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

261–270 of 334 posts

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

#261

Post by bb88 »

JohnFen wrote: post #258
bb88 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate your honesty here. I would argue, you should appreciate your employee's honesty as well. If you have a market based salary view of the world, and an employee says they're actually worth more than what your merit/market system is paying them (and has proof), you should probably respect that. The fact they're coming to you first is a risk in and of itself.

> an employee says they're actually worth more than what your merit/market system is paying them, you should probably respect that as well. We are in total agreement here!

You said:

> Coming to me with an offer letter in an attempt to get a pay raise is a thing that I think speaks very poorly of the person.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your honesty here, But I don't think that's fair, and probably why you're getting push-back in this thread.

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

#262

Post by kerkeslager »

lnsru wrote: post #207
toomuchtodo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Unions will get better salaries for low performers and decrease salaries for high performers.

As a worker, I simply don't care if other people are paid well as long as I get paid well. This mindset of "it is not enough for me to succeed, others must fail" is absurd.

Generally, employees do want people who are more productive to be rewarded more, but are rightfully cynical about employers' ability to judge who is producing.

> 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.

Almost nobody should be working 45 hours a week. Certainly no one in my field.

It's telling that your primary example of performance is "time spent at desk". This sort of terrible mismeasurement is why employees are cynical about employers' ability to judge who is producing.

> [Unions in Germany] don’t protect one from being fired.

That's probably because they learned from the mistakes of unions in the US. Having to work with incompetent or straight-up drunk coworkers because they can't be fired isn't a great experience.

> Doubling salary over whole career… I don’t know if that’s a good deal.

"Only" doubling salary because you started at a higher wage is a great deal. Union workers are paid more than nonunion at every stage of their career, but how much more disproportionately favors people early in their careers.

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

#263

Post by anthony_d »

JohnFen wrote: post #246
lupire wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You admit to intentionallu underpaying your employees, and then insinuate moral failing on their part for proving their worth to after you told them your underestimate of it? Good for them that they left, and left you poorer for it.

> You admit to intentionallu underpaying your employees Not at all. I've never intentionally underpaid anyone. > then insinuate moral failing on their part for proving their worth Also not at all. Presenting an offer letter from someone is not "proving their worth". My objection is the manipulation they're engaging in rather than just asking for what they think they should be getting. > and left you poorer for it. On…

I think I see your point but it definitely feels shady to me.

First, personally I’ve never asked my employer to match an offer. I just leave.

I do think the thought process makes some sense though.

If I feel I’m underpaid I’m going to look around to confirm before talking to anyone.

If I get confirmation I’m being underpaid then I’m going to wonder why. Here’s where I have a choice… I either assume it’s because you’re intentionally underpaying because you think you can, or it’s because you don’t understand what you’re doing.

I know companies understand compensation because I’ve worked in management and on compensation planning software, that’s why I don’t talk about it.

More naive people might give you the benefit of the doubt, i.e. think you just don’t know what’s fair. Those people give you a chance to fix it, and only then learn that you’re intentionally underpaying them.

It does speak badly of the person but only in the sense that they’re naive and think you “mean well” in some sense.

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

#264

Post by [deleted] »

JohnFen wrote: post #251
synthc wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so shortshighted, it's not about 'respect', its about market value. By bringing an offer your employees are proving their market value, and you don't want to match it, so they will leave.

It's about treating people decently, in my view. It's not necessary to try to set up a bidding war in order to demonstrate market value. The disrespect that rankles me is the treatment of the company that made the offer, honestly. I just choose not to play that game. It's unnecessary. If an employee can't just come to me and be straight about their compensation requirements, that's a problem.

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

sunshowers wrote: post #180
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…

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.

You claim to want it. Do you pay for what you want?

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

#266

Post by astura »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #89
giantg2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my experience, I assume disabled people also job hop less often. I often wonder if my lower pay is because I don't job hop, because of my disability, or if I'm just a piece of shit.

I don't know you, but I know you aren't a piece of shit. Nobody is.

My dad is definitely a piece of shit.

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

#267

Post by beacon294 »

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…

Ramping up at a new company also costs employees time, so even though the employer has to pay this fee more, so does the employee. So the employer can play chicken on this and eat the cost more statistically than the employee.

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

#268

Post by maxerickson »

JohnFen wrote: post #251
synthc wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so shortshighted, it's not about 'respect', its about market value. By bringing an offer your employees are proving their market value, and you don't want to match it, so they will leave.

It's about treating people decently, in my view. It's not necessary to try to set up a bidding war in order to demonstrate market value. The disrespect that rankles me is the treatment of the company that made the offer, honestly. I just choose not to play that game. It's unnecessary. If an employee can't just come to me and be straight about their compensation requirements, that's a problem.

How often can they ask you for a pay increase (the price discovery you approve of) without making you start thinking some other negative thing?

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

#269

Post by laweijfmvo »

Loughla wrote: post #104
laweijfmvo wrote: post #80

I've experienced this to varying degrees over my 15 year career, but can safely say that my current job at a FAANG probably pays more than any job I could get today (including another FAANG). Stock appreciation and more importantly, extra stock awards, are difficult to match. Or I could be a sucker and 100% wrong.

The problem with all of this is that it assumes the attitude that pay is the most logical, if not only, measure of success in your career. I decided to work in higher education after a WILDLY successful short career in sales. I lost over 80% of my compensation annually to make that switch in the first year. And I did it because the time off benefits, pace, and stability are much better for my mental health and well-b…

Agree with you, but this particular article/discussion is focused on pay :)

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

#270

Post by s1artibartfast »

willcipriano wrote: post #204
mmh0000 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? Everything is a negotiation and you're not wasting their time.

It's no different than price shopping between mechanics. You can do that while being clear on your intentions and not making any promises you can't keep

Post reply on HN