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

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 560 posts

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#271

Post by PixelB »

skj wrote: post #174
thehardsphere wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it is how the world works. If there was really a gender pay gap for women who are doing the exact same work as men with the exact same experience as men, then it would be trivial for employers to reduce their costs by only hiring women. Yet, nobody ever does this.

It is true that in a purely rational system, there would be no pay gap (controlling for ability and impact). But guess what...

Corporations are rational.

They care about one thing, dollars. If you are making them money, they will keep you no matter what. If you are not making them money, they will get rid of you. Pretty rational I think.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#272

Post by dustinmoris »

justadeveloper2 wrote: post #245
dustinmoris wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't go bothways, because there's either more demand for developers than supply or more supply than demand. Currently we live in a time where there is more demand than supply, hence why developers get treated relatively well in comparison to other professions. There's a reason why developers get ping pong tables but not accountants. So the fact that "company is frequently interviewing" only shows how much dem…

Devs get ping-pong tables because they can be bought off in other ways besides money because they are naive. I loved your comment about "max out wealth" because that is the underlying truth to all of this--you get maybe 30 years to make as much money as possible and that's it!

Agreed, this is really the best summary "you get maybe 30 years to make as much money as possible and that's it"

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#273

Post by jazzyk »

dsmithatx wrote: post #255

I keep seeing articles like this that fail to point out an important fact. The economy has been strong for a long time and it is a workers market. Once there is another downturn it will be an employers market. Job hoppers will be lucky to land interviews, much less command high salaries. That is unless you are in the top % of your skill level or have some skill like Oracle DBA that is highly sought after. I worry abo…

Two points:

- 2% GDP growth is not exactly what I would call "strong economy": http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate

- it is not a workers market - if it had been, incomes would not have stagnated

I do agree with the rest of your post, though. Things will get even tougher.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#274

Post by mustafabisic1 »

Djvacto wrote: post #259
mustafabisic1 wrote: post #252

Also a great way to increase your salary is to Take the lowest pay possible at first. Here is what I mean https://medium.com/the-mission/take-the-lowest-pay-possible-... And this is not my article and I don't have any affiliations with it :)

Correct me if I'm wrong (I read the article, but am a little confused), but shouldn't the message of that article be "Take the lower pay, assuming that also corresponds with a higher level of [Job Satisfaction, Growth Potential, Work-Life Balance, etc]"? I don't have much experience, but my initial instinct is that some of that article is not universally true.

I agree that you should choose your job wisely. The author claims that it's best to be open to a lower pay in the first 10 years of your career. It's similar to everything actually. You gain your reference experiences and build up your image within your world and then expect higher pay. Nobody will give it to you just like that.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#275

Post by BurningFrog »

elnygren wrote: post #107

Best way to increase salary at current workplace? Get offers from other companies & ask for a meeting with your boss (or whoever decides your pay, so HR etc.). Bring up the offers, discuss what you'd get from there and also go through the potential career you could build at those companies. For example: Consultancy X would pay me $k/mo and every 6months it will go up the ladder if I perform well. With this kind of di…

> Your employer would let you go and throw you under the bus if it made business sense.

I agree that you shouldn't get too attached to your employer, but this is way too cynical. Employers are people like everyone else, with individual personalities, and aren't typically soulless profit maximizers.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#276

Post by tcfunk »

sokoloff wrote: post #160
mikekchar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, look at it from a hiring manager's perspective: people who have stayed in a job long enough to see how things go wrong are also less expensive. I'll be honest, if I'm looking at a CV for someone with 10 years of experience and they have changed jobs every year or two, I will suspect that they are missing some pretty important experience as a senior developer. Everybody makes serious mistakes that d…

> if I'm looking at a CV for someone with 10 years of experience and they have changed jobs every year or two, I will suspect that they are missing some pretty important experience as a senior developer. I call this the "one year of experience, ten times" phenomenon.

I don't think that's really accurate or fair.

In my experience, you learn very different things in every workplace. Could be a different language or framework. Could even just be a different team arrangement or workflow.

Bottom line is this: if you feel like you're not learning and growing in your current environment, why stay? Better yet, why would anyone expect you to stay?

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#277

Post by _wwz4 »

djslakor wrote: post #236
scaryclam wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine this is good advice in some places, but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. In a lot of places, having a talk with your manager about your salary before going off and actively looking for other offers is going to go down a lot better. Most line managers worth working for, value their teams and will fight for them if they are un…

> but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. "Pull this on you"? You sound like a real joy to work for. This is expressly why I choose gigs where I'm working directly for an owner if at all possible. If you've created value, owners know how important you are and will take your request seriously as long as it's reasonable. In my career, I ha…

Letting everyone know they'll immediately be shown the door if they dare request an increase would create a terrible culture

The person to whom you're responding explicitly drew a distinction between discussing a raise with your boss vs going to your boss with another offer that you have secured.

I can see the importance of that distinction. To put the relationship in a different context: Imagine the difference between a girlfriend who says, "Hey, we need to discuss the amount of time you spend playing video games. I'd like you to pay more attention to me." vs "Hey, I don't like the amount of time you spend playing video games, so I've been talking to this new guy about being my boyfriend. Your move."

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#278

Post by BurningFrog »

kogepathic wrote: post #170
johnnyfaehell wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is considered bad advice. Nearly every HR article about this subject states that doing this will on average results in being let go after a year.

> I think this is considered bad advice. I agree, but for a different reason. Not only would this behaviour annoy your employer, but it shows that your employer doesn't care to pay you market rates or what you're worth. So why do you keep working for people who don't pay you what you're worth? Accept the outside offer and move on.

> it shows that your employer doesn't care to pay you market rates or what you're worth.

As an employer, it's hard to know how someone's market value fluctuates. The only way to really know is for the employee to do a job search.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#279

Post by saryant »

throwaway7230 wrote: post #82
toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google

Apple has a frustrating system for individual contributors where you can get promoted pretty quickly up until level 4, but then it stops. In order to get any kind of raise beyond that (level 5) you need to be pretty much a wizard with godlike job performance. Basically there is no career path past level 4 for most mortals, unless you want to go into management, which is also a difficult chasm to jump. Basically once…

They don't give refresh grants?

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#280

Post by JCharante »

_wwz4 wrote: post #277
djslakor wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but as a line manager, if you pull this on me I'm more than likely to shake your hand and wish you luck in your new job. "Pull this on you"? You sound like a real joy to work for. This is expressly why I choose gigs where I'm working directly for an owner if at all possible. If you've created value, owners know how important you are and will take your request seriously as long as it's reasonable. In my career, I ha…

Letting everyone know they'll immediately be shown the door if they dare request an increase would create a terrible culture The person to whom you're responding explicitly drew a distinction between discussing a raise with your boss vs going to your boss with another offer that you have secured. I can see the importance of that distinction. To put the relationship in a different context: Imagine the difference betwe…

I know it doesn't add anything of value to the thread, but that's a really good analogy.
Post reply on HN