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

301–310 of 334 posts

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

#301

Post by mancerayder »

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…

Also, I'd add

  - In a sea of jobs with on-call, workaholic hierarchical reward culture, and night/weekend work, a company may pay less but offer work-life balance that a 30k pay bump in New Corp may not outweigh the risks.

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

#302

Post by ghaff »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #299
Terr_ wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't just change job locations. Also when a family has/needs two parents working, Spouse A's next job becomes limited to locations that do not require Spouse B to also quit, and vice-versa. I have a pet theory that dual-incomes are one cause of movement to urban locations: The family needs to be in a location with enough overlapping opportunities in each person's role/field.

Urban area crime reduction starting around the 90s led to most movement back. The dual income job requirements just make it stickier and create a feedback system of higher housing prices. (which require more dual incomes...) As soon as that dual income want kids and can afford it on a signal income in suburbia, they'll take it most of the time. Just my .02

When I graduated grad school in the late 80s, almost no one I knew went to live in an urban core other than a fair number of NYC finance folks--and few of the non-finance jobs were in a city proper. Even the New Yorkers, almost everyone migrated out to suburbs over time. I think I knew maybe one couple who stayed in Manhattan.

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

#303

Post by JohnFen »

bb88 wrote: post #261
JohnFen wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The part that gives me pause isn't that the employee is agitating for their own interest. That's good and expected. It's the method by which they're doing it.

It's OK if you and others don't think it's fair. We just disagree on that aspect. I don't think it's fair for an employee to use that particular method. To me, it comes off as a kind of extortion to the current employer, and mistreats the employer who made the offer.

Others can, of course, have a different opinion. Nothing wrong with that. We simply disagree.

To make a little meta-comment: I am genuinely surprised at the negative reaction I've gotten from a few people here. I really didn't think I was saying anything all that controversial. Live and learn, I guess!

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

#304

Post by JohnFen »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #275
JohnFen wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>If an employee can't just come to me and be straight about their compensation requirements, that's a problem. That's exactly what they are doing, but with evidence to boot so you are on the same page.

But it's not evidence of anything other than than a company has valued that potential employee at a particular rate. What an employee is worth to an employer is pretty subjective. Someone that is worth 7 figures to one company may only be worth 6 or 5 to another.

Having an offer in hand is valuable to the employee, certainly! There's nothing wrong with getting an offer, then asking your current employer for a raise that would meet or exceed that offer. The issue I have is actually communicating that offer to the current employer.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I'd certainly never punish or fire anyone who did that. I'm just not going to give in to what I perceive as extortion, and what I perceive as being unfair to the employer who made the offer.

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

#305

Post by JohnFen »

maxerickson wrote: post #268
JohnFen wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't understand this question. What negative thing would I think?

If someone asked me for a pay raise and I turned it down, I'd also explain exact why I turned it down. (This is hypothetical as I've not turned down a pay raise). I wouldn't think poorly of anyone for just asking for a raise, but I suppose I'd start to get annoyed if they did it daily when the reason that I turned them down was still true.

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

#306

Post by JohnFen »

anthony_d wrote: post #263
JohnFen wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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’r…

> 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.

There are other explanations as well: for instance, just because an employee is worth a given rate to one company in no way means that the same employee is worth the same amount in another company.

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

#307

Post by sandos »

delusional wrote: post #151
s1artibartfast wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not do both? thats what I see. Firms give paltry pay bumps as default, but will fight with competitive salaries to retain top performers. Top performers get completive raises by going to their boss with an offer letter from a competitor.

General consensus among my colleagues and bosses are that anyone who comes to a routine salary negotiation with a competing offer is encouraged to take it. If you've been eyeing a different opportunity, then you're not going to find your current role engaging. The money is rarely enough to keep you for long.

I live in Sweden, but very early on in my career I was told that showing a competing offer would simply be viewed as "blackmailing" and you would not become very popular. I never used that tactic, instead just switching jobs.

Now the jobmarket is nothing that can be compared to the Bay area, for sure. For example many places more or less use the standard increases brokered by the union, even if you or the workplace is not unionized, with some skewing for being a high performer.

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

#308

Post by zrn900 »

eastbound wrote: post #181
Rinzler89 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is why the trend towards remote seems inevitable. I wish, but not in my country. Remote here means 2-3 days/week WFH tops and that's it. Nobody offers more. Meaning you're still tied to the location of your employer as you have to come regularly in the office. It boggles my mind that employers don't see the advantage of employing people remotely nation-wide as that gives them access to a wider talent pool outsi…

I’ll give you the startupper’s sad side. See, if we want to hire, then a team of Matrix people in full remote isn’t going tk be sexy. We need young faces on the pictures, and we need to make every day an event worth instagramming. First hire for a team of developers should be a community manager. The scene is as stupid as it sounds. I’ve walked the path. Developers won’t develop anything good for $200k, but they will…

> I’ll give you the startupper’s sad side. See, if we want to hire, then a team of Matrix people in full remote isn’t going tk be sexy. We need young faces on the pictures, and we need to make every day an event worth instagramming.

That seems to be the Silicon Valley investment paradigm. Needed for attracting VC money. Otherwise, the users never gave a sh*t about those, they still don't. The rest of the tech world did not operate under such a paradigm either. I also suspect that it will also end in SV as the zero interest economy ended and the investment landscape changed. Now profitability is being valued instead of unprofitable infinite growth that may or may not be profitable in the future.

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

#309

Post by toomuchtodo »

carlosjobim wrote: post #213
toomuchtodo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionize. It is the only way to obtain agency.

If you take off the union tinted glasses and read again, you see that these employees are exercising their agency to the fullest by moving to better paying jobs at other companies.

My glasses are tinted by reality and data.

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

#310

Post by zrn900 »

toyg wrote: post #93
iends wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a manager, it seems true to me. It's much easier to convince HR to pay $X for a new employee than to give a current employee a large enough raise to hit $X.

Because they have to answer about the budget in aggregate. If three developers are paid $100k each on year 1, and they hire a new one on 120k on year 2, the average salary has only gone up 5%. If they don't hire and just bump the veterans to 120k, overall expenditure is lower but the average salary is now 20% higher and it looks bad (and you're not growing).

What a self-sabotaging setup. No wonder the mainstream tech got so bloated.
Post reply on HN