Am I underpaid?

tuna55 wrote: Back from the dead. I moved within the company. They bumped me 14%. I no longer think that I am underpaid. The new paycheck starts the second week of July.

Me too! I get a 100% bump in pay with my in-company move within the same department even! But as compared to what I saw on salary.com, unless they are inflating the numbers with loads of OT, I'm 40-ish % underpaid, still.

For my job I know for a fact I am underpaid because I was making more at the same job in a different city a few years ago. Cost of living is the only thing that makes it possible for us to be making it. But one of the reasons I am lookin for something else I need to get into something better for my family.

I am interviewing a lot right now trying to get another job. I have talked to a number of people who graduated at the same time I did and I was talking to them about salary. They all thought I was compared to what they were getting but recruiters and everyone are beating me down on my salary pretty hard. So I don't know what to think.

I am paid less than some, but more than many.

I am paid exactly what I agreed to, and have always received a check on time on pay day.

Therefore, I am not underpaid.

I will not measure myself by looking over the fence and deciding that the grass is greener in someone else's yard, especially when I have no knowledge of what he pays for fertilizer.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Glassdoor seems about right, but the only way to actually know if you are underpaid is to get an offer from another company. I go by the interview 1-2 times a year rule. It's the only way to truly know your worth. I just yanked a 40-50% bump with latest move. Completely unexpected but hard to pass up.

This. I know a lot of guys in IT who interview constantly. Even if they are happy where they are. This is the way that they keep their resume up to date, they keep their interview skills sharp, and how they keep a finger on the pulse of the salary ranges in their area for their expertise.

pinchvalve wrote: A though occurred to me, people often wonder if they are underpaid. But do billionaires ever wonder if they are overpaid? Does it keep them up at night?

"It does and they do. That's why all CEO's have their buddies on the board of directors of their corporations. That guarantees them above average pay and raises..every year.

Who decides how much a CEO makes?

From the article:

So how do these packages get approved? Corporate boards usually include a subset of the board called the compensation committee. The problem is that many corporate directors (so-called “inside” directors) report to the CEO. So their judgment is not exactly impartial. (“Hey, boss: remember that raise I asked you for? One reason I need it is because I’m staying late working on your generous pay package for next year.”)

When it comes to “outside” directors (people who work for other companies), some CEO pack their boards with friends and cronies. So the board’s final decision is not always, well – above board. The Sarbannes-Oxley law took some steps to set rules on this, requiring certain new reporting procedures and holding directors personally liable if shareholders squawk."

SVreX wrote: I am paid less than some, but more than many. I am paid exactly what I agreed to, and have always received a check on time on pay day. Therefore, I am not underpaid. I will not measure myself by looking over the fence and deciding that the grass is greener in someone else's yard, especially when I have no knowledge of what he pays for fertilizer.

I also agree with SVreX's sentiments here. I don't ask my co-workers what they're paid. If they make more than me, I'd be upset. If they make less, I'd feel bad. It's a question I don't care to get into. I'm happy with my pay and more importantly the sacrifices I make for the job. I'm not advocating staying at a crap job if you can do better. I'm saying be happy where you are. If you aren't then do your best to improve your lot. Do what's required to make yourself happy.

At my last position I was amazed at the people who complained about the job and then did nothing about it. Don't be that guy.

uhh, OK, so I bumped this to thank everyone for the advice and to let them know my outcome.

In reply to Xceler8x:

I didn't actually say I was happy with what I am paid.

I said I am paid what I agreed to therefore my employer has not wronged me.

There is an underlying assumption in the question "Am I underpaid" that the employer is somehow cheating the employee, and that I should be discontent.

My employer has not cheated me.

Additionally, there is no objective way to measure one employee against another. In reality, there is no "going rate" for a particular job.

Yes, 2 people can be hired to do the same job at the same price. But they are not worth the same amount. One brings more value to the company (more productivity, more contacts, more knowledge, etc).

When the time comes to fire one, the lesser of the 2 will be fired.

Glad to hear the update, Tuna!

Great news, Tuna!

The thread made me check and apparently I pay myself too little:

http://www1.salary.com/Commercial-Real-Estate-Manager-Salary.html

Then again I think I would go bankrupt trying to pay the three of us that much so maybe I'll hold off on giving myself that raise... for now.

tuna55 wrote: uhh, OK, so I bumped this to thank everyone for the advice and to let them know my outcome.

Congrats! A raise is always good news!

for my own experience.. What I lost in hourly pay going from part time to full time was more than made up by benefits, PTO, and a guaranteed 40 hour work week. Basically I gave up $5.40 an hour to go full time.. but I almost doubled my usual weekly hours

well... that salary.com site just made a E36 M3ty day E36 M3tier.

In reply to tuna55:

Congrats on the raise Tuna

Datsun1500 wrote: The guys that worry about what others make are the same guys that worry if someone else got a better deal at the car dealer. Most of those guys also complain about the "drama" about buying a car and what a hassle it is. One of the best quotes I've ever heard was " Getting upset about how much a man makes is the same as getting upset that he might have a bigger dick, as long as I am happy with my dick size, why do I care if his is bigger or smaller?" A little vulgar, but true.

Sure, that's one way to look at it. Another is to say that you're giving away your labor for less than you could be receiving. Complaining about it won't do you any good but if you actually take action you may receive more money for doing the exact same work. Why is it wrong to want to know what your labor is worth? If nobody ever looked into it we would all (well, any of us that aren't self employed) be making minimum wage. Which would probably be $.50/hour.

In reply to dculberson:

Maybe.

But it also makes you low man on the totem pole, and first to be fired when times get tough.

As an employer, I ALWAYS give preferential treatment to loyal employees.

Sure, a little extra cash looks good in the short term. But I am not convinced it is a win long term.

I'll take the long term, thank you.

We are not necessarily talking about "a little extra cash." I am self employed so have no dog in this fight, but just because you don't shop around doesn't mean you can't lose your job. And being underpaid for your entire career seems like a bad tradeoff for the image of stability.

Edit: Besides, you're making an argument against something I didn't advocate. I advocate knowing what you're worth. What to do with that knowledge is up to you. But you should have it. More knowledge is always better, in my opinion.

Looks like I'm a bit behind the median now. My boss's job should be be posted in the next few days, if I can land that it should help my earnings.

Congratulations Tuna!

Datsun1500 wrote: The guys that worry about what others make are the same guys that worry if someone else got a better deal at the car dealer. Most of those guys also complain about the "drama" about buying a car and what a hassle it is. One of the best quotes I've ever heard was " Getting upset about how much a man makes is the same as getting upset that he might have a bigger dick, as long as I am happy with my dick size, why do I care if his is bigger or smaller?" A little vulgar, but true.

Says the 1%'er. Sure must be easy to cry about money in the R8 eh?

(seriously, money might not matter to you, but it certainly does to those of us who don't have "enough" or have been in a position to not have "enough" of it).

I think dculberson said it's best. Why would you willingly earn LESS, all things considered, on an apples to apples comparison? The only ones who advocate for not earning to your potential are the ones who are doing the paying (funny how they advocate for the position that nets them more dollars in their pocket). Around here, it definitely is not the most expensive employee getting fired first, it's the worst employee. Which has been the way it always has been since I moved into the work force over a decade ago around here.

In reply to HiTempguy:

If one employee is worse than the other, then its not an apples to apples comparison.

That's exactly the same thing that I said.

"Why would you willingly earn LESS, all things considered, on an apples to apples comparison?"

"...it definitely is not the most expensive employee getting fired first, it's the worst employee."

Does not compute. Mutually incompatible statements.

In the beginning:

tuna55 wrote: The layoff exposed some interesting trends in the pay structure. Most folks got a 5% raise to come on board. All the same, I am currently roughly $20k behind a colleague who got laid off. Did he get laid off because he got paid too much? Maybe. Where do you guys look for REPUTABLE income comparisons? I have been to salary.com, I have been to glassdoor, and perhaps a few others.

And at the end...

tuna55 wrote: uhh, OK, so I bumped this to thank everyone for the advice and to let them know my outcome.

Seriously guys, it's like herding cats in here.

"How big is this lugnut?" DNE "Begin philosophical discussion on why threading is dimensioned and toleranced as it is in NPT books.

I'm actually sorry that I started this thread.

Please don't be sorry, be glad you gave us something to bitch about to each other. I'm glad you did well at your job. :-)

SVreX wrote: "Why would you willingly earn LESS, all things considered, on an apples to apples comparison?" "...it definitely is not the most expensive employee getting fired first, it's the worst employee." Does not compute. Mutually incompatible statements.

You are taking two separate ideas/issues (money/reasons to be fired) and mixing them. I did not separate the two ideas into distinct paragraphs as I thought the distinction was clear.

My point is: Everyone should strive to earn as much money for their position as possible. Two employees, doing the exact same work, at the exact same level, in the exact same company (scratch that, in ANY company in their field of work) should be theoretically earning the same amount of money. If one person is earning more than the other, the other is indeed being paid "less than they are worth".

Of course, we can get into the nuance of semantics and what equates to a job that is worth earning less money for, but those variables are all over the place.

Datsun1500 wrote: One of the best quotes I've ever heard was " Getting upset about how much a man makes is the same as getting upset that he might have a bigger dick, as long as I am happy with my dick size, why do I care if his is bigger or smaller?" A little vulgar, but true.

That is a terrible analogy and things are about to get a lot more vulgar as I explain why.

First of all dick size is a thing you are born with that you can't really change (well you can make it shorter, longer not so much) and nobody else is responsible for. Nobody you work for decides how long your dick is going to be at the time. You're not, even in theory, supposed to get a bigger one for producing more value.

Next the potential spread in size is much smaller - among dicks of functionally useful size we're talking less than 1:3.

And finally most guys have dicks that are in the functionally useful range. Anywhere from 3.5" to 10" are all basically capable of getting the job done.

So in summary if dicks were like incomes, we'd have a lot of dudes that are practically concave while others walk around with it coiled around both arms like a firehose from hell, all the while the length is transferrable and the guys with way too much are wondering why we whine about how much other guys have.

Comparisons to anatomy are unnecessary. Analogy in general is unnecessary. As an employee, your labor is your product and not comparing the price you are receiving for that product to the market rate is really dumb. When you go to price a product you do a market analysis. You do not leave that price the same forever, you revisit it when needed and check out whether you are over or under pricing.

It's no different from looking at completed items on eBay and other Craigslist listings when going to sell a car. It's no different from me looking at the rental rates that competing office buildings are charging. There's no philosophical implications to it, no overblown thoughts of "oh, am I trading stability for this," it's cold hard business fact and not doing it doesn't make you a better person or a better employee it makes you uninformed.

Willful ignorance does not help anyone, especially yourself.