Live data from Hacker News

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

forbes.com

251–260 of 560 posts

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

#251
post #220

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. 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 har…

Following this argument to this logical conclusion, all your employees will leave, and you won't be able to hire anyone new.

If you're not offering similar compensation to other organisations, then anyone interviewing and getting offers from multiple places will likely not pick your organisation, unless you can compete on some other metric.

> 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.

Yes, probably. Because without interviewing at other places you don't know what your skills might be worth, and your employer is probably not going to tell you how much your colleagues are getting paid and your 'boss' probably tells you "you're getting above industry average."

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

#252
Also a great way to increase your salary is to Take the lowest pay possible at first. Here is what I mean https://medium.com/the-mission/take-the-lowest-pay-possible-... And this is not my article and I don't have any affiliations with it :)

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

#253
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can value your team and still be running on fumes and not be able to currently pay them what you think they should get. There's no contradiction in that.

In that case you can be disappointed that your business can't do right by the employees you lose while at the same time being happy for those people for finding new places of employment that can pay them what they are worth.

Yes, of course.

I was only pointing out that underpaying staff does not equate to not respecting them.

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

#254

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…

if your company has to make cutbacks [...] you're name's likely to get further up the redundancy list than you'd probably like. If the company's going down the pan, what does it matter if I'm made redundant in the first tranche or the last? I'm going to need a new job anyway, just in the latter case I've put in a few extra months where there was no money to give me a raise no matter how well I performed.

What I would add is that as well as there is an "internal knowledge fee" there is also a "good employee/risk fee".

An employee ready to jump ship quicker than his peers means that his value is reduced to the organization, precisely because the long term value of the "internal knowledge fee" is reduced!

I agree with the OP's tactical move, but strategically I'm not so sure the mindset is the correct one. Maybe I was lucky, but I always had managers that stuck their necks for me. Full-time employment is not a consulting job that is fire & forget.

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

#255
I keep seeing articles like this that fail to point out an important fact. The economy has been strong for a long time and it is a workers market. Once there is another downturn it will be an employers market. Job hoppers will be lucky to land interviews, much less command high salaries. That is unless you are in the top % of your skill level or have some skill like Oracle DBA that is highly sought after.

I worry about younger people shaping their world view and career around the last 10 years. I did that an in 2002 when I was laid off it was a painful few years of realization not finding work.

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

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is how the world works. If there was really a gender pay gap for women who are doing the exact same work as men with the exact same experience as men, then it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women. Yet, nobody ever does this.

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

FWIW in the UK the pay gap favours young women I gather; it changes over somewhere around the time a lot of women take a career break (32 IIRC, will try and trace the source).

It's interesting because younger women hear the USA stats and complain about how they're being hard done by.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as her sub-employee are risking the most severe of all offenses - asking for more than what your supervisor makes. This is a flawed philosophy. As a manager I have had a few critical pulling in higher salaries than my own. If you are a superviser who is artificially holding an employee back from reaching their full potential (seeking compensation that matches the demand person's talent in the open market) than you…

you are argumenting from an optimal-employee-perspective or what you might choose to call it. Fact is - even supervisors are humans and 90% of them will be hesitant to have somebody "under" them while making more or as much money. I fear that's just a fact.

Agreed. But I think that's why encouraging a servant leadership model in your company is beneficial.

Which is better for the company? (A) Leader acts in such a way to make him or herself 150% effective, or (B) Leader acts in such a way as to make all of his or her direct reports 115% effective?

If a leader can't make their team more effective, then why have them in leadership?

(Edit: Essentially, what dustinmoris said!)

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that businesses presently are not charities or good-will missions, but perhaps they should be. The way most businesses are currently run (ie, as profit mills chasing growth at any cost) is detrimental to the environment, society, and the economy itself. Business for its own sake is stupid AF.

Why not go and start your ideal business then?

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

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

#259

Also a great way to increase your salary is to Take the lowest pay possible at first. Here is what I mean https://medium.com/the-mission/take-the-lowest-pay-possible-... And this is not my article and I don't have any affiliations with it :)

Correct me if I'm wrong (I read the article, but am a little confused), but shouldn't the message of that article be "Take the lower pay, assuming that also corresponds with a higher level of [Job Satisfaction, Growth Potential, Work-Life Balance, etc]"?

I don't have much experience, but my initial instinct is that some of that article is not universally true.

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more. Basically your current employer should really pay you what the salary you would get somewhere else plus an additional markup for the internal knowledge which you have already acquired (you should put a value on that as well). Also don't believe any line manager or anyone else here posting that this is not a good strategy, because remember, every line manager is only an employee as well and has a…

> Couldn't agree more. Basically your current employer should really pay you what the salary you would get somewhere else plus an additional markup for the internal knowledge which you have already acquired (you should put a value on that as well). This works both ways. The value of internal knowledge helps both parties, because as an employee you dont know if x other company is good to work at, or that you would lik…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN