Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises • Hacker News Board

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#71

Post by dnomad » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

ksk wrote: post #50

dnomad wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is evidence, its just that the evidence is weak and mere co-relations. All of macro economic theory is like that - just models explaining aggregate human behavior. Anything people propose can probably be shown to work in some model or another. On the flip side, higher taxes also don't "lead to" any wage increases or economic growth. Given the massive waste and inefficiency in most government programs, very litt…

> Given the massive waste and inefficiency in most government programs, very little of our taxes actually go to anything useful.

There is very convincing evidence that higher taxes and greater government spending do lead to long term economic growth. These days even the old fuddy duddies at the IMF have been forced to admit that higher taxes don't lower growth [1] and that many times the fiscal multipler is greater than 1 [2]. Certainly from 2008-2015, despite all the austerity hawks going on and on about inefficient government spending, actual evidence indicates the fiscal multipler was nearly 2!

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/inequality...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/03/an-am...

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#72

Post by s73v3r_ » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

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?

Yes it is, when the reason they're doing it is so they can pay you less.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#73

Post by ucaetano » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #68

ucaetano wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Still is.

When you're trading your labor for money, you end up with more value than before. And excess value is split between you and the employer as I explained above.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#74

Post by s73v3r_ » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

melq wrote: post #35

cryoshon wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point is that it's a stigma because they have made it into one because it benefits them. to the employee, it's an artificial social barrier to getting their economic worth by hopping jobs.

I think his point is that its not and artificial barrier because not having to replace someone in 12 months provides a real value to the employer.

If that were the case, then they should be willing to pay to keep people. People hop because companies aren't giving raises.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#75

Post by s73v3r_ » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

asdfman123 wrote: post #65

s73v3r_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it'd be more of a win for you if the company would just give you the pay bump as well. And it'd be a win for the company because they wouldn't have you leaving.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#76

Post by s73v3r_ » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

ucaetano wrote: post #73

s73v3r_ wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Still is. When you're trading your labor for money, you end up with more value than before. And excess value is split between you and the employer as I explained above.

That's some pretty dubious logic, that is not completely backed up by reality.

And the idea that the split is governed by the value of labor at the time has also been debunked. Businesses everywhere are complaining of a labor shortage, yet they're not raising wages. I'm sorry, but the simplistic Econ 101 stuff isn't really applicable in the real world.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#77

Post by ucaetano » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

s73v3r_ wrote: post #76

ucaetano wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still is. When you're trading your labor for money, you end up with more value than before. And excess value is split between you and the employer as I explained above.

That's some pretty dubious logic, that is not completely backed up by reality. And the idea that the split is governed by the value of labor at the time has also been debunked. Businesses everywhere are complaining of a labor shortage, yet they're not raising wages. I'm sorry, but the simplistic Econ 101 stuff isn't really applicable in the real world.

Wrong again. This isn't "logic", this is well established science.

It's like gravity, you can dismiss it all you want, but if you jump out of the window, you'll still end up on the floor.

And you clearly didn't understand what price elasticity of demand means.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#78

Post by GFischer » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:34 PM UTC

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.

I have been on the opposite side.. they'll give me pay raises, expanded responsibility but never a promotion.

So if you do a LinkedIn search you'll think I'm a run of the mill programmer and they'll contact me for positions paying 1/3 or 1/4th of my current salary.

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#79

Post by bobwaycott » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

dnomad wrote: post #29

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?

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.

It’s not just that there is no evidence supporting the trickle-down fantasy, or that the fantasy has been debunked on the basis of this lack of evidence. In fact, the exact opposite has been shown with evidence—that tax cuts do not lead to economic growth[0].

[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cut...

Re: Executives Play Down the Possibility of Raises

#80

Post by dahdum » Wed, May 30, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

eiji wrote: post #43

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…

>> A tight labor market causes the raises Different economic theories can provide different explanations and the statement above is over-simplifying the situation (It should say 'can cause' raises). I'm not an economist. The labor theory of value (LTV) and other systems of thought would have a different take on this. Wages are not going up because various industries are bumping against hard systemic boundaries. I bel…

"Truckers are not being paid more because if they were, the rate-of-profit in that industry would not be sustainable anymore. But raising prices for logistics is not really an option for that industry, because as soon as you do that, other factors start to depress demand."

I don't fully understand this, even if the rate-of-profit were sky high and could support higher wages, there is no incentive to do so without a tight labor market.

Once the labor market is tight enough wages are forced up. It's then up to the business to eat that cost or pass it along immediately. If overall logistics demand shrinks due to the higher cost, wages will still remain up unless the labor market shifts.