[joezydeco]

But it goes the other way, too.

I've been contacted by many many recruiters offering interesting jobs but won't discuss the salary range targeted for that position. So how much time are you willing to spend on resume polishing, phone screens, on-site interviews, getting to an offer...just to find out that they can't even come close to your current salary?

So now I just flat out say what my jump-number is. Any answer other than "yeah, we can work with that" is a reason to end the conversation and save everybody's time.

[whoiskevin]

So now I just flat out say what my jump-number is. Any answer other than "yeah, we can work with that" is a reason to end the conversation and save everybody's time.

Can't upvote that enough! I've been doing this for years. I don't have time to waste and if they won't talk the numbers there is no point in having the conversation. Statements like "we are competitive" or my other favorite "can you send us proof of your current salary" are hilarious. The proof is my favorite. What is the point of that? If I won't talk to you for less than x dollars there is no value in proving what I currently make.

[emcrazyone]

No, you never give out a number. It's like asking the person sitting across from you to show you their cards before placing a bet.

If a company is willing to pay $100K and you throw out a number, say $80K for example, then how much are you out?

If your first thought is $20K, then you'd probably be wrong. You would be correct if you stayed only one year with the company. However, every year you're with the company you're out another $20K not to mention any salary bumps or profit share that is a percentage of your salary, etc... After 5 years, you're out $100K.

You never give out your number.

When you are asked, "what's it going to take", you should always answer with something like: you're most competitive offer. I don't feel this is rude at all.

I usually recap how key points from the interview. Come back with how you believe you would add value to X and would love to work on Y and that your best competitive offer would get the ball rolling.

Your job is to find out the maximum a prospective employer is willing to pay. Likewise, a prospective employer is attempting to get the best bang for their buck.

Never show your hand. I've interviewed probably 15-20 times in my career and have never strayed from this course. Now I'm a business owner. I've interviewed 100s of people over the years and it never ceases to amaze me how many candidates flat out give me a number when I ask.

Head hunters are pain in the ass to deal with. They insist on knowing where you're at because they don't want you wasting their time. Well, tough shit! Head hunters need to figure out what the going rates are for whatever it is they are seeking candidates for. A good head hunter will let you negotiate for yourself.

[rupert_murdaaa]

>No, you never give out a number. It's like asking the person sitting across from you to show you their cards before placing a bet.

The thing I've never understood about this approach is the reason it's suggested not to give your number first is, presumably, it can anchor your salary negotiations lower than what the company was originally prepared to offer.

I've switched jobs a few times for no other reason than to get a huge salary jump, and I've always given my salary requirements to a recruiter or during the interview process based on the high, high end of industry salary surveys in my field based on my years of experience. Sometimes the conversation will stop then and there, but a few times they've bitten and I've gotten the huge raise. Not to be smug or anything, but I'm fairly sure I'm making quite a bit more than most of the co-workers I've had in similar roles, even if they have more experience than me.

From my perspective, I'm anchoring the salary negotiations on the high end, as opposed to letting the recruiter spit out a number first and anchor the negotiation on the low end. What would I gain from letting them make an offer first?

[hacknat]

The "never give it out" camp always, to me, seems to be making the assumption that salary negotiation is exactly like a game of poker. No one could ever guess what's in your hand and you can't guess what's in theirs. You better bluff all the way to the end and if your hand is better then you win.

Most people can look at payscale or glassdoor though. If I'm putting out a Junior req for a front end position for a CRUD product, then I know pretty well what I'm looking for, and the salary range is pretty set. When someone comes in the game they're playing is "let me convince you why I'm worth the upper end of the range (or even a bit more)", and my game is "let me get you down to the lower end of the range by convincing you how awesome we are, etc." The underlying assumption is that our mental ranges overlap somewhat. If someone comes in and their range doesn't overlap with mine, even if they are supremely talented and worth it, it still won't work out, because I'm not looking for a Senior person, remember? People, most often, hire for best fit not let's get the best person possible. If someone comes in and their expectations are grossly out of sync with my own, it's better to just have it out. If I'm out of sync with reality then the market will correct me or I'll perish, either way it's no skin off the back of the candidates who said, "way too low, see ya later!"

[emcrazyone]

100% agree with just about everything you said except if I may expand a bit.

"If someone comes in and their range doesn't overlap with mine"

Right there is where I think both sides need to do their homework. I have interviewed many candidates over the years that had no clue what the going rate was for a given market and given area.

Example: Oracle DBAs in New York and SanFran command more than the same Oracle DBA working in Detroit at one of the big 3 automotive companies. If you don't understand these dynamics, you're pretty much at a disadvantage and that goes for both sides.

[usaar333]

It's only true to never give out your number if you have a nontrivial probability of being offered a higher salary than said number.

If you expect $X and only 5% of employers out there are willing to pay >=$X, it might very well be worth your time to state $X at the start to avoiding wasting countless hours in an interviewing process.

[hayd]

They should tell you their range before beginning, not the other way around.

Recruiters already have a massive advantage: they have much better knowledge of the market (many more datapoints), why give them for free an additional advantage they can only use against you?

[Consultant32452]

That may also largely depend on who the recruiter you're talking to works for. If it's HR for the company that's different than a third party technical recruiter like a TEKSystems or something. The third party technical recruiter, which is who I'm usually talking to, has no real incentive to low-ball you.

[hibikir]

It depends on the Tech recruiter. If you are going to contract through one of those companies, some scumbags will NOT give you the real billing rate, and thus have plenty of reasons to screw you. I have seen how a vendor might charge the same for three people, and then learn through other sources that those three people were getting paid differently by the vendor. A vendor can also ask for a rate increase, and just not tell your contractor a thing, and pocket the difference.

That space is full of very shady people, and that's before we get into immigration issues and foreigners. If you don't have the billing rate, and can confirm with the company that yes, that's the billing rate they are paying, beware.

[hacknat]

And if it's the company they actually don't know the market any better than you.

[chowdown627]

This is great advice, and I agree with most of it.

As a headhunter, I wholeheartedly agree that you should never give out a number in negotiations. By doing so, you either sell yourself short or price yourself out. These days, especially, technical talent has the leverage and should use it to their advantage. When the market cycle shifts and employers have more strong applicants than necessary, it will be different. That's why, like you said, the $20K difference today will pay huge dividends over the long-term.

I disagree on "going rates." That lumps candidates into an average, which is unfair to them. Salary negotiations are complex and presumptions on the part of a headhunter will backfire.

Above all, I want transparency upfront. My ideal situation is when I know that the candidate's and employer's approximate compensation ranges are aligned. Granted, it's rare, but there's nothing worse than a positive interview process followed by the surprise reveal that both parties were way off in their expectations. The time wasted for the headhunter is negligible compared to that of both the employer and candidate. This is why I want to know the rough ranges at the onset. However, I agree that headhunters are trained to place undue pressure on candidates for specific numbers and it's a poor practice.

[pbhjpbhj]

Presumably if you're female, then you can use "equal" pay legislation to ensure you get whatever the best male negotiator got. Thus you could accept a lower wage up front in order to seal the deal.

[WWKong]

Always give your number first. It's called anchoring. Backed by good research.

[_delirium]

To me it depends a lot on the job though, which is not always clear up front, so I usually like to find out a little more about what they have in mind. My real "minimum salary" is a really huge range, roughly anywhere from $70k to $130k depending on what kind of job it is. I do AI research, which can be more or less applied, and more or less "researchy". Is there very interesting work, good vacation policy, freedom to pursue research, and company support for me publishing code & papers? I'll take quite a bit less money for that kind of job. Less interesting work, less freedom, little time off, and a no-publishing policy? Well, then I'll want a much higher salary.

[fleitz]

Yup on every call a sale is made, either you sell them on a reason they can pay you that much or they sell you on a reason they can't.

Taking on a fuck you pay me attitude is the best thing that ever happened to my life.

[ldehaan]

Seriously, this is good advice, if you're in the above average skill set range in an area that is in demand, such as senior sys admin/ senior programmer, and various other combos. Then you can name your price, the trick is finding a company that can afford you and isn't a total shit place to work for.

I took a decent cut in pay just to be able to work for a company I actually really like. And while I can't afford to buy a new computer nearly as often I do get to work with really fun people and on projects that I really care about.

[evo_9]

Are you guys both over 45? Just curious.

[ldehaan]

I'm 32 and I've been setting my price for the past 4 years. I also didn't get out much for 6 years :D but it was worth it.

[fleitz]

34

[srpeck]

My standard response is "What is the pay range? Who is the client?" to the recruiter emails. The recruiters that get back to you generally mean business. Because of this, I have a huge amount of data on contract rates now. Also, a good side effect is that at least someone is telling them their rates are too low. Hope it helps another consultant down the line...

[kzhahou]

You should share that data, help your fellow job hunters.

Last time I worked at a BigTechCo, salary ranges were $85-100K for juniors, 120-130 mid-level, and 150-165 for senior devs. Bonuses tend to hover around 30%. Of course, stock grants varied widely.

The largest IC pay I saw was $2M/year for a someone who years ago was part of a famous project -- semi-known guy. More recently, I've seen (indirectly) BigTechCo's offering $300-350/year total comp to mid-levels, and 5-600K to seniors.

Anyone else wanna share?

[BuckRogers]

>Anyone else wanna share?

Yes please do (everyone). The reason is to drive wages up. Hiding this knowledge doesn't protect YOU, it raises the bar for your next job. They're going to outsource and insource you anyway so that's nothing to fear.

Looking for an entry level Django gig and have always wondered what it should be (of course market matters). Generally stated, finding -any- developer under 85K is a bargain IMO and you pretty much confirmed that. I know many make less than 85 (like me), but I've had it with being taken advantage of as well. Only have so many healthy years to provide, next job is going to be the right deal to take care of my family.

[epa]

Why wait for the next job? If both you and your employer understand your wage is under market value, your work is good, and you are reliable, why are you hesitating bringing up your current pay? Give them a number that works for you.

[BuckRogers]

*edit- wow that ended up a lot longer than intended.

Interesting point and totally valid. I agree with your sentiment, though sitting back, it reads idealistic to me. Easier stated than done. But I did exactly that last year. My manager and his, our director responded well to it. I was prepared to walk if they feigned offense/anger (had that happen once years ago at another place). I got a decent raise, 10%. I don't expect any existing job to go much further than that TBH. Usually asking for 10% or more will earn you a good laugh.. your initial salary usually sets the pace till you leave.

I felt that was them being generous as a very large corporation such as mine goes. It was out of bounds, did not affect this year's standard raise and so forth. I've made them a lot of money, hundreds of thousands a year in direct billables for 5 years now, I think I peaked there in 2013 at $400,000 for the company. At my rate, $220 that's almost billing all day everyday for the year. Of course, I have a support system but you still have to bill the time and do the work. Plus the intangible benefits of my employment there and have been getting "exceeds expectations" for the last couple of years. I don't think there's a time that I didn't come through, and I never say/said "I don't know" to things (which drives me nuts to hear from people as I'm a stubborn researcher). I mentioned all of this, had hard numbers ready and so forth when asking for the raise.

I didn't hesitate to ask for it when the time was right. 4 years of pretty clutch contributions (if I must say so myself) and a large, critical project coming up that only I could accomplish for them (they foolishly let everyone else go with knowledge of the product). But you can't keep going back time and time again asking for bigger raises, and that 10% was determined by HR doing their market research. I didn't get to give any input. To put me where I should be would've been a 20K raise. I knew that was a pretty tough task though- that's a switching jobs raise.

So at this point, I pretty much have to drop the salary point and continue working. I don't think it's right to keep asking for more without a role change, promotion or significant time passing, it kind of shows they never should've played ball the first time IMO. If I want a big raise again, I'll just have to move on one day. I wouldn't mind switching stacks anyway to something Python. I'm also able to work from home, so I'm looking for the best place to put down some roots and start looking for that role. Austin, Vancouver, WA (Portland) or Chicago. So that freedom has a lot of value.

I'm only hesitant to do that because most of my career has been abusive, long unpaid overtime and I've been fairly easy to exploit because I was your typical virtuous midwesterner who has been turned fairly cynical when I found said values like "work hard, get the money" weren't really true. I have a strong sense of justice, so when I feel wronged I get fired up.

My belief was that if I came through on every job and project, I'd be recognized and taken care of. It's not true, you're just the dummy who works his ass off sacrificing your health in the process. When you're burned, they dump you for a new model. No one cares about you. You just need to shut the laptop down at 5:30PM and walk out the door. Damn what everyone else does or thinks, as unpaid overtime is the root of all evil.

The last couple of years it's been the first time I've received humane treatment and spooked to start over somewhere else. :)

Like I said, it's a very large corporation and I highly dislike the lack of passionate employees for the tech. It's a technical graveyard. But there's not much drama and nonsense going on, which I appreciate. So many offices are full of clowns and egos and I'm glad to be out of that. Not to mention, after 5 years everyone knows me, and I know I'm not perfect either.

It's a balance, money isn't everything but getting as much as possible without being made miserable is the goal. I almost got so burned up that I didn't want anything to do with tech-anything, and I'm really glad I didn't quite reach that threshold.

Some point I'll seek out that new role for the bigger raise, and get out of the tech graveyard. I'm bored, capable of more and I need to do it for my wife and kids we're aiming to have.

[JohnBooty]

I feel you on this:

    The last couple of years it's been the first time I've
    received humane treatment and spooked to start over 
    somewhere else.

Like you I struggle with trying to do the right thing, and put in unhealthy hours. Although it sounds like I haven't reached your level of enlightenment yet (even though I think I'm a few years older than you).

I think the trap I fall into is telling myself that the long hours are for my own good. "Well, at least this 58302-hour week is helping me to really polish my skills in this stack." Which is actually fucking true to an extent, which is why it's a seductive trap. I mean, there really is no substitute for putting in the hours if you're looking to hone a craft. And honing that craft is a big part of what will allow one to earn for one's family 5, 10, 20 years down the line.

But people say, "so look for a new job if this one's unhealthy!" like it's as easy as changing a pair of socks.

Changing jobs is challenging and disruptive and it's very difficult to ensure you'll wind up at a company with a healthier culture, particularly if you're already working at a company with a culture that's already above average for your field. And especially if the workaholism problem largely comes from inside yourself, like it does for me. Changing companies won't fix that.

It's even more complicated when explaining myself to family because of the bizarre image that people have of the tech industry! People see Google's "adult playground for engineers" workplace image in stories on 60 minutes and think the life of a programmer is just playing around all day long. It's not even that way at Google, much less your average tech company.

[merpnderp]

300-350 for mid level developers and up to 600 for seniors? Where is this?

[kzhahou]

Big tech companies in silicon valley.

[conanbatt]

I want to believe the numbers you provide are right, but then I look at https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Facebook-Salaries-E40772.ht... and cant see where to get more reliable sources for thinking facebook or google pay that.

[jedberg]

Keep in mind that the people who make a lot more than that are highly motivated not to share. I know for example that the Netflix salaries on Glassdoor are definetely too low, since I know a broad range of salaries there.

[kzhahou]

Those salaries on Glassdoor pretty much match what I'm saying, with salaries running up to $165 for senior devs. Add 30% for bonus and $100-150K in stock and you're into the $300K+ range I'm describing.

The $600K+ figure is for director level and above.

The $2M/year individual contributor was an outlier.

[mvgoogler]

For Google at least, those numbers are pretty much spot on.

Source - I'm a mid-level engineer at Google and my total comp is within the stated range.

[ldehaan]

Google and Facebook don't let it be easily known who their highest paid employees are, or even that they exist. They'd get poached.

[jasonkostempski]

What's a jump-number? Googling it came up with your comment as the top result and then skydiving :)

[coke12]

The salary number that would convince joezydeco to "jump ship".

[tunesmith]

jump ship to the new opportunity (meaning a high number), or jump ship on the conversation (meaning his bare minimum number)?

[joezydeco]

Jump to the new job. Doesn't necessarily have to be a high number, but if I'm not looking for a lateral (meaning, I like my current job), then it should be significantly larger than what I'm making in salary/benefits today.

[dceddia]

I can see how that's ambiguous, and this is just an assumption, but I assumed he meant "jump ship to a new opportunity" because starting off with the lowest number you'd accept seems like a bad negotiation strategy :)