Talk:2597: Salary Negotiation

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
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?