Many interview calls follow a predictable script of small talk, a brief mini-bio, résumé walkthrough, and screening for vague-role red flags. Candidates commonly face a late-stage salary expectations question that forces a risky guess. Early-career lowball responses can lead to long-term undervaluation, while overreaching invites polite rejection. Wage-transparency laws have shifted norms: California banned salary-history questions in 2018, and Colorado required posted pay ranges in 2021, with other states following. These laws improve local hiring fairness, but remote applicants remain vulnerable where protections do not apply. Some employers publish unhelpfully wide ranges, undermining transparency.
I've been through so many of these calls that they're more predictable than a Tyler Perry plot. They start with small talk about the weather or "exciting" weekend activities. I recite my 90-second mini bio, walk through my résumé bullets, and listen for red flags (see: vague roles, use of the word "family" that doesn't describe actual kinfolk). Just when it seems we're wrapping up, the part I dread most shows up: the money question.
Younger me used to get tripped up, blurting out a "safe" number that's low enough to stay in the running, but far below what I knew I deserved. It took me years to learn the jig: Some companies know exactly what they're willing to pay but still ask you to guess, like you're appraising a speedboat on . Go too low, you undercut yourself. Go too high, you risk a polite rejection email.
Part of that confidence comes from a rules shift. Wage transparency laws are still new. California started in 2018 by banning invasive salary-history questions that often reinforced pay gaps. Colorado raised the stakes in 2021 by forcing employers to post pay ranges to protect applicants from lowballing. My native Washington State and a handful of others followed. That's progress-but only if the job you're applying for is in one of those states.
Collection
[
|
...
]