I think engtech's point is they wish their work was better-recognized and better-rewarded, without him/her feeling he had to force his employer's hand by pulling a "well, XYZ corp is all lined up to pay me 20% more!" (AKA, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease").
Maybe that's realistically what you do have to do, but that doesn't mean it's ideal. It's easy to view the employer/employee relationship in a purely market-driven, antagonistic style, but I think many people who like their jobs really wish it wasn't like that.
Again, it might be naive, but that doesn't make it wrong to feel that way. It really would be great if businesses could treat their employees like friends, and not just resources.
I've heard this point before, and you know, not only do I vehemently disagree with it, I also think it's massive cognitive dissonance. People are brought up told that discussing money is taboo, and rationalize that.
> force his employer's hand by pulling a
> purely market-driven, antagonistic style
Doesn't it strike you as odd that you've made those statements so emotionally laden?
> It really would be great if businesses could treat their employees like friends, and not just resources.
I think that would be dreadful. I want a company to treat me as a resource, and to realize that as a resource, they'll get the most out of me if they keep me happy. I would like the company to be acutely aware of how much I am worth, how much I cost, and what my options are, and to be happy that they're getting good value by employing me. Programmers spend so long convincing themselves they're scientists, but for some reason (and maybe it's because economics is such a weak science) this all completely goes out the window as soon as money is involved.
I think it's weak-sauce for a programmer to be jumping around chasing a few bucks here and there, but if you're being undervalued, do something about it, rather than complaining that life is unfair, and that the company should be looking after you. And I say this as a bleeding-heart pinkie limey leftie liberal who actually worked at The Guardian once.
"Doesn't it strike you as odd that you've made those statements so emotionally laden?"
For a lot of people, it is an emotional situation. Work makes up a big part of their life, I'd be surprised to find many people who can view compensation in a totally cool and detached way.
And yes, obviously, "do(ing) something about it" is the correct course of action. I wasn't suggesting hoping and wishing as a means of getting a raise.
On a side note, I wonder if the Dunning-Krueger effect implies that the least qualified people are the ones clamoring for raises the most often?
I agree that it sucks that is is this way, and that many of us would rather companies actually kept up with market rate without us having to beat them over the head constantly.
We live in a world that, in this case, performs far less than ideally. Constraining your own behavior to naive, idealized boundaries seems ludicrous.
In other words, do not feel bad about being "that guy", because that guy is all of us. If your employer will not adjust your compensation fairly, then do head off to greener pastures. This whole shame-game with "disloyalty" is just a ruse to make you accept a grossly below-market rate for your work.
I agree completely. This is the world we live in, and you should not feel bad for asking to be paid what you deserve.
That said, it's hard not to have emotional ties to your work, especially if you're friendly with the people you work with. I was just trying to explain how I presumed engtech was feeling, since peteretep didn't seem to understand.
I don't understand that. Who is /that guy/ and why don't you want to be him?