4 ms·

Probably the same as it's ever been. Out of three random employees, you have one who's just going through the motions, one who's working hard, and one who's ac

by 13of40 3y ago

Probably the same as it's ever been. Out of three random employees, you have one who's just going through the motions, one who's working hard, and one who's actively hostile. Which one gets the money when review time rolls around? That, and what's the long term strategy? Do they turn 30 and flip from working part time at Pizza Hut to a professional salaried career? Good luck getting an interview with that CV. I'm not saying it's an ideal situation to be faced with, but tuning out is just going to make it worse.

nytesky 3y ago
Of those 3, most likely who is a better “fit” to their manager. Promotions especially are more about personal relations than “metrics” hard to measure productivity.
malka 3y ago
>Which one gets the money when review time rolls around? Trick question. None of them.
coldpie 3y ago
> Which one gets the money when review time rolls around? The CEO.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
GP's point is that the extra money has little value, because your spending options are becoming bimodal in distribution: all the trinkets are priced at "approximately anyone with a job can afford some of it", while the important bits like housing are priced at "an order of magnitude more than people typically earn", and this gap just cannot be crossed by working hard to get salary raises.
- 13of40 3y ago
  Let's consider some actual numbers, though: In 1999 I got my first "corporate" job at a starting salary of $50K. I was paying $800 a month for a two bedroom apartment, and what was left over was enough to comfortably support me and my wife. Entry level salary for the same job is now about $120K, meaning someone in that position can easily afford to pay $1920 a month for rent. According to Zillow, that same apartment is now renting for $2305 a month. So what we're hand-wringing about is a ~$385 increase in rent, which comes to about 4% more of the person's gross salary than 25 years ago. That sucks a little bit, but it's not a catastrophe. And on top of that, you can still make a ton of side money through bonuses and stock, in the industry that I assume we're mostly talking about. A few months ago I gave a $90K stock grant to a guy. Even if the stock price stagnates, that on its own is almost half his housing costs for the next five years, and it's all because he works harder than the guy in the next cube over.
  - somsak2 3y ago
    You used a single personal data point and then pulled numbers completely out of nowhere and are comfortable making general statements about housing affordability on that basis? Bold.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    That pay is significantly above the US average of $77,463[0]. For a different anecdote, an friend of mine briefly worked a pizza fast-food joint in Davis (CA), and the pay from that didn't even cover her rent and bills, she had to get support from others. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...

by 13of40 3y ago

nytesky 3y ago

Of those 3, most likely who is a better “fit” to their manager. Promotions especially are more about personal relations than “metrics” hard to measure productivity.

malka 3y ago

>Which one gets the money when review time rolls around? Trick question. None of them.

coldpie 3y ago

> Which one gets the money when review time rolls around? The CEO.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

GP's point is that the extra money has little value, because your spending options are becoming bimodal in distribution: all the trinkets are priced at "approximately anyone with a job can afford some of it", while the important bits like housing are priced at "an order of magnitude more than people typically earn", and this gap just cannot be crossed by working hard to get salary raises.

13of40 3y ago
Let's consider some actual numbers, though: In 1999 I got my first "corporate" job at a starting salary of $50K. I was paying $800 a month for a two bedroom apartment, and what was left over was enough to comfortably support me and my wife. Entry level salary for the same job is now about $120K, meaning someone in that position can easily afford to pay $1920 a month for rent. According to Zillow, that same apartment is now renting for $2305 a month. So what we're hand-wringing about is a ~$385 increase in rent, which comes to about 4% more of the person's gross salary than 25 years ago. That sucks a little bit, but it's not a catastrophe. And on top of that, you can still make a ton of side money through bonuses and stock, in the industry that I assume we're mostly talking about. A few months ago I gave a $90K stock grant to a guy. Even if the stock price stagnates, that on its own is almost half his housing costs for the next five years, and it's all because he works harder than the guy in the next cube over.
- somsak2 3y ago
  You used a single personal data point and then pulled numbers completely out of nowhere and are comfortable making general statements about housing affordability on that basis? Bold.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That pay is significantly above the US average of $77,463[0]. For a different anecdote, an friend of mine briefly worked a pizza fast-food joint in Davis (CA), and the pay from that didn't even cover her rent and bills, she had to get support from others. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w...