Then why would you expect to be paid 20% more than the 22-year old based on your soft skills?
Because they exist, are valuable for the job and it's a proven fact. It's not as if I ask 20% more because my garage band can rock the 'hood. I bring extra stuff that's valuable to the company in the first place and indirectly saves thousands of dollars per year. The problem is that the hiring process members don't see that value because they are blinded by "OMG 20% more fuck it" fallacy.
That said, your description of how hiring works doesn't match with my experience in small companies.
That's because small companies can't even be measured in such a way. There is no algorithm applicable there. The hiring process is raw and unfiltered (e.g. you talk to the CEO directly and he's usually your direct manager as well). Small companies were never the problem and yes, age discrimination is never a problem there (unless the owner is a stupid dick which is a different discussion entirely). Age discrimination is visible in large companies which are a different kind of animal.
Can I ask what do you do? I've never had to work shifts.
That's because I live and work in Europe and my customers are all located in the USA. I build reports and analyses (Business Intelligence), big data stuff. Currently looking to expand into realtime analytics using big data stuff as well.
At the risk of sounding harsh, it seems like you've chosen a field where it's more-or-less impossible to differentiate one's self based on the quality of one's work. Every employee is viewed as approximately equal and more-or-less fungible. Moreover, there's no willingness to accommodate employees' desire for work/life balance. That sounds like a terrible field to be in. That's not a criticism of you; I'm just giving an objective assessment of what you've described. I'm also sensitive to the fact that career-switching is difficult, time-consuming and often expensive.
It's not the field per se, it's the fact that the field addresses almost exclusively to very large companies, and very large companies are horrible when it comes to taking care of their employees. It's the way it is. I tried small companies but they're either not needing big data analyses (they don't have big data to speak of) or they already have established analysts who don't leave because life is good there.
Strictly from a mathematical point of view, yes, what you are saying is correct. With that being said... Companies value soft skills at ZERO. You can churn code just as fast as a 22-year old, but you are more experienced from a team player perspective, you have finished more projects in the past and bring a set of recommendations the size of a bible. hence you are asking for 20% more than the 22-year old. Then, your resume goes to some HR manager who only looks at how much code can you churn and thinks "bah, we can teach the 22-year old the soft skills in time" so you're fucked.
Not to mention how much can you sacrifice from a personal perspective, aka life-work balance. There are things a 22-year old would do for free but a 35-year old wouldn't or couldn't unless he would be okay with his work-life balance being screwed big time. A 22-year old will have the stamina and naivete to work in shifts, be on call and stay late for 0% increase from what he's asking, whereas a 35-year old with family, kids and other obligations would find this sacrifices a lot harder for objective reasons.
I am 35, have a family and my work-life balance is fucked because I have to make sacrifices to stay competitive. I work from 5 PM to 2AM, my soft skills are valued at zero by the company, my work doesn't bring direct revenue and if "switching careers" would not be needed if companies would account for factors other than simply "can he produce more of THIS". my biggest disadvantage in the line of work I have is that pretty much nobody from my LoB understands exactly how much effort is behind the end result of my work, despite my attempts to explain. And other companies which I interviewed for appear to have the same lack of understanding on the matter. Also, the fact that I really enjoy what I do also has zero value, but in practice it translates to high quality results. It's the kind of outcome nobody cares about unless it's missing. To make a stupid analogy, it's like realizing what your wife does for your home only after she leaves and your house becomes a mess.
There is no algorithm telling you exactly how much you're worth. None whatsoever. Some companies split salaries by "levels". You are Individual Contributor (IC) or Manager (M). As an IC, you have levels, from 1 to 6, where 1 means "worthless piece of shit" and 6 means "a God in your field". Your value is calculated, roughly, based on some generic metrics, and each of those "levels" has a minimum and a maximum threshold for salary size. Those thresholds vary by company, state, country, etc. A Senior Database Administrator job will have different thresholds based on where they work (employer name and geolocation), which LoB are they in (internal support is usually where the shit salaries are because that LoB doesn't directly generate any income), whether you work remotely and so on. e.g. a Senior DBA in the SF Bay Area will have a minimum salary threshold higher than the maximum salary threshold for exactly the same job in Alabama, and probably someone from Romania would have to do the same thing for 10% of that. Not to mention that these thresholds overlap through levels, e.g. the upper salary limit for an IC1 is only slightly higher than the lowest threshold for an IC3, so that management could fuck you in the ass by "promoting" you across levels with no salary change whatsoever and laugh in your face because they're covered by "procedures". You wanna quit? Good, they'll finally get to bring that 20-something year old who'll do the job for exactly what you were getting, but will be happy and grateful, unlike you.
So you tell me your value and I'll show you a gazillion counter-examples which make your point moot. That's why I said "what you think you're worth". And even given two equal people living in the same area, doing the same job for the same LoB in the same company, their value, even if equal in theory, will be different in reality based on subjective factors: how young/old they are compared to their team, how tall they are, how their character is and how does it fit within the team, etc. e.g. I don't drink, but my former manager used to heavily drink. he never fully trusted me because "I can't trust a man who doesn't drink with me until we both pass out", as he was saying. Yell "discrimination!" all you want, fact of the matter is that there's a huge amount of subjective things you can't prove and which could affect our salary and your prospective salary for that matter.
TL;DR: there is no such thing as "absolute value" for a job.
But it doesn't matter what you THINK you're worth, and not even what you're worth in theory. All that matters is what the upper management is willing to pay someone who's performing activities that are vague and many times incomprehensible for the said upper management. In other words, upper management doesn't really know what you do and they don't really care. They look at things like this: #1: Should we keep X? - Is X being paid $Y for doing Z? - Is T willing to do Z for $Y-n%? Yes: Hire T. No: Keep X.
#2: Is X asking for a raise? - Can we find T who's willing to do Z for the same amount X gets? Yes: Hire T, Fire X No: Tell X he ain't getting nothin'.
#3: X didn't get a raise and wants to leave. Let him leave, hire someone else even for a higher salary because "we don't negotiate with terrorists".
So what you think you're worth doesn't mean shit. Sad but true.
Last I checked, Kuwait is not in Europe, Japan or Australia. It's a country in the Middle-East. it's also the place where, if your dog wants to bury a bone, he'll be splashed by a tiny jet of raw oil coming out that tiny hole he dug.
So, to you, "attractive" only means "good looking"? I must be getting old. When I'm attracted to a woman who's smart, outgoing, enthusiastic about her work, we become friends. Same goes for a man. Maybe because I'm happily married, have kids and like what I do for a living.
Given that 120mm is the format used commonly in "serious" fotography now you know what the kids are actually doing in the dark rooms.
Are you sure high schools afford that type of equipment? I think it's more likely that high schools can only offer antiquated analogic equipment for their photography classes. Maybe it's more a lack of choice thing, rather than a conscious analogic photography choice.
I hope you realize that is your sole, subjective interpretation. It also might be a cultural difference. In the USA, there's this extreme (from my point of view) care for being "politically correct" as much as possible, up to becoming ridiculously so. I say women at my workplace are attractive? Boo, I'm sexist. How the fuck is that even so? Facts are facts. For what it's worth, I also appreciate a good looking man. Also, I don't give a flying fuck about "cultural attitudes". Generalizing someone's statement doesn't work to your advantage, rather it diminishes your perceived comprehension.
But fine, let me rephrase: "the IT company I work for is full of irrelevantly old, irrelevantly looking women". There. Politically correct. Sheesh.
I wasn't discussing men jobs. I was stating facts which exist in a 2000-strong employees building belonging to a multinational company in my city. I work with data and I have access to demographic analytics for the environment I work in. There are 56% females, average age is 27. There are 44% males, average age is 31. And it's an IT company.
The LoB specifics maybe result in the breakdown being wildly different from a purely development-oriented work environment but that's another discussion.
Since when is stating facts an issue? They are mostly young because the jobs we do around here are mostly entry-level and they usually attract young people. They are attractive because around here most women are attractive, generally speaking. We have our share of young, attractive males too, if you really want to know. There, I'm one of them. Happy?:)
The fact that people I work with are young, full of life and aesthetically pleasing are perks, so-to-speak. It's a business plus to work with enthusiastic people who are not "bittervets", so-to-speak.
And how, exactly does my statement make me part of a "problem"? What is the "problem" we are talking about? I fail to identify a "problem". Care to elaborate?
The IT company I work for is full of young, attractive women. They do a very good job in certain areas, such as handling financial contracts, customer calls, renewals, etc. Strictly from a development perspective, they simply might not be attracted/interested by that work type, although I personally knew a couple excellent female developers who work nearby.
A film roll is an artificial construct. How is that "natural" in any way, shape or form? Furthermore, digital pictures have plenty of imperfections, unless you use a really-REALLY good one, and even then you have to know what you're doing. With 99% of my snapshots looking horrible, I kind of am an expert in that particular field:=)
Sorry, I meant "for personal gain" and forgot to add it to my post. My mistake. While I certainly don't agree to his practices, the guy was basically "snowdening", and I also think that the punishment is appropriate. But if that is an appropriate sentence, then the other is a joke.
We have to point out lack of consistency in the justice system at every turn.
That won't help much, he got sentenced to 3 (or 4? Can't recall and I am lazy) years in jail already in Romania, same as some very rich asshole who stole literally millions EUR and now is over a billion EUR wealthy. What's worse is that the rich dude was found guilty in 3 different trials (for bribing and kidnapping to name a few offenses) and they "merged" the sentenced into one, basically saying, you got 3 years there, 4 years there and 4 more years there, so let's sum that up and make it... 3.5 years total.
Hacking some e-mail addresses with no data leaks gets you 3-4 years. Stealing millions of EUR, plus kidnapping some people, plus trying to bribe some football teams to "lose" a match gets you the same sentence. And people say there's justice in this world. Pfft.
"No, officer, he didn't pay jack shit, he's a distant relative, um, friend, um, acquaintance!" My colleague drives me home at the end of my shift, it's called carpooling. Carpooling could be arranged among strangers or people very loosely connected (e.g. working within the same neighborhood and living within the same other neighborhood). My workplace encourages carpooling and they even have an ongoing project to identify people who have similar routes during similar times. We're 2000-strong employees here so it makes sense. One person in each car add up to a lot of pollution and increase traffic jam. Using a cab has the same effect.
Yes, I am sorry for those who would see their income diminished, but trying to keep that income without adapting is akin to people in the past banning cars because the horse-related jobs would be affected. It wouldn't work.
Better yet, don't get out of your basement and only play offline single-player games without an Internet connection. And destroy your own ID card while you're at it.
Slashdot Mirror
The hardware itself could be designed in such a way to be incapable of capturing that information.
Then why would you expect to be paid 20% more than the 22-year old based on your soft skills?
Because they exist, are valuable for the job and it's a proven fact. It's not as if I ask 20% more because my garage band can rock the 'hood. I bring extra stuff that's valuable to the company in the first place and indirectly saves thousands of dollars per year. The problem is that the hiring process members don't see that value because they are blinded by "OMG 20% more fuck it" fallacy.
That said, your description of how hiring works doesn't match with my experience in small companies.
That's because small companies can't even be measured in such a way. There is no algorithm applicable there. The hiring process is raw and unfiltered (e.g. you talk to the CEO directly and he's usually your direct manager as well). Small companies were never the problem and yes, age discrimination is never a problem there (unless the owner is a stupid dick which is a different discussion entirely). Age discrimination is visible in large companies which are a different kind of animal.
Can I ask what do you do? I've never had to work shifts.
That's because I live and work in Europe and my customers are all located in the USA.
I build reports and analyses (Business Intelligence), big data stuff. Currently looking to expand into realtime analytics using big data stuff as well.
At the risk of sounding harsh, it seems like you've chosen a field where it's more-or-less impossible to differentiate one's self based on the quality of one's work. Every employee is viewed as approximately equal and more-or-less fungible. Moreover, there's no willingness to accommodate employees' desire for work/life balance. That sounds like a terrible field to be in. That's not a criticism of you; I'm just giving an objective assessment of what you've described. I'm also sensitive to the fact that career-switching is difficult, time-consuming and often expensive.
It's not the field per se, it's the fact that the field addresses almost exclusively to very large companies, and very large companies are horrible when it comes to taking care of their employees. It's the way it is. I tried small companies but they're either not needing big data analyses (they don't have big data to speak of) or they already have established analysts who don't leave because life is good there.
Strictly from a mathematical point of view, yes, what you are saying is correct. With that being said...
Companies value soft skills at ZERO. You can churn code just as fast as a 22-year old, but you are more experienced from a team player perspective, you have finished more projects in the past and bring a set of recommendations the size of a bible. hence you are asking for 20% more than the 22-year old. Then, your resume goes to some HR manager who only looks at how much code can you churn and thinks "bah, we can teach the 22-year old the soft skills in time" so you're fucked.
Not to mention how much can you sacrifice from a personal perspective, aka life-work balance. There are things a 22-year old would do for free but a 35-year old wouldn't or couldn't unless he would be okay with his work-life balance being screwed big time. A 22-year old will have the stamina and naivete to work in shifts, be on call and stay late for 0% increase from what he's asking, whereas a 35-year old with family, kids and other obligations would find this sacrifices a lot harder for objective reasons.
I am 35, have a family and my work-life balance is fucked because I have to make sacrifices to stay competitive. I work from 5 PM to 2AM, my soft skills are valued at zero by the company, my work doesn't bring direct revenue and if "switching careers" would not be needed if companies would account for factors other than simply "can he produce more of THIS". my biggest disadvantage in the line of work I have is that pretty much nobody from my LoB understands exactly how much effort is behind the end result of my work, despite my attempts to explain. And other companies which I interviewed for appear to have the same lack of understanding on the matter. Also, the fact that I really enjoy what I do also has zero value, but in practice it translates to high quality results. It's the kind of outcome nobody cares about unless it's missing. To make a stupid analogy, it's like realizing what your wife does for your home only after she leaves and your house becomes a mess.
There is no algorithm telling you exactly how much you're worth. None whatsoever.
Some companies split salaries by "levels". You are Individual Contributor (IC) or Manager (M). As an IC, you have levels, from 1 to 6, where 1 means "worthless piece of shit" and 6 means "a God in your field". Your value is calculated, roughly, based on some generic metrics, and each of those "levels" has a minimum and a maximum threshold for salary size. Those thresholds vary by company, state, country, etc. A Senior Database Administrator job will have different thresholds based on where they work (employer name and geolocation), which LoB are they in (internal support is usually where the shit salaries are because that LoB doesn't directly generate any income), whether you work remotely and so on.
e.g. a Senior DBA in the SF Bay Area will have a minimum salary threshold higher than the maximum salary threshold for exactly the same job in Alabama, and probably someone from Romania would have to do the same thing for 10% of that.
Not to mention that these thresholds overlap through levels, e.g. the upper salary limit for an IC1 is only slightly higher than the lowest threshold for an IC3, so that management could fuck you in the ass by "promoting" you across levels with no salary change whatsoever and laugh in your face because they're covered by "procedures". You wanna quit? Good, they'll finally get to bring that 20-something year old who'll do the job for exactly what you were getting, but will be happy and grateful, unlike you.
So you tell me your value and I'll show you a gazillion counter-examples which make your point moot.
That's why I said "what you think you're worth". And even given two equal people living in the same area, doing the same job for the same LoB in the same company, their value, even if equal in theory, will be different in reality based on subjective factors: how young/old they are compared to their team, how tall they are, how their character is and how does it fit within the team, etc.
e.g. I don't drink, but my former manager used to heavily drink. he never fully trusted me because "I can't trust a man who doesn't drink with me until we both pass out", as he was saying. Yell "discrimination!" all you want, fact of the matter is that there's a huge amount of subjective things you can't prove and which could affect our salary and your prospective salary for that matter.
TL;DR: there is no such thing as "absolute value" for a job.
"it's". Many times over.
A good manager
Let me know when you find one.
But it doesn't matter what you THINK you're worth, and not even what you're worth in theory. All that matters is what the upper management is willing to pay someone who's performing activities that are vague and many times incomprehensible for the said upper management. In other words, upper management doesn't really know what you do and they don't really care. They look at things like this:
#1: Should we keep X?
- Is X being paid $Y for doing Z?
- Is T willing to do Z for $Y-n%?
Yes: Hire T.
No: Keep X.
#2: Is X asking for a raise?
- Can we find T who's willing to do Z for the same amount X gets?
Yes: Hire T, Fire X
No: Tell X he ain't getting nothin'.
#3: X didn't get a raise and wants to leave.
Let him leave, hire someone else even for a higher salary because "we don't negotiate with terrorists".
So what you think you're worth doesn't mean shit. Sad but true.
Last I checked, Kuwait is not in Europe, Japan or Australia. It's a country in the Middle-East. it's also the place where, if your dog wants to bury a bone, he'll be splashed by a tiny jet of raw oil coming out that tiny hole he dug.
So, to you, "attractive" only means "good looking"? I must be getting old.
When I'm attracted to a woman who's smart, outgoing, enthusiastic about her work, we become friends. Same goes for a man. Maybe because I'm happily married, have kids and like what I do for a living.
Indeed.
Given that 120mm is the format used commonly in "serious" fotography now you know what the kids are actually doing in the dark rooms.
Are you sure high schools afford that type of equipment? I think it's more likely that high schools can only offer antiquated analogic equipment for their photography classes. Maybe it's more a lack of choice thing, rather than a conscious analogic photography choice.
If it wasn't about political correctness, that other AC (and you) could have just given him the benefit of the doubt and let it slide.
But-but-but... then there wouldn't have been an argument there, would it? :)
I hope you realize that is your sole, subjective interpretation.
It also might be a cultural difference. In the USA, there's this extreme (from my point of view) care for being "politically correct" as much as possible, up to becoming ridiculously so. I say women at my workplace are attractive? Boo, I'm sexist. How the fuck is that even so? Facts are facts. For what it's worth, I also appreciate a good looking man.
Also, I don't give a flying fuck about "cultural attitudes". Generalizing someone's statement doesn't work to your advantage, rather it diminishes your perceived comprehension.
But fine, let me rephrase: "the IT company I work for is full of irrelevantly old, irrelevantly looking women". There. Politically correct.
Sheesh.
There, someone who got the message right. Thank you!
I wasn't discussing men jobs. I was stating facts which exist in a 2000-strong employees building belonging to a multinational company in my city.
I work with data and I have access to demographic analytics for the environment I work in. There are 56% females, average age is 27. There are 44% males, average age is 31. And it's an IT company.
The LoB specifics maybe result in the breakdown being wildly different from a purely development-oriented work environment but that's another discussion.
Since when is stating facts an issue? :)
They are mostly young because the jobs we do around here are mostly entry-level and they usually attract young people. They are attractive because around here most women are attractive, generally speaking.
We have our share of young, attractive males too, if you really want to know. There, I'm one of them. Happy?
The fact that people I work with are young, full of life and aesthetically pleasing are perks, so-to-speak. It's a business plus to work with enthusiastic people who are not "bittervets", so-to-speak.
And how, exactly does my statement make me part of a "problem"? What is the "problem" we are talking about? I fail to identify a "problem". Care to elaborate?
The IT company I work for is full of young, attractive women. They do a very good job in certain areas, such as handling financial contracts, customer calls, renewals, etc.
Strictly from a development perspective, they simply might not be attracted/interested by that work type, although I personally knew a couple excellent female developers who work nearby.
Just don't mention white balance, you'd be perceived as racist!
A film roll is an artificial construct. How is that "natural" in any way, shape or form? Furthermore, digital pictures have plenty of imperfections, unless you use a really-REALLY good one, and even then you have to know what you're doing. With 99% of my snapshots looking horrible, I kind of am an expert in that particular field :=)
Sorry, I meant "for personal gain" and forgot to add it to my post. My mistake.
While I certainly don't agree to his practices, the guy was basically "snowdening", and I also think that the punishment is appropriate. But if that is an appropriate sentence, then the other is a joke.
We have to point out lack of consistency in the justice system at every turn.
That won't help much, he got sentenced to 3 (or 4? Can't recall and I am lazy) years in jail already in Romania, same as some very rich asshole who stole literally millions EUR and now is over a billion EUR wealthy. What's worse is that the rich dude was found guilty in 3 different trials (for bribing and kidnapping to name a few offenses) and they "merged" the sentenced into one, basically saying, you got 3 years there, 4 years there and 4 more years there, so let's sum that up and make it... 3.5 years total.
Hacking some e-mail addresses with no data leaks gets you 3-4 years. Stealing millions of EUR, plus kidnapping some people, plus trying to bribe some football teams to "lose" a match gets you the same sentence. And people say there's justice in this world. Pfft.
There are places where the magma is pretty close to the surface (Iceland, Hawaii, the central part of The North Island, Yellowstone...
Somehow, I don't think it's a good idea to drill those specific locations.
Low number party member much?
"No, officer, he didn't pay jack shit, he's a distant relative, um, friend, um, acquaintance!"
My colleague drives me home at the end of my shift, it's called carpooling. Carpooling could be arranged among strangers or people very loosely connected (e.g. working within the same neighborhood and living within the same other neighborhood).
My workplace encourages carpooling and they even have an ongoing project to identify people who have similar routes during similar times. We're 2000-strong employees here so it makes sense. One person in each car add up to a lot of pollution and increase traffic jam. Using a cab has the same effect.
Yes, I am sorry for those who would see their income diminished, but trying to keep that income without adapting is akin to people in the past banning cars because the horse-related jobs would be affected. It wouldn't work.
Replace "telecom" with "database" and "roaming charges" with "license charges" and you're spot on.
Better yet, don't get out of your basement and only play offline single-player games without an Internet connection. And destroy your own ID card while you're at it.