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

511–520 of 560 posts

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

#511

Post by moriarty-s3a »

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. :)

I have worked or consulted for a few that went too far the other way and it wasn't that great either. If the company is too loyal, then it can create a corrosive environment because good employees sometimes leave for reasons unrelated to the employee-business relationship, family, retirement, health, etc. The bad ones seem to never leave, though.

Honestly, I would rather work somewhere that is willing to get rid of useless and/or corrosive employees than somewhere that refuses to do so out of misguided loyalty.

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

#512

Post by jotjotzzz »

johnward wrote: post #394
jotjotzzz wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Get offers from other companies" mean you are doing a job search and interviewing to get a job in that company. Once they offer you a job, you get that offer letter. Most people do this when they are already fed up with their current employer and are ready to move on. So this advice means -- actively search (best time to get a job is when you have a job). Pitfalls with this advice: your current employer is not dubio…

"Once you have said "you have an offer" it acts as a flag that at you." I've found this line of thinking to be false but so many employees are afraid of this. If it does happen you just leave again, big deal.

Well, your manager and your boss's manager may KNOW that you had a job offer and is "wanting to leave the company". In addition HR flags you as well, perhaps they make notes about it, especially when they have to counter the offer. This is not really false thinking, this is how it works! Whether they blatantly flag you or they have it in their head, it acts as a "flag". If you are very well-liked and indispensable, it may be a good thing, since they will do what they can to make you happy moving forward. If you are not on the good side, you have to now understand that your manager and your manager's manager are informed that you had the intention of leaving.

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

#513

Post by abalashov »

coolaliasbro wrote: post #226
abalashov wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

I would not necessarily dispute any of that, but it does contravene the assumptions from which the owners of most businesses are proceeding, not to mention their investors, shareholders and board members. :-)

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

#514

Post by ryandrake »

lovich wrote: post #497
slantyyz wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not disputing the realization of value, I'm only disputing the characterization that the employer " trying to take advantage of me", because it's unlikely to be true.

Eh, employers are the ones with much better information in this case. They are the ones who'll know if x% of prospective employees decline an offer or even interview due to the salary offered which will give them at least some idea of the market rate. I've been in the situation where we could not get any new employees due to the rate we offered, and when I suggested we increase the rate I was told flat out by a manag…

I've had an manager once tell me, "I hear your request for a raise, but my hands are tied because 'the book' says we cannot pay you more." They actually had a physical book and you could look down the list and find "Senior Software Engineer" and there it was: The maximum salary they could pay!

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

#515

Post by softawre »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #108
nilkn wrote: post #80

I think it's important to understand that there's a significant amount of selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies. The ones who are getting offered big raises may still choose to leave due to other reasons, but they often will choose to stay instead. And they won't be making a big fuss about it onli…

> Finally, in general people who are average but think they're above average really do not like to confront the fact that they're average. I don't think this is necessarily a consequence of overinflated egos. I consider myself an average to slightly above-average developer, yet my salary is consistently higher than my peers. It's higher because I'm willing to negotiate on my compensation. I don't concern myself with…

> myself an average to slightly above-average developer

His point was that everybody thinks this about themselves. This is the "I'd rate myself about a 8/10" thing.

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

#516

Post by ryandrake »

_wwz4 wrote: post #277
djslakor wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. "Pull this on you"? You sound like a real joy to work for. This is expressly why I choose gigs where I'm working directly for an owner if at all possible. If you've created value, owners know how important you are and will take your request seriously as long as it's reasonable. In my career, I ha…

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…

But "coming to the boss with another offer you have secured" is the expected next logical step after you've unsuccessfully discussed a raise, no?

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

#517

Post by threatofrain »

scaryclam wrote: post #112
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 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…

From my perspective, management often doesn't have the information or tools to be an ally or intermediate to his or her subordinates, and trying to curate that relationship is a one-man effort, unless you have great influence at company leadership.

Some of the tools for a quid pro quo relationship that extends beyond mere money include being able to tell people about big moves so that their lives aren't caught off guard. Coworkers help each other out in this regard. But should management?

People make their plans around timing, geography, and revenue from employment, and when management doesn't reveal big layoffs, big real estate changes, or other big restructurings, people have to up-end their lives. Management knows this, but values some things more, such as the company health. In doing so they set the tone of the relationship.

Management isn't in the position to establish a rich and sincere relationship with employees. There's always an element of insincerity because management isn't telling you things that your coworker friend would, the coworker friend who calls you from another company after the layoffs, recommending you to hop ship to their company. Would management ever tell you to hop ship to Apple?

One might argue that management ought never be in a position to establish such rich and sincere relations. One gossiping manager and you might trigger an early exodus. Or a wave of salary conversation. So managers ought not even know the very information which would help their employees stabilize their life against the uncertainty.

Also, if leadership doesn't want a union, and plenty of world-class places don't like unions, what is management's position to play then? Obviously squash the union talk.

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

#518

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#519

Post by sidlls »

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.

It wouldn't be, unless one just had to live in the city center. When I moved from the Midwest my housing spend doubled, but I also doubled my saving rate (started saving 30% of my previous gross salary annually). The increased cost of living is well worth it.

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

#520

Post by sidlls »

watwut wrote: post #455
sidlls wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Coding the same thing over and over may mean stagnation, but projects that change tech leads that often are usually mess. Absolutely. > It takes time to get up to speed to that position, it takes time to people around to adjust (handle related turf wars and what not), create relationships and all that political stuff. What you describe has value within an organization. These skills don't actually mean one is better…

It means that if you was tech lead for two years and then for a year, I don't really want you for long term tech lead position here. Because you don't value nor see precisely things tech leads needs to do and be good at. Júst being good in architecture is not enough, through you need that too. Political and negotiation skills are transferable actually, you learn then with experience. Fine for coder though. As for you…

> It means that if you was tech lead for two years and then for a year, I don't really want you for long term tech lead position here. Because you don't value nor see precisely things tech leads needs to do and be good at.

Being tech lead on the same project for more than a year or two (or possibly longer for more complex systems) yields rapidly diminishing margins. Put it this way: other things being equal a person who was lead on the same project for 4 years has less added experience than a person who has been lead on two different projects for 2 years each. In fact, the second guy very likely has a much larger cumulative value, because he's carried two projects through and has the perspectives and experiences of having to make different tradeoffs.

I'd rather have one of my tech lead reports leverage his skills learned from leading one project to leading a different one. Then he can draw on the experience of leading each in addition to having the ability to compare different experiences. That is is itself valuable experience, and positions him to grow even more.

Post reply on HN