(Also—general question: why do people not always put this information on Worker Wanted ads, in a visible fashion? Not putting up this info seems to be the standard thing for non-hourly job postings, and I’m not sure why. It seems like one of the most important things.)
Suppose they say they’re prepared to pay up to $X. Then:
If someone turns up whose last salary was $X/2 and who would be willing to do the job for $3X/4, they’re less likely to persuade them to accept that because they’ve said they’re prepared to pay up to $X.
If someone really outstanding is out there who’d do the job so well they’d actually be prepared to pay $3X/2, they may never find out because maybe Ms. Outstanding already has a decent job that pays more than $X and isn’t interested in moving unless she gets paid more.
Posting information about likely pay is very useful for the potential employees but has scarcely any advantage for the employer. And, for better or worse, employers will generally act in their own interests more than those of their prospective employees.
I see… cleverly, it also takes advantage of how many people are afraid to ask for high salaries out of modesty or something.
I kind of view this as defecting and it seems like I have to defect in turn, to counter it (conveniently, I get to move second)… I guess this means I must start quoting highball figures and generally concealing my previous salary if it is lower than I expect the opponent to estimate, and displaying it loudly when it is higher than the opponent would estimate. Is that an effective thing to do?
(When I say it’s defecting, I’m not attaching moral value to it or anything. I do want organizations which I want to see succeed do whatever is most rational, even if it is defecting, if that’s what all the other agents are doing. Still, I feel like mutual cooperation would be generally more pleasant. I wonder if there is a mechanism to determine a person’s true-market-value (as in, taking into account the opportunity costs on both sides) so as to avoid this sort of thing.)
I’ve actually tried this before, under the notion that I’d get a higher chance of landing the job relative to other applicants. I wouldn’t do it again—I’m pretty sure the real outcome is that I lowered my perceived value. Signalling!
Now that I phrase it in light of game theory though—if it had worked, it would be a neat demonstration of how two super-rational players win out over game-theoretically rational players. What I describe is also how the free market is supposed to work—my benefit in “cooperating” derives from cutting the competition out of the trade by offering a better deal.
It looks like there’s no incentive for them to post an honest salary range, and there’s no incentive for you, having been told the salary range, to be honest about what you think you are worth.
It’s not defecting, just making a choice that is strictly nonbeneficial for the other party.
It’s certainly something I have heard recommended many a time. Though usually without the “higher than the opponent would estimate” bit—perhaps because most people who are moving jobs are moving to jobs they expect to pay more than they’re getting now, so the situation doesn’t often arise.
As we have not secured funding yet it would be premature to do either of these things. We can negotiate a salary later on in the process depending on the person’s qualifications.
(Also—general question: why do people not always put this information on Worker Wanted ads, in a visible fashion? Not putting up this info seems to be the standard thing for non-hourly job postings, and I’m not sure why. It seems like one of the most important things.)
Suppose they say they’re prepared to pay up to $X. Then:
If someone turns up whose last salary was $X/2 and who would be willing to do the job for $3X/4, they’re less likely to persuade them to accept that because they’ve said they’re prepared to pay up to $X.
If someone really outstanding is out there who’d do the job so well they’d actually be prepared to pay $3X/2, they may never find out because maybe Ms. Outstanding already has a decent job that pays more than $X and isn’t interested in moving unless she gets paid more.
Posting information about likely pay is very useful for the potential employees but has scarcely any advantage for the employer. And, for better or worse, employers will generally act in their own interests more than those of their prospective employees.
I see… cleverly, it also takes advantage of how many people are afraid to ask for high salaries out of modesty or something.
I kind of view this as defecting and it seems like I have to defect in turn, to counter it (conveniently, I get to move second)… I guess this means I must start quoting highball figures and generally concealing my previous salary if it is lower than I expect the opponent to estimate, and displaying it loudly when it is higher than the opponent would estimate. Is that an effective thing to do?
(When I say it’s defecting, I’m not attaching moral value to it or anything. I do want organizations which I want to see succeed do whatever is most rational, even if it is defecting, if that’s what all the other agents are doing. Still, I feel like mutual cooperation would be generally more pleasant. I wonder if there is a mechanism to determine a person’s true-market-value (as in, taking into account the opportunity costs on both sides) so as to avoid this sort of thing.)
If they posted a salary range, and it was higher than you would have expected them to offer, would you “cooperate”?
I’ve actually tried this before, under the notion that I’d get a higher chance of landing the job relative to other applicants. I wouldn’t do it again—I’m pretty sure the real outcome is that I lowered my perceived value. Signalling!
Now that I phrase it in light of game theory though—if it had worked, it would be a neat demonstration of how two super-rational players win out over game-theoretically rational players. What I describe is also how the free market is supposed to work—my benefit in “cooperating” derives from cutting the competition out of the trade by offering a better deal.
It looks like there’s no incentive for them to post an honest salary range, and there’s no incentive for you, having been told the salary range, to be honest about what you think you are worth.
It’s not defecting, just making a choice that is strictly nonbeneficial for the other party.
It’s certainly something I have heard recommended many a time. Though usually without the “higher than the opponent would estimate” bit—perhaps because most people who are moving jobs are moving to jobs they expect to pay more than they’re getting now, so the situation doesn’t often arise.
As we have not secured funding yet it would be premature to do either of these things. We can negotiate a salary later on in the process depending on the person’s qualifications.