6 ms·

I found out my company is willing to pay people with the same experience I have more money. Just not me.

soared 6y ago
I found the opposite. I was hired mid-pandemic, but now my team is hiring someone with <20% of my experience for the same title and compensation. My manager has not addressed directly the point when I've brought it up.
- visarga 6y ago
  Depends also on how desperate was the company to fill the position when you were hired vs now.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Good point. Still, once it's known it speaks to how desperate they are too keep the talent they have. Turn over usually has significant costs.
- mtzaldo 6y ago
  I got layoff about a month ago. While looking for jobs, the average pay increased about 20‰. I think it is either a reflection of the inflation, or that the companies are recognizing the need of more qualified employees amid the "great recovery". Update: I was a Lead Software Eng.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    same. i switched jobs last june but now have offers 20-30% more.
  - midasuni 6y ago
    2% over what period? Did you see enough jobs to draw such a conclusion (2%, or 20‰, is pretty insignificant)
  - scsilver 5y ago
    I saw something similar. I wonder if its continuing. You need software engineers to make software, we are the necessary commodity of the future economy, nee grads arent getting in person experience, bootcamps arent doing as great at teaching during the pandemic, the visa program was also reduced. Are we sreing a supply side squeeze and a demand side rush on devs?
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  Experience isn’t the only variable in determining compensation. Some companies will simply pay people whatever it takes to convince them to join the company, which results in compensation that’s all over the place. Some companies have surprisingly uniform compensation, some to the extreme that all developers are paid the same compensation in lock-step. This is usually an attempt to make things fair, but it creates a lot of animosity when people feel they deserve more than their coworkers. And some times, it really does make sense to hire less experienced people into high-paying roles of their career trajectory looks promising. Hiring isn’t just about selecting for the height of experience on a bar chart. It’s also about looking at the slope. Less experienced employees who are growing very fast are best hired at high salaries, otherwise they’re just going to leave in a year when they grow even more. Conversely, if they fail to grow into the role they might need to be let go to make room for someone more appropriate for the position. One of the tricky things about teams sharing compensation is that there is almost never a specific ordering of salaries that everyone on the team would agree is appropriate. It’s one of those situations where 80% of people on a team might see themselves as being in the top 20%. As always, it helps to collect competing offers elsewhere. It helps even more to be prepared to take those offers if they pay more and higher salary is your highest priority.
  - extra88 6y ago
    > Conversely, if they fail to grow into the role they might need to be let go to make room for someone more appropriate for the position. How many places fire people because they thought they might be a star performer but turn out to be only average? I thought Netflix was newsworthy for being "ruthless" in that way, that it was rare and that few companies have followed their example.
    - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
      It comes down to your budget. If you have virtually unlimited budget then keeping an over-leveled person in an overpaid position can slide if they’re still adding some value. However, it’s still better to demote them (difficult) or remove them to prevent animosity from brewing in their peers. If you only have the budget to hire a few people, then having an overpaid and underperforming person taking up a valuable slot in your limited budget is a pressing issue. You need to get them off the team to free that budget up for someone who can earn it appropriately.
- SamBam 6y ago
  Not exactly the opposite... Paying someone else with the same experience more money is very similar to paying someone with less experience the same money. In either case, they are paying other people more for equivalent experience.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Experience is multi-faceted and I think often over-valued (I say this as someone who would benefit a lot if experience was highly valued). Plenty of engineers effectively have 1 year of experience 12 times.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      > Plenty of engineers effectively have 1 year of experience 12 times. Do you mean they've been doing the same things year after year? I.e. without growing their skills in breadth or depth?
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Yes. They’re capable of handling about as complex task now as they were 11 years ago. If that’s the case, their relative value has not increased beyond that of their 1-year experienced peer.
- mbernstein 6y ago
  If it’s the same role and they can do the role why would they get paid less? Experience alone doesn’t mean much.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  Why would you expect your manager to “address” the point that you think one of your peers is overpaid?
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    The strongest plausible interpretation of what they said is they think they're under paid.
    - emodendroket 6y ago
      Well, rule number one of trying to ask for more money is don't make it about how you think you deserve more than so-and-so.
input_sh 6y ago
In my experience, the easiest way to get a substantial raise is to switch companies. Your existing one will bump your salary by like 5-10%. A new one won't have that baseline, making it easy to go above that. My salary increased by like 45% in the last year. I've seen posts of people claiming they've doubled their salary with this one simple trick.
- DistressedDrone 6y ago
  This is largely because managers don't understand just how in demand people are in tech. They think you are replaceable, until you quit, then they realize the market is insane and they have to increase their offer significantly. At least here in Montreal software engineers are almost as high in demand as doctors.
  - qeternity 6y ago
    I’m not sure that’s true. Anyone who has had any attrition knows the cost of turnover.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      Has it actually been established to matter all that much? As attrition rates are surging throughout society. People are quitting faster. More and more people are on temp contracts. I find it kinda nuts that the sign that it is time to leave a company for a raise is hitting a productive stride. It is common knowledge that the best way to get a raise is to switch employers. Yet absolutely nothing is being done with this information by employers. It isn't secret. So they seemingly have determined that preventing attrition isn't worth it.
      - ipaddr 6y ago
        No one wants to pay more for what you already have even though it is offering more. We see this with cable bills. Everyone expects more channel but static prices. Companies expect more out of a developer who has been with them 5 years over someone who has been there a year. But they want to continue to pay them the same as they did 5 years ago so they never give them raises.
tuwtuwtuwtuw 6y ago
Same here. When I found out, I asked my manager for a raise but didn't get it so I resigned. When I did, he offered to raise my salary with 30%. Left anyway and was hired again at same company a few years later for 50% above my original salary. Still felt like I was originally tricked into a low salary.
emodendroket 6y ago
Sounds like information that you could act on by finding a new job.
vbtemp 6y ago
Probably because they were hired after you. Normally newer hires have much higher salaries than old timers for equivalent role/experience, it's like that everywhere

I found the opposite. I was hired mid-pandemic, but now my team is hiring someone with <20% of my experience for the same title and compensation. My manager has not addressed directly the point when I've brought it up.

visarga 6y ago
Depends also on how desperate was the company to fill the position when you were hired vs now.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Good point. Still, once it's known it speaks to how desperate they are too keep the talent they have. Turn over usually has significant costs.
mtzaldo 6y ago
I got layoff about a month ago. While looking for jobs, the average pay increased about 20‰. I think it is either a reflection of the inflation, or that the companies are recognizing the need of more qualified employees amid the "great recovery". Update: I was a Lead Software Eng.
- dominotw 6y ago
  same. i switched jobs last june but now have offers 20-30% more.
- midasuni 6y ago
  2% over what period? Did you see enough jobs to draw such a conclusion (2%, or 20‰, is pretty insignificant)
- scsilver 5y ago
  I saw something similar. I wonder if its continuing. You need software engineers to make software, we are the necessary commodity of the future economy, nee grads arent getting in person experience, bootcamps arent doing as great at teaching during the pandemic, the visa program was also reduced. Are we sreing a supply side squeeze and a demand side rush on devs?
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
Experience isn’t the only variable in determining compensation. Some companies will simply pay people whatever it takes to convince them to join the company, which results in compensation that’s all over the place. Some companies have surprisingly uniform compensation, some to the extreme that all developers are paid the same compensation in lock-step. This is usually an attempt to make things fair, but it creates a lot of animosity when people feel they deserve more than their coworkers. And some times, it really does make sense to hire less experienced people into high-paying roles of their career trajectory looks promising. Hiring isn’t just about selecting for the height of experience on a bar chart. It’s also about looking at the slope. Less experienced employees who are growing very fast are best hired at high salaries, otherwise they’re just going to leave in a year when they grow even more. Conversely, if they fail to grow into the role they might need to be let go to make room for someone more appropriate for the position. One of the tricky things about teams sharing compensation is that there is almost never a specific ordering of salaries that everyone on the team would agree is appropriate. It’s one of those situations where 80% of people on a team might see themselves as being in the top 20%. As always, it helps to collect competing offers elsewhere. It helps even more to be prepared to take those offers if they pay more and higher salary is your highest priority.
- extra88 6y ago
  > Conversely, if they fail to grow into the role they might need to be let go to make room for someone more appropriate for the position. How many places fire people because they thought they might be a star performer but turn out to be only average? I thought Netflix was newsworthy for being "ruthless" in that way, that it was rare and that few companies have followed their example.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    It comes down to your budget. If you have virtually unlimited budget then keeping an over-leveled person in an overpaid position can slide if they’re still adding some value. However, it’s still better to demote them (difficult) or remove them to prevent animosity from brewing in their peers. If you only have the budget to hire a few people, then having an overpaid and underperforming person taking up a valuable slot in your limited budget is a pressing issue. You need to get them off the team to free that budget up for someone who can earn it appropriately.
SamBam 6y ago
Not exactly the opposite... Paying someone else with the same experience more money is very similar to paying someone with less experience the same money. In either case, they are paying other people more for equivalent experience.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Experience is multi-faceted and I think often over-valued (I say this as someone who would benefit a lot if experience was highly valued). Plenty of engineers effectively have 1 year of experience 12 times.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    > Plenty of engineers effectively have 1 year of experience 12 times. Do you mean they've been doing the same things year after year? I.e. without growing their skills in breadth or depth?
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Yes. They’re capable of handling about as complex task now as they were 11 years ago. If that’s the case, their relative value has not increased beyond that of their 1-year experienced peer.
mbernstein 6y ago
If it’s the same role and they can do the role why would they get paid less? Experience alone doesn’t mean much.
emodendroket 6y ago
Why would you expect your manager to “address” the point that you think one of your peers is overpaid?
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  The strongest plausible interpretation of what they said is they think they're under paid.
  - emodendroket 6y ago
    Well, rule number one of trying to ask for more money is don't make it about how you think you deserve more than so-and-so.

input_sh 6y ago

In my experience, the easiest way to get a substantial raise is to switch companies. Your existing one will bump your salary by like 5-10%. A new one won't have that baseline, making it easy to go above that. My salary increased by like 45% in the last year. I've seen posts of people claiming they've doubled their salary with this one simple trick.

DistressedDrone 6y ago
This is largely because managers don't understand just how in demand people are in tech. They think you are replaceable, until you quit, then they realize the market is insane and they have to increase their offer significantly. At least here in Montreal software engineers are almost as high in demand as doctors.
- qeternity 6y ago
  I’m not sure that’s true. Anyone who has had any attrition knows the cost of turnover.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Has it actually been established to matter all that much? As attrition rates are surging throughout society. People are quitting faster. More and more people are on temp contracts. I find it kinda nuts that the sign that it is time to leave a company for a raise is hitting a productive stride. It is common knowledge that the best way to get a raise is to switch employers. Yet absolutely nothing is being done with this information by employers. It isn't secret. So they seemingly have determined that preventing attrition isn't worth it.
    - ipaddr 6y ago
      No one wants to pay more for what you already have even though it is offering more. We see this with cable bills. Everyone expects more channel but static prices. Companies expect more out of a developer who has been with them 5 years over someone who has been there a year. But they want to continue to pay them the same as they did 5 years ago so they never give them raises.

tuwtuwtuwtuw 6y ago

Same here. When I found out, I asked my manager for a raise but didn't get it so I resigned. When I did, he offered to raise my salary with 30%. Left anyway and was hired again at same company a few years later for 50% above my original salary. Still felt like I was originally tricked into a low salary.

emodendroket 6y ago

Sounds like information that you could act on by finding a new job.

vbtemp 6y ago

Probably because they were hired after you. Normally newer hires have much higher salaries than old timers for equivalent role/experience, it's like that everywhere