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

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 560 posts

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#191

Post by Steeeve »

Job hopping works. But the more you do it, the more you can expect to see skepticism from hiring managers.

Software development is a little bit different because right now there is more demand for workers than there are good developers. It hasn't always been that way and it won't always be that way.

When you're working for the right employer at the right salary, an extra 25-50% isn't going to be enough to lure you away. That and at some places stock options are worth something and vesting schedules actually play into the decision process.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#192

Post by bitexploder »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #125
scaryclam wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

>In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are unhappy, without the threats. This doesn't agree with the research here, and your first statement doesn't agree with your second. If you value your team, they shouldn't…

The research I am aware of says if someone comes into your office with a competing offer they are likely to be gone in 6 months.

https://hbr.org/2016/07/setting-the-record-straight-using-an...

Outside offers to get a raise are a risky business at best. If someone is unhappy enough to do this it isn't just compensation most of the time.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#193

Post by apexalpha »

syntaxing wrote: post #190

I wish these studies would incorporate the value of benefits. Benefits are a huge reason (especially for people with families) why people stay at jobs. Imagine having a job for $60K with four weeks of vacation and good 401K matching compared with $80k with one week vacation and horrible health insurance.

I wonder if it would be the same in Europe since most benefits are mandatory and at big companies salaries and yearly increase are negotiated collectively between employees and employers.

But if this proofs anything you should keep your options open and, even if you don't want to change companies, use outside offers as ammo for your yearly negotiation.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#194

Post by gvb »

lostboys67 wrote: post #148
michaelt wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if your company has to make cutbacks [...] you're name's likely to get further up the redundancy list than you'd probably like. If the company's going down the pan, what does it matter if I'm made redundant in the first tranche or the last? I'm going to need a new job anyway, just in the latter case I've put in a few extra months where there was no money to give me a raise no matter how well I performed.

First batch might get better terms than waiting till the company goes bust owing you pay

Even if the company doesn't go bust, the severance pay gets stingier and stingier on every round of reductions.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#195

Post by cooervo »

jondubois wrote: post #109

Yes that never made sense to me. Employees who have been around for a couple of years are much more efficient and know their way around - They are worth more, and yet they always get paid much less than 3-month or 6-month contractors or even new full-time employees in many cases. Also if they say that they want to leave a company, usually employers let them go relatively easily without making any significant counter-…

contractors != permanent employees

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#196

Post by bitexploder »

Mtinie wrote: post #179
statictype wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can value your team and still be running on fumes and not be able to currently pay them what you think they should get. There's no contradiction in that.

In that case you can be disappointed that your business can't do right by the employees you lose while at the same time being happy for those people for finding new places of employment that can pay them what they are worth.

A good business would have a line of communication open to employees about it's financial state anyway. They would not come to you with a competing offer, there would be no need.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#197

Post by cmahler7 »

EdSharkey wrote: post #167
thehardsphere wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is how the world works. If there was really a gender pay gap for women who are doing the exact same work as men with the exact same experience as men, then it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women. Yet, nobody ever does this.

This thread suddenly became gold. Don't you dare die on me, thread!

Single, childless women make 8% more than single, childless men across the country, and as much as 20% more in some cities. This only changes when they have children or when they work fewer hours.

But don't let facts stop you from repeating the same tired lies that have been debunked for years

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EK6Y1X_xa4

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#198

Post by thehardsphere »

adrianN wrote: post #176
thehardsphere wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is how the world works. If there was really a gender pay gap for women who are doing the exact same work as men with the exact same experience as men, then it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women. Yet, nobody ever does this.

This is a nice argument that I actually believe myself, but you could counter it by saying that, due to sexism, even when women and men do exactly the same work, the males' result are valued more. Hiring managers don't have to be perfectly rational, they could be (unconsciously) sexist.

You could counter with that, but you'd be redefining what we're talking about away from whether or not similar men and women are paid the same to something far more nebulous and difficult to measure.

And rationality of any one particular hiring manager isn't going to make a big difference; they still need to compete with every other hiring manager in the labor market and must offer something competitive accordingly.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#199

Post by thehardsphere »

skj wrote: post #174
thehardsphere wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is how the world works. If there was really a gender pay gap for women who are doing the exact same work as men with the exact same experience as men, then it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women. Yet, nobody ever does this.

It is true that in a purely rational system, there would be no pay gap (controlling for ability and impact). But guess what...

There's no pay gap?

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#200

Post by bitexploder »

ugh123 wrote: post #151
scaryclam wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

I think you typify the type of manager that cares more about the bottom line than the value you get out of good employees. Maybe it wasn't spelled out as clear in the article, but much of the point is that the employee is more valuable to retain than to simply re-cycle for someone lessor or equal pay. Wouldn't care to work for you at all.

The cost to replace a good employee is shockingly high. Organizations that don't fight to keep their good people are chasing short term gains at the expense of their medium and long term. It is why many businesses can't figure out why they can't grow and think they are a great place to work because they offer bottom of their industry pay (which can be enticing for folks looking to break in, get experience, etc.)
Post reply on HN