People get brought into the company at different times, so that already may affect someone's starting salary. During the course of someone's employment, so many factors can potentially influence your raises, performance, intra-company politics, the economy, etc. And considering that in the non-perfect world, not everyone is open minded to accept responsibilities for their actions, especially in the work place, would it not create more friction?
Getting an expert to handle the laborious car buying process is certainly the smart way to go.
That's why we launched Carsala (http://www.carsala.com). We handle all aspects of the process, finding the car that's right for you, and negotiating with the used car dealers on your behalf. Our average customer savings right now is over $4000 per car.
It would really depend on the co-worker. I'm actually pretty good at figuring out who is a better writer and more valued employee on my own - it's one of the areas where I don't actually have much pride. It's clear to me when people deserve to earn more than me because they are simply better. So if I knew that a male coworker in the same position was making more than me, and I looked at his work and realized that he was simply better, then I wouldn't object.
I know that doesn't sound feasible, but I promise it's true. I once worked at a company where one of my peers make about 15K more than me. He wasn't a very good writer, and had no drive to innovate or improve business processes, but he had been with the company for five years, so I accepted it as something that I couldn't change and it didn't really bother me.
a person who makes $250,000 in one year does not necessarily make it every year. Plenty of very middle to lower income people will end up in that tax bracket once in their lives:
The small business owner who sells his business to retire will be "rich" one year out of his life, and end up paying out much of what should have been his retirement fund to the government.
The widowed elderly homeowner who sells her house of 45 years because she needs to move in with one of her kids might find herself paying high taxes on gain that is really mostly inflation.
Years ago, if you had a fantastic year, you could income-average it over five years, so the higher marginal tax rates didn't trap so many "non-rich" people, but that was done away with, probably because it made it harder to pretend that it was only "the rich" the government was trying to soak.
Besides which, given the high income mobility in our country, a lot of the fortunate people today are the less fortunate people of yesterday (and sometimes vice versa).
But most of the "fortunate" are exactly the people Andrew talks about, the ones who work like crazy and make the most use of their talents.
I, for one, am one of the less-fortunate not because I CAN'T earn $250,000 + but because I can earn a perfectly adequate living (for me) in about 10 hours a week and I'm basically lazy. If I wanted to work 60 hours a week, I could probably earn as much as $400,000, but with effective marginal tax rates approaching 50% (about 38%+ income tax rate after all the deduction phase-outs and AMT effects, and 15.1% in combined employer/employee FICA and Medicare for part and 2.9% Medicare on the rest), I just don't feel motivated to work that hard at work I don't enjoy, only to split half the take with a bunch of idiot politicians who will do more harm than good with what I give them.
Obama's tax raises are going to make a lot of people who are less lazy than I am but don't adore their work decide it just isn't worth it to work as hard as they've been doing (especially if they live in states that have state income taxes which are also rising).
Those increases are not going to raise anywhere near the amount of revenue that he expects. They never do. But higher tax rates will punish those nasty "fortunates," and envy/class hatred rather than revenue-raising seems to be the prime motivator for most who support them.
Would I rather companies dispensed with rewards programs, sales, incentives, etc., etc. in favor of one low price -- yes! But until that happens, it does pay to pay attention to how certain programs work and if possible use them carefully to your advantage if it fits with the way you like doing business. I am a heavy cc user also -- yesterday, I cashed in points to get a $500 credit on my husband's cc bill and ordered a back-up device for my computer paid for with a gift card from my cc program.
I tend to think it is great for there to be openness in salaries. While there is a tendency among some people to feel jealous and entitled (which I think is very unhealthy and counterproductive), it does open your eyes to opportunities. For instance, you may learn that the company is willing to pay someone $5,000 more for the position that you fill; if dealt with via an effective perspective, this can become the proper motivation to seek to close the gap on your perceived value to your employer.
I honestly dislike the lack of openness of salaries between employers and employees. Many employers require salary history when applying for a position, but they are unwilling to disclose what they have paid former employees that filled the position. I feel that if they are unwilling to disclose that, then I will not be honest with them about my salary history. I found this to be the case at my last job. I did state that my previous salary was higher than it was, and their offer was based off of my previous salary. I provided a greater value and received a raise well before my regular review. However, I later found out that the person that previously held the position made several thousand dollars more than I made even after my raise, and I was definitely considered to be a greater value than he was, as I had more experience, better education and industry certifications, was more of a people person, and delivered more projects.
I have consistently been a high performer throughout my career, and I have often settled for less than I wanted for my initial salary, but have received substantial raises very quickly; it certainly has always appeared that they have felt guilty for "low balling" me initially. I have been working in my field for ten years, now, and I have more than tripled my salary in that time frame, and I also do substantial side-work that significantly affects my total annual income. What I have learned is that you MUST demonstrate significant value (I typically strive for a value level that is around two levels higher than my position). Then, if this has been done consistently for about two years on the job, you MUST seek employment elsewhere if you are not rewarded for it. Your next job MUST come with a significant salary increase (no less than $5k, if you are below the $100k mark) and you should always strive for increased flexibility and benefits (I have used my vacation time in previous positions to negotiate vacation time beyond standard policy in my previous two positions). Also, leverage your current position to get increased responsibilities in your next position. I have held the same, or similar, title for my past three jobs, but there has always been some increase in responsibilities (be it a a larger scope, or more ownership of your work). I would try to not hold the same or similar title more than twice, however. I have recently tried to get to the next level, and having had the same title for the previous three positions (while having more responsibility and being a larger influence), did hurt my chances.
I work for a department in my state's government. A few months ago, one of the major newspapers in my state put together a database of ALL state government employees' salaries (available via Public Records Request). From the lowliest custodian to the biggest big wig, they were all there online.
A simple search by name or job title brought me all the information I wanted to know. After about an hour on the site, I closed it down and haven't been back. It turns out that knowing exactly what my co-workers make is much like the forbidden fruit.
I decided that knowing what the woman in the next cubicle made couldn't help my salary and could only hurt my job performance.
If I change jobs in the state, I may go back, but I'm pretty satisfied with my salary, so maybe not.
Originally posted by 'guest'
"And please don’t say it is because those making more than $250,000 will pay more in taxes. If this concerns you, you need to receive immediate psycho analysis into why your heart bleeds for the VERY fortunate and well-off more so than the less-fortunate."
First off... Quit with the fortunate/less fortunate crap! Is the CEO of a company that busted his ass through school while people his high school class mates immediately started banking at jobs fortunate? Was he fortunate when he busted his ass at an entry level job when he got out of school, dealing with all the BS that you have to to move up within a company, and working the 60+ hour weeks his entire career? No, that's called hard work. I wont say that were aren't many Amercans who work hard and do not make a lot of money; there are. I would suggest to them to try to make a career change: go to school, do whatever is necessary. But I am so sick of those who don't believe we all control our own fates to some degree. Those who are well off are not generally fortunate; they busted their asses to get there. Fortunate people are the ones who win the lottery... And guess what? 99% of these people blow that money within the 20 years it takes to receive it, if not much much faster (true, I made up the 99% number, but in general, that is the truth). People who busted their asses to make their money are not more fortunate; they just may have made some better decisions in life.
No, I don't make a lot of money.. But I damn sure plan to one day. Oh, and AnnJo, you are right on with everything youve said.
A very bright acquaintance, (a very wealthy lawyer, too), told me how he handled his family after repeated cruel instances: when they called, he was not upset and did not yell or slam the phone. he calmly told them that he had considered their relationship and felt there was no need for any more contact with them. Then he quietly said goodbye and softly hung up.
Definitely agree on the drama thing: that does you nothing but harm.
I would suggest starting something that gives you some professional satisfaction that has nothing to do with your work. For me, it's writing, and it's a very fulfilling feeling when I write something I think is great and has nothing to do with work.
@Andrea: That brings up an interesting question. If you find out a male coworker makes more than you even though you do roughly the same job, and you ask about that. What do you do if you're told "It's because we value X more than you. He works harder for us."
Would you sue or would you believe it? It's an interesting dynamic that same-sex coworkers might never think of. But it's definitely a huge issue. I'd be paranoid if I was a woman.
The REAL trick is to realize that the comparison *does* affect your job satisfaction, and your job satisfaction is about more than just the money you make.
So instead, tell your boss, "If I do a really good job, don't give Billy a raise this year." That'll bring Billy's salary down relative to yours, the boss saves money, and you wind up happier! Everyone wins!
I have not had a TV for more than three years now. I am very happy I got rid of the dam thing. It is one of the best things I have ever done for myself and the atmosphere of my home.
The company I work for discourages sharing, and goes so far as to say it is potentially grounds for disciplinary action. However, knowing doesn't really help an employee very much because there are many dynamics at play. When were they hired? What is their experience level, long-term potential, likelihood of leaving? I managed people getting paid more than me and clearly doing less, but they were hired during times when salaries and bonuses were inflated. I always had the choice to do what they did: leave to increase my salary.
The employees I've managed who ask directly for raises usually aren't as concerned about delivering more value, just about getting more pay. The ones who ask what they need to do to deliver outstanding results or be ready for a promotion, understand it, and then deliver to that plan are the ones who get results.
I was with a major credit union in Arizona. Their policy was that if you had 10 charges that day, but only 1 threw your account into overdraft, all 10 charges would receive an overdraft fee.
When I called them on it, they said it was 'standard practice'.
Because I usually work at small companies, I care only about how I'm doing compared to others doing the same work elsewhere. There's always a range, of course, due to differences in industries, but you want to be in that range.
One way to get around the salary disparity problem is to have wage scales and job descriptions that are standard across companies.
As a government employee I know exactly how much money everyone in my office makes. It does kind of bother me to know that I am held to the same production standards as someone that makes $20K more than me simply because they have been with the agency two years longer, but I guess two years from now, there will be a "the new guy" thinking the same thing about me.
For the record...I love my mileage card, but do not be confused that the credit card companies "reward" you. This benefit cost is passed along to the merchant, ultimately raising yours and my cost of goods and services, so in essence we all are paying for the perks. It is the cash users that pay more and get nada. Business card rewards are the worst and merchants end up paying up to 1% more than a non reward cards.
I just wanted to say, I don't think it's a silly idea to have a pile of cash set aside for the baby's birth. Not enough to buy a house, of course, but with money set aside, if things don't go well at first, you'll have money to buy whatever food you feel like eating when you feel like eating it, whatever baby supplies suddenly seem impossible to live without, and anything else that will make the next hour, day, week tolerable.
It may sound crazy now, but when my oldest son was born, life was a nightmare. He was colicky and not sleeping, I had postpartum depression, and breastfeeding was going badly for both of us. I promptly spent $350 on a high-end breastpump, $300 for an in-home consultation with a lactation consultant (following a $100 consultation with a different consultant who was awful), and $250 on formula, most of which we never used but which seemed absolutely imperative to have at the time. Needless to say, we weren't concerned about our net worth during those tough times – the only thing that mattered was survival. It took a couple of months to finally get to a place where things didn't seem so crazy, and I'm glad we had the money set aside to spend on whatever made survival possible.
(Which isn't to scare you off from having a kid - being a parent is the most fabulous, craziest thing I have ever done!)
People get brought into the company at different times, so that already may affect someone's starting salary. During the course of someone's employment, so many factors can potentially influence your raises, performance, intra-company politics, the economy, etc. And considering that in the non-perfect world, not everyone is open minded to accept responsibilities for their actions, especially in the work place, would it not create more friction?
I hvae a site with a forum where we also discuss all things finance and suggest money saving tips.
financial directory.
so I check this after I tear up my $7 6v and tear up my hands----there are 4 long c's in the energizer 6v---out 7 bucks and still have to buy AA!!!!!!
Getting an expert to handle the laborious car buying process is certainly the smart way to go.
That's why we launched Carsala (http://www.carsala.com). We handle all aspects of the process, finding the car that's right for you, and negotiating with the used car dealers on your behalf. Our average customer savings right now is over $4000 per car.
Try out our Car-Figurator (http://www.carsala.com/configurator/) and you can see the great prices we are able to get.
She's the next person I expect to see comment here, based on the general trend.
It would really depend on the co-worker. I'm actually pretty good at figuring out who is a better writer and more valued employee on my own - it's one of the areas where I don't actually have much pride. It's clear to me when people deserve to earn more than me because they are simply better. So if I knew that a male coworker in the same position was making more than me, and I looked at his work and realized that he was simply better, then I wouldn't object.
I know that doesn't sound feasible, but I promise it's true. I once worked at a company where one of my peers make about 15K more than me. He wasn't a very good writer, and had no drive to innovate or improve business processes, but he had been with the company for five years, so I accepted it as something that I couldn't change and it didn't really bother me.
-A
a person who makes $250,000 in one year does not necessarily make it every year. Plenty of very middle to lower income people will end up in that tax bracket once in their lives:
The small business owner who sells his business to retire will be "rich" one year out of his life, and end up paying out much of what should have been his retirement fund to the government.
The widowed elderly homeowner who sells her house of 45 years because she needs to move in with one of her kids might find herself paying high taxes on gain that is really mostly inflation.
Years ago, if you had a fantastic year, you could income-average it over five years, so the higher marginal tax rates didn't trap so many "non-rich" people, but that was done away with, probably because it made it harder to pretend that it was only "the rich" the government was trying to soak.
Besides which, given the high income mobility in our country, a lot of the fortunate people today are the less fortunate people of yesterday (and sometimes vice versa).
But most of the "fortunate" are exactly the people Andrew talks about, the ones who work like crazy and make the most use of their talents.
I, for one, am one of the less-fortunate not because I CAN'T earn $250,000 + but because I can earn a perfectly adequate living (for me) in about 10 hours a week and I'm basically lazy. If I wanted to work 60 hours a week, I could probably earn as much as $400,000, but with effective marginal tax rates approaching 50% (about 38%+ income tax rate after all the deduction phase-outs and AMT effects, and 15.1% in combined employer/employee FICA and Medicare for part and 2.9% Medicare on the rest), I just don't feel motivated to work that hard at work I don't enjoy, only to split half the take with a bunch of idiot politicians who will do more harm than good with what I give them.
Obama's tax raises are going to make a lot of people who are less lazy than I am but don't adore their work decide it just isn't worth it to work as hard as they've been doing (especially if they live in states that have state income taxes which are also rising).
Those increases are not going to raise anywhere near the amount of revenue that he expects. They never do. But higher tax rates will punish those nasty "fortunates," and envy/class hatred rather than revenue-raising seems to be the prime motivator for most who support them.
Would I rather companies dispensed with rewards programs, sales, incentives, etc., etc. in favor of one low price -- yes! But until that happens, it does pay to pay attention to how certain programs work and if possible use them carefully to your advantage if it fits with the way you like doing business. I am a heavy cc user also -- yesterday, I cashed in points to get a $500 credit on my husband's cc bill and ordered a back-up device for my computer paid for with a gift card from my cc program.
I tend to think it is great for there to be openness in salaries. While there is a tendency among some people to feel jealous and entitled (which I think is very unhealthy and counterproductive), it does open your eyes to opportunities. For instance, you may learn that the company is willing to pay someone $5,000 more for the position that you fill; if dealt with via an effective perspective, this can become the proper motivation to seek to close the gap on your perceived value to your employer.
I honestly dislike the lack of openness of salaries between employers and employees. Many employers require salary history when applying for a position, but they are unwilling to disclose what they have paid former employees that filled the position. I feel that if they are unwilling to disclose that, then I will not be honest with them about my salary history. I found this to be the case at my last job. I did state that my previous salary was higher than it was, and their offer was based off of my previous salary. I provided a greater value and received a raise well before my regular review. However, I later found out that the person that previously held the position made several thousand dollars more than I made even after my raise, and I was definitely considered to be a greater value than he was, as I had more experience, better education and industry certifications, was more of a people person, and delivered more projects.
I have consistently been a high performer throughout my career, and I have often settled for less than I wanted for my initial salary, but have received substantial raises very quickly; it certainly has always appeared that they have felt guilty for "low balling" me initially. I have been working in my field for ten years, now, and I have more than tripled my salary in that time frame, and I also do substantial side-work that significantly affects my total annual income. What I have learned is that you MUST demonstrate significant value (I typically strive for a value level that is around two levels higher than my position). Then, if this has been done consistently for about two years on the job, you MUST seek employment elsewhere if you are not rewarded for it. Your next job MUST come with a significant salary increase (no less than $5k, if you are below the $100k mark) and you should always strive for increased flexibility and benefits (I have used my vacation time in previous positions to negotiate vacation time beyond standard policy in my previous two positions). Also, leverage your current position to get increased responsibilities in your next position. I have held the same, or similar, title for my past three jobs, but there has always been some increase in responsibilities (be it a a larger scope, or more ownership of your work). I would try to not hold the same or similar title more than twice, however. I have recently tried to get to the next level, and having had the same title for the previous three positions (while having more responsibility and being a larger influence), did hurt my chances.
I work for a department in my state's government. A few months ago, one of the major newspapers in my state put together a database of ALL state government employees' salaries (available via Public Records Request). From the lowliest custodian to the biggest big wig, they were all there online.
A simple search by name or job title brought me all the information I wanted to know. After about an hour on the site, I closed it down and haven't been back. It turns out that knowing exactly what my co-workers make is much like the forbidden fruit.
I decided that knowing what the woman in the next cubicle made couldn't help my salary and could only hurt my job performance.
If I change jobs in the state, I may go back, but I'm pretty satisfied with my salary, so maybe not.
Originally posted by 'guest'
"And please don’t say it is because those making more than $250,000 will pay more in taxes. If this concerns you, you need to receive immediate psycho analysis into why your heart bleeds for the VERY fortunate and well-off more so than the less-fortunate."
First off... Quit with the fortunate/less fortunate crap! Is the CEO of a company that busted his ass through school while people his high school class mates immediately started banking at jobs fortunate? Was he fortunate when he busted his ass at an entry level job when he got out of school, dealing with all the BS that you have to to move up within a company, and working the 60+ hour weeks his entire career? No, that's called hard work. I wont say that were aren't many Amercans who work hard and do not make a lot of money; there are. I would suggest to them to try to make a career change: go to school, do whatever is necessary. But I am so sick of those who don't believe we all control our own fates to some degree. Those who are well off are not generally fortunate; they busted their asses to get there. Fortunate people are the ones who win the lottery... And guess what? 99% of these people blow that money within the 20 years it takes to receive it, if not much much faster (true, I made up the 99% number, but in general, that is the truth). People who busted their asses to make their money are not more fortunate; they just may have made some better decisions in life.
No, I don't make a lot of money.. But I damn sure plan to one day. Oh, and AnnJo, you are right on with everything youve said.
...Ditch unsupportive friends and family...
A very bright acquaintance, (a very wealthy lawyer, too), told me how he handled his family after repeated cruel instances: when they called, he was not upset and did not yell or slam the phone. he calmly told them that he had considered their relationship and felt there was no need for any more contact with them. Then he quietly said goodbye and softly hung up.
That is some of the best advice I've ever gotten.
...Life is hard enough without drama queens and kings adding to the conflict...
amen!
Definitely agree on the drama thing: that does you nothing but harm.
I would suggest starting something that gives you some professional satisfaction that has nothing to do with your work. For me, it's writing, and it's a very fulfilling feeling when I write something I think is great and has nothing to do with work.
It feels pure, so choose a not-too-cheesy word.
The Writer's Coin | Follow me on Twitter
@Andrea: That brings up an interesting question. If you find out a male coworker makes more than you even though you do roughly the same job, and you ask about that. What do you do if you're told "It's because we value X more than you. He works harder for us."
Would you sue or would you believe it? It's an interesting dynamic that same-sex coworkers might never think of. But it's definitely a huge issue. I'd be paranoid if I was a woman.
The Writer's Coin | Follow me on Twitter
The REAL trick is to realize that the comparison *does* affect your job satisfaction, and your job satisfaction is about more than just the money you make.
So instead, tell your boss, "If I do a really good job, don't give Billy a raise this year." That'll bring Billy's salary down relative to yours, the boss saves money, and you wind up happier! Everyone wins!
I have not had a TV for more than three years now. I am very happy I got rid of the dam thing. It is one of the best things I have ever done for myself and the atmosphere of my home.
my cd smells great
The company I work for discourages sharing, and goes so far as to say it is potentially grounds for disciplinary action. However, knowing doesn't really help an employee very much because there are many dynamics at play. When were they hired? What is their experience level, long-term potential, likelihood of leaving? I managed people getting paid more than me and clearly doing less, but they were hired during times when salaries and bonuses were inflated. I always had the choice to do what they did: leave to increase my salary.
The employees I've managed who ask directly for raises usually aren't as concerned about delivering more value, just about getting more pay. The ones who ask what they need to do to deliver outstanding results or be ready for a promotion, understand it, and then deliver to that plan are the ones who get results.
I was with a major credit union in Arizona. Their policy was that if you had 10 charges that day, but only 1 threw your account into overdraft, all 10 charges would receive an overdraft fee.
When I called them on it, they said it was 'standard practice'.
Because I usually work at small companies, I care only about how I'm doing compared to others doing the same work elsewhere. There's always a range, of course, due to differences in industries, but you want to be in that range.
One way to get around the salary disparity problem is to have wage scales and job descriptions that are standard across companies.
As a government employee I know exactly how much money everyone in my office makes. It does kind of bother me to know that I am held to the same production standards as someone that makes $20K more than me simply because they have been with the agency two years longer, but I guess two years from now, there will be a "the new guy" thinking the same thing about me.
I just started training for this. It seems like an awesome job, but you basically have to ace the test. Not too hard....just use your noggin.
For the record...I love my mileage card, but do not be confused that the credit card companies "reward" you. This benefit cost is passed along to the merchant, ultimately raising yours and my cost of goods and services, so in essence we all are paying for the perks. It is the cash users that pay more and get nada. Business card rewards are the worst and merchants end up paying up to 1% more than a non reward cards.
Badger
I just wanted to say, I don't think it's a silly idea to have a pile of cash set aside for the baby's birth. Not enough to buy a house, of course, but with money set aside, if things don't go well at first, you'll have money to buy whatever food you feel like eating when you feel like eating it, whatever baby supplies suddenly seem impossible to live without, and anything else that will make the next hour, day, week tolerable.
It may sound crazy now, but when my oldest son was born, life was a nightmare. He was colicky and not sleeping, I had postpartum depression, and breastfeeding was going badly for both of us. I promptly spent $350 on a high-end breastpump, $300 for an in-home consultation with a lactation consultant (following a $100 consultation with a different consultant who was awful), and $250 on formula, most of which we never used but which seemed absolutely imperative to have at the time. Needless to say, we weren't concerned about our net worth during those tough times – the only thing that mattered was survival. It took a couple of months to finally get to a place where things didn't seem so crazy, and I'm glad we had the money set aside to spend on whatever made survival possible.
(Which isn't to scare you off from having a kid - being a parent is the most fabulous, craziest thing I have ever done!)