unemployment 8.3%Follow

I have been at my current job 5 years total. The four consecutive years there had been one raise given company wide. I was gone a year and when returned my boss fought for me to be rehired at a slightly higher wage. Speaking with one employee that has been here 22 year, as time progressed he earned less. Bonuses disappeared, no raises were given for many years and work was taken from us.

I am not complaining in the least about my job or what I earn. Thinking, however, that this does not happen is ignorant. My bonus last year was a 50 dollar gift card and I was one of those that recieved a little more for my years here.

edited for spelling

Edited, Dec 11th 2012 8:23pm by Zymunn

I'm sure it'd be funnier if I knew what this was... I've never been given a Ziplock bag by any company...

Where the hell do you work? That's not typical at all. I have *never* worked for an employer who didn't provide some sort of raise (or at least raise opportunity) to every employee every year. What kind of business is this? Is it a corporation, or a smaller privately owned company? Is there something else that offsets this and prevents people from just leaving? Cause what you're describing sounds a lot more like a government or union workplace, and not a corporation operating in a free labor market.



Higher than starting pay? Higher than you were making when you left? Not really making a point here, but just curious.



Work was taken from us? I'm not even sure what that means. Is it that this guy actually earns less than he did 22 years ago, or he just doesn't earn as much as he'd like and claims that? I know lots of people who say things that are straight up false just because they like to complain. And if that's actually true, why the hell did he stay there that long? Assuming he's at least as competent at his job as he was 22 years ago (and I'd assume moreso) he should be able to make more money somewhere else.



Which kinda calls into question the point that I was responding to. If you're happy with your pay, then it really doesn't matter how that pay comes about. Maybe your company was grossly overpaying people 20 years ago, and even without raises they're still paying a competitive wage today. I have no clue. Sometimes we get so caught up in the details (and often outlier details) that we miss the larger point: Wages are related to the value of the output of your labor. The more people are willing to pay for the goods and services you produce, the more you can demand from your employer in the form of wages. How that comes about is somewhat irrelevant.




So what? If things are so bad at your work, go work somewhere else. If they're not, then they're not. I'm primarily addressing this silly idea that we should justify higher taxes on rich people and big business because they're meanies who don't pay their employees enough money. But that idea just doesn't stand up to even the most basic rational examination. Strangely, a huge number of people continue to repeat it. I can guess as to the reasons why, but perhaps some of you who do repeat these sorts of assertions should examine yourselves for your motives.


And I'll point out that just because something happens at your place of work does not mean that's the norm. I received $9,000 in bonus (plus some number of RSUs) plus a 2.2% raise this year. Last year, I received $16,400 in bonus (plus some other number of RSUs) plus a 6.5% raise (must have been a good year). Is that typical? At my work, yes. Across all corporations? Some, but not all. But guess what? The pay method and structure at my place of employment is far more typical of what the stereotypical "big corporation" does in terms of labor than what you are describing. The problem is that people talk about big business, but they look almost exclusively at corporations which own retail chains (like WalMart). So basically a big business that owns and operates a bunch of small businesses. Then they complain about the lack of great pay and advancement in those stores, ignoring the fact that this is not indicative of being a large corporation so much as it's indicative of being in the retail business. Pay at WalMart is comparable to pay at any small retail store (like those small stores you see in malls), but with better benefits. Same deal with a company like Starbucks. Instead of trying to insist that those companies are typical of large corporations, realize that they are typical of stores selling the types of products they sell. Go work for a small single owner coffee shop sometime and tell us how the pay and benefits compare to Starbucks. Probably about the same or a little bit less.


It's not the size of the corporation that determines pay, but the business its involved in. But some people want to treat them all the same and punish those who pay very well because some of them don't pay well. That's unfair and it's arbitrary. If you are stocking store shelves, you aren't going to make as much money as someone who's designing microchips. That has nothing to do with the size of the company, but the actual value of the labor itself. I think we do the entire issue a disservice by trying to treat all corporations the same, or argue about CEO pay and cherry pick the ones that fit the narrative we want to use. Funny that no one uses Microsoft or Intel as examples of how corporations unfairly compensate their employees. Think about why, and you'll realize how fabricated this whole issue is.

I work in a warehouse, LTL freight and TL (less then trailer load, trailer load). I agree that is not normal but it is relatively easy work for good pay, non-union. Starting on the dock is 11-13 an hr. Drivers I am not sure what they earn starting.



Higher then I made when I left. From what I was told corporate already said I was paid enough. They gave into what my boss gave as a reason, which personally doesn't make sense to me. Claimed I would be doing more work then before, I came back doing less work as I do not now work both outbound and inbound. Just outbound.



Areas we delivered to were deemed "low/no profit" and so those areas deliveries are handed off to another carrier. The guy I meantioned has personal reasons for staying, but those reasons would not get him hired at another carrier. Nothing illegal.



The 401k here blows. Not even management glances at it. On the dock we are on a over the road drivers weekly hours. Meaning that we do not see over time until we hit over 60 hours in the week. They make sure to give us off until next pay period when we get too close to that. Although things have slowed vastly that it isn't an issue anymore. Unless I get to work both outbound and inbound. I worked 70 hours for two weeks. They ******* about it but there was no other alternative at the time. Paying someone over 20 dollars in OT, yeah they weren't thrilled.

Since we're sharing "raise" stories. In January I will have been with my current employer for 7 years. All but two of those years I've received a raise. This past year was a promotion *and* a raise. The 2 years of wage freeze were also a hiring freeze. Point is, different companies weathered the financial crisis differently. Up until the beginning of this year, I thought I would be looking for a new career.

About twelve years, twelve raises, and nine promotions (and two demotions), so suck it.

I like story time.

So basically you're an impatient ******* and that's why you got demoted twice?

I go with what works for me.

Almost 2 days of thinking about it and the best you come up with is that the average person isn't reflected in the average of the nation. Come on man do you even try anymore?

.

Of course it is trivially easy to construct something which is supported by easily found data. The rate of income in the US on average has decreased, that means on average people have been losing money. It isn't even anywhere close to being a positive income market because the expenses of the market have increased more so than the money coming in. Basic math Gbaji, simple grade school addition and subtraction. The average income in america has declined, meaning the average american has not seen an increase in pay, but a decrease, and over time that individuals income has not been sufficient to get ahead. If the wonderful raise fairy was as generous as you pretend it was, then the 2008 recession likely would not have taken place at near the extent it did.



You really need to start considering facts and data, and not Gbajisms. The CPI is the go to standard for inflation calculation. It is how we can compare our current economic value with that of say 10 years ago. 10 years ago your dollar was worth more than it is now, hell you can check that easily enough compared to the valuation of other world currencies as well. **** in 2000 the Canadian Dollar was happily grooving along at around 70 cents, 12 years later it is consistently at par or better.

The valuation of your dollar makes it cost more to live, the average pay has declined over the same period...again it is simple math and it does not take a rocket scientist to tell you that income is stagnant and not sufficient to "get ahead".



You are right it has nothing to do with the mid 00's consecutive growth of CEO's average pay, nothing to do with the shut down and out source of jobs to cheaper wage markets, so corporate could adopt some of the largest golden parachute deals ever. I agree it is the governments fault, it is the governments fault for not sticking up for the little guy, letting the big wigs walk out with buckets of cash and reducing the average wage of the American workforce.

But you continue to cook up your dream statistics about wages, cost of living, and corporate greed go read some facts and data, get a grade school kid to do the math for you (because it is so hard) and then come on back. If you honestly think a declining national average is associated to an increase of new folks to old folks you are deluding yourself, but then again, thats about average for you.

So, in your opinion, how many times do you need to explain it incorrectly before you think we should start just mindlessly believing what you've been told is true?