4 ms·
I think cost-of-living adjustments are mostly a bluff. If you demand more and you're better than someone in an expensive area, they're not going to hire the shi
by bananaface 6y ago
I think cost-of-living adjustments are mostly a bluff. If you demand more and you're better than someone in an expensive area, they're not going to hire the shittier candidate. They'll see what they can get away with given your apparent leverage, and offer that. If you have multiple offers, they'll bid you up to the budget for your skill level. Where you are is irrelevant (except for legal issues). At least, that's how it seems to me.
Can anyone on the other side of things chime in? Is this how it works, or is there more going on? Is it a "we-don't-negotiate-with-terrorists" policy to stop negotiation from propagating?
- sokoloff 6y agoI don't know if I'd call them a bluff or an initial bid, but I agree with your main point that if you can convince a hiring manager that you're the best candidate they can find and represent a value overlay, they're very motivated to find a way to make it happen (often by hiring you at a more senior level than what you were being recruited for). In the end, finding extremely talented developers is still a difficult, time-consuming, risky endeavor, remote or in-office.
- bananaface 6y agoI call it a bluff because the implication is it's non-negotiable. One of the reasons I say this is that if people weren't falling for it, they wouldn't tell you they're applying an adjustment at all, because it tells you their actual budget is higher. They'd just give you a lower number and leave it at that. If they go so far as to communicate the amount of your adjustment, they're making a particularly poor strategic move because it tells you exactly how much higher their lower bound really is.