5 ms·

If some people 'suck' at negotiating then that must mean there are others who are 'better' at negotiating If I have a guardian who pays my rent so that i can t

If some people 'suck' at negotiating then that must mean there are others who are 'better' at negotiating If I have a guardian who pays my rent so that i can take 6months to high ball offers to finally find a job that will pay me a high wage does that mean I'm 'better' at negotiating?

brianwawok 9y ago
What stops you from taking the first job you find, and then spending 6 months while working looking for better jobs? It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?
- justifier 9y ago
  > What stops [someone].. Interviews scheduled during work hours, already working multiple jobs, burnout, lack of openings in your field > It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway? This sentiment signals bias Competing offers? For what? Serving coffee? Washing dishes? DBA? CTO? If you offer anyone with a job more money my guess is 100% would take the extra cash, so just because they fail to find, or look, for more cash how does it imply they 'don't really want it anyway'?
  - winston_smith 9y ago
    > This sentiment signals bias While your sentiments are presumably bias-free?
    - justifier 9y ago
      I think everyone has bias, but I do think issues can be discussed without letting your biases supplant reason What I meant by signalling bias was I felt the gp was allowing bias about the issue cloud reasoning as to the nuance of the issue If my comment seemed to imply that I deny nuance then I failed to communicate my point Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation
      - winston_smith 9y ago
        > Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation Thanks, I think that's a much better criticism of the original argument
- mjevans 9y ago
  Starting anything new is a drain on resources. Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out. After all, it usually takes a few months to get anyone up to speed in a job, and this is assuming they're giving lots of effort. For existing jobs? Inertia is probably a factor there, as well as fear of the unknown. When you've got something to loose it's different than having nothing to loose.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    > Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out In my experience, that is not how it plays out. Candidate A is living at home with his parents in some kind of GP paradise, able to give 100% of his time to interviewing. Candidate B is working a stable but not fulfilling job, and interviewing on his lunch break / evening / morning to make it work. Candidate B is going to be perceived as the higher value candidate, and all else being equal get more offers. Some of this is a value bias. You interview A and go "wow, he's not working now, I wonder what is wrong with him?"... you interview B and go "wow, he is a stable guy that can hold a job, he seems a slightly better fit". Thinking that interviewing is some kind of magic trivia question that you need to devote full time study to is silly. Perhaps some jobs are like that, but I am not sure I would want to work there.
- morogop 9y ago
  The fact that your employment history will make you look like a flaky job-hopper; thus serving as a drag on future earnings.
- pfisch 9y ago
  Idk why you are getting downvoted, because you are obviously right.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    I think some people want to be outraged.
Retric 9y ago
Try not to think in the very short term. Finding a job at ~70% of the going rate for your field is not that hard. Now at 70% a 10% raise might not seem like a huge deal as your still under market, but it only takes 7 of those to double your salary. And a 15-20% pay raise to jump to the next job is hardly unreasonable. Do those every ~3 years and you will massive difference inside a decade. Remember, the median salary is just that people really do get paid more than it.

brianwawok 9y ago

What stops you from taking the first job you find, and then spending 6 months while working looking for better jobs? It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?

justifier 9y ago
> What stops [someone].. Interviews scheduled during work hours, already working multiple jobs, burnout, lack of openings in your field > It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway? This sentiment signals bias Competing offers? For what? Serving coffee? Washing dishes? DBA? CTO? If you offer anyone with a job more money my guess is 100% would take the extra cash, so just because they fail to find, or look, for more cash how does it imply they 'don't really want it anyway'?
- winston_smith 9y ago
  > This sentiment signals bias While your sentiments are presumably bias-free?
  - justifier 9y ago
    I think everyone has bias, but I do think issues can be discussed without letting your biases supplant reason What I meant by signalling bias was I felt the gp was allowing bias about the issue cloud reasoning as to the nuance of the issue If my comment seemed to imply that I deny nuance then I failed to communicate my point Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation
    - winston_smith 9y ago
      > Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation Thanks, I think that's a much better criticism of the original argument
mjevans 9y ago
Starting anything new is a drain on resources. Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out. After all, it usually takes a few months to get anyone up to speed in a job, and this is assuming they're giving lots of effort. For existing jobs? Inertia is probably a factor there, as well as fear of the unknown. When you've got something to loose it's different than having nothing to loose.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  > Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out In my experience, that is not how it plays out. Candidate A is living at home with his parents in some kind of GP paradise, able to give 100% of his time to interviewing. Candidate B is working a stable but not fulfilling job, and interviewing on his lunch break / evening / morning to make it work. Candidate B is going to be perceived as the higher value candidate, and all else being equal get more offers. Some of this is a value bias. You interview A and go "wow, he's not working now, I wonder what is wrong with him?"... you interview B and go "wow, he is a stable guy that can hold a job, he seems a slightly better fit". Thinking that interviewing is some kind of magic trivia question that you need to devote full time study to is silly. Perhaps some jobs are like that, but I am not sure I would want to work there.
morogop 9y ago
The fact that your employment history will make you look like a flaky job-hopper; thus serving as a drag on future earnings.
pfisch 9y ago
Idk why you are getting downvoted, because you are obviously right.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  I think some people want to be outraged.

Retric 9y ago

Try not to think in the very short term. Finding a job at ~70% of the going rate for your field is not that hard. Now at 70% a 10% raise might not seem like a huge deal as your still under market, but it only takes 7 of those to double your salary. And a 15-20% pay raise to jump to the next job is hardly unreasonable. Do those every ~3 years and you will massive difference inside a decade. Remember, the median salary is just that people really do get paid more than it.