More than Half of Americans Say They Didn't Get a Pay Raise this Year (marketwatch.com) 325
Although the economy saw new peaks in 2018, not all Americans report reaping the benefits. An anonymous reader shares a report: The majority of workers say they saw no salary increases this year, according to a new survey. More than 60% of Americans said they didn't get a pay raise at their current job or get a better-paying job in the last 12 months, according to a survey released Wednesday from finance site Bankrate.com. Meanwhile, executives have seen a surge in compensation, according to an August study from the Economic Policy Institute. The average chief executive officer at the 350 largest firms in the U.S. received $18.9 million in compensation in 2017, the study showed, a 17.6% increase over 2016. Despite those disparities, 91% of Americans say they have the same or greater confidence in the job market than they did one year ago, according to Bankrate.com.
Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
That's ok, in the US if you leave you have to deal with your health insurance, and retirement plan (and who knows what else) being tied to your employer.
We've created a system where the best easiest course of action is to find a job, work there until you die, and get paid pennies on the dollar for your effort...
If we had some sort of national healthcare system then you know changing jobs would be that much easier....
But we are working hard to create the company towns of old, where getting fired means losing your not only your income, but also your health, your savings, your home, and once they can work out the legal details I'm sure they'll want to take your first born child as well....
Because corporations know that once they have you in, the benefits lock you in, welcome to the walled garden of employment.
Re:Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
We could do the same thing with our healthcare. Each person/family could have a personal health plan where your current employer pays some or all of its costs. You can control what coverage you want (instead of some government bureaucracy) or what deductibles you are comfortable with (gasp, the same as you currently do with life, home, and auto insurance). If you leave your current employer, those contributions may stop but the plan is still in force. You can pay them yourself, or get your next employer to chip in as a condition for getting you to work for them.
Re:Loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
We basically solved the retirement problem with the 401(k) system.
No...The median American has a 401k balance of about 75k. I don't know about you, but I could probably live on that for 2 years. Many people have zero retirement outside of social security.
Your comment on healthcare is reasonable, but I had to stop and reply on the 401k thing.
Re: (Score:3)
What's going on is a misunderstanding of opportunity cost [wikipedia.org]. There is no dif
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the part you're missing:
Employer A pays you $X/mo, and pays for your health insurance at $Y/mo. Between when you started working at A and now, you were diagnosed with mild cardiovascular disease.
Employer B offers you a job for $Z/mo. Unfortunately, if you move to B, you lose your health insurance through A. And because you've got cardiovascular disease, that counts as a pre-existing condition. Now you either _cannot_ get health insurance through B, or the cost is astronomically higher.
Given the r
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Click-bait (Score:4, Interesting)
This 60% thing is an interesting statistic, but it would be more relevant if we could see the proportion of Americans who didn't get pay raises for the last 5 years or so. It's effectively citing a number without a baseline for comparison.
Additionally, it could also be phrased as "40% of Americans got a pay raise this year", and in the context of our recent depression (starting at around 2008) might be a piece of good news. We'll never know.
The economy only really started to take off about October of last year, so we've only had a little more than a year of good economy. Will this trend continue? It might be nice to see a sparkline for this pay raise information month-by-month to see if represents an increasing trend.
Additional to that, the article as posted in a negative light (60%, without baseline) and immediately dives into how management all got raises. It then goes on to talk about minimum wage and how inflation hit a 6-year high in July of 2018.
The article is all about class envy, trying to gin up outrage in order to get clicks. Isn't it simply *awful* how those evil managers reward themselves while keeping most worker wages the same!!!
(Inflation in July 2018 was 0.01% [inflationdata.com], yet another number cited without baseline to provoke outrage.)
Really. It's well known that wages have been flat for much of the 2000's, and others report that US wage growth is at a nine-year high [bbc.com].
Take a skeptics view of click-bait articles.
Re: (Score:3)
This 60% thing is an interesting statistic, but it would be more relevant if we could see the proportion of Americans who didn't get pay raises for the last 5 years or so. It's effectively citing a number without a baseline for comparison.
They did give a baseline for comparison, but only one year (it was 52% last year compared to 62% this year). Sure 5 years of baseline data would be better, but then you could always just complain they didn't give 10 years of data for their baseline.
The economy only really started to take off about October of last year, so we've only had a little more than a year of good economy. Will this trend continue?
What are you talking about? GDP growth has stayed consistent since 2010 at just over 2% on average. Growth in 2018 should be closer to 3% (like 2015) but that is mostly just a result of binge spending from tax cuts. The effect of that will wear off very soon and
Re: (Score:2)
Supply and demand.
While the unemployment is low, the supply of workers isn't so much.
Unemployment numbers are from people are accounting for people who are actively working for work. Not people who cannot work (Age, Illness, etc...), don't want to work, are in school for example. During the last recession, a lot of people gave up and took themselves out of the job search market, now with low unemployment, and job offers, people will come out of the wood work get jobs. So the supply of workers available i
Re: (Score:2)
For the CEO, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually not until after the workers see a pay cut - not necessarily all of the workers, it may be just some who see a complete pay reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
We haven't done our tax returns for the year yet.
Not being to deduct our state taxes against our federal ones, could negate the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you want to play that game, the vast majority of the tax cut benefits went to the wealthy, you know, the ones who ALSO got a 17% wage increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much.
They increased the standard deduction but eliminated the personal exemption. Anyone who itemizes is going to get screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Anyone who lives in a high tax state is going to get screwed and so be it.
Someone in a low tax state making $X should not pay more income taxes than someone in a high tax state making the same.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that there are deductions besides state and local taxes, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The driver of the supposed inequity is state and local taxes.
It's soooo funny how the Left has screamed about people paying their fair share and now that THEY had to do it, they get all upset.
Borrowing from tomorrow (Score:3)
Keep in mind that the tax reform will add about $1,000,000,000,000 to the deficit, so this is money you are borrowing (with interest) from your future self, or more likely your kids.
There are about 125 million households in the USA, so each family owns about $8000 of that deficit. If your refund has increased by >$8000 per year then this reform was made for you.
If your refund is only $4000/year, then you are borrowing $8000 from your kids. Someone richer than you gets $4000 and you get to keep the othe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you get a $4,000 refund, you are a moron who knows nothing about Tax Planning.
Re: (Score:3)
If you get a $4,000 refund, you are a moron who knows nothing about Tax Planning.
I think you're missing the point. I'm referring to how much you take home with reformed tax bill relative to before - nothing to do with withholding.
For reference, the majority of people - those making under $91,700 — will receive about $400, on average [cbpp.org]. Nowhere near the $8000 they are borrowing from their kids.
Re: (Score:3)
My taxes often fluctuate by up to $1k from year to year, sometimes $2k with bigger changes. I prefer to keep my refund small, but I'd rather not take chances on owing. Is everyone else so consistent year over year they can predict it down to less than that?
Re:Doubtful Accuracy (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You should never measure tax cuts against deficits and debt..... They should only be measured against TAX REVENUES. If you cut taxes and overall revenues go up, (because the economy is stimulated and growth drives it) then the tax cut is a benefit to the country as a whole......
Your statement is mathematically provable. Just calculate the required economic growth required to increase tax revenues at the lower tax rate. If the required economic growth is greater than the projected growth due to the stimulus effects, then the tax cut is revenue positive. The problem with all these tax cuts, going all the way back to Reagan is the required economic growth to maintain revenue neutrality has always been much greater than the stimulative effect and the net result is increased government
Re:Doubtful Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if what you say is true (and I don't agree that it is), the extra $500 billion the politicians decide to spend in your example likely came from the psychology of tax cuts.
In a complex system, you must pay attention to all reactions, not just the ones you choose. You chose to credit the economic burst to the tax cuts but not the spending increases. That makes no sense. Without all of the fuzzy math floating around letting them make the argument that the economic increase will be much greater, the increases wouldn't have happened.
Furthermore, the economics won't last. There are limitations to the economy other than what people spend on taxes. Some of those limitations involve finite things like how many workers we have. If you over-rev the economy up and smash it into those walls, the backlash can put you back further than where you started. But, a lot of wheeler and dealers will walk away richer, so I guess it serves a purpose for someone.
Re:Doubtful Accuracy (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that with the recent tax cut, the revenues didn't increase nearly enough [politifact.com] to offset it. It's nowhere near the levels the Republicans claimed it would rise to when they passed the tax cuts, it's not even to the level that the CBO estimated it would be so this tax cut is likely going to add to the debt even more than the 1.5 TRILLION dollars the Republicans claimed it would. The GDP has grown at similar levels [tradingeconomics.com] as during the Obama administration and tax revenues have actually gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis. Studies that have looked at the economic impact of the corporate tax cut mostly went to share buybacks, companies didn't use the money to expand or invest, they gave it to their owners. It doesn't seem to have spurred any growth in the economy at all. The result of this tax bill seems to be that the rich got richer and the middle class (and the future middle class) will be paying the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Raises under 2.1% weren't (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no problem with employers who seek to pay the least they can. Employees who feel valued or need the job will stay. Some employers seek to make sure people feel fairly compensated others don't. It's their call.
People who feel like that employers have an obligation to look out for their employees should join a union if their employer isn't meeting that standard. That's what unions are for.
in the US the average inflation rate was 2.1% last year. and probably higher next year but CPI raises are backward
Re:Raises under 2.1% weren't (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not making that assumption at all. Indeed 20% of families have someone with pre-existing conditions and until Obamacare moving in hopes of a better job wasn't an option. On the otherhand, that's also a perk employers are paying and the cost of that perk was rising as much as 20% a year, in some years so people were getting raises even if it was not in their pay envelope.
I'm just saying it's not neccessarily the employers job to watch out for employees. Unions are needed for those industries that have
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not making that assumption at all. Indeed 20% of families have someone with pre-existing conditions and until Obamacare moving in hopes of a better job wasn't an option.
You're giving credit to the wrong person. Clinton took care of that problem in the late 90's early 2000s with HIPPA.
ObamaCare made it so that people can now wait until they get sick to get insurance with the only penalty being a tax (and now that tax is gone.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem with employers who seek to pay the least they can. Employees who feel valued or need the job will stay. Some employers seek to make sure people feel fairly compensated others don't. It's their call.
You say that employees can just switch jobs like it was as easy as eating a different brand of cereal for breakfast. Not everybody lives in an area where there are jobs to choose from. Not everybody has the skillsets where they can jump between employers because they don't like where they work. Not everybody works in an industry where switching jobs is even acceptable. And not everybody can up and move to find better prospects.
There is but one single goal in American culture: get to the top of the ladder so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well no that's not what I said. I said "Employees who need the job will stay". Exactly for the reasons you listed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Climbing the ladder is is not about making money at the expense of others. That is an absurd sentiment that promotes some sort of class war/envy which does nothing to better anyone's life. Whining never helped anyone."
That is an absurd statement that pretends wealth and resources aren't limited. It only feels that way because you have plenty of them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.
My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:
1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)
2. You don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate. (i.e. Don't be afraid to ASK for what you deserve, but you have to be prepared to move on if they cannot or will not do what you think is fair. )
I have another friend who used to tell me in the down turn in the tech market of the 2000's, "Right now it's a buyer's market, but it will be a seller's market someday again." He was saying the same thing as my dad, be ready to demand more, but fully understand the limits of your bargaining power and be ready to walk when it makes sense to your future.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, if you can't get a raise and can't get a better paying job, you may be mistaking your worth. I've worked with those people.
Re:Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.
My father has two sayings which are true and speak to this situation:
1. When you work for somebody else, they never pay you what you are worth, or they'd not make any money. (i.e. work for yourself son..)
This isn't necessarily true. It would always be true if your employer were directly selling the output of your labor, without combining it in any non-zero-sum way with the output of other employees or partners, or with other knowledge or resources, but this is generally not so. It's often not the case that your labor will generate as much value when you're working for yourself as it does when you're working for your employer. Many people would make less money if self-employed than they do as an employee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Labor is taxed at twice the rate of capital. Why is this? Why isn't it the other way around?
The theory is that taxing capital has a larger negative impact on the economy than taxing labor, since it discourages investment and encourages capital (which is more mobile than labor) to flee high-tax jurisdictions. Also, note that what you say is only true of long-term capital investment. Short-term investment is taxed at the same rates as labor, at least in the US. This is intended to encourage long-term investment which is seen as more beneficial to economic growth.
I'm not claiming to know if any of
Re: (Score:2)
Capital is mobile. World economies compete on after tax ROI: (AverageROI * (1 - CapGainsRate) * (1 - CorpTaxRate) * (1 - CorruptionTax)).
If a nation's after tax ROI isn't competitive, it gets no investment.
Capital controls don't work.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone has an inflated sense of self worth. Flipping a burger patty isn't worth $15 an hour even if the employee thinks they should be paid that much. Paying labor less is not the only way to get profit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flipping a burger patty isn't worth $15 an hour even if the employee thinks they should be paid that much.
The same thing could be said about CEOs and their pay too. But I do agree with you when you say "Everyone has an inflated sense of self worth."
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
$15/hr doesn't go very far these days. Anyone who works a 40/hr week should be well over the poverty line.
If you run a service company your hourly billing rate is based on what you need to make to live. It doesn't matter what the number is or what people perceive as high, if you aren't making that you raise your rate or you come up with some other gimmick or scheme that results in charging more while making the raw rate seem more palatable.
There is no job that if worked full time shouldn't pay enough to liv
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Barely manage to get by implies they can get by. The next issue is can they better their lot in life. If confidence in the job market is an indicator, then people can if they want.
Some people make poor choices and that isn't a justification for an economic policy that doesn't make sense. A national minimum wage of $15 an hour make zero sense. Maybe in New York City or Silicone Valley where the cost of living is so high but not in Montana or Wyoming where you can live off current minimum wage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Still I had employees who would steal because they "saw how much money came through the store every day""
Obviously they shouldn't be stealing...but I've heard this argument from so many small business owners who complain about taxes, regulation, minimum wage, etc. There is no way a restaurant with massive profit margins is so cash-strapped that they can't afford to pay their employees a living wage, let alone $15/hr. If they don't want to pay people, then they should do all the work themselves and they'll
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is also freedom (Score:2)
Capitalism aims to get profit by paying labor less than it is worth.
Yes but luckily Capitalism is also the labor being free to move about until they feel they are getting what they are worth.
That's the amazing beauty of the system, the balance - if companies pay too low, workers will not hire on or will quit.
On the other hand, if workers demand too much they will not find, or keep work until they have more realistic demands.
And all without anyone actually figuring out what the "right" pay is, a dynamically
Making America great again... (Score:2)
Sometimes Americans make no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The average chief executive officer at the 350 largest firms in the U.S. received $18.9 million in compensation in 2017, the study showed, a 17.6% increase over 2016. Despite those disparities, 91% of Americans say they have the same or greater confidence in the job market than they did one year ago, according to Bankrate.com.
Comparing the average American to the C-levels in the top 350 might be a little disingenuous. That said, something is seriously fucked up when the economy is going to crap while C-levels somehow get a 17.6% increase over 2 years.
And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash? If this had been reported in Europe there would be hell to pay. Unions, political parties and ideological organizations would all protest and cause problems.
Hell, a week or three ago in Sweden somewhere, the politicians of Lidingo something municipality voted to increase their own salaries. There was such a ruckus that they in the end had to lower their salaries and apologize for being slithering opportunists. They were held accountable by the people.
In France, right now, well... France has a habit of taking things too far. But the French population do realize that if they band together, they have a voice and they can force change (or stasis, as in this case).
Don't you have a big statue or something to remind you of these lessons?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In France, right now, well... France has a habit of taking things too far.
Too far? I'd say just far enough!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing the average American to the C-levels in the top 350 might be a little disingenuous. That said, something is seriously fucked up when the economy is going to crap while C-levels somehow get a 17.6% increase over 2 years. ...And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash?
Averages mean little to the individual. If your life is "good enough" yet your raise this year wasn't as high as you want or inflation then so what? Sure, you are losing money in regards to inflation but your day to day expenses probably haven't changed or a rounding error of difference. Rent is still the same. Food is about the same. Transportation will be about the same. Most people at minimum wage probably do not see a change in their life because of inflation.
Comparing a horizontal average of two differ
Re:Sometimes Americans make no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
And finally, and perhaps most pertinent, why isn't there a backlash?
Many Americans believe they are not poor or middle class. They are temporarily inconvenienced billionaires. And if changes were made to help the poor/middle class, "That would hurt me once I return to my proper economic status!".
It's part of the Calvinist work ethic the country was founded on - the mistaken belief that everyone can get ahead if only they worked a little harder.
This particular belief waxes and wanes over the years, based on just how greedy the wealthy become. We're currently ending a period where this belief was ascendant and will have a correction soon.
Re: (Score:3)
" Don't you have a big statue or something to remind you of these lessons? "
Sure we do.
We, unlike France, also have a very trigger happy police force that are more than happy to remind you of how annoyed they are to be
deployed to quell any " demonstrations " ( they call them riots ). Any peaceful demonstration is easily turned into a shitstorm by inserting
an undercover officer ( or paid individual ) into the demonstrator crowd, who then does something ( fires a gun, lobs a firebomb, starts a fight, etc )
t
Make America Great Again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Promises promises (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?
Re:Promises promises (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?
I don't recall hearing that, but he says a lot of things... Do you have a citation? I also understand that his purposed tax cuts got trimmed by Congress, especially on the income tax side, so one needs to be careful to consider exactly which tax cut plan is being discussed, the one he wanted or the one Congress gave him.
BTW, household income IS going up these days on average according to the numbers I'm seeing.
Also, I'm still looking for my $2,500 savings promised by the ACA.... But hey, I fully understood
Re:Promises promises (Score:4, Informative)
Didn't Trump promise $4000 to $9000 average pay increase due to the tax cuts?
I don't recall hearing that, but he says a lot of things... Do you have a citation?
Here's a video [twitter.com] of him on the FOX Business Twitter feed saying:
.@POTUS: "This change, along with a lower business tax rate, would likely give the typical American household around a $4,000 pay raise."
and a press release [speaker.gov] from Speaker Paul Ryan's press office quoting a study from the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) -- a US agency within the Executive Office of the President -- saying:
The study finds that as a result of corporate tax reform alone, on average, American families will see a wage increase of at least $4,000 annually.
And there are numerous other examples of Trump and the GOP pushing this prediction.
So... Much... Winning...
Re:Promises promises (Score:4, Interesting)
My tax burden is greatly reduced thanks to the tax cuts.
Less taxes is equivalent to a pay raise.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My tax burden is greatly reduced thanks to the tax cuts.
Less taxes is equivalent to a pay raise.
Of course, if the states/country run huge deficits because of the tax cuts (as we are), the debt will continue to explode (as it is). It's simply pushing the burden down the line for your/our children to pay. There is no free lunch. But, hey, you got yours so, no problem.
Only real pay raises I've got (Score:5, Interesting)
is from changing jobs. Sad but something I've become used to in the last twenty years of working. It started out with getting a minimal cost of living raise one year and then twice that the next. No rhyme. No reason. That job got left by the wayside when they invited me to pursue other opportunities, along with 10% of the rest of the staff that year. It wasn't a layoff. Heavens no. It was Jack Welsh adjustment. Just enough people to keep those still there afraid that they might be next.
It's been the same pattern since then. It was always up and down and up and down. Only real raises when I moved onto another job. I kept asking for more and they kept putting up. Finally got one that felt right. Good management. Good people. Hope to stay here for some time.
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious if that is reflected in the study. If people are confident of the job market it implies that they can get a better job/more money if they try. If 60 % of low wage earners did not get raises , is that because of turnover? Is it only in regards to employees that stayed with the company for the full fiscal year?
What a strange spin on a great story (Score:5, Informative)
So here are the actual figures:
https://media.brstatic.com/201... [brstatic.com]
In the past 12 months, have you gotten a raise at your current job, gotten a better paying job, neither or both?
27% got a pay raise.
6% got a better paying job.
5% got both.
62% got neither.
Note: among respondents who are employed full time or part time.
Sounds to me like great numbers. A very large amount of people in my experience are very passive, and will not look for a better job, nor bother asking for a pay raise. They just go with the flow, which is the "neither" part. Which means all they get are inflation correction kind of raises, plus the union/collective bargaining items, but they don't actually get raises or better paying jobs.
To me that looks that if you're active enough to either look for a better job, or ask for a pay raise and your work performance entitles you to it, you're going to get it in the current job market. So go and do it if you're in that 62%. And remember that while doing that, you must be looking for a better job while doing it. Yes, that's additional effort. And yes, that's how you get a raise instead of being a part of passive 62%.
Re:What a strange spin on a great story (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you're precious. No, when they say they got neither, they mean they got neither. Most people considering getting any increase in their wage a raise even if the net effect is lower effective income due to inflation.
"Work performance entitles you to it"? Most employers don't think you're entitled to minimum wage and want to get rid of it. No, your comment about passiveness is right. People who go and ask for a raise and are denied don't seek other jobs because most other jobs pay about the same or will start you lower but there's no guarantee you'll get a raise there either.
The other point is for many places, it can takes weeks or even months to be hired at a new place even when the economy is doing well. So, yea, that 11% that switched are the basis for confidence that the economy is doing well enough. Otherwise, there'd just be talk about cutting hours, few to no pay raises (for workers), and a general knowledge that they're stuck again for another 4+ years until the economy improves. Or, of course, they can always switch when the economy is bad, be off work for months, and probably get a substantial pay cut that may take years to recover from.
If only there were that many better jobs people could realistically be looking for. It's easy to call the bluff of 60%+ of your workforce when the economy is doing well and 90% when the economy is doing poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
blah blah blah
they actually telephoned a relatively few number of people. get your knickers untwisted, the numbers are meaningless.
useless without a baseline (Score:2)
"77% got a pay raise.
6% got a better paying job.
5% got both.
12% got neither."
Then it does not make this year looks very good isn't it ? The point is that you need a baseline, preferably over a decade or two, to be able to compare.
I got the max raise (Score:2)
I asked for more as well and it is under review. Working for a non-profit and not making what I could. They need to approach what I could make, not asking for exact parity, but they need to work to retain me. I believe in our mission but mortgages and food arenâ(TM)t free.
THIS year? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is stopping you from taking the risk and great undertaking to start and grow your own company.
Except for that pesky need to consume food, and the unreasonable demand that shelter be paid for.
A year without employee theft from shareholders! (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Open salaries. You don't have to unionize but share salary information with your coworkers. There's a reason why companies like to keep this information secret. It's not to hide the salary of rock star that everyone knows does the lion's share of the work. It's to hide the fact that they're exploiting someone.
2) Renegotiate your compensation every 3 years. People tend to only ask for raises but the truth is that their entire compensation package is up for consideration. If they're not willing to pony up more cash for you then they might be willing to accelerate the timetable for your 401k vestment or give you more PTO. Look at the position and compensation package with fresh eyes.
3) No loyalty. Regularly apply for jobs with other companies. You're an asset to your company and they will have no qualms about letting you go if it doesn't make business sense to keep you around. Don't be blindly loyal to an organization that has no loyalty to you. If they can outsource you, your department, or your division for much cheaper than what they're paying you, then you're gonna be gone soon.
4) Remember that you're working for the shareholders, not management. The goal of the shareholders is to get as much money out of the company for what they invested into it. They don't care about you, your career, or your special needs kid.
5) "Business is war". You and your company are allies, nothing more. The company will bribe (*cough* campaign contributions) your politicians to get the company and shareholders a low tax rate. It won't do the same for you.
captcha: dilemma
Paycut by inflation (Score:3)
I remember a story when one of the old Kmart's closed down. A woman started at $3/hr in the mid 1970s and ended around $9 bucks an hour in 2018. Trouble was, $3/hr inflation adjusted in 1970 had $16/hr in buying power. She lost over 1/3 of her pay after 40 years or work.
Put another way, if minimum wage kept pace with productivity it'd be over $20/hr right now. Then again, 86% of the lost manufacturing jobs were lost to automation, not the Chinese & Mexico...
Did anyone look at the survey from the article? (Score:2)
Survey 1000 people over the phone, in 1 week. That's what this article is all about. Yup, all of America is based off of this data. 1000 people.
Everyone has their opinion and leanings. I know, lets show how evil CEOs are, or anyone who make more than you. See those bad people making all this money? Tell me if you could make the same money, would you? Or would you turn down the job or take a pay cut saying you don't deserve it?
Did I get a raise last year? Yes, 2%. Is this enough to cover inflation,
Re: (Score:2)
"Seems like bad business since you will have to retrain someone new, but there you go."
Yup, like an H1B. There are numerous benefits, hell race doesn't impact performance and is an evil thing to discriminate against but somehow diversity boosts performance!!! Nvm that diversity programs tend to be pushed out at high performing and growing companies so the stats aren't caused by the diversity but the environment that breeds these kind of programs.
And hey, it is great for universities because many of these in
I got a 1000% raise. (Score:2)
Wage stagnation is nothing new (Score:3)
And ... (Score:2)
And ... what?
This compares to recent previous years (using the same methodology) how? Better? Worse?
Layoffs and No Raises (Score:2)
Cost of living goes up, and the working class gets the shaft again.
If the Big Boys would stop lining their pockets long enough to see that it's the working class people that spend their money and keep the economy moving, they might just be more receptive to letting us make more money to actually Spend on their (overpriced) products in the first place.
-
Trickle-down economics my Butt!
My pay went up 50% this year (Score:2)
But it's because I went from a director position in the private sector to an hourly position in a state agency. Less resposibility, 50% pay increase, better benefits and better retirement. I left because the company wasn't willing to pay more and keep up with pay rates in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This thread of screed from a bunch of computer weenie neckbeards who post from their mom's basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
economy and such, not?
The issue with the earlier claims regarding Trump's making the economy great, ignores the overlap effect.
We won't see the effects of the Republican Party's record deficit spending until it has been in effect for a while.
The best example of this is that Obama did not create the economy that he had handed to him when he took office. It took some time to get that worked out.
Unfortunately too many people do not understand the fiscal miracle that happened. Between the housing/banking bust and some of the
Let me guess.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Spotted the American steel exec!
Re: (Score:2)
I know, it is so sad. And all these suckers resisting immigration reform think it is about some Mexican sneaking across the border and then cleaning houses, mowing lawns, picking oranges and trying to get by. In reality the immigration issue is H-1Bs and student visa immigrants being insourced to displace high paid american workers or fill jobs instead of them.
Salary increases? Why would you increase salaries, if you get people to quite you can replace them with immigrants a little at a time without doing a
Re: (Score:2)
They STILL are handing out pink slips? Did you not read the Verizon "voluntary seperation" story not far back?
I worked at Verizon, they call it "voluntary" because you agree to take their deal rather than be fired and sue or seek unemployment.
HPE just did another round of layoff and I'm sure others as well. Pinks slips abound.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh gee.. They are ALWAYS handing out pink slips if you look close enough..
My statement has to do with NEW unemployment claims going down, less folks are losing their jobs, more folks are finding new jobs.