This is pretty much how it works in the military, except it's because you are single you don't need to get paid as much as people who are married, but since you're not married you also have plenty of time to stay later and do all the bullshit details. Oh, also if you're an E-5 or below you don't need to have your own home with real amenities like a stovetop.
In case you were wondering why there's so much marriage and divorce in the military...
In Germany, public officials ("Beamte") are paid a bonus depending on (a) their marital status, (b) the number of kids they have and (c) whether their spouse is also a public official (you get less then to avoid receiving the children bonus 2 times).
This has multiple reason: one feels a bit ancient as the states basically want their "Beamte" to live in an "orderly" family situation and thus encourage marriage and children.
However, AFAIK, a major reason is to counter a disadvantage "Beamte" have regarding health care insurance. For historical reasons, they are not part of the public welfare system (or rather, they are in a different, older one). The state pays half of their medical expenses (if you are part of the public health care system as a "normal" employee, your employer pays half of the health care insurance). To cover the remaining 50%, Beamte need a private health care insurance. In the public health care system, your children and non-working spouse can be added to your health care insurance for free. With a private insurance, that is not possible - you have to pay for an additional insurance for each kid, and your spouse if he/she is not working.
Our managing director had some thoughts of this kind when we all gone remote and travel was no longer required. Needless to say the idea got shot down very quickly,but I'm sure there are plenty of of companies where these things more than float.
I had this discussion as a boss and in favor of offering extra benefits with someone with kids with the same role and experience of someone without them.
Interesting to discuss it further here in HN. I argue that at the same professional level it is not the same to have a full family that being solo.
I once had employer tell me that because I was single with no kids I was being let go as I didnt "need" to be employed as much as a co-worker with multiple kids...
I wonder if this should be extended to married childless couples. As surely they need lot less money than single people. They housing is cheaper. They can buy in bulk, they can share so many things from cars to clothing and entertainment.
Employer provided health insurance is sort of like this when the company covers the plan instead of providing a stipend. Old people cost the company more.
i've been told the same in tech; also biased towards being "young with no debt" - any excuse to not get a raise. best solution in this case is to leave.
my first thoughts: hey maybe musky boi should try pay-transparency at twitter to get more to quit; what's another 1/7th and then saying no to the others that ask to the already all time low morale?
250,000 people (includes student employees) at the university of California can just go online and look up their co-worker’s salary, for the past 10 years! Yet, it doesn’t cause problems. In fact, salaries are public for all government workers in California (UC just makes it very easy to look someone up). The entire country of Finland posts all salaries of the entire population online!
The angst over these laws is, IMO, blown way out of proportion. The only thing I can think is the real underlying issue is that there must be massive pay disparities in some industries…
It's not easy for people promoted into manager roles either. I'm a new manager who the first time is now exposed to salary details of my, now direct reports, former co-workers. For the past couple of weeks I've been walking around thinking "how the hell does he make that much?! When I was at that level of experience I was paid $40k less".
It's really affecting me to be honest. I'm seeing people in different light and resenting their pay. I'm resenting people being paid in some cases almost double what I was on a new comer to that role with no experience, we used to pay about 80k hour for a new starter in the role I now oversee, we now pay over 140k. That's barely less for a brand new starter than I was making a few months ago with 10 years more experience in the role.
Salary matters suck for everyone, I hate dealing with this aspect of my job. Everybody just wants wants wants and act like children when they don't get.
> Everybody just wants wants wants and act like children when they don't get.
Wow, what an immature attitude YOU have.
Of course everyone "wants wants wants". You're displaying that attitude right now. You're feeling hurt about not getting more, because you want more. That's normal. That's OK. If someone offered to bump my salary to a million pounds for no reason, of course I'd take it.
You should probably try asking for a pay rise. Pay, in tech, has everything to do with your negotiation power, and almost nothing to do with how good you are at your job. Your job is to maximise your salary. For the person paying the salary (your boss), their job is to minimise it. They're not doing it because they despise you, think less of you, or want to exact petty revenge on you. they do it because it's their job to keep costs down. Just like you would try to minimise the cost of servers, or software licenses. The sooner people understand this, the better for everyone.
Now go and advocate for yourself. If you really feel under-paid, ask for a raise. Threaten to walk (be sure you can actually follow up on that). If your contribution to the company is deemed to be worth the money, you'll get it.
The best managers I've ever had have always felt like they were genuine advocates for me towards the rest of the business. To push to pay me more, promote me, and share my concerns and other thoughts to the rest of the company.
It doesn't sound like you're a great advocate for your reports.
As a fellow manager I am with the other guy who responded, you come across as somewhat immature here.
> Salary matters suck for everyone, I hate dealing with this aspect of my job.
What exactly did you think your responsibility as a manager would be?
I once knew a manager who had people reporting into him who made 10X as much as he did (yes, 10X). I asked him about this once and his response indicates what you expect from an excellent manager "they are taking risks that i don't take and they are compensated for those risks".
You seem fixated on the past and salary issues instead of learning from this experience. Perhaps you can read up on how to negotiate and try to make more yourself? Maybe they were better at salary negotiations and this is why they earn what they do?
Being a manager and "resenting people" isn't a good thing.
Report back after you get a lump sump to allocate between the various people on your team for 2023 raises. That should be an exciting new growth opportunity for you.
>I hate dealing with this aspect of my job. Everybody just wants wants wants and act like children when they don't get.
I go to work everyday for one reason: to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter. All three things being nearly equal, my goal is to extract as much money for my labor as possible as long as my job choice doesn’t make me hate my life
> If they find out their co-workers are making more money to do the same job, they are likely to take action.
Here’s the rub: “same job”.
Sure, this is a reasonable attitude to take if it’s genuinely the same job and each worker is creating genuinely the same value.
But everywhere I’ve worked, comparable jobs are defined as graded job families, and it has been very obvious that there is a diverse range of work being done within a grade/job family, with individuals bringing a diverse range of experience, skills and performance.
For two individuals to have the “same job” is a rare thing in knowledge work.
Funily enough I have sat at the table and it went down the opposite.
The underpaid lifer, with tons of internal knowledge was thrown out over the shiny new grifter who convinced them they were the second coming and they threw money at. There was also a lot of confirmation bias as they were sure the story was true.
That's a good point. I've seen this myself during a layoff. The more senior staff (who, presumably, were earning more) were the first to go, save for a couple who were kept so that all the senior knowledge of the system wasn't lost.
This is just the application of basic economic principles to specific circumstances (sometimes, it makes more sense to cut junior staff because the senior staff too more valuable).
They get laid off, they get a few months of paid vacation, a raise when they switch jobs, and a sign on bonus. You are still working for the same old salary. How do you feel now?
well, it's true. The first people to go in every layoff operation, at every company I've worked for, were always the "rockstar programmers". The guys that came in with reputation, because they are known in the tech world. The conference speakers, bloggers, open source heroes, etc.
They come in, command a huge salary, and give a big PR/awareness boost to the company. But then turns out they're about as productive as everyone else, which makes them the first to go during layoff season.
Salary is a function of so many things. Random stuff from my experience:
- People hired when the company needs a lot of new staff at once are paid more than people hired to do same job in normal times. Basic demand/offer law.
- Somebody will negotiate more cash vs less stock options.
- I was able to get some extra money many years ago because for that new job I had to commute from a longer distance (10 minutes walking vs 1 hour metro or car). Extra costs -> extra money.
- Some people have pay rises because of what they did (deserved or undeserved, I won't get into that.)
As a manager I get visibility on my direct reports’ salaries and they all earn more than I do :) and I haven’t quit in over a decade. My salary is sufficient for me, why would the fact that a coworker earns more motivate me to rage-quit.
Long time ago when I was young, naive and even more stupid than I am now, I have, by chance, found out how much my younger co-worker, who just joined our team, earned. By chance I mean, it came up in the form life insurance he took, which, at our place, was a standard double salary. My co-worker had less experience, less credentials; he was doing less than I was doing, because he just joined us.
I was incensed and I did everything wrong including sending email to my boss asking effectively 'the fuck'. My boss, not being an idiot, started documenting the interaction with first question being:'How did you get this information and did you happen to access something you are not supposed to?' As you can imagine, it kinda spiraled downwards from there, which included me having a longer conversation with boss's boss.
Eventually, I quit, but if I were to do it again. I would urge everyone to take a deep breath, get an offer and then talk to the bosses to throw the 'more money for co-worker' as a cherry on top.
That's quite a weird framing of the result. The actual takeaway numbers should be that 83% of people would take some sort of action to attempt to rectify the situation and 17% would not act on the information.
I love the salary transparency. Realized I was underpaid/underleveled and increased my salary over 60% in a year. It was a brutal grind but now I’m a good place. I see other job postings and know I’m being paid fairly, so I don’t worry about it.
This number seems completely reasonable to me. 20 % of the working force is in the top quintile. It wouldn't surprise me if a fifth of them were in it for the money, and if they found out they were underpaid despite being a top performer, they would quit. That works out to 4 %.
How about you click the article link and find out? It's even at the very top of the article for once:
- 88% of workers will demand to know the salary range for their current position, if permitted by law; 68% will demand the highest end of known salary range
- 1 in 20 workers would quit if it’s revealed co-workers earn more money; 63% would demand equal pay
- 85% say they’re more likely to apply to job that lists a salary range
- 42% say the salary ranges companies list should be limited
- 63% worry salary transparency will cause problems among co-workers
- 92% of workers support salary transparency laws; 61% say laws will improve wage gap
[+] [-] phpisthebest|3 years ago|reply
I noped out of that employment quickly
[+] [-] least|3 years ago|reply
In case you were wondering why there's so much marriage and divorce in the military...
[+] [-] lqet|3 years ago|reply
This has multiple reason: one feels a bit ancient as the states basically want their "Beamte" to live in an "orderly" family situation and thus encourage marriage and children.
However, AFAIK, a major reason is to counter a disadvantage "Beamte" have regarding health care insurance. For historical reasons, they are not part of the public welfare system (or rather, they are in a different, older one). The state pays half of their medical expenses (if you are part of the public health care system as a "normal" employee, your employer pays half of the health care insurance). To cover the remaining 50%, Beamte need a private health care insurance. In the public health care system, your children and non-working spouse can be added to your health care insurance for free. With a private insurance, that is not possible - you have to pay for an additional insurance for each kid, and your spouse if he/she is not working.
There is a calculator for the federal level here: https://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/c/t/rechner/beamte/bund?id...
[+] [-] teekert|3 years ago|reply
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...
[+] [-] cosmodisk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meheleventyone|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wslh|3 years ago|reply
Interesting to discuss it further here in HN. I argue that at the same professional level it is not the same to have a full family that being solo.
[+] [-] shapefrog|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ekaros|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway6734|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] out-of-ideas|3 years ago|reply
my first thoughts: hey maybe musky boi should try pay-transparency at twitter to get more to quit; what's another 1/7th and then saying no to the others that ask to the already all time low morale?
[+] [-] Eddy_Viscosity2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] q-big|3 years ago|reply
Why not rather: you don't have such a time-intense hobby such as raising kids, so you deserve more income.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] refurb|3 years ago|reply
Can you imagine how stupid that comment is?
[+] [-] AlgorithmicTime|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DoItToMe81|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lr|3 years ago|reply
The angst over these laws is, IMO, blown way out of proportion. The only thing I can think is the real underlying issue is that there must be massive pay disparities in some industries…
[+] [-] 0xRusty|3 years ago|reply
It's really affecting me to be honest. I'm seeing people in different light and resenting their pay. I'm resenting people being paid in some cases almost double what I was on a new comer to that role with no experience, we used to pay about 80k hour for a new starter in the role I now oversee, we now pay over 140k. That's barely less for a brand new starter than I was making a few months ago with 10 years more experience in the role.
Salary matters suck for everyone, I hate dealing with this aspect of my job. Everybody just wants wants wants and act like children when they don't get.
[+] [-] valdiorn|3 years ago|reply
Wow, what an immature attitude YOU have.
Of course everyone "wants wants wants". You're displaying that attitude right now. You're feeling hurt about not getting more, because you want more. That's normal. That's OK. If someone offered to bump my salary to a million pounds for no reason, of course I'd take it.
You should probably try asking for a pay rise. Pay, in tech, has everything to do with your negotiation power, and almost nothing to do with how good you are at your job. Your job is to maximise your salary. For the person paying the salary (your boss), their job is to minimise it. They're not doing it because they despise you, think less of you, or want to exact petty revenge on you. they do it because it's their job to keep costs down. Just like you would try to minimise the cost of servers, or software licenses. The sooner people understand this, the better for everyone.
Now go and advocate for yourself. If you really feel under-paid, ask for a raise. Threaten to walk (be sure you can actually follow up on that). If your contribution to the company is deemed to be worth the money, you'll get it.
[+] [-] FactoryReboot|3 years ago|reply
Also it’s not fair to be mad at your coworkers cause you were underpaid. Be mad at the company or your bosses if anything.
[+] [-] madeofpalk|3 years ago|reply
It doesn't sound like you're a great advocate for your reports.
[+] [-] kennend3|3 years ago|reply
> Salary matters suck for everyone, I hate dealing with this aspect of my job.
What exactly did you think your responsibility as a manager would be?
I once knew a manager who had people reporting into him who made 10X as much as he did (yes, 10X). I asked him about this once and his response indicates what you expect from an excellent manager "they are taking risks that i don't take and they are compensated for those risks".
You seem fixated on the past and salary issues instead of learning from this experience. Perhaps you can read up on how to negotiate and try to make more yourself? Maybe they were better at salary negotiations and this is why they earn what they do?
Being a manager and "resenting people" isn't a good thing.
[+] [-] shanusmagnus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarface74|3 years ago|reply
I go to work everyday for one reason: to exchange labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter. All three things being nearly equal, my goal is to extract as much money for my labor as possible as long as my job choice doesn’t make me hate my life
[+] [-] jl6|3 years ago|reply
Here’s the rub: “same job”.
Sure, this is a reasonable attitude to take if it’s genuinely the same job and each worker is creating genuinely the same value.
But everywhere I’ve worked, comparable jobs are defined as graded job families, and it has been very obvious that there is a diverse range of work being done within a grade/job family, with individuals bringing a diverse range of experience, skills and performance.
For two individuals to have the “same job” is a rare thing in knowledge work.
[+] [-] tomalpha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digitalsushi|3 years ago|reply
If you found out your cube neighbor is out-earning you and you do the same work, you (probably) are safer when the next wave of layoffs comes around.
That little disparity can feel like a giant shield.
This is the most anti-worker thing I have ever typed. I hate myself for sharing how I rationalize this.
[+] [-] shapefrog|3 years ago|reply
The underpaid lifer, with tons of internal knowledge was thrown out over the shiny new grifter who convinced them they were the second coming and they threw money at. There was also a lot of confirmation bias as they were sure the story was true.
[+] [-] lo_zamoyski|3 years ago|reply
This is just the application of basic economic principles to specific circumstances (sometimes, it makes more sense to cut junior staff because the senior staff too more valuable).
[+] [-] thebigspacefuck|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pydry|3 years ago|reply
If you earn more, spend the same and keep the difference in a rainy day fund overall you'll be better off.
[+] [-] subpixel|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] valdiorn|3 years ago|reply
They come in, command a huge salary, and give a big PR/awareness boost to the company. But then turns out they're about as productive as everyone else, which makes them the first to go during layoff season.
[+] [-] pmontra|3 years ago|reply
- People hired when the company needs a lot of new staff at once are paid more than people hired to do same job in normal times. Basic demand/offer law.
- Somebody will negotiate more cash vs less stock options.
- I was able to get some extra money many years ago because for that new job I had to commute from a longer distance (10 minutes walking vs 1 hour metro or car). Extra costs -> extra money.
- Some people have pay rises because of what they did (deserved or undeserved, I won't get into that.)
[+] [-] loloquwowndueo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] H8crilA|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nurettin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] A4ET8a8uTh0|3 years ago|reply
Long time ago when I was young, naive and even more stupid than I am now, I have, by chance, found out how much my younger co-worker, who just joined our team, earned. By chance I mean, it came up in the form life insurance he took, which, at our place, was a standard double salary. My co-worker had less experience, less credentials; he was doing less than I was doing, because he just joined us.
I was incensed and I did everything wrong including sending email to my boss asking effectively 'the fuck'. My boss, not being an idiot, started documenting the interaction with first question being:'How did you get this information and did you happen to access something you are not supposed to?' As you can imagine, it kinda spiraled downwards from there, which included me having a longer conversation with boss's boss.
Eventually, I quit, but if I were to do it again. I would urge everyone to take a deep breath, get an offer and then talk to the bosses to throw the 'more money for co-worker' as a cherry on top.
Anything else is counterproductive.
[+] [-] dagw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RonanMcGovern|3 years ago|reply
Also seems it would depend how much more they earn
[+] [-] thebigspacefuck|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greatgib|3 years ago|reply
Anyway 4% is a quite low value and workers are not lost, they will just go to work somewhere else.
[+] [-] BiteCode_dev|3 years ago|reply
Lots of pros and cons, but it would be very interesting.
[+] [-] kqr|3 years ago|reply
I'm actually surprised the number isn't higher.
[+] [-] bluedino|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iLoveOncall|3 years ago|reply
A lot of those 4% would be a lot less vehement when it comes the time to actually quit and go on 0 income.
The article still has value, but the 4% figure is honestly negligible and it is absolutely not the main take away.
[+] [-] nomilk|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rroot|3 years ago|reply
Quitting is an extreme response (not wrong, and I totally understand people who'd decide to quit).
But what's the response of the other 96%? No response? Lower productivity? Toxicity? Less helpful? Indifferent? Revenge? Destructive?
I doubt the 96% will have no response.
[+] [-] iLoveOncall|3 years ago|reply
- 88% of workers will demand to know the salary range for their current position, if permitted by law; 68% will demand the highest end of known salary range
- 1 in 20 workers would quit if it’s revealed co-workers earn more money; 63% would demand equal pay
- 85% say they’re more likely to apply to job that lists a salary range
- 42% say the salary ranges companies list should be limited
- 63% worry salary transparency will cause problems among co-workers
- 92% of workers support salary transparency laws; 61% say laws will improve wage gap