That's trusting that the bank has your gold/commodity. Like the bitcoin supporters keep saying - mtgox is not bitcoin and bitcoin is not mtgox. In the same way, the bank is not gold and gold is not the bank. A currency based on gold is one based on MIStrust, because you don't trust the issuers bill and insist that their bill is backed by gold.

Currencies backed ultimately by gold by some bank are most definitely NOT backed by "trust". If you trusted them you wouldn't need the gold. Once again, I reiterate - since the invention of coinage no currency has existed that is based on trust. Not a single one. I fail to see why BTC, based soley on trust, will succeed. Even as an experiment, all it has shown thus far is that we have been inadequately teaching economics.

These are all bills/scrips backed by banks/companies, further backed by gold... how do you figure they were based on trust? Seems to me that a currency based on gold is not based on trust.

Not self-referential at all - I accept it as a form of payment because I can pay taxes with it. I "know" others will accept it for settlement of a debt because if they refuse they forfeit the debt.

It has value in its jurisdiction. Try refusing to accept settlement of a debt in your local currency and see what happens.

Neither did elections. Doesn't mean that they are a bad idea.

Nope. Bitcoin supporters frequently make the mistake that all something needs to be a currency is trust. This is not true. It needs a sovereign government backed by men with guns who will force you to pay your bills only in that currency or face punishment. That is what ultimately makes a currency. Not trust. Since the invention of coinage there has never ever, not even once, been a currency based on trust.

What makes you think the better negotiator has a bigger ego than you? You've spent this entire thread being smug that you are so modest that you *don't* negotiate .... that you've now convinced all readers that you are simply a small person in a large ego. Seriously - go back and read every one of your posts - you repeatedly insult people who have good negotiating skills while you make sure that we all know how modest you are by *telling* *us* *repeatedly* how modest you are.

Dear god.... blah blah bug report blah blah

This scheme doesn't work too well anyway - I won't go for the interview without an upfront statement wrt the salary. I don't think I've ever gone for an interview which did not have a salary range stated upfront. As recently as Monday I've told a slave-trader that the job-spec he sent me neglected to mention a salary range. He came back with "They offer competitive market rates" and I replied with "I don't interview for people who cannot afford me". I will not be going on any interview soon (mostly 'cos I'm happy where I am, but regardless).

It's actually quite simple - if they cannot afford me then they should waste my time. If I'm unable to adjust my expectations downwards then I won't waste theirs. There is no "Well, we'll offer you competitive market rates for your skills after we interview you," there is only "don't enter the fitting room if you can't afford to buy!"

She claims that the women didn't.

That's not negotiation, that's misrepresentation. There is no dictionary I am aware of nor common colloquial usage that means "misrepresent the value".

No wonder you feel the way you do about this - if you knew and used "negotiation" the way the dictionary defines it then you wouldn't make the statements you do, like "rewarding someone for useless skills".

Sounds like an exploitative company. I prefer to get my worth up front and not rely on a popularity contest sometime later; as such I regard the bonus as simply a bonus that may or may not arrive and instead ensure that the offered salary passes my threshold.

The worst time to negotiate your salary is *after* you start. After you start you'll hit the "It's company policy that all raises are capped to %X" rule. Before you start there is no "It's company policy that all salaries are capped to %X" rule (unless you interview at reddit, apparently).

It's not about rewarding useless skills, it's about not paying more than you have to. There are very good business reasons to pay people just enough to get them to do the job especially if they are more valuable to you. The good negotiators are not being rewarded, they are just taking home the salary that the company is prepared to pay. The poor negotiators are not being punished, they are simply leaving the extra money with the employer.

But there is good reason to pay a poor negotiator less than a good one - you save money.

I politely decline until I receive an offer that I am comfortable with. I do not talk with them about how I am worth more than they are offering.

I think she made it clear (repeatedly) that she isn't interested in the talent as long as it passes some baseline level. This is reddit, after all - what the hell would they do with talent?

How the hell did this get insightful? "Negotiating" a salary is not the same as negotiating a car purchase. I never sit down and talk with the HR person about salary, I simply politely decline until they come back with an offer that is acceptable, usually the final figure is the same as the one I put down in my cover letter under "salary expectations".

There is no opportunity for cattiness or pushiness unless you insist on discussing why you deserve more than they offered, and if you are at that point then you have already lost. Your interview should have already convinced them of your utility to them and if it hasn't then no amount of whining from your side will change that.

Just politely decline until they breach your expected salary threshold.

Incorrect. We don't negotiate when doing so will cost us more than it will save us. If your statement were true then lots of companies would sell $1k toothpaste because "we don't negotiate for toothpaste". It's absolutely true that we negotiate rates of pay.