5 ms·

> 2) people who are bad at negotiating get unfairly screwed. I am bad at negotiating, but I always felt like this is a skill like any other. I feel that sayin

> 2) people who are bad at negotiating get unfairly screwed. I am bad at negotiating, but I always felt like this is a skill like any other. I feel that saying people who are bad at negotiating get paid less it is like saying people who are not as good at their job get paid less. Well, yes... Why would it be wrong if you are good negotiator and good worker to be paid more then if you are bad negotiator and good worker, or good negotiator and bad worker, or bad negotiator and bad worker... To me this seems perfectly fair. I don't go asking for raises as my negotiation skills are awful, I get them offered to me cos I work as much as I can with highest quality I can attain. Otherwise I totally agree with your comment.

fpig 9y ago
Even if you think it's fair, people being paid based on negotiating skill is a market inefficiency so it is still undesirable. I mean, bench pressing a lot of weight or playing the flute are also skills like any other, but we don't want software developers to be paid based on that. We want software developers to be paid based on software development skills, or other skills that actually relate to doing the job.
- mirko22 9y ago
  But those are not related to the software development, while negotiation is related to work in general. Someone who lifts weights is also responsible to negotiate a contract with his manager. I guess the question is then how do we decide which skills should be artificially governed based on how good they are for people? And lets take another point of view. Sales, for example, is based on negotiating skill. Do we say that is also market inefficiency and should we somehow subsidies sales person with bad negotiating skill cos that would be better for their salary? I don't know, I still feel like having the opportunity to negotiate is what counts (meaning no discrimination based on sex, race etc to actually be in position to negotiate) while the outcome is completely dependant on person. And if we really stretch the argument about which skills should be based for salary, we could say that it is not a software developer fault if he is not good at his job and somehow deserves to paid as the one who is dependant, for example, on years of experience. I think people should be thought how to negotiate rather then making some artificial rules that there should be no negotiation at all cos someone is not as good at it.
  - fpig 9y ago
    I don't understand where you got the idea that I suggest enforcing any kind of artificial rules on anyone. I am in fact for nearly zero labor regulation. I just said it's a negative effect, which it is. Ideally the proportion in which a skill affects your salary is exactly the same at the proportion in which it affects job performance. Anything else is a market inefficiency. Whether we should try to regulate it away is a completely different story.
21 9y ago
Being bad at negotiation is one case. But there are others: being black, female, old... Imagine that you are a 50 year old developer applying at some software company. You know that you don't have a lot of opportunities (this comes up frequently on HN), so you'll underbid yourself. And a company which would be happy to hire you, and would be happy to pay you your actual value, will still accept your underbid, because they also know that you don't have many alternatives.

fpig 9y ago

Even if you think it's fair, people being paid based on negotiating skill is a market inefficiency so it is still undesirable. I mean, bench pressing a lot of weight or playing the flute are also skills like any other, but we don't want software developers to be paid based on that. We want software developers to be paid based on software development skills, or other skills that actually relate to doing the job.

mirko22 9y ago
But those are not related to the software development, while negotiation is related to work in general. Someone who lifts weights is also responsible to negotiate a contract with his manager. I guess the question is then how do we decide which skills should be artificially governed based on how good they are for people? And lets take another point of view. Sales, for example, is based on negotiating skill. Do we say that is also market inefficiency and should we somehow subsidies sales person with bad negotiating skill cos that would be better for their salary? I don't know, I still feel like having the opportunity to negotiate is what counts (meaning no discrimination based on sex, race etc to actually be in position to negotiate) while the outcome is completely dependant on person. And if we really stretch the argument about which skills should be based for salary, we could say that it is not a software developer fault if he is not good at his job and somehow deserves to paid as the one who is dependant, for example, on years of experience. I think people should be thought how to negotiate rather then making some artificial rules that there should be no negotiation at all cos someone is not as good at it.
- fpig 9y ago
  I don't understand where you got the idea that I suggest enforcing any kind of artificial rules on anyone. I am in fact for nearly zero labor regulation. I just said it's a negative effect, which it is. Ideally the proportion in which a skill affects your salary is exactly the same at the proportion in which it affects job performance. Anything else is a market inefficiency. Whether we should try to regulate it away is a completely different story.

21 9y ago

Being bad at negotiation is one case. But there are others: being black, female, old... Imagine that you are a 50 year old developer applying at some software company. You know that you don't have a lot of opportunities (this comes up frequently on HN), so you'll underbid yourself. And a company which would be happy to hire you, and would be happy to pay you your actual value, will still accept your underbid, because they also know that you don't have many alternatives.