3 ms·

I am not an HR wizard but in general, why don't companies like paying market value for people? If they underpay you're more likely to be disgruntled and leave r

by Yhippa 12y ago

I am not an HR wizard but in general, why don't companies like paying market value for people? If they underpay you're more likely to be disgruntled and leave right? Or worst case you get a rep for lowballing.

hyperliner 12y ago
hmmm, NO. The initial number defines your trajectory. Then everything else is a fight for the "qualitative" process of yearly increases based on "qualitative" (read: arbitrary) opinions of performance. Unless you are in Sales (in which the amount of revenue you have been able to bring speaks for itself), everything is arbitrary and it's up to you to identify the potential biases in the process. Also, people think this is a women thing. It is not. I will venture to say that ordinary (i.e. NOT STEVE BALLMER) short guys or bald guys make less money, or "ugly" guys (i.e. not "attractive tall and handsome"). People, you need to fight for yourselves because it's only you in that room. Also, as somebody else said, KNOW YOUR WORTH and DONT DISCOUNT YOURSELF (i.e. immigrants, women, "stereotypical" gays, short folks, people with no degree but tons of experience, blacks, people with bad teeth, extra weight around the waist, etc. etc.). Fact is, it's a discriminating world. Sorry, it's what it is.
Goladus 12y ago
I would not be surprised if the difficulty relevant to scenarios like the OP is the nature of re-negotiation. She started at what was likely a quite reasonable $40,000 salary for an unproven undergraduate. Then was hired on shortly after at that rate because it was convenient for everyone. The problem is that her performance (value) busted the curve and quickly out-paced the percentage-based raise system. Some companies do "corrections" every so often, in fact I have benefited twice from that sort of thing. It's probably safe to say though, that you probably don't want to sit around waiting for "market corrections" if you're being underpaid.
- eropple 12y ago
  Man...c'mon. Nobody goes from forty to eighty because they're an "unproven undergraduate." They go from forty to eighty when somebody's screwing them and gets called on it.
  - Goladus 12y ago
    What part of this sentence do you fail to grasp? The problem is that her performance (value) busted the curve and quickly out-paced the percentage-based raise system. I figure it was implied that either no one noticed or had the willingness to take any personal risks to circumvent the system to fix her salary.
    - eropple 12y ago
      It isn't what I fail to grasp, it's that I reject the idea that one's performance can break such a curve in a developer job unless the person in question was underpaid to begin with. That doesn't happen unless the deck is stacked. It just does not.

by Yhippa 12y ago

hyperliner 12y ago

hmmm, NO. The initial number defines your trajectory. Then everything else is a fight for the "qualitative" process of yearly increases based on "qualitative" (read: arbitrary) opinions of performance. Unless you are in Sales (in which the amount of revenue you have been able to bring speaks for itself), everything is arbitrary and it's up to you to identify the potential biases in the process. Also, people think this is a women thing. It is not. I will venture to say that ordinary (i.e. NOT STEVE BALLMER) short guys or bald guys make less money, or "ugly" guys (i.e. not "attractive tall and handsome"). People, you need to fight for yourselves because it's only you in that room. Also, as somebody else said, KNOW YOUR WORTH and DONT DISCOUNT YOURSELF (i.e. immigrants, women, "stereotypical" gays, short folks, people with no degree but tons of experience, blacks, people with bad teeth, extra weight around the waist, etc. etc.). Fact is, it's a discriminating world. Sorry, it's what it is.

Goladus 12y ago

I would not be surprised if the difficulty relevant to scenarios like the OP is the nature of re-negotiation. She started at what was likely a quite reasonable $40,000 salary for an unproven undergraduate. Then was hired on shortly after at that rate because it was convenient for everyone. The problem is that her performance (value) busted the curve and quickly out-paced the percentage-based raise system. Some companies do "corrections" every so often, in fact I have benefited twice from that sort of thing. It's probably safe to say though, that you probably don't want to sit around waiting for "market corrections" if you're being underpaid.

eropple 12y ago
Man...c'mon. Nobody goes from forty to eighty because they're an "unproven undergraduate." They go from forty to eighty when somebody's screwing them and gets called on it.
- Goladus 12y ago
  What part of this sentence do you fail to grasp? The problem is that her performance (value) busted the curve and quickly out-paced the percentage-based raise system. I figure it was implied that either no one noticed or had the willingness to take any personal risks to circumvent the system to fix her salary.
  - eropple 12y ago
    It isn't what I fail to grasp, it's that I reject the idea that one's performance can break such a curve in a developer job unless the person in question was underpaid to begin with. That doesn't happen unless the deck is stacked. It just does not.