Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by _Codemonkeyism » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:08 PM UTC

LostCharacter wrote: post #346

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might work somewhere else. I always felt blackmailed in a situation like this and wished the employee all the best with his new job. [Edit] To clarify the blackmail note: It's better to talk in the weekly 1:1 about salary expectations, changing markets or during people development focus, than to pull up a competing offer out of your hat while not talking about your dissatisfaction with pay during weekly 1:1s. 1. If t…

If an employee is coming to you with those offers instead of just leaving for the other job, shouldn't that indicate to you that they WANT to stay, but they also want to keep their career moving forward and earn more money? Why is that unreasonable? You're sending people out the door that want to continue working for your company just because they're telling you they have better opportunities and giving you a chance…

For the reasons stated, I would not give in. This is a slippery slope.

Raising the pay of one employee out of band will usually lead to group behavior, meaning others do the same for the same reasons. I was also mostly budget constrained in the past and could not raise budget to significantly (say 20%) pay raise several employees.

If the employee for whatever reasons earns say 10% below average of the other employees, I would get her a pay raise.

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

#352

Post by snuxoll » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:09 PM UTC

fweespeech wrote: post #74

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…

> Two year tenures isn't job hopping. It's a reflection of how this industry works. Very few companies offer sufficient breadth and depth of product complexity, career advancement, or other similar things to make it worthwhile. I'd say the sweet spot is 2-4 years, except at very large companies (e.g. Google) (EDIT:) or companies which are developing complicated products with physical engineering or regulatory factors…

> Sometimes stasis exists because valuable people are paid extremely well not to leave. So well they can't actually find a job that will compensate them comparably despite repeated attempts to find one.

Sometimes you work at a different kind of unicorn too, there are companies that offer reasonable raises to valuable employees and provide new challenges on a regular basis. I've gotten two raises since I started at my current employer 3 years ago, and I make out well for a work-from-home employee in Idaho. There's always an interesting new project for me to work on, new technologies to explore and potentially integrate, and my input and experience is valued at a personal level by the lead on our team as well as our new manager.

Also, there's always standard benefits to consider - my employer matches 150% of my 401(k) contributions, plus profit sharing contributions. I'd easily have to put a hefty chunk of my own money into my retirement working somewhere else that might negate any salary increase I'd get.

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

#353

Post by _Codemonkeyism » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:10 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #328

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might work somewhere else. I always felt blackmailed in a situation like this and wished the employee all the best with his new job. [Edit] To clarify the blackmail note: It's better to talk in the weekly 1:1 about salary expectations, changing markets or during people development focus, than to pull up a competing offer out of your hat while not talking about your dissatisfaction with pay during weekly 1:1s. 1. If t…

> 1. If the employee is only motivated by money, he will be gone rather sooner than later as there is always a higher offer around. What else would they be motivated by? It's not their hobby. This doesn't mean they are also not into programming and coding challenges -- but those are constants that they can find in another employer too. if they like the programming, it's not that they can't find a programming job else…

Pay is for many not a motivation but a hygienic factor. So I do not dispute that people go to work for the money. I do.

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

#354

Post by mcguire » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:10 PM UTC

johnnyfaehell wrote: post #138

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…

I think this is considered bad advice. Nearly every HR article about this subject states that doing this will on average results in being let go after a year.

Once again, keep in mind that HR exists to benefit the employer, not the employee.

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

#355

Post by PeterisP » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:10 PM UTC

jazzyk wrote: post #273

dsmithatx wrote: post #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 abo…

Two points: - 2% GDP growth is not exactly what I would call "strong economy": http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate - it is not a workers market - if it had been, incomes would not have stagnated I do agree with the rest of your post, though. Things will get even tougher.

The technology growth and the technology labor market is quite different from the rest of the economy; we're seeing a much higher GDP growth in this sector, much lower unemployment than the average of all industries, and incomes haven't really stagnated in our domain.

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

#356

Post by crusso » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:11 PM UTC

JCharante wrote: post #280

_wwz4 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting everyone know they'll immediately be shown the door if they dare request an increase would create a terrible culture The person to whom you're responding explicitly drew a distinction between discussing a raise with your boss vs going to your boss with another offer that you have secured. I can see the importance of that distinction. To put the relationship in a different context: Imagine the difference betwe…

I know it doesn't add anything of value to the thread, but that's a really good analogy.

I see a lot of employer hostility on HN. While it's good to watch your back, the constant call to go in with guns blazing doesn't seem helpful to me.

I know that personal relationships aren't exactly the same as business relationships, but to pretend that they aren't somewhat analogous doesn't line up with my own experiences. I've had a lot of personal relationships in business. Almost every boss I've ever had has been my friend on some level and the same goes with a lot of people who've worked for me.

When you treat people with respect, consideration, and friendship in your work life - you'll be surprised at how often you get the same from them in return.

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

#357

Post by troyvit » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #349

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might work somewhere else. I always felt blackmailed in a situation like this and wished the employee all the best with his new job. [Edit] To clarify the blackmail note: It's better to talk in the weekly 1:1 about salary expectations, changing markets or during people development focus, than to pull up a competing offer out of your hat while not talking about your dissatisfaction with pay during weekly 1:1s. 1. If t…

Blackmailed by what? The market? Some of those points are excuses for doing nothing. #2 especially - what, they'll find a better and better job every six months? Not likely. If somebody can show you how they'd be paid better somewhere else, deal with it. Denial gets you nowhere. #3 is exactly what the above remark addresses. If I can show my boss I'd be treated properly elsewhere, the boss sure better get on board an…

People always equate being treated properly with a higher salary, but from what I've seen there's a lot more to a job than pay. I watched several people leave a department for "better" jobs (meaning: higher pay) only to be miserable a year later for reasons unrelated to salary.

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

#358

Post by vacri » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

jpatokal wrote: post #63

vacri wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hostility is because it's ridiculously obvious that moving from a minimum-wage job to a run-of-the-mill professional job is going to net you an incredible percentage increase in salary, especially in the US where the minimum wage is a joke. And where is the 'events happening now' in what I said? Job-hopping? Not exactly a new thing. > I mean, do you make a similar comment on all the articles you read? So... I can…

The person was working as a marketing manager in her first job, so it was a "a run-of-the-mill professional job" from day one, and she's still in marketing, only with 5x more salary. Then again, her first job was at YMCA, and non-profits tend to have low salaries.

Since when is an $8/hour professional job 'run-of-the-mill'? Are you seriously saying that that is a typical example of a professional?

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

#359

Post by theandrewbailey » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:12 PM UTC

nfriedly wrote: post #305

I wonder how strongly this holds after you're into the higher end of the salary range? My best increase ever was going from my highschool/college web dev job to freelance, where I more than tripped my hourly rate from $12.50/hr to $45/hr. (It probably wasn't quite 3x after accounting for taxes and healthcare and such, but it was still a good jump, and brought more flexible hours too.) Since then, I've gotten 20-25% i…

> I also live in Ohio, with the exception of one year I spent in SF. I imagine I could double my current salary moving back to SF or over to NYC, but I'm happier here.

I once joked to a recruiter in SF that California dollars aren't worth much. He understood.

Have you tried/considered charging SF/NYC rates to companies that are based there?

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

#360

Post by ugh123 » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 3:14 PM UTC

abalashov wrote: post #155

ugh123 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you typify the type of manager that cares more about the bottom line than the value you get out of good employees. Maybe it wasn't spelled out as clear in the article, but much of the point is that the employee is more valuable to retain than to simply re-cycle for someone lessor or equal pay. Wouldn't care to work for you at all.

Managers are paid to look after the bottom line. The good ones do their best to balance that with treating their people well and fostering loyalty, but no balancing act ever goes entirely smoothly -- yet that's the one they're paid to perform. Businesses aren't charities or good-will missions.

I understand, and as a development manager who needs to hire and retain technical employees i'd rather make the case to pay an extra 10-20k a year for a well-performing employee rather both risk losing someone for an intermittent or extended amount of time (clear value lost) and than spend time retraining someone (more value lost). All of which lowers productivity and hits the bottom line. Also takes a hit on team morale.

It could also be an opportunity to add valuable responsibilities to the employees role to justify the increase in wages, if thats applicable to the situation. Win-win for everyone.