3 ms·

> unless their employer is signaling to them that they value their contributions 6.2% less than last year Not getting a raise doesn't mean your employer necess

> unless their employer is signaling to them that they value their contributions 6.2% less than last year Not getting a raise doesn't mean your employer necessarily values you less - it could just mean others value you less so your employer has less competition for you. Supply and demand. If nobody's buying hammers and the price of hammers goes down, that doesn't mean the value my hammer brings me has gone down, but if I need to buy a new hammer I pay less.

willcipriano 5y ago
Last year hammers cost $5, this year it's $4. Go to a jobsite and ask a guy what his hammer is worth and last year he would say $5, this year he says $4. He's not making a value judgment based on anything intrinsic about the hammer, it's just worth less due to the cost of replacement falling. He literally values it less. Humans, unlike hammers can decide to train to become a screwdriver or change from Binford Tools to Craftsman, who may value low turnover more than Binford and thus pay more to retain employees. If the management or ultimate customers of your industry or firm don't support paying you a wage that keeps up with the CPI, I suggest working hard to find better managers and customers. You are fighting a losing battle otherwise. There is a ton of demand out there right now for almost everything.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > don't support paying you a wage that keeps up with inflation Your employer doesn't care what inflation is. They care about what they have to pay on the market to get you, and they care what you produce. Going to them and talking about inflation is making an irrelevant argument. Inflation isn't part of the equation that determines how much they pay you. Tell them your market value, and tell then your productivity. But talking about inflation is just going to illicit a 'so what?'
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    If a business is unable to grow at a rate that is faster than inflation, that would mean it's shrinking in real terms. Why am I sticking around in a firm that is shrinking dramatically? Either the industry is dying or the business is being poorly managed. Working longer hours and throwing additional value on that fire doesn't seem like a great plan. You are probably better off spending your effort looking for a new job and lately you'll end up with more then 6% to show for it.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > If a business is unable to grow at a rate that is faster than inflation, that would mean it's shrinking in real terms. But - again - you aren't paid a salary based on how well the business is doing. When a company's profits double do you think they double everyone's salaries? Of course not - surely you know that? You're paid based on what the market for you is, and what you produce and how valuable it is to the company. Like inflation, the size of the business isn't part of that equation.
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        The business isn't doing any better if it grew by 6.2% this year, the currency they are receiving and paying you with has reduced in value by 6.2%, so it is breaking even. I'm not saying this in a "capitalism is bad" sort of way, I'm saying this in a "capitalism is good" sort of way. Wages are up in the majority of sectors, unemployment is falling, if your company or industry can't do 6% this year you likely have other options that can. Use at will employment to your advantage.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > if your company or industry can't do 6% this year you likely have other options that can That's the right argument to make. Not inflation as you were saying before. Talking about inflation to motivate pay rise is a logically unsound argument. 'Inflation is up 2%' - so what? 'I can get 2% elsewhere' ok we can talk.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        Yeah I'm not certain where we disagree. I mainly reject the assertion that I may have misread, that workers should deliver additional value beyond what they are currently delivering in order to earn a raise. The currency has less value then last year and this is reflected in wages in aggregate. If you want to retain people, you'll need to keep up otherwise you should anticipate high turnover.
        5y ago
N00bN00b 5y ago
Yeah, that sounds cool and all, but somehow I ended up with a job that pays over $100K a year, that makes me work for about 3 hours a week from home and has been paying me for years to do that. And I'm pretty sure my manager knows that. If I were to quit, I'd end up with another job that makes me work for 30+ hours a week, for the exact same salary. And that's just one example. I know many more like that. Your supply and demand can't explain that, yet it is my daily reality in a capitalist society. Capitalism is just another lie we tell each other to make each other believe we live in a just world.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  How do you explain it? Do you think they pay you out of charity? Seems unlikely to me.
- gruez 5y ago
  >somehow I ended up with a job that pays over $100K a year, that makes me work for about 3 hours a week from home and has been paying me for years to do that That seems entirely consistent with the supply and demand explanation? If your employer thinks they're getting 100k worth of value from you, and that there's nobody that can do your job for cheaper, the fact that you wfh for 3hr/week doesn't affect the analysis. >If I were to quit, I'd end up with another job that makes me work for 30+ hours a week, for the exact same salary. That can partially be explained by the fact that labor is an illiquid market, caused by switching costs and lack of information. On the flip side, you might be able to get 500K working for MANGA if you grind leetcode/whiteboard prep.

willcipriano 5y ago

Last year hammers cost $5, this year it's $4. Go to a jobsite and ask a guy what his hammer is worth and last year he would say $5, this year he says $4. He's not making a value judgment based on anything intrinsic about the hammer, it's just worth less due to the cost of replacement falling. He literally values it less. Humans, unlike hammers can decide to train to become a screwdriver or change from Binford Tools to Craftsman, who may value low turnover more than Binford and thus pay more to retain employees. If the management or ultimate customers of your industry or firm don't support paying you a wage that keeps up with the CPI, I suggest working hard to find better managers and customers. You are fighting a losing battle otherwise. There is a ton of demand out there right now for almost everything.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> don't support paying you a wage that keeps up with inflation Your employer doesn't care what inflation is. They care about what they have to pay on the market to get you, and they care what you produce. Going to them and talking about inflation is making an irrelevant argument. Inflation isn't part of the equation that determines how much they pay you. Tell them your market value, and tell then your productivity. But talking about inflation is just going to illicit a 'so what?'
- willcipriano 5y ago
  If a business is unable to grow at a rate that is faster than inflation, that would mean it's shrinking in real terms. Why am I sticking around in a firm that is shrinking dramatically? Either the industry is dying or the business is being poorly managed. Working longer hours and throwing additional value on that fire doesn't seem like a great plan. You are probably better off spending your effort looking for a new job and lately you'll end up with more then 6% to show for it.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > If a business is unable to grow at a rate that is faster than inflation, that would mean it's shrinking in real terms. But - again - you aren't paid a salary based on how well the business is doing. When a company's profits double do you think they double everyone's salaries? Of course not - surely you know that? You're paid based on what the market for you is, and what you produce and how valuable it is to the company. Like inflation, the size of the business isn't part of that equation.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      The business isn't doing any better if it grew by 6.2% this year, the currency they are receiving and paying you with has reduced in value by 6.2%, so it is breaking even. I'm not saying this in a "capitalism is bad" sort of way, I'm saying this in a "capitalism is good" sort of way. Wages are up in the majority of sectors, unemployment is falling, if your company or industry can't do 6% this year you likely have other options that can. Use at will employment to your advantage.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > if your company or industry can't do 6% this year you likely have other options that can That's the right argument to make. Not inflation as you were saying before. Talking about inflation to motivate pay rise is a logically unsound argument. 'Inflation is up 2%' - so what? 'I can get 2% elsewhere' ok we can talk.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        Yeah I'm not certain where we disagree. I mainly reject the assertion that I may have misread, that workers should deliver additional value beyond what they are currently delivering in order to earn a raise. The currency has less value then last year and this is reflected in wages in aggregate. If you want to retain people, you'll need to keep up otherwise you should anticipate high turnover.
        5y ago

N00bN00b 5y ago

Yeah, that sounds cool and all, but somehow I ended up with a job that pays over $100K a year, that makes me work for about 3 hours a week from home and has been paying me for years to do that. And I'm pretty sure my manager knows that. If I were to quit, I'd end up with another job that makes me work for 30+ hours a week, for the exact same salary. And that's just one example. I know many more like that. Your supply and demand can't explain that, yet it is my daily reality in a capitalist society. Capitalism is just another lie we tell each other to make each other believe we live in a just world.

chrisseaton 5y ago
How do you explain it? Do you think they pay you out of charity? Seems unlikely to me.
gruez 5y ago
>somehow I ended up with a job that pays over $100K a year, that makes me work for about 3 hours a week from home and has been paying me for years to do that That seems entirely consistent with the supply and demand explanation? If your employer thinks they're getting 100k worth of value from you, and that there's nobody that can do your job for cheaper, the fact that you wfh for 3hr/week doesn't affect the analysis. >If I were to quit, I'd end up with another job that makes me work for 30+ hours a week, for the exact same salary. That can partially be explained by the fact that labor is an illiquid market, caused by switching costs and lack of information. On the flip side, you might be able to get 500K working for MANGA if you grind leetcode/whiteboard prep.