Ah I see! The assumption is that the candidate is already worth the top of the pay range for the position. In that case, should they be aiming for a higher position? Should there be room to grow in the position?
Nothing about being "worth" it if you ask me. It's about collecting the money (and not getting layed off coz you're the guy that makes the most). This will depend on the company. Some companies do stack ranking and you can tell me whatever you want but I bet being at the top of your salary bracket gets you out more easily. But if you have a company that values you, doesn't do that sort of stack ranking and you're fine with only getting the standard inflationary increase, then collecting the extra money for multiple years is worth it if you ask me.
That said it feels kinda nice if the company gives you a raise without you even asking but it does mean you were basically underpayed vs. what you might have gotten.
The original poster said if they negotiate too high, they tell them they simply won't give them pay raises. (With the implication that for some reason the potential employee would instead want to start low and get raises).
I'm not sure where "The assumption is that the candidate is already worth the top of the pay range for the position" comes into this. As a potential employee, i want to maximize my $$$. How much the employer thinks i'm worth is the employer's problem not mine. If the employer gives me a choice that i can either (a) make more money or (b) make less money, i am going to choose (a), and i don't know why anyone would chose (b), all other things being equal.
