At my first "adult" job, I was actually offered more than I asked for, because the employer used this thing where all employees should fit within limits of a median for any given position (they were ranked somehow so many positions shared same rank).

I had a somewhat similar experience. I was doing good work at a place for about a year and got nothing not even a pat on the back. Next year started to get fed up, had a rough patch in my personal life, started getting short, angry and bitchy with people. Ran into technical difficulties on the project I was working on. My idea for solving it weren't listened to and even worse had people listened it would have been a small disaster because my idea was crap. I started staying home either "working" or just plain calling in sick. When I showed up for work people were walking on eggshells around me. So I was an unproductive douche basically. That year I got the biggest raise I've ever had. Don't know why. About two weeks after that I quit.

What's the alternative, though? No salary negotiations? How does that give employees more power? I'd rather figure out a way for poor negotiators to get better at it, than take that away from everyone.

Here's Joel Spolsky on the alternative they used at Fog Creek. http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090401/how-hard-could-it-be-em... . A goal was that "A manager would have absolutely no leeway when it came to setting a salary. And there would be only one salary per level."

I would agree but I think there is something about a person who believes in themselves enough to negotiate that can be a differentiator. For instance, my coworker is a total slacker, comes in late and leaves early. I come in early and leave late and take on extra work. Someone who is determined enough to feel they are worth more money will probably statistically work harder. I know it isn't the same for all people, but I would bet that the majority of people who ask for more money work harder.

It's not unusual to find female employees who are doing extra work because they don't have the confidence to deflect it or seize credit, and who are comparably underpaid.

Work hardness (how do you measure this, anyway?) and salary are weakly correlated above the minimum in most work places.

That's an extreme generalization that's sexist against males and females. There are plenty of women with confidence and negotiation prowess and men that lack them.

People who are genuinely good at what they do don't need to spend extra time doing it - putting in longer hours is a sign that you're not very good at what you do. Either that or you're going 'above and beyond' (gold-plating in project management terms) and doing things that the client hasn't agreed to pay for. That's actually worse - you're giving revenue away.

I have a near endless stream of work to do. I could easily put in 70+ hours a week doing things that need to be done, not struggling and not gold-plating. Where have you worked that does not always have a "next thing to do"?

BS i.m.o. It is more like advertisements and marketing. Your work and your ideas don't have to be good as long as they are remembered. The louder you are, the more space you take, the more you let people know of your ideas and your work, the more money you get. If you quietly just do your job without any fuss you get forgotten. Women seem to have very little room for middle ground in today's corporate world either they get forgotten or they develop the worst case of testicular braggadocio you ever seen and end up being managers and CEOs.

It would be a interesting study to read if that is true. I could see the exact opposite be proven, as people who invest in trade skill don't the same energy and time to spend on negotiating and improving their social/political standing in the company. People have a limited number of hours on the day and focusing ones attention on one thing should naturally result in higher results in that area.