
Quick Salary Tip for Software Engineers  - trustfundbaby
http://markcunningham91.blogspot.com/2011/12/quick-salary-tip-for-software-engineers.html
======
edw519
Quicker Salary Tip for Software Engineers: The first one to mention a number
loses.

Even when pressed, I _never_ mention a number.

For both of our sakes, however, I want to make sure that we're in the same
ballpark or we're wasting each other's time. So I may (only if I have no
better way) say something along the lines of, "I'm in the 90's now, but I'm
clearly underpaid and I'm looking for the best way to solve that problem."

Then I'll ask, "Are we in the same ballpark?"

If not, we both smile and move on.

If yes, we proceed. I always let them make an offer first. _That's_ when the
negotiation begins.

~~~
dustingetz
i think that's bullshit. "I make X, I feel I am worth Y". Credibly demonstrate
that you are worth Y[1]. This got me the raise I wanted within my current
employer, and willingness to decline an offer less than Y will get me the
salary I want the next time I move companies.

[1] here's a hint: don't say "i can do XYZ, trust me" -- signal to them you
can do XYZ by blogging, speaking at meetups, portfolio of projects, etc.

~~~
timr
If I'm a recruiter, I then say: _"Oh good...we're close. The salary approved
for this position is 0.8Y. But we offer high-cholesterol lunches that have
been 'catered' by the local fast-food meta-purveyors, health care, blah blah
blah. Did I mention our free massage Fridays, and extensive selection of free,
high-sugar, diabetes-inducing soft drinks?"_

You then get to choose to counter or walk away. If you're a good negotiator
(which you're not, since you've said the first number), we'll probably end up
at 0.9Y.

Meanwhile, Joe Bloggs comes in, and doesn't say a number. The recruiter offers
0.8Y, and Joe finally says _"I was thinking 1.2Y"_. Joe, being a savvy
negotiator, ends up with at least Y, and _maybe_ 1.1Y.

It doesn't matter what Y is, you always have a chance of _doing better than
your goal_ if you speak last. You lose that advantage if you speak first.

~~~
slavak
If you're a good negotiator, Y won't be your ideal salary X, but more along
the lines of 1.3*X. The basic tenet of negotiation is that both sides are
understood to start from a position that is unacceptable for the other side.

You can also always try for the DITF[1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique>

~~~
timr
Does not matter. As I said, pick any value of Y, and you'll end up better off
(on average) by not saying the first number. Doesn't matter if Y = X or if Y =
20X.

------
johngalt
Additional Quick Tip (Salary Judo):

If they try to play hardball on salary negotiations. Turn their high standards
around on them. Bring a copy of the job listing/requirements.

Boss: "So we'll start you at $<salary>, and welcome aboard."

You: "I look forward to it, but can we agree that I've demonstrated a value of
$<salary+30%>?"

Boss: "$<salary> is what everyone gets to start out, we'll review you in
6months."

You: "Your job posting listed you were looking for an expert in a number of
fields ABC...XYZ? Perhaps you're looking for more of a junior engineer?"

The key is that you have a polite helpful tone the whole time. It's not
confrontational or sarcastic. The point isn't to antagonize. Merely point out
that high hiring standards = high compensation standards.

~~~
yason
I mis-clicked and accidentally downvoted you whereas I intended to give you an
upvote. Looks like I can't unvote, so please someone up this back one notch.

~~~
kaybe
Done.

------
justinhj
Here's a tip. Take tips from recruiters with a pinch of salt. Their goal in
life is for programmers to change jobs as often as possible, and to make as
big a salary as possible so that they get better commission. I'm not saying
there's anything wrong with that, but their motivations are different to those
of a programmer who wants a career.

When I go for a job I take a lot more into consideration than the salary.
There are the other benefits, the work environment, what will I learn, what
challenges will I have to overcome, will I enjoy the work. If you change
fields you may happily take a pay cut until you can perform at the same level
you do now. You may take at a job that's a in a startup or at a company with
financial difficulties that you think you can help turn around. In these
scenarios a pay cut, deferred pay via bonus schemes or stock options maybe
more important. Another issue is job security. Nobody likes to think of
themselves as replaceable or average, but of course by definition most of us
are. So if you negotiate yourself an extra $10k-$25k you better be prepared to
deliver on that value or you will be at the top of the spreadsheet when it
comes time to make cuts.

------
xarien
You hear the quote "never give the first number" thrown around a lot and while
it's sometimes good advice, it's not always the best option. There are times
where setting the anchor is a very valid approach to hitting an upper bound.

The most important aspect of negotiations is power. He who has more power will
always have the upper hand in negotiations. This is usually where someone
suggests reading the art of war, and that suggestion is generally pretty damn
good.

Power is defined pretty loosely as anything from data, supply, demand, urgency
and beyond can be considered part of the equation. I'd start by doing some
research to get a range of how much someone with the same background is
currently making in the particular field. The caveat here is that you want to
ask the person who just changed jobs and not the person who've been working at
the same place for 20 years (I guarantee they'll be underpaid).

One last point I want to make is that average negotiators always assume that
the two parties will meet near the middle. Use that towards your advantage as
bait.

~~~
mkn
This is a hi-fidelity recapitulation of one of the main pop theories of
negotiation, that good bargaining is always hard bargaining, especially if
it's brainless. However, I think it's completely wrongheaded.

There's a great book called _Getting To Yes_ that I recommend everybody read.
Here are the main points in a nutshell:

1\. Focus on interests, not positions. 2\. Separate the people from the
problem. 3\. Invent options for mutual gain. 4\. Insist on objective criteria.

How might that work in a salary negotiation? On the first point, the employer
has interests in retention and morale, as well as in the value they can
extract from an employee. (Or, maybe not. This is good information to have.)
They want to minimize disruption so that they don't have to retrain. The
employee has this interest, too, as it's stressful to change jobs. Neither
party is going to be served by a wage that is out of balance either way.

On the second point, one important thing _not_ to do is to treat them as
someone whom you'd use petty tactics on, as someone to whom you would use
something "towards your advantage as bait." You're always having a meta-
negotiation about the terms of the negotiation that carries over into your
employment environment. Are you going to be cutting each other's throat all
the time? Or, during your working relationship, are you going to want to be
reaching understandings about how best and most fairly to proceed?

On the third point, you might find that there is a non-obvious imbalance
between your demonstrated skills, for example, and your potential in a job
that looks to be an amazing fit. What to do then? Do we shift the risk onto
the employer, forcing them to pay for potential? Do we shift it onto the
employee, insisting on pay for experience only? Well, to "invent an option,"
what about a probationary period long enough to see whether the potential is
going to materialize? The pay would be, say, slightly above pay for experience
only, but well below potential. And then you revisit, agreeing in advance that
either party can walk if the fit is poor. That's one option, there may be
more. Like contracting at a higher rate with an option to be brought on as an
employee. Or so on.

Finally, on objective criteria: "Market rate" is not the only criteria. Market
rate is just an average, anyhow. What's more objective would be anticipated
value from the unique relationship between _this_ employee and _that_ company.
How much can you increase sales? What's the likely perceived differential in
reputation of your employer if you, the crack tester, continually find nasty
bugs before they're discovered outside, so that they can be patched before
they become problems? What if you're the amazing architect who can design a
robust system that is easy to program in, increasing developer productivity
across the board? These things are measurable, even if Bayesian, criteria, if
we can look at your history of providing these goods.

I just bristle at this simplistic view of bargaining as mere power plays, and
marvel at its persistence in the face of so many better options, not to
mention the enormity of value left on the table by both sides of negotiations
everywhere.

~~~
xarien
The problem with these "everybody wins" situation is that not everyone can win
all the time. Same thing with being objective. The problem with this type of
recommendation is that this approach to negotiations works well for situations
such as conflict resolution where objectivity and a "nobody loses" scenario
has inherent value. This is untrue for other types of negotiations, especially
those related to financial gains.

Just like programming, more often than not, the simplest solution is often the
best solution (in terms of ROI). There really isn't a need to over-complicate
negotiations when goals are clearly defined. In the case of salary
negotiations, the goal is to get paid as much as possible. That's it.

~~~
kstenerud
However, just as in programming, you cannot effectively employ the simple
solution without first understanding the theory that leads to it.

It's just like the difference between good developers and voodoo coders. One
stops to think before acting while the other just throws canned solutions at
the problem, hoping one sticks.

~~~
xarien
I'll respectfully disagree. Theory is useful for designing algorithms, but has
nothing to do with being a good programmer. Perhaps you mean understanding
design (of tools, languages etc)? If that's the case, then yes, you need to
understand your tools before using them. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

The easiest way of getting better at negotiations, like programming, is
actually just about practice.

------
engtech
I've sadly realized that almost all job offers are based on some combination
of what they offer other candidates at that level and what you state your
previous salary as.

Given that you're an unknown commodity, they use your previous salary to
determine how other companies valued you.

Between 2001 to 2006 my salary went from 60k to 94k

2006 to 2008 I took a job at a "hot" startup and went down to 89k in return
for options (I am never doing that again for a company bigger than 5 people).

2008 to 2012 I took a job that started at 95k, and I've only been able to
drive the salary up to 103k even though I've gotten the highest rating
possible on every performance evaluation (and I've been a key contributor to
hardware development worth about 50 million in revenue -- when other products
are breaking even / losing money).

I feel that the only way I can advance my current position is by getting other
job offers, but I don't want to be that guy.

~~~
peteretep
> I feel that the only way I can advance my current position is by getting
> other job offers, but I don't want to be that guy.

I don't understand that. Who is /that guy/ and why don't you want to be him?

~~~
jordan0day
I think engtech's point is they wish their work was better-recognized and
better-rewarded, without him/her feeling he had to force his employer's hand
by pulling a "well, XYZ corp is all lined up to pay me 20% more!" (AKA, "the
squeaky wheel gets the grease").

Maybe that's realistically what you do have to do, but that doesn't mean it's
ideal. It's easy to view the employer/employee relationship in a purely
market-driven, antagonistic style, but I think many people who _like_ their
jobs really wish it wasn't like that.

Again, it might be naive, but that doesn't make it wrong to feel that way. It
really would be great if businesses could treat their employees like friends,
and not just resources.

~~~
peteretep
I've heard this point before, and you know, not only do I vehemently disagree
with it, I also think it's massive cognitive dissonance. People are brought up
told that discussing money is taboo, and rationalize that.

> force his employer's hand by pulling a

> purely market-driven, antagonistic style

Doesn't it strike you as odd that you've made those statements so emotionally
laden?

> It really would be great if businesses could treat their employees like
> friends, and not just resources.

I think that would be dreadful. I want a company to treat me as a resource,
and to realize that as a resource, they'll get the most out of me if they keep
me happy. I would like the company to be acutely aware of how much I am worth,
how much I cost, and what my options are, and to be happy that they're getting
good value by employing me. Programmers spend so long convincing themselves
they're scientists, but for some reason (and maybe it's because economics is
such a weak science) this all completely goes out the window as soon as money
is involved.

I think it's weak-sauce for a programmer to be jumping around chasing a few
bucks here and there, but if you're being undervalued, do something about it,
rather than complaining that life is unfair, and that the company should be
looking after you. And I say this as a bleeding-heart pinkie limey leftie
liberal who actually worked at The Guardian once.

~~~
jordan0day
_"Doesn't it strike you as odd that you've made those statements so
emotionally laden?"_

For a lot of people, it is an emotional situation. Work makes up a big part of
their life, I'd be surprised to find many people who can view compensation in
a totally cool and detached way.

And yes, obviously, "do(ing) something about it" is the correct course of
action. I wasn't suggesting hoping and wishing as a means of getting a raise.

On a side note, I wonder if the Dunning-Krueger effect implies that the least
qualified people are the ones clamoring for raises the most often?

------
techiferous
Quick salary tip for hiring software engineers: go easy on the low-balling.

Once the software engineer realizes they are getting paid significantly lower
than what they could get paid in the market, you may have just incentivized
them to leave the company. Depending on the personality of the software
engineer, they may not come to you and re-negotiate, they may simply look for
a better offer elsewhere.

So make sure you don't undermine your ability to retain talent.

~~~
JoeCortopassi
Not much worse than finding out you are grossly underpaid. If that doesn't
turn an exceptional employee into a slouch, I don't know what will.

------
peacemaker
His supplied quote asking if it's OK to go away and think about it comes
across as weak/unsure of yourself in my opinion.

A confident candidate will TELL the interviewer that they will need time to
think about it. This isn't a thing to be rushed anyway so any interviewer
should be fine with this. If not, do you really want to work for someone so
pushy?

Interviews are a 2 way street, a lot of interviewers forget that they are also
on show to impress the candidate. Especially right now where there seems to be
a lack of skilled engineers out there.

~~~
jeffclark
It seems to me like that question may be purely "polite".

It's OK to be and act confident. It's also OK to be nice and respectful at the
same time.

------
AznHisoka
I think best thing is just look for something when you dont need it. Then when
they ask about salary, mention any number, it doesn't matter. Then when they
give you a final offer, be a hard-ass and ask for 30% more. Keep saying no
until you get the offer or they don't call you back. You might get laughed at
a handful of times, but there will be someone who will give in. Again, do this
when you don't need a job and aren't desperate. Just keep being a hardass and
douchebag. It's not hard to when you're looking for sumthing casually.

~~~
enan
Agreed. You can confidently negotiate if you've got nothing to lose. Another
way to achieve this is to have multiple offers. You come out ahead when you
have competing offers - get them in a bidding war.

Also you can be a total hard-ass when negotiating with HR - you won't offend
your future boss or team in the process. They usually are not involved in the
negotiation process.

------
Sukotto
(For anyone interested, here's a rehash of a comment I made a while back
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1097801> which suggests you be flexible
on salary to gain a larger total compensation. If you haven't worked out these
numbers in advance, this is how I think you should spend the extra time the
OP's tip will give you)

Keep firmly in mind that your _salary_ is only one term in the overall
equation adding up your _total compensation_. Total compensation = sum(salary,
daycare, commute costs, conferences, professional development, 401k matching,
...)

Consider, for example, lunch. Here in NYC, a company that buys you a $10
sandwich for lunch every day is giving you $3,330+ salary equivalent (Assuming
you're in the 25% tax bracket) [1]

Take the time to sit down and do something along the following lines:

\- list out benefits a company might offer

\- group them into things you care about and things you don't (don't have kids
-> don't need daycare)

\- for the things you care about, think about how much each one would cost you
to pay for yourself

\- think about what minimum level of that benefit you would accept, happy, and
ecstatic. (eg. Minimum: company pays for one local conference/year. Happy: one
conference anywhere in US/yr. ecstatic: more than one conference anywhere in
the world)

\- for the ones you DON'T care about, think about how much it costs the
company to pay for each

When it comes time to negotiate your compensation, always think in _sets_.
Think (and talk) in terms of how moving any one piece requires movement on a
different piece. Give up the things in the "don't care" set to gain at least
as much value in the "want" set.

Eg. They want to give you less money, you can agree to that, if they give you
X more vacation days.

Eg. They offer free daycare, you say that you appreciate that, but since you
don't have kids you would rather have "work at home Fridays" and a slightly
larger 401k match.

By considering the _total_ you are much more likely to get a better overall
package

[1]

    
    
      (salary equivalent) = (daily cost * 5 days/wk * 50 wks/yr)
                            ------------------------------------
                                       ( 1 - tax rate )
    
      25% tax bracket 
      $ 5 lunch = (5 * 5 * 50)/(75%) = $1,667 salary
      $10 lunch = $3,333
    

So every $1 the company saves you (by buying your lunch or your monthly
parking or whatever) is worth $333 in salary in the 25% tax bracket. (Assuming
you don't change to a different tax bracket by the change to your cash salary)

~~~
edward
You have to pay income tax on the $10 sandwich.

~~~
WildUtah
No, meals provided at work for the convenience of the employer are deductible
for the employer and tax-free for the employee.

Meals provided for business purposes such as a lunch meeting away from the
office are half deductible for the business and tax-free for the recipient.

That's the USA rule (Canada too, I believe). Elsewhere may be different.

~~~
usaar333
I checked awhile back and most software companies fail the convenience test.
It is only allowed if the employee can't get food elsewhere (e.g. on an oil
rig).

See <http://www.irs.gov/publications/p15b/ar02.html>

Exact text: Meals on Your Business Premises

You can exclude the value of meals you furnish to an employee from the
employee's wages if they meet the following tests.

They are furnished on your business premises.

They are furnished for your convenience.

This exclusion does not apply if you allow your employee to choose to receive
additional pay instead of meals.

Whether you furnish meals for your convenience as an employer depends on all
the facts and circumstances. You furnish the meals to your employee for your
convenience if you do this for a substantial business reason other than to
provide the employee with additional pay. This is true even if a law or an
employment contract provides that the meals are furnished as pay. However, a
written statement that the meals are furnished for your convenience is not
sufficient.

From <http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html> Meals and Lodging

You do not include in your income the value of meals and lodging provided to
you and your family by your employer at no charge if the following conditions
are met.

The meals are:

Furnished on the business premises of your employer, and

Furnished for the convenience of your employer.

Another source:
[http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2000/Jun/TheHighC...](http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2000/Jun/TheHighCostOfAFreeLunch.htm)

Meals an employer provides as a means of disguising additional compensation to
an employee are not regarded as furnished for the convenience of the employer
under section 119. The IRS considers a meal as furnished for the employer’s
convenience only if the company provided it for a substantial noncompensatory
business reason. An employer furnishes a meal for such a reason when providing
it

So the employee is available for emergency calls during his or her meal
period.

Because the employee must be restricted to a short meal period and could not
be expected to eat elsewhere in such a short time.

Because the employee could not otherwise secure proper meals within a
reasonable meal period, such as when there are not sufficient eating
facilities nearby.Meals an employer provides as a means of disguising
additional compensation to an employee are not regarded as furnished for the
convenience of the employer under section 119. The IRS considers a meal as
furnished for the employer’s convenience only if the company provided it for a
substantial noncompensatory business reason. An employer furnishes a meal for
such a reason when providing it

So the employee is available for emergency calls during his or her meal
period.

Because the employee must be restricted to a short meal period and could not
be expected to eat elsewhere in such a short time.

Because the employee could not otherwise secure proper meals within a
reasonable meal period, such as when there are not sufficient eating
facilities nearby.

In other words, if a company provides you with a free lunch, it probably is
taxable income.

------
SatvikBeri
Here's a not so quick tip: learn to steer conversations towards value for your
client/employer, not just skills or abstract, hard-to-quantify achievements.
When you and your potential employer are talking about millions of dollars, a
50% increase in salary becomes rather small.

------
atarian
I would assume that it probably helps to have other job offers on the side or
a current job that pays nearly the same as the job you're interested in for
this to work.

------
anmol
A founders perspective on this:

I think such negotiation tips are great because they helps engineers, many of
whom are not the best negotiators, get the fair market value they deserve.
This is a real concern when recruiters are involved, or its a big company, or
even a large startup (e.g. 50+ people).

However, as a technical founder for a smaller team, its not really in my
interest to mis-align employee incentives, especially engineers.

The people we hire are at the top of their game. If they're are not treated
fairly, they will eventually find out, and someone will feel bad or be de-
motivated or eventually leave. Every instance of lack of transparency or
apparent "unfairness" will breed resentment and impact the net productivity of
a team that's trying to run at its 110%. Even if/when we do get things wrong
occasionally, quarterly/annual reviews are a great way to correct for
decisions made with limited initial data.

Tl;Dr : Founders don't get rich by cutting corners on someone's
salary/benefits.

------
kyt
Wasn't part of the job of the technical recruiter supposed to be negotiating
the salary? Considering they make a commission off it, I would assume it would
be in their best interest.

~~~
Valien
Hey all, I'm a tech guy that also spent 3 years as a recruiter and in IT
staffing sales/business dev. I know this industry in and out.

I'm going to speak for our location (Greenville, SC). The normal direct-hire %
is between 18-25%. If you're doing volume with a company you'll probably be
18-20%. If it's a niche skill or new company then 25%. The days of 30% is
mostly over unless it's a retained search or some extremely difficult skill.

This recruiter is on par with his advice. For a direct-hire role it is his
best interest in getting you the highest salary possible because he will make
more money that way. If he's a good recruiter he will do all the negotiation
for you and you won't have to worry about it at all. You tell him what you
need and he'll work his magic. Trust me, we are very good at getting those
target salaries (if not more) for our developers.

If you are going through a good agency and the salary question comes up then
you need to defer that to the recruiter and if your recruiter doesn't know
what to do then find a different agency. Lots of bad ones out there.

Sometimes though you have to persuade a candidate even if the salary is not
what he wants. As an example I placed a Sr. Architect at an awesome gig and
the salary was 15K lower than what he was used to making. He was hemming and
hawing and I told him up front that he could continue to look for work for his
skillset and not find it in this area (he had been out of work for about 6
months at this time) or take the job at the lower salary with the potential to
grow. Needless to say he took the job and has since been promoted (which I
knew would happen cause of his skills and knowledge).

No on contract-to-hire gigs it's the best interest in the recruiter to get you
to take the lowest possible hourly rate and then he will bill the client the
highest he could go. Why? Because it's all based on a Net Margin formula and
the more NM the recruiter makes the more commission he'll make. Our firm
wasn't too aggressive on beating down candidates but companies like TekSystems
are notoriously known for low-balling their contractors and high-billing
clients.

Hope this helps some. Not all recruiters and agencies are bad but
unfortunately many fly-by-night and sorry shops give the good ones a bad name.

I will say this that 90% of the IT jobs out there (at least in our market) are
never posted on a job board. They are filled by agencies because they can get
it done faster and more efficiently than a job board and an HR person who's
clueless on IT skill sets.

~V

ps On a side note we had a joke in that internal recruiters were folks that
couldn't hack it working for an agency. It's a different culture and fast-
paced and being heavily commission driven tends to drive a good number of
folks away. Why I left was that I placed myself back into IT :) And no, I did
not get a commission on that (which would have been nice to boot!) :)

~~~
acheron
Obviously you're biased, but you're making it sound like working with an
external recruiter is actually a good idea. Mostly I just hear that IT
recruiters are terrible -- don't actually know what your skills are and just
blast out your resume as much as possible, falsifying information if needed,
and so on. So I've never pursued it, and ignored the occasional overtures.
However after some disappointments I'm wondering if I've been too hasty there.

I know a bunch of HN posters stay in start-up land, where things are likely
different, but I'm wondering if those who aren't have any other recruiter
experience? My wife did have good luck with a recruiter in the law world,
though the market there is quite different from the tech market.

~~~
spacemanaki
I'm starting a new job in less than a week that I got through a recruiter. I
was cold LinkedIn-ed and was initially skeptical because I've had bad
experiences in the past. But this time was different and I'm really glad that
I followed through.

My recruiter was helpful and remained at all times respectful of my time and
my goals. She never pushed me to interview with companies I wasn't interested
with, and she gave me some really valuable advice about how to sell myself as
a less experienced and junior programmer. And regarding compensation, she was
able to help me negotiate for a lot more than I thought I was going to be able
to ask for.

I'm obviously not that experienced, but I think there definitely are some good
recruiters out there who can be really helpful in certain situations. In my
case the relationship happened to be extremely beneficial, partly because of
my inexperience but also because it was just good timing.

------
markcunningham
Hey everyone, thanks for the comments. As evidenced below, there are many
different ways to negotiate on salary with companies. I've read through
several below and they are spot on.

Regards,

Mark

------
jakejake
Another tip applies when you're interviewing at a company where they have a
dedicated HR person who you talk to about salary (in other words you are not
negotiating salary with the person who will actually be your boss or the
owner)

In that case there is a good chance that person is an internal recruiter and
they may get a bonus based on number of hires they bring in. So if the company
decided they want to hire you - this recruiter is very motivated to get you to
accept. They will be bound by policy as far as what numbers they can give out
without you asking for more. But they really don't really care how high your
salary will be (unlike for example your boss or the owner might).

If this is the situation then you really have nothing to lose by going way,
way high with your salary request. The worst that will happen is the recruiter
will just have to name their highest price they are allowed to go and hope you
will accept.

I can't think of any situation where a prospective employee named a price and
we said "oh they're way too expensive, let's not insult them with a counter-
offer." We always make our best counter-offer and hope the person accepts it.

------
dabent
The example does work well if a company makes the mistake of not even going
over salary early in the process. It's generally advised for the candidate to
not bring up salary early on, but every situation that's involved a recruiter,
it's the recruiter that brings salary up early - often before a phone screen.
They don't want to waste the company's time if you're way to far off with
salary.

I'm also making the assumption that the 105k and 90k salaries both have the
same benefit packages, option grants (if applicable) and work environments for
the sake of simplicity in the article, but in practice, I've learned the hard
way that the things beyond the salary matter most. One does want to maximize
salary for a given company, but remember, that once you've been there for
short while, all the other things start to matter much more. At least that's
my experience.

------
earle
I would never recommend this. Never, ever, negotiate salary. Negotiate
COMPENSATION.

~~~
krupan
No, negotiate salary to get it as high as possible, then vacation time to get
as much as possible, then stock options, then 401k match, etc., etc. With each
one make sure they know that is the most important thing to you, so they think
that if they give you more on one item they can make it up by not giving you
as much on the next one. Of course then the next one becomes the most
important thing in the world to you...

Of course, that's used-car buying tactics, so be careful. If you are talking
to an HR guy it might be fine to make him mad, but sometimes I feel
uncomfortable pushing that hard on my future manager like that.

------
hermannj314
Isn't it bad to take salary negotiation advice from a recruiter? They might
want to get you a job, absolutely, but their pay is directly proportional to
how shitty you negotiate. I don't know if I can take advice from someone that
directly benefits when their own advice is wrong.

~~~
jurre
Don't recruiters get a percentage of your salary? If so, it would be in their
interest for you to get paid as much as possible, wouldn't it?

~~~
hermannj314
Not necessarily. Let's assume the recruiter is paid a percentage (although in
some cases they get paid more simply because you get paid less, let's ignore
that case.)

First, you and the recruiter have a different BATNA. He just wants you to get
a job, otherwise he gets $0 and you want to get a job that aligns with your
goals. Those usually don't match up. I've been in the position of being
offered a job and rejecting it, it was clear at that moment the recruiter and
I had divergent interests.

Secondly, at the margin, the fact that the recruiter gets a percentage of the
benefits of the negotation but usually shares equally in the costs of
negotiating (every recruiter I work with proxies the negotiation), the profit
maximization point for you and the recruiter are rarely ever at the same
point. In fact, the recruiter will nearly always be willing to abandon
negotiations and settle at a lower salary than you should. The same thing
happens in real-estate. Offering and counter-offering for 3 days over 6% of
$3000 is a lot different than 94% of $3000.

Maybe I am wrong. Also, I am not saying the recruiter that wrote this is
incorrect. I am just saying that I hold his advice under the strong light of
scrutiny. I hope I haven't crossed the line into ad hominem fallacy by doing
this.

------
mrs_doubtfire
Employers: More often than not, you get what you pay for. Saving a few bucks
in salary will probably cost you in the long run.

Employees: Negotiate your salary realistically. Embellish too much and you'll
find yourself negotiating your salary again (probably with a NEW potential
employer) sooner than you'd like.

------
dotBen
If you are healthy and have no dependents _(thus don't have unusual/expensive
medical insurance needs)_ then the best salary tip I've found is to be a 1099
contractor over a W2 employee. This is especially so if you are in a work-at-
will State like California.

When you've done your interview and the company is ready to make you an offer
you can straight-up tell them you'd prefer a 1099 based relationship over W2.
They may not like it or prefer that, but obviously the market for software
engineering is a seller's market.

You can usually expect to make at least 30% more like-for-like as a contractor
because you're going to have to look after your own medical insurance, tax
affairs and pension, etc.

Don't forget that $100k offer the firm is going to pay you actually costs them
more like $130k in terms of benefits, payroll tax, etc. So why not just ask
them to give the full $130l to you? Plus you may be able to negotiate even
more on top of that.

The real fun happens when you start to make _legitimate_ tax deductions that
as a W2 employee you can't normally make. Computer equipment, software, ipads,
games consoles, phone bill, meals with other people in the industry, etc. I
bet you work from home too sometimes, so deduct a %age of your rent and
utilities.

These are all legitimate business expenses which are hard or impossible to
deduct as a W2.

The net benefit in terms of your annual take home pay is potentially going be
a lot more than the advice given by the OP - although there is no reason to
combine all of this together.

(BTW Recruiters won't suggest this tip because their remuneration usually is
based on W2 salary, and not contract positions)

~~~
Jasber
You should be careful here:

 _I bet you work from home too sometimes, so deduct a %age of your rent and
utilities._

This is usually a big red flag for IRS audits. It's my understanding you have
to have a dedicated area just for work. So lounging on your couch wouldn't
count. A corner desk or separate office is fine I think.

~~~
matwood
A corner desk is probably not enough. You really need to have a completely
separate office area that is used 100% for work. Last I checked, the home
office also must be for the benefit of the employer and not only for the
employee. Add in that your chances of being audited go up significantly with a
home office deduction and it makes it a risk that needs to be weighed
carefully. Definitely find a CPA and get them onboard before trying to claim
the home office deduction.

~~~
mrgn
Agreed. I'd recommend against this every time, unless you are 100% prepared
for the inconvenience and potential penalties of an audit. It's just not worth
it.

