Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 105 posts

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#21

Post by dahdum »

awinder wrote: post #18
bcoates wrote: post #13

The idea that pay raises come from some sort of collective negotiation with a bunch of executives is just bizarre on its own. Executives do not get to decide the pay level of employees. The point of the tax law was to lower the cost of employment and investment in the US (specifically, the cost of repatriating foreign profits to pay US salaries and buy US-based infrastructure). The hope being that lower costs cause c…

Is there any verifiable time in history when such a complicated multi-actor system actually did increase wages? Or is this the cold fusion of government policy?

It’s my limited understanding that full employment / tight labor market is intrinsically linked to wage growth, and then by extension, inflation.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#22

Post by Eridrus »

hitekker wrote: post #15

> In fact, one basic result in the theory of cheap talk is that if you assume the cheap-talker will do what’s best for him and worst for you, you can often get him to reveal more of the truth. This is basically the definition of enemy. These people are your enemies. By that I mean, in the context of fair wages, employees ought to treat executives as enemies, not as slightly conflicted parties with slightly divergent…

This is very reductive. You could use the same logic to argue that your coworkers are your enemies because the money being paid to them could be paid to you instead.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#23

Post by ucaetano »

dahdum wrote: post #21
awinder wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any verifiable time in history when such a complicated multi-actor system actually did increase wages? Or is this the cold fusion of government policy?

It’s my limited understanding that full employment / tight labor market is intrinsically linked to wage growth, and then by extension, inflation.

> intrinsically linked to wage growth, and then by extension, inflation.

Not necessarily. While it is linked to wage growth, the increase in employment (and consumption) doesn't necessarily lead to overall inflation. It depends on the economy's capacity to absorb the extra consumption.

It might be the case that the additional consumption, particularly after a bust cycle with excess capacity, might lead to lower per-unit costs due to the utilization of fully depreciated assets and no need for additional capital investments.

This is usually captured in the NAIRU: non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. Or the minimum level of unemployment that does not cause inflation to increase.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#24

Post by Eridrus »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #9
Rotdhizon wrote: post #7

For a typical working man job, this is the unfortunate reality of the job market For tech jobs, this is why people jump ship every few years.

it's also why they try to instill&enforce the 'job hopper' stigma

Is it really a stigma when it is perfectly rational to prefer employees who will stick around for a while?

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#25

Post by hkmurakami »

maxxxxx wrote: post #16
toyg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are supposed to take the promotion, update your linkedin, and find a real position with that title elsewhere for more money.

I have heard that before. Immediately after a promotion it's best to use the new title in a job search. Pretty sad.

This is basically what every McKinsey Engagement Magager does after 1 year on the job, and the firm is happy with it.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#26

Post by JustSomeNobody »

maxxxxx wrote: post #6

I like the concept of "cheap talk". In my company they always celebrate sales growth and higher profits loudly. It really seems to motivate a lot of people while at the same time salaries are frozen so most of them get no benefit from the "good news".

My favorite is when this happens in the same meeting. "Best year evar!1!" Can we finally get a raise? "Oooooohhh, sorry."

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#27

Post by JustSomeNobody »

Eridrus wrote: post #24
LoSboccacc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's also why they try to instill&enforce the 'job hopper' stigma

Is it really a stigma when it is perfectly rational to prefer employees who will stick around for a while?

As an employee, I'd rather stick around. I greatly dislike the hazing rituals that tech hiring has become. Also, if I generally enjoy the problems I'm given to solve, I want to keep solving them. However, my view is that companies only care about money, so I should too. If I don't get good, consistent raises, I have to leave and take my experience with me.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#28

Post by hitekker »

Eridrus wrote: post #22
hitekker wrote: post #15

> In fact, one basic result in the theory of cheap talk is that if you assume the cheap-talker will do what’s best for him and worst for you, you can often get him to reveal more of the truth. This is basically the definition of enemy. These people are your enemies. By that I mean, in the context of fair wages, employees ought to treat executives as enemies, not as slightly conflicted parties with slightly divergent…

This is very reductive. You could use the same logic to argue that your coworkers are your enemies because the money being paid to them could be paid to you instead.

If a person had a coworker who thought "well I could get a 40% pay increase if I get fired", then that person should consider that coworker an enemy.

Fortunately, the world does not revolve around game-theory and most other parties with whom we choose to associate, will at least consider and value our interests. Enemies do not do so, or value our interests at something close to zero; thus their calculus: "worst for you, best for them".

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#29

Post by dnomad »

awinder wrote: post #18
bcoates wrote: post #13

The idea that pay raises come from some sort of collective negotiation with a bunch of executives is just bizarre on its own. Executives do not get to decide the pay level of employees. The point of the tax law was to lower the cost of employment and investment in the US (specifically, the cost of repatriating foreign profits to pay US salaries and buy US-based infrastructure). The hope being that lower costs cause c…

Is there any verifiable time in history when such a complicated multi-actor system actually did increase wages? Or is this the cold fusion of government policy?

No, not at all. There is no evidence that tax cuts lead to higher wages or economic growth. It's been studied and debunked to death but it never dies.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#30

Post by ucaetano »

hitekker wrote: post #28
Eridrus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very reductive. You could use the same logic to argue that your coworkers are your enemies because the money being paid to them could be paid to you instead.

If a person had a coworker who thought "well I could get a 40% pay increase if I get fired", then that person should consider that coworker an enemy. Fortunately, the world does not revolve around game-theory and most other parties with whom we choose to associate, will at least consider and value our interests. Enemies do not do so, or value our interests at something close to zero; thus their calculus: "worst for y…

If you would get a 40% raise if you switched companies, would you? Should execs see you as the enemy, then?

There are no "sides", everyone is just maximizing their own payouts.

People here don't seem to mind when profit-focused engineers switch companies for better salaries, but seem to mind when companies do the same.

Post reply on HN