Gurgaon woman asked for 100% hike in salary in job interview. Reason: Child's school fees

In today’s fiercely competitive job market, ambition is often celebrated, but what happens when it clashes with hiring realities? A recent viral Twitter thread has reignited the debate around salary expectations, with a tech recruiter revealing eyebrow-raising anecdotes about candidates asking for 100–137% hikes, but without any proper justification.

One example involved a candidate earning Rs 8 LPA who asked for Rs 19 LPA — a massive 137.5% jump. According to the recruiter, when asked to justify the figure, the candidate struggled to explain why they were worth the bump. The implication? Big dreams are fine, but without compelling reasoning, they may cost you the offer.

In another case, a woman seeking a 100% jump from Rs 12 LPA to Rs 24 LPA cited a personal reason: her child’s international school fees. He pointed out that he has seen numerous such examples where he comes across candidates who ask for the “moon” but are not able to articulate “why they deserve it” and the man asking for 137% jump, was an example of this, according to him. The recruiter feels that such reasons don’t align with performance-based compensation logic.

The recruiter emphasized that businesses exist to make a profit, and jobs are created as long as that profit continues — except, of course, in the case of loss-making startups backed by PE or VC funds. According to them, candidates asking for significant salary hikes must be able to clearly demonstrate the value they bring to the company. Without a strong business case, steep expectations are unlikely to be met.

Netizens react
Social media users had strong and divided reactions to the recruiter's post. Some criticised the logic behind salary expectations being tied to personal reasons, calling it flawed and tone-deaf. One user argued that just because someone has financial responsibilities doesn’t mean they automatically deserve a higher salary — value should be assessed on merit.

Others slammed the recruiter’s stance as exploitative, questioning why companies don’t clearly state the salary range for roles instead of negotiating down based on what candidates are currently earning. Several pointed out that linking salary expectations to personal circumstances like sending a child to an expensive school was misguided, suggesting it reflects personal desire rather than professional merit.

However, many defended the candidates' right to aim higher, noting that individuals are free to quote any salary, just as employers are free to decline. A few even suspected the recruiter’s posts were designed to provoke reactions and drive engagement online.