It's funny - probably the best advice anyone ever gives on negotiation is exactly the opposite of "don't name a number first." It's "anchor high." You should be anchoring to a number that is high but realistic, and negotiating from a position of strength. This is especially true for senior- and late-career individuals who have some experience under their belt.

I very much agree with you and my other comments in this thread are very much advocating for this position. I'd just like to add an important caveat by saying anecdotally in multiple occasions I've seen friends (notably people who are just moving in to the Valley from elsewhere and/or right out of college) tend to widely underestimate the "realistic" estimation in your advice (they know in abstract that salaries are "high" but don't necessarily concretely know how high), and therefore following it can be dangerous and would mean lowballing themselves. Hence, not saying anything might result in a better net result end of the day.

Similar jobs in similarly-funded companies at similar stages should yield a pretty strong dataset of numbers by which you can construct your own ask. Easier said than done, for sure, but if you can - gather data!

Managers are human beings too and don't like being put at gunpoint by their employees. It's very much the nuclear option IMO.

What is your leverage if you don't have competing offer?

Some recruiters also have access to data from VCs or from other salary reports (there are a number of good institutions that run compensation surveys - access to these usually costs lots of money). Glassdoor is also a good source of data (sometimes) and PayScale is even better.

You really only want advice from someone you are paying and who cannot benefit from under pricing you.

There is serious information asymmetry between recruiters/employers vs employees, and if information is the best weapon, employees are woefully unequipped to fight that battle.

The risk to an employee is asking for too little and H1B data can help put of floor on that number.

I'd like to know how high is high in SV. Especially for junior positions.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11314449

As a skilled junior person without having/being known for specific connections/expertise, probably the best generic advice, if your goal is purely optimizing for salary $$$ [and I wouldn't blame anyone for this, but I'd say there are many other factors to optimize for as well], is to get offers at various places, while making sure at least a couple bigcos are included, and play the standard negotiation game (they don't really negotiate with you; they negotiate with each other over you). Also, don't be afraid to jump ship early on when you get a better sense of the numbers you can command and avoid inertia. Inertia can be a big hinderance, especially very early on when a recent decision with much less data is made; a course correction might be essential.

P.S. people who make the real $$$s, don't do that by optimizing for a (risk-free) "salary" taken from an employer, so always keep that in mind.

Don't allow your major life decisions to be made on auto-pilot. If you want to stay, then make a conscious decision and stay. If you haven't made such a conscious decision in years, it's time you had that conversation with yourself.

  - new grad: ~175k
  - 4 years: ~300k
  - 6 years: ~350k

Interesting to see similar numbers from elsewhere.

  ~316k from a public company
  290k~350k from a private company, depending on which valuation you use (409a vs preferred)

The key is to get at least 2-3 offers around the same time, do a lot of research, and be mindful about what info you share when negotiating. When a recruiter asks about salary expectations, I think it's good to share a number, but it could be your current salary, a competing offer, or just a (substantially high) target number. And it could be base salary, or blended compensation. Share the bits of info which are most advantageous to you, and keep the rest private.

The new grad and 8 year numbers are from some info friends have shared with me, and some public info (like the spreadsheet that appeared on HN a while ago, and some info individuals have shared on Quora).

First year, what would the person get? $195k, with $160k salary and 35k in stock?

I say $220k total comp and that I will count equity but if it's not liquid it won't be worth much.

I base that off of what I would get at Google or Facebook (including equity).

I've asked around and most companies take it seriously.

For junior engineers, I would say $160k. For mid, $180k - $200k. Again, total comp. Equity counts but at my value, not theirs.

220k is perhaps on the lower side for senior, maybe closer to 250k is on target. $140k at Google plus 90k in GSU/yr + 20k annual bonus. Could be much higher though.

It is also important to note that years 2,3,4 at Google are going to likely result in stock top ups and comp will skyrocket, but I was largely referring to starting salaries here.

Edit: Also, as mentioned I'm a young Senior. Google isn't likely going to bring me in at level 4.

Started at 107.5k with promotion and raise to 120k

Those who do know their relative worth are already playing a different game than the former, and will probably be able to reap more advancement and value than someone "getting lucky" by having a company mess up and issue a highball offer.

When entering a negotiation, you should know your worth and be able to articulate your reasoning behind it.

In my experience, it's much easier for me to articulate how I am going to create value and justify my compensation than it is for the counter party to justify their beliefs I am not worth what I say I am.

Usually, if diplomacy fails, it's because the entire team is anchored at a comp range that I would never consider. In that event, though, the counter party has done me a valuable favor: I do not want to work with individuals who are paid less than me.

When I was speaking about "worth" before, naturally one must scope their estimation to the market they're trying to sell to. Market worth is only what the market is willing to pay for something.

If you've got a broad, valuable skillset, but a company can only use 10% of it, they can rightfully scope the role and issue an offer or decline to issue an offer.

What isn't okay, though, is taking the scoped offer and then performing in a far wider capacity - that is the very essence of being undervalued and/or underpaid.

I've always looked at fit more from company culture, team dynamic, overall team skill level (A players, B players, etc.) vs. something that's directly associated with a certain compensation package.

Most people are much better off to simply ask salary ranges as the first question for a recruiter. Don't put it off and don't waste any time. Approximate location should the next question as again it minimizes wasted effort.

Either way, I don't talk numbers first and I still don't waste time with places that can't offer the sort of salary I'm after. I'm not going to even bother with a phone interview if I don't have a firm number in hand.

Take this as an example:

Say you currently make $80k and you want a 10% bump. So you're looking for $88k. Take that number and add 15%. Your ask is now around $100k. They may say something like "we actually start all new engineers off at a base salary of $85,000". This gives you a ton of power in negotiating just a $3k bump. If you had said you wanted $88k, that "starting salary" would have likely been $75k. Thus making it a pretty big leap to the $88k you wanted.

Establishing a position of strength can also mean other things like having the company and hiring manager invest as much time as they can in recruiting you; not hiring would be worse to them than over paying a little.

Also, having other offers on the table always helps negotiating better. Even if its never mentioned to the recruiter I just happen to negotiate better with the mindset that I have other options.

Playing the game like you've got nothing to lose is what breeds the best. This applies to a lot of subjects.

Hypothetical situation time. I'm a job seeker and my minimum acceptable salary is $100k. You're a recruiter and your range is $80-$120k. Neither of us know the others' number.

If I make you say a number first, you would start at the bottom of your range. (Why not?) Now I'm "negotiating up" to my minimum.

Alternatively, I go first and anchor at $150k. Now it's much more difficult to lowball me at $80k, and we'll probably "negotiate down" to your maximum.

The key with this technique is setting a good anchor. Too high (e.g., $200k) and you'll just walk away. Too low (e.g., $120k) and you'll whittle me down because you know you can negotiate.

-----

Bottom line is knowing what you're worth and quickly testing whether you're in the ballpark. If you go into interviews without having a sense of whether the company will give you a competitive offer, you're wasting everyone's time. (And you have a bad HR department.)

Don't use ranges: the employer will hear the lower number. Just say, "The market rate for this kind of role is $150k base. I'd look for a competitive overall comp package, and we can talk about salary, bonus, and equity. Is that what you had in mind?"

You'll get one of three answers:

1. "Yes, that's in range." (And you can probably negotiate up.)

2. "No, that's too high. We were thinking $x." (Now you know where you stand, and how far apart you are. <20% is negotiation. Note that if they don't give you $x, don't give another number: you're just negotiating against yourself.)

3. "Ehh, it's on the higher end, but I think we can make this work." (Might actually be #1, but otherwise means you're in the sweet spot.)

There's lots of advice in this thread to "know what you're worth", but where is that signal coming from?

In addition to highest published umber + 20%, I would advise to carefully read any stated salaries on message boards like this when they come along and pay attention to the highest numbers. Then you will be aware of what is possible.

One way to boost your odds towards picking a winner is to join in the employee ~15-25 spots. Early enough that equity is on the table, but late enough that some traction has been proven already to dampen your risk.

Anchoring is merely a technique: the first half of my post boils down to "it's ok to throw out the first number".

I've had a negotiation where I found out that the company was only able to make $2.5k after paying me + overhead (contracting on predefined rates) after they led me on and gave me an offer that met my low number barely after bonuses with zero stock. I rejected multiple times and a VP even called me by the end. That should have been the sign to walk honestly. Evidently, some places have no negotiating power fundamentally because they have no intrinsically compelling work with substantially below market rates and with little means to negotiate up their value proposition to improve their circumstances.

The other point I have is that the first number isn't all that important. Yes, it might anchor the starting point, but you'll be in a stronger negotiating position when the written offer is actually made.

I just went through this recently. Yes, their hiring manager asked me what my requirement was for a salary and I gave them a number without any fuss. In their first formal offer, they gave me the number I wanted; however, by that point in the hiring process, it was clear that I was a top candidate, and with other competing offers, I was able to get them to come up another 30%.

In the end, I don't think the best approach is to force the company to make the first offer. They aren't going to give their best offer if you force them to make the first move. The only time that strategy might make sense is if your best number is much lower than their worst number; in that case, you did a lousy job in the research phase and need to take a step back.

If you disagree with "a professional knows their value," what are you arguing? That "a professional doesn't know their value?"

But I still think that refusing to name a number shouldn't be the number one point in all of these discussions and blog posts about salary negotiation. You're right, when there are huge amounts of information disparity, either because a company's pain point is significantly higher than market rates would imply, or because a candidate has a rare and unique skill that cannot be easily found, then all of the entry-level negotiating tactics go out the window. But for fair-market jobs and candidates, I think you should be able to know your value well and refusing to name a number is a waste of time and energy.

Well, in the podcast, he mentions that this one action is part of a larger strategy. The goal of it isn't to get the company to reveal the cap, but to defer the question until you've demonstrated high value to them, see where they start, and try to find their cap from there.

A professional might know their value abstractly or concretely to some companies, but in general value is relative to the company's needs, funding, and priorities. The recruiter has too many data points that you don't have to argue that going in with a fixed number is wise.

And even if you can do all that, there's no reason why the dollar value you put on your worth to them has to be similar to the dollar value they have in mind. You could argue, in that situation, that you may not want to work for a company that doesn't value you "properly", but I hesitate to believe that there's always (or even often) an objective version of "properly" that disinterested observers could agree on.

Having said all that, I am still not sure I buy into the idea that the best negotiation tactic is to evade (even "professionally") providing a number.

The key phrase here.

Always try to get multiple offers! If you can, you're in a much, much stronger position.

I view it instead that I am offering a service. I am well aware of what my service is worth, what my financial needs are and what amount would make me feel satisfied with what I am being paid. So I tell them that number.

I also tell them that the number is only negotiable in the sense of benefit trade-offs. I have built into my "price tag" such things as medical payments, etc. If they can offset some of those from salary to benefits that does not bother me. In the end my needs are met and I am happy.

I refuse to see the relationship with an employer as adversarial. It is a business relationship, I treat it as such and demand they do as well. Otherwise I don't do business with them.

This is the first and most important thing to understand and know before entering a negotiation.

Without this fact, your negotiating ability is irrelevant (and kind of inherently non-existent), as you're operating blind.

With that being said: many do not know what they are worth, to their dismay.

> I refuse to see the relationship with an employer as adversarial

I frame as such: You're two businesses/professionals trying to reach a meeting of the minds. You both want the same thing.

I'm just curious.

I'll go first. I know developers that make 70 a year and some that make 120. It does depend where you live of course, but for me personally I need 90K minimum or I won't consider any gig, anywhere. If I can't get that, I go into subsistence living, doing odd jobs or finding a gig at McDonalds. But I won't lower my standards for dev services.

While 90 is a minimum, 95-110 is what I want. Depending on the role. If I were more senior, I'd want 120+.

I've not seen anywhere close to that number since (I opted for a $160k position in an industry I like, expanded experience, and the ability to work even as low as 30 hours a week should I choose to), but it has given me supreme confidence to turn down offers that don't have a minimum compensation along with my desired benefits/perks.

The key to me on top of that is that I am satisfied with that salary. It is not one that would make me look elsewhere with any urgency. Yes, I could try to negotiate more, but I feel no need to and believe that if I got more the company would be paying over market value and eventually realize and act upon that.

It sounds to me like you would be comfortable making around $100k and that if the market bears that for your services that is what you should demand. If the market doesn't support that for you, look at raising skills/experience until it does.

The odd thing is how much more you make by switching jobs versus a salary raise at companies. I am typically offered a 3%-5% raise but have typically increased my pay by 10%-20% by looking elsewhere. Companies really should assess the market more often.

I don't know exactly what I'm "worth" so that's why I like to ask around. I base what I'm worth off more the going-rate than I do me being a touch below or touch above the average employee. I'm not confident enough to demand 120 yet, but 120-180 is what I'd ask once I'm dominating interviews and able to pretty much make everyone else look like a fool.

I've found the same things on all your points. If anyone else wants to add in more salary datapoints please do so. Don't be ashamed of lower salaries, I have friends who work for 70K a year as C# devs and know full well they can make more. They choose to stay because they're comfortable. That's worth a lot too.

I make 90K now, but I work from home and am very comfortable. I know I can get 100K if I switch jobs and start going into an office again. It's not but may once I find the right place to land.

I'd encourage you not to sell your earning potential short by negotiating against yourself like this. C++ display driver writers sound more impressive and might be in shorter supply, but so are the companies that need them. Even if it's legitimately harder!

There are a lot of companies who bring in a lot of revenue off of web-stack stuff that need Python devs, and so are in a position where it makes sense for them to pay a lot for that skill set, and that's where the value side comes from.

If you got more specific and said "Django expert" or could sell yourself as such, I would think $140-160k base or more in SF would be totally achievable.

But again, it's very difficult to discuss productivity and skill levels in generalities.

It's also very difficult to discuss the variations in market wages across cities: Southern California in my experience punches even higher than the Bay Area. Adjusting for actual cost of living and taxes, actual take-home pay in Washington and Colorado often greatly exceeds the Bay Area.

Negotiating doesn't have to be adversarial. There are multiple strategies you could take to boost yourself without being adversarial.

In my experience, companies you actually want to work for will turn away the doormats.

I've actually spoken to a number of companies that have openly stated that they would not interview candidates that didn't request an amount greater than a certain dollar threshold (most recent one I can think of was >$160k base, Santa Monica).

This is the "we want skilled, assertive people" ideology taken to its conclusion.

Personally I'm not a hard negotiator (though I'm willing to walk away if my -- generally not super aggressive -- number isn't met), but I tend to move myself into technical leadership positions fairly quickly when joining a new org.

Good! My evenings and weekends are valuable to me and I want to work with people who value my time.

If they self-filter because they're a bad place to work, all the better.

In my opinion, with negotiations, (as much as people hate negotiations in this thread) nothing ever generically applies as not all people are expert negotiators... (including this advice I guess...)

(That said, I completely agree that it is generally good advice to not disclose your salary expectations in most cases. This is especially true for junior hackers without full awareness of the market conditions, who I have seen consistently underestimate their salary potential.)

Now the question is this: if you are willing to blow off the whole process anyway on that call, why not at least try giving them a number and give them a chance and see if they would beat it?

If it's obvious that the recruiter is uncooperative or that the role isn't prestigious/top-tier, this is exactly what one should do.

The reaction to blowout numbers may just surprise you, and perhaps not for the better..

In my life I've been more upset by a lack of resistance in negotiations (of any kind) than immediate supplication, because it invariably means: "I could've done better, my appraisal was wrong"

Again we must discern between "internal recruiters" and recruiting agencies.

Reputable third-party recruiting agencies will not play this game:

  - They know their clients.

  - They know how prior placements have been compensated.

  - They only get paid if you get placed.

  - They have 10 other companies they might be able place you at with higher likelihood.

"I've got 3 other offers on the table right now, my time is extremely limited. I am sure you can understand: I cannot afford to waste time on unsuitable roles. What is the top-end of your range for this position?"

And really, you need to know what you are worth, or this number is meaningless. Once they've dropped the top-end of the range, you can give an ultimatum: "Match and exceed companies A, B, C." or "I would be willing to take a risk and go down this interview track, but understand from the onset: your top-end is at least $xx,xxx lower than I would consider. Furthermore, I do not wish to be the most well-compensated employee on my team, which might detract from my desire to proceed."

Ideally, but not always practically, especially as a software developer.

A large complicating factor of the whole "when to start talking about required salary numbers" is the fact that in computer software development no matter how established you are you are still often expected to do some ridiculous multi-day dance of interviewing to separately prove to n number of people that you can actually string code together (even if there's already ample evidence to prove you can, such as successfully shipped applications at prior jobs, repos full of open source code written, etc).

Interviewing for software jobs is (still) just incredibly broken in ways that make waiting to talk about salary until a later time a very dangerous game.

I feel that I could have saved myself the majority of those 9 hours if I had told them my salary expectations from the beginning. They would have either balked immediately or told me the position wasn't going to be paid that and we would have been done. I think that is how I will handle things going forward, personally.

Or you could've asked their range upfront, and then you could be the one disqualifying and doing the balking. This information is freely given to third-party recruiting agencies (if they use them) as well.

For me, this serves more purposes than knowing what I'll get paid. I need to know that my coworkers are well-compensated: it's a huge indicator of the quality of team you'll be working with.

Sure, it's possible that the entire team is grossly overpaid, though it's not likely. You'll find out their competency in the interview loop.

LOLOL You'll get

"we pay market rate"

which is a ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR WIDE gulf of market inefficiency

Why can't "the Internet" know that I'm not average? Based on my web browsing history alone, the Internet should know that I have reached expert level in resume and salary compensation discussions. So don't show me the stuff for beginners.

There has to be some startup idea in there somewhere. All the raw data is there. Deep learning is hot. Who will come up with the first usable "Internet persona" or "Custom Internet" concept that actually works?

As an agency/3rd party recruiter/headhunter who asks people questions about salary all the time (current or desired), I'd argue that the #1 mistake people make is saying that they are willing to negotiate before getting any objection. I've written about this at length, but the typical conversation goes like this.

ME: "How much are you looking to make?"

CANDIDATE: "I'm looking for 100K."

ME: PAUSES TO TAKE NOTE

CANDIDATE: "...But I'm always willing to negotiate"

I haven't even said "no" and they are already negotiating against themselves. Any hiring manager dealing with junior level candidates will likely know this tendency for inexperienced negotiators to mention flexibility when greeted with any silence, so they'll incorporate that silence into their "script".

But I'm sticking with the strategy.

Ultimately the jobs where, in a vacuum and asked to value the job themselves, they come up with a number a sad fraction of your current comp, there was simply no scenario in which you would have been happy with comp at that place. It is simply the wrong job/company, and a change in negotiating tactic would not have fixed it.

The lowball initial offer ruffles some feathers and produces bad feelings, but ultimately does not change the outcome of the game.

Where withholding your current comp matters is where you're looking to make a step up - either a position with more seniority/responsibility, or simply at a company that pays people more. In these cases you have some knowledge that the upper end of the envelope is higher than your current comp, and so you don't want to anchor the negotiation low right off the bat.

Knowledge of how much companies pay for what positions is invaluable in negotiation - personally I wouldn't even bother interviewing at places where I know for certain the comp won't hit my expectations.

Side note: Glassdoor is incredibly bad for this kind of intelligence. Their medians lean low and the upper end of the envelope is in my experience almost entirely unrepresented. If you go in assuming the comp envelope is what Glassdoor says it is, you will lowball yourself severely.

I concur wholeheartedly. Glassdoor is the absolute worst representation of salary ranges available. One could speculate as to why, but anecdotally, I've never received an offer that fell below their "reported" top-end.

AngelList is similarly bad for top-end comp representation, with the added twist of permanent anchoring: if you apply to a company that's listed an unreasonably low salary range, even if you know they'll (logically have to) pay more, they'll know that you can be bought cheap.

Why would anyone do that?

More commonly though I think people just aren't aware of the market situation, and comp ranges for specific jobs at specific companies.

Knowing the lay of the compensation land in your area is pretty critical to negotiating well - from both sides of the table. And this goes beyond generalities like "market salary" but to specific recent offers made for specific jobs at specific companies.

Honing the skill to determine whether or not a company is going to be able to pay you what you're worth is hinged on a few (apparently tricky) soft-skill-based assumptions:

- You can assess the company (quality, tier of engineer, etc.)

- You can assess your own market value, apparent worth accurately.

I like to give companies that I believe won't pay correctly the benefit of the doubt: I give a blowout number, xx% more than I believe I am worth. If I'm not met with resistance: I'm wrong and it hurts.

The interviews are to judge skill and if everyone wants to work with one another. There are also different leveling with the title, so they won't know the range until all the interviews are finished. And while money is important, it comes off as you're only interested in the money to the interviewer.

Your statement also says interviewer instead of recruiter, was that a mistake? I have never had an interviewer discussing salary range, maybe cost of living in the area, but not salary range for the role.

You're best off naming a range, with a stretch goal, and giving a little bit of context to the person asking. E.g., "I'm looking for $150-180k, but I'm interviewing with a few other companies, so anything in addition to that would really put this role at the top of my list. I'd really love to work for you, so I hope we can find something that works for the both of us."

Notice how there's an implied "+ $X" in there. That X-factor can make all the difference and with this approach you don't come off looking like someone who's just playing games.

Most recruiters immediately get the hint and you can gracefully exit if they're expecting to pay far below your current comp.

Edited answer to be less preachy.

In a few weeks I will have a job interview but the job is only partly interesting to me. I can earn my money without that job, so I can say no. And the chances that I'm really interested are currently 45% yes to 55% no. In that situation I would either tell him "I'm not interested if you don't give me a high number" or I would tell him something I consider high myself. His starting number is certainly much lower than what I would consider my "yes" range.

The best thing I did for my negotiation skill was to read up popular psychology books on influence. It may not make me a negotiations pro but just being able to name some of the dynamics and recognize some of the tactics puts me (or so I feel) at a far better position at the discussions.

E.g. it's easier to play football if someone explains the rules, especially if the opposing team is used to playing against players whoa are completely clueless of the game.

In this context "don't name a number" is analogous to "be aware of the leverage at play, and don't yield leverage to the other side unless you know where the game is".

In a good negotiation, if you give an info you can expect an info back, so that's also your opportunity to request something. For instance you may want to ask how the bonus structure looks like, or what's their view on remote work.

And gain from there, negotiation is not just about money.

How does one answer that, when you consider benefits, 401k, average bonus, etc. It could be $10k difference. So, I usually say I need to see the whole package they are offering to get you a number.

All of those other perks are either known, standard, or negotiable after the fact.

In general - save for a publicly traded company issuing RSUs - base salary is the most important factor to be optimizing for.

Better, since I didn't start, I was able to still negotiate on top of their initial offer.