> Negotiation only works if both parties are equal.

That is not true at all. It only works if both parties have something of value that the other wants. It's always a negotiation, but the only thing that ever matters in a negotiation is the BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) on both sides.

If your BATNA is unemployment and their BATNA is a minor delay getting someone almost exactly equivalent to you, then you'll take their offer and they'll politely decline if you ask for more. If your BATNA is one of a few other competing offers all of which excite you, and their BATNA is having to settle for someone who doesn't bring your particular expertise to the company, or worse, having to start their search over again, you're in a much stronger position to ask for more money.

Your batna is only unemployment if Facebook is the only company on the face of planet that will hire you

Philosophically yes, but "unemployment" and "unemployed for another month that I really can't afford while I go through this whole process yet again with another company who's just going to do the same damn thing" can feel pretty equivalent.

As a general rule, never disclose current or old salary. Just because you get asked, doesn't mean you need to tell anyone.

I usually politely sidestep the "what's your current salary?" with a "in rolling to accept at least x, but we can negotiate if both parties are satisfied and get to offers". If a recruiter insists, I tell them I have a personal rule to never disclose that. I think I have lost a single prospect, which likely was never real to begin with. Likely just fishing.

While I'm at it, I never mention who my current employer is either. I usually obscure it on my cv of I'm still employed. I also had a request recently to provide a scan of my passport on initial application, which i also declined.

Honestly, recruiters think they can ask for any and all personal information they want. If you have value, no one will drop you because of it.

You can use this to your advantage by setting the anchor. I'd never give a dollar figure but I would give an acceptable range. At my current position there's a variable comp component based on personal and company performance; this is a legitimate opportunity to give a forward-looking optimistic range: "Looking towards the next year, if I meet performance metrics similar to what I've demonstrated in the past I will be somewhere in the range of x and y".

>> I never mention who my current employer is either

Why is this? It's typically the most relevant information to a new position, and usually trivial to determine without you volunteering it.

I think next time I will say, “Sure, I’ll tell you my salary once you tell me those of the hiring manager and my new teammates. That way we all have the relevant information.”

> As a general rule, never disclose current or old salary

Don’t worry, Equifax takes care of that for us. Both who you’re currently working for, and your current salary. It’s a service it offers to HR departments across the US.

Equifax does not have accurate information. Do you know something I don't?

One time they thought I worked on staff at the local zoo. Seriously.

It would be a waste of effort for HR. They don't have time for that I don't think. They want to get to a number not do forensics on your background.

Bonuses and RSUs presumably give you wiggle room to handwave your total comp though.

Refusing to answer a fact seeking question in a negotiation isn’t great strategy. it may not even help your case. if you make too little, that’s already your problem. Someone offering you more than what you make is a net positive. Withholding information leading to a whitheld offer does you no good.

I've had people say that they already had other offers well in excess of current pay, making current pay moot. It's not a fact seeking question in a conventional sense. It's just one method of trying to move the process along with least effort. If you give an answer then they can make an effective offer quicker. If you don't there may be more work, that's all.

Suppose you are just finishing a Ph.D. and took a few years off. Suppose you took a year or two to do freelance or work 1099. Suppose you went abroad to work for a year or two to take of your dying parent. These are all things I have run into.

Edit: One more good one. I've known people who won a green lottery or married an American citizen they met abroad. Showed up in USA with lots of skills having made much less in Eastern Europe.

Do you prefer other people put in more effort than necessary?

If I understand your point, you're only considering marginal engineers that aren't expected to make a significant contribution to a product, and don't have competing offers.

In the other case, the company needs to accomplish something, believes you can do it, and you have a list of companies sending you offers.

Thats not so far fetched! Many of us hit that point in our careers.

> you're only considering marginal engineers that aren't expected to make a significant contribution to a product

So, 99% of the workforce? Or, 99.9999% if you consider that companies just don’t give a fuck unless you happen to be Guido van Rossem?

HR departments, who approve/deny pay changes, don’t care. My current company is being forced (with the approval of the board) to compensate high performers in alternative ways (like stock grants, or vacation time) if they’re outside of the “approved pay bands”.

I know someone who 100% qualifies for a title of “high performer” (they promoted him to a director a month after this) who would have had his pay cut in half if he moved away from his current location due to “remaining competitive with the local market”.