I didn't fall the for the line, but I had that used on me. Raise time came up and I was told that after review my salary was still inline with what they wanted to pay for my experience, because I had negotiated up from their initial offer on initial here. I was gone several months later. Such a stupid thing to do.

I’m unable to parse the sentence you quoted and get the same meaning.

The quote is saying that the employee will be at the top of the budgeted pay range for that position, so their salary won’t grow much at all year over year.

I’m unclear on where you’re getting “underpay” from. Perhaps you’re assuming that the budgeted salary is below fair market value, and there’s a vague promise to increase the budget/salary in the future? Not sure why anyone would take the position in that case.

Because the sooner you get to the top of your budgeted salary the more years you spend collecting it. Collecting a higher salary for longer makes you more money.

Ah I see! The assumption is that the candidate is already worth the top of the pay range for the position. In that case, should they be aiming for a higher position? Should there be room to grow in the position?

Nothing about being "worth" it if you ask me. It's about collecting the money (and not getting layed off coz you're the guy that makes the most). This will depend on the company. Some companies do stack ranking and you can tell me whatever you want but I bet being at the top of your salary bracket gets you out more easily. But if you have a company that values you, doesn't do that sort of stack ranking and you're fine with only getting the standard inflationary increase, then collecting the extra money for multiple years is worth it if you ask me.

That said it feels kinda nice if the company gives you a raise without you even asking but it does mean you were basically underpayed vs. what you might have gotten.

The original poster said if they negotiate too high, they tell them they simply won't give them pay raises. (With the implication that for some reason the potential employee would instead want to start low and get raises).

I'm not sure where "The assumption is that the candidate is already worth the top of the pay range for the position" comes into this. As a potential employee, i want to maximize my $$$. How much the employer thinks i'm worth is the employer's problem not mine. If the employer gives me a choice that i can either (a) make more money or (b) make less money, i am going to choose (a), and i don't know why anyone would chose (b), all other things being equal.

> If they are too high I'm usually upfront that at that rate they'd be flat compensation wise for a number of years

I think its good to communicate that they wont be getting raises. I've taken a few jobs where I've been paid well above average, it feels great then you dont get any pay rises for a few years which makes you feel like you're aren't doing a good job.

> Basically you're telling the candidate that you want to underpay them now, so you can eventually pay them what they are worth

Stared at this for a while, and can make no sense of it.

Candidate thinks they're worth $250k. Employer pay bracket is $200k. Options:

1. Bend policy at hiring. $250k. $250k. $250k. $250k. $250k. $250k (no raises)

2. Follow salary brackets. $200k. $210k. $220k. $230k. $240k. $250k (low initial salary, catch up over time)

Having been on both sides, it's nearly impossible to make the case for bending policy further at annual reviews. Over time, employees converge to pay brackets. If you were hired with a on-off exception, you're getting no raises for a long time.

No raises feels shitty to a lot of people. It also brings risks.

True story: I was hired by a not-for-profit doing good work. Pay was maybe 1/3 of Google, and I'd be the top tech person at the org (not by ladder, but by skills). Pay was about 85% of what I needed to cover cost-of-living. They stretched brackets to get up to covering my cost-of-living exactly, so I was almost 20% over the upper cap of my pay bracket. Come next re-org, what do you know, they re-jiggle salary brackets standardize things, and my salary comes down 20%.

Fortunately, in the meantime, my cost of living had come down, so it worked out okay. I'm doing important, fulfilling work, and it's fun. So long as I'm doing that and making ends meet, I'm not tempted to jump ship to FAANG.

And no, my employer wasn't simply f-ing me; I understand the organizational structure, psychology, and dynamics well enough to understand what happened, how, and why. These were dynamics well above anything my boss, their boss, or their boss has any influence over, and I'd rather spend the social capital of going to their boss on something more important (e.g. making sure everything I do is open source).

A common career mistake people make is to assign intentions to places where the other side has no control. If you're worth $350k on the free market, and you receive a $180k offer, odds are the other side isn't low-balling you or doing anything mean or improper. They're operating from their constraints. You're operating from yours.

If you need $350k, and they can spend up to $500k, you'll be hired, and how well each side negotiates sets at where you'll get paid. If you need $350k and they can spend up to $200k, you're not getting hired, period. It's good to discover that earlier rather than later, but in practice, that usually comes up after the interview. In the no-hire $200k/$350k case, although you might not get a job now, things might change in five or ten years, and it's good to leave without bad feelings, and I'm not just talking about expressing bad feelings, but about what you're actually feeling. If you come out thinking "low-ball exploitative !@#$%," that's not very healthy; if you come out feeling "good people; no fit; difference in expectations; maybe next time," that is healthy.

No raises are fine if they make it clear from their hiring that you're being paid above band. Also, raises aren't really the way to move up in tech, it's to jump ship as you say.