If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   A discussion on annual salary increases - from someone who clearly doesn't understand inflation or the consumer price index   (slate.com) divider line 155
    More: Asinine, inflation  
•       •       •

3067 clicks; posted to Business » on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:30 PM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-20 11:50:01 AM
"The Annual Pay Raise Is Dead. Here's Why I'm Not Mourning." or: how I learned to stopped worrying and love farking over my employees.
 
2014-03-20 11:52:58 AM
Wages must be based only on productivity.

So the CEO is only going to get paid 10 times as much as a secretary?

They're not going to like that.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-20 12:16:57 PM
I think he just doesn't care about those things.
 
2014-03-20 12:24:52 PM
I wish I could automatically kick my hourly rate up 3-5% annually. My clients would never go for that though.
 
2014-03-20 12:37:44 PM
My annual raise is determined by someone in another country who has never met me.
 
2014-03-20 12:38:46 PM
I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?
 
2014-03-20 12:40:15 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Wages must be based only on productivity.

So the CEO is only going to get paid 10 times as much as a secretary?

They're not going to like that.


The CEO can claim the whole company's worth of productivity.

He's n times more productive than another worker, where n is the number of workers.  So, he should be paid n times more.  Plus retention bonuses, etc.
 
2014-03-20 12:41:46 PM
"...social constraints should never be a part of the equation.  Output is what matters." - said the CEO of the company with the most dissatisfied, disloyal employees ever.

And he wonders why he has a problem with recruitment and retention.

Do we have a "death pool" equivalent for companies likely to have a disgruntled employee shooting incident?
 
2014-03-20 12:42:24 PM
Should also probably add I'm about 30-40% under market currently  It was less when I started working here because I didn't have the two additional years of experience.  Still, I am a goddamn sucker for accepting it in the first place, and I'm kicking myself right now for it.
 
2014-03-20 12:42:59 PM

sendtodave: Marcus Aurelius: Wages must be based only on productivity.

So the CEO is only going to get paid 10 times as much as a secretary?

They're not going to like that.

The CEO can claim the whole company's worth of productivity.

He's n times more productive than another worker, where n is the number of workers.  So, he should be paid n times more.  Plus retention bonuses, etc.


And I can claim I'm King Sh*t of F*ck Island.
 
2014-03-20 12:43:06 PM
Wages in many jobs would be increased significantly if the people who performed them were paid at the value level of the task as opposed to the discounted wage they normally get due to excess labor supply driving their bargaining power down.
 
2014-03-20 12:43:27 PM

TheSelphie: I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?


Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?
 
2014-03-20 12:43:45 PM
i.imgur.com

Anyone taking bets on whether he's using the red line or the blue line?
 
2014-03-20 12:44:32 PM
and that article neatly puts a bow on whats wrong with the world.
You are not a person you are simply a cog in a machine that is valued by how well you perform your job. You no are no longer a person you are a job.
 
2014-03-20 12:45:06 PM

TheSelphie: When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?


when you have a job offer with better pay in hand.
 
2014-03-20 12:45:54 PM

The Singing Bush: sendtodave: Marcus Aurelius: Wages must be based only on productivity.

So the CEO is only going to get paid 10 times as much as a secretary?

They're not going to like that.

The CEO can claim the whole company's worth of productivity.

He's n times more productive than another worker, where n is the number of workers.  So, he should be paid n times more.  Plus retention bonuses, etc.

And I can claim I'm King Sh*t of F*ck Island.


Sure.  And if you can get people to pay you as much as a CEO to be King Sh*t of F*ck Island?  Then that claim might matter.
 
2014-03-20 12:47:21 PM

sendtodave: TheSelphie: I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?

Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?


I am doing more work, and my boss is planning on giving me even more.
 
2014-03-20 12:47:30 PM
Wages must be based only on productivity.


Wages are so far disconnected from anything based on something concrete like productivity that it's not even funny. Wages are overall set at the market level. How does one determine what the market is paying? You buy salary surveys from consulting companies (Towers Watson, Aon Hewitt, Mercer etc.) Then your name and job title/job code are taken from your companies HR database and matched to the market based on vague factors like job descriptions. Comp people are lazy, so they're more than likely just matching the job by title. Then they aggregate the data, and set "market appropriate" pay ranges for the jobs. Doesn't matter if the place would farking sink without you, you're probably not going to get above market value. Sure you might get a decent raise, but it will still be within the pay range set by the surveys.

Executives love these surveys too. It's much easier to have the exec comp team go to the board with your huge pay increase when they can point to the surveys and emphatically declare that the market has spoken and that they have to give them the monies because other CEOs are being paid that amount and they'll be damned if they're not worth at least as much as that other guy.
 
2014-03-20 12:48:02 PM
From 2000 to 2007 it was this way at my work:
"Needs improvement" on review = 1% raise
"Meets requirements" = 2% raise
"Exceeds expectations" = 3% raise.

Then the Great Recession hit and in 2008 they changed the breaks to .5%, 1.25% and 2%. Then they took away all raises for '10 to '12. When they gave raises back in '13 you'd think the bosses were dying around here.
 
2014-03-20 12:48:52 PM

not5am: TheSelphie: When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?

when you have a job offer with better pay in hand.


I'd actually put it as, "When you no longer see the paycheck from your current position as relevant."  That can include socking away enough money to do without for a few months and/or having other income sources, but the easiest way is with a guaranteed position somewhere else.

But it can also be when you've had enough and can no longer stand working for the company, to the point where you're willing to walk away into oblivion rather than stay there.
 
2014-03-20 12:49:20 PM

TheSelphie: Should also probably add I'm about 30-40% under market currently  It was less when I started working here because I didn't have the two additional years of experience.  Still, I am a goddamn sucker for accepting it in the first place, and I'm kicking myself right now for it.


It's OK to have a frank discussion with your manager about your salary. If you feel like you're underpaid or that you're doing more than the job you were initially hired for then you should talk to your manager about it. I'd save the ultimatums for when it becomes a real problem and don't assume that your manager knows that you're dissatisfied unless you've talked to them about it.
 
2014-03-20 12:49:26 PM

sendtodave: Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year? Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?


Inflation erodes your wages some amount, lets say 2-5% every year.  Should I do 2-5% less work every year if I don't get a raise?  No?  Then shut the fark up.
 
2014-03-20 12:50:22 PM

Voiceofreason01: TheSelphie: Should also probably add I'm about 30-40% under market currently  It was less when I started working here because I didn't have the two additional years of experience.  Still, I am a goddamn sucker for accepting it in the first place, and I'm kicking myself right now for it.

It's OK to have a frank discussion with your manager about your salary. If you feel like you're underpaid or that you're doing more than the job you were initially hired for then you should talk to your manager about it. I'd save the ultimatums for when it becomes a real problem and don't assume that your manager knows that you're dissatisfied unless you've talked to them about it.


I already did have such discussion last week (and it wasn't just about pay either)... but she hasn't said anything about it since.  She hasn't minded piling more responsibility on me in the meantime though,
 
2014-03-20 12:50:50 PM

IrateShadow: [i.imgur.com image 680x360]

Anyone taking bets on whether he's using the red line or the blue line?


Computers make things easier more efficient .  Should we pay workers for those gains in efficiency?

Of course not.  It should it go to the ones that bought the expensive systems that made everyone more efficient.  The efficiency creators.

Who also happened to create your job!
 
2014-03-20 12:51:00 PM

sendtodave: TheSelphie: I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?

Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?


Actually, yes it is.  Do you think recruiting, hiring, and training a new employee does not result in lost productivity?
 
2014-03-20 12:51:04 PM

onzmadi: and that article neatly puts a bow on whats wrong with the world.
You are not a person you are simply a cog in a machine that is valued by how well you perform your job. You no are no longer a person you are a job.


I don't know that it's necessarily "wrong" as much as it is a necessary evil. The purpose of work is to get results. If I don't get my clients satisfactory results on a consistent basis, they won't send me work. It's not that my clients don't like me as a person. They do, as much as I like my clients on a personal level. And I value the people who work for me very much, but I've had to make some very tough decisions before when they simply could not produce what the job required. Granted, our office is quite small, not some huge mega-firm with hundreds of lawyers and support people.
 
2014-03-20 12:51:09 PM
Tag line - Vanessa Merit Nornberg is the owner of Metal Mafia, a wholesale body and costume jewelry company located in New York City.

 Oh, so you sell crap imitation jewelry! Please tell me more of how you have solved the entire employee employer relationship.
 
2014-03-20 12:53:34 PM

Altman: sendtodave: Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year? Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?

Inflation erodes your wages some amount, lets say 2-5% every year.  Should I do 2-5% less work every year if I don't get a raise?  No?  Then shut the fark up.


No, you should do the same amount of work and eat that loss.

If you aren't doing more work than the last year, you're still a lazy go nowhere.
 
2014-03-20 12:56:02 PM

The Singing Bush: sendtodave: TheSelphie: I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?

Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?

Actually, yes it is.  Do you think recruiting, hiring, and training a new employee does not result in lost productivity?


Which is why it's always good to carry some spare H-1Bs to hold things over until the boss leaves.

The B is for Band-Aid.
 
2014-03-20 12:56:27 PM
Whenever it's THEIR salaries under discussion, it's "the market" setting their wages, and they're just helplessly going along to get along.

Whenever it's OUR wages under discussion, what have you done to deserve it, serf?

// this is why we need unions
// yes, in your sector as well
 
2014-03-20 12:56:43 PM

Communist_Manifesto: You buy salary surveys from consulting companies (Towers Watson, Aon Hewitt, Mercer etc.) Then your name and job title/job code are taken from your companies HR database and matched to the market based on vague factors like job descriptions. Comp people are lazy, so they're more than likely just matching the job by title. Then they aggregate the data, and set "market appropriate" pay ranges for the jobs.



And if you are in the tech industry, you also collude with your competition to keep salaries down
http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-c el ebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/ .
 
2014-03-20 12:57:27 PM

Tricky Chicken: Tag line - Vanessa Merit Nornberg is the owner of Metal Mafia, a wholesale body and costume jewelry company located in New York City.

 Oh, so you sell crap imitation jewelry! Please tell me more of how you have solved the entire employee employer relationship.


Oh, it gets better!

http://www.inc.com/profile/metal-mafia">http://www.inc.com/profile/m etal-mafia

She is the CEO of a company of a whopping 14 employees! That is over a dozen people!

My niece has this kit where she makes some beaded jewelry.  I think she has more that 14 friends that do the same.
 
2014-03-20 12:59:56 PM

sendtodave: Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year? Then you should get paid the same as the previous
.
.
.
No, you should do the same amount of work and eat that loss.



I am going to need to hear your definition of "money" before I can decide if you are being contradictory here.
 
2014-03-20 01:01:16 PM
In general, I don't totally disagree with some of his reasoning.

This part however...

Choosing to base a portion of an employee's salary on performance is paramount to getting employees invested in the company's mission. Including a commission component in compensation also gives the company a cushion to help mitigate missed financial objectives or goals, whereas a straight salary system does not

Well, every farking year, for more than the past 10 years, we are always asked to take vacation days to make the year end number look good.  Management is always complaining that they are not hitting their objectives... and yet the SEC documents, the prospectus, and the published executive compensation says something entirely different.  So what I take out of this instead is that he wants to include metric for bonuses and then likely manipulate the data to make sure they are rarely paid.
 
2014-03-20 01:01:32 PM
The commission thing clearly works great for accounting, secretaries, legal...
 
2014-03-20 01:02:16 PM

Cubicle Jockey: sendtodave: Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year? Then you should get paid the same as the previous
.
.
.
No, you should do the same amount of work and eat that loss.


I am going to need to hear your definition of "money" before I can decide if you are being contradictory here.


The tokens your work-lord gives you to pay your land-lord.
 
2014-03-20 01:03:14 PM
If wages must be based on productivity, does that mean if you're the CEO of a company who's stock price goes down, you should pay the company for your lost value? Negative salary?
 
2014-03-20 01:03:26 PM

mjohnson71: From 2000 to 2007 it was this way at my work:
"Needs improvement" on review = 1% raise
"Meets requirements" = 2% raise
"Exceeds expectations" = 3% raise.

Then the Great Recession hit and in 2008 they changed the breaks to .5%, 1.25% and 2%. Then they took away all raises for '10 to '12. When they gave raises back in '13 you'd think the bosses were dying around here.

Yeah, it wasn't too different around here. Although for us pay raises were halted in 2008 due to the recession and that halt continued until recently. It wasn't until this year that we re-implemented raises, since we're now flooded with work and hiring like mad. I was psyched to get a 16% pay bump last month.
 
2014-03-20 01:04:19 PM

The Singing Bush: sendtodave: TheSelphie: I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?

Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?

Actually, yes it is.  Do you think recruiting, hiring, and training a new employee does not result in lost productivity?


For even the lowest level wage slave it costs the company(conservatively) thousands of dollars in time, productivity and direct costs to on-board a new employee. Besides, inflation costs an employee 2-5% per year, if the're not getting at least that much of a raise then they're essentially taking a pay cut.
 
2014-03-20 01:05:55 PM

sendtodave: Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?


Why do you think your salary the previous year was the 'correct' one? Maybe you were underpaid the year before.
 
2014-03-20 01:06:35 PM

Voiceofreason01: Besides, inflation costs an employee 2-5% per year, if the're not getting at least that much of a raise then they're essentially taking a pay cut.


Didnt you read what Send to Dave said?  You should magically eat that pay cut and be happy the Lords and Ladies are still paying you at all!

Meanwhile, not keeping wages steady with inflation costs taxpayers bookoo bucks in food stamps, EITC, etc etc...
 
2014-03-20 01:10:53 PM

Altman: Didnt you read what Send to Dave said?  You should magically eat that pay cut and be happy the Lords and Ladies are still paying you at all!


That begs the question: if sendtodave is half as clever as he thinks he is, should he have to pay twice as much for his TF subscription?
 
2014-03-20 01:11:14 PM

Voiceofreason01: The Singing Bush: sendtodave: TheSelphie: I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?

Are you doing more than you were before to justify the pay increase?

Good.

Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?

Actually, yes it is.  Do you think recruiting, hiring, and training a new employee does not result in lost productivity?

For even the lowest level wage slave it costs the company(conservatively) thousands of dollars in time, productivity and direct costs to on-board a new employee. Besides, inflation costs an employee 2-5% per year, if the're not getting at least that much of a raise then they're essentially taking a pay cut.


Apparently that doesn't matter if you have a few foreign indentured servants working for you.  Or something.
 
2014-03-20 01:11:57 PM

IrateShadow: [i.imgur.com image 680x360]

Anyone taking bets on whether he's using the red line or the blue line?


I read the first argument, remembered that chart, and realized the author was full of it.
 
2014-03-20 01:14:56 PM

DamnYankees: sendtodave: Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?

Why do you think your salary the previous year was the 'correct' one? Maybe you were underpaid the year before.


No such thing!
 
2014-03-20 01:17:49 PM

sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?

Why do you think your salary the previous year was the 'correct' one? Maybe you were underpaid the year before.

No such thing!


Ah, Dave reveals his true self as a troll.  10/10, you had a bunch of us going.  Very kind of you to give up the game there with your reductio ad absurdum
 .

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-20 01:18:01 PM

sendtodave: No such thing!


So why should you get paid the same as last year?
 
2014-03-20 01:19:48 PM

Altman: sendtodave: DamnYankees: sendtodave: Are you doing about the same amount of work as you were the previous year?  Then you should get paid the same as the previous year.

What, you think your labor is magically worth more or something?

Why do you think your salary the previous year was the 'correct' one? Maybe you were underpaid the year before.

No such thing!

Ah, Dave reveals his true self as a troll.  10/10, you had a bunch of us going.  Very kind of you to give up the game there with your reductio ad absurdum
 .

[img.fark.net image 284x177]


I thought that was obvious from the Boobies in this thread.
 
2014-03-20 01:23:36 PM

TheSelphie: I'm out if my boss doesn't give me a substantial raise after starting my pay under market and then giving me the standard, everyone gets it 2% increases after two years.  She knows this and I'm pretty much essential as far as she's concerned, but it's been a week since the discussion and I haven't heard anything.  When do I put up a racket, assuming I don't get a hard job offer from another company by then (I have a few prospects)?


Now. You engage her in conversation every week on Friday right before lunch and make sure to update her on people that are recruiting YOU. If you're having to hunt for a position I'd leave things alone until you have a legitimate job offer and then tell her counter it or I'm out.
 
2014-03-20 01:26:18 PM

sendtodave: IrateShadow: [i.imgur.com image 680x360]

Anyone taking bets on whether he's using the red line or the blue line?

Computers make things easier more efficient .  Should we pay workers for those gains in efficiency?

Of course not.  It should it go to the ones that bought the expensive systems that made everyone more efficient.  The efficiency creators.

Who also happened to create your job!


Oh, bullshiat.

You should pay them for increasing their skillset to utilize modern and more efficient processing equipment. Gains in efficiency are because of the workers.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report