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

191–200 of 309 posts

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#191

Post by SeanDav »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #150
ui-explorer12 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing happens when you've been with a mobile/telecom/etc company for a long time. They milk you for every penny they can get and give all the promo pricing to new customers. The pay sales higher commissions for new sign-ups and treat existing loyal clients like garbage. It really bugs me to have to waste the time to change providers for everything every ~2 years, but I'd feel like an idiot if I left thousand…

Over the ~8 years I've been a customer, my mobile provider has upgraded my free SMS/MMS plan from 5 hours and 5GB to unlimited hours and 40GB. The price has gone from ~$15 to ~$20 and that's it. There's no way for me to get the same plan at that price if I was a new customer.

You are lucky. Sadly, this is very much the exception, although we can only hope it becomes more common. Human nature being what it is, people hate change, so companies can gouge existing users and offer incentives to new users to get them to change.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#192

Post by cr1895 »

balfirevic wrote: post #138
zbentley wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hope not. This article suggests that this is not the case (sorry about the adblocker modal): https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2016/06/professor-aims-to-...

If that's the case, why do only 28% of working men opt-in for that benefit? Also, it's pretty wild that you are effectively entitled by law to a 25% increase in salary if you have a child under 9.

>Also, it's pretty wild that you are effectively entitled by law to a 25% increase in salary if you have a child under 9.

That's incorrect. It's at a reduced salary.

If you're on a permanent contract and if your full-time function isn't in some way demonstrably critical to the business, you're also entitled to work fewer hours if you want, unrelated to children.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#193

Post by C1sc0cat »

Cd00d wrote: post #139
kzisme wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2-5% raises are all I've seen pretty much (which is just cost of living).

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…

CPI and RPI don't always reflect real world inflation (don't include housing costs) and they are subject to gaming by the Government by tweaking what is included in the basket of goods.

This is UK based from an off the record briefing from a ONS staff member.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#195

Post by mcv »

ashtonian wrote: post #95
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.

I've worked for 5 companies and 3 of them had this behavior. Would get 5/5 on reviews, saved company hundreds of thousands, delivered a flagship multi million dollar in revenue product. Ask for more then 10k and was told to get an offer elsewhere and they would match. Got another job at 30k+ told them to screw off, if I have to apply and go get a job offer to prove my "worth" then I'm just going to go work for anothe…

Yeah, that sounds like just about the worst way a company might go about this. They actively send their people to look for new jobs, and only once they've found one, you give them a raise, hoping they'll prefer this toxic attitude over some fresh new job.

Also, relying on the opinion of other companies to determine the value of your own employees is completely backwards. Nobody had better data to determine the value of your employees than you do. Other employers basically have to make a stab in the dark at what someone's worth, and maybe not extend the contract if the new hire turns out to disappoint. As the current employer, you should know how good your people are.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#196

Post by michaelt »

virgilp wrote: post #152
user5994461 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a myth spread out by recruiters. They do not get paid when the developer doesn't change job. They'll say anything to get you to leave. Truth is, counter offers happen and work out. When it's about compensation, not toxic workplace/coworker, or relocating elsewhere to live with your wife/children.

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…

  So that's how much I was worth to you,
  but you waited for me to leave before
  adjusting my pay?
Doesn't everyone already know that?

I mean, the business benefits that pay my salary only exist from the combination of my efforts with the company's existing business. A marginal improvement in X only makes money when combined with an X business, so of course the owner of the business and the owner of the improvement have conflicting interests about how to share the value.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#197

Post by mcv »

readingnews wrote: post #73
bmdavi3 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you went to your manager, or whoever you feel is the right person, asked if you could speak one on one, and said... "I really love working at this company. The work is interesting, I love the people, the culture, . But I also know I could be making X if I went elsewhere. I love the work I'm doing, and I want to keep doing it here, but I also don't want to be leaving money on the table. What can we do?" This p…

I wish I worked at your firm. I once worked at a place and saved them millions in one year. At the yearly review, they said "well, that was some good work". That was the entire review. When I said "how about giving me an extra 1k a year (a bit less than others who had been there for a while were getting) I was told we had no extra cash. Well... wow, I just saved you like 1.5 million dollars. I am not asking for that,…

> I have no idea how you people have such nice jobs...

We get nice jobs by switching until we find a nice one.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#198

Post by Tempest1981 »

Confusion wrote: post #156
zbentley wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would hope not. This article suggests that this is not the case (sorry about the adblocker modal): https://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2016/06/professor-aims-to-...

No, there’s some confusion here. There are two distinct benefits you are entitled to when you become a father. One is that you get exactly 1 week of paid leave. The other is the right to take 26 weeks of unpaid ‘parental leave’ during the first 9 years, which is often used to e.g. start working 4 days a week (the leave is used at a rate of 1 day per week then; you could also use it for taking half a year off at once)…

So "only" 2.5 years of 4-day weeks, with reduced pay.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#199

Post by C1sc0cat »

Ma8ee wrote: post #112
neogodless wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see the WLB acronym in the article. Something like "whole-life benefits?" ETA: Just remembered "work-life balance." Gotcha!

I really wish people could stop using so many acronyms in general. Even though it usually is possible to guess, or in worst case google, the meaning, it always slow me down. I didn’t immediately understand WLB and I don’t remember seeing ETA meaning anything else that Estimated Time of Arrival before. It just doesn’t take that long to write out the whole words.

Maybe we should use the Civil Service style and write out in full the first instance on an acronym.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#200

Post by piokoch »

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.

I guess such employers strategy is taught at business schools. My ISP or mobile operator also gives much better offer to a new customer as compared to the existing one.

The question is if it works, that is if people indeed prefer stability and status quo so much that they are ready to earn less or pay more for a service. Probably this is not that easy to verify, as, for instance, employee might indeed stay and get lower compensation, but would also be less productive (if they fire me, I'll just find something else, probably better paid) and less creative (they pay me less, I have no incentive to improve "their" company).

Post reply on HN