Talk:2597: Salary Negotiation

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 06:49, 20 July 2023 by (talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The second panel is me every time I haggle for something, and I have to make sure I don't end up haggling the wrong way. Or starting above my desired price when I mean to start below so that I can meet in the middle at my desired price. 23:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not a one-time negotiation, anyway. During an annual review I'd have to suggest any pay adjustments. Was useless at it, too self-effacing. I left one job after ten years and later on found my exact same old position (which I had felt now wasn't adding much to the team, part of the reason I left) readvertised with a suggested salary range starting at twice that of what I had actually departed with. Seems they needed me (or someone quite like me) more than any of us knew. That experience didn't improve my assertiveness, though. 10:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

They should offer him $61,333.33 plus a penny extra once every three years. 23:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The way a friend solved it was to cut a penny into six pieces (like a pizza), and then give me two of them. Ruffy314 (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This raises more questions than it answers. Why was your friend giving you 1/3 of a penny? Why two sixths rather than one third? How did they cut it? --192·168·0·1 (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I would imagine that it is significantly easier to slice a coin all the way through than it is to cut it halfway through. But I'm still wondering how: after making the first cut (presumably relatively easy given the right tools), the subsequent cuts would be against *parts* of a penny, not the entire thing (thereby decreasing the utility of making full slices). Once a penny is cut in half, the two parts won't stay together anymore, unlike a pizza where the entire thing retains its same shape the entire time. I also wonder about the utility: a fraction of a penny under 50% of the total volume is completely worthless. When someone has more than 50%, then it is worth the entire value of the penny. Cwallenpoole (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
You can clamp down the two parts of a now discected coin, for a further cut across-tye-cut almost as easily as you can clamp down the original. Harder to do the two ⅙ths and two ⅓rds (or just the latter two) to get the final four ⅙ths. Or overlay the cut halves (or thirds), perhaps, then cut through both with a powerful enough slicer.
But the way I'd do it (assuming 6 ⅙s is the target) is to make the cut across all but a sliver of one edge, realign, make a similar cut (liberating ⅙, having ⅓+⅙+⅓ still joined) then clean through at the third angle (two more ⅙s loosed), after which you just need to snip through the two cut-ends that you left to make the slotted ½ into 3 separate ⅙s.
Just snipping from edge to centre, three times, can mess up at the meeting point. Though it involves the same angles, getting them to meet (non-messily) in the exact centre is awkward, and it's easier to visually map six equilateral triangles with an edge-length equal to the radius (to execute three cross-cuts, fairly) than the three obtuse triangles (or one equilateral triangle with edges ≠2r) in planning where on the edge to start. Well, from my regular experience in actual pizza-cutting into three equal portions, before we get to the difficulty in cleanly cutting a much smaller coin made of metal. 14:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Any idea how Cueball arrived at the figure of $61 1/3 thousand?--Troy0 (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrarily non-round numbers are a really good idea as per [1] (which I just added), and Cueball's is one of the simplest in terms of algebraic fractional expression at the bottom of the 110-120% widely-accepted counter-offer range already mentioned (with which I agree and have heard repeatedly from associates, but rather uncomfortably is in the explanation without a source.) I would sincerely say he's being quite shrewd at that point, except for the haggling over cents and fractional cents. 03:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. In the UK, I was taught to call them recurring decimals. Never heard of repeating decimals. -- 08:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I just assumed the usual trans-Atlantic difference in terminology. In general I'd also say "point three three three recurring" to establish the (unvarying) pattern, or something like "point one nine one nine recurring" for a bistable pattern, etc, so that it doesn't look like all-nines to infinity. But, to be honest, I'd be glad if people didn't use "point thirty-three" or the like. ;) 10:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the 15% is meaning a 15% cut in the (offered) salary, as the current explanation has it. I think this is referencing agent-type negotiations, where the agent might take 15% of the salary negotiated for the person they're representing. 09:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Justhalf (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Also inappropriately used/ill-formed, in this negotiation, but "15% of the gross" might be a given film-star's deal for appearing/cameoing in a movie, i.e. variable according to the success, tying directly into the money it earns the studio - potentially quite lucrative, without scaring off the studio by risking it (excessive) debts in the event of a flop or other failure to cash in. So long as the total percentages are not excessive!
A salary that is a set percentage (other than 100%) of one's own salary is, of course, nonsensicle and paradoxical (though one could suggest an introductive percentage 'discount' for the first year, as a wary employer's inducement/guarantee, perhaps in direct exchange for a corresponding bonus against the measure of productivity that is expected/hoped to be massively increased by being hired), but muddled Cueball seems to be grasping at apt-sounding fragments of such 'business language' yet mashing them together in various wrong ways. 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary is way too long and overdetailed. It's more like a play-by-play of the comic than an explanation 02:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. Apologies to whoever wrote the existing description, but you worked too hard. -mezimm 19:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, $61,333.33 1/3 is not an irrational number; however calling it a rational number (and linking the page for that term) seems pointless. Could we change it to say "irrational amount" to indicate Cueball's mindset and eliminate the link?

Why not just say that the 1/3 of a cent is paid in advance in 3 year cycles? The first year will get him $61333.34, then $61333.33 for the next 2 years. He can just save the 2/3¢ for the second and third years. :P 06:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)