Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3071 clicks; posted to Business » on 20 Mar 2014 at 12:30 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-03-20 01:27:22 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?


LOL, this clown thinks working more means something.
 
2014-03-20 01:30:13 PM  

TheSelphie: 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.


Yeah, I thought my boobs were kinda out there, too.

I guess the whole disparity in how people view labor is so absurd that obvious absurdity seems plausible.

Thanks, Poe!
 
2014-03-20 01:32:29 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: 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?

LOL, this clown thinks working more means something.


You know who works hard?  That single mom, working two fast food jobs.

Good for her.  She will be rewarded.  Hard work builds character!
 
2014-03-20 01:33:58 PM  

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


A keyboard is a keyboard.

They should get 1960s secretary wages.
 
2014-03-20 01:37:06 PM  

sendtodave: TheSelphie: 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.

Yeah, I thought my boobs were kinda out there, too.

I guess the whole disparity in how people view labor is so absurd that obvious absurdity seems plausible.

Thanks, Poe!


Damn it - this thing is still stuck in my mouth

winningware.com
 
2014-03-20 01:38:57 PM  

youmightberight: 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.


Headhunters are contacting me on their own regularly, though the position for which I have a 2nd interview was one I applied to.  The 2nd interview is pretty soon though, so if I can get an offer from that, it might be worth it just to wait until that happens.  It still is frustrating just waiting day after day when you know you are getting f'd in the a, but I guess I gotta deal.
 
2014-03-20 01:40:24 PM  
Every year I've worked, at every job in my professional career, I have been given new responsibilities and tasks.

Every year, at every job in my professional career, I have been given a raise, because I don't work for assholes.
 
2014-03-20 01:42:50 PM  
The article was a lot less derpy than I expected but a lot of it would only really be manageable in smaller companies.

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

They're not going to like that.


In a lot of smaller companies I reckon the CEO would love take home 10 times as much as their secretary.

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


How many people do you employ at the company you own?
 
2014-03-20 01:44:50 PM  

Target Builder: Tricky Chicken: She is the CEO of a company of a whopping 14 employees! That is over a dozen people!

How many people do you employ at the company you own?


Thousands of people work for the companies that I partially own.
 
2014-03-20 01:47:07 PM  

sendtodave: Target Builder: Tricky Chicken: She is the CEO of a company of a whopping 14 employees! That is over a dozen people!

How many people do you employ at the company you own?

Thousands of people work for the companies that I partially own.


got one of these do you?
www.northwestregisteredagent.com
 
2014-03-20 01:48:39 PM  

sendtodave: 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.



I work in IT, have a firearms instruction business, a PC repair/building business and a leadership integration consulting job, and I am working on a satellite communications business. I'm also going to school for another degree to add to my pile of certifications. Money all comes down to skill sets. You have to have at least one very in demand skill set maybe two to be valuable to a company. If you want to make lots of money you need to be constantly working on a new/better skillset and be using the ones you've acquired. Even C level executives have trainers come in to show ways to implement new best practices etc.

Can you be lazy and "fail upward"? yes to a point but at that point you will either be found to be lacking and fired or you're going to dead end at a certain level and never move again.
 
2014-03-20 01:49:15 PM  

Target Builder: The article was a lot less derpy than I expected but a lot of it would only really be manageable in smaller companies.

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

They're not going to like that.

In a lot of smaller companies I reckon the CEO would love take home 10 times as much as their secretary.

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

How many people do you employ at the company you own?


Irrelevant.  She is writing as if she manages some corporate behemouth.  Most supervisors are responsible for more people than are in her entire company. If you want some advice on how to manage employees, you should talk to somebody that has dealt with more than 14.
 
2014-03-20 01:51:39 PM  
If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.
 
2014-03-20 01:55:41 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.


Did you really just say that if you don't spend your money, you don't need a raise?
 
2014-03-20 02:00:26 PM  

meat0918: rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.

Did you really just say that if you don't spend your money, you don't need a raise?


It's most efficient if your boss provides your food and shelter.  Then you don't really need any money.
 
2014-03-20 02:01:30 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.


For most people in the US, thats reasonable advice.  Where it falls apart is for low-wage workers in very expensive cities like NY, Boston, SF, DC, etc...
 
2014-03-20 02:03:12 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.


Just about any other time I'd agree with you - the issue is you have to have your needs met first. And the issue there is that not enough people are making enough to meet their needs. For myself I make 100k/yr. My needs are met at about 30% of what I make. Now for other people who might make 30k they are tapped out and living paycheck to paycheck. The issue comes down to what life decisions or circumstances trapped them in that income bracket. They may just be slightly smarter than a bowling ball and that could be their limiting factor. It could be education or an addiction. Any and all of these things may be in play but the bottom line is they will never get by on just 30% of their 30k income.
 
2014-03-20 02:03:35 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?



Well, for starters, the value of a dollar declines with inflation. So if a job has a fixed "value" and the dollars are devalued you need to pay more dollars to pay for the value you are getting.

It's not really hard to understand.
 
2014-03-20 02:05:10 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.


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-03-20 02:05:54 PM  

meat0918: rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.

Did you really just say that if you don't spend your money, you don't need a raise?


No, you may still need a raise for other reasons. But inflation and CPI don't have anything to do with it.
 
2014-03-20 02:06:23 PM  

Altman: rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.

For most people in the US, thats reasonable advice.  Where it falls apart is for low-wage workers in very expensive cities like NY, Boston, SF, DC, etc...


FTFY.

But maybe I'm not reading rumpelstiltskin's post right.

I'm reading "goods and services for consumption" as including rent, food, and utilities, as well as things like gas, DVDs, internet, etc..

If every American only spent 20%-30% of their income, the economy would grind to a halt.
 
2014-03-20 02:06:45 PM  
I honestly don't see why people have a problem with this.  Maybe I've just had bad experiences, but I hate the idea of an annual raise that people expect.  I've worked at companies in the past (large insurance company and small government software gig) that had these expectations that everyone would get a raise.

It sounds great.  But inevitably what would happen is that you'd have a mediocre employee who, is a nice person, who fits the culture, but kinda sucks at their job....but not enough to be a performance problem.  They're on the fast track to nowhere...but the company culture was 'The company is doing good - raises all around'.  In most careers, after the first few years, your salary really tappers off, but so does your performance.  A brick layer with 7 years of experience isn't much more productive than someone with 5 years.  So, the the types of employees I'm talking about, they weren't off getting promoted or building a new skillset....they were just showing up, doing the minimum and getting a raise.

After five, ten or twenty years of this, you had someone who wasn't good at their job and had a completely outdated skillset.  But they made A LOT more money at the company than they could make anywhere else.  It's an environment that encourages your worst employees to stay and entrench themselves, while the goods ones get sick of it and move on.

In the first case, the company started threatening layoffs and they tried to PAY these people to retire.  Some guy with 25 years at the company who was doing less productive work than kid with one year of experience, but who was getting paid 2-4x as much.    At the second company, it got so over-saturated with worthless employees they couldn't meet their legal obligations and were sued into bankruptcy.  One of the last things they did before everything hit the fan was admit the company was going to tank and they went and fired 60% of their staff.  I kid you not, I could have named every single one that didn't make the cut.  Everyone knew weren't pulling their weight.

I'd much rather work for a company that says, 'We'll pay you based on how you actually perform'.  If I'm doing the same thing I did last year, I probably shouldn't get a raise.  If I'm doing more stuff, working faster, providing more value, THEN give me a raise.

Inflation / cost of living shouldn't enter it - unless your employment contract is inflation linked (hint:  none of them are) you agreed to work for an amount.  Inflation and cost of living often outpace salary increases, and that's totally fine and expected.  There are lots of factors that go into it, supply and demand and all that jazz.
 
2014-03-20 02:10:00 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.


I would defer to your employment contract.  I'm imagine you agreed to do a job for a particular pay - regardless of inflation or deflation.  If we have a negative inflation rate, does the company get to take your money?  If the federal government lowers taxes, or your city lowers sales tax, can your company pay you less?  If your 401k has a great return, can the company pay you less?

Presumably, the answer to all of these is 'no', unless you've otherwise written something into your contract.
 
2014-03-20 02:17:43 PM  
I wonder if her employees have read this.
 
2014-03-20 02:19:29 PM  
Here's our randian psychopath now...

www.inc.com
 
2014-03-20 02:21:11 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I honestly don't see why people have a problem with this.  Maybe I've just had bad experiences, but I hate the idea of an annual raise that people expect.  I've worked at companies in the past (large insurance company and small government software gig) that had these expectations that everyone would get a raise.

It sounds great.  But inevitably what would happen is that you'd have a mediocre employee who, is a nice person, who fits the culture, but kinda sucks at their job....but not enough to be a performance problem.  They're on the fast track to nowhere...but the company culture was 'The company is doing good - raises all around'.  In most careers, after the first few years, your salary really tappers off, but so does your performance.  A brick layer with 7 years of experience isn't much more productive than someone with 5 years.  So, the the types of employees I'm talking about, they weren't off getting promoted or building a new skillset....they were just showing up, doing the minimum and getting a raise.

After five, ten or twenty years of this, you had someone who wasn't good at their job and had a completely outdated skillset.  But they made A LOT more money at the company than they could make anywhere else.  It's an environment that encourages your worst employees to stay and entrench themselves, while the goods ones get sick of it and move on.

In the first case, the company started threatening layoffs and they tried to PAY these people to retire.  Some guy with 25 years at the company who was doing less productive work than kid with one year of experience, but who was getting paid 2-4x as much.    At the second company, it got so over-saturated with worthless employees they couldn't meet their legal obligations and were sued into bankruptcy.  One of the last things they did before everything hit the fan was admit the company was going to tank and they went and fired 60% of their staff.  I kid you not, I could have named every single one that didn't make ...


Then you wind up with transient work forces.  When the only way to get a raise is to move on, you move on. It is very very common in my field. When you need to fill a position that requires 10-15 years of experience, you hire one from outside.  You have to pay that person what they are worth based upon experience, or another company will.  If you can't fill the positions quickly enough, you will lose contracts. So you get almost no corporate loyalty, and people that will leave your company at the drop of a hat. If you don't give the ones that stick around at a minimum cost of living raises, you will just be walking around a bunch of empty cubicles.
 
2014-03-20 02:23:28 PM  

Altman: rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

/30% if you're temporarily distressed.

For most people in the US, thats reasonable advice.  Where it falls apart is for low-wage workers in very expensive cities like NY, Boston, SF, DC, etc...


I was being a little obnoxious with the responsible bit. I don't think "most" people in America can afford to be "responsible", the way I've said it. More than are could be, but if it comes to most, it won't get there by much.
 
2014-03-20 02:33:33 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: I was being a little obnoxious with the responsible bit. I don't think "most" people in America can afford to be "responsible", the way I've said it. More than are could be, but if it comes to most, it won't get there by much.


Yeah, but I think a lot of people in major metro areas forget how much lower the cost of living is in other parts of the country.  If you live somewhere cheap and make like $30K a year, you can live well and still be able to sock away a good amount of money each month.
 
2014-03-20 02:34:45 PM  
FTA:  Wages must be based only on productivity.

Isn't "productivity" a function of hours worked and revenue?  So if the same number of people increase revenue by 10% then don't they all deserve a 10% increase in salary?
 
2014-03-20 02:42:52 PM  
People get raises these days? Where?
 
2014-03-20 02:47:37 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.


Inflation means my expenses go up. My expenses going up and my pay staying the same means I'm effectively taking a pay cut. A few years of exactly that happening is the reason why I looked for and found a new job.

The logic is pretty simple. Why you think it matters what my particular expenses are is beyond me. I guess I'd be less inflation-sensitive if I owned instead of rented, but I'd still have to pay for the inflated cost of everything else.
 
2014-03-20 02:51:52 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Fark_Guy_Rob: I honestly don't see why people have a problem with this.  Maybe I've just had bad experiences, but I hate the idea of an annual raise that people expect.  I've worked at companies in the past (large insurance company and small government software gig) that had these expectations that everyone would get a raise.

It sounds great.  But inevitably what would happen is that you'd have a mediocre employee who, is a nice person, who fits the culture, but kinda sucks at their job....but not enough to be a performance problem.  They're on the fast track to nowhere...but the company culture was 'The company is doing good - raises all around'.  In most careers, after the first few years, your salary really tappers off, but so does your performance.  A brick layer with 7 years of experience isn't much more productive than someone with 5 years.  So, the the types of employees I'm talking about, they weren't off getting promoted or building a new skillset....they were just showing up, doing the minimum and getting a raise.

After five, ten or twenty years of this, you had someone who wasn't good at their job and had a completely outdated skillset.  But they made A LOT more money at the company than they could make anywhere else.  It's an environment that encourages your worst employees to stay and entrench themselves, while the goods ones get sick of it and move on.

In the first case, the company started threatening layoffs and they tried to PAY these people to retire.  Some guy with 25 years at the company who was doing less productive work than kid with one year of experience, but who was getting paid 2-4x as much.    At the second company, it got so over-saturated with worthless employees they couldn't meet their legal obligations and were sued into bankruptcy.  One of the last things they did before everything hit the fan was admit the company was going to tank and they went and fired 60% of their staff.  I kid you not, I could have named every single one tha ...


I'm not saying don't give them raises.  I'm saying tie it to there performance, ability, skillset in the current marketplace.

Inflation and cost of living isn't relevant.  What they can earn somewhere else, is.
 
2014-03-20 02:57:02 PM  

vpb: I think he just doesn't care about those things.


I just think he does not know shiat about running a company and retaining a staff.
 
2014-03-20 03:06:31 PM  
This is definitely the right way to do things in theory, but the ability to objectively measure value added without creating perverse incentives is very difficult.
 
2014-03-20 03:10:51 PM  

Muta: FTA:  Wages must be based only on productivity.

Isn't "productivity" a function of hours worked and revenue?  So if the same number of people increase revenue by 10% then don't they all deserve a 10% increase in salary?


Assuming they all had exactly equal contributions, and there not being some external variable contributing to a significant portion of the increase.
 
2014-03-20 03:20:43 PM  

Muta: FTA:  Wages must be based only on productivity.

Isn't "productivity" a function of hours worked and revenue?  So if the same number of people increase revenue by 10% then don't they all deserve a 10% increase in salary?


I'd be reluctant to use a strict definition of 'productivity'.  I can speak to the Author's intent, but I think of it as 'worker productivity'.

If you hire me to cut grass and I can do one yard every hour....then you buy me a riding mower and I can do one yard every 30 minutes....productivity just went up 100%.  But (IMHO) my salary shouldn't go up.  My productivity as a worker should be measured against what other workers who are willing to do the job can do and what their pay is.
 
2014-03-20 03:21:42 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.


That's what happens when the big shots  decide Humans are Resources, instead of Personnel.
 
2014-03-20 03:26:28 PM  
Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm not saying don't give them raises.  I'm saying tie it to there performance, ability, skillset in the current marketplace.

Inflation and cost of living isn't relevant.  What they can earn somewhere else, is.


However, the nature of inflation and cost of living means what the same level of productivity is worth should usually increase in terms of nominal dollar amounts (as in, not inflation adjusted).  It also means the market rate should (usually) go up in nominal terms if productivity remains constant.  This, of course, assumes that performance is easily measurable and has a direct effect on the profitability of the company.  The truth is that the concept of "worth" is so nebulous in many cases that figuring out how to "pay someone what they're worth" is next to impossible so instead it becomes "paying what you can get away with" versus "getting paid what you can get."
 
2014-03-20 03:27:53 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm not saying don't give them raises.  I'm saying tie it to there performance, ability, skillset in the current marketplace.

Inflation and cost of living isn't relevant.  What they can earn somewhere else, is.

However, the nature of inflation and cost of living means what the same level of productivity is worth should usually increase in terms of nominal dollar amounts (as in, not inflation adjusted).  It also means the market rate should (usually) go up in nominal terms if productivity remains constant.  This, of course, assumes that performance is easily measurable and has a direct effect on the profitability of the company.  The truth is that the concept of "worth" is so nebulous in many cases that figuring out how to "pay someone what they're worth" is next to impossible so instead it becomes "paying what you can get away with" versus "getting paid what you can get."


actually, nebulous isn't the best word.  Let's go with hard to define.
 
2014-03-20 03:29:50 PM  
Target Builder:
How many people do you employ at the company you own?

How many eggs do I have to lay before I can spot a rotten one?
 
2014-03-20 03:37:23 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Muta: FTA:  Wages must be based only on productivity.

Isn't "productivity" a function of hours worked and revenue?  So if the same number of people increase revenue by 10% then don't they all deserve a 10% increase in salary?

I'd be reluctant to use a strict definition of 'productivity'.  I can speak to the Author's intent, but I think of it as 'worker productivity'.

If you hire me to cut grass and I can do one yard every hour....then you buy me a riding mower and I can do one yard every 30 minutes....productivity just went up 100%.  But (IMHO) my salary shouldn't go up.  My productivity as a worker should be measured against what other workers who are willing to do the job can do and what their pay is.


Except now you're operating an entirely different piece of machinery with more risk to you as a worker and the customer's property if you fark up.
 
2014-03-20 03:37:42 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Muta: FTA:  Wages must be based only on productivity.

Isn't "productivity" a function of hours worked and revenue?  So if the same number of people increase revenue by 10% then don't they all deserve a 10% increase in salary?

I'd be reluctant to use a strict definition of 'productivity'.  I can speak to the Author's intent, but I think of it as 'worker productivity'.

If you hire me to cut grass and I can do one yard every hour....then you buy me a riding mower and I can do one yard every 30 minutes....productivity just went up 100%.  But (IMHO) my salary shouldn't go up.  My productivity as a worker should be measured against what other workers who are willing to do the job can do and what their pay is.


Aw.

You're, like, a real me.
 
2014-03-20 03:43:24 PM  

James!: Fark_Guy_Rob: Muta: FTA:  Wages must be based only on productivity.

Isn't "productivity" a function of hours worked and revenue?  So if the same number of people increase revenue by 10% then don't they all deserve a 10% increase in salary?

I'd be reluctant to use a strict definition of 'productivity'.  I can speak to the Author's intent, but I think of it as 'worker productivity'.

If you hire me to cut grass and I can do one yard every hour....then you buy me a riding mower and I can do one yard every 30 minutes....productivity just went up 100%.  But (IMHO) my salary shouldn't go up.  My productivity as a worker should be measured against what other workers who are willing to do the job can do and what their pay is.

Except now you're operating an entirely different piece of machinery with more risk to you as a worker and the customer's property if you fark up.


Sure, sure, I'm making some assumptions here, and maybe I over-reached...and you are right.  I'm probably wrong.  I was thinking operating the new piece of machinery is trivial and anyone who can operate a push mower can operate a ride mower.  I don't have a lot of first hand experience - let's change it from a cheap 'push' mower to a fancy 'self-propelled' mower you walk behind.

I've had a few jobs where productivity went up, but it had nothing to do with us workers.  I wouldn't expect a raise in those situations.
 
2014-03-20 03:44:24 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?


Call it a retention bonus then, because if you have to replace me productivity goes down and costs go up. Particularly if you have been treating your employees like shiat for years and they stopped writing key components of your business process down.
 
2014-03-20 03:51:27 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm not saying don't give them raises.  I'm saying tie it to there performance, ability, skillset in the current marketplace.

Inflation and cost of living isn't relevant.  What they can earn somewhere else, is.

However, the nature of inflation and cost of living means what the same level of productivity is worth should usually increase in terms of nominal dollar amounts (as in, not inflation adjusted).  It also means the market rate should (usually) go up in nominal terms if productivity remains constant.  This, of course, assumes that performance is easily measurable and has a direct effect on the profitability of the company.  The truth is that the concept of "worth" is so nebulous in many cases that figuring out how to "pay someone what they're worth" is next to impossible so instead it becomes "paying what you can get away with" versus "getting paid what you can get."


I totally agree, it's very hard to objectively measure someone's 'worth'.

But I feel like tying it to inflation and/or cost of living is admitting failure and giving up.  At the same time, in the places I've worked, I really never had much trouble having a really good idea which co-workers were handy to have around and which ones weren't.  In most cases, I never knew how much anyone was paid, but certainly, this is information people at the company should have access to.  Lots of jobs aren't easy....managing employee salaries should take effort, but it's the single most important thing an employee looks for (at least, nearly all employees).

In some cases, inflation goes up and salaries in that same market go up.  And in that case, I'd agree an employee that was worth 30k last year would be worth 30k plus inflation.  But in lots of places the cost of living goes up and wages don't.  Or inflation goes up and wages don't.  So giving a raise across the board, potentially, puts your employees into the category of being overpaid.  Overpaid employees don't leave.
 
2014-03-20 03:52:01 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I've had a few jobs where productivity went up, but it had nothing to do with us workers. I wouldn't expect a raise in those situations.


"Kiss ass while you biatch so you can get rich
While your boss gets richer off you"

If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?

Management lays out $10 grand for new computers, which kicks productivity up, which increases revenues $100 grand (over the same period last year). Where does that extra $90,000 go? Who "deserves" it more - management who threw money at the problem, or the workers who actually solved it?
 
2014-03-20 03:56:44 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: James!: Fark_Guy_Rob: Muta: FTA:  Wages must be based only on productivity.

Isn't "productivity" a function of hours worked and revenue?  So if the same number of people increase revenue by 10% then don't they all deserve a 10% increase in salary?

I'd be reluctant to use a strict definition of 'productivity'.  I can speak to the Author's intent, but I think of it as 'worker productivity'.

If you hire me to cut grass and I can do one yard every hour....then you buy me a riding mower and I can do one yard every 30 minutes....productivity just went up 100%.  But (IMHO) my salary shouldn't go up.  My productivity as a worker should be measured against what other workers who are willing to do the job can do and what their pay is.

Except now you're operating an entirely different piece of machinery with more risk to you as a worker and the customer's property if you fark up.

Sure, sure, I'm making some assumptions here, and maybe I over-reached...and you are right.  I'm probably wrong.  I was thinking operating the new piece of machinery is trivial and anyone who can operate a push mower can operate a ride mower.  I don't have a lot of first hand experience - let's change it from a cheap 'push' mower to a fancy 'self-propelled' mower you walk behind.

I've had a few jobs where productivity went up, but it had nothing to do with us workers.  I wouldn't expect a raise in those situations.


The pull mower requires less effort from the operator, but doesn't make the thing any faster.  And if you're not careful it can jump off into somebody's garden.

Any change in technology requires a worker to update their skills.  You can buy the top of the line whatever but you still need to have someone who knows how to run it and troubleshoot it if something goes wrong.
 
2014-03-20 04:00:40 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.


You don't seem to understand how inflation works.

If you rent, you can expect your rent (roughly) to go up with inflation.

If you own a home, you can (roughly) expect all your utilities and services to go up with inflation, as well as any home repair materials and labor costs.

If you drive a car or take public transit, you can (roughly) expect the cost of transportation to go up with inflation.

Certain sectors lag behind or jump ahead when it comes to inflationary costs, but in aggregate, every dollar you spend is (roughly) affected by inflation. That means that the only portion of your income that isn't affected by inflation is whatever you save and don't spend.

Ultimately, the business is the one who is "purchasing" the labor of the employee. Why shouldn't their costs go up with inflation? The only reason we haven't been having raises is because the labor pool is saturating.
 
2014-03-20 04:04:21 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Call it a retention bonus then, because if you have to replace me productivity goes down and costs go up. Particularly if you have been treating your employees like shiat for years and they stopped writing key components of your business process down.


Nice try!

Business processes are created by consultants with MBAs, not by workers!

Workers are just supposed to follow processes and do what they're told.
 
2014-03-20 04:05:23 PM  

Dr Dreidel: If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?


Are we talking under capitalism, or socialism?
 
2014-03-20 04:07:09 PM  

sendtodave: Dr Dreidel: If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?

Are we talking under capitalism, or socialism?


Let's split the difference (sort of) and say "American capitalism".
 
2014-03-20 04:09:56 PM  
Union, Government worker here.

Wage/Salary is determined by your pay grade, which is tied to the Job title.

We get yearly COLA increases on Jan 1st as part of the contract. Well, we should normally, but our contract has been expired for over two years. Should get a nice bit of back pay when the new one is finally ratified.

We also get yearly pay grade step increases, up to five, implemented on the anniversary of your hire/promotion. I'm currently at pay grade 28, step 4. In September I'll hit step 5. After that you either peter-principle out to retirement/resignation or you get promoted. The maximum pay grade for our union is 31. After that you move up into the supervisory/exempt positions.

/Treated well.
 
2014-03-20 04:10:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: sendtodave: Dr Dreidel: If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?

Are we talking under capitalism, or socialism?

Let's split the difference (sort of) and say "American capitalism".


Cream rises to the top.  So does money.
 
2014-03-20 04:10:12 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)?


If it's been a week and things haven't been unusually hectic, it is time for a gentle reminder that you're waiting for an answer.  Maybe ask her if she is free next week to have a follow up conversation about the meeting.  That assumes you're willing to walk next week, though, if the answer is no raise.
 
2014-03-20 04:11:05 PM  

Nexzus: Union, Government worker here.


Your existence wastes hard earned taxpayer money.
 
2014-03-20 04:12:23 PM  
She's got a whole series of advice for middle managers/executives over at Inc.  Most of it painfully obvious and incredibly pretentious.  Trite.  Do people really get paid to write stuff like this?
 
2014-03-20 04:19:13 PM  

sendtodave: Dr Dreidel: If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?

Are we talking under capitalism, or socialism?


The answer is the same under both.

It depends whether that increased productivity translates to higher demand for the relevant labor. (Assuming ownership and labor are the only two things we're talking about, excluding a company that makes equipment that increases productivity for example.)
 
kab
2014-03-20 04:21:02 PM  
Wages stopped being tied to productivity the minute the idea of 'salary' was created.
 
2014-03-20 04:24:23 PM  

sendtodave: Dr Dreidel: sendtodave: Dr Dreidel: If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?

Are we talking under capitalism, or socialism?

Let's split the difference (sort of) and say "American capitalism".

Cream rises to the top.  So does money.


So then what incentive is there for me to work any harder than the barest of minima? I'm not going to do any better if the company does, so why bother at all? It's incentive for me to find ways to not do anything, rather than incentive to actually produce for the company (who, by the way, demand my full loyalty).

I wouldn't expect all $90k to go to the workers, but I would expect that some significant portion of it does. The lion's share will hopefully go to reinvestment (as it should). and what happens next is where I have the problem: it goes to exec compensation, and maybe - MAYBE, if it was a really good year that can't be hidden from the books, and if the boss isn't an asshammer (the chances of which, collectively, sit around 10%) - some nominal sum tossed to the workers.

Case in point: I made an orientation video for my old company (to remove the need to have "expensive" HR people talk at new hires for 8-10 hours their first 2 days of work). I wrote the script, recorded the VO, mixed/produced it, and made it available on the corporate intranet. I did this mostly by working 2 month's worth of weekends (to have a quiet space to record). My bonus? $200.

Not that I'd spit on $200 (and I did enjoy spending it on a new bass), but that's approximately what they saved on the next hire (singular). It would have been nice if the bonus (which I wasn't even expecting) was in some way commensurate with the effort and the savings.

// looking back, 24 year old me thought $200 was a good bonus
// a useless VP got a $10k bonus a few years after - no one's sure what she did to earn it
// that company's gone from 120 people 3 years ago to 4, and they're about to go tits-up entirely
// good riddance to bad rubbish
 
2014-03-20 04:35:44 PM  

Dr Dreidel: So then what incentive is there for me to work any harder than the barest of minima?


Welcome to Fark.

Also the global economy.

What is China's incentive to only build cheap crap?  What is Wal*Mart's incentive to run everyone out of business to sell crap cheap?

What is a CEOs incentive to lay off thousands of workers? What is the incentive of a shoddily trained H-1b writing your code?  Etc. Etc.

Good, fast, cheap.

Doing the bare minimal and winning on price and speed is still winning.  Looks good next quarter, even if the 5 year timeline sinks the company.  Its enough to get a bonus, get out, and brag how much money you saved by firing everyone and replacing them with peasants to make your junk and bad software.

Honestly, no, I don't like it.  But that is American capitalism.
 
2014-03-20 04:42:58 PM  

sendtodave: Honestly, no, I don't like it. But that is American capitalism.


On that, we can agree.
 
2014-03-20 04:43:12 PM  
Is this the thread where people who have never run so much as a lemonade stand spout off about how much better they could run a business than the people who now run them?
 
2014-03-20 04:44:41 PM  
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he didn't really differentiate between a cost of living adjustment and a "pay raise".

And I generally do expect that I'll be compensated similarly each year for similar worked performed. So a 1% cost of living adjustment doesn't seem at all crazy to me. I do not expect annual 5-10% pay raises unless I'm gaining that much more repsonsibility/authority/whatever.

Now, I could argue that an annual pay raise makes sense if you veiw it as it's always going to cost more to bring in a more experienced employee from the outside, but I'm not even going there.

So cost of living adjustments are good, but automatic salary increases perhaps less so.
 
2014-03-20 04:45:45 PM  
Looks like I was wrong. This appears to be the thread where people who, all else being equal, will pick the product that costs less biatch about people who, all else being equal, will pick the employee who costs less.
 
2014-03-20 04:46:49 PM  

DrPainMD: Is this the thread where people who have never run so much as a lemonade stand spout off about how much better they could run a business than the people who now run them?


Yes, this is a Fark.com thread.  Obviously.
 
2014-03-20 04:48:57 PM  

DrPainMD: Looks like I was wrong. This appears to be the thread where people who, all else being equal, will pick the product that costs less biatch about people who, all else being equal, will pick the employee who costs less.


Employees aren't, like, things, man!  They're not products.

They're people!

You can't put a value on people!

/but your boss can
 
2014-03-20 05:00:38 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.


No, you clearly didn't understand what the article said. At all.
 
2014-03-20 05:16:32 PM  

Fubini: rumpelstiltskin: If you're a responsible adult and don't spend more than about 20% of your income on goods and services for consumption, then inflation and the CPI really shouldn't have much to do with your annual salary discussions.

You don't seem to understand how inflation works.

If you rent, you can expect your rent (roughly) to go up with inflation.

If you own a home, you can (roughly) expect all your utilities and services to go up with inflation, as well as any home repair materials and labor costs.

If you drive a car or take public transit, you can (roughly) expect the cost of transportation to go up with inflation.

Certain sectors lag behind or jump ahead when it comes to inflationary costs, but in aggregate, every dollar you spend is (roughly) affected by inflation. That means that the only portion of your income that isn't affected by inflation is whatever you save and don't spend.

Ultimately, the business is the one who is "purchasing" the labor of the employee. Why shouldn't their costs go up with inflation? The only reason we haven't been having raises is because the labor pool is saturating.


Everything you mentioned is a "good or service for consumption", so I think I covered it.
CPI is a particular measure of inflation, which, despite some shortcomings, attempts to measure the price change in all goods and services for consumption. So I don't get your complaint. You seem to get it in the end, but it's not just savings which isn't affected, it's also spending on assets which may have the same price level as the previous period. Out of favor equity classes, for example. Still, yeah, it means you're not spending most of your income on your daily survival or pleasure. That's the point.
I guess the answer to "why shouldn't their costs go up with inflation" is, "why should their costs go up with inflation". The wage level and the price level are two distinct things, and while there's surely a relation between them, whatever it is, it's more complicated than we understand.
 
2014-03-20 05:24:02 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.


Admittedly, there was actual deflation in 2009 and inflation has been abnormally low since then, so this isn't as bad as it actually looks at first glance.
 
2014-03-20 05:42:42 PM  

sendtodave: DrPainMD: Looks like I was wrong. This appears to be the thread where people who, all else being equal, will pick the product that costs less biatch about people who, all else being equal, will pick the employee who costs less.

Employees aren't, like, things, man!  They're not products.

They're people!

You can't put a value on people!

/but your boss can


Every time you pick the product that, all else being equal, costs less, you are putting a value on people.
 
2014-03-20 05:50:54 PM  

DrPainMD: sendtodave: DrPainMD: Looks like I was wrong. This appears to be the thread where people who, all else being equal, will pick the product that costs less biatch about people who, all else being equal, will pick the employee who costs less.

Employees aren't, like, things, man!  They're not products.

They're people!

You can't put a value on people!

/but your boss can

Every time you pick the product that, all else being equal, costs less, you are putting a value on people.


Not necessarily.  You may be putting a value on more efficient production techniques, cheaper suppliers, lower profit margin, etc.  It isn't necessarily coming out of the employee's pockets.  Labor isn't the sole factor in any price.
 
2014-03-20 05:58:12 PM  

obenchainr: It isn't necessarily coming out of the employee's pockets.


Of course it is.  They're not giving the extra profit realized by their low cost labor back to the Chinese workers, are they?

They're barely giving any more to their US staff.

No, they're voting themselves raises and pocketing the difference.  Which is exactly what you'd expect them to so.
 
2014-03-20 06:09:57 PM  
Productivity has been steadily increasing for years, while the cost of living has been going up faster than inflation in many areas and pay has remained stagnant for the last 30. It's quite clear that paying employees is not a priority for any employer. Capitalism is broken in its current form, and this man's arguments are broken from the ground up.

Unions must come back in force, or we need government regulations that force employers to pay their employees significantly more, or pitchforks must be productively inserted through the anus and out through the mouth.

I contend employee pay should be close to the maximum an employer can pay, and we shift the focus of our economic development from people supporting capitalism to capitalism supporting people.
 
kab
2014-03-20 06:21:08 PM  

DrPainMD: Looks like I was wrong. This appears to be the thread where people who, all else being equal, will pick the product that costs less biatch about people who, all else being equal, will pick the employee who costs less.


It's almost as if folks who lose ground financially (given stagnant wages vs inflation) are forced to buy with price in mind above all else.

No, that couldn't be it.
 
2014-03-20 06:33:04 PM  
"We strive to hire exceptional talent!"
"Our pay and benefits are in-line with industry standards!"

The goal of every corporation is to maintain a stable of dedicated, hard working, highly motivated, apathetic serfs.
 
2014-03-20 06:51:31 PM  

WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: "We strive to hire exceptional talent!"
"Our pay and benefits are in-line with industry standards!"


The goal of every corporation is to maintain a stable of dedicated, hard working, highly motivated, apathetic serfs.


Corporate speak makes me want to punch people in suits. Although, I'm unsure who I loathe more, the people that go around touting exceptionalism and positivity to workers they exploit, or the obsequious employees that lap it up so they too can live the good life going from 10 dollars an hour to 11.
 
2014-03-20 07:04:53 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Fark_Guy_Rob: I've had a few jobs where productivity went up, but it had nothing to do with us workers. I wouldn't expect a raise in those situations.

"Kiss ass while you biatch so you can get rich
While your boss gets richer off you"

If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?

Management lays out $10 grand for new computers, which kicks productivity up, which increases revenues $100 grand (over the same period last year). Where does that extra $90,000 go? Who "deserves" it more - management who threw money at the problem, or the workers who actually solved it?


Whoever owns the company.

That's what being an employee is all about.  You bring your talent, skills, knowledge, labor, whatever.....and they pay you.  As an employee, I do NOT have a stake in the company.  If the company losses money, I don't care.  Pay me, or I'm gone.  If the company makes a lot of money, I don't care.  The owners are assuming the risk of either making or losing money.  Me?  I get a paycheck at an agreed upon rate.

The rate I get should reflect what it costs to get another person just like me to do the job.  There is no reason to pay me more than X if other people as skilled as me can do the same job for less than X, all other things being equal.

Let's say I am a delivery driver.  And the going rate for a skilled/trained delivery driver in my area is $25 an hour (I have no idea, just guessing).  If the company spends $10 million on a fancy GPS tracking/routing system that increases productivity so that drivers are more productive....it doesn't matter.  The driver is just as replaceable as ever.  Another skilled/trained delivery driver in the area can show up and, with that fancy system, be just as productive as the last driver.

The driver shouldn't get a raise for doing his job, unless he has a very unique employment contract.

The flip side is 100% true too.  If my boss tells me to do something stupid, like drive around the parking lot for 8 hours - it doesn't matter either.  I should still get paid.  I've agreed to do my job, as instructed, for a wage.  If management has me do stupid stuff, I get paid the same wage.  If management has me do really smart stuff, by giving me new tools or improving the process, I get paid the same wage.

If a particularly delivery driver is measurably better than the average $25 an hour guy you can replace him with, then (and only then) does it make sense to pay him more than $25.
 
2014-03-20 07:26:06 PM  

sendtodave: 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.


Sounds like you think everyone in the world who works 40 hours is worth the same pay. Sounds like you think experience and knowledge are worth nothing. Sounds like you're very smart and have really thought this through.
 
2014-03-20 07:35:37 PM  
Yeah, the person that wrote this is an idiot.

You get what you pay for.  It's an old adage, but it still holds weight.
 
2014-03-20 07:49:40 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Dr Dreidel: Fark_Guy_Rob: I've had a few jobs where productivity went up, but it had nothing to do with us workers. I wouldn't expect a raise in those situations.

"Kiss ass while you biatch so you can get rich
While your boss gets richer off you"

If productivity goes up, the only people who should make money are the owners, not the rank-and-file who do the work?

Management lays out $10 grand for new computers, which kicks productivity up, which increases revenues $100 grand (over the same period last year). Where does that extra $90,000 go? Who "deserves" it more - management who threw money at the problem, or the workers who actually solved it?

Whoever owns the company.

That's what being an employee is all about.  You bring your talent, skills, knowledge, labor, whatever.....and they pay you.  As an employee, I do NOT have a stake in the company.  If the company losses money, I don't care.  Pay me, or I'm gone.  If the company makes a lot of money, I don't care.  The owners are assuming the risk of either making or losing money.  Me?  I get a paycheck at an agreed upon rate.

The rate I get should reflect what it costs to get another person just like me to do the job.  There is no reason to pay me more than X if other people as skilled as me can do the same job for less than X, all other things being equal.

Let's say I am a delivery driver.  And the going rate for a skilled/trained delivery driver in my area is $25 an hour (I have no idea, just guessing).  If the company spends $10 million on a fancy GPS tracking/routing system that increases productivity so that drivers are more productive....it doesn't matter.  The driver is just as replaceable as ever.  Another skilled/trained delivery driver in the area can show up and, with that fancy system, be just as productive as the last driver.

The driver shouldn't get a raise for doing his job, unless he has a very unique employment contract.

The flip side is 100% true too.  If my boss tells me to do something s ...


That's the flawed logic of the status quo and it's not working out so well.
 
2014-03-20 07:58:53 PM  

MayoSlather: That's the flawed logic of the status quo and it's not working out so well.


That is a description of reality.

Just because you wish math didn't work that way won't change reality.
 
2014-03-20 08:02:53 PM  

BMFPitt: MayoSlather: That's the flawed logic of the status quo and it's not working out so well.

That is a description of reality.

Just because you wish math didn't work that way won't change reality.


Avarice is math?
 
2014-03-20 08:16:15 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?


The same amount of money as received in the previous year is worth less due to inflation. By your logic someone who is doing the same type and amount of work they were in 1980 should still be getting the $300 per week they were getting back then.
 
2014-03-20 08:24:31 PM  

Altman: 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...


On a larger scale it also reduces the ability of consumers to buy the products the companies are selling. If employees real wages are being eroded their ability to buy goods and services is also eroded.
 
kab
2014-03-20 08:37:07 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: As an employee, I do NOT have a stake in the company.


A fundamental flaw with how capitalism is currently exercised in this country.
 
2014-03-20 08:54:17 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 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?


You believe these things are somehow different?
 
2014-03-20 09:15:02 PM  
Marcus Aurelius: FTA: 'Wages must be based only on productivity.'

Then the entire country is owed about thirty years worth of back pay?

www.motherjones.com
 
2014-03-20 09:24:39 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?


If they can get paid more somewhere else, then yes.

Companies show no loyalty and will downsize/outsource/offshore at the drop of a hat. If they can get cheaper work elsewhere they will.

Why should employees show any loyalty if they can get paid more elsewhere?
 
2014-03-20 09:32:08 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Why should employees show any loyalty if they can get paid more elsewhere?


Who is it that you think is saying anyone should turn down job offers that they feel are better than their current job?
 
2014-03-20 09:37:24 PM  
The only thing this article proves is that America is still full of temporarily-embarrassed millionaires, and that someone who runs a jewelry business thinks they're on the level of corporations.  Not only is this person an ass, they're more of an ass than most actual large businesses because she thinks she's one of them.  Her and her shiatty little company.

We are truly farked in the head.
 
2014-03-20 09:38:30 PM  

TheSelphie: youmightberight: 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.

Headhunters are contacting me on their own regularly, though the position for which I have a 2nd interview was one I applied to.  The 2nd interview is pretty soon though, so if I can get an offer from that, it might be worth it just to wait until that happens.  It still is frustrating just waiting day after day when you know you are getting f'd in the a, but I guess I gotta deal.


If it was me, and everything else being equal, I'd take a higher offer and leave even if my current employer suddenly matched it. That just shows they could have done it at any time but chose not to because they could take advantage of you. Screw them.

Unless they came up with a far better offer tell them you're leaving and that it is because of what they did.

/But that's just me.
 
2014-03-20 09:59:44 PM  
What a bunch of lying shiat.  It's been well established that individual employee productivity continually increases over time, yet wages have been stagnant or even declining -especially in comparison to inflation and COLA.

FTA:
Wages must be based only on productivity.

Oh, really?  So naturally when a company lays off significant percentages of its staff, those that remain who are expected to maintain the overall productivity, despite fewer numbers, will see greater compensation for the expected increased individual productivity?

What a lying POS.

According to this jackasses philosophy, the next time your colleague calls in sick leaving the business short staffed, the employees should either NOT work to pick up that productivity slack, or insist on a pay increase to do so -because he endorses pay for productivity.
 
2014-03-20 10:29:26 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: llortcM_yllort: Fark_Guy_Rob: I'm not saying don't give them raises.  I'm saying tie it to there performance, ability, skillset in the current marketplace.

Inflation and cost of living isn't relevant.  What they can earn somewhere else, is.

However, the nature of inflation and cost of living means what the same level of productivity is worth should usually increase in terms of nominal dollar amounts (as in, not inflation adjusted).  It also means the market rate should (usually) go up in nominal terms if productivity remains constant.  This, of course, assumes that performance is easily measurable and has a direct effect on the profitability of the company.  The truth is that the concept of "worth" is so nebulous in many cases that figuring out how to "pay someone what they're worth" is next to impossible so instead it becomes "paying what you can get away with" versus "getting paid what you can get."

I totally agree, it's very hard to objectively measure someone's 'worth'.

But I feel like tying it to inflation and/or cost of living is admitting failure and giving up.  At the same time, in the places I've worked, I really never had much trouble having a really good idea which co-workers were handy to have around and which ones weren't.  In most cases, I never knew how much anyone was paid, but certainly, this is information people at the company should have access to.  Lots of jobs aren't easy....managing employee salaries should take effort, but it's the single most important thing an employee looks for (at least, nearly all employees).


Okay, so we pay the better people more.  How much more?  What is a good accountant worth?  What is a bad accountant worth?  What's the reason for the difference?  It's one thing to say "pay the better employees more," but you can't just put down "more" on a pay stub.  At some point you need to quantify that difference in quality or just pay what you can get away with.

In some cases, inflation goes up and salaries in that same market go up.  And in that case, I'd agree an employee that was worth 30k last year would be worth 30k plus inflation.  But in lots of places the cost of living goes up and wages don't.  Or inflation goes up and wages don't.  So giving a raise across the board, potentially, puts your employees into the category of being overpaid.  Overpaid employees don't leave.

If all we are basing it on is market rate, then isn't that "paying what you can get away with" versus "getting paid what you can get"?  Because if we are basing worth solely on how much it would cost to replace the worker, then isn't "what you're worth" basically "paying what you can get away with"?  There's nothing wrong with that, but that seems to be what you're implying.
 
2014-03-20 10:56:32 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: 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.



I'm not sure how true that is.

according to surveys like Robert Half, average pay of a Financial Analyst with 3-5 years experience is about $75k, with a 25-40% adjustment for the NYC metro area (25% for NJ suburbs, and 40% for Manhattan).

in my last job search here (thankfully over) I was struggling to find one of these roles that topped $80k, even in Manhattan. I found salaries in Chicago & Detroit to be the same or slightly lower, despite the immensely stupid cost of living here.
 
2014-03-21 07:14:55 AM  

kab: Fark_Guy_Rob: As an employee, I do NOT have a stake in the company.

A fundamental flaw with how capitalism is currently exercised in this country.


It may or may not be a flaw.

Still, the simple truth is, I ONLY ever hear employees yelling that they deserve more.  I've never heard an employee say, 'Well, the company didn't sell enough widgets this quarter, they should cut my pay 10%'.  There are certainly positions where your salary is tied to the success or failure of the company.  That's a viable option.  Likewise, starting your own company, directly ties your income to the success or failure of the company.  It's risk verse reward.  Employees risk less, and they *should* have less upside.

People want low risk and the potential for more reward.

The last house I bought was a bank owned foreclosure in horrible condition.  I renovated it, sold it, and made a bunch of money.  But certain things, by law in my area, required a professional.  The electrician I hired, should get paid based on what an electrician reasonably gets paid in that market.  He's doing the same job regardless.  If I made a lot of money on my 'flip' (for lack of a better word), it hardly seems fair for him to turn around and say, 'I HELPED YOU FLIP THAT HOUSE.  I WANT 25% MORE PAY'.  And it would be equally unfair for me to go back to him and say, 'The market dropped.  I couldn't find a buyer.  I lost 20k on that house.  Since we were both involved, both teammates, I'm going to need 25% of your pay back for the electrical work you did.  I'm not pointing fingers, but that was part of the house and the house didn't sell'.

Some employees work like that.  Most don't.  If your employment contract DOESN'T explicitly entitle you to profit sharing of some sort, you should expect EXACTLY ZERO profit sharing.
 
2014-03-21 08:07:44 AM  

quizzical: 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)?

If it's been a week and things haven't been unusually hectic, it is time for a gentle reminder that you're waiting for an answer.  Maybe ask her if she is free next week to have a follow up conversation about the meeting.  That assumes you're willing to walk next week, though, if the answer is no raise.


That's about what I did. Once I decided it was "time" I went to the boss and had the talk. The whole thing complete with here's how much money I made you last year, and in fact here's how much I made you over the last 5 years, here are points at which I saved you money, and here are the points where I would have saved money but didn't get listened to, and so it cost you more than it should have. And here is what people in my position who do what I do make elsewhere. When I got no response, I got serious about finding something new. After I had an offer in hand I went back to the boss and showed it to him and told him that here was his chance to offer something to at least try to keep me. He didn't even bother to counter so I left for the new job at 25% more pay.

Now, people might say that since he didn't bother to counter, that I wasn't worth what I was asking for, but the reality is that he was constantly losing and hiring contractors for 2x PLUS what I was making. They underperformed, didn't have institutional knowledge or a stake in the community or culture of the company. Those of us who were permanent employees frequently had to redo their work when they left often in less time than the contractors were initially given to complete. We did it though, and the thanks we got was usually nothing, but occasionally was around half of inflation (about every third year we would get about half of a raise) It's pretty sucky to have to train someone to help you but who you know is getting paid more because "market conditions"

Make yourself part of that market. Good luck.
 
2014-03-21 08:25:53 AM  
I appreciate all of the feedback in this thread, it's great.  Unfortunately new s*** has come to light about my job that I don't want to risk talking about here that, at best, means I'm leaving as soon as I find another job, or, at worst, could get me fired for retaliation as a whistleblower (which is illegal obviously, but like I said, I'm one foot out the door anyway).
 
2014-03-21 08:55:57 AM  

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


Sure is, and it ain't magic.  It's called inflation.

Change in income = raise - inflation.

Plenty of companies are more than willing to pay you less year over year because you're too stupid to realize it, or too screwed to do anything about it.
 
2014-03-21 09:14:15 AM  

Altman: rumpelstiltskin: I was being a little obnoxious with the responsible bit. I don't think "most" people in America can afford to be "responsible", the way I've said it. More than are could be, but if it comes to most, it won't get there by much.

Yeah, but I think a lot of people in major metro areas forget how much lower the cost of living is in other parts of the country.  If you live somewhere cheap and make like $30K a year, you can live well and still be able to sock away a good amount of money each month.


Not sure if high or retarded. I live in east central IL which is pretty f*cking cheap, and $30K a year with no kids/family will get you a car payment, shiat rental domicile and...that's about it.
 
2014-03-21 09:42:16 AM  
Every single company I've worked for has offered my a raise when I resigned. Maybe if they offered more than an one or two percent during my annual review I wouldn't have had a wandering eye to find a better job. MBA types of course will counter with "why would you pay anyone more than they're willing to accept" not understanding things like the costs involved in finding someone new and the loss of institutional knowledge. If you keep paying people the bare minimum, you'll keep getting the bare minimum effort and get the people from the bottom of the labor barrel. Most people chose a career in something other than salary negotiations and aren't interested in spending lots of time and effort on it. All too often changing jobs is simply an easier way of getting a raise than staying in place, even if your current company has a greater economic reason for paying you more than a new company would.

Reminds me of how Wal-Mart has been so successful at cutting labor costs that they can't even stock the shelves with merchandise. They made reducing labor costs more important than selling goods to the public, which is pretty stupid.
 
2014-03-21 10:07:39 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Still, the simple truth is, I ONLY ever hear employees yelling that they deserve more. I've never heard an employee say, 'Well, the company didn't sell enough widgets this quarter, they should cut my pay 10%'.


No, you wouldn't hear that. That wouldn't make sense. People, as a general rule, don't advocate against their own interests. What you do hear about is companies telling their employees that they didn't hit their target so they have to take a pay cut.
 
2014-03-21 11:33:46 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Fark_Guy_Rob: Still, the simple truth is, I ONLY ever hear employees yelling that they deserve more. I've never heard an employee say, 'Well, the company didn't sell enough widgets this quarter, they should cut my pay 10%'.

No, you wouldn't hear that. That wouldn't make sense. People, as a general rule, don't advocate against their own interests. What you do hear about is companies telling their employees that they didn't hit their target so they have to take a pay cut.


OR following this example the crappy salespeople that didn't bring in more business than/as much business as previous years didn't get their upper-tier bonus or higher commissions that year, so that economic pain was indeed felt in an employee's wallet.
 
2014-03-21 11:44:11 AM  

EngineerAU: MBA types of course will counter with "why would you pay anyone more than they're willing to accept"


Which is another way of saying why shouldn't I exploit people to the maximum of my ability. Kinda sums up everything wrong with capitalism, and why something as amoral as a free market is bad for nearly everyone. It's government's job to step in and provide those ethics, too bad they've been bought and paid for.
 
2014-03-21 12:30:16 PM  

dumbobruni: Communist_Manifesto: 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.


I'm not sure how true that is.

according to surveys like Robert Half, average pay of a Financial Analyst with 3-5 years experience is about $75k, with a 25-40% adjustment for the NYC metro area (25% for NJ suburbs, and 40% for Manhattan).

in my last job search here (thankfully over) I was struggling to find one of these roles that topped $80k, even in Manhattan. I found salaries in Chicago & Detroit to be the same or slightly lower, despite the immensely stupid cost of living here.


The surveys can be broken out by city, or really any other way, by industry, revenue size, number of employees etc. The compensation industry is basically a shadow industry, I find that when I describe it to people they have no clue that any of this stuff is even a thing. Salary surveys/HRIS systems are a multibillion dollar a year industry that provide. Granted this usually only applies to large companies as each of these surveys can cost thousands of dollars per report. These huge companies use this data to set their overall pay ranges in accordance with their pay philosophy.

Also, average pay is NOT what you want to be looking at, especially in the financial sector. I would use the median, most companies market price jobs at the median level as well. Averages tend to be skewed towards the higher end.
 
2014-03-21 01:24:34 PM  

EngineerAU: Every single company I've worked for has offered my a raise when I resigned. Maybe if they offered more than an one or two percent during my annual review I wouldn't have had a wandering eye to find a better job. MBA types of course will counter with "why would you pay anyone more than they're willing to accept" not understanding things like the costs involved in finding someone new and the loss of institutional knowledge. If you keep paying people the bare minimum, you'll keep getting the bare minimum effort and get the people from the bottom of the labor barrel. Most people chose a career in something other than salary negotiations and aren't interested in spending lots of time and effort on it. All too often changing jobs is simply an easier way of getting a raise than staying in place, even if your current company has a greater economic reason for paying you more than a new company would.

Reminds me of how Wal-Mart has been so successful at cutting labor costs that they can't even stock the shelves with merchandise. They made reducing labor costs more important than selling goods to the public, which is pretty stupid.


As an MBA (in IT) I want to smack a lot of these traditional business types, they forget Henry Ford's lesson of "your employees are also your customers" and "re-hiring is expensive". Link:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry - fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/

Now the article I linked argues that for a company like Boeing the whole "your employees are also your customers" doesn't make sense. He forgets that the economy is an interwoven system, if Boenig's employees have extra money after basic living expenses, they'll be more likely to, say, travel to exotic locals (on Boeing planes) or spend more in the income which would trickle it's way up to the executive's of other companies and they then might want to purchase private Boeing planes.

Wages for EVERYONE but the top 1% have been stagnant for about 20 to 30 years (depending on whose numbers you cite), cheap easy credit was able to hide and alleviate this for a long time but now it's catching up to us and everyone is suffering.

You need a healthy consumer base for a healthy modern economy.
 
Displayed 155 of 155 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report