Hacker News Reader

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

I've never worked at a place that gave pay increases based on inflation.

I think debating inflation predictions for both the employer and employee could be an endless / counter productive and exhausting thing.

Probably better to make your case via the typical salary negotiation methods, discussing what you did, etc.

View on HN

> I think debating inflation predictions for both the employer and employee could be an endless / counter productive and exhausting thing.

Yes, and OP seems to be on the verge of a new approach - find a new job.

I’d also assume that inflation doesn’t hit the country evenly, and sectors, regions and individuals all experience it differently. The OP could be considerably better placed or worse off than the mean.

I could be based on the most recently available data.

I mean, one of the main reasons we see so much inequality today is that workers haven't demanded inflation increases. The tactic of negotiating for it on merit is good, but it's good to have this as a fallback and to understand if your merit increase really is an increase or not even keeping pace.

> I mean, one of the main reasons we see so much inequality today is that workers haven't demanded inflation increases.

Inflation increases are not increases.

Not sure why you are being downvoted. We are saying similar things. I think you just mean the real wage stays the same if you get an inflation adjustment. My point was without that adjustment (or an adjustment less than the inflation rate) the real wage decreases.

Not having inflation based pay raises is exactly equivalent to taking an automatic pay cut every year, which by your logic you only avoid if you "preformed well".

I think I'll pass.

It's not a pay cut if you get a raise for .. some other reason.

I've just never seen 'inflation pay raise' as a policy.

> I've just never seen 'inflation pay raise' as a policy.

They are pretty common.

Do they actually pick an inflation indicator and go by that?

I think it really depends.

I've seen big sector contracts (e.g. 10k-100k employees) with it built in for a fixed number of years. Presumably the negotiators talked through some indicators originally.

I've also seen several 'eh, on average it's about 2%" type giving leading to a 2% written into your comp.

I've also seen places give it but not in your contract; based on execs opinion I guess on what real cost-of-living was doing. I suppose that's plausibly as accurate as picking an index.

I've seen inflation adjustments, but cost of living adjustments are far more common.

The two concepts are so intertwined they are often rolled together.

FWIW I've seen contracts with separate clauses (e.g. something like everyone gets 2%, if you live in this city or this city you also get a 5% col adjustment). The non-inflation aspect of c-o-l changes is usual housing related and regional, I think (or based on remoteness)

You see it more in more traditional industries. My last job was public sector and the unionized workers had CPI somehow embedded into their contracts.

My new trendy tech company? No policies on pay whatsoever.

Yeah, we call it COLA (cost of living adjustment), and we get a bump every couple of years or so.

They are usually called something like "cost of living raise" but the meaning is the same.

The pay raise I expect is so much more than inflation. If I got less than 20% total comp increase at low numbers or less than $100k at high numbers, I’m assuming my performance is insufficient and I’m going to find a place to be more productive. At the point where we’re debating 2% increases, I don’t really care. I’m gone. You know it, I know it.

I’m not special. This is San Francisco as much as I know.

How many years of experience do you have?

Seven.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com