Playing the field with employers should be the standard mode of operation. This possibly benefits employers even more than employees. What is worse for an employer than an entrenched employee, who hates his job, doing the bare minimum to stay employed? Surely the answer isn't the guy who was super productive for a year and then moved on.
1)There's no such thing as the perfect mate. Looking for perfection will make you dissatisfied with everyone you date.
2) A lot of what makes a relationship work or fail is how you treat each other, not who you're with.
3) "Playing the field" too much desensitizes you. Your memories with your mate are mingled and confused with memories of lots of others. You keep doing mental comparisons. You have fewer unique experiences together. It just seems less special. So look around, sure - but don't make a sport of it. Lasting love is way more satisfying than a lifetime of flings.
(Employment, of course, is totally different.)
There's no end to the amount of advice in the world when it comes to love and marriage. Some counterpoints:
Looking for perfection will make you dissatisfied with everyone you date.
Or, you will gain enough experience to realize when you've found the best one.
A lot of what makes a relationship work or fail is how you treat each other, not who you're with.
The way someone treats you is mostly a result of who they are.
"Playing the field" too much desensitizes you.
Maybe, but it is the best way to learn what personality traits you like and dislike.
Lasting love is way more satisfying than a lifetime of flings.
Your chances at finding lasting love are greatly increased if you search for and find the right person.
The first says that the right pair of people fit together, so if you aren't fitting, then you must not have found the right pair of people.
The second says that relationships are constructed. What you get out has more to do with what you put in than with who you are.
While there is an element of truth to both, everyone I know who is happily married subscribes more to the second theory than the first.
I've been that guy for my whole life, and not a single employee has tried to convince me to stay with better perks, none.
A couple of times I stayed and got not even enough to compensate for inflation, so fuck em, I moved on.
If you want better perks, every year you have to move on.
ps. But you have to be good, and I mean real good to play the diva card.
Immaterial. You never take the counter-offer.
An employer who refuses to reward you until you're at the point of looking elsewhere is not worth remaining at. Further, you'll wind up on the short-list of problem employees and in the event that they do need to reduce headcount you will be disproportionately likely to lose your job earlier, thus disadvantaging your next job search.
There's no upside to taking a counter-offer beyond immediate convenience.
It is not the counter-offer which counts, that in my book is too late. It is the end-of-year reward which should be AUTOMATICALLY adjusted per inflation plus at least a 5% increase if you overperformed. So I always expect a 10% incease WITHOUT asking for it, or else I'll move on.
On my side, I always overperform more than 10% so I deserve what I expect. The employer? not much, they don't care. They will never care. Their book forbids 10% increase for every employee.
Key point, not EVERY employee deserves 10% increase. Only overperformers. HR guys need to understand that and learn to differentiate and reward accordingly, which they don't. They are also collecting their winnings every month.
ps. I am not talking about food a la carte, or gym towels. I am talking about money and vacation time. Everything else is a welcomed addition to the perks.