Poll of the Day > Do you think positions should have a cap for salary thats known and accepted?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lets say in your country you are <insert position here>, and you will never make more than, lets say 65k a year but the average person starts at 50k or something for that certain position. Doesn't matter your experience, connections, anything, you will never make more than 65k. You can always get promoted, moved, etc, but as long as you are <insert position here> you will always be topped at 65k for that position in this example.

I believe the limits would have negative and positive aspects but I personally think it would be generally a good thing. I, like many, many people, lost the best job of my life a year and a half ago simply because I was paid way more than the higher ups wanted to pay someone in my department(I was paid more than my boss and their boss).

I think that limit would end a lot of layoffs since they never have to worry about their longer staff members making more than they can budget. Plus there would be skill growth because people would naturally want to get into higher pay cap positions once they hit the ceiling.

There's definitely problems with that plan. I think real issues would rear their head when you get closer to the top of the ladder. In my situation for example, there's only one position ahead of mine. When I take that promotion, I would hit a ceiling that would be unavoidable. There are certainly positions that pay more in the company, but not in engineering. They would mainly be upper management type corporate positions. I would essentially need to completely change careers to advance, or settle with never getting another raise.

Yeah but the problem with raises is the fact eventually you will be high on the list when it comes time for budget cuts. Someone's usefulness only goes so far before it gets to the point that their pay isn't worth it.

Only if you were to somehow cap inflation.

hypnox posted...

Yeah but the problem with raises is the fact eventually you will be high on the list when it comes time for budget cuts. Someone's usefulness only goes so far before it gets to the point that their pay isn't worth it.

I guess it would depend on the job. In my field they would probably lay off the new people first. Even though they pay me a lot more, they wouldn't really be saving money since it would take years and tons of training to get them up to a level where they can handle advanced projects.

Either way, sorry to hear about your job man. That's a bummer. I have friend going through the same thing. His landlord decided to sell his property and evicted him 2 days after he lost his job too. Life's a bitch.
If you need some cash, I might be willing to take one of those Omegas off your hands though ;)

No.

Ozmose posted...

or settle with never getting another raise.

Putting aside the question of inflation (in an ideal world, I would say wages should always try to keep up with inflation at every level for the sake of keeping purchasing power constant), is that really such a bad thing? Obviously, you want to keep getting raises until you achieve your desired quality of life/financial security, but once you reach that point, why is it necessary to keep growing indefinitely?

I have a salary cap (teacher). Fortunately you get minor salary increases for 10 years until you reach that cap, so meh.

You can increase the cap by becoming a principal or vice principal but that's about it.

It already exists, as mentioned, for some positions.

Teachers, at both public school and Universities have a salary cap. It was definitely a reason I got out of teaching (not the only one) as I currently make more than the top step and it would have taken me another 10 years to get close to the cap if I were still teaching.

Put robots in charge and end money

You'd just end up with a tonne more positions and people with different titles doing basically the same job. Also your problem wouldn't be addressed, you'd just be in a higher position than they want and fire you.

The issue with full-time staff is that you have a lot less flexibility with what you can pay them even when the workload is erratic. They can't cut your pay when demand drops and so it's easier to fire you and re-hire a junior. You can't address it without opening up exploits that rights were established to protect against.

All I see is that removing competition for high-performing employees as they can always go "mY hAnDs ArE tIeD, i CaN't PaY yOu MoRe."

hypnox posted...

Do you think positions should have a cap for salary thats known and accepted?

Yes, but only for missionary.

DocDelicious posted...

Only if you were to somehow cap inflation.

A "maximum wage" that adjusts with inflation seems fair, though it would need to be implemented with a bunch of additional changes to other facets of society in order to function well.

No.
That is absurd.

Kind of works for entry level positions, falls flat on senior level positions.

I could see there being a lot of turnaround when people hit their cap and don't see/want opportunities for promotion. For example, I know the next level above mine is management, and right now I am not looking to be a manager. But, I know that I could still get a lot of raises at my current position and in theory be making 50%+ more then I am making now in a few years by just having good performance.

Caps would be absolutely insane as well as serving no purpose... well, except to motivate people with the most experience in that field to quit the job for another one.

Gaawa_chan posted...

A "maximum wage" that adjusts with inflation seems fair,

lolwut? Explain.