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

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#61

Post by eschevarria »

mfringel wrote: post #51
eschevarria wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deadweight losses from taxes have most certainly not been debunked.

Yes, and distribution of the benefits from deadweight loss reduction has also been a matter of study, and that's the topic on the table.

That the distribution of the benefits is done according to supply and demand has most certainly not been debunked either. Wages are decided by the labor market equilibrium, not individually by employers. And economic growth is not a matter of distribution and certainly related to deadweight losses.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#62

Post by s73v3r_ »

toyg wrote: post #8
sharkweek wrote: post #4

My favorite scam I've seen lately has been the "We're gonna give you a promotion with no salary increase, see how you do, and then discuss a pay raise after X months! You should be grateful for this opportunity!" And then of course in six months, the pay raise is basically a small bump, versus what one might be paid if brought in as a manager/higher title.

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

But wouldn't the promotion come with increased responsibility, thus keeping you too busy to interview?

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#63

Post by s73v3r_ »

asdfman123 wrote: post #60
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 would be happy with an empty title for that reason. I'd gladly take a lower salary and work as a "senior dev" for a year, then apply to senior dev positions making 50% more.

You say that, but you'd be upset about not getting the pay bump that you know your fellow senior devs did, and you'd be gone in 3 months.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#64

Post by dnomad »

eschevarria wrote: post #61
mfringel wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and distribution of the benefits from deadweight loss reduction has also been a matter of study, and that's the topic on the table.

That the distribution of the benefits is done according to supply and demand has most certainly not been debunked either. Wages are decided by the labor market equilibrium, not individually by employers. And economic growth is not a matter of distribution and certainly related to deadweight losses.

Do you have any evidence for these simplistic Econ101 theories?

The funny thing is that if an any economist did prove a link between tax cuts and long term economic growth he wouldn't just win a Nobel, they'd knock down the Statue of Liberty and replace it with a statue of him. Alas, the evidence eludes all comers.

> And economic growth is not a matter of distribution and certainly related to deadweight losses.

Unfortunately this is exactly wrong. Economic growth is probably only a matter of distribution. No matter how hard the supply siders wish it, aggregate demand and a strong consumer base are all that really matters. As they say, show me a growing middle class and I'll show you economic growth.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#65

Post by asdfman123 »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #63
asdfman123 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be happy with an empty title for that reason. I'd gladly take a lower salary and work as a "senior dev" for a year, then apply to senior dev positions making 50% more.

You say that, but you'd be upset about not getting the pay bump that you know your fellow senior devs did, and you'd be gone in 3 months.

Only if I could get that higher paying job sooner. Either way it would be a win for me. I'm not sure if it would be one for the company, though.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#66

Post by s73v3r_ »

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.

Except in the case of co-workers, that logic is pretty dubious, and isn't true except in certain situations (stack ranking, for example). In the case of executives, it's been proven to be completely true over the past 50 years.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#67

Post by s73v3r_ »

ucaetano wrote: post #30
hitekker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because both of those sides are not on a level playing field. Even for some of the best of engineers, the power imbalance is very real.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#68

Post by s73v3r_ »

ucaetano wrote: post #44
Tade0 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being a free-for-all doesn't make it enemies, just a game. The two prisoners in the prisoner's dilemma aren't enemies. You're disregarding the fact that while the prisoner's dilemma is a non-zero sum game, employment in general is - any value added over your marginal usefulness is your loss and your employer's gain. Some people even "solve" this problem by being minimally valuable.

> employment in general is You're absolutely, utterly wrong. Voluntary employment only exists because it isn't a zero-sum game. Any voluntary trade is not a zero-sum game, by definition. And any value generated in excess of your cost is capture by you and the employer based on the price elasticity of the demand for labor.

Can it really be called "voluntary" if you starve if you don't have a job?

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#69

Post by bertjk »

Given that this was an event organized by the Dallas and Atlanta Federal Reserve Banks, we should consider the possibility that the CEOs were simply trying to encourage the Fed to keep interest rates low.

Here is most likely the event being referenced: https://www.dallasfed.org/research/events/2018/18ted

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#70

Post by [deleted] »

toyg wrote: post #8
sharkweek wrote: post #4

My favorite scam I've seen lately has been the "We're gonna give you a promotion with no salary increase, see how you do, and then discuss a pay raise after X months! You should be grateful for this opportunity!" And then of course in six months, the pay raise is basically a small bump, versus what one might be paid if brought in as a manager/higher title.

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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN