Why do most job sites hide salary?

The answer is very simple: they don't want to pay their prospective employees any more than they have to. If they put a job listing for $70k and a developer currently making $50k applies and gets it, he gets a 20 thousand dollar raise.

On the other hand, if the employer requires the applicant's current salary on the application, and Mr. Qualified Engineer applies, they can offer him $55k instead (just enough to make him consider the offer if he's unhappy with his current job).

Using this strategy, the employer can make sure their employees never know their real worth, since every raise/promotion/new job they get is based on a "just good enough" improvement over their current salary.

I was a recruiter for 20 years. In my experience, when a range was listed, every applicant expected to get offered at the top of the range.

So if the range was 80-100K and you had a candidate at the lower end of the experience/skills range for the job, that candidate becomes attached to that 100K number. He tells his friends "I found a job that pays 100K". Candidates don't pay much attention to the low number in the real world.

So the interviews happen, the candidate performs as expected (not superb) and gets an offer for 80K. He thinks he's leaving 20K on the table if he accepts, or that he's getting lowballed. If the job had been posted 60-80K, he wouldn't have felt shorted at all.

This is a simplification of course, but posting salary led to lots of refused offers when the offer < the top figure.

I think it is because you don't know what you're going to get / and honestly a lot of places don't know the actual market until they start making offers.

Maybe you're looking for a $100k type guy... but all you get are $70k applicants so you decide to hire one of them.

You don't want to pay dramatically more than you should, or insult them by offering less than the job listed or set them up for thinking they're getting a raise shortly after or something.

There are a lot of theories about negotiation and gamification and I think plenty of that is true, but I also think that for most places looking for a specific role, they're not 100% sure what they're going to get and thus can't say exactly what they'll pay.

As much as I loath job hunting, trying to get through the hiring industrial complex before I get to talk to the technical guy... I also don't think every job offer thing is a sort of dark pattern. I think folks hiring are flying blind too to some extent and thus not willing to commit to a number until they know the person they want.

Many other responses are absolutely true, but here's something else to consider:

Over the last 12-14 years, I've never, ever had a "job" that had specific, clear requirements and duties.

In the field we're in staff are not line-replaceable units. Each employee is like a box of chocolates, and you'll never know what's inside until you bite (hire them).

Some staff will quickly exceed the expected duties and take on high levels of responsibilities and massively contribute to the organization far in excess in what anyone could have foreseen initially. Others will only do strictly what is asked of them (or less) and do the barest minimal to just get by, and basically be a disappointment.

Some staff will be able to kind-of fill the job, but not entirely, and will need some training to get there. Others will hit the ground running.

This is often why there is a large and ambiguous range for job posts. Basic IT jobs that do have specific, clear duties (and extremely limited growth potential) can have much more clear, lower, and narrow salary ranges.

A couple of times, I found myself in a situation where I'm just opening a position and haven't hired developers in this particular stack and this particular skill level for a while, I may not even know what's a current market rate for this position would be. I'd get an overall idea after talking to 5-10 candidates, estimating their skill level and listening to what's their asking price is.

It's not even about trying to low-ball someone. Low-balling might be good in short-term, but not in long-term - both from perspective of a manager who's trying to do best by the company (because you want to build trust with your employees), and from a perspective of a political manipulator (when you inflate salaries of people you manage and budget of your department, you become more important in the hierarchy - saving company money won't earn you as much political points). What it is about is simply not having enough information about the market.

When you have to hire a professional, for example a plumber, do you put out an ad and say "I need to hire a plumber to fix a broken pipe by running a new sewer line out to the street, and the job pays $60.00 per hour". Or do you call around, describe your problem, and see what solutions and cost various plumbers can provide? Basically, "Here's my problem, what is the fix, and how much will it cost?"

As a hiring manager, I don't do that because it really does vary based on the applicant. I have a set of people in mind for a role, with a range of skills and experience. I may expand a junior role to mid level, or shrink a mid level to junior, based on who I find. In smaller companies, the number of engineers who just sit in a cube all day writing code in the same language is small. There are all kinds of side tasks, everything from sales and support to research and all kinds of sustaining work. How much I'm willing to pay is based on which of those side tasks I can give to the new hire.

You might be able to find a small niche, like the remote work sites. You wouldn't have any competitive advantage or lasting business though.

In general, salary disclosures don't lead to better outcomes. It's very hard to communicate numbers appropriately. Too low, you're skipped by candidates. Too high, you get candidates with no interest in the underlying business.

For many companies, Glassdoor is effective. I've found companies stating "competitive" compensation are generally aware of the larger market and compensate appropriately.

Most companies that pay terribly are pretty easy to pick out from their job offerings.

It's a two-sided market. Not showing salary range inhibits price discovery, preventing developers from asking for their real worth. So companies tend to reflexively hide it to give themselves an advantage.

Because once they select you, they immediately want to low-ball you.

Government Jobs are completely transparent in this regard. You know exactly what you're going to make when you apply for the job.

I think engineers are worse negotiators than companies. That way companies which want to gain on that can play the game.

I remember going in for an interview not knowing the salary range that would be on offer, but having at least an idea of my worth in the field. During the interview, right after explaining the benefit I could bring to the company, the most senior interviewer asked if I expect to be paid for that benefit. I said of course, but that the salary depended on my contribution, something best judged by the company. At the end of the interview, not pleased with not having a number, the same interviewer asked if I am not willing to give a number and I asked "would you want me to? I can" and that settled it. They came back and I got the job, with a sensible salary. Of course it is in the best interest of companies to have asymmetry of information, same as with car dealers, but two can play that game. An a priori number could end up limiting in both directions. Try to politely decline to give a number ahead of time and see how much your skills are needed. If the company takes the number in a form I try to write In Person or leave it blank. If the company does not contact me, I sometimes wonder whether it was as a result of that, and then remind myself that such inflexibility would not be a good trait for an employer to have, so we were both spared.

Simple: Because they want to get the cost as low as possible. Most employers know exactly what they are willing to pay, but speculate on the developer naming a lower number. There are few exceptions, like Berlin-based think-cell, who openly name their salary offer on their website. I think they can do that because they search for very few, very high-skilled developers - contrary to many larger companies who have less strict hiring policies.

It's a two-way street. By not actively mentioning a salary on a job advert, they can invite potential applicants to pitch themselves at a level they'd be willing to do the work (the low end) all the way to what they'd like to get in an ideal world (the high end).

Any efficiency gains from salary disclosure would be minor compared to the "inefficiency" of the hiring process in totality.

Speaking for myself if a company doesn't list salary or a range it's less likely for me to even apply. If recruiters and HR's push me to tell my current salary or give expected salary and they're really pushy about it I just flat out stop the exchange. They're waste of my time. If a company wants the right person for the job then salary can be negotiated despite the fixed ranges they've told the recruiter. If a company wants a code monkey then I'm definitely not the right person for the job. If the reason between they want to get me or not is 10k then I'm sorry, but I'm not working for you.

The current economical climate has already made it very hard to get a good raise if you stay in the same company and be loyal. The only way to get a big pay bump is to find another company that will pay you more from the get-go. It's very sad that that's the current state of things.

Whoever gives a number first loses leverage.

Largest pay rise I ever got, was when my employer accidentally published the "internal/official/never-published" salary for my role. Quick trip to HR brandishing a print-out, and I got a 25% bump within the week.

Of course, that only worked as I was seemingly good at my job, and my employer needed to get the head-count up. (and I might have muttered that if this got out, I guessed they'd have a lot of disgruntled people)

Other reason they're kept hidden, is that (at least in my industry) a fair number of positions are filled with specialist recruiters. They are made aware of salary guidelines the employer is willing to pay and also have a rough idea of what people on their books are wanting. They prove their value to employers by filling interview sessions with the best people at the lowest cost.

Because:

1. Companies have no incentive or competitive advantage to do so

2. Salary is a negotiation, and you don't hand the person you're negotiating with information

3. Companies can control pay variations amongst current and future employees.

Despite all this, some companies have chosen to be public about their salaries (GitLab, for example).

Public institutions often have a legal requirement to establish and publish salary ranges; for example, you can see the salary steps for GS-* ladder employees, or the steps for a public school teacher.

Even if you did create an 'app' to circulate 'only-with-salary-disclosed' jobs, I can't imagine more than a few companies wanting to participate. Why should they? What concrete, guaranteed incentive could you offer them?

Not listing salary is a high indicator that the company will waste a candidate’s time.

When you walk into a car dealership, do you announce "I want to pay $X for a car"?

Or do you see what prices are, think about the options, make decisions based on what your needs are, change your desires based on what is on the car lot?

Human beings aren't cars, but just like a car dealership is selling cars, workers sell labor.

> With this in mind, how much value can a only-with-salary-disclosed-app bring?

I think that you might have a supply issue (employers listing jobs) but it'd be interesting to try. I know of at least one employer who was so fed up with salary mismatches that they started listing a range on their job listings.

There is little advantage for a company to list the salary, ones that do commonly state up to $high_figure for the right candidate. There are other factors in total compensation though, benefits coverage, bonus, perks, etc.

As an applicant you could ask the recruiter/HR person what the salary range is for the position so you're both not wasting each other's time.

Because often the salary isn't decided when they make the job opening, the salary is decided when they make the offer.

At my company, for instance, there are a number of us who were hired at the same time under the same position. But we have varying levels of skill/experience, and our salaries can reflect that even though our title may not

Probably to drive sign-ups on their platform by job seekers. It's a metric that they can show to investors that their business is providing a valuable service.

I've always used a recruiter. They call me about a job. they usually ask me about pay. I say I want to make this. they can either get it done or not.

Why bother applying for jobs that don't list salary? The whole notion that it's a bargaining tool bothers me to no end. I'm not going to bother applying for a job that doesn't list their salary upfront.

Listing the salary allows me to decide that I really want to work for that company, the salary is within my budget, and that I'd like to apply. All without bothering anyone else or wasting my time (or that companies time).

Companies may not want to people who are only after the money, but they also do not ant to pay more than the absolute minimum for the workforce, they can get away with.

Say you are working at company A for $100K/yr for position X. Along comes company B, which needs to fill a Position A which you perfectly fit in. And assume they can pay $150K/yr to fill this position. But if you are like any average employee, a 10-15% increase in your salary can and will make you jump ship.

So, if they announce $150K/yr compensation on the kb listing, your brain will switch to 50% increase mode and knowing that you can get this much from them, you will most probably not settle for something less. On the other hand, let's assume the salary is not in the job listing and you get to the interview and asked the dreaded question, "What is your expectation of a yearly compensation for this position?" I am sure you will dance around a bit saying things like "Market rate" or "I am sure you will pay me in accordance with industry norms" etc. but when the push comes to the shove, you will give them a figure like $120K, a 20% increase if you will, on your current salary, to give yourself a wiggle room. And if they are like any average employer, they will low-ball you a bit to see what you are amenable to and come back with something like $116K. You are happy that you've got 16% raise while 10% would suffice you to jump ship. The new employer saved $34K/yr on you. Only you by the way and this practice can be multiplied many, many times, ending up with a huge chunk of change.

On the flip side, let's assume you were making $160K at your current position and you came to the interview to wrangle say, a $175K salary. When you say that, first they will dismiss your candidacy and look for someone cheaper. Failing to find this person, they know they can come back to you and say, yes we are willing to pay you $170K/yr, knowing your price. All they have lost is a few days or weeks in the process.

It is like the prostitute story: The guy sees a pretty woman at the bar.He approaches her and says,

"I will pay you a million dollars if you have sex with me tonight"

Woman thinks for a moment and says "yes".

The man turns around thinks for a minute and says

"How about $100?"

Woman frowns and feels insulted. Comes back saying

"what are you thinking? I am a whore or something?"

The guy answers.

"We established that fact that you are a whore. I am just trying to figure out your price"

Negotiating for a job is just that and as a company you do not want to trap yourself in a corner.