Try not to think in the very short term. Finding a job at ~70% of the going rate for your field is not that hard.

Now at 70% a 10% raise might not seem like a huge deal as your still under market, but it only takes 7 of those to double your salary. And a 15-20% pay raise to jump to the next job is hardly unreasonable. Do those every ~3 years and you will massive difference inside a decade.

Remember, the median salary is just that people really do get paid more than it.

What stops you from taking the first job you find, and then spending 6 months while working looking for better jobs?

It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?

> What stops [someone]..

Interviews scheduled during work hours, already working multiple jobs, burnout, lack of openings in your field

> It hardly is THAT hard to get some competing offers. And if you can't be bothered, I guess you don't really want it anyway?

This sentiment signals bias

Competing offers? For what? Serving coffee? Washing dishes? DBA? CTO?

If you offer anyone with a job more money my guess is 100% would take the extra cash, so just because they fail to find, or look, for more cash how does it imply they 'don't really want it anyway'?

> This sentiment signals bias

While your sentiments are presumably bias-free?

I think everyone has bias, but I do think issues can be discussed without letting your biases supplant reason

What I meant by signalling bias was I felt the gp was allowing bias about the issue cloud reasoning as to the nuance of the issue

If my comment seemed to imply that I deny nuance then I failed to communicate my point

Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation

> Which was: sometimes pay is a result of other factors other than either a want or pure negotiation

Thanks, I think that's a much better criticism of the original argument

Starting anything new is a drain on resources. Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out. After all, it usually takes a few months to get anyone up to speed in a job, and this is assuming they're giving lots of effort.

For existing jobs? Inertia is probably a factor there, as well as fear of the unknown. When you've got something to loose it's different than having nothing to loose.

> Someone with time to focus on interviewing is bound to be better than someone with a new job they need to figure out

In my experience, that is not how it plays out.

Candidate A is living at home with his parents in some kind of GP paradise, able to give 100% of his time to interviewing.

Candidate B is working a stable but not fulfilling job, and interviewing on his lunch break / evening / morning to make it work.

Candidate B is going to be perceived as the higher value candidate, and all else being equal get more offers. Some of this is a value bias. You interview A and go "wow, he's not working now, I wonder what is wrong with him?"... you interview B and go "wow, he is a stable guy that can hold a job, he seems a slightly better fit".

Thinking that interviewing is some kind of magic trivia question that you need to devote full time study to is silly. Perhaps some jobs are like that, but I am not sure I would want to work there.

Idk why you are getting downvoted, because you are obviously right.

I think some people want to be outraged.