I see… cleverly, it also takes advantage of how many people are afraid to ask for high salaries out of modesty or something.
I kind of view this as defecting and it seems like I have to defect in turn, to counter it (conveniently, I get to move second)… I guess this means I must start quoting highball figures and generally concealing my previous salary if it is lower than I expect the opponent to estimate, and displaying it loudly when it is higher than the opponent would estimate. Is that an effective thing to do?
(When I say it’s defecting, I’m not attaching moral value to it or anything. I do want organizations which I want to see succeed do whatever is most rational, even if it is defecting, if that’s what all the other agents are doing. Still, I feel like mutual cooperation would be generally more pleasant. I wonder if there is a mechanism to determine a person’s true-market-value (as in, taking into account the opportunity costs on both sides) so as to avoid this sort of thing.)
I’ve actually tried this before, under the notion that I’d get a higher chance of landing the job relative to other applicants. I wouldn’t do it again—I’m pretty sure the real outcome is that I lowered my perceived value. Signalling!
Now that I phrase it in light of game theory though—if it had worked, it would be a neat demonstration of how two super-rational players win out over game-theoretically rational players. What I describe is also how the free market is supposed to work—my benefit in “cooperating” derives from cutting the competition out of the trade by offering a better deal.
It looks like there’s no incentive for them to post an honest salary range, and there’s no incentive for you, having been told the salary range, to be honest about what you think you are worth.
It’s not defecting, just making a choice that is strictly nonbeneficial for the other party.
It’s certainly something I have heard recommended many a time. Though usually without the “higher than the opponent would estimate” bit—perhaps because most people who are moving jobs are moving to jobs they expect to pay more than they’re getting now, so the situation doesn’t often arise.
I see… cleverly, it also takes advantage of how many people are afraid to ask for high salaries out of modesty or something.
I kind of view this as defecting and it seems like I have to defect in turn, to counter it (conveniently, I get to move second)… I guess this means I must start quoting highball figures and generally concealing my previous salary if it is lower than I expect the opponent to estimate, and displaying it loudly when it is higher than the opponent would estimate. Is that an effective thing to do?
(When I say it’s defecting, I’m not attaching moral value to it or anything. I do want organizations which I want to see succeed do whatever is most rational, even if it is defecting, if that’s what all the other agents are doing. Still, I feel like mutual cooperation would be generally more pleasant. I wonder if there is a mechanism to determine a person’s true-market-value (as in, taking into account the opportunity costs on both sides) so as to avoid this sort of thing.)
If they posted a salary range, and it was higher than you would have expected them to offer, would you “cooperate”?
I’ve actually tried this before, under the notion that I’d get a higher chance of landing the job relative to other applicants. I wouldn’t do it again—I’m pretty sure the real outcome is that I lowered my perceived value. Signalling!
Now that I phrase it in light of game theory though—if it had worked, it would be a neat demonstration of how two super-rational players win out over game-theoretically rational players. What I describe is also how the free market is supposed to work—my benefit in “cooperating” derives from cutting the competition out of the trade by offering a better deal.
It looks like there’s no incentive for them to post an honest salary range, and there’s no incentive for you, having been told the salary range, to be honest about what you think you are worth.
It’s not defecting, just making a choice that is strictly nonbeneficial for the other party.
It’s certainly something I have heard recommended many a time. Though usually without the “higher than the opponent would estimate” bit—perhaps because most people who are moving jobs are moving to jobs they expect to pay more than they’re getting now, so the situation doesn’t often arise.