Meritocracy - the big myth(stefankendall.com)
stefankendall.com
Meritocracy - the big myth
http://www.stefankendall.com/2013/03/meritocracy-big-myth.html
8 comments
I don't understand how/why older employees will earn higher salaries than younger ones. Don't younger ones often have higher starting salaries than the older ones, even after adjusting for inflation (because the skills of the younger ones are presumed to be more cutting edge and because the dev shortage continues to grow). So, all other things being equal - number of moves, % increase, inflation - won't the younger ones start and finish at a higher salary than the older ones? Having said all that, I do agree that much of meritocracy is a myth...just not necessarily for the reason(s) stated.
I think the general premise holds, but assuming that you will hit a cap in this, the market is still efficient, this is only noting that a single employer's system is inefficient. Or that the employer has found job security and loyalty command long enough a tenure that it's worth underpaying.
Also the inflation math doesn't work out. $102k => $83k in 11 years vs $106k => $85k in 6 years If the second number were $95k, I'd accept it.
Also the inflation math doesn't work out. $102k => $83k in 11 years vs $106k => $85k in 6 years If the second number were $95k, I'd accept it.
1. Companies can (and do) give >5% raises
2. If you are a true rock star, often a company will attempt to match or come close to your external offer rather than lose you
3. Pay is only part of the motivation to work somewhere
4. The best employees will naturally be offered other opportunities. This is normal. Good companies are adept at keeping those employees happy.
Well, if you hop too often it will look bad on your cv, so it will stop you at a certain point. Otherwise yes, the best way to increase your salary is to change jobs, if the economy allows it. Just leave at least 2 years between jobs :)
It's a sad reality. I'd add that it's often not necessary to go so far as leaving the job. Rather threatening to leave can be enough to render the same boost, assuming you've got the stomach for playing that kind of game.
But I've always read (here and elsewhere) that you should never take a counter offer. Or are you just saying to make it known in that you might leave, without a specific offer from another company on the table?
I should clarify that I'm not advocating the approach, rather just stating that I've seen it work in several organizations. Those cases were mixed, some accepted a counter others were up front, essentially saying "Look, do I need to go and get another offer for us to work this out?".
If I'm not mistaken, the thought behind not accepting counters is that it breeds resentment. In reality, I think it depends on how tactfully the process is handled.
Personally, my approach has been to hop and not accept counters.
If I'm not mistaken, the thought behind not accepting counters is that it breeds resentment. In reality, I think it depends on how tactfully the process is handled.
Personally, my approach has been to hop and not accept counters.
Presumably the reason you get a salary increase when you switch jobs is the value-add you give the company from the experience you are bringing in.
I love the ending:
"And your good employees will leave you, and I can't blame them."
"And your good employees will leave you, and I can't blame them."
This works until it doesn't.