I am of the opinion that the successful interviews are not improving my job hunting skills. Only failures do. Since in these cases I got to the money talk I consider this successful.
> but here is an alternate ending: they regrade the job req to meet your requirement. They won't always be able to do this, but when they can you win big.
I find it very unlikely that a company that cannot even afford my minimum rate is going to turn around and "win big" unless winning big means getting what I already have with less job security on top (if I am pushing well beyond the salary range - I am the first one to go when the money runs dry).
I am not a celebrity programmer who is worth keeping around just for the bragging rights, I survive by selling the value I add at discount. If this value is unfavorable then neither myself nor the counterparty benefit from such a business.
> I am of the opinion that the successful interviews are not improving my job hunting skills. Only failures do. Since in these cases I got to the money talk I consider this successful.
I really don't agree with this. I've gotten a ton of value out of seeing what works--and even when I don't go to work for somebody, I've usually stayed in contact and made a lot of acquaintances that way.
But I treat interviewing as a game, and a game I enjoy; last time I was looking I interviewed at thirty-five places just to keep meeting people.
How are successful interviews not improving your job hunting skills? You have another data point for both salary negotiation and the knowledge/communication bar for people in your field (for better or worse). That just makes no sense to me.
To pass an interview I had to correctly answer certain questions and behave in a certain way, right? So the success means I already knew the correct answers to the questions and my behavior was adequate hence I'd better not to change anything. An improvement is a change by definition. I don't see how reaffirming the status quo causes a change.
> To pass an interview I had to correctly answer certain questions and behave in a certain way, right?
There isn't always "1 truth". There are multiple ways to answer most development questions. A range of answers are usually acceptable. A reaffirmation that an answer is effective is a change for me. It's an additional weight for those answers that are successful (even if I have to reason out to the interviewer why). That's just my algorithm.
But don't sell yourself short just because you're not Vint Cerf! You don't have to be a celebrity programmer to demand to be compensated what you're worth. Let them decide if you're capable of adding value on top of what they pay you, but don't try to do the math for them and try to short sell yourself.
In the long run $30k won't break them, if it does then they have bigger problems. Most firms that intend to gain a competitive advantage realize they should pay a little extra to attract talent. Be that talent.
What I am saying is only a celebrity programmer can keep a job where he or she is producing less value than his or her salary. This math won't go away just because you did not do it.
But neither you nor they can do that math with sufficient precision. Certainly not to the degree of accuracy where 150k vs 130k will make or break them. There are a lot of unknowns: your raw talent + their code base + how well you will work with others + market opportunities + experience you have that could help them break into new markets + your ability to mentor and hire friends from your network + a lot of other factors. Your job is to present yourself as top of market, worth the gamble to pay you extra to secure your talent. Again you don't have to be a celebrity. And they simply can't reduce your potential value so accurately.
I did not notice where "twice" became 20% in the course of this discussion but I agree, it's hard to estimate the maximum affordable salary with 20% precision. It's quite easy to estimate within 100% though if you had been in the field long enough.
More importantly, it does not even have to be in any error band as all it takes to suffer from anxiety over being paid too much is to believe your own estimate. It is not worth it for me as there are plenty of jobs where I'd get just as much or more and be confident the company can afford it.
"Value" is spectacularly subjective, though, and there are lots of people who can talk up their perceived value enough to be on the happy side of this calculus.
> but here is an alternate ending: they regrade the job req to meet your requirement. They won't always be able to do this, but when they can you win big.
I find it very unlikely that a company that cannot even afford my minimum rate is going to turn around and "win big" unless winning big means getting what I already have with less job security on top (if I am pushing well beyond the salary range - I am the first one to go when the money runs dry).
I am not a celebrity programmer who is worth keeping around just for the bragging rights, I survive by selling the value I add at discount. If this value is unfavorable then neither myself nor the counterparty benefit from such a business.