A candidate gave a price bracket for a role he was put forward. For the sake of the argument let's say he mentioned minimum 80k per year.

After the interview, he found out that the role was actually far more complicated than the one that was described and was sold short. He mentioned that to the recruiter.

Eventually he got an offer from the employer (via the recruiter) for his minimum stated salary of 80k.

Since he stated as "minimum 80k" and found out that the role would be a more complicated/senior one, and given that he has been told that he the only one who could progress through the interview stages, isn't it prudent to ask for at least 10-15% more? I suppose compromise shouldn't be an option since eventually he would not be satisfied with his remuneration given his responsibilities.


I love how we're discussing the situation in third person here. Anyway, let's dig in:

If the candidate thinks that the offered rate is too low considering the stress and work that are going to have to be endured, then he may, of course, ask for more money.

And the company may very well refuse to negotiate, or even retract the offer. That's the risk that the candidate has to assume when entering a negotiation.

At the same time, however, the candidate has a couple of different options. Chief among them, the option to walk away. If the remuneration is simply too low, he may choose to say "thanks, but no thanks", and keep looking.

You should also realize that the recruiter is not in your corner in this situation. If the candidate simply takes the job, the recruiter has a guaranteed payday. Negotiations are fine and dandy until the recruiter realizes that you'd rather walk away. A 10% raise for you, only translates into a relatively small amount for him, so he's far more likely to pressure the candidate to accept a sub-par offer, than risk the offer being revoked. Exceptional recruiters don't do this, but they're rare.


Saying "my qualifications and situation are such that I would not be interested in a position that pays less than 80K" sets the floor for compensation, not the ceiling and helps the recruiter to filter out positions that they know you won't be interested in.

Nowhere in that does it say "I am not interested in jobs that will pay more." It is also not saying "I will accept 80K for doing 90K work and responsibilities."

If the challenges and the market for a position is more than 80K, then offering 80K is low-balling the candidate and trying to save in all the wrong places. The candidate should negotiate, and refuse to accept at that level, if they feel they are being offered a rate under what is merited for that position.


"Compromise" doesn't just mean "accept the first offer". They're lowballing you, and from what you're saying, the job is more complicated/stressful than you're willing to do for your minimum potential salary. That's exactly the sort of reason to insist on getting more, and turnign them down if you don't get it.

Also, given that they lowballed you exactly, there's a nontrivial chance that the recruiter is effectively handing them your price bracket information in order to make the deal. Remember, the recruiter isn't working for you. They're working for themselves. If the recruiter sets you up in a lousy job for somewhat below-standard pay with minimal effort on their part and you take it, that's generally a win for that recruiter. You have to be your own representative.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.