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

The one-salary experiment, ten years in

iwantmyname.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 309 posts

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#181

Post by sverhagen »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #169
virgilp wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A former manager - and friend - of mine told me that, when switching jobs, former employer made a handsome counter-offer, I think basically doubling his compensation; it was more than he got at the new gig. His reaction? "Now I also feel insulted. So that's how much I was worth to you, but you waited for me to leave before adjusting my pay?" It strikes me as a reasonable attitude, and one that I've adopted too. I don…

>"Now I also feel insulted. So that's how much I was worth to you, but you waited for me to leave before adjusting my pay?" I mean yeah, it's a business. If they paid him exactly what he was worth then he would make them a net profit of $0.

I think market worth as perceived by the employer is shortened to "worth to you" in that sentence and then confused with how much the employee is making for the company. Every employee should create more value than they cost, for some relevant definitions of "value" and "cost". That doesn't mean they should get paid less (money, total benefits and whatever other vague upsides to coming to work) than what's reasonable in the marketplace for their job and their abilities.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#182

Post by ido »

issa wrote: post #84

I've always found it strange that companies don't give raises to current employees. A team I am on just lost a good engineer to another company offering him a $30k+ raise. He would have stayed if our company had even given him half of that. Instead, they let him go, and how will have to hire someone else, probably at that higher salary. So weird, and seems to happen a lot.

The general case may still make not giving raises (or only small ones) more profitable - you don't know how many other employees didn't leave despite not getting big raises, it may more than make the difference for the odd person leaving because of it.

Or how long they got that guy's labour at a discount before he wise up & got a better paid position elsewhere. It may have been years of savings by then.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#183

Post by joesb »

salty_biscuits wrote: post #127
cannonedhamster wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The addendum is the Mexican fisherman doesn't have money in the bank if his boat gets destroyed in a freak storm, nor does he have enough to cover the insurance. He's also not taking care of his family or prepared if some oil company drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has a spill that completely destroys his livelihood. In fact the fleet of boats could effectively gain enough money to lobby the local government to set li…

Or on the other side, the American businessman has ruined his health/personal relationships by overwork so that he can't enjoy the freedom he bought for himself. Or even more likely, can't bring himself to make the leap into the void and walk away from money, status and security and continues to burn away the little healthy youth he has left remaining working in the job he can't give up.

Not all job that pays more requires you to sacrifice your life. I would even argue the other ways that jobs that pay more usually require less from you, leaving you with more time to be with yourself and your family.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#184

Post by notabot »

tuesdayrain wrote: post #169
virgilp wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A former manager - and friend - of mine told me that, when switching jobs, former employer made a handsome counter-offer, I think basically doubling his compensation; it was more than he got at the new gig. His reaction? "Now I also feel insulted. So that's how much I was worth to you, but you waited for me to leave before adjusting my pay?" It strikes me as a reasonable attitude, and one that I've adopted too. I don…

>"Now I also feel insulted. So that's how much I was worth to you, but you waited for me to leave before adjusting my pay?" I mean yeah, it's a business. If they paid him exactly what he was worth then he would make them a net profit of $0.

Right. So it is a world in which everyone is for themselves.

Companies shouldn't blame employees having no loyality then.

Having survived a few rounds of layoffs and saw colleagues let go, I said to myself "On a scale of 0 to 10, I will love this company as much it loves me -- 0".

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#185

Post by joesb »

war1025 wrote: post #87
readingnews wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying things like "I could make 50k more at blah" seems to be taken so lightly these days. I would party/panic/freak out like I won the lotto if you told me I could make 50k more somewhere else. 50k... do you have any idea what that does to your future earnings? Your 401k/retirement? Hell, even if you live the same as now, sticking 25K in the bank every year is worth a whole heaping spoonful of whatever hell they co…

The Mexican fisherman story [1] is what it comes down to for me. You can work a little, play a little, and generally have a good time with life and get by (Mexican fisherman), or you can start a business, work long hours, build a fleet of boats that makes a ton of money, and then sell it all someday when you retire, at which point you can work a little, play a little, and generally have a good time. (American busines…

Changing jobs to get more pay doesn't neccessarily means you have to work harder though.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#186

Post by michaelt »

auslander wrote: post #174
issa wrote: post #84

I've always found it strange that companies don't give raises to current employees. A team I am on just lost a good engineer to another company offering him a $30k+ raise. He would have stayed if our company had even given him half of that. Instead, they let him go, and how will have to hire someone else, probably at that higher salary. So weird, and seems to happen a lot.

> ..found it strange that companies don't give raises Because you'll tell your buddies about it, and they will try to get it too, having you as a proof it is feasible. New hires don't pose this threat to company coffins.

FYI a 'coffer' is a a strongbox or small chest for holding valuables. So a "threat to company coffers" is a threat to the bank account / bottom line.

A threat to coffins is presumably https://youtu.be/KZ_7br_3y54?t=57

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#187

Post by smashcash »

kazinator wrote: post #141

Someone who makes pinwheel trinkets sold in a dollar store simply doesn't deserve the same compensation as, say, a skilled machinist. That's not my personal prejudice: the free market for the labor end products themselves decides that by pricing them differently. When some workers with different skills are paid the same under the umbrella of an organization, it's shielding them from these market effects. This concept…

> Someone simply doesn't deserve

> the free market decides that by pricing them

You are conflating deserve with what the market will provide.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#188

Post by mutatio »

The approach seems fanciful - especially if applied to organisations with more diverse roles - for example would they really pay a janitor the same as a top level developer? The cynic in me feels the fact they don't have a broad spectrum of roles (20 total employees); the organisation is engineered to not be disparate in terms of expertise. More cynicism: most "lowly" roles would be outsourced to service companies and conveniently sidestepped.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#189

Post by ComodoHacker »

mutatio wrote: post #188

The approach seems fanciful - especially if applied to organisations with more diverse roles - for example would they really pay a janitor the same as a top level developer? The cynic in me feels the fact they don't have a broad spectrum of roles (20 total employees); the organisation is engineered to not be disparate in terms of expertise. More cynicism: most "lowly" roles would be outsourced to service companies an…

You can always outsource cleaning and other service jobs and say proudly "We maintain our principles".

You can even try this with some high paid but infrequent job like system architect.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#190

Post by Tempest1981 »

wiredfool wrote: post #158
Cd00d wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this sentiment often, but I don't quite understand. Inflation has been at I'm in NYC and our trouble with the subway have highlighted that MTA workers get a standard 6% raise each year as cost of living. But, it's way more than that, and it's actually a salary doubling every 11 years or so, which is not at all in line with overall wage growth - it's huge. Sure, in tech you can jump jobs every 3 years for 20% ju…

1.06^11 = 1.89, so yes. That’s about doubling in 11 years.

Or use the Rule of 72: 72/6% = 12 years

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72

Post reply on HN