Yes, this is what the "salary negotiations" portion of the process is supposed to be.

@dave @xianc78

this has already been done by the hiring company before the candidate walks in the room

Hence why memes like this are so retarded. Workers don't just get a salary increase because they're operating machines which are now more automated; those workers have to actually provide value to justify their salary

@dave @xianc78

they have to prove they can operate the machinery to do the intended work

within an acceptable time period,
which the company has already worked out

and it should be standard across the industry, or they will lose the worker

I'm not sure what the disagreement here is. Xianc said it was subjective, I offered "clarification" that their value was assumed to be a range and the exact number was determined by "salary negotiation", and you're explaining the salary negotiation process.

@dave @xianc78 @mumble_tank Who are you replying to? I can't see them!

@dave @xianc78 @caekislove

maybe I've been muted
because I do my homework so well
that I say shocking things

@Elfie since we were just talking about this...

@dave @xianc78

no, I am not explaining that.

I am saying the the value of labor is pretty well quantified before the hiring interview takes place

the hiring interview is 2 poker players bluffing each other

Very interesting. Do you think there is some way this stage of the hiring process could be described?

Maybe since it involves negotiation about salary, that we could call it the "salary negotiation" process?

@dave @xianc78

you can call it that
with whatever degree of sarcasm you wish
but it is not subjective at least on the part of the hiring party

I recognize that the people on the hiring side of the table have a general range for what value a worker really brings (or doesn't bring) to the table.

Nailing down the specifics, is what the salary negotiation phase is about. Maybe you realize in the interview that they are abrasive and might not fit in well with the team so you're not willing to offer a competitive salary. Maybe they mention some experience that isn't captured on a resume but that can still add value to your company, so that makes you more willing to make a competitive offer.

Maybe their demands are unrealistic and given their weak resume they're asking too much. Maybe you sense that they're desperate and can negotiate a lower salary.

Maybe you call it something else, but there is a name for this phase of the process, where you get into the weeds of what they offer the company and try to nail down a number that you can both agree on. To my understanding, that name is "salary negotiations".

@dave @xianc78

my remarks addressed what this thread started about

which was not the hiring negotiation

but the value of labor

I'm a guy that tends to argue about dumb shit, so I know I'm being a bit tedious when I ask this question, but if your remarks were about the fundamental value of labor, why did you leave your reply on my comment where I said this phase was called salary negotiation?

@dave @xianc78

because the value of labor is not subjective

nor is it determined by the salary negotiation

In saying this, I suspect you work for a major corp, probably with a high level of worker dissatisfaction and high turnover rate.

And if that is true, I strongly suspect that you would struggle to draw any connections between your turnover rate and the things you have said in this conversation.

@dave @xianc78

you say all this because I assert that the value of labor is not subjective?

that is a whole lot of fantasizing

If the value of labor is not subjective, then it is objective, yes?

@dave @xianc78

I did not want to use that word, but it is very quantifiable

Given your discomfort with the word objective, and also that this thread started because you took issue with the idea that the value of labor is subjective, you believe that, with perfect information, there is some dollar amount that you and the prospective hire can agree is fair compensation for their services?

But at the same time, you acknowledge that as a hiring authority you lack access to that perfect information that would give you that exact dollar value, so you're operating off of the limited information available to you.

The reason why I accused you of being an HR person at a high-turnover corp on that basis is that to suggest that the value of labor isn't "subjective" means that it must be "objective", and I believe that only someone doing hiring at one of these corps could truly believe that they had an objective understanding of the value of a hire going into a salary negotiation.