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 (2014)

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 334 posts

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#151

Post by delusional »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #127
arpyzo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My observations suggest that this applies far more to lower performing employees than higher performing ones since the barrier to change jobs is lower for top tier talent. In effect this means that while companies that give paltry pay bumps that don't keep up with the market may successfully hold on to lower performing employees, they'll be continually churning through top performers.

why not do both? thats what I see. Firms give paltry pay bumps as default, but will fight with competitive salaries to retain top performers. Top performers get completive raises by going to their boss with an offer letter from a competitor.

General consensus among my colleagues and bosses are that anyone who comes to a routine salary negotiation with a competing offer is encouraged to take it. If you've been eyeing a different opportunity, then you're not going to find your current role engaging. The money is rarely enough to keep you for long.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#152

Post by spauldo »

fundad wrote: post #145
spauldo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the only ones being paid what I'm worth, so I'm not going anywhere.

Accepting proper pay is suppressing wages of others. It's ok because you need money.

I'm not interested in communist nonsense, so waste your time bothering others.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#153

Post by antisthenes »

amarant wrote: post #130
oarla wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worse pay is what adds on to the feeling of the job being terrible. As much as many want to claim, its not very satisfying to slog away and ship an elegant product for peanuts. When the pay is lower than what is the standard, it's always going to make the job feel terrible.

You're not wrong, but that's not the full story here tho, at least not in my experience. Worst job I ever had paid about 60% of what I usually earn, and I was told of by the manager for pointing out that there were compilation errors in our master branch (at this place, anything pushed to master was automatically deployed into production, with zero testing. The only reason prod didn't burn that day was because the pi…

> Worst job I ever had paid about 60% of what I usually earn, and I was told of by the manager for pointing out that there were compilation errors in our master branch (at this place, anything pushed to master was automatically deployed into production, with zero testing.

Out of curiosity, how long did it take from hiring day to resignation for this to become apparent?

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#154

Post by amarant »

tombert wrote: post #121
amarant wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on all your points, but find it funny that you mention game-dev as a bad example. I know the industry has a bad reputation but some of my best gigs were at gaming companies(and, as per your suggestion, those were the best paid ones too!) probably relevant detail is that I did contractor work for backend/server stuff for those gaming companies. And the two studios in question have each published the biggest ga…

> and, as per your suggestion, those were the best paid ones too! I've never worked in game dev, but at least in NYC I was being interviewed by Rockstar Games for a pretty senior-level position a couple years ago, just to find out that it maxed out at considerably less than my previous job. I didn't continue the process and I just assumed that it was standard in the games industry.

It actually might be the standard. One of us has had an unusual experience in the gaming industry, and I'm not sure who.

We also live really far away from eachother, so that might be a factor as well. I'm based in Stockholm, which is _very_ different from NYC.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#155

Post by stevofolife »

Sure you get paid more, but it comes attached with a whole baggage of other things.

A better research should provide insight on the total compensation over the entire career, work-life balance, impact, satisfaction and so on.

Now let's see what is better.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#156

Post by s1artibartfast »

jcon321 wrote: post #147
s1artibartfast wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not do both? thats what I see. Firms give paltry pay bumps as default, but will fight with competitive salaries to retain top performers. Top performers get completive raises by going to their boss with an offer letter from a competitor.

Would you really bring your boss an offer letter? Even as top performer it seems like a bad idea to take any counter offer.

That is literally how I got my last promotion. I set up a meeting and told them I had an offer I intended to take. They had a 20% raise and promotion approved within 24 hours.

I also routinely get asked by managers for promo recommendations for coworkers thinking about leaving. IF they refuse to counter, then you should be asking yourself why you are staying.

You cant pull this maneuver more than once or twice, but it lets them know you are serious and wont just whine and accept token raises in future negotiations.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#157

Post by kbolino »

PopAlongKid wrote: post #148
snarf21 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and healthcare (US) is a major factor. However, companies push the envelop too far. The cost of filling replacements, lost domain knowledge, decreased velocity during ramp up, etc. are far more costly that leadership admits. The main reason they just don't try to keep up even a little bit is because most leadership sees employees as replaceable resources that are all identical (not themselves though!). The th…

>healthcare (US) is a major factor. Not as much since Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) became law over ten years ago. Anyone can get minimum essential coverage, with a subsidy if income is low enough (as it would be when out of a job), regardless of pre-existing conditions.

If you go without a job for a while and you don't want Medicaid [edit -- not even an option: and you don't want to submit to an invasive examination of your finances], you are paying out of pocket for individual marketplace plans. While they run a lot cheaper than COBRA, they are still hefty (ca. $500/mo for 2 people at minimum coverage).

Maybe it was worse before the ACA but it sure isn't a picnic after.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#158

Post by [deleted] »

tombert wrote: post #121
amarant wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on all your points, but find it funny that you mention game-dev as a bad example. I know the industry has a bad reputation but some of my best gigs were at gaming companies(and, as per your suggestion, those were the best paid ones too!) probably relevant detail is that I did contractor work for backend/server stuff for those gaming companies. And the two studios in question have each published the biggest ga…

> and, as per your suggestion, those were the best paid ones too! I've never worked in game dev, but at least in NYC I was being interviewed by Rockstar Games for a pretty senior-level position a couple years ago, just to find out that it maxed out at considerably less than my previous job. I didn't continue the process and I just assumed that it was standard in the games industry.

[deleted]

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#159

Post by SkyPuncher »

PopAlongKid wrote: post #148
snarf21 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and healthcare (US) is a major factor. However, companies push the envelop too far. The cost of filling replacements, lost domain knowledge, decreased velocity during ramp up, etc. are far more costly that leadership admits. The main reason they just don't try to keep up even a little bit is because most leadership sees employees as replaceable resources that are all identical (not themselves though!). The th…

>healthcare (US) is a major factor. Not as much since Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) became law over ten years ago. Anyone can get minimum essential coverage, with a subsidy if income is low enough (as it would be when out of a job), regardless of pre-existing conditions.

While I have done this, problem is most people don’t view health insurance as a cost they should cover in any capacity.

Most employers aren’t really providing much “healthcare value” when compared to simply going on the exchange directly.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#160

Post by geph2021 »

jcon321 wrote: post #147
s1artibartfast wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not do both? thats what I see. Firms give paltry pay bumps as default, but will fight with competitive salaries to retain top performers. Top performers get completive raises by going to their boss with an offer letter from a competitor.

Would you really bring your boss an offer letter? Even as top performer it seems like a bad idea to take any counter offer.

It depends on the counter offer and your situation. I would have agreed with you, but a couple years ago I told my employer that I had a job offer kind of land in my lap (I wasn't actively looking), that it was good and I was inclined to take it. I wasn't unhappy at my current job, but the change in title/seniority and compensation of the job offer was definitely worth it. They didn't want me to leave, so they countered with a very strong offer, which I decided to take and stay with the company. If you want to leave because you're unhappy with other aspects of your job, then I agree that accepting a counter offer doesn't seem like a great choice.
Post reply on HN