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

201–210 of 334 posts

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

#201

Post by kbolino »

nanidin wrote: post #191
kbolino wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you clarify on the "invasive examination of your finances"? In my experience, when you apply on healthcare.gov, you simply enter your estimated income for the year you're applying - that's it, and you get the subsidy. Then when you file your taxes for that year, you either get more subsidy as a credit, or pay some back depending on whether you came in above or below the estimate you provided on the application.

I was wrong. My estimated income for the year was $0, so the only choice was Medicaid or full out of pocket.

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

#202

Post by willcipriano »

shinryuu wrote: post #2

Though at some point it feels like you reach a ceiling even if you change jobs.

If you are a "Chief bottle washer II" you will eventually hit the highest paying CBW2 employer in the world.

You probably won't be CBW2 for your entire career so you'd get a new celling.

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

#203

Post by JeremyNT »

ukoki wrote: post #54

Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational. At the cost of losing a minority of job-hoppers they retain the cheap majority that: - finds job interviews exhausting, or is anxious about being…

> Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational.

Ambitious employees "know" that switching jobs will give them the pay they're looking for, because they see those numbers right on the job postings. What's less obvious is that a current employer might really value an employee's skills, and would be willing to match or exceed the competition - if they just open up the conversation.

IME it's not even (always) any kind of rational decision on behalf of management to "stiff" people. If you have a happy employee making a wage they're satisfied with (+ annual COL), then these conversations about TC may not even come up at all. It's easy to just turn on autopilot here.

If you like your job, but you're not happy with your TC, make sure you're letting management know. It could be that everybody could end up happy. Even a good manager might not be doing this for you until/unless you advocate on your own behalf.

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

#204

Post by willcipriano »

mmh0000 wrote: post #196
jcon321 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes! I've done it several times. It's one of the best and most reliable ways to get a raise. It's "business." Your manager isn't going to make a counteroffer, then wait a month and fire you. I mean, they might if they're a total D.bag, but I've not yet had that experience. And if I had, I'd already proven to myself and my manager that I could get a higher-paying job elsewhere. It'd be a minor annoyance on my side. I…

I'd feel bad wasting the time of the other company just because my current one doesn't value me.

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

#205

Post by downut »

ukoki wrote: post #54

Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational. At the cost of losing a minority of job-hoppers they retain the cheap majority that: - finds job interviews exhausting, or is anxious about being…

- there is friction for an employee with established systems for dealing with childcare/k-12 school to potentially have to start all over again figuring out those systems.

You could subsume all of these points into "moving house is hard", but the details matter. We moved across the country for a job for the money and even with an empty nest it was dauntingly difficult, the hardest thing we have ever done over 4 decades, and we didn't have to worry about money!

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

#206

Post by mjr00 »

austin-cheney wrote: post #173
mjr00 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example if I get to spend half my office day watching movies and working on side projects in a stable company with no stress that potential raise from the next employer might not be worth it. tbh when I'm on the hiring side, this is why I consider a long tenure in the same role at a company a... not really a red flag, but maybe a yellow flag, something to talk about in an interview. Hate to say it, but lots of…

Your response is curious to me because it suggests multiple unstated biases. I am inferring you suggest: 1. Ambition is more a product of social mobility than product delivery. 2. Success is more a product of prior established salary than personal goals. From an economics perspective these seem weird to me for two reasons. The goal of economics is always to redistribute resources to a more desirable pattern. One of t…

> I just want a job doing what the paper says

> The only point of software is automation, which means if I can automate my own job then I don't have to do it either. I usually keep this to myself

I'm sure most hiring managers would agree, all of this is strongly reinforcing my initial assessment that long-tenured employees in the same company and position are yellow flags that need to be handled with care :)

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

#207

Post by lnsru »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #43
spauldo wrote: post #26

Yep, I see this in industrial automation. My company is particularly bad about it, since the corporate office is in Houston where you can hire people for the duration of a project fairly easily. Problem is, my part of the company isn't in Houston, so qualified employees are hard to find. So we need to hold on to people, which is hard when we rarely hand out raises. I do my best to train up my guys, but I know that th…

Unionize. It is the only way to obtain agency.

I see your huge karma points and want to oppose. Unions will get better salaries for low performers and decrease salaries for high performers. So there will be 10% salary difference between a guy working 45 hours a week and a guy wo shows up in the office and has all day long coffee breaks. That’s how unions in Germany work. They don’t protect one from being fired. You just get a better package. In Bavaria you start with level 9 salary after university. Jump quickly to level 10, then to level 11 mid career and if you’re lucky to the level 12 which corresponds roughly to 120000€ before taxes. Doubling salary over whole career… I don’t know if that’s a good deal.

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

#209

Post by therealdrag0 »

mondomondo wrote: post #188
sunshowers wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excessive job hopping simply does not look good on a resume! I want to work with engineers and PMs who build lasting monuments, seeing them through to completion, dealing with both the fun and the unfun bits.

Yeah but IMO most people learn 90% the stack in a year, smart people usually get bored after two years. I say that as someone who’s been at the same job for 12 years now. I never met a dev who worked at the same place for more than 4 years that was actually worth the money.

“Place” should be team or project. Same company can mean many teams or projects. For example I’ve been at a company 5 years but worked on 3 diff teams.

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

#210

Post by schrodinger »

fsckboy wrote: post #11

this whole thing is sus. why isn't this a better explanation: High performing, "desirable" or "skilled" employees get enticed (i.e. rewarded) for jumping to a new employer. Average schlubs do not. explanation from TFA: Why are people who jump ship rewarded, when loyal employees are punished for their dedication? The answer is simple. Recessions allow businesses to freeze their payroll and decrease salaries of the new…

That seems to be the answer but after being at a 2bn company for 7 years I haven’t found that to be so true. It seems like people in the middle jump more.

My theory:

- low performers can’t

- mid performers can and do

- high performers can but aren’t comp motivated beyond a certain point

Post reply on HN