Hacker News Reader

Comment by drawkbox | Hacker News Reader

The system does take advantage of nice people that are bad negotiators.

I guess don't hate the player hate the game as it is all game theory in the end and the complainers or negotiators will always tip in their favor. You can be a team player and get your worth but you have to speak up and be aware.

I think it is better to be fair at salaries even though you could pay the great developer you have lower than the good one that knows the market and is a negotiator. If you don't and they find out they are gone as happened in this instance. Open salaries might even be a good idea with bonuses for performance.

View on HN

We are all* bad at bad at negotiating when we desperately need a job, this is one of the biggest reasons I suggest people look for a different job while they're still employed, if they have that luxery.

Job hunting while you don't need to helps you overlook those places where you know you might not be a good fit for whatever reason, and interviewing when you don't need to helps you build your negotiating skills.

I got my current job while happily employed at my last one, the only reason I applied was quite literally for the interviewing experience. But I liked what I saw, they agreed to a salary that I decided ahead of time was the bar that had to be met to be seriously considered as a potential new job, so I said yes and so did they.

2 years later, I'm loving my job, my team, and my management team. Job hunt while you don't need to.

How do I know I'm making market rate? I check glass for periodically and share salary info with colleagues who reciprocate.

* we aren't all bad at negotiating but enough of us are that I think its a safe generalization here.

That happened to me today. They asked me my rate. I said $X. They said they could offer $X-20%. I declined the interview. (I was getting bad vibes for other reasons, so I don't feel bad.)

If I was unemployed, I might have considered $X-20%. Since I have a job, there's no reason to accept a job for a lower salary than I'm getting now, especially when the interviewer is being a jerk. (If it seemed like an awesome opportunity, I'd consider equal or slightly less. This was not one of those, it was a contracting company looking for a warm body RIGHT NOW to fill a client need.)

One other lesson I've learned that's surprising: You would think that in a job where you're underpaid, you'll be appreciated, and in job where you're paid well, you'll be abused more. My experience has been the opposite. In the jobs where I was paid well, it was a more pleasant experience than in the jobs where I was underpaid. In business, money equals respect, so if you're underpaid, that means they don't respect you.

This is known as the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA, and it's a pretty helpful concept: the better your next best option is, the better position you will be in to negotiate.

> ... it is all game theory in the end and the complainers or negotiators will always tip in their favor.

But what is "in their favor"?

Hypothetically, I'm new to a field, interviewing with a company in another city. If I'm completely honest with them, then I might say, "You can make me a lousy offer if you want; I'd probably accept it. I don't know the job market, and I don't know your city. But soon, I will. And when I do, unless you offer me enough now to encourage me to stay, I'll be gone. And all your effort in finding me and interviewing me and moving me there and training me and bringing me up to speed on your business will be wasted. So why not just make me a decent offer now?"

Of course, no one ever says that.

But, viewed through that lens, I think it's clear that many businesses are awfully poor players of "the game", as well.

Many people stay even after they realize they're underpaid, simply out of inertia. Companies knows this, and by getting you to accept a low-ball offer, they're just taking a calculated risk, and reaping the benefits in the interim, if not the long run.

That's a good point.

The trouble with an issue like this is that it is difficult to disentangle a calculated risk of the kind you are talking about from mere short-sighted thinking. People proceeding from the two different viewpoints could end up acting identically.

And then there is the fact that the company is often not really the one making the salary decisions. Rather, someone has had hiring authority delegated to them. And this person's motivations in making an offer might not aligned with the long-term best interests of the company.

I've heard several hiring managers say "recruiting is very expensive in both money and attention; while we don't want to significantly overpay you, we also don't want to underpay you and then have to go through the whole process again in six months when you discover your market value."

nope, "don't hate the player, hate the game" is a massive cop-out, and excuses people who perpetrate broken systems because they benefit from them. there is no abstract "the game" written into the fundamental nature of human psychology; there is only the collective behaviour of all the players, some of whom end up influencing the game more than others.

> massive cop-out, and excuses people who perpetrate broken systems because they benefit from them

> there is only the collective behaviour of all the players, some of whom end up influencing the game more than others

You drew the wrong conclusion from your own example. The sum of all of the players actions is the game, and it delivers results similar to the Nash Equilibrium. Everyone works in their own best interest and the system is actually not "broken". This is the system working. If you would work for half what another employer might pay you, fine. Obviously, I weight the benefits of saving money on your salary, with the negative (and likely outcome) that when you find out, you may leave taking talent away. Some employers pay well to prevent this (google, yahoo, amazon come to mind), and thus their talent is largely safe from financial poaching.

This is how the system works, and how the world works. It isn't equitable and it isn't a fairytale. However, it is true.

> Everyone works in their own best interest and the system is actually not "broken".

You assume that all actors are rational. It ignores things like office politics, people building fiefdoms, people holding grudges, the idea that you aren't a "team player" if you're asking for more money, the idea that one should be "loyal" to the company (but that the company can be "cold and calculating" when it comes to you), gender/racial/whatever discrimination, etc...

People often do not work in their own best interest. Or maybe they work in their best short-term interest while ignore their medium- and/or long-term interests.

I think you're missing the point.

The player's action is not separate from the game. The game is what the various players do.

Hate the player. The player is someone you can hate and blame and point fingers to and make an example of so that other players refrain from unwanted behavior.

Hating the game does nothing constructive.

Perhaps "don't hate the player, repair the game"? (I almost wrote "fix the game", but that sounded wrong!)

There wouldn't be a 'game' if not for the players who keep it going.

Yes, many of us have been fortunate in that we've actually had managers or clients encourage us to raise our rates to what they knew were market standard. Unfortunately, not everyone experiences those lucky moments.

"I guess don't hate the player hate the game"

This saying completely ignores the fact that the "players" are adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Game Theory is a good excuse for troubled people to act inhumane and claim their behavior is the result of calculated rational.

Don't hate the game, learn to play it better.

I am currently reading through Thomas Schellings The Strategy of Conflict, which is brilliant, but even the first chapter is enough to outplay the normal plays that you will encounter (e.g buying a car, demanding a certain wage etc). It is a surprisingly easy read for an old book.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com