4 ms·

This isn't necessarily true. You're worth what someone is willing to pay you. Until you actually receive a superior offer, neither you nor your employer knows t

This isn't necessarily true. You're worth what someone is willing to pay you. Until you actually receive a superior offer, neither you nor your employer knows that you're worth more than you're being paid. Obviously there are employers out there who are underpaying their employees, but just because you find out you aren't being paid as much as possible for your skill set doesn't mean your employer is trying to stiff you. That said, you should have a pretty good idea of what you're worth, and if you don't then that's on you. There is basically zero risk in going out and interviewing even if you aren't looking for a change, and it's a great way to establish the market for yourself. That market can change rapidly (at least while you're in the lower/middle of it).

mcv 8y ago
> You're worth what someone is willing to pay you. Or you're worth what the value of your work is. There are different ways to define this. Are things that are free automatically worthless? The idea that you become more valuable to your old employer only once there's another employer willing to hire you, is bizarre. Your work for your old employer doesn't change. How can your value suddenly change? Your old employer was clearly underpaying you because they could afford to. Only when you get other options, are they forced to pay you what you're worth.
- cableshaft 8y ago
  > Your work for your old employer doesn't change. I kind of wish that was true. What I do now is almost completely different from what I was hired to do at my current job. Other people leaving, me getting to inherit their projects and responsibilities on top of my own, and yet my boss (who is also brand new because my previous boss resigned recently) wants to get settled and get to know me before recommending a promotion. Yeah, I'm not waiting that long. For him it might have only been a few weeks, but for me it's been over three years.
  - mcv 8y ago
    Did all of that change because you got an offer from another company? Because that's the issue we're discussing here: whether it's the other offer that makes you more valuable, or the added responsibilities.
- setr 8y ago
  By bringing up alternative offers, you’re effectively calling for a re-evaluation of your value. There’s naturally little incentive for your manager to re-evaluate when the expected outcome is higher cost; there’s clear incentive to re-evaluate when it’ll go lower. So it’s only natural that, leaving your pay solely to the discretion of management, your pay will go down over time. The problem is not realizing you’re in an antagonistic relationship with your employer, when thinking about wage. This wasn’t as much an issue when the general path was as a salaryman, staying in DEC for fifty years, following strictly defined promotional paths. But today’s tech expects job-hopping, and there’s no clear timeline for re-evaluation or promotion. It now just occurs somewhat randomly, when you bring it in, or when they do. Putting in your 5 years and expecting a natural re-evaluation is no longer sufficient.
  - mcv 8y ago
    You're calling for a re-evaluation of your value by asking for a raise. If I realise I'm in an antagonistic relationship with my employer, I leave. I don't want to spend a significant chunk of my life dependent on someone I have an adversarial relationship with. That just doesn't sound healthy. By only re-evaluating my value when I'm about to leave, and not when I ask for a raise, the employer reveals it's an antagonistic relationship, and that's a good sign it's time to leave.
    - setr 8y ago
      When it comes to pay, it’s an inherit property: you’re looking to max out your pay, and they’re looking to minimize. You negotiate to a middle ground. By antagonistic, I don’t mean that you’re in some kind of never ending battle to the death; but your goals/incentives clearly do not align. Obviously an actively malicious HR is a different story, but ignoring that, it would be naive to pretend you’re aligned, and leave your fate to a person/group who should not be acting in your best interest. Your employer is not your agent. He doesn’t work for you.
      - mcv 8y ago
        > Your employer is not your agent. He doesn’t work for you. No, but I work for him. If an agent working for me would also be an antagonistic relationship, then what use is the agent? A good employer cares about more than just what their employees cost. At the very least, happy employees are productive employees. Employees that don't feel appreciated are not happy employees. An employer who will only give you a raise after you've found a better offer elsewhere is a bad employer.

mcv 8y ago

> You're worth what someone is willing to pay you. Or you're worth what the value of your work is. There are different ways to define this. Are things that are free automatically worthless? The idea that you become more valuable to your old employer only once there's another employer willing to hire you, is bizarre. Your work for your old employer doesn't change. How can your value suddenly change? Your old employer was clearly underpaying you because they could afford to. Only when you get other options, are they forced to pay you what you're worth.

cableshaft 8y ago
> Your work for your old employer doesn't change. I kind of wish that was true. What I do now is almost completely different from what I was hired to do at my current job. Other people leaving, me getting to inherit their projects and responsibilities on top of my own, and yet my boss (who is also brand new because my previous boss resigned recently) wants to get settled and get to know me before recommending a promotion. Yeah, I'm not waiting that long. For him it might have only been a few weeks, but for me it's been over three years.
- mcv 8y ago
  Did all of that change because you got an offer from another company? Because that's the issue we're discussing here: whether it's the other offer that makes you more valuable, or the added responsibilities.
setr 8y ago
By bringing up alternative offers, you’re effectively calling for a re-evaluation of your value. There’s naturally little incentive for your manager to re-evaluate when the expected outcome is higher cost; there’s clear incentive to re-evaluate when it’ll go lower. So it’s only natural that, leaving your pay solely to the discretion of management, your pay will go down over time. The problem is not realizing you’re in an antagonistic relationship with your employer, when thinking about wage. This wasn’t as much an issue when the general path was as a salaryman, staying in DEC for fifty years, following strictly defined promotional paths. But today’s tech expects job-hopping, and there’s no clear timeline for re-evaluation or promotion. It now just occurs somewhat randomly, when you bring it in, or when they do. Putting in your 5 years and expecting a natural re-evaluation is no longer sufficient.
- mcv 8y ago
  You're calling for a re-evaluation of your value by asking for a raise. If I realise I'm in an antagonistic relationship with my employer, I leave. I don't want to spend a significant chunk of my life dependent on someone I have an adversarial relationship with. That just doesn't sound healthy. By only re-evaluating my value when I'm about to leave, and not when I ask for a raise, the employer reveals it's an antagonistic relationship, and that's a good sign it's time to leave.
  - setr 8y ago
    When it comes to pay, it’s an inherit property: you’re looking to max out your pay, and they’re looking to minimize. You negotiate to a middle ground. By antagonistic, I don’t mean that you’re in some kind of never ending battle to the death; but your goals/incentives clearly do not align. Obviously an actively malicious HR is a different story, but ignoring that, it would be naive to pretend you’re aligned, and leave your fate to a person/group who should not be acting in your best interest. Your employer is not your agent. He doesn’t work for you.
    - mcv 8y ago
      > Your employer is not your agent. He doesn’t work for you. No, but I work for him. If an agent working for me would also be an antagonistic relationship, then what use is the agent? A good employer cares about more than just what their employees cost. At the very least, happy employees are productive employees. Employees that don't feel appreciated are not happy employees. An employer who will only give you a raise after you've found a better offer elsewhere is a bad employer.