There is a market dude. "Too much or too little" doesn't mean anything, its about what range they're looking to pay. In my example from a couple days ago they already gave me the range, and I was a decent chunk under it. But the $ they gave me is over market! Why in the world would I sabotage myself??

You're assuming a hell of a lot here. I (now) go into every posting needing a range first and if it works for me I let them know and we go from there. Its a mutually beneficial agreement, not this "we unlock the keys to amazing wonderful job we have for you if you pass our challenges" stuff.

Yeah this "mutually beneficial" stuff is horse ****.

I've gotten the best offers from places that didn't ask me what I made or wanted to make.

I've gotten good offers when I tell them to make me a compelling offer without disclosing what I make or what I want to make.

I've gotten a *very* mixed bag if the interview process starts with me telling them how much I make now.

This doesn't help your argument here - you don't have control over what the companies ask. You're not A/B testing your response here - you're saying that companies that don't ask (presumably because they are more desperate and are confident that they can meet your expectations) pay better. And it does seem to help my argument that companies are better off asking.

Of course they're better off asking.

This should make it obvious that if they ask, you're in a worse position.

You can't make that position better by answering. If they insist, I either decline to answer and we don't move forward, or if I need the job, I answer, and probably make less than I could if they didn't ask me.

And note that #2 in my list above was when they asked and I declined. If they shrug and say OK, those outcomes are better than if I cave and tell them.

FWIW, asking "how much do you want to make" is a WAY better question than "how much do you make right now" You should still deflect it if you can.

And we're not even including cases like you end up failing the interviews for the level you initially applied for, but ending up with an offer for a slightly more junior position because that's still above your current pay grade.

This has literally never happened to me, and I don't know of any cases where as the hirer we've really done something like this. Maybe it's common in some places (maybe really large employers?) but I've never seen it.

I've only done this twice (currently at 3rd job since college), and results were...
- job #1 -> job #2, moving from enterprise software to video games: $10k pay cut, because video game industry
- work at job #2 for ~six years, salary goes up ~50% during that timeframe
- job #2 -> job #3, moving to startup: almost no change in compensation when converting the salary+overtime+bonuses I received at video game company to the fixed salary #3 offered me (though offer also included some stock options, which may or may not ever wind up being worth something). And that's after sitting on #3's offer for a week caused them to increase it by 5k or 10k (can't remember which)

Both of these involved me telling them my previous salary before getting an offer. Obviously, "you're bad at negotiating" is a potential explanation, which I'll happily admit to - I don't know what their upper limit is, I don't know when/if it's appropriate for me to ask for more especially after they've already increased their offer, I don't know if my compensation at a given moment is high or low for the market so I don't know when #3 offers me the same as what I'm making at #2 if they're lowballing me or not.

This is all I'm saying. Which is why this whole discussion is puzzling. Larry is generally better off asking even if most of you would rather not be asked the question. Which is why asking the question is completely standard unless the company is really desperate for talent and is confident that it can pay really well. And once asked, there's really not much you could do.

Outcomes here are probably statistically better, but highly unlikely as a consequence of your choice. Companies that pay well are less likely to insist on this but it's doubtful that at those same companies, answering the question would have resulted in better offers. There's generally no mechanism by which not answering questions results in better offers.

If it matters, I've had to explain why I felt I deserved some $X after saying I earn $14 or $10 per hour. I've also had to deflect the utter shock from people after saying what I earned at the database job. It does no benefit to you to explain why you need more money at a new employer. They rightfully wonder why your current job doesn't pay you your required salary. It is even worse when you aren't currently employed.

You wouldn't know if this happens to you - no one would tell you that this is what happened. At a larger company, they will try to convince you that this is the right level for you and we pay so well that it's still good and at a smaller company, they will try to give you the same title you were expecting, but just give you less money. And most of the time, what happens is more that you are rejected, but don't know that you may have been given an offer if they knew you'd be open to being paid less.

In order of ****tiness we have:
1. offer them a good salary
2. ask them what salary they're looking for
3. ask them how much they make now (I've been asked for my previous 3 salaries before. I snap declined)

1 is great, 2 is OK, 3 is lol no. I am never telling you what I am currently paid. It's none of your god damn business.

Again, two can play this game, but it's a lot easier for employers to ignore candidates who wouldn't play along than it is for candidates to ignore employers who wouldn't play along. Employers aren't desperate right now in general - they are desperate for cheap talent. Also, in my experience, it's employers that are willing to pay the most that are most guarded about sharing their compensation range because they don't want to bid against themselves and don't want even their own employees to know how much they are paying their other employees.

Yea so to update, we will be asking her the current salary. I have come out of the battle without egg on my face, but I was unsuccessful in my appeal to the same line of thinking as Rusty, etc.

If this goes badly I'm going to be disappointed, but 99% of the time it should just be not a big deal.

You don't have to answer but that's going to lead to a lowball offer if you're at that stage or if asked early enough, they will just move onto another candidate. I think you're sort of mixing two unrelated arguments together here - is it about maximizing pay or some principles? As for myself, I believe in transparency and honesty and they've guided me fairly well.

A lowball offer (from the perspective of the company) is often very likely to be one that's higher than your current compensation. In nearly all cases, it's exactly when we're lowballing people that they are happiest with the offers. This is why I don't take personal anecdotes seriously.

Honestly at this point its more about self respect than anything for me. But in the end an easy way to look at it is top talent won't put up with these sorts of tactics so top talent probably doesn't work there.

My project manager is having a very involved conversation about whether "meta scrum" is the same as "scrum of scrums". We have officially gone through the looking glass.

But why is this about self-respect? Why do you think talented people won't answer these types of questions? Over the course of any kind of hiring process, you get asked all kinds of stupid questions and are asked to perform stupid tricks like a circus monkey. Why does this raise the question of self-respect? It feels a little bit like a professional matchmaker asking some 30-year old divorcee whether she's ever been married and her going on and on about how that's not important and she won't answer the question because it's demeaning and none of their business or whatever.

Feel like I dodged a mini-bullet. Candidate was making 9% less than the salary she asked for, everything good.

I call shenanigans on you not understanding why being forced to answer a question that can only be used against you is demeaning and not respectful so not sure why you're being intentionally obtuse.

Again I don't mind being asked, its part of due diligence. To force me to tell you is telling me everything I need to know about how you do business and treat your employees.

As I said before, this isn't true - it may very well be used to justify an offer above the normal range. Remember, in many cases, the person you're dealing with, whether recruiter or hiring manager, is not the person who pays you or even benefits from paying you less. They are middlemen negotiating on your behalf as well as against you.

Your "can only be used against you" test is even more true of the "have you ever been married" question. Not to mention anything that's ever asked as part of your background check. No one decides to hire you because of anything that comes up - it's entirely about using the information against you. Lots of questions in life are like this - people feel disrespected not because the question is disrespectful but because it delves into an aspect of themselves that they are not entirely comfortable with.

You gave an example where you'll pay more if someone says their salary is high, and pay less if they say it's less. And yet you continue to insist that we're all in it together and that the person asking the question doesn't benefit from paying you less, etc.

You are literally demonstrating that the employer is going to try to **** you if they can, and insisting that they aren't at the same time.

And if an employer asks me if I've ever been married I will tell them to go **** themselves, stand up and leave, and get a lawyer.

The person asking the question very often isn't making the decision - the offer has to be justified to higher-ups. And they will not let you make an offer that's at the top of the range unless you can justify why. So you gather relevant information. In the absence of relevant information, they more or less have to start at the bottom and see if you force their hands.

Why is that ****ing you over? If the employer has a range for a position, is paying below the top of the range ****ing you? Are you trying to **** employers over if you try to get paid more than the absolute minimum you'd take? This seems bizarre to me. Again, if you don't provide any relevant information, they are forced to take a more adversarial stance and lower their offer. As in financial markets, transparency tends to increase prices.

That example was about a professional matchmaker needing to know your marital history, which they generally do.

I think people are also missing this point. What people have paid you in the past is indicative of your ability to contribute at least in some fashion. At the very least, it sets a lower bound for your BATNA. Aren't people here constantly complaining about how interviews aren't fair or completely indicative of your skills and a lot of things that are obvious when you work with someone aren't obvious in an interview setting? In that case, isn't how much your previous employer thought you were worth at least partially indicative of your abilities? They got to see you perform every day. It's obviously not perfect and is wrong very often but is it completely worthless? You'd have to have a lot of confidence in your own hiring process to throw that out entirely.

Good to hear! I guess what I find strange about this is that in real life I've never met anyone who would refuse to answer questions like this. It's only on internet forums where I get all this advice about not talking about numbers and refusing to answer questions. And concerns always seem to revolve around their current compensation being too low and employers using that fact to make a lowball offer, which undermines the idea that this is a good negotiating strategy - if they are so good at negotiating, why are they paid so little relative to their actual value?