6 ms·

This is a reflection of 1) compensation has come down since the ZIRP era at least in some roles and 2) it's a hirer's market. This means companies see an oppor

This is a reflection of 1) compensation has come down since the ZIRP era at least in some roles and 2) it's a hirer's market. This means companies see an opportunity to bring compensation down. I wish employees would instead have an opportunity to sign up for lower salary. For whatever reason you just don't see that happening anywhere

QuiEgo 1y ago
Sharing the risk (and rewards) with the company is why we take 50% or more of our comp as RSUs instead of being paid in straight cash. This should already be factored in. If the company does bad, we should already be taking an (effective) pay cut. Amazon's backloaded vesting is terrible (for both Amazon and Amazonians) for this exact reason.
klysm 1y ago
Spreadsheet doesn’t like that option because number go down more with this option
sbarre 1y ago
I've taken pay cuts twice in my career, but both times it was at unfunded startups and it was more of a "we'll get you back for this later" (one did, one did not). I worry that normalizing the idea that a company can make you an offer (that you can't refuse) of lower pay, with the alternative being that you get fired, would set some really bad precedents. Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it as a way to meet targets (perhaps unrealistic ones) at the expense of take-home pay for employees, even in situations where they don't actually need to make cuts.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  This. Companies will always min/max a system so they retain as much money as possible for as few hands as they can manage, always funneled upwards to executives and shareholders. Rather than trying to “negotiate” with these entities, regulations should be wielded to stop min-maxing beyond a certain point or in bad faith, and firing people while turning a profit is 100% bad faith that should be regulated or barred.
  - martin-t 1y ago
    Behavior is shaped by incentives. Countries used to be overwhelmingly autocratic - often ruled by hereditary dictators called kings. People realized unchecked power will always lead to abuse and overthrew them. Companies are overwhelmingly autocratic (cooperatives being exceedingly rare to the point most people don't know about their existence) - often rules by hereditary dictators called owners. But you can't legally overthrow them[0]. If only we had a system of rules we could vote on which would make this arrangement forbidden... --- [0]: You can't legally overthrow a government either but if you do it successfully anyway, then you are the government and you decide what is legal. Ironically, no democratic countries I know of have clauses in their ruleset ("laws") which declare that people are allowed to overthrow the government if it's no longer democratic, even if those democratic governments were created by overthrowing a previous dictatorship.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      The US kind of does in that at least in spirit if the government violates the constitution we have this 2nd Amendment and plenty of moral precedent from the founders. It’s in the Declaration of Independence too which, in my view, is just the first page of the Constitution. The 0th Amendment if you will. Related to your second point about autocracy - I mean the good thing is you can, today, go start a company with the exact governance structure you propose and go compete in the market.
      - Hikikomori 1y ago
        Won't work if the government is willing to use the army against you, like the current one.
        ericmay 1y ago
        Nope, see various rebellions throughout history plus insurgencies and such. It won’t work not because it wouldn’t work - you’re also assuming 100% military compliance and, as a veteran who served in active duty I can tell you not everyone agrees or disagrees with the current administration and people really do care about the Constitution, but it wouldn’t work because when you sit down and really think about it, the status quo for 90% of people is pretty good and they’re not going to take up arms over the vast majority of things a government does.
- baq 1y ago
  as if they don't already; the job market is a market with a mechanism for price discovery (duh. wouldn't be a market otherwise.) the unfortunate fact is that the people forced to be sellers of their time on the market have livelihoods and families to support, so the market is in most places very heavily regulated, some would say overregulated. OTOH capitalism really did pull out many countries out of extreme poverty, so it isn't globally bad, but outcomes for individual participants aren't always... that great.
  - axus 1y ago
    The Colorado rules about publishing salary ranges really help make it a true market. Better insight on compensation, in more places, would be even better. And evolving laws as the workarounds evolve; this is why we have legislators.
- cjs_ac 1y ago
  You can't fire people and rehire them at lower pay; they'd be so upset at you you wouldn't be able to trust them to do anything properly. What you can do is fire people you think you're paying too much and hire someone else to do the same job at lower pay.
- itsoktocry 1y ago
  >Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it as a way to meet targets (perhaps unrealistic ones) at the expense of take-home pay for employees, even in situations where they don't actually need to make cuts. And the reverse? We literally just went through a phase where tech companies over hired like crazy, at ridiculous salaries. We had people remote working 3 or more jobs at a time. And yet, people still act like companies have all the power? This stuff ebbs and flows. The reality is the value of your labour fluctuates, despite the inconvenience of that to you.
lotsofpulp 1y ago
> I wish employees would instead have an opportunity to sign up for lower salary. They do, almost every year when health insurance premiums/copays/deductibles/out of pocket maximum go up and number of in network or tier 1 providers goes down.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Are you getting cost of living raises that beat inflation recently? How do I negotiate for those
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Find another buyer willing to pay you what you want.
    - nemomarx 1y ago
      I think that's much harder in an economy with routine layoffs, so my point is that a lot of the working population is already taking pay cuts every year they can't leave their job, yeah?
  - hobs 1y ago
    get a new job every two years, spend the first year working hard and the second year getting a new job
    - tonyhart7 1y ago
      "get a new job every two years, spend the first year working hard and the second year getting a new job" but you just assuming the vacancies position stayed the same which is never happen
      - hobs 1y ago
        No, you are not applying for one target job, but one target promotion, the company is less important compared to the promo path and often times you can do things like get a promo and come back to your original company with 200% the salary.
martin-t 1y ago
I wish the average and median salary of every position at the company was legally required to be made available to every employee and candidate so the negotiation can be an actual negotiation instead of a guessing game. I wish workers voted for their managers and did so periodically, managers at the end of their term would return to their previous position if any. In fact, an expectation of every position being temporary could lead to exactly what you are describing. But only if pay cuts hit everyone at the company equally or based on their merit, not the top layer deciding the bottom layer gets paid less, while giving themselves bonuses for saving the company money.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  It technically is in California. If your position is posted in a job ad in California is needs to disclose wage. If we're on wish mode: I sure wish worker would come together and proper unionize rather than do anything else to grovel to the company. These are not new problems, and blood was spilt to get where we are today, follow by decades of disestablishment to claw it back.
wat10000 1y ago
The instant that offer was made, any sensible person will start looking for another job. The only people who will stay are the ones who can’t get hired elsewhere. You’ll lose your best people and keep the worst. Layoffs are very tricky because just the act of laying people off can trigger good employees who remain to start looking elsewhere. It can trigger a sort of evaporative cooling of your whole workforce. A strategy of offering reduced pay instead of being laid off would exacerbate it.

QuiEgo 1y ago

Sharing the risk (and rewards) with the company is why we take 50% or more of our comp as RSUs instead of being paid in straight cash. This should already be factored in. If the company does bad, we should already be taking an (effective) pay cut. Amazon's backloaded vesting is terrible (for both Amazon and Amazonians) for this exact reason.

klysm 1y ago

Spreadsheet doesn’t like that option because number go down more with this option

sbarre 1y ago

I've taken pay cuts twice in my career, but both times it was at unfunded startups and it was more of a "we'll get you back for this later" (one did, one did not). I worry that normalizing the idea that a company can make you an offer (that you can't refuse) of lower pay, with the alternative being that you get fired, would set some really bad precedents. Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it as a way to meet targets (perhaps unrealistic ones) at the expense of take-home pay for employees, even in situations where they don't actually need to make cuts.

stego-tech 1y ago
This. Companies will always min/max a system so they retain as much money as possible for as few hands as they can manage, always funneled upwards to executives and shareholders. Rather than trying to “negotiate” with these entities, regulations should be wielded to stop min-maxing beyond a certain point or in bad faith, and firing people while turning a profit is 100% bad faith that should be regulated or barred.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Behavior is shaped by incentives. Countries used to be overwhelmingly autocratic - often ruled by hereditary dictators called kings. People realized unchecked power will always lead to abuse and overthrew them. Companies are overwhelmingly autocratic (cooperatives being exceedingly rare to the point most people don't know about their existence) - often rules by hereditary dictators called owners. But you can't legally overthrow them[0]. If only we had a system of rules we could vote on which would make this arrangement forbidden... --- [0]: You can't legally overthrow a government either but if you do it successfully anyway, then you are the government and you decide what is legal. Ironically, no democratic countries I know of have clauses in their ruleset ("laws") which declare that people are allowed to overthrow the government if it's no longer democratic, even if those democratic governments were created by overthrowing a previous dictatorship.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    The US kind of does in that at least in spirit if the government violates the constitution we have this 2nd Amendment and plenty of moral precedent from the founders. It’s in the Declaration of Independence too which, in my view, is just the first page of the Constitution. The 0th Amendment if you will. Related to your second point about autocracy - I mean the good thing is you can, today, go start a company with the exact governance structure you propose and go compete in the market.
    - Hikikomori 1y ago
      Won't work if the government is willing to use the army against you, like the current one.
      - ericmay 1y ago
        Nope, see various rebellions throughout history plus insurgencies and such. It won’t work not because it wouldn’t work - you’re also assuming 100% military compliance and, as a veteran who served in active duty I can tell you not everyone agrees or disagrees with the current administration and people really do care about the Constitution, but it wouldn’t work because when you sit down and really think about it, the status quo for 90% of people is pretty good and they’re not going to take up arms over the vast majority of things a government does.
baq 1y ago
as if they don't already; the job market is a market with a mechanism for price discovery (duh. wouldn't be a market otherwise.) the unfortunate fact is that the people forced to be sellers of their time on the market have livelihoods and families to support, so the market is in most places very heavily regulated, some would say overregulated. OTOH capitalism really did pull out many countries out of extreme poverty, so it isn't globally bad, but outcomes for individual participants aren't always... that great.
- axus 1y ago
  The Colorado rules about publishing salary ranges really help make it a true market. Better insight on compensation, in more places, would be even better. And evolving laws as the workarounds evolve; this is why we have legislators.
cjs_ac 1y ago
You can't fire people and rehire them at lower pay; they'd be so upset at you you wouldn't be able to trust them to do anything properly. What you can do is fire people you think you're paying too much and hire someone else to do the same job at lower pay.
itsoktocry 1y ago
>Companies would start to min/max this process and would use it as a way to meet targets (perhaps unrealistic ones) at the expense of take-home pay for employees, even in situations where they don't actually need to make cuts. And the reverse? We literally just went through a phase where tech companies over hired like crazy, at ridiculous salaries. We had people remote working 3 or more jobs at a time. And yet, people still act like companies have all the power? This stuff ebbs and flows. The reality is the value of your labour fluctuates, despite the inconvenience of that to you.

lotsofpulp 1y ago

> I wish employees would instead have an opportunity to sign up for lower salary. They do, almost every year when health insurance premiums/copays/deductibles/out of pocket maximum go up and number of in network or tier 1 providers goes down.

nemomarx 1y ago
Are you getting cost of living raises that beat inflation recently? How do I negotiate for those
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Find another buyer willing to pay you what you want.
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    I think that's much harder in an economy with routine layoffs, so my point is that a lot of the working population is already taking pay cuts every year they can't leave their job, yeah?
- hobs 1y ago
  get a new job every two years, spend the first year working hard and the second year getting a new job
  - tonyhart7 1y ago
    "get a new job every two years, spend the first year working hard and the second year getting a new job" but you just assuming the vacancies position stayed the same which is never happen
    - hobs 1y ago
      No, you are not applying for one target job, but one target promotion, the company is less important compared to the promo path and often times you can do things like get a promo and come back to your original company with 200% the salary.

martin-t 1y ago

I wish the average and median salary of every position at the company was legally required to be made available to every employee and candidate so the negotiation can be an actual negotiation instead of a guessing game. I wish workers voted for their managers and did so periodically, managers at the end of their term would return to their previous position if any. In fact, an expectation of every position being temporary could lead to exactly what you are describing. But only if pay cuts hit everyone at the company equally or based on their merit, not the top layer deciding the bottom layer gets paid less, while giving themselves bonuses for saving the company money.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
It technically is in California. If your position is posted in a job ad in California is needs to disclose wage. If we're on wish mode: I sure wish worker would come together and proper unionize rather than do anything else to grovel to the company. These are not new problems, and blood was spilt to get where we are today, follow by decades of disestablishment to claw it back.

wat10000 1y ago

The instant that offer was made, any sensible person will start looking for another job. The only people who will stay are the ones who can’t get hired elsewhere. You’ll lose your best people and keep the worst. Layoffs are very tricky because just the act of laying people off can trigger good employees who remain to start looking elsewhere. It can trigger a sort of evaporative cooling of your whole workforce. A strategy of offering reduced pay instead of being laid off would exacerbate it.