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

Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 329 posts

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#221

Post by vlovich123 »

throwaway09223 wrote: post #170
marricks wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the pay bands go up. Everyone gets paid more, board salary go down a bit, and things hopefully become a bit more event. Sounds good? Things have been going the other direction far too long.

Board retainers aren't significant expense anywhere as far as I'm aware. Often their stipends are less than an employee's pay. For example, Google's board stipend is $100k, which is about half the median total comp of an average employee (less, counting benefits). Walmart I think pays their board $60k. You may be thinking of executive comp, but even then it is generally not significant amount. You could completely el…

That's not accurate. The board meets maybe 4 times a year. Let's be generous and say they work one full calendar month of the year. That means their pro-rated stipend is actually 1.2 M/year. Google employees who only choose to work one month of the year can do so, but the median salary would be 16k dollars. AFAIK board members don't put in a month's worth of work so that 1.2 M/year is an underestimate. They also can sit on multiple boards simultaneously whereas moonlighting in multiple companies is not generally possible in the same way.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#222

Post by jonas21 »

cogman10 wrote: post #199
drewcon wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life. If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing.

You say this as if companies don't chose where to have their offices and their attendance policies. If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that their employees can survive there. If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for polit…

Companies may have more sway than an individual employee, but that sway is still close to zero. Why? Because everyone knows that once enough key employees live nearby, they can't just pick up and move the company somewhere else.

Google, for example, has been trying for over a decade to build some medium-density housing near its campus. This goes beyond just advocating for political action (which they're also doing) -- they're actually offering to finance the project and assume all risk -- all the city has to do is stop saying no.

But every time it comes up for approval, local residents show up to complain, and the city council finds some arbitrary reason to say no.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#223

Post by bluGill »

tshaddox wrote: post #97
bluGill wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on what the other things are. Most years I get half of my take home pay in December because of my bonus (some of that is my 401k maxing out in November), there have been a couple bad years where the bonus was less, but at least I was able to keep my job. Keeping my job is a factor as well, since I have a family to support, if I'm laid off (like most companies do all the time) that means I'm scrambling to…

Out of curiosity, why does your 401k max out in November? If your employee does matching then wouldn’t you want to spread it as evenly as possible throughout the entire year?

Every company I've worked for accounts for that. I get my full match no matter when I max my 401k out. Of course different companies work differently.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#224

Post by RexM »

chrsig wrote: post #186
drewcon wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure why the company is responsible at an individual level for what’s going on in the Bay Area. They can’t tell you how to manage and interact with the expenses of your life. If you’re mad at anyone, walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing.

Because the company chooses to have a policy that mandates employees live within a viable commute radius of an office located in the city. I don't know why companies can't just take responsibility for their decisions. Or the company can walk down to city hall and tell them to build more housing, because they're unable or unwilling to pay enough for people to live in a viable radius. Or the company can relocate or est…

The last one seems to be the most popular choice.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#225

Post by cogman10 »

kriops wrote: post #215
cogman10 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this as if companies don't chose where to have their offices and their attendance policies. If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that their employees can survive there. If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for polit…

Supply and demand. COL is a downstream price signal as far as a rational employer is concerned. While they might try to influence it to alter the supply of potential workers in their favor, it is by no means their responsibility to do so. And saying companies choose where the highest concentration of available talent resides is dishonest.

> Supply and demand.

Yup, there's a low supply of employees and a high demand for them. So guess what the absolute dumbest thing is an employer can do when employees start clamoring for COL adjustments?

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#226

Post by itronitron »

another_poster wrote: post #109

Individual states’ pay transparency laws are already applying upwards pressure on salaries across the country. My company has multiple groups in different states including Colorado, and in anticipation of needing to post salary ranges for our open positions in Colorado, my group (with no positions in Colorado) preemptively bumped up everyone’s salaries to the midpoint of their pay bands to avoid anyone becoming frust…

>> quit when they found out their salary wasn’t at the very top

Such an elegant implementation of the 'no assholes' policy.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#227

Post by TulliusCicero »

sangnoir wrote: post #207
TulliusCicero wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So the pay bands go up. They can't, though; if you do that, now there are people in the bottom half, and they're upset that they're 'below average'. You basically need a vanity range for pay.

It's not a vanity range if it's leading to real-life salary adjustments.

Vanity clothing sizing leads to real life changes in clothes measurements too.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#228

Post by TulliusCicero »

vlovich123 wrote: post #221
throwaway09223 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Board retainers aren't significant expense anywhere as far as I'm aware. Often their stipends are less than an employee's pay. For example, Google's board stipend is $100k, which is about half the median total comp of an average employee (less, counting benefits). Walmart I think pays their board $60k. You may be thinking of executive comp, but even then it is generally not significant amount. You could completely el…

That's not accurate. The board meets maybe 4 times a year. Let's be generous and say they work one full calendar month of the year. That means their pro-rated stipend is actually 1.2 M/year. Google employees who only choose to work one month of the year can do so, but the median salary would be 16k dollars. AFAIK board members don't put in a month's worth of work so that 1.2 M/year is an underestimate. They also can…

The pro-rated version is irrelevant, since the comment was talking about board salaries going down in order to fund higher salaries elsewhere.

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#229

Post by TulliusCicero »

jeromegv wrote: post #208
throwaway09223 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activision-Blizzard's board get 350k. If they earned $0 instead, this would only give each employee an extra $35 per year. That's including their stock compensation. As you say, most goes to investors. Which makes sense as they actually own the company.

OP was talking about executives (CEO, VPs), not board.

> board salary go down a bit

Re: Microsoft will include pay ranges in all U.S. job postings

#230

Post by cogman10 »

jonas21 wrote: post #222
cogman10 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say this as if companies don't chose where to have their offices and their attendance policies. If a company places it's headquarters in a HCOL area and requires everyone come in 5 days a week, then yes, they have a responsibility to pay a salary high enough that their employees can survive there. If employers don't like the fact that COL is too high, THEY can go ahead and march on city hall to advocate for polit…

Companies may have more sway than an individual employee, but that sway is still close to zero. Why? Because everyone knows that once enough key employees live nearby, they can't just pick up and move the company somewhere else. Google, for example, has been trying for over a decade to build some medium-density housing near its campus. This goes beyond just advocating for political action (which they're also doing) -…

Google still has options (which, granted, they've exercised) including adding more remote offices.

They don't want to do that because they've already spent a bunch of money on their fancy HQ and don't want to see it empty out.

There are plenty of employers with < 1000 employees, however, crowding these downtown areas. They have way more flexibility in being able to move out of these city centers and into more affordable locations for everyone. They don't because part of the reason for their offices in these downtown location is rich people showing off to other rich people. You gotta "look" successful.

Post reply on HN