Have you ever asked for a pay rise?

[The Brain]

I don't see how negotiation is wasterful? It doesn't take very much time relative to the rest of the professional relationship, and negotiation generally produces better outcomes than not negotiating.

It's wasteful on a societal level, because whatever you gain somebody else loses in equal amount.  If you get a $10k raise from your employer, your employer's profits decrease by $10k (let's ignore all the complications like taxes and so on).  It's not an activity that collectively increases societal wealth, it just shifts it.  However, the time spent on all matters relating to negotiation could've been spent creating something that does increase the collective wealth.  It's an arms race to win a greater share of a pie whose quantity is fixed.

You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society? The disadvantages of deals that needlessly fall through? Workers who stay too long or quit too soon?

[grumbler]

I don't think that your manager spends much time thinking about your pay at all, and those who object to you bringing it up are probably objecting because they feel guilty.

I've worked mostly in organizations that have regular performance reviews, and so have mostly gotten raised as a result of those.  I've only asked for a raise once that I can recall, and that was when I realized that a new job had a lot more time involved than I'd been led to believe.

[DGuller]

As a rule of thumb, though, a company won't pay you as much as you're worth to them. If you cost them more than they earn through you (or how much they *think* they earn through you ) they will generally try to find cheaper solutions.

No, and they shouldn't.  Every economic transaction has a band, which I think is called economic surplus, where a deal is mutually beneficial.  If your time is worth $40 an hour, and the company gets $80 an hour of benefit from you, then any salary between $40 and $80 an hour is going to be acceptable to both parties.  The problem is that the entity with greater negotiating power (or skill) can tug all the economic surplus in their direction, so instead of settling in the middle like $60 an hour, you may wind up at $45 an hour.

[DGuller]

You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

[Admiral Yi]

A lot of jobs have raises that come automatically with COLA and/or seniority and otherwise only through promotion.  I'm not surprised by that 52%.

[Josquius]

I've never been in a position Where it was appropriate.

Minimum wage jobs? Lol no. Though it did come automatically with age and inflation.
One job it was yearly contract renewals with the same set pay for everyone.
Another it was 2 yearly contracts. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have seen them through to the end but the pay was decent and it seemed to lead on elsewhere.
Another...i was there less than a year.
Then my last job I automatically got a pay rise.
This job... I don't plan to ask for a pay rise in itself but I have made clear since before I was hired my eyes are on a higher position, and when it comes to that it better have a pay rise attached-would be surprised if it doesn't.

[The Brain]

You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

Yes?

[Jacob]

It's wasteful on a societal level, because whatever you gain somebody else loses in equal amount.  If you get a $10k raise from your employer, your employer's profits decrease by $10k (let's ignore all the complications like taxes and so on).  It's not an activity that collectively increases societal wealth, it just shifts it.  However, the time spent on all matters relating to negotiation could've been spent creating something that does increase the collective wealth.  It's an arms race to win a greater share of a pie whose quantity is fixed.

I'm not sure I agree here. I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as that.

The value of any given job - and the profit derived from it - shifts on a continual basis. New efficiencies are found, people get better at their jobs, the client situation changes, and so on. There's also the potential cost incurred from finding a replacement, which should be factored into the employer's calculations.

For a more extreme example, imagine that every time you go shopping, you have to negotiate the price of everything, like a carton of eggs, because you know that everything starts off being overpriced by approximately a factor of two or so, but you know that with effort the store has room to go down to meet you.  I think it would be a great waste in aggregate to have everyone haggling every single time, even if some savvy negotiators could really save on their food costs.

Some places are like that... some cultures, and some parts of the market. Where it has shifted, I don't think it has anything to do with efficiency and much more to do with the size of the market, convenience, competition, and cultural practices.

[Jacob]

Published pay scales with narrow bands for commoditized jobs.  Good negotiator or bad negotiator, you know what you're going to get, and you know that you're not taken advantage of because you're lacking information.

Who would publish these bands?

How would they account for regional differences? How would they account for efficiency differences making the value of similar jobs different at different companies? How would you account for individual preferences in terms of job role and required non-monetary compensation? How do you account for subtly different distribution of roles and responsibilities for similar job titles at different companies - or even within the same company? How do you respond to rapid - or subtle - or regional shifts in demand and supply? How do you account for valuable non-standard competences that are not captured in a role description, but are nonetheless is crucial for a given individual position?

How frequently would the bands be updated, and by whom? How would you prevent groups or organizations from unduly influencing the published bands?

I mean... there is a model. In Northern Europe (at least, they may do it elsewhere too) there are regular negotiations between Industry Groups and large unions to set the pay scales and other contract details across entire industries. It does seems sensible to me, actually, but I don't know how realistic it is to introduce that model elsewhere.

[DGuller]

You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

Yes?

Negotiation is generally not about finding yourself in the acceptable range, but rather about getting the best you can get within the range.  Getting into the range is not the tricky part; if you're not in it, then one of the parties has a no-brainer decision regardless of negotiating skill or power.

[The Brain]

You don't see the advantages of arriving at a price that both parties are OK with, for the parties and for society?

There is a range of prices where both parties are OK with it, economically speaking.

Yes?

Negotiation is generally not about finding yourself in the acceptable range, but rather about getting the best you can get within the range.

Not my experience. YMMV

[DGuller]

Who would publish these bands?

Employers.  You put up a job description for a position you're trying to fill, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

[The Brain]

Who would publish these bands?

Employers.  You put up a job description, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

This would at best be horribly inefficient, and there is no problem that it solves.

[Jacob]

Employers.  You put up a job description for a position you're trying to fill, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

Ah yeah, I think that's fine. Publish how much you're willing to pay seems like a reasonable idea.

But I don't think it changes the fact that there'll be negotiations? I mean, if they say the range of pay is $90,000 - $120,000 or whatever, then presumably there'll some negotiation within that band?

And it does have the downside, that someone truly excellent for the role who'd want $130,000 may not apply, even - on review of their qualifications - they might be a good hire for the company nonetheless.

[Sheilbh]

Who would publish these bands?

Employers.  You put up a job description for a position you're trying to fill, you put the the pay scale in it with actual numbers, and a narrow enough band so you don't just get around it with $0-$10,000,000 nonsense.  The job candidates know what they're applying for, and people already working for the employer can check what the new employees are going to get.  You can except executive and professional jobs, or something like that, or require a certain percentage of your jobs to have published pay scales.  Some states in the US are actually moving in that direction, and I think that's a great thing.

I absolutely hate the "competitive salary" in job adverts. It wastes everyone's time - and really only helps recruitment consultants. I've seen it both ways. I've appled for a job that was just not going to pay enough and had I know at stage one I wouldn't have applied, similarly I've seen applications from people whose last employer is Tesla who are used to an extremely high salary band that doesn't really work in the industry I'm in.

If employers were transparent in job adverts I think it'd be very helpful.

The transparent bands thing is standard in the public sector here and I think in really big companies like the banks.