Speaking in percentages in this context is generally not super useful, in my opinion. For example, 15% on top of a $200k/yr salary is a pretty decent increase if we're talking about a similar role/set of responsibilities, and seemingly similar culture/benefits. That's almost an extra $800 take-home per paycheck. Assuming a semi-monthly payroll cycle. I just bought a new induction stove and oven for $900, that pay increase would have almost covered it by itself in 2ish weeks. We're talking about a lifestyle change with that bump.
15% on top of a $80k/yr salary on the other hand is a pretty measly $350 extra per paycheck. I wouldn't give up my current workplace culture for that, no.
> If given the choice between two candidates, the one that I suspect will leave for a 1% raise and the one that will need 15%, I'll hire the 15%.
I guess I want to know what magic intuition this hiring manager possesses to gauge what dollar amount a person they just met would be willing to walk away for, though, where they are sure the other person would surely walk for a 1% bump.
I work for a startup today, and can tell you that I've certainly considered looking to FAANG positions for a higher salary. I don't know how much other people pay attention to the performance of IPOs lately, but equity is not as nice as cash in hand right now. And I don't know how much people here pay attention to crypto news beyond the headlines, but DevOps/SW Engineers that work for failed crypto startups don't typically get the same dissolution payouts that the CEO/founder did. I believe using either background as a signal for a person's level of greed is hugely misleading.
