Hacker News Reader

Comment by MattGaiser | Hacker News Reader

I would be interested to see the difference between those who did switch and those who didn't.

It could easily be 20% raises for those moving and 1% for those who are not.

It seems like companies are really having a hard time understanding that people are not going to just take financial hits out of loyalty to a company anymore. Companies still appear to be of the mindset that they can give small cost of living increases and people will stick around for years in hopes of getting promoted. With inflation at 9%, getting a 20% raise after 2 years with a promotion essentially just sets you back at your starting salary with more work and responsibility. Why would anyone stick around for that? Plus there are only so many positions available to be promoted into, statistically the odds are not good for most. Coupled with the fact that companies are very open that they have zero loyalty to any employee below c-suite, its not really surprising people are only keeping jobs for a couple years before being forced to look somewhere else.

> Why would anyone stick around for that?

Lots of reasons.

First of all, job hunting takes time and effort. If you're rusty at interviewing and need some practice, then even more so. People that have kids or other responsibilities outside of work have even less of both available. On top of that you have to face rejection, which for many people is emotionally difficult.

Secondly, even if everything goes well, it's still a substantial risk. The new job might seem great at first, then turn out to be a nightmare a couple of months in. The old job might not be ideal, but you're used to it, and know you can live with it -- it's the devil you know. Same way that couples often stay in unsatisfying relationships for years, because it seems better than risking ending up alone.

I have kids and need a raise each year to afford to buy them the things they need while still having a hope of retiring one day.

"The new job might seem great at first, then turn out to be a nightmare a couple of months in"

This is pretty much most of my jobs. The current one is probably the nicest I have had in a long time but I still need a raise as the thought of working until 65 just to be old and then die fills me with existential dread.

I received a 1% raise at my current job. My coworkers who worked evenings and weekends received a "100% positive adjustment of their raise" (2%).

A 1% raise seems insulting imo.

It is

I started at a company in mid January, and they did annual reviews in June/July. After review, I 'merited' a 4% raise. But... because I'd only been there since January, they prorated the 4% raise to 2%. I never quite understood their logic, but also didn't stay through the end of the year.

EDIT: this was... 2004/2005 era.

IMHO quite generous by them, in my former companies you skipped the raise talk if you joined less than 9 months ago. Makes sense, because you just negotiated your salary on entry.

> Makes sense, because you just negotiated your salary on entry.

Not really, as in this field that is about halfway through your tenure. Market has certainly shifted a lot in 9 months past.

18 month tenure seems short, even for IT employees. Better off just staffing with contractors if that's truly expected.

Devs seem to last two years, but they make the decision to leave well before that, so you need to get a retention offer in before they start the job search.

Any data on that?

Only anecdotal, but that seems to be how long people last. There are no devs that I knew at either of my past two jobs that remain. Virtually all friends report similar experiences.

Inventing arbitrary formulae to calculate your wage is merely a dishonest negotiation tactic. Govt companies do it all the time, don't read too much into it. Also, it's perfectly fine to renegotiate your wage once you're off your probation period, as once you're in, you have a better idea of your worth to the company. Just don't do it too often.

It's a clear signal, the company values you less than when it hired you. When leaving a company like that I find it best to frame it in a way that they were unhappy with you. "Hey look I know you are trying to spare my feelings, but that is 6 percent less than inflation, clearly you want me out of here but didn't have the courage to lay me off. Thanks for the heads up, I've found another role."

It really seems like you are most valued the day you are hired, with your value declining by the day.

The whole concept of value in terms of business transactions seems weird to me. It is ill defined and unactionable.

Either you agree to buy or sell at a certain price, or not. “Value” plays no role in the determination of prices.

Well, what the business will pay for you declines the longer you stay.

Every choice in life is a gamble. Many or most businesses are betting that their labor vendors (employees) will accept less and less. Based on the statistics of the past 5 decades, this seems to have been a good bet.

Whether you agree to buy or sell at a certain price is entirely dependent on whether such price is higher or lower than the value of the trade, in your own subjective assessment.

There are other meanings of the word "value" in business transactions, but that is probably the most common and fundamental one.

>Whether you agree to buy or sell at a certain price is entirely dependent on whether such price is higher or lower than the value of the trade, in your own subjective assessment.

The subjective assessment of the "value of the trade" is then a function of the subject's alternatives, which is usually how much someone else will pay or accept from them.

I find the term utility to be more beneficial than value, due to it being less likely to be confused. As a boss, I would say I value all the employees equally, in human terms. But the employees provide different amounts of utility/$. Although I can see how people use value and utility interchangeably.

> The subjective assessment of the "value of the trade" is then a function of the subject's alternatives, which is usually how much someone else will pay or accept from them.

I agree that it is a function of the alternatives, but the operative alternative here is not trading. The best way to assess value is that which you lose by taking something away, like taking a player out of a team or a customer out of your book of business

So in order for us to keep our value, we'd better switch as often as possible, I guess. As long as companies aren't giving reasonable raises, at least.

Isn't that basically how tech careers work? We switch as often as vesting or the willingness of better companies to take us allows.

That is how price discovery in any market works. The more often buyers and sellers engage in transparent transactions, the more knowledge market participants have of supply and demand curve movements.

Note that for buying and selling labor, price is not only the amount of currency being exchanged, but will also include things like work schedules, work environments, break time, location, etc. I prefer to think of it as $x per a certain amount of quality of life at work.

That's how it feels to me.

1.5% raise receiver here. Yes I'm insulted.

I got nothing for a couple of years in a row, then less than 1% the next; the HR guys said this is because there is a very low turnover, so there is no need to pay better. Companies to what they can, as much as they can.

After a few rounds of this, developers basically join a company with a plan to leave as soon as they become reasonably productive.

Is keeping your salary at pace with inflation a good argument? My raises have typically been 0-3% YoY but inflation in 2021 was 6.8%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com