That's not the point. Companies that don't list a salary range aren't being competitive. I can only apply to so many jobs at once, so I'm going to pick off the listings that list a salary range I want and apply to those first (and probably only).

Exactly. I don't have the patience or juggling skills to apply to too many companies at the same time.

Whenever I've been looking for work I'll google, search linkedin, etc, and pick the top three/four companies that seem interesting. I exclude any that don't include a salary range, and any which have "common knowledge" shared locally about them being bad companies.

For the past few years that's been sufficient, sometimes I get an offer and accept, sometimes I have to choose between two offers. I've not even always taken the higher offers, because money is important, but it's not the only thing that matters when picking a job.

Maybe its a cultural thing, but doing that in a Japanese/Asian setup is a big red flag - to the point my recruiter wife has to warn foreign nationals they may not hear back from the company anymore. Salary negotiation is kept at the very last step.

Personally I feel it is such a waste of time to discover if the salary doesn't meet your expectations after 3-5 rounds of song & dance.

given the sterotype of the overworked salary man, its probably a red flag in that the red flag is "expects to be treated like a human being."

Okay here's the thing: Let me add some details to dispell that "part-myth".

Salarymen do have long working hours & have to go along with those office drinking parties etc. But at the same time, they are treated more personally than an American enterprise employee would. Parents sick in old age? Many companies would give cash incentives to support. Buying a house? CEO might extend you a personal credit line or speak to his banker buddy to give you extremely favorable terms. Got married or had a child? Employers (not coworkers) would give you off-days & some cash/gifts to newborn. Did extremely well a financial quarter? You get a bonus "red letter" (typically a cheque or cash of good amount) or a paid short vacation. If you have passed your probation, Japanese companies will bend over their back to retain you (retrain, reassign under different manager etc.) rather than outright fire you (although thats slowly changing with the economy shrink)

Traditional Japanese companies treat their employees as half families. Managers tend to be more hands-on as a patriarch for the good or the bad. So while we concentrate mostly on the bad parts, we often overlook the good parts too.

I am in no way advocating their culture. Many things desperately need change. But if salaryman situation was so miserable, it would have changed a lot of things long time ago. No matter where we're born - freedom & comfort are valuable for everyone.

There are still some caveats to these things.

Managers becoming patriarchs (or even companies) can change the culture to then make individuals dependent on them. No patriarch, severely restricted options. That's a huge issue in Japan, and it's a huge issue outside Japan as well.

Giving people the stink eye for just mentioning leaving a company makes it easier for malicious companies (black companies in particular) to sink their teeth into naïve individuals. We see this problem in the West as well. We all know employees leave for pretty obvious reasons (and the reason they apply is obvious), but saying anything bad is the #1 sin of any job interview for very, very superficial reasons.

And neither of these are required to keep most of the solely good things.

What is a black company? i am not aware of this nomenclature. Please explain?

>[...] these are required to keep most of the solely good things.

Which things?

A black company is basically a highly exploitative company. They will wring out employees for as much as possible, mostly within legal constraints, at the detriment of employees and the benefit of themselves. [0] probably explains it better.

Since changing jobs is seen as a huge risk and the culture among individuals is to remain loyal, it allows black companies to take advantage of naïve, mostly young individuals. You see similar things outside Japan, but less stigma on changing jobs makes it easier to get away from these situations.

>Which things?

E.g.: you don't need to be extremely judgmental of individuals ditching a job to still have the benefits of loyal employees being rewarded and having a family feeling within the company. Which would solve most of the problems with bad/malicious companies taking advantage of the situation.

[0]: https://www.tofugu.com/japan/japanese-black-companies/

Yes. Wholeheartedly agree on both your points

That just sounds like mafia. No disrespect to the Japanese corporate culture, but I would never truly feel safe in this kind of employment.

It has nothing to do with culture. It is simply a reflection of the supply demand curves for labor giving labor buyers much more negotiating power.

But Japan has always been a tech labor-shortage economy. That should incentivize employers to be advertising compensation. I am probably understanding your answer wrong. Could you please elaborate?

The evidence points to the assumption of a shortage being wrong.

By definition, a shortage of labor sellers means labor sellers have an advantage in negotiations. From what I understand about Japan, even in the tech sector, the quality of life for labor sellers is pretty bad with long hours and not much room for high pay.

I imagine if Japanese tech workers has the option of working for employers with compensation offerings like Google and Apple and other US companies, then they would not accept the quality of life that they are. And even with the terrible quality of life they have now, the Japanese world keeps spinning, so any shortage is clearly not short enough to be a showstopper (in the short term).

> By definition, a shortage of labor sellers means labor sellers have an advantage in negotiations.

This is untrue. 1) Employers have more information about the current situation than applicants, and 2) employers collude, applicants don't.

True, the context I intended was where all participants have information about the market. If either party has incomplete or inaccurate data, then there exists arbitrage opportunity.

Hence the importance of price transparency, and laws requiring a minimum pay figure are a start.

> And even with the terrible quality of life they have now, the Japanese world keeps spinning

So it boils down to the working culture, no? The one I referenced initially..

My wife is interviewing for Oracle HR right now (mostly done deal). She is due for the final interview tomorrow. The offer has still not mentioned her compensation yet - although from hearsay she knows a ballpark. It seems even American companies play by Japanese ways when in Japan.

She does have alternatives in IBM & Tesla. But they functioned the exact same way in interview. And given she's a top biller (~60 million yen per annum for her employer) Oracle wants her by August 1st week which is insane given she still has to give 30 days notice to Michael Page (but that will remain to be seen). I think in her case, she didn't bring it up because that isn't the norm. So all in all, it's not the market dynamics - but culture dynamics still.

Even with an advantage, it takes a concerted effort to push for culture change. Things can get by on inertia for a long time.

That is the main reason IMHO plaguing the work culture. Changes are slow because of inertia & the fact everyone tries to keep a decorum and play nice / polite

> Japan has always been a tech labor-shortage economy

The meagre salaries tell a different story.

It is a labor-short economy. But the labor pricing isn't changing because hiring runs like a cartel. Employers don't collude but there is an "accepted bracket" of salaries generally known, which hiring managers don't deviate from.

Its like how you're aware of a price of an item across different stores or markets. Same - but the item is a tech employee.

Typically I've been asked by the recruiter what my expectations are, as one of the first questions in an initial candidate screen.

I'm generally in favor of posting salary ranges. I like to know how the company values the positions they are hiring for, and I don't really want to talk to a recruiter at all if it's not going to be a salary match, so I like the idea of being able to screen better as a candidate.

But now that I've been on the hiring side, there's some flexibility I think we lose if we post those ranges: what do you do if you like a candidate, but not for the role they applied for? Perhaps their skills and background are not quite what you're looking for in this role, but you know another team has an open rec and this candidate is perfect. Or, maybe you've posted for a particular seniority range and you like the candidate but they are more/less senior than the posting, and you want to scale the position up or down to meet them. Neither of these scenarios (which seem to happen with regularity) preclude putting the range in the job description, but then the redirect or rescope feels bait-and-switchy when it's really not.

I would have no problem with a company saying "We really like you, but we found a better match for role x. If you're interested we think you'd be great in role y and here are the details." If I don't like the compensation of role y, I'll simply decline.

That's because recruiters exploit lack of transparency to determine if you're worth their time and sucker you into lowballing yourself.

Yeah I figure that happens. I declined to answer with the role I have now, and it worked out :shrug:. Not everyone is trying to screw you.

> Typically I've been asked by the recruiter what my expectations are, as one of the first questions in an initial candidate screen.

So, if your expectations are below what they are willing to pay, they'll just offer your less?

Better to ask before the first interview, but that still takes more time than reading it off the posting.

I think it sends a back signal and will put a slight negative mark on the interviewers' memories of that interview. Asking at the end of the interview shows that you care about other things, too.

You can argue that it shouldn't, but people are people.

I find it really bothers some companies while others are proud of their salary ranges and will gladly share upfront.

The ones who get offended usually pay less and have had issues with employees quiting over low salaries and/or have heard negative candidate feedback around pay

As long as that meeting is with your recruiter. As someone conducting technical interviews, I have no idea how much is on the table for candidates (I mean, I kind of know in general for the role, but not specifically).

I don't like having to ask.

Don't ask. Tell. "Hey just to ensure that we are on the same page, I am ideally looking for a minimum of $xyz/year. Is that in the range for this role ?". Then pause and wait for their response.

That's one quick way to get exactly a salary of $xyz, and with the word "ideally" in there you're admitting you'd go slightly lower.

That’s why you make sure your minimum amount is something you would actually consider. Otherwise you’re only screwing yourself.

On the other hand, giving a range and getting offered the bottom (which we already agreed is sufficient, otherwise why is it your bottom?) gives you the opportunity to negotiate non salary terms like health care, holiday, work from home, etc.

Ok don't use the word "ideally" and say "minimum". But nothing wrong with getting what you want exactly. You can't have it both ways where you don't disclose your number but expect employer to. Decide what works for you, tell them that and shut up. Simple.

ask for more than $xyz and reject if they offer less than $xyz.

NEVER mention your minimum. If anything you should highball.

what else do you not like but still have to do?

What makes you think he has to take jobs that don't tell him the salary upfront?

What happens to me is that I ask, they agree, and then they make a lower offer anyway.

That's when it's appropriate to rage on them, to inflict some small degree of emotional pain on the recruiter or HM or whoever falsely got you to waste your time, both as a little bit of selfish satisfaction and also to hopefully make it better for the next person. Then trash them on social media if you have a following. Maybe send them an invoice for your time. They won't pay it but it might be a fun thing to do.

I can just tell the customer the price of my product after the first demo

Some companies do that. Some actually do huge, heavily customized deployments where it is hard to tell the price upfront. For some others it's just to jack up the price if they smell a sucker.

Yep. If they don't provide it, it's always my first 'do you have any questions for me' question on the initial 'tell you about the job' call.

Ask before the first interview. You shouldn't waste your time on an interview until you know the position matches what you're looking for.

I would ask before the interview process even starts. Actually I wouldn't, I would just skip like the OP.