Hacker News Reader

In the first case, if you think the person deserves the extra money and give it to them, you keep your best people. If other staff ask for the same, you can either give it to them if you think they deserve it, or risk losing them to elsewhere. The end result is you always keep your best staff, and potentially lose your worst staff.

The second scenario, you always keep your worst staff and you potentially lose your best staff.

Maybe from company perspective, there’s no such thing as “10x engineers”, but only “1.02x engineers” at most.

Managers need to evaluate the strength of the claim of the experienced person - are they really underpaid? Has the person done their homework?

I've had those conversations and they've worked out positively for me, but I've spent time building rappour with management, along with very carefully gathering data sources, cost of living shifts, and current income.

If I just rolled up and asked for money, I expect I'd be shot down, and laughed at after I left the room...

As a software manager who has both approved and turned down raises, pnathan pretty much nails it -- you need to bring data to the table. Are you underpaid? What's your target? Why now (what work have you completed that helps me sell this upwards?)

Expect it to be a conversation, but it's a healthy conversation to have with a good manager -- we can't help meet your expectations if you do not communicate them to us!

Companies rarely hesitate to pile on more work or responsibility often with zero conversion. If I can provide data and examples of work I’ve recently finished to support my request for a raise, the flip side of that is the company is already getting that value, and is happy to continue receiving that value without paying for it. It’s absurd that companies try to justify not giving out raises because the employee is not making their case. If a company gives me more work and responsibility, they have already made my case for me.

Plain and simple. It’s the asymmetry of power in the relationship that is causing all this. The power dynamic is in the employers favor and the employer exploits that. Historically. Currently. Systematically.

> It’s absurd that companies try to justify not giving out raises because the employee is not making their case.

There's a subtle difference between this argument and what I said. I said, "If you want to make your case, then you need to bring data." not "If you want a raise, then you need to make your case."

That logic is a good formula for losing your most employable employees. Those that can hop will. You’ll be left with the bottom of the barrel. Doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

You're granting them way too much introspection. In reality its goes more like:

"Company policy is that raises are no more than 2.5% per year with a perfect yearly review. You got your 2.5%. You can't have a raise." Umm I'm about to leave and get 30% more from your competitor! I know you don't want that and I don't want it either. Surely... "Company policy is that raises are no more than 2.5% per year..."

Of course! But the question is why there would be a policy of no raises above 2.5%, and I think the reason is the sort of thing I describe.

In response to others who said "this is a good recipe for losing your best people": yeah, it might be. But if you don't believe your best people are dramatically better than the rest, or if you think that actually your best people aren't the same as the people who will go shopping around for higher pay elsewhere, maybe the calculation works out differently.

Also, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that this is good on balance. Only that it's not so hard to understand how a company might arrive at that sort of policy while trying to maximize its performance.

the answer is that company policies like only small raises are dumb ass, and are clearly bad for the company. We all know if someone knowledgeable leaves, it will take time for the new hire to ramp up, and replace an existing good person. For that reason we should try harder to keep them. But higher up the ladder, people look at stats like average pay - it's much harder to measure productivity than average pay, that's why pay is used in stupid ways, in negative incentive ways.

I think the typically way they address this is by promoting people. This is why you have subroles in a job. e.g. soft. eng. I, soft eng II ... You can have yearly and even mid term promotions as well. The promotion aspect of it saves face for everyone. So you go to your boss or you talk about promotion opportunities, you may even talk about the market. This is especially relevant when your company is hiring. Then you see how it goes. Eventually if you don't get the raise or promotion you leave.

But a really good reason to switch jobs is to increase the size of your network.