10 ms·

The actual dollar value is usually literally zero sum, but if you have a family and need a $200k salary with specific benefits as a hard requirement it's going

by wdewind 11y ago

The actual dollar value is usually literally zero sum, but if you have a family and need a $200k salary with specific benefits as a hard requirement it's going to be helpful to get that out of the way up front. On the same note, if you want a $200k salary and only make $180k it can be useful to say you are currently making $200k. So again, this moment can be advantageous to both parties.

crpatino 11y ago
No, please don't sugar coat it. HR people do actually see current income as 'social proof' of your actual worth. This is not necessarily out of a desire to take advantage of employees, but they find it hard to justify to their bosses why they did no negociate a better deal. I learned it the hard way, by trying to work part time (like 10hrs per week) while studying and then having employers unable to grasp that I was demanding a much higher salary because I was offering my undivided attention in a full time position. This was explained to me by a simpathetic (though probably naive) recruiter, who literally coached me to lie on my application so she could process me as a viable candidate. I did not get that job anyways, but at least I learned to avoid mentioning the fact that I had been "working for peanuts" in the recent past.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  It is, in fact, possible that some aspect of a negotiation can be beneficial to both parties, but not for the reasons the parent suggested. If we assume that your minimum bid is in fact below their maximum offer, then the market should clear: you should get hired. Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving. Therefore, anything eliminating or preventing such an obstacle from arising is beneficial to both parties. The corollary is that employers who insist on "social proof" place themselves at a disadvantage; they're less able to hire, and the people they do hire will likely be inferior. They are giving up value every time they enter negotiations, not by overpaying but by failing to engage in beneficial transactions. Those hidden costs can be, and often are, far greater than overpaying by some small percentage on the transactions in which they do engage.
  - eru 11y ago
    > Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving. I am afraid, reality is more complicated than that. There are opportunity costs, and there are threats. (Read up about the latter in "The Strategy of Conflict".) Threatening to do both parties damage, can give you a better deal.

by wdewind 11y ago

crpatino 11y ago

No, please don't sugar coat it. HR people do actually see current income as 'social proof' of your actual worth. This is not necessarily out of a desire to take advantage of employees, but they find it hard to justify to their bosses why they did no negociate a better deal. I learned it the hard way, by trying to work part time (like 10hrs per week) while studying and then having employers unable to grasp that I was demanding a much higher salary because I was offering my undivided attention in a full time position. This was explained to me by a simpathetic (though probably naive) recruiter, who literally coached me to lie on my application so she could process me as a viable candidate. I did not get that job anyways, but at least I learned to avoid mentioning the fact that I had been "working for peanuts" in the recent past.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
It is, in fact, possible that some aspect of a negotiation can be beneficial to both parties, but not for the reasons the parent suggested. If we assume that your minimum bid is in fact below their maximum offer, then the market should clear: you should get hired. Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving. Therefore, anything eliminating or preventing such an obstacle from arising is beneficial to both parties. The corollary is that employers who insist on "social proof" place themselves at a disadvantage; they're less able to hire, and the people they do hire will likely be inferior. They are giving up value every time they enter negotiations, not by overpaying but by failing to engage in beneficial transactions. Those hidden costs can be, and often are, far greater than overpaying by some small percentage on the transactions in which they do engage.
- eru 11y ago
  > Under such circumstances, anything preventing a successful conclusion to the negotiations is harmful to both parties, since there exists a price at which both sides would be satisfied that they're getting more value than they're giving. I am afraid, reality is more complicated than that. There are opportunity costs, and there are threats. (Read up about the latter in "The Strategy of Conflict".) Threatening to do both parties damage, can give you a better deal.