The one-salary experiment, ten years in • Hacker News Board

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#261

Post by scruple » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

mkane848 wrote: post #257

lawn wrote: post #219

What happens when a skilled and very hard worker gets the same raise as someone who's not as skilled and not working very hard? For example if the skilled one solves the hard problems the less skilled one cannot solve. And if the lazy one spends a bunch of time on facebook. It isn't about the salary in absolute terms. It's about recognition and to be appreciated for the good work he's doing. But instead he gets the l…

This hurt to read, got hosed on my last performance review/raise because my supervisor threw me under the bus for things he never voiced as issues when HIS boss started asking questions he didn't know the answer to (because I do all the work). Got the same raise/bonus as someone he referred to as "retarded", so I've been working on #1 because I've already caught myself doing #2 because even after voicing concerns and…

> someone he referred to as "retarded"

Yikes. Even if I had gotten a huge raise, 25% or higher, if I heard my manager say this I'd be looking for a new job that day. There's no way that person is fit for their position. If they're willing to say that about someone in front of you, you have to assume they're willing to say the same thing about you in front of someone else. The point being that that behavior is very toxic, very unprofessional, and is nothing but a giant red flag to get out.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#262

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:46 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #211

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…

solid comparison. There's a parallel here to the employee/consumer side too. A telco wants new customers. The way to do it is price, but lose if they cut everyone's price by 20% to gain 10% more customers. So price selectively. Companies want to hire the most when the market is best (that's why the market is good). That might require 20% higher salaries, but they don't want the whole salary bill to increase. So, they…

[deleted]

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#263

Post by scruple » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

joesb wrote: post #183

salty_biscuits wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This has been my experience. The more money that I make, the more promotions that I see, even in face of the additional responsibilities, the more autonomy I enjoy.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#264

Post by auiya » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #85

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.

Companies give raises. Have you or anyone you know never gotten a raise?

Not in the same job role they don't. Not a meaningful amount at least, most times it's barely enough to cover inflation. If you want a meaningful raise you have two choices, play the company's ridiculous Game of Thrones every quarter come promotion time, or go elsewhere. Most of the time it's easier to just go elsewhere.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#265

Post by wsy » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

inertiatic wrote: post #230

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 did this a couple of weeks ago personally, and now I'm looking for a new job. Theoretically it should work, as you're stating your intent to leave. In practice, employers will try and call your bluff.

The funny thing is, you really need to be willing to leave. HR and management can sense that. If it is only meant as bluff, it won't work.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#266

Post by war1025 » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:38 PM UTC

cannonedhamster wrote: post #111

war1025 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Yea, but we're talking a tech job here, not working as a barista at your local artisan coffee shop.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#267

Post by scriptkiddy » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 4:03 PM UTC

From the article:

> To me, the ideal workplace is one that lets me enjoy my own life… not one that tries to merge with it.

I don't think I can overstate how profound this is. I've worked for a couple of companies that tried to sell themselves with "You'll be part of a family", or "We do all sorts of department events". It always means the same thing: "We want you to stay in the office as long as humanly possible and we'll treat you strange if you want to work from home instead of commute 1.5 hours to the office every day."

Unfortunately, the "family" mindset seems to be growing more popular in many sections of the software industry.

If a job doesn't require physical presence in order to completed to a high degree of quality, remote work should not be treated as a privilege.

What's strange to me is that in most tech companies, having employees work remote could drive expenses WAY down considering that the company would not have to rent/lease/buy any office space, desks, coffee machines, etc. It also means that they will not need to pay an office manager or janitorial staff.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#268

Post by draw_down » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

> Fortunately for us, we’re competing not only on salary, but freedom, and that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

Personally, my issue with non-monetary compensation is that it can be "altered" much more easily than the money I'm paid.

You can hire with a middling salary and promises like "there's so much freedom, and the food is good!" Then one day I'll notice the food isn't quite as good as it used to be... and oh, hmm, they decided not to offer unlimited vacation anymore... and eventually the freedom doesn't seem as expansive as it once did, the company has goals to hit so I can't work on that cool project I had my eye on... and I realize my goose has been cooked.

But my salary will get paid every two weeks (or whatever), with no messing around.

It's not that I'm only motivated by money, it's more that money is the only thing I can trust I won't get fucked on. After you sign, everything else is negotiable, in the bad way.

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#269

Post by virgilp » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

wsy wrote: post #253

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…

A work contract is a simple supplier-consumer relationship. You are the supplier, and you essentially set the rate at which you offer your work hours. When someone suddenly offers you the double rate, you should not feel insulted, but you should realize that need to work on rate negotiation skills. Then, if both offers are equally fine with respect to non-compensation aspects, simply take the higher offer. Suppose yo…

I don't view myself as coffee - if your employees are fungible resources, I don't want to work for you (99.9% of the cases, there may be exceptions, but they're just that - exceptions).

Re: The one-salary experiment, ten years in

#270

Post by virgilp » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

ownagefool wrote: post #226

notabot wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment articulated my thought so well. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who would react like that. :-) The industry is playing a silly game.

Cool, but then you end up with less money overall. The smart move is to accept the counter, then keep looking for something better with the negotiating position that you're paid $salary x 2. Better yet, push for a title to go with the salary that'll help you land an even better job. This is assuming all else is equal. If you're moving on for better future propsects, because the company culture is stressing you out, o…

> Cool, but then you end up with less money overall.

Highly debatable, because in the real world you need to do multivariate optimization and most people can't (don't have the skills and/or desire) to be constantly optimizing their salary. Thus, choosing a company that is actively trying to fairly compensate existing employees tends to pay off in the long, on multiple fronts, not just immediate salary.