
High Salaries Haunt Some Job Hunters - kliao
http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-salaries-haunt-some-job-hunters-1454634475
======
pmoriarty
"Time and again, he says, employers seem to lose interest after he answers a
question that they ask early on: 'What was your last salary?'"

I never answer that question.

Almost always it's been recruiters asking that (and only some recruiters, the
less reputable ones).

This is a seller's market for IT talent. You don't have to give in to bullying
tactics to get a good job. I've had to walk away exactly once when a recruiter
wouldn't accept that I wasn't going to tell him my previous salary and refused
to work with me on that basis. The other recruiters who've asked accepted my
refusal to reveal that information. They're generally more interested in
getting paid for recruiting you than in finding out what you used to be paid.

I also never reveal the salary I'm looking for and insist on doing my own
salary negotiations with the employer. I let the employer make an offer they
think is reasonable and go from there.

You do have to be willing to walk away in the handful of times when this leads
to an impasse. Fortunately, the way the IT job market is right now, there are
plenty of other fish in the pond, and not showing your hand prematurely puts
you in a much stronger negotiating position.

~~~
tossaway1
As someone who's regularly on the other side of the hiring (i.e. negotiating
with candidates), I often prefer to have some insight into a candidate's rough
salary requirements early in the process -- especially if it's someone that
might demand more than I could offer. The hiring process is a huge time
commitment for both me and the candidate -- I don't want all that time to be
wasted if we could identify early on that it's not going to be a good fit.

I wouldn't necessarily walk away from a candidate who wouldn't share
approximate salary requirements early on in the process but it would probably
be an added red flag if it was someone where I already had this concern.

~~~
pmoriarty
So just tell the candidate what the salary range for the position is. If that
number's a dealbreaker for them, they'll let you know. Why does it always have
to be the candidate who shows their cards first?

Personally, for me there are no salary-based dealbreakers. There's always room
for negotiation, after both sides determine there's a good fit.

~~~
EvanPlaice
Consider that recruiters also have to justify their own existence. From a
business perspective, their position is a sunk cost. If they can't signal to
their employer that their work is gaining the business something above and
beyond just doing their day-to-day job then there's no chance of advancement.

They also dislike candidates that show proficiency in business for a few
reasons.

First, the candidate is more likely to move on for a better opportunity.

Second, people with a business background like to 'shake things up' and head
in new directions looking to maximize the potential of a company. Considering
that HR's other primary responsibility is protecting the business from legal
action, it's in their best interest to choose candidates who will stay on the
straight and narrow and not shake things up.

Third, business types ignore the 'gatekeepers' and take action on their own.
They may make a groundbreaking decision that takes the business in a new and
more profitable direction. Unfortunately for HR, it's hard to ride on the back
of an accomplishment that they weren't aware of to begin with. Worse yet, that
same type of personality may have the potential to climb up the chain to a
level where they're the boss of the HR person one day.

They aggressively select for 'code monkeys' because code monkeys do what their
told, don't have enough soft skills to be a threat, suck at negotiation, and
are too busy nerding out to look for something better.

~~~
pyre
How does HR "ride on the back of an accomplishment?" For example, if a sales
team hits their sales goals how is it that HR would get credit for this? Are
you grouping "management" under the umbrella of HR?

------
ChuckMcM
I expect there is more than one factor at work here.

I've known folks who "grew up" in a single company; joined out of college,
worked there 15+ years, got annual raises, then got laid off and then couldn't
find work at their previous salary. And the expectation of an annual raise
kept forcing up their salary but I don't think the company was actually
evaluating whether or not the person was getting more valuable over time.

I once had an interesting conversation with a recruiter who wanted me to pony
up my current compensation. I asked, "Why is that relevant? You are the one
with the job, and you are willing to pay some amount for someone to do that
job, isn't it up to me to decide if I would be willing to do that job at the
price offered?" There are jobs I would do for free, and jobs that you almost
couldn't pay me enough to take, and that has nothing at all to do with what
I'm currently being paid.

And if someone insists, I really do think they are looking to have something
on paper that they can point to which will give them a safe "out" for hiring
someone else while minimizing lawsuits. So much safer than "we are looking for
someone who has more time to spend in this position", or "we were really
hoping for a masculine point of view", or "we don't think you could relate
culturally to our customers." All of which would violate the equal opportunity
guidelines.

~~~
biot
Both sides are interested in getting a price and, ultimately, it's the person
in the weaker position who ends up revealing theirs. Imagine the roof of your
house was getting old and started to leak, so you figure it's time to replace
it. Upon contacting a roofing company and inquiring what it would cost, they
say "You're the one who wants a new roof and are willing to pay for that being
done, so you should be offering a price. How much is having a dry roof over
your family's head and preserving your home's value by avoiding water damage
worth to you? What's the current value of your home? Perhaps we can work on a
percentage basis since we're protecting your investment for the next 20
years." Of course, you wouldn't accept such an "enterprise sales" tactic
because they're in the weaker position (fairly close to being a commodity) and
you have dozens of qualified choices so you'll insist they reveal their hand.

A job situation is no different. If it's a role requiring only "commodity"
experience which dozens of qualified candidates are available for and wanting,
they're going to pick the best combination of price and performance that they
can find. If you have special talents that only you are uniquely suited for,
you're the one who will be asking them about their offer.

~~~
ChuckMcM
True, in the article the people are looking for jobs as opposed to being cold
called / emailed by a recruiter. As an employer one of the things I liked
about hired.com was that you could put out there the salary you were willing
to pay for the position and that got that out of the way right away.

------
cushychicken
The moral of the story: never, never, NEVER answer questions about your salary
to a recruiter. It firmly pigeonholes your next salary to your current one,
instead of the value you bring to a company.

Patrick MacKenzie's article on salary negotiations is excellent (I would maybe
even say "required") reading on the subject.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Recruiter here. I think: "The moral of the story: never, never, NEVER answer
questions about your salary to a recruiter." is pretty simplistic and naive.
You simply have to figure out how to get what you want. If you want 180 and
currently make 140 and a recruiter asks what you make, just say something like
"my expectation for my next role is around 180". You say that and you both
probably get what you want and save a lot of back and forth.

~~~
pc86
Not a recruiter but I've gotten all but my current job through recruiters.

I think the quoted moral still applies - you obviously _have_ to disclose what
you want to earn if you expect to actually earn that. However, what I made at
my last job had zero bearing on my expected salary at my current job. If a
recruiter is just trying to find out what I want, they can ask. However, I
think more often than not they're getting paid on the spread and if they can
place me in a job with a cap of $180 for $150, they'll do so and pocket
whatever their percentage of the spread is.[0]

[0] I know this isn't how all recruiters are paid, but many are.

~~~
ryguytilidie
While I'm mostly an internal recruiting manager, I've signed a lot of these
deals and have a lot of recruiter friends and know their general contract
structure. I do not know of anyone and have never seen a recruiter
compensation package where they were paid on spread. That just seems like an
incentive to hire someone other than the best person for the job. Seems really
strange to me.

~~~
pc86
As recently as 2010 Aerotek paid their recruiters exclusively on a percentage
of spread.

------
skewart
"Say, ‘I’m open to a salary commensurate with the job,” recommended Blake
Nations, a former recruiter who was laid off and then founded
Over50JobBoard.com. “And if they keep going, ask: ‘What do you expect to pay
someone with my experience and education for this position?'"

This. If you're asked early on just flip the question back to them.

Companies don't publish salaries for jobs because they're afraid of turning
people off from applying to the job in the first place. They know applicants
are more likely to take a lower offer after they've invested time into the
process and maybe have a little rapport with the interviewers. You can use the
exact same strategy as a job seeker. Companies can be more likely to accept a
higher ask after they've put resources into interviewing you and gotten to
know you a bit.

That said, an honest chat about expectations early on - where the hirer says
roughly how much they're looking to pay and asks if it's something you'd be
interested in - can be a really nice way to save everyone's time.

~~~
gohrt
That advice doesn't apply at all when you are going through a recruiter who is
or plays dumb: "I just need you to fill in this form so we can proceed. [I
don't care if if makes you mistrust me and management, and you come in on Day
1 suspicious and with low morale]" Big companies, at least, have a relatively
streamlined process to tilt the negotiations in their favor as much as they
can systemically.

~~~
pmoriarty
I fill out those forms but leave that field empty. If they have a problem with
that, I'll find another recruiter. There's no shortage of them around.

As for big companies, I've never had any of them even notice that I didn't
fill in that field. So that's never been an issue.

------
pc86
> _After more than 20 years as an electronics engineer, Pete Edwards reached
> the low six-figure pay level._

Where is it that late-career engineers are barely pulling in six figures?
Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of money (3x mean personal income in the US,
and ~1.75x mean HHI, give or take), but I'd expect most senior folks in any
engineering field to be in the mid 100k range if not pushing 185ish.

> _Time and again, he says, employers seem to lose interest after he answers a
> question that they ask early on: “What was your last salary?”_

Your last salary has absolutely no bearing on what you are worth or what the
market rate is for the position for which you're applying. You have absolutely
nothing to gain by sharing a previous salary.

> _A survey by AARP last year found that of job seekers between 45 and 70
> years old who found work after a spell of unemployment, nearly half earned
> less than before._

I don't think this is that surprising, is it? If I make $100k and lose my job,
often with little notice, I will take $80k. If I make $100k and leave of my
own volition, it's unlikely I'll entertain anything below $110 or $115.

~~~
Spooky23
At 45 you become untouchable. Too old to be young, too young to be old. How
many 50 year olds do you see in SV companies?

I knew a guy who was about 50, brilliant, brilliant engineer working for one
of the big IT players. Well respected and trusted advisor to many customers.
He got vaporized in some big restructuring that hit his division.

Because of non-compete and what he did, he was basically out of work for
almost a year, and was stuck in career purgatory for a few years doing random
contract work.

~~~
greggarious
I don't understand - I thought non-competes were unenforceable in CA?

~~~
ghaff
Wasn't clear in the CA and the non-compete parts of that comment were
connected.

However, in any case, the reality is that for small companies, for all but the
most senior and/or desired employees (and even then), a potential non-compete
issue just isn't worth dealing with. Doesn't matter whether it would
ultimately lose in court, you're just not prepared to go there. That's the
real issue with non-competes.

I've worked for a small firm and a candidate with even the most peripheral
non-compete was just a non-starter.

------
vinceguidry
I have been thinking about this phenomenon for awhile and how to hedge against
it. My feeling is that employees are getting more and more exposed to broader
economic trends, and not just the low-wage workers.

It's one thing to be at the low end of the totem pole, where anonymity and
insecurity force you to hedge against the possibility of suddenly losing your
job. But once you clear all that and find a bit of professional success,
you're still not necessarily secure.

So you have to extend this hedging behavior further out. Keep building your
skills, expand into other fields so that you are more employable. Complacency
will put you into this position eventually, it's just a matter of time.

Don't leave a secure position to take one with more earning potential but less
security. Constantly keep building bridges at your current job and don't give
them a reason to fire you.

Above all, try not to hate your job. You may find 5 years down the road that
it was the best thing you had going for you. As nasty as the work world can
get, it's better than not working.

~~~
Riod
That's rather depressing to hear. I think it is a question of how you rate
yourself (objectively). If you're good, you can go on to found the biggest
hedge fund of all time (Bridgewater). If not, then yea, I think yours is the
way to go.

~~~
vinceguidry
Eh, I wouldn't look at it that way. Avoiding complacency and building bridges
is just as important for those with healthy egos as it is for those with weak
ones.

------
hackercomplex
In my view the entire problem is that developers in general have been
brainwashed into beliving that they are better off dealing with recruiters
when in fact the best thing they could do for themselves would be to do their
homework, that is, research companies that are hiring, figure out who to
contact, and write a personalized introduction email.

If you do that then you have two things in your favor already..

1\. you are cheaper to hire because there are no recruitment feeds associated
with you.

2\. you showed some initiative to zero them out, and you demonstrated that you
have creative writing skills which are an important trait in software
development

~~~
city41
These are the bread and butter tactics of What Color Is Your Parachute. Still
a relevant book, even in the tech industry IMO.

------
OhHeyItsE
Finding engineers is soooo hard! There are no good engineers!

~~~
mooreds
Translation: "There are no good engineers who will work for the price I'm
willing to pay, either in terms of initial dollars or time to retrain."

As the realtors I worked with used to say about houses, "there's no problem
that price won't fix", and that works for labor as well as real estate.

------
free2rhyme214
This is a surprise, said no one ever.

Sometimes companies will pay for experience but often they'll hire someone
younger who screws up more because they cost less.

~~~
y-c-o-m-b
They might think it costs less, but I argue that's misleading. You need to
factor in the mistakes, the longer training, slower adaptation, inefficiency,
and a client's growing dissatisfaction with the product because of it all.

~~~
free2rhyme214
I don't think it's misleading. Companies know mistakes cost money and
experience doesn't always associate with better productivity.

~~~
iolothebard
Most companies don't have a inkling of how to actually measure productivity.

~~~
mooreds
To be fair, neither do most employees. It's a hard problem.

------
y-c-o-m-b
Companies that hire like this will typically be the first to layoff employees
when shareholders are not happy. They often struggle to meet customer
expectations over time. This is particularly true if they have never ending
layers of management going up the chain. That's why startup culture is so
appealing to many.

~~~
mywittyname
If you buy at Walmart prices, expect Walmart quality.

------
marktangotango
I recently found myself in a stale role, and hence I've been job searching
lately, so I have recent experience. From my anecdotal experience, the local
job market is hot for my skill set, so I'm looking for a 10% raise. I've
gotten 3 offers from 3 companies. Two would not come up to my required salary
so I walked. The third came up, but it was a W2 at a contracting shop, and
wasn't too appealing for a couple of reasons. So I passed on that as well. I
still get pinged multiple times per week, sometimes for the same job at the
same company I've already turned down, which I find a bit amusing.

Now I'm continueing the search, but openly talk about what I'm looking for
salary wise, I've wasted quiet a lot of my own time this past month.

------
njharman
Moving from engineer in financial industry to engineer in "regular" industry
(same city) I just accepted and told potential employers I expected a pay cut.
Sooo much money in finance, everyone is "over" paid.

~~~
votr
I'm in finance and looking to get out. Why did you move?

~~~
njharman
Nothing to do with industry. I was in a more or less dead end devops role. I
wanted more of a pure programming role.

------
lmm
The tendency to talk about salary upfront is a good one for both sides - it
avoids wasting everyone's time when the expectations simply don't align.

It does need to be mutual though. I expect employers to include some salary
guidance in a job ad. And if they claim to offer market rates, I expect them
to live up to that.

~~~
mhurron
> It does need to be mutual though.

No it doesn't. The hiring company needs to be upfront, but the candidate
doesn't. The company has a budget range set for the position whereas the
candidate is asking the question 'Am I willing to do this job for the money
they are offering me.'

~~~
lmm
Disagree. Most of the time the company could in fact pay 2x what they thought
was the top of their range for an exceptional candidate. It's a rare candidate
who's in a position to take an exceptional job for 1/2 what they thought was
the bottom of their range.

------
throwaway29342
I did something sort of crazy when the last recruiter asked me about my
salary. I lied.

The number I told him I was being paid at the time was actually the number it
would take for me to leave my job. He came back with an offer that was
slightly higher than that and I accepted.

Perhaps that's not the best idea?

------
alvern
Sigh, paywall

~~~
xlm1717
Click the web link below the title, then click the story in the google
results. Pay wall goes down.

~~~
scottshepard
Actually it doesn't. WSJ seems to have closed the google loophole.

~~~
xlm1717
That's weird, worked for me.

~~~
DrScump
Your WSJ cookies don't reflect enough prior access or were cleared.

------
gizi
I am only ever in the market for co-founder jobs, and not really looking at
the moment, because I really like my current co-founder job. Besides good
domain knowledge, and preferably an existing customer base, the non-technical
co-founder will need to find enough money for the startup to survive until the
inflection point. Otherwise, they are 12 in a dozen. If a potential non-
technical co-founder wants to save money by not paying enough, it is quite
easy to cut the discussion short and to move on to another candidate -- entire
websites full of them. There is really no shortage there. Lather, rinse,
repeat. Salary history? Sounds like a ridiculous concept. I don't even
remember my previous salaries.

------
sqldba
Wow, madness. So before we were told not to ask the question in interviews;
but suddenly it's ok to be asked the question in interviews.

For me it's definitely negotiable. If you can't afford me then after
negotiation then any gulf can be made up with a guaranteed longer contract or
shorter hours; it's as simple as that.

Disqualifying off the bat is stupid, especially as some places pay extra
because they need someone urgently for a short period.

------
pjungwir
Interesting discussion here about whether candidates and companies should
reveal their range up front. Personally I would not quit freelancing except
for something really exceptional, so I lean toward talking numbers
immediately. That saves my time, but I feel like it's actually pretty
unreasonable. In the freelancing world, we suffer from a "market for lemons"
situation where the bad freelancers hurt everyone's rates. To charge a premium
rate you need prospects to trust you a priori, which probably means referrals.
I suppose candidates for full-time jobs suffer the same thing: asking for an
"unrealistic" salary at the beginning of the process, when you are an unknown,
just gets you thrown out. I suppose the way around this is to have an insider
who will vouch for you. Any other advice on being able to ask for a high
salary and not be dismissed?

~~~
Eridrus
I think it's more about company margins/culture than it is about them not
dismissing you.

Some companies are willing to pay top dollar, others are more interested in
getting someone in their range, so name your price and move on if they blink.

------
learnstats2
“I’m unemployable now as a result of getting to the top of the tree”

This shows a lack of understanding of the market and poor self-awareness for
someone who claims to be at the top of the tree.

The average company is looking to employ someone who will do the same job
cheaper.

In order to earn more, it's necessary to identify employers who are willing to
pay a premium for convenience or for an unusually skilled or experienced
worker, and be aware of those before getting laid off.

This man seems particularly aggrieved that he lost a role to a "young woman
with five years experience". A white man should not and does not automatically
trump a woman - if he costs more (which he doesn't actually know for sure)
then that's his problem.

------
dba7dba
This is why for every thing I learn in IT/computer, I angle for a skill that I
can use in freelance or 1-person company. Not interested in some proprietary
skill that requires expensive hardware to stay current. Such as Cisco or
storage stuff.

------
pmorici
The article doesn't really address it directly but they seem to be mainly
talking about people who are looking for jobs who are currently _unemployed_.
They are in a position of weakness when it comes to looking for a job and
especially when negotiating salary. I think this has way more to do with that
than any alleged trend of talking about salary up front. It's been the norm
for decades to ask framing questions about salary early on.

------
smileysteve
I find recruiters hurt this more than help it too. If you tell them your last
salary, they'll just try to get enough % more to make it worth the transition.

~~~
sirkneeland
Why not tell them an imaginary salary then?

~~~
noarchy
>Why not tell them an imaginary salary then?

Indeed.

After all, some companies suddenly become "flexible" once they find a
candidate who really blows them away. Their alleged "top range" becomes
malleable. So their range can be imaginary as well. In the information war
that both sides are waging, similar tactics can be used.

------
melted
IMO the whole situation could easily be avoided if employers provided salary
ranges up front. I heard that's what they do in Japan, and several recruiter
pings I have received from there did contain the ranges. Alas they were too
low to justify the aggravation of moving to another country, but from what I
can tell, they were very respectable by Tokyo standards.

------
desireco42
As someone who keeps getting more and more money, I find other limit as well.
Your only job is to be in-demand and don't tell recruiters everything. Let
them tell you, how much they can get you (and this is often bull, so think and
research).

------
aaron695
TL;DR people who are unemployed aren't willing to take less than 100,000 a
year and feel like the system is screwing them?

Off topic, but I've said I won't answer it because of commercial in confidence
reasons before.

