4 ms·

I had a long rant here, edited it to remove the vulgarities, edited to keep it fairly anonymous, and was left with just this sentence: Why on earth should someo

by ismarc 17y ago

I had a long rant here, edited it to remove the vulgarities, edited to keep it fairly anonymous, and was left with just this sentence: Why on earth should someone have to change companies to get paid what they're worth?

mos1 17y ago
Why on earth should someone have to change companies to get paid what they're worth? Because the fact that your skill set has grown doesn't mean that your employer's needs have grown identically.
ytinas 17y ago
Companies always have rules about raise limits and such. If you want to get an increase in pay you nearly always have to switch to another company.
- qjz 17y ago
  That's true, but it's often equally true that the supervisors making the decision are too lazy or unimaginative to initiate the pay raise. The threat of leaving the company isn't only a bargaining chip, sometimes it's the only opportunity. I've even seen people achieve big salary gains by yo-yoing between two companies over a relatively short period of time.
  - ytinas 17y ago
    Yea, from my perspective the "company man" doesn't exist anymore for the most part. There are people who buy into the cool-aid, but most people treat the company they're with with the same loyalty it treats them: almost none. When a better opportunity comes along they tend to jump. I can't recall more than one or two cases where the person announced they were leaving and got a counter offer good enough to make them stay.
DaniFong 17y ago
Because class struggle is making a comeback? Managers set salaries. Guild professions (e.g. lawyers, doctors, accountants) set their prices and uphold the guild with cryptic languages and lengthy vetting processes. The case where engineers (of either companies, processes, products or technology), instead, are in the position to set compensation (or more specifically, are able to profit by the fruits of their labor), are generally only available to very high ranking manager/engineer hybrids, consultants, and founders. This is probably the closest thing in the modern world, in the literal sense, to the Marxist Socialist ideal of the workers taking control of the means of production. Other than that: ask yourself the question -- why do the bankers have all of the money? PS: Some resources. 6% of all US income is now earned by the top 0.01% of the income bracket. This is as high as it's been since at least 1913. The lowest earning member of thix bracket in 2005 was earning $5.9 million a year. http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/18/the-percent-of-income-earned-by-the-top-110th-of-a-percent-1913-to-2007/ http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/18/the-percent-of-inco... http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/share-of-income/ http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/share-of-income... This isn't the difference between Bob down the street who went to college and Jim who didn't -- or the kid in your class who became a Harvard trained lawyer working in a big firm on wall-street versus the smartest kid in your math class who's now at Lawrence Berkeley labs. This isn't the difference between the kid who's working at some cool post series A company and one that went to Microsoft, or the student body president that went to work for a hedge fund rather than a non-profit. This is the difference between the founders and partners of the law firm, the founders, investors, or CEO's of the startup, or the CEO's or partners or founders of the hedge fund, and A-list directors/producers/athletes/musicians/actors and nearly everyone else.
anamax 17y ago
> Why on earth should someone have to change companies to get paid what they're worth? "paid what you're worth" is incomplete the the point of being meaningless. You get paid what you're worth to the company where you work.
- blueben 17y ago
  Correction. You get paid the minimum the company you work for thinks they can get away with.

by ismarc 17y ago

mos1 17y ago

Why on earth should someone have to change companies to get paid what they're worth? Because the fact that your skill set has grown doesn't mean that your employer's needs have grown identically.

ytinas 17y ago

Companies always have rules about raise limits and such. If you want to get an increase in pay you nearly always have to switch to another company.

qjz 17y ago
That's true, but it's often equally true that the supervisors making the decision are too lazy or unimaginative to initiate the pay raise. The threat of leaving the company isn't only a bargaining chip, sometimes it's the only opportunity. I've even seen people achieve big salary gains by yo-yoing between two companies over a relatively short period of time.
- ytinas 17y ago
  Yea, from my perspective the "company man" doesn't exist anymore for the most part. There are people who buy into the cool-aid, but most people treat the company they're with with the same loyalty it treats them: almost none. When a better opportunity comes along they tend to jump. I can't recall more than one or two cases where the person announced they were leaving and got a counter offer good enough to make them stay.

DaniFong 17y ago

Because class struggle is making a comeback? Managers set salaries. Guild professions (e.g. lawyers, doctors, accountants) set their prices and uphold the guild with cryptic languages and lengthy vetting processes. The case where engineers (of either companies, processes, products or technology), instead, are in the position to set compensation (or more specifically, are able to profit by the fruits of their labor), are generally only available to very high ranking manager/engineer hybrids, consultants, and founders. This is probably the closest thing in the modern world, in the literal sense, to the Marxist Socialist ideal of the workers taking control of the means of production. Other than that: ask yourself the question -- why do the bankers have all of the money? PS: Some resources. 6% of all US income is now earned by the top 0.01% of the income bracket. This is as high as it's been since at least 1913. The lowest earning member of thix bracket in 2005 was earning $5.9 million a year. http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/18/the-percent-of-income-earned-by-the-top-110th-of-a-percent-1913-to-2007/ http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/18/the-percent-of-inco... http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/share-of-income/ http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/category/share-of-income... This isn't the difference between Bob down the street who went to college and Jim who didn't -- or the kid in your class who became a Harvard trained lawyer working in a big firm on wall-street versus the smartest kid in your math class who's now at Lawrence Berkeley labs. This isn't the difference between the kid who's working at some cool post series A company and one that went to Microsoft, or the student body president that went to work for a hedge fund rather than a non-profit. This is the difference between the founders and partners of the law firm, the founders, investors, or CEO's of the startup, or the CEO's or partners or founders of the hedge fund, and A-list directors/producers/athletes/musicians/actors and nearly everyone else.

anamax 17y ago

> Why on earth should someone have to change companies to get paid what they're worth? "paid what you're worth" is incomplete the the point of being meaningless. You get paid what you're worth to the company where you work.

blueben 17y ago
Correction. You get paid the minimum the company you work for thinks they can get away with.