Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 560 posts

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#211

Post by qznc »

cmahler7 wrote: post #197
EdSharkey wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread suddenly became gold. Don't you dare die on me, thread!

Single, childless women make 8% more than single, childless men across the country, and as much as 20% more in some cities. This only changes when they have children or when they work fewer hours. But don't let facts stop you from repeating the same tired lies that have been debunked for years http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

More: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gend...

It contains links to many more sources at the end.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#212

Post by calafrax »

elnygren wrote: post #107

Best way to increase salary at current workplace? Get offers from other companies & ask for a meeting with your boss (or whoever decides your pay, so HR etc.). Bring up the offers, discuss what you'd get from there and also go through the potential career you could build at those companies. For example: Consultancy X would pay me $k/mo and every 6months it will go up the ladder if I perform well. With this kind of di…

This attitude is horrible just like the Forbes article.

This situation is only happening because of bubble cash and a lot of inexperienced leadership with too much money on their hands.

Once the bubble pops you will see all of these people with a resumes full of 6-12 month stints and outrageous salary expectations working at Starbucks (if they are lucky) and everyone who puts in years for reasonable salaries still employed at profitable companies.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#213

Post by enord »

Sevii wrote: post #203
uiri wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this is a problem. Women are socialised to be less aggressive than men. They are also much less likely, statistically speaking, to negotiate their salary when starting a new job - never mind proactively seeking a raise based on their market value. The solution - of course - is to have an employer policy of paying market rate, all the time. Satya Nadella got in hot water for talking about this problem in…

It's not agressiveness that's the main difference, men are willing to sacrifice a lot more for their careers on average.

But that's... He just...

How would _you_ describe an agressive attitude towards one's career?

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#214

Post by lostboys67 »

thehardsphere wrote: post #206
lostboys67 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't I know one large uk tech company that is Terified of its gender pay gap becoming public. Like wise the BBC being forced to disclose pay rates for talent some Male presenters have taken pay cuts btw

Individual companies having a gender pay gap doesn't mean the market has a gender pay gap. And if you work at one of those companies and are told that you can't be given a raise because of the internal, secret gender pay gap, you should quit that company and find a new job. I mean, even if it's true that particular company is paying its women worse than its men, and even if legislation means they can't quickly fix it…

Even when this company has > 100,000 emploees and has individual divisions with more engineers than Google

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#215

Post by lostboys67 »

cmahler7 wrote: post #197
EdSharkey wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread suddenly became gold. Don't you dare die on me, thread!

Single, childless women make 8% more than single, childless men across the country, and as much as 20% more in some cities. This only changes when they have children or when they work fewer hours. But don't let facts stop you from repeating the same tired lies that have been debunked for years http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

we are talking like for like jobs and id prefer a less biased source the ONS for example) than right wing thing tanks

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#216

Post by [deleted] »

Bahamut wrote: post #104
sidlls wrote: post #34

There is a plateau as one reaches senior positions. As I went from "no" experience to my current position my job switches (every ~2 years) always were for 10%-25% (in one case, 100%, but that was Midwest to Bay Area so other factors are at play). I never got more than 5% merit increases otherwise. Most of my friends who have been at the same place for >10 years in engineering (not software) are just now reaching pari…

Job 2: 47% raise from base (10 months in Job 1) Job 3: 30% raise from base (9 months in Job 2 - relocated to Bay Area) Job 4: 32% raise from base (3 months in Job 3) Job 5: 10% raise from base (10 months in Job 4) Job 6: 0% raise from base, 25% raise from base in RSUs/bonuses (22 months in Job 5) This is spanning 4 1/2 years, and even turning down up to as high as $400k in total comp between job 4 and 5, which would…

[deleted]

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#217

Post by oblio »

Sevii wrote: post #203
uiri wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this is a problem. Women are socialised to be less aggressive than men. They are also much less likely, statistically speaking, to negotiate their salary when starting a new job - never mind proactively seeking a raise based on their market value. The solution - of course - is to have an employer policy of paying market rate, all the time. Satya Nadella got in hot water for talking about this problem in…

It's not agressiveness that's the main difference, men are willing to sacrifice a lot more for their careers on average.

Got any studies for this?

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#218

Post by remline »

jacquesm wrote: post #201
scaryclam wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

> but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. As your potential employee I'd be more than happy to shake your hand and leave. Very rarely does a company deserve employee loyalty, and you as a linemanager should at least try to earn your employee's loyalty by paying them what they are worth, rather than what you can get away with. Remember, y…

Employees have an inherent need for loyalty to work and face considerable risk just for following their true worth to new companies and situations.

This makes it impossible to adequately take employers up to your real market worth as a long term employee. Too many of your coworkers will accept 50% of their worth rather than risk stress and a crises if a change falls apart. So as long as the employer only needs a kernel of long-term employees only a union has the necessary leverage.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#219

Post by eeZah7Ux »

animex wrote: post #106

Ha, this is funny. I rarely ever stay longer than 2 years at a company and every time I jumped, my salary went up significantly i.e. >10%+ HOWEVER, I've seen guys who have stayed with a company earning less for years, ending up as the VP/Presdient of the company eventually and their pay going way up.

Survivor bias much? Obviously SOME people will become VP/President by sticking to the company. 99% of long-term employees will not.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#220

Post by mamon »

TurboHaskal wrote: post #143
scaryclam wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

> I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you > pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in > your new job. Fortunately for us not all line managers have such inflated egos and don't take such requests down to a personal level.

It's not ego, it's just "do not negotiate with terrorists" approach adapted to the workplace.

If you make such concession for one employee, the next day you'll have 5 others with similar demands.

EDIT: One more thing: the reason why it is often easier to get a raise by changing jobs instead of negotiating it in your current workplace is information asymmetry.

Your current employer knows you all too well, so it is hard to convince them to pay you more. Potential new employer does not know that much about you, plus they are in need of new employee so they are more likely to give you more money.

Post reply on HN