3 ms·

Isn't it just because new applicants have a much better bargaining chip - "I'll just start working at another place that will have me" (believable and easy for

Isn't it just because new applicants have a much better bargaining chip - "I'll just start working at another place that will have me" (believable and easy for them) vs "I'll quit and start job hunting" (less believable and much more work) for existing employees.

corethree 3y ago
It's not a better bargaining chip. It's just a more "believable" bargaining chip. A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losing a potential new hire. This is just one of the illogical things about life. Either the company is illogical, or employee behavior is illogical in that the threat of quitting with a better bargaining chip is just lower.
- buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
  > A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losing a potential new hire. On an individual level maybe. But it doesn't benefit the company for news to spread that they'll bump your pay a significant amount if you threaten to quit. If the company has 100 employees working for a salary that is 80% of their fair market value, it's worth losing one of those employees to keep the discount on the other 99.
  - djtango 3y ago
    in other words there's a spread between what employees will take as pay and what employers could pay but usually employers are arbing that spread because employees lack price transparency.
  - corethree 3y ago
    That's why swes need something union like. Not a union according to the legal definition, but some way to do collaborative negotiation so they get paid what they are worth.
    - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
      Switching employers works well
      - corethree 3y ago
        That was my strategy for the last decade. The problem with it is it gets tiring. I'd like to switch because I want to switch, not because I want to get paid what I'm worth. Additionally in the current market for the past year, software engineers aren't getting hired as fast anymore. The crazy hiring has slowed down and many companies are actually offering lower salaries. It's much harder to land a job.
    - redserk 3y ago
      That's... a union. A union can limit their involvement to strictly salary negotiations if it's members choose to do so.
      - corethree 3y ago
        Thanks for not understanding. I mean there's other things associated with a union that people don't like about it. Why do I have to pay to have collaborative negotiation? I'm just saying I acknowledge those parts and I want to avoid it. I think in theory people can band together and collectively negotiate without actually forming a legal union.
        redserk 3y ago
        “I want to cook eggs on top of hot oil but I don’t want to say I’m frying them” is more words to get to “I want to fry eggs” The framework to band together and collectively negotiate is literally called forming a union. You don’t have to collect dues if you don’t want/need to, nor do you need a bureaucracy. Eventually groups of collective negotiators (unions) end up in situations requiring resources, which require money. I’m talking about simple lawyer consults or if you wanted to buy research on current market pay.
- charrondev 3y ago
  My experience is that as a higher level IC your ability to get that raise from your current place requires you to shop around a bit and have the confidence that you can walk away and find land another job that pays more. It’s not a bad idea to do a couple interviews before your annual review comes up, even if you don’t have to say in quite so clear terms that you are ready to jump ship. Confidence helps a lot.
  - corethree 3y ago
    Yeah. That's stupid right? Companies should prevent you from shopping around in the first place. They are exploiting your laziness and under confidence.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      Don't give the lobbyists any ideas.
kamikaz1k 3y ago
TFA goes over 5 potential reasons, the author cited their insider knowledge. None of those points cover what you said. The closest thing the author said was external experience is valued higher, which rings true to me.

corethree 3y ago

It's not a better bargaining chip. It's just a more "believable" bargaining chip. A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losing a potential new hire. This is just one of the illogical things about life. Either the company is illogical, or employee behavior is illogical in that the threat of quitting with a better bargaining chip is just lower.

buzzerbetrayed 3y ago
> A company loses far more, far more if an existing employee quits, versus losing a potential new hire. On an individual level maybe. But it doesn't benefit the company for news to spread that they'll bump your pay a significant amount if you threaten to quit. If the company has 100 employees working for a salary that is 80% of their fair market value, it's worth losing one of those employees to keep the discount on the other 99.
- djtango 3y ago
  in other words there's a spread between what employees will take as pay and what employers could pay but usually employers are arbing that spread because employees lack price transparency.
- corethree 3y ago
  That's why swes need something union like. Not a union according to the legal definition, but some way to do collaborative negotiation so they get paid what they are worth.
  - zeroonetwothree 3y ago
    Switching employers works well
    - corethree 3y ago
      That was my strategy for the last decade. The problem with it is it gets tiring. I'd like to switch because I want to switch, not because I want to get paid what I'm worth. Additionally in the current market for the past year, software engineers aren't getting hired as fast anymore. The crazy hiring has slowed down and many companies are actually offering lower salaries. It's much harder to land a job.
  - redserk 3y ago
    That's... a union. A union can limit their involvement to strictly salary negotiations if it's members choose to do so.
    - corethree 3y ago
      Thanks for not understanding. I mean there's other things associated with a union that people don't like about it. Why do I have to pay to have collaborative negotiation? I'm just saying I acknowledge those parts and I want to avoid it. I think in theory people can band together and collectively negotiate without actually forming a legal union.
      - redserk 3y ago
        “I want to cook eggs on top of hot oil but I don’t want to say I’m frying them” is more words to get to “I want to fry eggs” The framework to band together and collectively negotiate is literally called forming a union. You don’t have to collect dues if you don’t want/need to, nor do you need a bureaucracy. Eventually groups of collective negotiators (unions) end up in situations requiring resources, which require money. I’m talking about simple lawyer consults or if you wanted to buy research on current market pay.
charrondev 3y ago
My experience is that as a higher level IC your ability to get that raise from your current place requires you to shop around a bit and have the confidence that you can walk away and find land another job that pays more. It’s not a bad idea to do a couple interviews before your annual review comes up, even if you don’t have to say in quite so clear terms that you are ready to jump ship. Confidence helps a lot.
- corethree 3y ago
  Yeah. That's stupid right? Companies should prevent you from shopping around in the first place. They are exploiting your laziness and under confidence.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    Don't give the lobbyists any ideas.

kamikaz1k 3y ago

TFA goes over 5 potential reasons, the author cited their insider knowledge. None of those points cover what you said. The closest thing the author said was external experience is valued higher, which rings true to me.