I disagree. If engineers are notoriously bad at negotiating (which we probably are), the solution is to improve that skill, not to seek to avoid negotiating in any form or fashion. The idea that you can willfully eschew any responsibility for asking for what you want (which is really what a negotiation is) and still get it, is both self-defeating and naive.
The reason lawyers/agents/salespeople are good at negotiating is not merely that their job requires it, it's because they have developed that skill.
This is true, but it's also inefficient for society as a whole. Basically, what the other side is saying is that yes, negotiating is a skill, but the reason why our economy works so efficiently is that we instituted division of labor. If everybody specializes in some skill, then they will be better at it than a jack-of-all-trades. On average, an engineer should be able to become a better engineer if they do not simultaneously have to worry about improving their negotiation skills. That would be overall beneficial to society.
So it might actually be better for society if the range of potential income is much smaller, because individuals in such a society would spend less time on skills like negotiation, which are not directly productive.
Depending on your outlook on life and how much anxiety the knowledge about income differentials causes you, the situation can look very much like a prisoner's dilemma.
>> Basically, what the other side is saying is that yes, negotiating is a skill, but the reason why our economy works so efficiently is that we instituted division of labor.
Understood, but division of labor is largely gray and only really gets divided when you move up the income chain (ie, the wealthier you are, the more things you can pay others to do to free up your time). Why learn how to make your bed or drive a car since technically you could pay other people to do those things for you? Professional athletes, musicians, and actors pay agents to negotiate their deals for them because they have much more at stake and it makes sense to bring on somebody who is an expert in contracts for specialized fields since its almost certainly a net win for both parties (talent and agent).
Unfortunately, engineering doesn't really pay enough to warrant bringing on an agent to negotiate on your behalf. So people can choose to wish that complete transparency existed and that we all make the same amount at each level of ability, or they can choose to accept that the job market is just that- a market. If you accept a salary of a certain rate and on certain terms, you are selling your services at an agreed-upon price. Just because somebody else asked for more and got it, doesn't change the fact that you were happy enough with the amount you agreed to work for and got it.
So really what we are talking about is wanting happiness with the amount you are paid regardless of whether it is enough to meet your personal needs. If the next person is making 10% more than you, then suddenly you are unhappy. There was a famous psychological experiment that actually verified this same thing- that people would generally be happier to make less money so long as somebody else in the same position isn't making more. That is not a net win for employees. In fact, those who can negotiate up their pay are probably helping the entire field of employees in that domain, since even if you are the bottom 50% of wage-earners in a high-paying field you are doing better than if everyone's pay remained stagnant at a lower level.
I agree with you. Anyway developing this skill also means that you allocate a considerable brain processing power into this activity; far more than some devs want/can allocate. This skill probably will make (or force) them into management.
The reason lawyers/agents/salespeople are good at negotiating is not merely that their job requires it, it's because they have developed that skill.