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

501–510 of 560 posts

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

#501

Post by nojvek »

Tomis02 wrote: post #311
southphillyman wrote: post #308

Never understood why companies will refuse to give valuable employees reasonable raises but when turn around and pay an unproven new hire even more money to replace them. So you refuse to give me a 10% increase because "never negotiate with terrorists" but will gladly pay the 20% increase that I'm getting at my new job to my replacement (because that's the market). Just seems so short sighted.

Because it's easy to say "the employee is just doing the job they're paid to do, why give them a raise?". Also, "we need to give an extra 20% to convince this person to come aboard, whereas we already own these employees".

Sure, what about training costs for the new employee?

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

#503

Post by awshepard »

gnopgnip wrote: post #480
gorkonsine wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yep, this is akin to the Freakonomics "why don't real estate agents always push for the highest sales price" question. The gist being, it's a numbers game for them. The extra 5-10k they negotiate when selling your house makes a small difference in their commission, and usually comes at a disproportionate cost - either risk of the deal falling through, or time spent in negotiations that could have been better spent moving on to the next deal. It wouldn't surprise me if recruiters face a similar calculus (time spent negotiating on your behalf, risk of damaging their relationship with the company, etc.), and would definitely agree that at the end of it, you have to be responsible for your own outcomes, because no one else will be.

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

#504

Post by lovich »

softawre wrote: post #481
jcadam wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This has got to be some of the worst career advice I've ever heard. I made this mistake once, at my first software job. My employer's response was to say "NO" and then proceed to make my life hell in an attempt to make me quit. With a wife, kids, and a mortga…

> You are absolutely satisfied with all aspects of your job, including your salary... right up until the moment you hand your boss a letter of resignation. Would you give this advice in reverse too? Ignoring lawsuits for a minute, as a manager - should you always tell your employees that they are doing fine, even if they aren't, right up until the moment you fire them for poor performance?

Probably not, but that's pretty common. But the point OP is making is that bringing up salary discussions with bosses can be a big risk. Employees only have one employer but employers have multiple employees. If you don't another job lined up and your boss decides to take punitive action against you for daring to try and get a better deal from them, then you are kinda fucked. It'd be nice if you could start the discussion with employers without having to worry about problems but our current economic/social system doesn't allow for that

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

#505

Post by sidlls »

softawre wrote: post #488
smm2000 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in Bay Area/Seattle/NY? 200k total is not much for somebody with 10 years experience. Picking right employer and sticking with it could have netted you better pay.

Are "average" developers really making much more than 200k/year in base/signing in those cities?

No. In fact most make much less, on the order of $140k all-inclusive.

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

#506

Post by Mc_Big_G »

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…

All the dbag responses saying that they'd take this as blackmail is exactly why you shouldn't do it. Either take the new offer or don't. If you want a raise, tell your boss why you deserve one and then ask for it or don't. Even if you ask in advance and nothing happens, then you show other offers, you're still screwed. You will get pushed out and treated badly by the dbags who are underpaying you anyway. Just move on...or don't.

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

#507

Post by lovich »

conanbatt wrote: post #254
michaelt wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

If it wasn't the right mindset, then why are the numbers showing that employees who stay at jobs more than 2 years earn less?

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

#508

Post by freebish »

foo101 wrote: post #461
magnetic wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What else would they be motivated by? The actual work (what is being done), the mission of the company (are you helping kids send pictures that disappear after 10 seconds or are you working on finding a cure to hearing loss?), the team, the location (do I have to spend 2h commuting?), the opportunities to learn, the opportunities to grow, etc. We each value different things, but if money is your only consideration,…

Mission? Loyalty? Company values? Which would do you live in? You are speaking as if the companies are doing a favor to the employees by giving them a job and the employees are at the mercy of these companies. Being employed with a company is a business transaction, where one party sells their time and skills in exchange for money. Aren't employees disposable anyway? When the company runs low on cash, they are not go…

Perhaps you're getting caught in the labels, like mission & loyalty. It's not about buzz words, or receiving favors.

In my experience, there is a substantial difference in the quality of work of a person who cares about what they're doing and someone who doesn't care. Perhaps you've worked with a contractor who was willing to do a half-assed job, only fixing things if they were cornered. I certainly have.

Money can motivate that caring only so much.

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

#509

Post by cableshaft »

0xffff2 wrote: post #446
cableshaft wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish it was as easy to get this outside of the Bay Area. I don't really want to move to the Bay Area (nor does my girlfriend) but I've been stuck making just over half of your current total comp out near Chicago after almost 10 years of experience in various tech stacks. I know in theory it should be possible out here although Glass Door salary averages for the region are about what I'm making currently, so…

What is your rent? How much does it cost when you go out to eat? I don't know much about Chicago, but a quick look online suggests that almost all of the difference would be eaten up by cost of living differences.

About $1600/month. We rent a townhouse in the suburbs. I know that's a huge difference (I've heard people claiming they'd happily pay $4500/month for a 2 bedroom apartment in San Francisco), and it has been a contributing factor to not moving out there.

Usually out there's not even really a distinction between 'base salary' and 'total compensation' out here. It's practically one and the same. So that higher base salary in SV usually covers the higher living expenses, and in addition to that, they usually throw in additional forms of compensation as well, and that seems to make a big, big difference.

Going out to eat is probably similar. We often spend ~$50 when we go out between the two of us. Although my girlfriend was recently in SF for her job and she said it cost her $18 for two tiny tacos out there, that were half the size of what you'd get here for like $6, which does seem pretty ridiculous.

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

#510

Post by sctb »

javabean22 wrote: post #92
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…

> Anything longer, especially if there is a lot of long-term stasis on a resume (e.g. "tech lead on product X" for more than a year or two), is an indication to me of someone who either isn't capable of stretching himself or doesn't want to. That's retarded

We'll ban this account if you won't stop violating the guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN