[CharlieDigital]

I can't say that this is a blanket truth; of course size of org matters, too.

But I think there's an effect like a "bet" that now favors the candidate that negotiated. When you negotiate and the hiring manager or company accepts, it's like they're placing a bet that you were absolutely the best candidate in that pool.

Imagine you're the one doing the hiring. What kind of candidate would you extend extra compensation to? Only one that you believe would truly improve your organization and in doing so, you -- on the hiring side -- are placing a bet.

[davely]

Maybe this is a blind spot for me, but my inclination is to think it doesn’t matter?

Only because the company has already made you an offer in the first place, ergo they see your value and are already making a bet on you. Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?

[CharlieDigital]

    > Has there ever been an instance where an offer has been rescinded because a prospective employee didn’t negotiate?

You're looking at it as a one-sided outcome where the company rescinds an offer.

How about the other side? Where the company sees you as an even more desirable candidate and increases the offer? Signing bonus, increased salary, other perks?

Author's whole point is "You always win if you negotiate the right way."

The author's point isn't that you aren't going to get the job by not negotiating, the author's point is that you're leaving money on the table by not negotiating. Potentially a lot of money by thinking that the other side is fair and transparent in their offer to you or doing you "a favor" by giving you a job rather than seeing that there is, unfortunately, a game that has to be played once you get to the offer stage.