HN Explorer

Ask HN: How can I/we make the most of a hot job market?

57 points by throwawaysleep ↗ HN
I have never really done a dedicated campaign to get the best position possible. I have no idea how to play companies against each other to boost my compensation. Heck, beyond FAANG, I am not even sure where the good spots are to apply, especially for remote work.

Anyone who has gotten a nice juicy raise have a playbook I can follow?

44 comments

[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] thread
sydthrowaway
0. Get at least two offers. You might get a 20% raise with just one offer, but 20-100% from two.
ericb
1. Use recruiters. Several. Recruiters signal a company is motivated, and willing to pay more than they need to to fill a position. Tell the recruiters "I'm looking for $xxx,xxx and up." Most recruiters don't like wasting their time, so most will feel out the pricing power first.

2. Do as much interviewing in a short time as you can stomach.

3. Try to get offers from multiple companies. Tell each company that you love them best, but you've got a better offer, and you've got mouth(s) to feed, can they do any better?

4. Take the best offer you can get out of the company you think you'll like working for the most.

postalrat
You must be a recruiter
toomuchtodo
It’s all good advice even if they’re a dog masquerading as a human.
postalrat
I don't think defaulting to or depending on recruiters is good advice.

The only time I would suggest that is if the place you want to be hired at only hires through recruiters. Otherwise you should find a way to apply directly to the company.

ericb
Why do you care?

I've submitted resumes to companies directly and been ignored--probably dumped in an HR inbox somewhere. Then I later come in through a recruiter and had them pursue me aggressively.

Feel free to look through my comments--I'm not a recruiter.

If you go through the company directly, you won't get a straight answer on salary up-front. You can be as direct as you want on salary with a recruiter middleman without hurting anyone's feelings, though.

tra3
Recruiters have kpis to hit so they are motivated to get you through the first set of gatekeepers. Essentially they are on your side.
postalrat
You could say the same thing for any salesperson.
kfk
I am on the hiring side in this crazy market, please think long term and find something you like and that fits your long term development goals. I have had to go through plenty of mediocre candidates jumping every year or two to a new salary increase, they lack deep knowledge and basically copy paste stackoverflow answers. I would never give them a serious role. The moment we have another 2008 crisis all these people will struggle to find a decent job.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
brailsafe
As someone who's resume looks like one of these jumpers (but really it just hasn't worked out many times), I do see some potential problems with this. Is it not possible that people are leaving because they didn't see a way that they'd land a serious role or pay increase in your company? Are you asking that people stick around despite those things not being present? Seems like a very poor value proposition to me. Likewise, how is someone supposed to find something that they'd stick with long term if they don't play the field?
kfk
The top people I met during my carrier always find ways to be productive, add value and become key team members. Those people probably make less money because they don't job hop as much, but they are valued a lot more by their bosses and peers. When I hire I try to find such people because I know I can trust them. Your knowledge, reputation, and trust is your biggest asset, it is much more valuable than a 30% salary increase today, in the long run I believe your "brand" is a much bigger driver of wealth than job hopping.
dalmo3
> Those people probably make less money because they don't job hop as much

> in the long run I believe your "brand" is a much bigger driver of wealth than job hopping

This seems to imply that in the long run one can be "much" wealthier by... making less money? Compound interest comes to mind.

noahjk
I think many would agree that reputation/"brand" doesn't pay the bills, and just like any social media platform, only the .01% of creators/employees actually benefit from having a "brand", while most spend a ton of time trying to create one without much luck. In the same way, I'd assume that it takes a lot to actually be a name which is associated with a "brand" in a tech field - many, I'm sure, have failed and wasted a lot of energy which could have been put towards living life outside of work
bad_good_guy
> Those people probably make less money because they don't job hop as much, but they are valued a lot more by their bosses and peers

If they were truly valued more by their bosses, they would be paid more.

This is ridiculous, but not unsurprising coming from a recruiter

aprdm
That depends. Not every industry or company has the margins of tech or a truck of VC money.
brailsafe
I don't know if it does depend. If you have low margins, but do a ton of volume in any industry, you should be able to generate more money by retaining good shipping ppl. That has a ceiling where competition won't pay more, or the business can't realistically afford you for some reason, but at that point you should probably move to where you can generate more with the same time, supposing that other factors aren't more important than the gain in $
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
mattmanser
Reading your two posts, it sounds more like you've got a bad code base, no-one wants to work on it and quickly flee when they've seen it.

You're also a bad boss who never gives people payrises, and that's why you need to find people to "trust".

I think we'll all be fine if there's another 2008 without your 30% below market rate jobs, thanks.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
brailsafe
I think there is a fundamental disconnect between "top" people adding value and literally not being valued as high as another company. In my experience, a company that won't reward you more despite your measured contribution being valuable isn't worth a second thought. I'd go one step further, and point to the gaming industry whose primary reputation characteristic is leveraging talented people's motivation against them for executive and shareholder profit. I've also witnessed apparently "key" team members being refused a stake in the company, and that's just one more nail. If you ain't being valued accordingly, and you can't get a stake, find something else.
quickthrower2
There is a tension there. Your ideal candidate is by definition not a candidate, or rarely a candidate.

It’s an interesting situation. Companies are trying to make their founders billionaires, but we must begrudge and judge the workers for a chance of becoming a millionaire by playing it like business.

ianai
How long do you like to see someone stay in a position before moving for you to not consider them hoppers? Ie minimum.
matt_s
I (not OP) would say 2-3 years minimum. If an employer doesn't have enough varied work for you to tackle and learn during that time then maybe less. One perspective is long enough to get a promotion.

As a hiring manager, I would generally exclude, from the 2-3yr min concept, roles like consultancy/freelance or circumstances beyond the candidates power to avoid (layoffs, acquisitions, etc.)

I don't see it as a hard rule to follow, just something to ask about if there are like three 1 year stints at different places in same town.

the_only_law
> they lack deep knowledge and basically copy paste stackoverflow answers

If thats all the job calls for why should I do anymore?

notimrelakatos
Job hopping is the perfect strategy for mediocre developers in this "bull market", if done quickly you'll only tell stories of glory, never having to deal with your bad decisions long term.

I'm not saying only bad developers do this, but there's an extra incentive for them to do so and increase noise for recruiters.

hiptobecubic
Yes, but until then they are catapulting up the ladder at crazy speed and making money out the ass.
magneticnorth
If you get multiple offers, you can play them off of each other. Specifics on that: don't give your current salary to the companies making you an offer; if you really feel pinned into a corner to say a number, use levels.fyi or other market research that supports a very high number for you to give. Then once multiple companies have given you an offer, you can use those offers, or even particularly appealing parts of the offer, to ask for more. My most recent negotiation I had a higher cash comp (but lower total comp) at my 2nd choice company; I told my first choice that if they could beat the cash comp from other-offer, then I would sign on. I was expecting them to drop the equity a bit but they actually bumped that up, too. The line of "I will sign if..." is very powerful, but you should only use it if you mean it.

A piece that's addressed less is how to get multiple offers. I treated my job search like a funnel - I talked to as many potentially-interesting places as I could, either through my network or looking back through all my old LinkedIn cold outreach messages (and marking myself "open to offers" there).

Then I did maybe 6-7 pre-onsite "interviews" - sometimes this is a technical screen, sometimes this is coffee & in-depth conversation with the hiring manager, depending on company size and how the manager likes to hire. I tried to schedule these clustered together, to keep all my potential jobs at the same stage of the funnel.

Then I did 3 full-day onsites within a week and a half - I was working full-time so even that felt like a stretch. I only chose to onsite at places that I was really excited to work at, and where I felt very good at my chances in the onsite interviews. And luckily that resulted in 2 offers so I could negotiate.

I did actually try this funnel approach unsuccessfully a few months beforehand - I ended up with only 1 onsite I was excited enough about to take a vacation day for and then didn't pass it, so it's certainly not a fool-proof plan. But, it did work out for me in the end.

You can push on recruiters for slow companies if somewhere you're excited about is lagging behind your "funnel" - you can let them know that you've moved to onsite with 2 or more other companies but you're super excited about them so definitely want to get your phone screen scheduled asap; or you heard you're going to receive an offer and will probably need to decide within a week; is it possible to move up your onsite before that deadline? Having other interested companies is a strong signal, and recruiters will pretty much always want to rush you through if they think you're likely to be a "hire" decision from the team.

manish_gill
Question to anyone who knows better: Can people in EU take advantage of this somehow? US compensation is _crazy_ relative to what I make in Berlin for example. 2-3x or more for Senior/Staff level positions. I'm not an EU citizen, so I'm not even sure how to apply for the best possible positions in US-based companies.
matt_s
What you might want to look for is a US HQ employer that already has EU based people, possibly a company that operates globally and has sales staff in your country.

That should probably clear most hurdles of taxes, benefits, etc. since they have already figured that out.

Graffur
Why sales staff in particular?
cosmodisk
That's usually why local divisions get opened. I'm from a tiny country in Europe,where all the Microsofts and Googles of this world have local offices but only a handful of people employed there. So following that logic, you could work for the US headquarters,yet be employed at the local branch.
matt_s
Yep, usually opening an office in a different country starts with sales staff. This gets that company over the hurdle of establishing payroll, benefits, taxes, etc. for that country.

If they allow remote workers for software jobs then it would be easier for them to hire you since they already have people employed there.

iExploder
I wouldn't bother with Berlin. Its filled with cheap startups that pay low and dont offer equity for devs (in my very limited experience of job hunting there).

Moving to west or south Germany instantly means 30% pay raise for a solid dev.

apercu
Great post. I'm curious what other self-employed people are doing.

My typical work week the last 5-7 years is 15-20 hours on 2-3 projects of typical 3-month duration.

I turn down A LOT of projects.

I an a hybrid consulting analyst/business analyst that does business process design and integration specification.

ALL of my clients want ALL of my time right now. I did 4-5 months of 50 hour weeks and then just said, "STOP".

I then told ALL of my clients that if they want priority access to my time and more than a day a week they need to commit to monthly retainers (large ones) that they can cancel at any time with one month penalty.

Most were like, "ok, we'll figure something else out" (because corporations would rather have record profits than sustainable businesses).

One I am still negotiating with. But since I put a premium on time instead of money it's not really a negation, it's more like "here are my terms."

If you are any good at what you do maybe you also need to decide what is important to you and then find a company that will meet you there.

But even though this is slightly off topic I am curious what other small consulting practices and freelancers are doing to maximize their income right now. In my mind this is like 1998-2001 where I made A LOT of money. If I am going to work hard right now I will not be doing so to make rich people more wealth but rather to increase my coffers so I have even more freedom to say NO.

Gortal278
It's sounds like you need to increase your prices
apercu
I have. 25% increase.
codegeek
"I will not be doing so to make rich people more wealth but rather to increase my coffers"

I am just a stranger so take this with a grain of salt but I suggest changing this mentality. Don't worry about rich people creating more wealth because rich people will always do and it is not a binary game. Try to think of a win-win situation where you can make shit ton of money regardless of whether rich people make more money or not. That will work much better. Instead of having "Rich vs poor" mentality, have a "They can do it so can I and even if that means working together/mutually". I think we can see more success if we work WITH the rich, not against them.

apercu
Sorry, I didn't express that well. I don't want to make rich people richer while they are actively trying to suppress my income in order to make their margins bigger. Because that's been my experience for the last 15 or so years.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
atmosx
A little extra money won’t make you happier. If you want money start a business. As an employee, there is a ceiling because you simply don’t scale.

That said, passed a threshold it is a matter of having “enough”.

aprdm
Yes this is interesting. Taxes also eat much of your money after a certain point…