>In the first example, if the company was willing to pay 100, why would they say 60?
Because if the company can get away on spending under budget for you, they can either spend more of that fixed number on someone or something else - anything from the manager's own salary ("Hey, I saved the company 25% of my budget this year, give me a raise!) to adding additional staff to buying that long needed server.
If you aren't spending as little as possible on all your costs, you're doing the business thing wrong.
Because if the company can get away on spending under budget for you, they can either spend more of that fixed number on someone or something else
I think the recent trend in hiring software engineers is to pay what they ask, because if you don't (e.g. offering $60k instead of $100k), you're going to have to hire again in 6 months to a year when they leave. Just searching for a software engineer can cost $30-50k in downtime, recruiter's commissions, and learning curves.
> If you aren't spending as little as possible on all your costs, you're doing the business thing wrong.
This needs to take into account the costs of turnover (including the cost of training a replacement) and hiring. There is an inverse relationship between the salaries that a company pays its employees and turnover costs.
Because if the company can get away on spending under budget for you, they can either spend more of that fixed number on someone or something else - anything from the manager's own salary ("Hey, I saved the company 25% of my budget this year, give me a raise!) to adding additional staff to buying that long needed server.
If you aren't spending as little as possible on all your costs, you're doing the business thing wrong.