I think there are two reasons not to post the salary range right away.
1. There is always flexibility in the budget for the right people.
I'm hiring engineers to my team right now and I have a clear number I got from my CEO. I am confident that budget will fit the ideal candidate that I'm trying to hire. But on the other hand, if someone more senior, or junior blows my mind, I'm willing to push for the extra numbers for the more senior, or the extra rack for the junior to get on my team.
2. Salary is not everything.
I do believe salary is important, but not everything. There are a good number of people who are willing to take a job with less salary if they feel they can grow there more, the culture fits them better and the potential of company is bigger there.
I do understand though it is frustrating doing multiple interviews without knowing if the salary range is close to the expectations or not. If a candidate asks me on the initial phone screening about the numbers I am happy to talk about it openly.
> 1. There is always flexibility in the budget for the right people.
Nothing stopping you from tacking on that caveat after offering a range so people can grok you from a distance.
> 2. Salary is not everything.
> I do believe salary is important, but not everything. There are a good number of people who are willing to take a job with less salary if they feel they can grow there more, the culture fits them better and the potential of company is bigger there.
The only people willing to take that cut are
(a) young enough not to be thinking about retirement, and
(b) people naive enough to think you having a good culture lets you off the hook for being a cheapskate.
Disclaimer: used to think salary wasn't everything after $x quality of living, now I'm a bit older, a bit wiser and looking at retirement. I now think I was a huge idiot in my younger years for not taking every advantage possible. - So take my views with a grain of disillusioned salt.
It's also signalling. Higher salary both means the company can afford it (i.e. is stronger, healthier, a safer long term bet) and that the position is valued (as the company is willing to invest more in it).
Couldn't agree with you more. Higher salaries very much represent a company's ability and desire to pay top dollar. I do caution on the long term bet. It's not as solid as may seem. I've come across many companies who throw money at the problem of not being able to attract/retain talent with market rate range salaries. Could be a number of reasons, including politics, lack of interesting projects, unsustainable culture, etc.
Another major point to keep in mind is salary today vs growth in coming years. Getting a high salary today may bring with it unrealistic expectations. It may be your future bonus and raises that suffer. Your annual review will roll around and the managerial perception will be that you're already paid more than everyone on the team, so you're not getting a notable slice of the budget.
My point is that things aren't always black and while, and long term may be not as advantageous as they seem. If you're looking for a career, hoping jobs every year will not help. Becomes a red flag on the resume.
Really? Don't go for the maximum salary because you might be disappointed in future raises?
Do you know why companies discourage job hopping and sharing your salary with coworkers (even though just mentioning a bias against sharing that information is illegal)? Because it costs them money if employees do it (i.e. it's good for employees)!
Sure, throwing money at a problem isn't a way to solve it and companies that think it is are bad news, but the rest of your advise is horrible.
Your points are valid and I would not disagree with anyone who is prioritizing salary over growing opportunity.
But I do believe though that there are people who are in that stage of their lives where they can take the risk of joining a company where they can grow faster, have a bigger potential financial outcome for the price of taking less monthly paycheck in the short term.
Personally, probably because I am younger, would take an opportunity for less $$$ where I do believe I can learn more, making me more valuable in the long run so eventually I can make more money. I think about it as an investment of my time that someone either willing to / can do, or not.
I do understand that not everyone can take this risk and I think that is perfectly fine.
> making me more valuable in the long run so eventually I can make more money
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the "more money" from experience gained while taking a paycut will pale in comparison to "more money" from the number of years you state on your cv and dollar value of your last salary.
In perhaps clearer words, taking a paycut for career growth will most likely just prohibit your potential future salaries regardless of how much technical experience you gained.
This of course all changes considerably when you're talking founding/early employee where minimum wage is a real possibility..
For what it's worth, even though I haven't usually posted a salary range, it's something I try to clear up in the first call. It's true it's a waste of everybody's time otherwise.
We'll see if that posting the range this time will make any difference.
Seems like it would be especially important for jobs where the pay is scaled for a market such as Bloomington, Indiana but remote is okay.
As someone who has lived in San Diego for 14 years it is really easy to forget that lots of people can afford to live comfortably* on $60-80k when they don't live here or in the SF Bay Area, etc.
(* or, for that matter, extremely well, depending upon where they do actually live).
Employers have a tendency to set salaries based on a combination of prior salaries and the market for the area unfortunately, which makes listing a hard number difficult.
