3 ms·

You are participating in a labor market, and a market is not a meritocracy. The only guaranteed way to find a market price is to find a buyer that is willing to

You are participating in a labor market, and a market is not a meritocracy. The only guaranteed way to find a market price is to find a buyer that is willing to actually buy at a given price. Thus, you don't need negotiation "skills". You need to interview at other companies, get offers, let all of them know what offers you got that you are ready to take. Nothing much more necessary. There are small negotiation tactics that may make small changes but those are not big - the largest gain is from interviewing at all. If you are not willing to interview, then that's your choice. This is why I strongly recommend all folks to interview at other comparable companies once in a while. It's about the only way to keep your employer pay at least a fair market price. And this also helps everyone else. It helps others get better salary, and it ultimately makes the society more efficient by having people where they can create the most value.

joshuamorton 6y ago
I'm aware of what the reality is. I'm mostly poking fun at people who claim that this industry is anything resembling a meritocracy (whatever that even means). But the broader point is, and I say this as someone who, broadly, is okay with the status quo of tech interviewing, the idea that to be compensated fairly, one needs to focus on all of these things that aren't actually improving my skills or value to the company I work for is counterintuitive. I would like to be in a situation where the company says "this is how we structure compensation, here's how your performance plays into that, and so here are the levers you can pull to change your compensation". Even better if I can see where other companies in the market sit. Then, I can focus on increasing my value to $employer, which will hopefully reward me with more money. Only at the point that I feel that there are other, better offers that $company can't compete with (whether for $$ or ethical or interesting work reasons) do I have any need to interview elsewhere. But the incentives aren't aligned that way, and it's annoying.
- drivebycomment 6y ago
  > But the incentives aren't aligned that way, and it's annoying. Not only they are not aligned, they are fundamentally adversarial. - Companies want to pay as little as possible as long as they can get away with it. - You want to get as much as possible. - There's no "objective" criteria possible that can judge someone's salary/pay. So it is fundamentally impossible to get what you're asking for. Fundamentally. Like, no amount of your wish or arguing or effort can make it so. Meritocracy (for a pay) is a lie. It's never been true. Merit does have significant effect - as capable people will tend to get advanced, etc - but it does not and can not guarantee better pay, as merit is only an indirect factor that determines your pay. That said, https://levels.fyi https://levels.fyi seems decent enough to give you reasonable ranges, if the company you work for and their competitors are there.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Not only they are not aligned, they are fundamentally adversarial. I disagree. I'm aware that that's the general opinion, but no, this isn't strictly true. A company can be interested in treating its employees well, and being upfront with them about pay is, to many, a comparative advantage (especially if the pay is also competitive). > There's no "objective" criteria possible that can judge someone's salary/pay. Generally correct, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. As long as you and the company agree on the method of evaluation in advance, it's fine. That is, given: 1. A predetermined (if fuzzy) algorithm for determining pay 2. Transparency on what other people are being paid You have approximately full information. You know the game you're playing, you know the rules, and you can verify that the company is being honest. To some extent this is pushing things down the stack a bit, since the company can lie about performance to favor certain people, but this still limits the effectiveness compared to no transparency. I de-facto have this where I work now (enough people share their salaries that one can reverse the formulas used to calculate compensation). Empowering people to be able to ask why they were only paid $X, when their performance suggests they should have been paid $>X is valuable, and any manager worth their salt should be able to give an answer if there's a legitimate reason.
    - drivebycomment 6y ago
      > I disagree. I'm aware that that's the general opinion, but no, this isn't strictly true. A company can be interested in treating its employees well, and being upfront with them about pay is, to many, a comparative advantage (especially if the pay is also competitive). We'll have to agree to disagree here. And I'm afraid it's not an "opinion" but a fundamental fact due to the structure. I'm not saying companies are not or can not treat their employees well - they absolutely can and do. But a company is interested in treating its employees well as a strategy to be competitive against other competitors when acquiring and retaining talent is more important, and they can only do so while they are competitive. Once that changes for whatever reason, they will have no choice but to stop treating their employees as well. That's just the economic reality. This economic expansion in Silicon Valley lasted so long, and the demand for software engineers have been high enough for long enough, that I've seen young folks like you who have no idea what a true downturn can do, and I'm afraid you are one of those youngsters with a rose-tinted fantasy view of the economic system.

joshuamorton 6y ago

I'm aware of what the reality is. I'm mostly poking fun at people who claim that this industry is anything resembling a meritocracy (whatever that even means). But the broader point is, and I say this as someone who, broadly, is okay with the status quo of tech interviewing, the idea that to be compensated fairly, one needs to focus on all of these things that aren't actually improving my skills or value to the company I work for is counterintuitive. I would like to be in a situation where the company says "this is how we structure compensation, here's how your performance plays into that, and so here are the levers you can pull to change your compensation". Even better if I can see where other companies in the market sit. Then, I can focus on increasing my value to $employer, which will hopefully reward me with more money. Only at the point that I feel that there are other, better offers that $company can't compete with (whether for $$ or ethical or interesting work reasons) do I have any need to interview elsewhere. But the incentives aren't aligned that way, and it's annoying.

drivebycomment 6y ago
> But the incentives aren't aligned that way, and it's annoying. Not only they are not aligned, they are fundamentally adversarial. - Companies want to pay as little as possible as long as they can get away with it. - You want to get as much as possible. - There's no "objective" criteria possible that can judge someone's salary/pay. So it is fundamentally impossible to get what you're asking for. Fundamentally. Like, no amount of your wish or arguing or effort can make it so. Meritocracy (for a pay) is a lie. It's never been true. Merit does have significant effect - as capable people will tend to get advanced, etc - but it does not and can not guarantee better pay, as merit is only an indirect factor that determines your pay. That said, https://levels.fyi https://levels.fyi seems decent enough to give you reasonable ranges, if the company you work for and their competitors are there.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Not only they are not aligned, they are fundamentally adversarial. I disagree. I'm aware that that's the general opinion, but no, this isn't strictly true. A company can be interested in treating its employees well, and being upfront with them about pay is, to many, a comparative advantage (especially if the pay is also competitive). > There's no "objective" criteria possible that can judge someone's salary/pay. Generally correct, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. As long as you and the company agree on the method of evaluation in advance, it's fine. That is, given: 1. A predetermined (if fuzzy) algorithm for determining pay 2. Transparency on what other people are being paid You have approximately full information. You know the game you're playing, you know the rules, and you can verify that the company is being honest. To some extent this is pushing things down the stack a bit, since the company can lie about performance to favor certain people, but this still limits the effectiveness compared to no transparency. I de-facto have this where I work now (enough people share their salaries that one can reverse the formulas used to calculate compensation). Empowering people to be able to ask why they were only paid $X, when their performance suggests they should have been paid $>X is valuable, and any manager worth their salt should be able to give an answer if there's a legitimate reason.
  - drivebycomment 6y ago
    > I disagree. I'm aware that that's the general opinion, but no, this isn't strictly true. A company can be interested in treating its employees well, and being upfront with them about pay is, to many, a comparative advantage (especially if the pay is also competitive). We'll have to agree to disagree here. And I'm afraid it's not an "opinion" but a fundamental fact due to the structure. I'm not saying companies are not or can not treat their employees well - they absolutely can and do. But a company is interested in treating its employees well as a strategy to be competitive against other competitors when acquiring and retaining talent is more important, and they can only do so while they are competitive. Once that changes for whatever reason, they will have no choice but to stop treating their employees as well. That's just the economic reality. This economic expansion in Silicon Valley lasted so long, and the demand for software engineers have been high enough for long enough, that I've seen young folks like you who have no idea what a true downturn can do, and I'm afraid you are one of those youngsters with a rose-tinted fantasy view of the economic system.