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 (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-20 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?
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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