3 ms·

Although engineers have been bring this subject up lately, its a complete non-issue. The only group its truly a problem for, are those paid minimum wage. And mi

by shmatt 5y ago

Although engineers have been bring this subject up lately, its a complete non-issue. The only group its truly a problem for, are those paid minimum wage. And minimum wage should definitely be adjusting If you're making more than minimum wage, then the only thing setting your compensation is the job market. Not inflation, not how much a house costs in your city, and not the fact you just had 3 kids in 3 years If you can find a job that will pay you much more, you probably already could have when inflation was 0%. So again, this has nothing to do with inflation. Are you looking to maximize your income? Interview interview interview, if you get better offers, bring them back to your company or just leave. If you don't get better offers, why would your company adjust your income by 5%? A 5% pay cut is great news for them and for you, if thats what the job market is saying is your fair pay

OJFord 5y ago
> Although engineers have been bring this subject up lately, its a complete non-issue. The only group its truly a problem for, are those paid minimum wage. It affects everyone the same, just the absolute impact is greater the less you earn. (And nothing special about minimum wage in that, why does 50p an hour over it suddenly save you?) > If you're making more than minimum wage, then the only thing setting your compensation is the job market. Not inflation I see what you're saying, but market compensation is a function of (among other things) inflation. It's much more efficient for employers to give inflation-linked raises (resp. paycuts in deflation!) than it is for employees to constantly job hop, or to take a buffer of real-terms paycuts and hop every x years (or after every $x or x% cut).
- shmatt 5y ago
  Market rates are a function of availability. If you flooded the market with more great engineers than employers hiring, the compensation would go towards $0. Which in the real world is just set at minimum wage If you're in a minimum wage job, then your employer (successfully?) believes there is basically an endless stream of people who can replace you at no higher cost than what the government deems the absolute minimum Once you're in a job higher than that, the only function is what other people with your skills agree to get paid. If OP is making top of the market, their employer has absolutely no reason to give them even a $1 raise. If top of the market compensation went down, then it would make sense for anyone making top of the market to get their salary cut

by shmatt 5y ago

OJFord 5y ago

> Although engineers have been bring this subject up lately, its a complete non-issue. The only group its truly a problem for, are those paid minimum wage. It affects everyone the same, just the absolute impact is greater the less you earn. (And nothing special about minimum wage in that, why does 50p an hour over it suddenly save you?) > If you're making more than minimum wage, then the only thing setting your compensation is the job market. Not inflation I see what you're saying, but market compensation is a function of (among other things) inflation. It's much more efficient for employers to give inflation-linked raises (resp. paycuts in deflation!) than it is for employees to constantly job hop, or to take a buffer of real-terms paycuts and hop every x years (or after every $x or x% cut).

shmatt 5y ago
Market rates are a function of availability. If you flooded the market with more great engineers than employers hiring, the compensation would go towards $0. Which in the real world is just set at minimum wage If you're in a minimum wage job, then your employer (successfully?) believes there is basically an endless stream of people who can replace you at no higher cost than what the government deems the absolute minimum Once you're in a job higher than that, the only function is what other people with your skills agree to get paid. If OP is making top of the market, their employer has absolutely no reason to give them even a $1 raise. If top of the market compensation went down, then it would make sense for anyone making top of the market to get their salary cut