Are Skimpy Raises the New Normal? 736
Lam1969 writes "Computerworld just released their latest salary survey, and it finds that IT worker bees have once again only received small raises. The article notes, "IT raises still lagged slightly behind the average of about 3.2% for all U.S. workers as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the majority of respondents (69%) said their 2004 base salary increased from one year ago, 31% experienced either no change in salary or had their pay cut." It goes on to quote LAN specialist Stephen Noisseau as saying, "I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles ... I'll take 4% over nothing. We're getting basically cost-of-living raises.""
Hard Times (Score:5, Informative)
Took a 30% pay cut two years ago, as nothing was available but a job 40 miles from home. Only one pay increase in two years, 1.15% which has more than been eaten by the rise in petrol cost.
It's simple Supply-Demand (Keynesian economic theory), when workers with a particular skill set are not in demand or supply excedes demand, there's not much rationale to give workers higher pay. Of course some increase is a sign of goodwill and encourages workers, but tell the beancounters.
Oh, and the execs got about 6% pay increase this year. Can't have that lot starving, can we?
Re:Hard Times (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hard Times (Score:5, Informative)
Only 6%? That's not much... 2003 saw the average Fortune 500 CEO's salary up 22.18% [cnn.com].
In 1992 the average CEO made 82x the average employee's salary. By 2004 this ratio has climbed to 400x [stanford.edu].
Don't forget Gary Smith [msn.com] who was awarded $41.2 million for overseeing the elimination of 93% of Ciena's value in just 4 years.
Re:4% is more than cost of living (Score:3, Informative)
This image [wikipedia.org] shows the CPI over the last century. Note how the annual change has been between 2 and 5% over the last 20 years. It is true that 4% is slightly more than cost of living, but only for that time frame. During the 70s such raises would have been useless given the extreme inflation occurring year after year.
Re:Finding excutive salary? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:(Almost OT) Re:uhh, a 6% raise is a pay cut (Score:4, Informative)
I get much of my stuff from http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ [att.net] you may need to recalculate it for being percapita though.
The numbers I've seen are closer to 40K.
sounds like just the federal percapita.
I would guess that a disproportionate amount of that number is in morgages. Shouldn't morgage debt count separatley, as an investment, being secured by a tangible property which can be resold and which usually accrues value (unless there are too many speculators)?
I would be vary wary of that, real-estate lost 90% of it's value during the great depression, and to tell you the truth - we are more overleveraged now then we were then. IMHO, going into debt for a home today is not only not a secure investment, it is very dangerous.
The difference between that and credit card (or federal) debt is pretty significant.
Isn't a lot of that debt also to ourselves? I owe rent to the owner, my roommate owes rent to me, her company owes her salary to her, etc. A more realistic example would be a car company who owes money to it's creditors, but who also is owed money by the people who buy cars from it. Isn't that debt being counted twice?
Unfortunately most debt is foriegn owned nowdays, Japan alone has some 650bln of us bonds. The problem with debt isn't who it's owned to, it's that it pre-obligates money that would otherwise be spent in more productive ways. Plus, long "chains" of debtors are as strong as the weakest link, if someone in the middle defaults - everyone else still owes and must make it up somewhere or default too. That's why over debted societies usually have a cascading collapse.
I'm not convinced that zero debt is the overall goal. All investments are debt to someone.
I think debt for things other than investments that increase productivity are a bad idea. Also from what I understand, 90% of society are debtors and 10% creditors.
If I invest 1,000 dollars in a local company so that they can re-tool their factory, that's 1,000 dollars in debt that basically guarantees a return to society much larger than the expense.
There is a difference between investing and loaning, with a loan money is owed no matter how good or poorly it does. With investment in things like stock, that is not the case.
Corporate debt is how the buying power of money is shifted from institutions that have it, to upstarts that need it. Sure, Sony may go a half-billion dollars in debt to create a new fab plant for the Cell chip that powers the Playstation 3, but they'll make it back.
I agree, that is good debt. Millions of people re-financing their home and spending the extra on consumption is not.
If not all debts are necessarily bad, we have to figure what kinds are bad and what kinds aren't. Student Loans are as annoying as hell, but the benefit to society (and a single worker's earning potential) greatly outweighs the cost of being in debt. Credit card debts are always bad, and are basically the work of the devil. Sometimes you need to go into a little debt to buy a used car to get to work on time... That's much better than not working. But buying a 25k new SUV is a bad investment.
Sometimes credit card debt can be better because it's not secured. Anyhow, on no uncertain terms the US is overleveraged in debt, and the fed has loaned out way way way too much money. Even the fed said that the economy is super efficient because of new technology, but what they didn't say is that efficient economies make fluctuations to excessive monitary policies more extreme, not less extreme. The global economy is teetering on the edge of a cliff, I would peronally and strongly recommend having some precious metals on hand. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this as gold is at an 18 year high now ( http://www.kitco.com/ [kitco.com])
Re:Welcome to reality.... (Score:3, Informative)
Well there's the first way:
Working overtime is generally not allowed, so by working all scheduled hours I am making the most money possible at my pay rate (without raising ire with the higher ups). I'm scheduled for 40 hrs a week, so base wage x 40 = maximum weekly gross. But when overtime is allowed I can work over 40, so the weekly gross will be more than what my normal maximum weekly gross is.
Then I also get time-and-a-half for overtime hours, so I therefore earn more per hour for each hour over 40 I work per week.
Re:Loyalty is Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
I believe this is only if you have had a lapse in coverage of more than 3 months. If you transfer from one insurance plan directly to another, they should cover everything. I could be wrong, but this is the way the plans have been at every place I've worked. The idea is to prevent people from not signing up for insurance until after they come down with a major condition.