I guess the idea is that once you're at the ceiling, you'll keep getting the same salary for a long time and feel stagnant. I'd rather be stagnant at a good salary than continually getting raises to be almost where I should be. Plus, if you're underpaid, there's a better chance that a competitor will whisk you away because they can afford to give you a big raise. In that regard, I would think that it benefits both the employee and employer to pay people what they're worth.
Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Andrew Jorgensen > Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:45 PM > To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List > Subject: Salary Spin > > Recent discussions have me thinking about something HR and management > have both told me on occasion. They say that it's good to have a > salary that's lower in the range for your position because it means > they can give you bigger raises - there's more room to grow. The > corollary is that it's bad to have a salary near the top of the range. > > I would have discounted the idea entirely except that one of my > college professors told me something similar when I asked for advice > about which job to take when I graduated. > > Assuming one is qualified for one's position, how can a potential > raise be a better thing than being paid that much in the first place? > I get that it feels good to get a big raise, but mathematically it > doesn't make sense. Is there some subtle truth here I'm not seeing? > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
