough but they didn't sufficiently factor in the other benefits. Salary is only one part of the value of taking a particular job, there are other monetary (lower out-of-pocket heath coverage, profit participation) and non-monetary (better work-life balance, more interesting work, better workplace relationships, etc.) factors.
Even if that's the case, it seems better to know those things up-front, and be OK with that tradeoff, than to waste time getting to the end and then have the whole thing fall apart because of lower than expected compensation.
Yes, it's a pretty minor downside and employers can share and emphasize benefits beyond salary to attract people for whom they are appealing.
I work for a university and the job application system requires people to provide a desired salary range (I think it's a dropdown list of ranges, each $20,000 wide). I wish applicants could pick the top and bottom of the ranges themselves but it does weed out some people with unrealistic expectations (usually they're overestimating their worth but even if they're not, there are hard limits on what a department can pay).
The university also publishes salary ranges but they can create problems because they are very much not hiring ranges; the hiring ranges are mostly in the bottom third, the upper limit of the salary range represents what someone might make after a long career in such a position. When I was a hiring manager, I would explain the difference in salary range and hiring range in interviews without being too specific about what the actual hiring range might be in their case (I also wasn't responsible for what a candidate was offered).
I work for a university and the job application system requires people to provide a desired salary range (I think it's a dropdown list of ranges, each $20,000 wide). I wish applicants could pick the top and bottom of the ranges themselves but it does weed out some people with unrealistic expectations (usually they're overestimating their worth but even if they're not, there are hard limits on what a department can pay).
The university also publishes salary ranges but they can create problems because they are very much not hiring ranges; the hiring ranges are mostly in the bottom third, the upper limit of the salary range represents what someone might make after a long career in such a position. When I was a hiring manager, I would explain the difference in salary range and hiring range in interviews without being too specific about what the actual hiring range might be in their case (I also wasn't responsible for what a candidate was offered).
You attempt to find the information before the interview, but some people don't. The downside is that the employer would also have to pay those other people a market salary.
EDIT: I don't see a downside for an employee. If they don't like the advertised range, they can try to negotiate regardless.
EDIT: I don't see a downside for an employee. If they don't like the advertised range, they can try to negotiate regardless.
[deleted]
The lemon-game bit at the end is correct. If you don't say what you want to pay people, they assume you don't want to pay them much, or that you don't want to tell your existing employees. So then the good people decide not to apply, and it takes longer to find someone.
There's a similar game theoretical game for the employee. You don't want to ask immediately because you'll seem greedy. But you also don't want to waste a bunch of time doing interviews and homework, only to find a booby prize at the end. So as long as there's enough firms that do publish a range, you're going to apply to them.
There's a similar game theoretical game for the employee. You don't want to ask immediately because you'll seem greedy. But you also don't want to waste a bunch of time doing interviews and homework, only to find a booby prize at the end. So as long as there's enough firms that do publish a range, you're going to apply to them.
There's enough publishing a range that I only apply to those. Unless the company gives a range, or asks as part of the application for your target salary, I just don't apply. But not everyone is in a career position to do that.
I agree that job descriptions should show a salary range. Otherwise you don't know if you should even apply. I also think that we all need to learn to estimate our market value and negotiate our salary, no matter what gender or race.
How would a candidate feel about an offer that was at the bottom of the range? How would an employer view a candidate who accepted an offer at the bottom of the range? I’m not sure this would serve either party well, in what could otherwise be a successful hire.
> How would an employer view a candidate who accepted an offer at the bottom of the range?
Probably would forget it two weeks after the interview.
Also, if the employer is a company, the person who made the hiring decision may be different from the employee's direct boss.
Probably would forget it two weeks after the interview.
Also, if the employer is a company, the person who made the hiring decision may be different from the employee's direct boss.
In Poland this is becoming the norm for job ads in IT. I mean, it's not obligatory, butit you can expect at least 20-30% of the candidates won't talk to you if you don't publish ranges.
If I see a job I am qualified for, and/or interested in, and I don't see a salary range I tend ignore it - I don't have time to entertain companies unwilling to be open about their payscales.
A posted salary is good, a posted range better than nothing, but I'd personally rather see all salary information made public, with names attached.
I work for the University of California, so my salary is a matter of public record, along with all state employees. So be it. The sky hasn't fallen.
One big problem with making salary info public is that if it is one sided (some firms do this and others don't), it can place the firms that do make it public at a disadvantage. There are also some issues with the government forcing private firms to disclose this information.
At the very least, I'd say that any firm using the H1-B visa should be required to make all salaries public, not just salaries for H1-B hires. If you're going to claim that you can't hire (or retain) staff and need a special visa for this, let's see those numbers. I'm not saying I don't believe it, just that it's hard to take this seriously when they are very secretive about their own information but want the power to decide who is going to be permitted to live and work in the US and at what salary.
If you want to keep it private, that's fine, you just don't get the power to bestow temporary residency for the purposes of working for your firm.
I work for the University of California, so my salary is a matter of public record, along with all state employees. So be it. The sky hasn't fallen.
One big problem with making salary info public is that if it is one sided (some firms do this and others don't), it can place the firms that do make it public at a disadvantage. There are also some issues with the government forcing private firms to disclose this information.
At the very least, I'd say that any firm using the H1-B visa should be required to make all salaries public, not just salaries for H1-B hires. If you're going to claim that you can't hire (or retain) staff and need a special visa for this, let's see those numbers. I'm not saying I don't believe it, just that it's hard to take this seriously when they are very secretive about their own information but want the power to decide who is going to be permitted to live and work in the US and at what salary.
If you want to keep it private, that's fine, you just don't get the power to bestow temporary residency for the purposes of working for your firm.
I was excited for this to come to CA but at a public company it is only a weak signal because your salary is not your total compensation. My RSU are about 50% of my TC, which isn’t uncommon but can still vary wildly up and down the % of TC. So weather my salary is above or below Jill or Steve’s doesn’t mater much when their TC takes into consideration things this gives no visibility into.
Most of the time they give a range.
Even if I wasn't looking, I'd have picked up valuable market insight.