Slashdot Mirror
Flat Pay Prompts 1 In 3 In IT To Consider Jump
CWmike writes "Companies have cut salaries and training, held back on bonuses and piled more work on employees in response to the economic downturn. These tactics may well be pushing many IT pros to go job hunting, Computerworld's latest salary poll has found. More than one third (36%) of the 343 respondents to a recent poll said they are looking to move to a new employer in the next six months. And 69% reported they had not received a pay raise in the past six months. The poll was conducted during the last two weeks in September. For employers, the warning could not be more clear. As the economy improves, the most able IT workers may leave for something better."
Most employers do annual pay adjustments, so asking if they received a pay increase in the past 6 months would, on average, get at least 50% saying no. The report was engineered from the start to get the result that they published.
Hehe.... I manage $10M in construction. I deal with contract disputes, State and Federal funding and regulatory agencies, local politics, you name it. Oh, and I'm a licensed engineer.
My pay is less than the guy who goes around wiping viruses off people's computers.
Go ahead and jump, IT. There's nothing on the other side.
True.... but its not entirely wrong, 69% is still above the expected 50% by almost 20%. We haven't gotten a raise in about 2 years here, with a hiring freeze. This resonates with me since, its exactly what I told a head hunter last night.... I am looking to leave because they haven't given raises in 2 years, and the group dynamic means that I can epxect to be waiting quite a while for a promotion....all the while being told "you are one of the senior guys"... even though I don't have the title.
That and, I know I could make more elsewhere.
Doesn't matter. It was like this even in good economic times, and hasn't changed at all; the only thing that's changed is how much hiring is going on.
Companies don't give substantial raises, period (except to executives, of course). They give paltry raises, and that's it, and that's only in good times. However, they'll pay "market rate" for new hires, regardless of the current economy. So if they want a guy who has 10 years' experience, they'll generally pay the current going rate for that position with that much experience (what the going rate is can be easily found in salary surveys, which there's several websites that specialize in). The companies do this, because if they don't pay going rate, they won't fill their open positions at all, and the time and effort spent interviewing candidates is significant and costly, so it's not worth it to interview a bunch of people only to have them reject your offer for being a low-ball.
However, for existing employees who are loyal and don't jump ship for the next higher offer, companies don't bother much with raises. They might give you a 1% raise here and there to keep you happy, but that's about it. It doesn't match the market rate, so if you stick with a company for 10 years, you'll find that the new hires (with the same experience level as you) are getting much higher salaries than you are, for the same job.
The only answer is to change jobs every few years. Don't be one of those suckers that stays at the same job for 15 years; it's a rare company that actually keeps your pay in line with market rate (if you found one of those, and you like the job, then great! Stay there.).
Why do companies do this? As best as I can tell, it's because of the aforementioned suckers that are too lazy, afraid, or whatever (perhaps overspecialized?) to change jobs. The companies are happy to exploit them and their fear of change.
Personally, my "secret recipe" is to make sure you have skills (and take jobs that require and use these skills) which are in high demand, keep your skills up and constantly improve them on-the-job, and change jobs every 2-3 years. Changing jobs too often looks bad (under 1 year is very bad), and changing too slowly means you're missing out on a much higher salary. Also make sure you live in an area where there's plenty of competition for your skillset; don't live in some podunk town where there's only one employer that needs your skills, because they'll take advantage of that, knowing that you'll have to pack up, sell your house (good luck!) and move long-distance to get a higher salary. I've also found it's good to stay at one (probably large) company for a longer time; I have a 7-year stint at a megaTechCorp that looks great even though my subsequent jobs were much shorter. One long term will balance out any short terms. This can also be helpful if you find yourself in a job you really, really hate and need to leave early.
So no, the new company will NOT "funnel those same pressures on to you", at least not until it's time for a raise (1 year). They'll pay the going rate or else you won't take the job, and they know it (well, there are a few companies that are rather clueless and give low-ball offers; pass these by). And when it's time for a raise, it doesn't matter what the current economy climate is. In a great economy, you'll get a paltry-to-mediocre raise, and in a poor economy, you'll get a zero-to-paltry raise. There's not much difference between the two; $1-2k/year difference really isn't very much money. Just put in your time there, and after you've been there between 2 and 4 years, start looking at new jobs.
I work for one of the large IT companies. Pay isn't my concern. I'm pretty happy with my salary.
My concern is job stability. They've been laying off people simply to prop up the stock price. Year after year, its round of layoff after round of layoffs despite near a record high stock price and record profits and revenue. We got rid of the low performers years ago, yet the layoffs keep on coming. They've even laid off distinguished engineers. That tells me that even if I perform so well in my job that I reach one of the highest levels for an engineer, even that's not going to keep me from being laid off. So what's the point? If I stay, I risk being laid off when I'm 50 when it's going to be even more difficult to find a job.
I'd be willing to take a $10k-$20k cut in salary for a more secure job...one that isn't going to lay me off unless it at least has good reason to.
Problem: Consumer demand for around 15-20% of our (US) economic output goods/services has been destroyed by both the stock (2001) market and real estate (2007-current) market collapse. This demand was of course artificial, propped up by "wealth" that didn't really exist (no, your house wasn't worth $30K more six months after you bought it).
So, the question is, how do you light a fire under the economic engine of consuming when most households are loaded down with mortgage, student loan, and unsecured/secured debt? Easily. You have the Federal Reserve buy out the underwater portion of debt.
Most, if not all of you, will say "That's not fair! I spent wisely and saved accordingly!" Good for you. You don't drive the economy. Those who consume do. So, to get those people consuming again, you need to get rid of this debt hanging out there. It's going to go away at some point anyway (research shows that if you're more than $10K underwater on your mortgage, you're 8-10 times more likely to walk away from the mortgage than someone who isn't underwater). The faster we eliminate that "zombie" debt, the more disposable income will be freed up for consuming goods, and the economy will start rolling again.
And please, don't say "You can't just make money out of thin air!" That's exactly what the Federal Reserve does. Inflation will be kept in check because we're already suffering from deflation. If the excess capacity doesn't get eaten up, the US is going to end up with the same problems Japan had. Once that excess capacity is eaten up, the Fed can raise interest rates to put the brakes on additional expansion.
Feel free to poke holes in my logic. A crowdsourced solution is still a solution.