Bingo, we pay for health insurance, short-term disability that covers maternity leave, 401k match, scrubs allowance, continuing education allowance, a couple practice-wide parties and dinners per year, etc. We estimate it's worth about $6/hr.
N.J. could require businesses to post salary ranges for open jobs under new bill
- Thread starter Dave Hess
- Start date
Yet those senior folks that have been loyal to you and give you that institutional knowledge that makes your business run much more smoothly are highly valuable to you. See my comments on salary compression - something employers need to be v. in-tune with. Yes, I get it, I've been there, you start at X and 5 years later folks are starting 10K more and you only make a few K more than them if you even know this info - it used to concern me as well but yes, the market dictates what the market dictates and those people can move on and increase their income by jumping which of course impacts your bottom line at some level and I say, based on your comments, good on them/best of luck to your company. Also, I hope you also wish them the best and don't insult them with an offer of more money to stay.
The challenge is the not everyone values the benefits the same. A younger worker gives two flips about it and would rather have $6 an hour more while the older workers value it highly/understand the value.
This tends to be less of an issue for me because the truly senior people tend to also have additional responsibilities that command additional compensation. This comes up with the employees that have been with us for 1-3 years, have no additional duties, and really don't bring any tangible institutional knowledge, but want to be in the same category as the +10-year employees. For this reason, we really try and stay away from the idea that we pay based on time there alone and instead focus on pay based on performance and additional duties (which is often indirectly a measure of seniority - we ask those there longer with better performances histories to take on more responsibilities that command additional compensation).
Yup, and if I could I would totally age discriminate and never hire a person under 30 years old again - for a bunch of reasons.
Don't worry, those 30 year olds don't want to hire any boomers/would age-disriminate in a second if they could/hiring ahhahaahYup, and if I could I would totally age discriminate and never hire a person under 30 years old again - for a bunch of reasons.
This a good stuff and I agree and yes, I've seen this exactly thing with the 1-3 year employees getting upset when you hire a say 5 year experience worker in for more money. It is what it is.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2022
- Messages
- 3,670
I googled and this is what I could find....it was Feb. 2021, so during the pandemic.
My numbers were off. The income was $49k for a single person, and it was a 46% tax increase. Luckily, this never went through.
A little color/context--the gov. said it is about time that wealthy people started paying their fair share.
So this is my interpretation--anyone who has to pay more, is the above. I get that a politician will say, that's not what I meant. lol
Gov. Wolf proposes Pa.’s biggest tax increase ever, but it would be a tax cut for many
Gov. Tom Wolf in his 2021-22 budget proposal is calling for 46% increase in the state's personal income tax rate but claims it won't touch 67% of taxpayers.
www.pennlive.com
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2022
- Messages
- 3,670
Absolutely. I was quite surprised when told what my bonus would be this year--maybe I seemed as if I didn't care, because I actually didn't. It is more than double last year, yet last year was a better year for my employer. It truly is "gravy" to me and doesn't motivate me to do a good job. I feel that it's my work experience and life's experiences that motivates me. But younger colleagues I suppose may care more about salary and bonus. btw, my benefits stink lol so that again isn't a motivating factor, but thank goodness my wife gets the health care, it cost 1/3 through her work when compared to mine
p.s. I can add one more thing--until I worked for my current employer, I had never maxed out my 401k to the IRS limit before. But I've done that for 12 straight years. Do the math--it's the salary they pay me, which enables me to do so. Whether I tell them or not, I do appreciate the opportunity. It can't be undone, those monies went into the account, and now they are reflected in the balance. So I do appreciate and value making it possible to max out the 401k to the IRS limit.
Didn't read all the responses but overall, a range would be nice. Like many, I occasionally have a bad day and will window shop. IMO companies are shooting themselves in the foot in not giving an idea of what a position might pay--who knows what interviews I DIDN'T bother with??? Maybe that's a good thing for my current employer, but is it for anyone looking to poach me?
I understand the premise that they want go-getters, someone willing to walk in and ask, while offering as little as possible. To me it feels worse than a car dealership: a dealership you know the selling price up front, and know they will pressure you into paying more. Here it's like you go in blind, and when they lowball you, where are you supposed to go from?
Maybe this just reflects the today's market where there's no loyalty in either direction. It's expected that one job hops periodically, I guess.
I understand the premise that they want go-getters, someone willing to walk in and ask, while offering as little as possible. To me it feels worse than a car dealership: a dealership you know the selling price up front, and know they will pressure you into paying more. Here it's like you go in blind, and when they lowball you, where are you supposed to go from?
Maybe this just reflects the today's market where there's no loyalty in either direction. It's expected that one job hops periodically, I guess.
Not quite how I read that article. A single person making $49K will see an increase but not a 46% increase. Their rate went from ~3% to ~4% at most and of course that before you do all your deductions etc. etc. your effective rate (total tax liability/gross income) should be a bit less. A bit misleading here. Looks like a lot of people pay less under this plan. Certainly nobody said that I read that someone making $49K is wealthy/rich. It does look like top filers are paying more and lower tier filers are paying less which I believe was the point of itI googled and this is what I could find....it was Feb. 2021, so during the pandemic.
My numbers were off. The income was $49k for a single person, and it was a 46% tax increase. Luckily, this never went through.
A little color/context--the gov. said it is about time that wealthy people started paying their fair share.
So this is my interpretation--anyone who has to pay more, is the above. I get that a politician will say, that's not what I meant. lol
Gov. Wolf proposes Pa.’s biggest tax increase ever, but it would be a tax cut for many
Gov. Tom Wolf in his 2021-22 budget proposal is calling for 46% increase in the state's personal income tax rate but claims it won't touch 67% of taxpayers.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2022
- Messages
- 3,670
There are no deductions in PA.
Again, the gov. at the time stated it's time for wealthy people to start paying their share. Since it didn't go through, it's neither here nor there. Very hard to say "it's only a 46% increase."
This. On another forum, a fellow member said that many managers at larger companies seem to think this about long-term employees: if the employees were any good, they'd be working somewhere else. In other words, they should have been job-hopping for more money instead of being so stupid as to stay put and be loyal to their employer. Loyal = loser.
I think the poster was on to something. If management really has that attitude about loyal employees, it would explain a lot of things I saw and experienced over the years.
A few years ago when I was looking to relocate to my current area, I applied to a bunch of jobs.
I wasted a lot of vacation days and time going to interviews for jobs that I would have liked had there not been a huge gulf between the salary I needed and what they were willing to pay.
The most infuriating was Sigma-Aldrich, which is a big employer in this area in my field(Chemistry). Not only would they not list a salary but it was quite literally impossible to submit an application without stating an expected salary. I had nothing to go, especially when you threw in that you almost needed to be a company insider to decode whether or not a particular listing was an entry-level technician job(which might be a $30K a year job) or a senior level scientist(which could be $150K+) or more likely somewhere in-between(which is where I'd fit experience/qualification wise and also a salary that would make me happy).
There's a non-zero chance I may be back on the job market within the next year, and I'd welcome having this sort of information readily available.
I wasted a lot of vacation days and time going to interviews for jobs that I would have liked had there not been a huge gulf between the salary I needed and what they were willing to pay.
The most infuriating was Sigma-Aldrich, which is a big employer in this area in my field(Chemistry). Not only would they not list a salary but it was quite literally impossible to submit an application without stating an expected salary. I had nothing to go, especially when you threw in that you almost needed to be a company insider to decode whether or not a particular listing was an entry-level technician job(which might be a $30K a year job) or a senior level scientist(which could be $150K+) or more likely somewhere in-between(which is where I'd fit experience/qualification wise and also a salary that would make me happy).
There's a non-zero chance I may be back on the job market within the next year, and I'd welcome having this sort of information readily available.
I fully support transparency, it allows job seekers with out of touch salary expectations and employers with pie in the sky expectations for peanuts to avoid each other.
If you're looking for a trainee requiring on the job training, that should be a separate posting than expecting someone with 10+ years of experience that can hit the ground running on day one. Obviously those candidates are going to command two completely different salaries.
If you're looking for a trainee requiring on the job training, that should be a separate posting than expecting someone with 10+ years of experience that can hit the ground running on day one. Obviously those candidates are going to command two completely different salaries.
/sarcasm
Attachments
Not sure why the government needs to meddle in private business affairs here… Employers do what they have to to fill jobs with good people at the best price possible. I smell a fairness/equity agenda here…
I tell all students applying to our apprenticeship program that we pay $25 an hour, job posting does NOT have pay posted, just educational requirements.
If they are happy with $25 an hour, great.
Not happy with $25 an hour, look for something else.
Some students want $40, Sorry we can NOT pay $40…..
Last edited:
I think it will become more and more prevalent moving forward since it's being covered now in the news. It's a good thing, then again, one is free to not apply unless a range is given. I dont think government is the answer to everything, they cant even balance their own budget and would be bankrupt if it was a private company.
But not forced by law
Similar threads
