Ask HN: Why don't tech job listings include compensation ranges? - surrey-fringe
======
codegeek
I hate this to the point that I just want to start a job listing site where
mentioning a salary range is required to list. There is no excuse for it. I
can understand that you may want to keep a range depending on certain
skills/experience but if you cannot provide a ballpark range, you should not
list a job position. Plain and Simple.

On a similar note, kudos to employers who list a salary range specially in the
whoishiring posts. I always upvote every post that lists a salary range.

~~~
blibble
if you banned "competitive salary" they'd simply exaggerate the figure, then
at the negotiation stage state "oh we say that to attract people"

been there before... wasn't happy

~~~
jenno
Maybe whoever creates a site that requires compensation numbers will also
allow applicants to leave feedback on the employers to reduce chances of that
happening. (I can only hope!)

------
mattyb678
StackOverflow had a blog post about how posting compensation ranges
dramatically increases click-through rates of job postings
([https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/07/27/salary-
transparency/](https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/07/27/salary-transparency/))

~~~
justboxing
Not trying to hijack the conversation, but how useful is a very large salary
range anyways? Example: In almost all the salary range jobs I've seen on SO,
the difference between low and high end is anywhere from 30% to 50%. Even in
the examples quoted in the blog post above, the 2 ranges shown are 85K to 120K
and 100K to 135K.

As a job seeker, even if you do click through to see the job, what are you
thinking you'll be able to get? In my case, I look only at the higher range,
and if it's anywhere close to what I desire or expect, only then I click it. I
completely ignore the lower range.

By that notion, isn't such a large range meaningless? Shouldn't the salary
transparency be represented as just 1 number with a +/\- %age and a note on
what will allow for a + and what will account for a -.

Ex: For the 2 examples - 100K +/\- 15% based on experience, 115K +/\- 15%
based on skillsets.

~~~
Hnrobert42
Why do you ignore the lower range. I would think you would want to apply for
jobs with the highest lower range for which you qualify. The company will
think it is getting you cheap. You will be more sure of getting an acceptable
offer. If you get the job, you'll have plenty of room for raises. That's just
my assessment, so I am curious about yours.

~~~
justboxing
> Why do you ignore the lower range.

Because, partly from experience (hiring for companies I worked for) I know
that it's a lot harder for the companies to find qualified experienced
candidates to fill positions, so when they put out a range, they are telling
the candidate what the maximum base it is that they are willing to pay.

So as a candidate, I only look at the higher number knowing that's what I am
going to ask for, and if they really like my skills and experience, that they
will most likely honor my request / demand.

Also, in case it wasn't apparent, I am in San Francisco, so I think candidates
in general in this area have more leverage, but you are right, it may not
always be the case in less "tech companies saturated" areas like say, Idaho or
someplace else. YMMV.

EDIT: See @fecak's answer, recruiter for 20 years who also says that "The high
number is the only thing many candidates hear"

------
warrenm
Oftentimes, it's because the company doesn't want to show their hand.

But also it's because "compensation" is far more than "salary" \- which seems
to be what this question is really about.

They say that the first to say a number is at the disadvantage. Yet
nontransparency can be even worse in compensation negotiation.

>"salary is only a small portion of compensation. Let’s say you and I both
make $5000 a month ($60000 a year – make the math easy). But you have 2 weeks
of vacation, and I have 4. But I took the lower-deductible insurance option,
and you took the higher. Which one of us is bringing home more per month? Who
cares! My individual desires and needs are, apparently, being met on my
package, and yours are with yours."
([https://antipaucity.com/2013/05/21/publicizing-
compensation-...](https://antipaucity.com/2013/05/21/publicizing-compensation-
why-not/#.WYIlxNMrLgo))

I've written about this a few times on my blog and on Quora.

In short, "your" $90k and "my" $80k are different for more than just the
money. Maybe I have more vacation, or better 401(k) contributions, or any of a
number of other factors.

It would be great if employers would list their vectors of compensation in
their first offer to you ([https://antipaucity.com/2013/03/25/what-to-offer-
to-be-the-b...](https://antipaucity.com/2013/03/25/what-to-offer-to-be-the-
best-possible-employer-ever/#.WYIlydMrLgo)) - but what I get offered, and what
you get offered for the same position will probably be different: our
experience is different, so our value to the company will be different.

~~~
codegeek
I agree that compensation is more than just salary BUT that is the starting
point. I don't want to play the "benefits" game until I know a minimum number
that you are even willing to entertain. Remember, even benefits are seen
differently by different people. When I was young, I could not care less about
benefits as I just wanted as much cash as possible. As I got older, benefits
like vacation days etc. started becoming more important. But again, before we
even get to all this, tell me the damn range.

------
fecak
From 20 years of recruiting, two reasons.

1 - The high number is the only thing many candidates hear, which can lead to
lost deals even when the offer is fair. Tell a candidate the range is 110 -
130K. Even if the candidate is "worth" 110K, an offer at 110 feels like a
slight to him/her, as if he's left money on the table.

If there had been no range given in this case, the candidate might not have
had the negative emotional response to the offer.

2 - There isn't a range because the company would be willing to accept a range
of candidates, and a range of salary would not be useful. If you're willing to
consider 2-7 years of experience, it's not all that useful to list 60-120K as
a salary range.

Most of my clients never gave me a range.

~~~
justboxing
> Most of my clients never gave me a range.

Curious.

1) Approximately what %age of your clients gave you salary info?

2) In cases where they provided salary info, was it a range, or a fixed
number, or a fixed number with "Negotiable" or something else?

Your answer will help me with my niche job board.

Thanks in advance!

~~~
fecak
I worked mostly with startups on the east coast if that helps (Philly market,
some NYC). 1 - Maybe 20% gave an actual range. 2 - A mix. Most that did give
numbers gave a ceiling. If I was dealing with a CTO, it might have been in the
context of 'we're not going to pay more than n, because that's about what I
make'.

Part of the reason I didn't get ranges was probably because my clients trusted
that I knew the market, so if candidates were priced appropriately they were
typically open to seeing them. I imagine junior recruiters probably got ranges
from companies (and perhaps even the same companies I worked with) more than I
did. I could be wrong.

Good luck with your venture, feel free to reach out directly.

------
potatolicious
Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered
candidate ahead of time.

This depends on a few things, but the main points here are that:

1 - The company is willing to hire a range of skill levels and qualifications
for this position, and the compensation will vary depending on the actual
qualifications of the candidate.

The company might set out looking for say, a generalist senior engineer, but
end up interviewing a machine learning expert. Alternatively, the company
posts a listing for a senior engineer but end up deciding that they need
someone more junior.

In both cases stating a compensation range upfront will cause difficulties -
the domain expert is dissuaded from applying because the range seems low, and
the junior has an acrimonious negotiation because the stated range is above
what they are being offered.

There is always a lot of uncertainty when companies set out to hire, and
companies very often end up hiring someone different than the initial job
posting's description.

This is the nice-sounding and reasonable-sounding reason, here's the less-nice
reason that is also true:

2 - Tech employees _suck_ at negotiating. For two people of equal skill, one
may accept a quarter the compensation of another - this is not an
exaggeration. I've seen engineers making $70k a year while their peer at the
same employer makes $250k, without a significant ability gap.

The company doesn't want to pay someone more than they have to, so in a market
where a _large_ percentage of employees have no idea how to negotiate,
obfuscation around compensation is an advantage to the company.

This is true even on HN - every time compensation/salary threads come up
people continually are shocked that there are thousands, if not tens of
thousands, of generalist senior engineers making $300k+ at major companies all
over the industry.

~~~
justboxing
> Mainly because the company doesn't know how much it wants to pay the offered
> candidate ahead of time.

Not true in all cases. In fact many big corporations and tech firms have
specific roles slotted into specific tier, and each tier / job title has a
very specific salary range. I once tried to negotiate my base at an IT shop
(IT Division of Large Bank) and was shown an HR document that had various
tiers and the low and high end of salary ranges. I thought I was getting
stifled, but found out it was common knowledge within the company and was
posted on the intranet (as I later discovered once I joined the company).

So when these corps put out a job listing, their HR and Hiring manager knows
well ahead of time what is the max they are willing to pay as base salary
(excluding other "benefits", 401K match etc which is standard across the
board, with little difference again based on your tier / title) and in 9 out
of 10 cases, they won't budge from that range.

Just that most such corps also go through recruiters and middle-men to do the
hiring and these middle-men mostly withold the information and not tell you
till the very end, when, like someone else has mentioned here, the candidate
has invested a lot of time and efforts in the process and will likely accept a
base salary at the lower end of the said salary range for the job title /
tier.

~~~
potatolicious
> _" many big corporations and tech firms have specific roles slotted into
> specific tier, and each tier / job title has a very specific salary range"_

Even these cases are highly variable, because companies often end up hiring
someone into a different role or tier than the specific job they applied to.

You applied to a Tier 5 job with Team A, but upon interviewing they decide
your skillset is that of a Tier 4, and Team B has an opening for a Tier 4. A
premature statement of salary range here will simply compromise your ability
to close the candidate, who is expecting Tier 5 pay.

Heck, even singular job reqs frequently change levels depending on interview.
You post a job for a Tier 5, but the person interviewing winds up assessed at
Tier 6 - the hiring manager does some maneuvering to raise the tier of the
position to close the deal. This happens daily.

The compensation is _always_ negotiable. Wrapping compensation around strict
tiers is a common practice in BigCo, yes, but that doesn't stop people from
negotiating. Instead of "I need $150k", it's now "I need this position to be a
Tier 5".

Companies may claim that their postings are tier-locked, but that is
practically never actually the case.

------
muzani
This is especially useful in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. There was
this company with really poor reviews on Glassdoor - most the negative reviews
were low salary.

I practically canceled the interview on reading these reviews. I went to the
interview to probe them on salary, which they brushed off and said there were
two more stages of interview. This seems like a lot of hassle just to get to a
stage where I'd possibly turn it down, so I goofed around in the interview to
get rejected.

A few years later, this company publishes salary range on job posts.

They paid above average salaries for the country, great purchasing power. But
most of their hires were Europeans, who got comparatively very low salaries.
Basically they just screwed themselves by obscuring the salary, because they
weren't meeting expectations for some people, even though they were already
paying above expectations for others.

------
maxxxxx
It frustrates the hell out of me how long it takes to get an actual number
which is often unacceptable. Big waste of time for both sides. The only
rationale I can see behind this is that a lot of applicants will accept a low
salary after investing a lot of time into the process.

~~~
nunez
This is why it is helpful at the beginning of the interview process (at the
recruiter stage) to make your minimum ask known. That's usually around the
time where they ask for your salary.

Your response should be something like:

"I'm not comfortable/allowed/whatever-excuse-adjective-you-want with/to
disclosing my salary, but I want to make $x. Is this sensible?"

(Disclosing your salary gives the recruiter implicit permission to low ball
you.)

If they say no, you walk.

If they say yes and then rescind at the offer stage, you DEFINITELY walk.
They'll likely come back to negotiate at that point because letting a
candidate with an offer walk is money left on the table for that recruiter.

~~~
maxxxxx
"If they say no, you walk."

From my experience a lot of companies will agree to the desired range but
later still make a much lower offer. I have made it a rule to walk but it's
still a lot of wasted time.

------
skookum
A big reason that A-list tech companies don't post ranges is that from the
company perspective it's a no-win situation:

\- if the ranges honestly reflect how high the company is willing to go,
existing employees making well short of the tops of those ranges are likely to
become disgruntled when they realize some of their co-workers are making
significantly more for the same work.

\- if the the ranges are toned-down so as to not enflame the current
employees, they are likely to be scoffed at by golden-handcuffed candidates
from other A-list companies.

~~~
xxSparkleSxx
Caveat: It's only a no-win situation because workers will waste their time
sending resumes, interviewing, etc before learning the salary range.

------
woodpanel
Because being hired is a modern form minionism. You give someone a big chunk
of your lifetime at a flat-rate price, while he has to continuously check
whether employing you is worth it. Taking that prerequisite as starting point
for a journey advertised as "let's work together" by both sides comes at a
price: honesty.

An employer will have a compensation range in place before hiring. Before even
thinking about it (Projects rather are x-ed or delayed into next year than
exceeding that range).

Its tempting to have by chance some applicants demanding even less. Lowered
pay expectations out of lack of knowledge are a main driver for non-
disclosure.

Therefore it may be helpful to realize a moral compass among developers: not
just don't apply there, but make it publicly shameful to even try to lure
other developers into it.

But: Hiring is time consuming. And a process which you want to pass smoothly.
And even more important: finishing it. Upfront transparency takes away the
upper hand you may need when things get out of hand. Like when choice#1
applicant lied about how he'd love to work at your company and walks off in
the middle of your process.

If an employer names a range, all applicants would be demoralized if they
don't reach its upper end. Probably expecting to reach that pay-grade sooner
or later, somewhere else if need be.

Also applicants are different in skill level and almost always applicants will
either exceed or undershoot in certain job qualifications. Qualifications that
are prioritized. Your applicants are mixed bags, your job offering is. Having
the ability to ponder while not aggravating them makes intransparency
reasonable.

As a compromise: Why just not make the lower end of that range public?

~~~
xxSparkleSxx
>If an employer names a range, all applicants would be demoralized if they
don't reach its upper end. Probably expecting to reach that pay-grade sooner
or later, somewhere else if need be.

I don't know how much I believe this. It sounds like common-sense, but when I
think about it and my own experiences this has not been the case. When last
interviewing for a job, I took the lowest pay of the three offers I had.
Company is small and cash-strapped and I happily signed on knowing I'm "worth
more."

Further, they were looking for a more experienced dev than I, but they were
lucky to afford me. Had they said, we have 10k more we were prepared to offer
someone more experienced but you are not at that level. I can't see my
disposition changing towards the company one iota.

Transparency makes me trust a company more, not less. I don't think I would
feel more demoralized by a company for being honest with me. Additionally, how
many people have walked away from salary negotiations wondering if they should
have pushed for more?

On average I can't see changing the way this works being anymore demoralizing
for the employee. In fact I think (on average) it would be less demoralizing
and instill greater loyalty and good-will in employees.

~~~
woodpanel
I agree. I've should have said

If an employer names a range, _many_ applicants would be demoralized if they
don't reach its upper end.

------
RealityNow
Because they don't have to because (contrary to popular belief) it's an
employer's market.

I created [http://www.ceilingbuster.com/](http://www.ceilingbuster.com/) to
try to remedy this, but I never wrote a script to automatically scrape
listings and thus it hasn't been updated in months

------
DrScump
Do you include your compensation histories on your resume/CV?

That said, public-sector positions often do state ranges (In the USA, anyway).

~~~
danso
Salary ranges for public employees -- and in most cases, actual salaries --
are public record.

For example, the federal wage schedule and pay tables:
[https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-
leave/salaries...](https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-
leave/salaries-wages/)

Salaries of every public California employee:
[http://transparentcalifornia.com/](http://transparentcalifornia.com/)

edit: forgot to preface it with "public employees"

~~~
trcollinson
That's a bit of an overstatement, at least in the US. Most employees don't
work for a public entity and therefore their salaries and ranges are not in
any way public record. I would say I could find the salary info of zero of my
friends, family, and coworkers in the public record.

~~~
danso
Oops, I was referring to "public-sector" as in the parent comment's reference.

------
scarface74
Lack of salary ranges up front is the main reason I only work through
recruiters. Recruiters always know the salary and if you tell them your
minimum salary requirements they won't bother you with jobs that are below
that range.

Yes I know a lot of non scummy recruiters. I only deal with local recruiters
and I form relationships with them before I'm actively looking.

------
nunez
Because:

\- companies like a good discount and, on the whole, engineers are terrible
negotiators,

\- you'll get WAY more shittier candidates looking for that green, and

\- Compensation != salary, so $200k comp + equity can mean a lot of things
(for example)

Personally, I like playing salary poker. You can win big if you aren't afraid
of walking or awkward situations.

------
mcone
Negotiation is a huge part of it. Patio11 wrote a great blog post on this
several years ago: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-
negotiation/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/)

------
jdlyga
A lot of good jobs include this type of info now, but it would be better if
more did. I don't want to waste my time and yours.

------
taway_1212
Interestingly, in the UK it's standard to give compensation ranges. Just check
out jobserve.co.uk for example.

------
uladzislau
At least you can dig some info on Glassdoor, Indeed and LinkedIn salaries. And
I find it's pretty accurate.

------
bsvalley
They actually all do. Linkedin (you need a premium account), glassdoor,
stackoverflow, hired.com, etc.

------
gaius
Giving away information to competition I expect

~~~
skookum
I'm quite certain the competition see enough of each other's competing offers
to have a very precise and up-to-date view into what each other are paying. At
least this holds true for the Amazon/Facebook/Google/Microsoft musical chairs
party as well as other companies vying for that candidate pool. The attempt at
obfuscating the market rates is mainly in support of low-balling candidates.

------
olegkikin
Whoever calls the number first, loses. If a company is willing to pay X, but a
candidate is willing to work for X-10, he will still happily take X.

