Every desirable video card model is now OOS tonight. Unreal.

Status
Not open for further replies.

euskalzabe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
1,478
We're really getting off-topic here, but you get paid what you're worth and what you accept. I think we all know incompetent people that are well-paid because they're good at negotiating and interviewing and we also know plenty of people that are very competent but accept terrible salaries and contracts because they're bad at negotiating and interviewing.
This is true, yet terrible, and I would love a certain amount of regulation. If you hold a job in position X, at least company wide, position X should have a specific salary for anyone holding that same position. Merit raises are a great way to differentiate and recognize who works more and better, but the position itself should have a regulated salary. In academia, I cannot tell you how many people on the same professorial rank I find that have completely different salaries, yet they all have the same accreditation. The differences make sense, but when you have employees with the same required degrees for a rank, teach the same amount, and publish the same amount, but then they have different salaries... makes my blood boil.

This personal drive for equity is what makes me want some regulation on GPU prices. If a 3060 Ti is worth $399 as the creator of the card itself says, then say you can make up to a %25 extra gain when the demand is trouncing supply - indeed most OEMs are now doing just that, a 3060 Ti often would cost you $460. I still wouldn't buy it at that price, but that's an "acceptable" situation. Seeing 3060 Tis go on Newegg or Ebay for 600 and 700... makes me wanna punch a wall. That is the kind of extreme scenario that I think should be legally banned. It's abusive, and I can't believe it's good for the economy overall.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
661
We're really getting off-topic here, but you get paid what you're worth and what you accept. I think we all know incompetent people that are well-paid because they're good at negotiating and interviewing and we also know plenty of people that are very competent but accept terrible salaries and contracts because they're bad at negotiating and interviewing.
Negotiating and knowing your worth in the job market are some of the absolute most important skills anyone can get and if your skills and competency (as well as knowing what you don't know, but how to gain knowledge) can back that up you can have all the confidence in the world to stick to your guns and if they don't want to play ball, then it isn't worth your time.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
661
This is true, yet terrible, and I would love a certain amount of regulation. If you hold a job in position X, at least company wide, position X should have a specific salary for anyone holding that same position. Merit raises are a great way to differentiate and recognize who works more and better, but the position itself should have a regulated salary. In academia, I cannot tell you how many people on the same professorial rank I find that have completely different salaries, yet they all have the same accreditation. The differences make sense, but when you have employees with the same required degrees for a rank, teach the same amount, and publish the same amount, but then they have different salaries... makes my blood boil.
I guess the academic world is an interesting lens and I can understand where you are coming from.

In my sector it's highly irregular to stay at any one company for longer than 3 years (give or take) if you want more money. Honestly you are losing money staying anywhere long term. Take a 0-2% annual raise or go take a job somewhere else for 15-25% (give or take) more money. And its mostly based on experience with specific skillsets/competencies vs who has degrees and accreditations. Certifications help show such things but haven't really factored into any salary negotiations. Frankly I study the market, look at what I do, look at what the job is, get an idea for the field of competition and where I can be a unique asset, and I make my own reasonable number and stick to my guns. Have never been turned down yet with good companies in terms of the numbers. I've had some shit companies try to talk me down and I simply walk away, if they are going to try to screw you before you even work for them, then imagine what they will do when you do. I refuse to be sold short.

Granted this is 12 years into the professional world and figuring out a career path probably 6-7 years ago. But I wish I had known earlier on how better to know my worth, know the market, and have confidence in myself. Once you do that, sure there are good times and dry spells, but it makes it a hell of a lot easier to navigate. I tell them a number, not the other way around, and if they don't like it then its not worth wasting anymore time.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,362
In my sector it's highly irregular to stay at any one company for longer than 3 years (give or take) if you want more money. Honestly you are losing money staying anywhere long term.
I imagine it is not an issue in some cities/line of work, but there is also good money to be made via the simple complete stability and never moving (and all the cost that usually goes with) or missing one paycheck over many decades (with all the obvious cost to ever go some weeks without a paycheck).
 

Andrew_Carr

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
2,694
This is true, yet terrible, and I would love a certain amount of regulation. If you hold a job in position X, at least company wide, position X should have a specific salary for anyone holding that same position. Merit raises are a great way to differentiate and recognize who works more and better, but the position itself should have a regulated salary. In academia, I cannot tell you how many people on the same professorial rank I find that have completely different salaries, yet they all have the same accreditation. The differences make sense, but when you have employees with the same required degrees for a rank, teach the same amount, and publish the same amount, but then they have different salaries... makes my blood boil.
The problem with that is what do you do when conditions change? You're trying to fix a moving target that's constantly changing. For example, around 2009 after the financial meltdown there was a glut of lawyers and job placement rates from law schools were terrible. Perhaps this was due to everyone listening to their parents and becoming lawyers or doctors (increased supply), or perhaps it was due to a lower demand for legal services due to so many companies going bankrupt (decreased demand). Either way this results in a lower value that such a worker provides because there are more of them out of a job and bidding their salaries down in an attempt to find some sort of employment. Once you hire one they might still earn you the same amount of money, but the cost of replacing them is now much lower and thus they're worth less overall; total cost of an employee is much more than salary and includes things like training costs and what's the loss to the business if you have to do without them for awhile.

Similarly, let's take what would happen if all H1B visas are cut-off and programmers and engineers in the U.S. become a higher demand field because supply has lowered. At this point all the various companies that need programmers and engineers will have to outbid each other to get what they want. If there are only 100,000 qualified applicants and 200,000 job openings, 100,000 of those are going unfulfilled and it's probably going to be the least profitable and least efficient companies getting screwed because they can't extract as much wealth out of each one in order to justify the higher prices. Additionally, once you do hire these people at higher rates do you torpedo your business by raising all past employee salaries, do you disregard employee loyalty programs and make everyone equal according to their role? The truth is that you try to pay everyone as little as possible, but sometimes you might have to pay one person a losing amount of money in order to secure a contract, meet regulatory requirements, etc. and that big picture cost outweighs the small loss you take in one salary. But salary for many companies is their largest expense, so increasing it across the board would probably bankrupt you.

I've worked in places with fixed salary systems like you're proposing and I've worked at places with salaries based on market conditions, and I definitely prefer the latter. In the former, it's more of a competition of how little work you can get away with while still being promoted (sandbagging), which isn't good at all for productivity, morale, and still creates resentment between employees. In the latter, there are definitely situations where two people doing the exact same thing get paid wildly different salaries and that sucks and creates resentment if they realize it, but again, it comes down to knowing what you're worth and haggling for it. If you don't keep up with current trends in your line of work then you're going to accept less than what you're worth, and personally I feel like people deserve that if they choose to remain ignorant or don't polish their interpersonal skills for interviewing & negotiating as those are valuable skills for any business. In the above scenario, if something so drastic happened then all currently employed programmers/engineers could realize they are suddenly worth more and negotiate salary raises for the year. Now the cost of replacing them has suddenly skyrocketed so they'd have a good argument to make. But only the ones that keep up with their industry will realize that and only the ones that are confident and will negotiate will try, and generally those are the types you want to keep and promote anyway so IMO it's a good system for rewarding them and not rewarding the people that aren't as motivated and driven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top