
Ask HN: Why do most job sites hide salary? - marfife
I understand that companies don&#x27;t want people that are just after the money. But feels unproductive and inefficient to dig through offers and having to contact companies to know whether it&#x27;s worth working for them or not.<p>With this in mind, how much value can a only-with-salary-disclosed-app bring?
======
AdmiralAsshat
The answer is very simple: they don't want to pay their prospective employees
any more than they have to. If they put a job listing for $70k and a developer
currently making $50k applies and gets it, he gets a 20 thousand dollar raise.

On the other hand, if the employer requires the applicant's current salary on
the application, and Mr. Qualified Engineer applies, they can offer him $55k
instead (just enough to make him consider the offer if he's unhappy with his
current job).

Using this strategy, the employer can make sure their employees never know
their real worth, since every raise/promotion/new job they get is based on a
"just good enough" improvement over their current salary.

~~~
dmortin
So to defeat this you just write a higher current salary on your application,
right?

~~~
Sindisil
No. To defeat this, you politely refuse to provide your current salary.

~~~
brianwawok
And be ok with a 10-50% chance of the new place declining to make you an
offer?

It won't stop all places, but it will stop some places. You have to be OK with
that.

------
fecak
I was a recruiter for 20 years. In my experience, when a range was listed,
every applicant expected to get offered at the top of the range.

So if the range was 80-100K and you had a candidate at the lower end of the
experience/skills range for the job, that candidate becomes attached to that
100K number. He tells his friends "I found a job that pays 100K". Candidates
don't pay much attention to the low number in the real world.

So the interviews happen, the candidate performs as expected (not superb) and
gets an offer for 80K. He thinks he's leaving 20K on the table if he accepts,
or that he's getting lowballed. If the job had been posted 60-80K, he wouldn't
have felt shorted at all.

This is a simplification of course, but posting salary led to lots of refused
offers when the offer < the top figure.

~~~
PaulKeeble
Could just be the job is acceptable at the top of the range and not the
bottom. A company might not value the employee to the top of the range but the
employee may equally not value the job at anything but the top of that range.

~~~
fecak
That's certainly a possibility, and in those situations an offer usually isn't
given at all. If we (a) know a candidate will only accept the top end of the
range and (b) the candidate doesn't qualify or interview at that level,
there's no reason to make an offer at all.

When a range is given, in my experience a candidate will usually say "I'd only
be interested at the top of that range" from the beginning if that's indeed
the case. The point I made in my initial comment is more aligned to situations
when a candidate says they are OK with the range but don't 'commit' (prior to
interviews) on where they feel they qualify on that range.

------
duxup
I think it is because you don't know what you're going to get / and honestly a
lot of places don't know the actual market until they start making offers.

Maybe you're looking for a $100k type guy... but all you get are $70k
applicants so you decide to hire one of them.

You don't want to pay dramatically more than you should, or insult them by
offering less than the job listed or set them up for thinking they're getting
a raise shortly after or something.

There are a lot of theories about negotiation and gamification and I think
plenty of that is true, but I also think that for most places looking for a
specific role, they're not 100% sure what they're going to get and thus can't
say exactly what they'll pay.

As much as I loath job hunting, trying to get through the hiring industrial
complex before I get to talk to the technical guy... I also don't think every
job offer thing is a sort of dark pattern. I think folks hiring are flying
blind too to some extent and thus not willing to commit to a number until they
know the person they want.

------
vbtemp
Many other responses are absolutely true, but here's something else to
consider:

Over the last 12-14 years, I've never, ever had a "job" that had specific,
clear requirements and duties.

In the field we're in staff are not line-replaceable units. Each employee is
like a box of chocolates, and you'll never know what's inside until you bite
(hire them).

Some staff will quickly exceed the expected duties and take on high levels of
responsibilities and massively contribute to the organization far in excess in
what anyone could have foreseen initially. Others will only do strictly what
is asked of them (or less) and do the barest minimal to just get by, and
basically be a disappointment.

Some staff will be able to kind-of fill the job, but not entirely, and will
need some training to get there. Others will hit the ground running.

This is often why there is a large and ambiguous range for job posts. Basic IT
jobs that do have specific, clear duties (and extremely limited growth
potential) can have much more clear, lower, and narrow salary ranges.

------
golergka
A couple of times, I found myself in a situation where I'm just opening a
position and haven't hired developers in this particular stack and this
particular skill level for a while, I may not even know what's a current
market rate for this position would be. I'd get an overall idea after talking
to 5-10 candidates, estimating their skill level and listening to what's their
asking price is.

It's not even about trying to low-ball someone. Low-balling might be good in
short-term, but not in long-term - both from perspective of a manager who's
trying to do best by the company (because you want to build trust with your
employees), and from a perspective of a political manipulator (when you
inflate salaries of people you manage and budget of your department, you
become more important in the hierarchy - saving company money won't earn you
as much political points). What it is about is simply not having enough
information about the market.

~~~
replyguy912
having sat on both sides of the table, this is a weak rationalization for
wasting a lot of people's time. You're making candidates do so much work in
terms of applications, preparation and interviews and you don't even know what
the market looks like? Are the positions you're staffing so unique that you
can't get comparable data from anywhere, or are you really just fishing for
someone you can low-ball?

~~~
golergka
Why do you consider their application process a waste of time? After we get
the taste of the market, I don't see any reason not to hire one of those early
applicants if they're the best candidate for the position.

------
derekp7
When you have to hire a professional, for example a plumber, do you put out an
ad and say "I need to hire a plumber to fix a broken pipe by running a new
sewer line out to the street, and the job pays $60.00 per hour". Or do you
call around, describe your problem, and see what solutions and cost various
plumbers can provide? Basically, "Here's my problem, what is the fix, and how
much will it cost?"

~~~
gregd
What in the world does this have to do with hiring an employee with salary?

Hiring a plumber on a per job basis isn't the same thing at all and getting
bids for jobs like this, works.

Do you seriously think that people should bid to fill positions at companies?

~~~
matz1
How is it different ? From the perspective of the companies, it is in their
interest for the prospective employee to bid to fill position.

~~~
gregd
I see. So we should start listing benefits to doing our job for a plumber?

"Hey there Plumber, if you do this job, I'll give you health insurance for the
two days it takes you to do this job. I'll provide a gym membership, free
coffee, and pay your taxes"

~~~
matz1
Its called analogy, not everything has to be the same.

In the case of plumber, the benefits for plumber to take the job is they get
to make money.

~~~
gregd
I'm saying the analogy in this case, doesn't work. Hiring a plumber,
carpenter, electrician on a per job basis is not the same as hiring an
employee (hopefully for a long-term commitment).

~~~
matz1
We are specifically talking about the case of hiding salary right ? How is it
different ?

~~~
palerdot
It is different that plumbing/carpenting et al are one time gigs. They just
walk away collecting their money once they put in their fixed hours. You will
not be able to call your plumber at midnight if you feel like some thing that
needs to be fixed.

Your analogy might work for short term contractors but not for a full time
employment, where essentially you are putting yourself at your employers
service virtually 24/7 with almost no extra pay while doing intangible (aka
knowledge) work where the employer might get 5x or 200x return out of your
work, but essentially you will just get almost linear pay raises (even
including performance bonuses).

You cannot compare a full time knowledge worker with a gig worker that does
tangible physical work.

------
pjdemers
As a hiring manager, I don't do that because it really does vary based on the
applicant. I have a set of people in mind for a role, with a range of skills
and experience. I may expand a junior role to mid level, or shrink a mid level
to junior, based on who I find. In smaller companies, the number of engineers
who just sit in a cube all day writing code in the same language is small.
There are all kinds of side tasks, everything from sales and support to
research and all kinds of sustaining work. How much I'm willing to pay is
based on which of those side tasks I can give to the new hire.

------
SkyPuncher
You might be able to find a small niche, like the remote work sites. You
wouldn't have any competitive advantage or lasting business though.

In general, salary disclosures don't lead to better outcomes. It's very hard
to communicate numbers appropriately. Too low, you're skipped by candidates.
Too high, you get candidates with no interest in the underlying business.

For many companies, Glassdoor is effective. I've found companies stating
"competitive" compensation are generally aware of the larger market and
compensate appropriately.

Most companies that pay terribly are pretty easy to pick out from their job
offerings.

------
pjc50
It's a two-sided market. Not showing salary range inhibits price discovery,
preventing developers from asking for their real worth. So companies tend to
reflexively hide it to give themselves an advantage.

------
officemonkey
Because once they select you, they immediately want to low-ball you.

Government Jobs are completely transparent in this regard. You know exactly
what you're going to make when you apply for the job.

------
pezo1919
I think engineers are worse negotiators than companies. That way companies
which want to gain on that can play the game.

------
ngneer
I remember going in for an interview not knowing the salary range that would
be on offer, but having at least an idea of my worth in the field. During the
interview, right after explaining the benefit I could bring to the company,
the most senior interviewer asked if I expect to be paid for that benefit. I
said of course, but that the salary depended on my contribution, something
best judged by the company. At the end of the interview, not pleased with not
having a number, the same interviewer asked if I am not willing to give a
number and I asked "would you want me to? I can" and that settled it. They
came back and I got the job, with a sensible salary. Of course it is in the
best interest of companies to have asymmetry of information, same as with car
dealers, but two can play that game. An a priori number could end up limiting
in both directions. Try to politely decline to give a number ahead of time and
see how much your skills are needed. If the company takes the number in a form
I try to write In Person or leave it blank. If the company does not contact
me, I sometimes wonder whether it was as a result of that, and then remind
myself that such inflexibility would not be a good trait for an employer to
have, so we were both spared.

------
nonidit
Simple: Because they want to get the cost as low as possible. Most employers
know exactly what they are willing to pay, but speculate on the developer
naming a lower number. There are few exceptions, like Berlin-based think-cell,
who openly name their salary offer on their website. I think they can do that
because they search for very few, very high-skilled developers - contrary to
many larger companies who have less strict hiring policies.

------
notkaiho
It's a two-way street. By not actively mentioning a salary on a job advert,
they can invite potential applicants to pitch themselves at a level they'd be
willing to do the work (the low end) all the way to what they'd like to get in
an ideal world (the high end).

Any efficiency gains from salary disclosure would be minor compared to the
"inefficiency" of the hiring process in totality.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
> By not actively mentioning a salary on a job advert, they can invite
> potential applicants to pitch themselves at a level they'd be willing to do
> the work (the low end) all the way to what they'd like to get in an ideal
> world (the high end).

That doesn't seem much like a two way street, that seems more like a blind
silent auction where lowest bidder wins. Naturally skills and experience come
into play in part, but if multiple people can meet the expectations of the
role, then they are bidding against each other. I'm not sure what the employee
gets out of it.

> Any efficiency gains from salary disclosure would be minor compared to the
> "inefficiency" of the hiring process in totality.

For the company possibly, but not for the employee. Being able to see what a
company is willing to pay would really help refine an employees search.

~~~
notkaiho
You seem to be convinced that companies do things for employees or candidates,
rather than for their own gain. ;)

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Let's just say I've yet to hear a compelling argument for the average
employee.

~~~
notkaiho
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I'm not trying to suggest unionization or a change in social order, but
there's an information disparity here that I have yet to hear a compelling
suggestion as to how it helps the employee - if it's a two way street, what
advantages does the employee get out of it?

~~~
notkaiho
Sorry, not a native English speaker. I realise I may have used "two-way
street" in the wrong way. It definitely provides advantages primarily for the
employer.

Maybe I should have called it a "two-pronged thing" or something.

------
_hao
Speaking for myself if a company doesn't list salary or a range it's less
likely for me to even apply. If recruiters and HR's push me to tell my current
salary or give expected salary and they're really pushy about it I just flat
out stop the exchange. They're waste of my time. If a company wants the right
person for the job then salary can be negotiated despite the fixed ranges
they've told the recruiter. If a company wants a code monkey then I'm
definitely not the right person for the job. If the reason between they want
to get me or not is 10k then I'm sorry, but I'm not working for you.

The current economical climate has already made it very hard to get a good
raise if you stay in the same company and be loyal. The only way to get a big
pay bump is to find another company that will pay you more from the get-go.
It's very sad that that's the current state of things.

------
tuckerpo
Whoever gives a number first loses leverage.

~~~
replyguy912
I hear this all the time and it's overly simplistic. Maybe if I give you a
single number that is my true desired value, yes. If I give you a range where
the low-end is 25% higher than that true value, I've now anchored discussion
at a much higher value and it will be hard for you to reset the anchor.

~~~
mathnmusic
But you've now increased the probability of them stopping the conversation
right-away. The higher anchor came at a cost. That's what loss of leverage is.

You want to know as much as you can about the other party, while revealing as
little as possible about yourself.

This is exactly what employers are also doing.

~~~
ativzzz
That's good though, if an employer is unwilling to meet your anchor then you
don't want to work there anyway so they save you time by pulling out early.

------
goldcd
Largest pay rise I ever got, was when my employer accidentally published the
"internal/official/never-published" salary for my role. Quick trip to HR
brandishing a print-out, and I got a 25% bump within the week.

Of course, that only worked as I was seemingly good at my job, and my employer
needed to get the head-count up. (and I might have muttered that if this got
out, I guessed they'd have a lot of disgruntled people)

Other reason they're kept hidden, is that (at least in my industry) a fair
number of positions are filled with specialist recruiters. They are made aware
of salary guidelines the employer is willing to pay and also have a rough idea
of what people on their books are wanting. They prove their value to employers
by filling interview sessions with the best people at the lowest cost.

------
stakkur
Because:

1\. Companies have no incentive or competitive advantage to do so

2\. Salary is a negotiation, and you don't hand the person you're negotiating
with information

3\. Companies can control pay variations amongst current and future employees.

Despite all this, some companies have chosen to be public about their salaries
(GitLab, for example).

Public institutions often have a legal requirement to establish and publish
salary ranges; for example, you can see the salary steps for GS-* ladder
employees, or the steps for a public school teacher.

Even if you did create an 'app' to circulate 'only-with-salary-disclosed'
jobs, I can't imagine more than a few companies wanting to participate. Why
should they? What concrete, guaranteed incentive could you offer them?

~~~
anon13949019014
(Going anon for privacy reasons here) To add some anecdata: GitLab definitely
deviates from the salaries they publicize at least in some cases.

I was reached out to about a role with #s that were way below market for my
area. At the time they did not have any employees in my state and advertised
one low-ish statewide salary.

When I mentioned the numbers were off-base for being in <one of the most
expensive areas in my state>, they were quick to bump the salary by something
like +50%.

Note that this was before doing any interviewing (though a GitLab recruiter
had reached out to me first).

------
pcmaffey
Not listing salary is a high indicator that the company will waste a
candidate’s time.

~~~
gregd
Exactly. This process needs to stop. I have never applied for a job where the
salary (or hourly) price wasn't listed up front. Why waste my time and why
should I waste yours?

------
mooreds
When you walk into a car dealership, do you announce "I want to pay $X for a
car"?

Or do you see what prices are, think about the options, make decisions based
on what your needs are, change your desires based on what is on the car lot?

Human beings aren't cars, but just like a car dealership is selling cars,
workers sell labor.

> With this in mind, how much value can a only-with-salary-disclosed-app
> bring?

I think that you might have a supply issue (employers listing jobs) but it'd
be interesting to try. I know of at least one employer who was so fed up with
salary mismatches that they started listing a range on their job listings.

------
matt_s
There is little advantage for a company to list the salary, ones that do
commonly state up to $high_figure for the right candidate. There are other
factors in total compensation though, benefits coverage, bonus, perks, etc.

As an applicant you could ask the recruiter/HR person what the salary range is
for the position so you're both not wasting each other's time.

~~~
gregd
Having to reach out to find the salary range, is already wasting time.

------
jonfw
Because often the salary isn't decided when they make the job opening, the
salary is decided when they make the offer.

At my company, for instance, there are a number of us who were hired at the
same time under the same position. But we have varying levels of
skill/experience, and our salaries can reflect that even though our title may
not

~~~
westoque
I agree but only to a certain degree, a fresh grad vs mid-level, then a mid-
level most certainly have a higher base salary. But for people applying for
the same position, salary reflects how good you are at negotiating on top of
your perceived value.

~~~
jonfw
Everybody on our team, minus leadership (10-15 years+ of experience) has the
same title and same level of 'seniority'. And our team hires people fresh out
of boot camp, and they also hire people working on their second master's
degree who have over 8 years of experience.

I certainly agree that salary doesn't perfectly reflect perceived value, but
when perceived value can range from 70k to 170k there is a very significant
correlation

------
cushychicken
Probably to drive sign-ups on their platform by job seekers. It's a metric
that they can show to investors that their business is providing a valuable
service.

------
sharemywin
I've always used a recruiter. They call me about a job. they usually ask me
about pay. I say I want to make this. they can either get it done or not.

------
gregd
Why bother applying for jobs that don't list salary? The whole notion that
it's a bargaining tool bothers me to no end. I'm not going to bother applying
for a job that doesn't list their salary upfront.

Listing the salary allows me to decide that I really want to work for that
company, the salary is within my budget, and that I'd like to apply. All
without bothering anyone else or wasting my time (or that companies time).

------
SecurityMinded
Companies may not want to people who are only after the money, but they also
do not ant to pay more than the absolute minimum for the workforce, they can
get away with.

Say you are working at company A for $100K/yr for position X. Along comes
company B, which needs to fill a Position A which you perfectly fit in. And
assume they can pay $150K/yr to fill this position. But if you are like any
average employee, a 10-15% increase in your salary can and will make you jump
ship.

So, if they announce $150K/yr compensation on the kb listing, your brain will
switch to 50% increase mode and knowing that you can get this much from them,
you will most probably not settle for something less. On the other hand, let's
assume the salary is not in the job listing and you get to the interview and
asked the dreaded question, "What is your expectation of a yearly compensation
for this position?" I am sure you will dance around a bit saying things like
"Market rate" or "I am sure you will pay me in accordance with industry norms"
etc. but when the push comes to the shove, you will give them a figure like
$120K, a 20% increase if you will, on your current salary, to give yourself a
wiggle room. And if they are like any average employer, they will low-ball you
a bit to see what you are amenable to and come back with something like $116K.
You are happy that you've got 16% raise while 10% would suffice you to jump
ship. The new employer saved $34K/yr on you. Only you by the way and this
practice can be multiplied many, many times, ending up with a huge chunk of
change.

On the flip side, let's assume you were making $160K at your current position
and you came to the interview to wrangle say, a $175K salary. When you say
that, first they will dismiss your candidacy and look for someone cheaper.
Failing to find this person, they know they can come back to you and say, yes
we are willing to pay you $170K/yr, knowing your price. All they have lost is
a few days or weeks in the process.

It is like the prostitute story: The guy sees a pretty woman at the bar.He
approaches her and says,

"I will pay you a million dollars if you have sex with me tonight"

Woman thinks for a moment and says "yes".

The man turns around thinks for a minute and says

"How about $100?"

Woman frowns and feels insulted. Comes back saying

"what are you thinking? I am a whore or something?"

The guy answers.

"We established that fact that you are a whore. I am just trying to figure out
your price"

Negotiating for a job is just that and as a company you do not want to trap
yourself in a corner.

