[throwaway8754aw]

I tell recruiters what I want to make from the beginning (my first reply to them on LinkedIn or wherever they reach out) yet say that's what I'm making now ..how competitive is this opportunity?

Either they can match or increase it. If they can the conversation continues and the pay is set in stone never to be discussed again thru all interview processes.

[dijit]

Third-Party Recruiters are actually great, they're super expensive for the company who you hire through, but they're the only people motivated to make sure it's a good fit and are neutral on it.

You'd expect that they would be incentivised to place you somewhere bad so that you're a repeat customer, but there's something that seems to make this not true, perhaps reputation?

[wordofx]

Recruiters only get paid if a candidate stays beyond a period of time. If the candidate does not work out the recruiter needs to find a replacement. Recruiters won’t deal with shit people because if they don’t stay or are prone to not working out they are a burden.

In terms of money it’s usually a percentage of the salary. So if the recruiter works on 10% then they have incentive to get you as much money as possible.

[scarface_74]

The incentive is not to make sure you get the most money. The incentive is to make sure you get placed fast.

While $200K vs $220K means a lot to you over the course of your job, they aren’t going to risk losing a placement arguing for you to get $20K more so their firm can get $44K instead of $40k and the recruiter themselves can get maybe 60% of what the firm gets.

There was a famous similar study published in Freakonomics about real estate agents.

https://freakonomics.com/2008/02/real-estate-agents-revisite...

[throwaway8754aw]

I don't argue as mentioned I tell the recruiters I'm making 220k (while really I'm only making $175k for example) already forcing them to either not continue the conversation if they can't match or they can & the conversation continues.

Of course this is done once you have a few years experience and aren't really looking. Though recruiters on LinkedIn & via email reach out and you can casually play the field for fun to potentially giving yourself a huge increase. Job jumping is a good way to really boost your salary.

[1123581321]

The thing is, they won’t get the placement if they don’t push to get a $220k offer and the other recruiter does. It’s competitive. It’s a better model than real estate because you aren’t agreed to work with one recruiter.

[scarface_74]

But only one recruiter is going to be placing you at that job. Two recruiters trying to place you at the same job is radioactive to the company. The company has to decide who gets the referral money. Lawsuits start happening for the one who doesn’t get referral money.

Also most companies who do work with external recruiters only work with one company

[1123581321]

True. I was thinking of how you have 2-3 recruiters trying to get you offers at different companies that are mostly equivalent.

[tomp]

200 vs 220 is likely noise. The recruiter shouldn’t care about tha2, and neither should you.

But £200k vs £400k is real!

That’s the real span for e.g. hedge funds in London. Actually, it was a few years ago. Probably more now!

[scarface_74]

You shouldn’t care about $20K???

In 10 years invested at $20K a year that’s 370k at 10% returns (about average for the S&P 500).

Thinking like that is how car manufacturers get people to pay for useless add ons.

On top of that, raises are usually a percentage of current base.

Would you tell someone making $20K not to worry about $40K

[killingtime74]

you've not heard of tax?

[willseth]

20k isn’t noise to most people in a 200k salary range.

[scarface_74]

And with most raises being 3%-4% a year, if you don’t negotiate that in the beginning, it’s going to take 3 years to reach that amount after you start

[wordofx]

> The incentive is to make sure you get placed fast.

No. If you place someone and the company has a 3 month probation period. If the person does not last past probation the recruiter does not get paid.

Unless America is different, this is how it works in Europe, Asia, AU/NZ.

The only time this changes is contract work because contract work done via a recruiter is the recruiter might charge you at $150/hr to the company and pay you $100/hr taking $50/hr for himself.

[scarface_74]

There isn’t an official “probationary period” at most jobs in the US.

But we are referring to cases where a good candidate wants $20k more. The recruiter is more interested in convincing a candidate to take the job than negotiating hard for them to get $220K.

The candidate especially in this market isn’t likely to jump ship in a year over $20K

[borplk]

It's quite logical to think that they have an incentive to get you as much money as possible but in reality it's often not quite correct. Their stronger incentive is to establish a relationship with a business and to continue feeding them candidates at an attractive price point for the business. The marginal amount of extra commission that they make on your increased salary is not that significant.

[throwaway5752]

"You'd expect that they would be incentivised to place you somewhere bad so that you're a repeat customer"

You answered your own question: "they're super expensive for the company who you hire through"

The person that pays the recruiter money is their customer. The item their customers pay for is the recruiter's product, which is you.

So the recruiter's reputation does matters to acquire additional inventory, but it matters more for their actual customers. Selling bad fits to their actual customer, the hiring companies, would be business-ending.

It is so important to understand when you are the product and when you are the customer.

[SoftTalker]

Yeah if they put you in a crappy job or it's not what they represented it was, you'll never use them again and you'll tell your network not to use them.

They are motivated to place you in a job, since that's how they get paid, but they want you to be happy with it.