[pc86]

I don't think the company with the $120-150k range is trying to hide it from the person who wants $200k, I think they're trying to hide it from the person who wants $110k. If you tell them $200k they just stop talking to you. If you tell them $110k they write it down and carry along with the process and a little green $110k next to your name.

[phpisthebest]

Actually they are hoping to snag the person that has extreme wage compression, working a 85K job that is worth 150K, who they can get for 95K...

[pc86]

That's exactly what I said with different numbers.

[bomewish]

This kind of strategy seems a bizarre one for a company. "Let's figure out how to systematically pay our employees less than they're really worth." How is that any kind of long-term plan? To really move the needle you'd have to do it a LOT -- but then you've selected on employees who lack knowledge about their own power. Those are going to be systematically different (probably not in a good way?) from employees who are more proactive and entrepreneurial about negotiating. Wouldn't you prefer a whole lot of the latter type? Since they will presumably be better at solving open-ended problems, etc. etc.?

[abwizz]

> This kind of strategy seems a bizarre one for a company. "Let's figure out how to systematically pay our employees less than they're really worth."

so we established that the revenue of the company belongs to the employees that worked for it, but the company has to skimm at least the operating costs before payout as otherwise it would make a loss.

but most companies have an obligation to make profit, so there is no other way than to pay the employees less than what they're worth (because increasing revenue would also increase the value of employees accordingly)

please tell me where i'm wrong

[RhodesianHunter]

In this world employee value would be set by the market for their skills, not how their output translates into revenue when pushed through the context of the business' products.

[pc86]

> so we established that the revenue of the company belongs to the employees that worked for it

Where did we establish this? Because it's not true, especially in a strictly legal sense.

[abwizz]

thx

[pdonis]

> you've selected on employees who lack knowledge about their own power

Which is the majority of employees. Because...

> employees who are more proactive and entrepreneurial about negotiating

...aren't going to remain employees for too long; they are going to end up starting their own businesses because they realize that the upside is so much greater. Which means, first, that, to them, the job at your company is not a career; it's a temporary day job while they get set up to pursue their real goal. And second, that at any given time these kinds of employees will be a fairly small minority of all the people in the job market.

[phpisthebest]

>>because they realize that the upside is so much greater.

the risks are also greater, I am 100% proactive about salary, I am 100% pretty aggressive and "disagreeable" (in the psych meaning of the term) about it as well

I however am not entrepreneurial because I have no desire to have that liability, or risk. I prefer working for a company instead of owning the company

[slikrick]

> actually

they were really trying. this site is so strange.