• FizzyOrange@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Think of it from the company’s point of view. If you’re hiring a new employee then the options for a good candidate are a) move jobs and work for you, b) move jobs and work for someone else. You’re competing with other companies.

    If you’re reviewing an existing salary for a good employee their options are a) do nothing and accept the shitty raise, b) move jobs and work for someone else.

    Moving jobs has significant cost for most people - it’s time consuming, stressful, might involve moving house, etc.

    That downside gives employees who haven’t proven they are looking for a new job a significant negotiating disadvantage.

    If you really want you can tell your boss you are actively looking for new jobs. That will increase your chances of getting a bigger raise, but of course it has other downsides so most people don’t do that.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      There’s downsides to the companies, though. Interviewing new candidates takes money, and takes time away from people already on the team. If everyone is switching jobs to get a higher salary, then companies aren’t saving anything in the long run. They also have a major knowledge base walking out the door, and that’s hard to quantify.

      It’s a false savings.

      If I were to steel man this, it’d be cross-pollination. Old employees get set in their ways and tend to put up with the problems. They’ve simply integrated ways to work around problems in their workflow. New people bring in new ideas, and also point out how broken certain things are and then agitate for change.

      This, I think, doesn’t totally sink the idea of the “company man” who sticks around for decades. It means there should be a healthy mix.