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

471–480 of 560 posts

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

#471

Post by mdpopescu »

TheCowboy wrote: post #228
repomies6999 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the flatnessof salaries applies to jobs overall. I would guess most people at HN work in IT where salaries haven't been that flat.

Depends on which way you cut the data, looking at occupations, time period, and geographic location. I've looked and have found data and reports suggesting they're flat (keeping up with inflation) or slightly outpacing inflation. Some specific sectors and skills have seen significant growth. The number of people employed in IT services as a whole as increased which has likely helped keep wages more stable. It's still…

You're in the West, probably the US; you already started high. Being from Eastern Europe, my current (net) salary is 100 times higher than 20 years ago and 2.5 times higher than 5 years ago. I expect things have stabilized for me too though :)

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

#472

Post by crusso »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #445
crusso wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 be…

>the constant call to go in with guns blazing doesn't seem helpful to me. Getting independent information of your value isn't "guns blazing."

Getting independent information consists of going on GlassCeiling or Dice to look at industry salary surveys, googling, etc.... maybe even talking with some recruiters about going rates.

Going out and getting a job offer is a step beyond that.

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

#473

Post by coldtea »

crusso wrote: post #347
coldtea wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Because it's only OK to ask for a raise when the boss has the upper hand?

Has the boss brought someone in to replace you and said, "Okay, Coldtea, we found someone to replace you at your job. He's as good as you and he'll take a 10% cut in salary over what we pay you. Do you want to take a pay cut so you can stay?" That would be the upper hand. Before that, it's just a discussion.

The bosses do that all the time. And if it wasn't for training delays and costs, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Besides, that's exactly how they gauge what kind of wages to offer when they hire you -- from what others would accept in your place.

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

#474

Post by coldtea »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #395
malka wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as companies are loyal to their employee, I will be loyal to them. Work is a simple contract. I give time. I get money. Period. The company will not hesitate to throw me under the bus if it can bring more money, and I do not see why I should be more considerate toward them ?

Perhaps then, you should consider looking to work for a company that will be loyal to you. :)

Well, when the company owners share their non-re-invested profits with the employee, we can talk about that...

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

#475

Post by jazzyk »

s73ver wrote: post #448
jazzyk wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"- it is not a workers market - if it had been, incomes would not have stagnated" In general, no. But in terms of software engineering, it very much is.

There are a few pockets of good markets, I am sure.

But the whole shortage myth is created by companies (often startups) posting "Magician" ads.

Example of a "Magician" ad:

"Looking for a PhD + min 10 years of experience in a very narrow domain we are trying to provide a solution for (Big Data experience in Scala required). The hire will need to do his/her magic to get us out of the s... we are in, because we don't quite know what we are doing. We pay $60K/year in Boston."

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

#476

Post by QuantumGravy »

joyofdata wrote: post #163
mojomark wrote: post #154

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.

Even if they are accepting of you earning more, their own boss and/or Human Resources may well have a different opinion. Woe unto those whose supervisors are also underpaid.

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

#477

Post by malcolmgreaves »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #322
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…

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…

This kind of emotional management is precisely why people quit to advance their careers.

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

#478

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #322
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…

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…

I would emphasize "do not deviate" concerning (4.) from

"Build strict processes for potentially political issues and do not deviate—Certain activities attract political behavior. These activities include: Performance evaluation and compensation [...]"

https://a16z.com/2010/08/24/how-to-minimize-politics-in-your...

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

#479

Post by mseebach »

foo101 wrote: post #465
mseebach wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something to be said for communication style. You can do essentially what top-GP suggests, but without the high-conflict ultimatum -- basically, communicate your worry about your salary in a series of low-drama conversations, in which you can calmly suggest that your research implies that you'd be able to make $X in a similar job elsewhere, but really enjoy your current job, etc. The key, of course, is always…

Have you tried what you are suggesting in practice? I have never succeeded in getting any raise unless I had a concrete actionable BATNA, i.e. a competing offer.

I have actually, but I understand that it's rare.

Please note that I do encourage doing "research" - it doesn't have to go all the way to an offer, but what I mean is to build confidence that you can indeed get one at the given salary. This is your BATNA, but because you're not giving an ultimatum, you don't have to walk away to a new job immediately - you can just start looking.

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

#480

Post by gnopgnip »

gorkonsine wrote: post #333
justadeveloper2 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That effectively never happens, or hasn't happened for me. My relationships with managers have always been cordial but we both know the truth. As a developer, it is very hard to ever become anything but a developer. Companies say they have career paths for developers to follow that are non-management tracks, but they effectively don't. You...just...move...on. Any salary increases I have gotten were at the forefront o…

The recruiter gives a damn about you because the higher compensation he negotiates for you, the more he gets paid (usually). It's in the recruiter's interest to get you the best deal possible, if he's acting as your agent. (It's the opposite if the recruiter works for the employer.) Of course, the recruiter has to walk a fine line because he doesn't want to be too aggressive and lose the deal, but they generally will…

The reality of it is the recruiter is working for the employer. The recruiter just wants to fill the vacancy as fast as possible and get their paycheck. They don't care about what salary they place you at because they get much more money by finding good candidates quickly, and they are unlikely to ever work with you again. But they will probably work with the same businesses over and over. The recruiter getting paid more because you get a higher salary only aligns your interests weakly. It can still make sense to work with recruiters for all the parties involved, but you need to make sure you are negotiating on your own behalf and plan that the recruiter will negotiate more strongly for the employer.
Post reply on HN