> The real reason is it is completely unworkable to require a best offer from one side and not the other side.
Only if you think the power dynamics between the two parties are equal. Or in other words, only if you think that both parties would get the same benefit (or harm) from some sort of mediated negotiation (e.g. both parties share their best offer with a third party who then follows some agreed-upon rule to settle the transaction at some price in the range of mutually-acceptable prices if any exist).
What you're describing (both sides providing a best offer) obviously doesn't work without some sort of agreed-upon method for sharing the offers before knowing the other party's offer and then settling on a price if any mutually-acceptable prices exist.
In reality, even an auction among a large set of workers and employers is unlikely to be have "ideal" outcomes (according to some reasonable definitions, although all definitions would be debatable), particularly when relevant qualities of the two parties are different (like how much information about the market each party has, how risk-averse each party is, etc.).
It’s pretty rare in our field for someone to be able to land one job offer but not a second one.
Sure, there are a lot of applicants banging away hopelessly (because they’re not qualified and those people should not negotiate), but most everyone else in software who can land job offer N can land job offer N+1 without undue difficulty.
IMO, SWEs have never had more “walk away” power since I joined the field about 3 decades years ago.
In an industry that is deadset on focusing on worthless leetcode puzzles as the major gating factor for a hire decision, I struggle to understand how someone "banging away hopelessly" is decidedly unqualified.
There are literally people applying for SWE jobs who couldn’t write FizzBuzz or a function to sum a non-overflowing array of ints in a language of their choosing. That’s tablestakecode, not leetcode, IMO.
That is fair. I have not encountered them myself, nor ever been an interviewee where "tablestakes" is the bar and not "hard leetcode haha I know the answer and you don't~~", but I absolutely acknowledge, recognize, and understand that this is a real occurrence as well. In those cases, I wholeheartedly agree with the label.
In most cases, the company will continue to survive without the labor of any one given worker, while that worker will starve without the capital provided by the company. Even in the ability to walk away, there is a huge asymmetry.
Why do so many instantly go to the false dichotomy of "accept new job" vs "be unemployed".
The vast number of people changing jobs don't leave one before securing another.
And even if you're unemployed, it doesn't change the negotiating power, just the relative value of your personal choices. Ie job1 vs job2 or job1 vs unemployed.
To blame the lopsided value of the latter on negotiating power is to grossly misunderstand negotiating tactics.
Nobody is starving in America. Jobs are going begging. I needed some work done on the house, and I called the outfit that usually does such things. They are overwhelmed with work, and can't find workers.
Besides there are around 250,000,000 jobs in America. Am I to believe that it is commonplace, or even ever happens, that an individual somehow has managed to find the only job opening in America?
Only if you think the power dynamics between the two parties are equal. Or in other words, only if you think that both parties would get the same benefit (or harm) from some sort of mediated negotiation (e.g. both parties share their best offer with a third party who then follows some agreed-upon rule to settle the transaction at some price in the range of mutually-acceptable prices if any exist).
What you're describing (both sides providing a best offer) obviously doesn't work without some sort of agreed-upon method for sharing the offers before knowing the other party's offer and then settling on a price if any mutually-acceptable prices exist.
In reality, even an auction among a large set of workers and employers is unlikely to be have "ideal" outcomes (according to some reasonable definitions, although all definitions would be debatable), particularly when relevant qualities of the two parties are different (like how much information about the market each party has, how risk-averse each party is, etc.).