QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
Nearly half of companies are turning to poor ‘peanut butter’ raises—following the same pattern of the 2008 recession, an expert says. And it could take years to recover
And that’s why smart workers usually just jump ship in order to get larger pay bumps. Unfortunately, when nobody is hiring and you’re only creating 15,000 jobs a month (according to the revised BLS report for 2025), that’s going to be tough.
I took part of the “great resignation” of 2021-2022, and got to an income level I could only have imagined a few years earlier.
Spouse and I both had those large increases yanked from
under us by end of 2023.
We’ve found work again, at far less of a wage, by early 2024.
But our own personal “recession” began at end of 2023. Fortunately; we always live below our means. Unfortunately, those “means” didn’t keep up with the continued climb into the sky of the cost of basic necessities of life. We feel squeezed, caught in a vice, a chess game waiting for us to have a moment of real weakness, before life steamrolls us.
And it’s now 2 years long of it. Needless to say, the idea of “mental health” is one more of those thoughtful things America says, but doesn’t give a fuck about.
Yup. I took a 20% pay cut (where I am no versus 2022). In the meantime, my electric my has increased 50%, groceries are up 19%
Btw, adjusted for inflation, my pay cut is 27.29%. Yeah. Fucking brutal.
Edit: for what it’s worth, I blew the whistle (internally) and was fired. Now my former company is dealing with a criminal investigation related to what happened.
I’m gonna be honest, you being fired for whistleblowing something that resulted in a criminal investigation is the easiest layup of a lawsuit in most states so if this is real you should be lawyering up.
When it comes to whistleblowing and the feds, the reprisal investigation process is on hold until everything is finally adjudicated. That can take years.
The second piece is that whistleblowing laws are very particular, especially when dealing with the DoD. I was not directly coded for specific contracts either through my employer or coded through the defense contractor.
In the meantime time keeps ticking along, bills have to be paid and I am kept in the dark regarding the status of the investigation as is DOJ policy (as outlined in the Justice Manual).
Oh yeah, if you're dealing with the feds you're currently totally screwed. No way they even provide you with any useful investigation findings for a civil suit. "Open" until at least 2029. Even if the maga Mafia gets voted out they'll probably shred the records to cover up their wrong doings.
Good luck to you and good for you for doing the right thing. I'm sorry it had a heavy price. That does make it more respectable though as that's true bravery.
Maybe. Oddly enough, they should be in the crosshairs of the administration for their overt focus on DEI stuff.
Honestly, I think once you crack a certain tier there is basically nothing that can hold a company accountable and that includes its executives.
I tried to protect the company. Did it all internal. Took it to the appropriate people. Protect us, our customers and national security. Should have been a win win win and we all keep being profitable.
This feels like a comment from yesteryear. So much knowledge given. I hope you can stay strong regardless of how it all turns out or what decisions you make.
Ah, well thank you. I make an effort to put my voice into what it is I am writing. While I am certainly not a great or particularly skilled writer/essayist, I hope that what I type communicates the conversational tone that plays in my head.
As for how Reddit used to be…
Reddit has certainly changed as have we elder redditors. How you or I write, respond, post, etc. has evolved as we have evolved and matured in our lives. Meanwhile, young people com to the site with their state of maturity and development. We were once them. They will become like we are now. And we will be something else.
With that said, I think the quality of the site has markedly declined along with all “social media.”
I feel like users used to actually read articles before commenting. Weird concept.
Moderating teams & practices have also changed a lot. And not for the better either. There are still some communities that seem to strike the right balance. Yet a great many, certainly the majority of the popular ones from my experience, that are extremely stifling.
My suspicion is that it is an outgrowth/symptom/accelerant of the “othering” of our society and public discourse.
Oh well, all we can do is continue to tilt at windmills.
Crazy thing is, my new gig, landed me almost exactly back (I mean to the damn dollar) of where I was in early 2022 before I made the job change to higher comp.
In actual dollars, our household is about 20% off from where we were in early 2022, before I made a change.
In actual dollars, we’re about 40% lower than we were at peak earning, Q3 2023.
Again, made 2 steps forward, 1.9 steps back. Guess I’m just not “American” enough to be doing my best ever. 🙄
I made 1/3rd what I did in 2023 last year and performing higher than ever (only able to land contracts that end in being caught up in layoffs vs converted to FTE). Most frustrating part is coming into new positions and seeing how poor the talent is at these companies where my peers are making what I used to make. I end up in defacto lead roles and management gives me great reviews, then budget cuts happen and as a contractor I’m the first to go.
Adjusted for inflation I’m back to making what I did as an analyst 10 years ago :|
Yup, adjusted for inflation I have lost a decade of wage increases. I am back where I was in my early 30s.
And even then I was behind the curve due to a shitty situation where a divorce had derailed my career (divorce and ordination don’t mix in my particular denomination). So I was a decade behind then.
I am now, salary wise, roughly where my peers were in their early 20s. Only I am in my 40s.
There was that glorious period where I was making bank but then I saw a problem with how we were handling what turned out to be classified information (some of which was classified as Top Secret Compartmentalized Information, TSCI). And I got screwed. Hard.
Edit: and I made the mistake of opening up about it to my ex. Well, she took the opportunity to accuse me of being in a mental crisis (amongst other things), sued for full custody of our son, etc. So I am fighting that now.
Looks like I am going to have to withdraw a large chunk of my retirements savings I have to pay lawyers. Sigh. Fuck.
But my little guy is worth it. I will spend every red cent I will ever earn for him.
I feel you on that feeling of being “behind” in life.
For me, the carnage of 2008-2010 held down my career and savings goals. Child care ate the savings during that time. Once I got back up, around 2016-2017, I picked up the savings.
But, bottom line is that for many of us, we’re not going to reach that magical retirement age and dollar amount on anyone else’s schedule. I’m fine with that. I’m aware many are going to be able to retire early, but none of those folks need to think they are somehow “superior”. Different circumstances, different hand that fate dealt.
on the other hand, the tax brackets shift every year. I can now afford to work for 80K because it's now 4850 a month in NYC if you don't have any deductions. I remember it being closer to 4200 before covid when it was taxed like it was a rich person salary
The way it works with defense related stuff, the reprisal case picks up only when the criminal side has been fully and finally adjudicated. That often takes years.
Another wrinkle is that my company provided services to the defense primes who in turn provided services to the DoD. So I was not coded to a specific contract. I was just a back office operations dork.
But… I happened to have insight to hundreds of defense programs, who was working on what, which programs were being run by which defense prime, what individuals were doing within those programs, all sorts of stuff. None of which I should have had.
Also, the company was sharing all of that information with offshore contractors. I later found out that a portion of it was classified as Top Secret Compartmentalized Information (TSCI). Look up what that means. We were generating and sharing that stuff openly inside and outside the company. Totally uncontrolled and unencrypted.
I was later told that a single word in my complaint to the OIG meant it went to the Air Force chief of staff’s desk. He then personally directed a special agent to fly in to be part of the interview process. It was wild.
Best part was he asked me if I knew X information. I replied yes and his response was “shit.” I then added that I had a list of the engineers and a bunch of other information for that program. His response? “Oh fuck.”
It was wild. NCIS, DCIS, OSI and the FBI were all present and/or phoning in from DC.
I’m a nobody. I don’t do anything sexy or particularly interesting. I saw something and so I said something. I did the right thing to safeguard national defense information. No regrets on that decision.
I would still petition someone. Anyone. Being out on your ass for doing the right thing just feels wrong. Though I'm aware that's often the case. Though I'm not usually hearing of actual criminal investigations taking place in those cases - and the firing was a CYOA on the employer's part, not a blatant and obvious retaliation.
Yeah it sucks. But it is also typical for such cases. Companies do not like finding out there is a risk; the default is to say “nope” and shoot the messenger - sometimes literally.
Which is weird because firing people is risky, especially when there is a potential for whist lower related investigations and charges. On the other hand, companies are very good at finding a reason why they just had to fire Jimmy.
“It wasn’t that Jimmy reported we were allegedly committing fraud. It was because he said he didn’t like being called names in meetings. Jimmy is a big guy and that is intimidating. If he had some issue he should have contacted HR who would have initiated an investigation. See, it’s his fault.
“Oh, and the person who made the complaint about how he asked not be called fat, dumb, stupid, boring, etc. in public? Oh her promotion has nothing to do with any of this. Was she also made aware of the mishandling problem? What problem?”
The best thing to do in such situations is to take a report seriously, make the fix and give the whistleblower a pat on the back. Long term doing that actually reduces risk from litigation and investigation, limits potential criminal culpability, improves morale, etc.
But, shooting the messenger is the default. Oh well.
I was just reading of the return of “peanut butter” raises. Basically, low rate wage increases spread evenly through departments as happened after 2009.
Overall wage earners lose out as increases are typically below the rate of inflation and high performers are discouraged because they outperformed but have nothing additional to show for it versus peers.
That and decades of underinvestment in the electrical generating and transmission infrastructure in the US.
The US has been adding generation capacity but demand has outstripped that. Consequently, the US has had to increase imports.
Per the DOE, a summary;
1999-2024:
net electrical production increased at an average rate of 0.69%. A total increase of 16.61% (613.83 billion MW).
Net electricity consumption: increased at an average rate of 0.73%. A total increase of 17.88% (635.24 billion MW)
The difference between production and use has been made up by imported energy, overwhelmingly from Canada.
In the past 5 and 10 years through the end of 2024 (2025 data is available only through November), US electrical generation growth has slightly outpaced consumption. 0.78% & 0.59% respectively.
Preliminary estimates indicate that 2025 was a big year for demand increases, up to 3.1%, driven by data center building. Generating capacity increased roughly the same, also largely driven by data centers. So, net net roughly zero, right?
Except that data centers increased their demand 22%. In 2023, data centers consumed ~4% of production. In 2025, it looks like their share has increased to 6.7% of total production.
In other words, other kinds of customers are decreasing electricity use while data centers use is rapidly increasing. On top of that, the share of overall energy production/consumption (not just retail electricity use) that is consumed by data centers is scaling rapidly.
Basically, data centers increasingly have onsite generation capacity that is not included in grid production figures but those generators require fuel in various forms. This diverts available fuel resources to off grid uses, increasing the cost to power the grid. Thus, the average residential price per kWh has increased from $13.01¢/kWh in 2019 to 17.78¢/kWh. This is a 36.66% increase in electricity cost.
Are you making 36.66% more money? I’m not.
The industrial sector (manufacturers, mining, construction and agriculture) accounted for the following share of consumption. There is an interesting story in the breakdown of the mix, but that is pretty granular. The long term trend being a decline though it appears to have stabilized:
2000: 31.1%
2016: 26-28%
2018: 25%
2020: 25-27% (note, overall demand fell to its lowest level since 2009).
2022: 26%
2025: 25-26%.
The commercial sector has seen a multi year decline is energy use since 2020.
I feel you. My salary as a software engineer has not changed since 2017. Once you hit a certain point, you hear "oh, we can't do it, it's too expensive" - and I am not even at $200K.
Hey, at least we are not in South Korea when it comes to work/life balance.
Wow, actual purchasing power in the US seems to be complete dogwater. I'm at like €40k in Germany and while, granted, I am single: I own a car, can splurge on delivery almost every day and am still several hundreds in the black each month with no fear that I might lose it all with one trip to the hospital.
And that is, mind you, like 5-8k € below the median line here 'cause I'm still relatively new to the job.
Ah, yeah sorry I conflated their income and the comment by the user they were replying to
But also: if I can afford basically whatever I, as a reasonable normal person could ever want, at 40k, what difference does "more purchasing power" even still make?
Americans do have to pay for healthcare and usually more for childcare, and in some places housing is very expensive but at the same time prices aren't that sky high, that guy should feel cushy in all but maybe a few of the most expensive cities.
> if I can afford basically whatever I, as a reasonable normal person could ever want, at 40k, what difference does "more purchasing power" even still make?
You can’t though. “Normal” Americans expect to be able to afford a vacation home in Florida or Tahoe and a couple waverunners. You certainly can’t afford that.
I regard myself as a normal american and not only have i never owned anything as wild or expensive as wave runners, I've never had a vacation, and I am over 5k in debt for basic medical care. I work full time, all the time, and I barely break even.
There is no way you are a normal american and I doubt you've ever met one
Actually - no. I live on the outskirts of NYC. My rent is $2700, and I have a non-working wife and two kids. That's + $500 for energy bills as well, which just keeps going up.
I cut out most subscriptions I used to have, we go out like twice a month for non-fancy dinners to "treat" ourselves (no kids), NO delivery ever, we only shop at whole-sale like BJs.
Once a year we go a for a cruise vacation, when there is a deal ($1K for each of us, unlimited food and booze, we party balls to the wall and costing the cruise line money for sure).
It takes a lot of effort to not be in the red. I manage to save a little for retirement. It's not luxury, it's trying to not die in poverty.
Now one of the kids is getting into daycare, goodbye monthly savings.
Thank goodness for NYC free pre-K, but that's later this year.
Hauling in $10K after tax, you'd think I'd be rolling in it, but that's not even close, fighting the extraction economy tooth and nail.
Actually - yes. You’re comparing your household income to their individual income. Apples to apples, your individual purchasing power is much, much higher than theirs.
> Wow, actual purchasing power in the US seems to be complete dogwater.
It’s not. These are just pathetic people complaining on the internet. I guarantee this person lives in a beautiful two-story home, drives an Tesla, and will retire with $3.5M net assets.
I rent one floor from the in-laws and do not own a car myself. If not for ex-US and gold investments last year, my retirement would have been below $500K - I am 45.
Haha, OK, pal, you don't have to believe me. Everyone works at Google, apparently.
You can just Google it.
>...indicating a national average around $133,490. Salaries typically range from $97,500 to $158,500 depending on experience, with major tech hubs like NYC or SF often seeing median base salaries closer to $150,000 or higher.
I think your first job in software really sets the tone for your career. Big tech companies prefer to recruit from other big tech companies.
And the gap is going to get wider, at least in the short term. AI adoption is getting pushed hard, and big tech has access to all the cutting edge toys. By the end of the year at most, interviews will probably ask about your cleverest professional application of AI.
The inflation is killer man. I’ve slowly been getting my salary up through negotiations and 2 job hops, but my purchasing power is barely more than when I was a junior engineer.
>Hey, at least we are not in South Korea when it comes to work/life balance
Some of us in software engineering can't even say that, especially if you're at a start-up, smaller company, or certain industries like supply chain/logistics/manufacturing.
Software Engineering has changed drastically from when I "chose" it 3 decades ago. You think I "chose" to go through these off-shoring cycles? "Chose" all the layoffs and everything?
I didn't choose that, it was just an example of one such industry. A lot of SWEs right now don't necessarily have a choice in where they're working either because it's a very difficult market. Just because you still have it nice doesn't mean other people don't? I really don't understand what you're trying to say? Should the 16,000 people laid off by Amazon in the past few months just not work? Or Intel? Microsoft? Oracle? Accenture? HP? Meta? Block? Salesforce? Pinterest? AutoDesk? Synopsys? Verizon?
My wife and I moved out of the big city for her career last year, and in the tough job market I had to take a 25% pay cut, plus our rent actually rose (Chicago to a midwestern college town), plus we had to pick up a car with its own expenses. We’re definitely feeling the squeeze. I think living in Chicago, with high pay and relatively low expenses, we were insulated from how bad the economy has gotten for the rest of America. The people around us pay a lot in COL and are paid terribly, and aren’t even aware of how much better they could have it.
Well, we didn’t think it would be such a hit for me, because my career is more flexible. We still think we can take advantage of the resume-building for her for the time being, then move somewhere better when the opportunity arises. She has a PhD, which usually means delaying your career until nearly your thirties, and then spending your early thirties picking up and moving every few years. We also didn’t expect a much smaller town to be much more expensive than where we came from, but COL is way higher than where we were in Chicago, especially when you add in a car. Food and drink prices are not meaningfully lower, utilities are much higher. Internet is cheaper, though.
I still don’t regret it at all (and might actually end up getting my old job back soon), but it made living in the economy of 2025-2026 a lot more difficult for us. Especially because we’re both nonprofit people, essentially (her research, me fundraising), and this administration is, to put it lightly, unfriendly to the broader nonprofit and educational economy. We’re also lucky that neither of us have any debt at all, not even student loans. If we did it would just be flatly impossible to take any kind of risk like this. We’d be frozen in place.
No, it does. Both of us are caught up in the major pullback of research and education funding that started in January of 2025 (her), as well as a precipitous decline in charitable giving that happened at the same time (me). There is really troubling stuff happening in the not-for-profit world lately, fiscally speaking. I am not aware of any org of any size that is not slashing budgets, cutting programs, eliminating positions, freezing hiring, freezing pay, cutting health insurance benefits, freezing retirement benefits, or recycling funds (e.g., my SIL’s hospital now requires all staff to use their own pharmacy for prescriptions). Then I read that similar things are happening in the for-profit world.
This all being nonprofits may make it sound like not such a big deal, but a) universities, hospitals, and regular nonprofits make up a HUGE sector of the economy, and the majority of it in many communities, and b) its downstream from how good the private sector feels about the economy.
You say that you and your spouse moved to a “college town”. Don’t blame you there. I always wanted to return to Tuscaloosa, my Alma mater. Job market and low wages there never made it possible.
More, one can’t help but think that the job market is being somehow “held hostage” by corps who are using AI as a hedge against the rebellion of workers toward RTO policies.
In their minds, if we won’t willingly come back, they’ll just stop hiring altogether, and threaten everyone else with “computers will replace you.”
Feels petty. Childish. And may be entirely made up in my paranoid brain😂.
We did. We actually really don’t like it, as we’re city people at heart. She’s just “early” in her career as a PHD and this was the right move for her.
few years ago we were doing great. all cars paid off. bills paid. we started to increase and save. decent vacation that year. then within 2 years it seemed we were pinched again. Wife no raise. me 2-3% a year. food increased, house tax, hobbies, bills, it all started to add up.
Really the only way to go is find new work every few years.
It’s a shame that we don’t get to build long term careers at one place anymore.
My job change in 2022, for that big pay increase, was disguised by the owner of that small Atlanta-financial services firm, as he had the firm in the middle of due diligence to be sold to an industry aggregator. Absolutely did not share that information prior to hiring me.
So, I changed companies whether I wanted to or not. And I was hired a firm director level in 2022!
So, the new gig in 2024, at a steep pay cut, was a life saver. But, once again, a large aggregator firm gobbled us up too, in 2025. Here we are in early 2026, a decent inflation bump, 4%, but I know I can’t stay here forever.
I’m in the crease in the K. Accumulated some assets, but real earnings didn’t start until 7-8 years ago for me. And finally got the kids grown. 1 is out of college thank God.
Now, at the back half of my career, the decisions I make with money have a lot less runway to play with.
My oldest recently graduated from daycare, so a long ways to go in the parenting department.
The kids are the only reason I'm still working... or so I tell myself. In reality, I switched into a slightly less busy team and I'm already bored without enough work to do. I joke about wanting to get laid off, but I think I'd fall apart without the structure.
That’s part of the risk no one wants to admit on chasing greener pastures, no?
I had similar coworkers chase a doubled salary after a decade of discontent only to get laid off after a couple of years too. Sometimes certain jobs/salaries are too good to be true to be sustainable, gotta know the long term outlook of your industry
Yeah. Spouse and I both laid off in 2023, and let me tell you - in a HCOL situation, there is no amount of being frugal that will stop you bleeding out savings.
Luckily I found work again relatively quickly, but I feel like I am saving for my next layoff rather than retirement.
You are not alone in this feeling. And I work in the 401k plan management industry. Anymore, when speaking with employees like you and I, I preach “security” rather than retirement.
Just this month, a long time saver, relatively lower income, made a total distribution of his account, $145k, to pay off the mistakes that his current wife and her two teenage sons had made with credit cards.
Ouch. That pains me to read. I have a healthy 401k for my age and retirement goals. I can’t imagine having to entirely start over right at potential retirement age, just to cover for reckless spending by my household.
I’m not counting on being able to work forever. I’ve seen too many people in my family become disabled due to stroke or cancer treatment, or early dementia. Their plan to just work until death didn’t account for the loss of their health. I think security is right. You’re saving so that if you reach a point where you simply cannot work, you won’t just die.
Well, you basically like one side of the sword when you change job with a big race but do not like other when you lost it. But that 2 sides of same thing. You want more risk / reward or you you want less of both.
There is truth to this. I took that risk at a time of my life when I afford to have it blow up on me. And it did. I’ve learned from it. What I learned is never put myself in a position where a bad bet leaves me desperate. I could afford to be out of work a long time, but not forever.
>I took part of the “great resignation” of 2021-2022, and got to an income level I could only have imagined a few years earlier.
I was fortunate and got a huge pay bump from this, and still work at the same company. I got moved into a new part of the company. Currently, no one has any idea what I'm supposed to do, or who to report to. I'm constantly waiting for someone to find out how much I make and can me.
Sounds like you’ve “won” at life so far. The stories of the “AI monster” have to give you some pause, tho, if you’re a white collar professional like I am.
I’d tell you to go ahead and be looking for a new job, but I’d be gaslighting you- there aren’t any jobs. Nothing. This nation isn’t hiring, not firing much, but not hiring.
I'm in more of a grey-collar type of job. Its sales, service, and support. One hour I'm doing forklift training or unloading a truck, another one I'm ordering 60K in parts, or scheduling service on something. Sometimes I'm fixing equipment, or trying to teach a boomer how to use a computer. I don't think there's a single person that could replace me, not that they wouldn't just stick someone here without training and hope for the best.
I made a pretty big mistake (that got fixed), it was a copy paste error in ordering. Corporate had to have a meeting about who I report to, and no one could figure it out. Everyone just sorta shrugged. I've become Milton Waddams.
We went from household of $110k in 2020 to $170k household by the end of 2023, when it was then yanked away from us end of 2025.
Stabilized and doing okay, but back to a household of $120k, which is rough because we bought a new car (that we desperately needed, and got a good deal on it), and took out a heloc for $100k to remodel our 25 year old house in early 2025. But it was a shock to the system to lose about $3k a month after getting used to that budget.
We can float on $120k even with those new expenses, but it went from us having incredible savings, emergency funds, vacation funds, back to living paycheck to paycheck, and that extra $10k we’re making that we weren’t making 5 years ago just barely covers inflation if feels like.
We’re hoping to get back to at least $150k household soon, but it might take a while in this economy.
Your story and mine, and I’m sure others, are in direct contrast to the vast amount of stories here on Reddit, truthful as they may (or not), of households earning $300k-$500k-more, everyone retiring early, vacationing everywhere on the planet, a new EV for every driver in the household. Whichever “home” they are in between vacations.
It’s not all roses out there, folks. I’ve been in worse financial shape in my life than I am now. But where I am NOW is no accident. It started with closing my wallet. Telling the wife, kids, friends, neighbors, relatives, anyone - No.
Yep, and it feels like we’re one hvac, roof leak, or medical emergency away from being right back in debt again after getting credit debt free (except for heloc and car loan).
It sucks because one of our dogs needs a medical treatment that can cost $1,500 - $5,000 depending on what happens when they go in there to do it (it’s a dental thing, but on a very important molar) and we’ve been debating on if we can afford to do it for her, whereas before it would have been a no brainer for our little fur baby. Fortunately they said we have a little time as it’s not causing her any pain right now, maybe minor discomfort, but it’s an awful feeling wondering if you can afford to help your pet. And the second you pull that trigger, another big emergency might be right around the corner.
It also feels like massive whinging to be worried about your dog’s teeth when so many people are struggling in scarier ways, but people should be able to afford to take care of themselves and their pets in this country without worrying about going into credit debt to do so. It’s all so broken right now.
I tried but the great resignation was not even a real thing. For every story of "I got multiple interviews" loads of people barely got one or two. I was in this camp. The fact that some companies were hiring at all was the miracle, but they were still picky as hell and ghosting and had ridiculous requirements etc.
A few tech companies collecting warm bodies really created a pretty fake narrative that most didn't live through
You want an actual "great resignation" go back to 2006. Idiots were getting call backs on half their resumes and paid enough $$$ to afford a house because they could make a pivot table
No argument from me. I didn’t even want to leave my employer I was at. Things were going great, but a 30% pay bump is not easy to walk from.
Knowing what I learned quickly after making the change, my God, would I have done things differently.
I’m probably fortunate to have not lost ground, but just held onto it, since 2021. Sure, inflation adjusted, I’m way off the pace. But in real dollars, I have managed to just cut back on dining out completely, cut back on stupid spending like at bars or elsewhere.
Yeah, we get paid by increasing 401k amounts. Markets go south for a longer period of time(which they never do anymore for any lengthy period of time), and our industry loses heads.
Yep. I made that jump last year. I liked the people I worked with, but when the pay increase is 20%, and your current employer says go fuck yourself, it's unfortunately a clear choice (my current coworkers are fine, just not the same).
The trade off is the long term culture/expertise/worker morale, but our current version of shareholder/crony pseudocapitalism, the big companies aren't going to realize until it's too late.
My father worked for the same American aerospace company for about 40 years; alas, that company loyalty to employees is gone.
It’s so depressing. My kids are getting a little older and were staring to talk careers here. They are good students but not amazing and I struggle to even guide them. Go to college and it will work out is not a strategy, and hadn’t worked out for me. My wife is a teacher and the guaranteed raises and stability were I thought the way, but pensions are now gone there too.
Medical field appears to be the way to go I guess as wages of non-doctors seem to be outpacing other professions requiring similar education levels, but I really don’t know.
Yea since when have we been in an economy where jumping ship and getting a new job with a big pay bump is even remotely possible for the majority of workers?
Hell my company hasn’t hired domestically since like 2022. I’ve probably applied to 40 or 50 jobs in the last 5 years and gotten like 3 interviews, all off recommendations.
It was always better. Going to where you are most highly valued is better for you and the economy. This changes over time as employees and companies' needs change over time. The entire fake, one sided loyalty expected of employees is a psy op by shitty companies who want to manipulate people into working for less.
I doubled my salary over the past 5 years by job hopping twice. I’ve only seen promotions happen after someone leaves/gets fire. Otherwise, everyone gets 2% raises and “meets expectations” ratings (at best).
My wife’s company has had 4 back-to-back record-breaking years but refuses to pay their people market rate, give raises over 2%, or even give their staff free product from time to time.
Still mostly only applies to certain sectors. Generally ones that are already paid well. I’m a public employee myself so you can also throw in the golden handcuffs. But in general there’s a lot of jobs that are limited to the public sector and other jobs in the private sector that have limited mobility.
My plan with my current job was to use it to build skills and pad the resume, then hop. But then I decided to work on a degree, so that added a couple more years. Now that I'm about done, trump went and got elected then tanked the economy. So now I'll have a few more YOE when I finally do bounce which will at least look better going in.
Yep this is very true. Loyalty is absolutely not rewarded anymore. Companies will keep stripping your benefits and raises until you quit and they can rinse and repeat.
Anecdotally, I am on my third company since graduating in 2020, and my salary is up 125%. If I had stayed at the first company, I likely would have been up like 60%, which is not bad, but barely keeping with inflation/S&P returns.
My company is doing peanut butter for individual contributors and zero raises for leadership opting for 4 year RSUs instead (our stock is in the gutter).
I work in HR and in every workplace I have ever been in the performance reviews are basically set up to flatten out pay increases.
I have heard all sorts of things:
No one is perfect so there should be no 5's given out.
Managers told that they can't give a perfect review or setting a quota.
The performance review metrics get changed/altered every year to guarantee almost no one can even get a perfect score.
That's not to mention that the difference in most cases is a 1% increase. Even if it's higher, leadership wants to flaunt that its possible while knowing they will do their best to make sure as few as possible, or none, get it.
“Workers eagerly awaiting big pay hikes after their stellar performance reviews are in for a rude awakening: Instead of rewarding employees based on merit, many bosses will be dishing out flat and low “peanut butter” raises spread to all staffers in 2026. And worryingly, it’s a trend that last emerged during a perilous economic time in history.”
Employers will just give you more responsibility without calling it a promotion and without the raise. If you handle the additional responsibility well enough, you’ll get a 2% raise next year for meeting expectations.
I've literally never had a raise more than 3% that wasn't part of some known plan that involved me passing exams or getting a certain number of years in the company for a promotion. And that's working in consulting with amazing client feedback literally every year.
Yes but still way more complicated than that. Unions for example are a large part of why the US automotive industry can't compete internationally anymore and possibily isn't long for this world.
In such a case, the unions are incentivizing protectionism to keep the jobs, and that's a net negative for the rest of the population.
Guess I'm lucky because my raises the past 3 years have been those and this last year was a 4% raise and I'm not part of a union. Thankful I actually have what people consider a good employer lol
same. the company i've been with is really good with raises. 4% COLA every year, and that's separate from any promotions/salary negotiations when you reach some milestone
My current employer offers a flat <10% salary increase for any internal promotion, regardless of how big of jump in title and duties it is. A promotion I am aiming for by end of year (if it gets offered at all) should result in >50% salary increase from my current role's salary if I got it applying as an external candidate.
And employers wonder why their good employees are always leaving for better opportunities...
3.5% here. I calculated my living expenses increase in the last year and it was 38% (and thats just mandatory food, shelter, and transportation costs). In two years I will be operating in the red and need to sell the house if the trend continues.
The only thing I can say my friend is you are not alone. We are all approaching the end of the line. If I was younger I’d leave the country. I see nothing changing for us anytime soon. The democrats are gutless even if we have free and fair elections they will wring their hands and do nothing!
>The only real way for a pay increase is a promotion or a different job.
For me, I consider the equity in my company via my employee stock purchase plan as a "pay increase" of sorts. It's not an increase in my wage, but is additional money I would not have gotten otherwise.
Most companies I've ever heard of give between 2-4% cost of living increase. I worked for a university for a bit and those raises were abysmally low at around 1.25%. These increases are really just to keep up with inflation as it's typically around 3%, but that also doesn't help offset insurance premiums increasing by 10% YOY.
Exactly, job hop until you get to a company that actually values you and rewards you. No one gives raises to the meek people they know won't leave either way.
This shows the disconnect between “economist” and real people. Peanut Butter raises has been the standard barring large tech companies during a growth era and perhaps banking/investing that are commission based.
Since 2020 we've gotten across the board raises of 0-4% (that 4% was during that 1 year when nationally average raises were near twice that outside of education, and inflation was 9%) and haven't had merit raises since The Before Times. So peanut butter raises for years.
Nope, not really. We get a token raise every year that occasionally exceeds inflation, usually a tiny bit under inflation, and occasionally 'there's no budget for raises'.
Mine has been doing 5% a year for the six years I've been there. It doesnt always beat inflation but it has kept me remaining in the upper mid-high range of salaries in the industry for what I do. Thats enough for me to stay because the work life balance is good and I like the people I work with.
I work for one of the largest chemical companies in the world. Every year there is a STUPID amount of discretionary spending. And this year they announced no raises.
I left a job because of the flatline raises they offered. Found a new job during the great resignation a few years back and got myself a whopping 15% raise.
Unfortunately, its practically a slave labor place demanding long hours and constant high pace high stress with absolutely batshit insane work loads. They recently laid off a few employees. Even though one of which was absolutely fucking useless and didnt do or know shit. I would still rather have her here than not. Now Ive got her expected workload too.
New manager ranked many staff as a three out of five. Many of us work for free at night, implemented things used company wide, have stepped up when called upon to do so, and were told face to face what great jobs we were doing.
Whatever we get will be minimal at best. Despite having had a great year last year and off to a great start this one.
Y'all are getting "stellar performance reviews"? Last place I worked told me that it was company policy to score no higher than "meets expectations" on all 1st year reviews, which meant no raise
Anecdotal evidence is not generally applicable to the general population. Congratulations for your situation, but it doesn’t seem like the normal state of affairs.
I mean this with all honesty, but congratulations!
We got 70% of our 10% bonus this year, better than 50% last year, but our team is effectively doing all the work our contracted developers are refusing to do, and somehow they got 100+% of their bonus that is comically higher than that but I'm not going to be specific.
Yeah, like that's new? Never had a job in my life that gave better than a quarter an hour here or there, maybe once a year. The only way to make more money was to take a different position (either in the same company or at a new one). I started working in 2003.
Well, this is a very good way to demotivate your staff… if you have a stellar review and you get the same increase as somebody who doesn’t it’s taking away a lot of motivation for you to repeat that stellar performance.
My company had a system where you get rated between a 1 and a 5. But for some reason the system is such that 95% of people get a 3, and a few people get 4s. No one gets 5.
I have no idea how bad you would have to screw up to get a 2.
No one (not even the managers) like or understand this system.
I really hate those that still use the 20/60/20 model where the top 20% get a big raise, 60% get a meager raise, and the bottom 20% get to keep their job. Since you know there are always overachievers, it's difficult to get into that top 20% without sacrificing your personal life, so you just do the bare minimum to stay in the middle.
Most of the time HR/C suite/whatever decides what ranking bands there will be ahead of time, and managers have to fit employees into those already-sized buckets. It's not that everyone is a 3, but that there's only X money allocated to 4s and 5s for raises, so managers are only allowed to rate a couple people like that.
I was a manager and did performance reviews. If we scored someone to high, which gives them a bigger raise, we were told to lower the score. I think that is not uncommon at all.
As a manager don’t have much room to work with raises. To give one guy a big raise, I have give another guy a raise that’s below inflation. I have more flexibility with bonuses.
My old company had a 1-5 scale of 7 or 8 metrics which all average out of course. One year I went the entire year without a call out and was on time 99% of the time. For "attendance" I rated myself a 5 "exceeds expectations" and my boss rated me a 3 "meets expectations". I was pissed and asked them why despite my attendance record. His response was that coming to work every day on time is the expectation. I asked what someone would have to do to get above a 3. His response was it's not possible lol. Of course it brought down my otherwise great average. Great way to make what was their best employee at that position really stop giving a shit
Same thing at my old company and they straight up told us nobody EVER gets a 5. 4 maybe if your work your ass off AND suck up to the bosses... but never a 5.
My school has a similar rating system. HR this past year decided that everyone in student affairs had too high of scores at 4 and had our VP instruct everyone to reduce the scores to 3’s. This resulted in an average 3% raise for everyone in the division. Meanwhile we have faculty members running around bragging about their 6% raises in meetings. This is also after a two year system migration that was handled predominantly by staff and faculty refused to aid in their part of it. Leadership got an averaged 10% raise. I hate everything and everyone.
My last company did this to me a few times. I was ready to burn the whole place down when I was told that I had technically earned a perfect 5/5, but then they deducted it down a point and change because otherwise “it would make other people feel bad” if they found out I did better than them. This number HEAVILY impacted how much our raise would be. They offered me a bunch of bonus possibilities to make up for it, which I never believed.
I made the apparently outlandish demand that if I didn’t get the equivalent of approximately a 40% raise the next year with the bonuses, I’d make sure nothing got done until I did. The next year rolled around, they tried giving me an even smaller incremental raise. I paused every project I was involved in (essentially ALL of them) and gave them a counter offer, the exact number I had told them the year before.
They got mad and tried to insult me over it, so I added another 20K to that number and issued it again, which is “not how negotiation is supposed to work” they said. I held out, got threatened a few times with demotion, and eventually received a very exhausted and tired call from the CEO inviting me to lunch, where he wrote my highest offer, minus a few grand, onto a piece of paper, sighed and said “just please accept it already.”
Loads of companies tell management they can only give so many non 3 reviews. So if you aren't on the path to being fired and aren't the obvious number 1 you will be getting a 3 regardless of your actual performance.
They’re banking on people’s desire to keep their job in a bad job market. THAT’S the motivation.
If you’ve been in the workforce long enough, you’ve seen this play out. Sure, the people not getting great reviews are gonna be let go first, but guess who’s going to be expected to pick up the slack? The people with stellar reviews who will only get these peanut butter raises even after seeing their workload increase 50%.
We’re just in the early stages of this but smart people should see the writing on the wall, because the peanut butter raises won’t keep the 1% happy forever.
My employer isn’t giving out raises this year. This is the second year in a row that I’m not getting a raise at my current company. I’m a top performer, too. I’m supposed to get a 15% bonus. Instead, I’m getting a 1.5% bonus this year. Absolutely unreal.
My company has been giving 2.5% raises. This year our CEO said in the annual year in review that we had a great year and it would be reflected in our raise. The raise this year? 3 %. Yes a measly 1/2 percent over the norm, seriously fuck off.
I also have “maxed” out my performance review getting the highest score possible each year I’ve been here. There is literally no reward for doing your job well, so I’m back to doing what I’m supposed to do and will be job searching to hopefully get proper compensation. I know right, wish me luck.
Edit: Yes, I’m here screwing around on Reddit as my motivation today is zero. I’ve hit the wall here, all while my boss is talking about giving me more responsibility to move into a management role. The issue of course if that if I get one more responsibility dropped on my plate I’m probably going to lose it. I’ve been at literal max capacity for a while putting in 10 hours a day on average. My compensation to work ratio is already way out of balance, and now I need to do more?
Need to be careful what you wish for. The overall increase budget will stay the same size, so if you give a top performer 6% upper management will immediately want to know what the plan is for getting the bottom 20% of workers out the door.
I took a 40% drop in pay when I was reorganized out in 2024. New job in 2025...did exceptionally well, but gave me a 1% increase because I make too much and salaries are compressing / crashing.
FFS this is the sign of a recession. I lived through 2008-2012, feels exactly the same....
Only now we have a 🤡 screaming at everyone we are winning when truly the median and plus or minus 2 standard deviations are NOT winning.
My company did this. This was after we spent all of 2025 picking up the slack for the company’s failure to hire enough staff. At my performance review, I was told I’m a top performer.
I put up a stink and was awarded an additional .5%. I will be putting in .5% extra effort this year.
I'd kill for peanut butter right now. Outstanding performer for the last 10 years at my job, no raise since 2022 (and that one was less than the rate of inflation). I'm looking, but things seem pretty damn thin out there.
Same here. Came to my current place in 2022 to leave a horribly toxic management but was at least a fortune 100. Place hasn't given raises or bonuses once since I have been here and I doubt they ever will. I've been applying for a little over a year and just hearing back from anyone is cause for celebration.
I guess I am in the minority here. I love "peanut butter" raises. It makes life a whole lot less stressful and allows me the freedom to put family first. I don't give a shit about running myself ragged for an employer that will lay me off in an instant.
But I am late into my career and don't need to improve my standard of living, so i am not chasing raises or higher paying positions.
TLDR, don't work yourself to death. Do just enough to be an "OK" employee. That is my TEDx talk.
That's all well and good if you're at least maintaining your purchasing power. Raises at 1-2% are below the rate of inflation, meaning your purchasing power steadily decreases the longer you stay at a company that offers paltry increases like that.
The best move is to move to another job if possible, and to determine the minimum amount of work you need to do to maintain that sliding salary if necessary.
Crazy that employers don't understand (or rather don't care) that higher compensation incentivizes and rewards higher effort and massively helps to retain institutional knowledge and team stability.
Job I had years ago had 3% yearly raises. If I wanted to make $20 an hour I would have had to stay there six years. I quit that job for one that gave me a 24% raise, then I took another job where it was a 40% jump from the first job. I tell everyone to change jobs instead of sticking with one.
This is my perspective. I don't expect any company to go above and beyond for me, whether I'm their customer or employee. I just want to do my job and complete my tasks for an agreed upon rate of pay. I don't want to run ragged or show my belly for a few bucks more per pay period; I will work for a certain pay, until that pay does not work for me, and then I will find a new source of pay.
It's wild that so many employers don't understand this, and push for more and more returns for your salary.
My work did 1-3% raises this year and it was "performance" based, top 1/3rd got the 3%, bottom 1/3rd got a 1%, etc. The one thing that's a real problem is holding a lot of us hostage with non competes. The FTC under Biden tried to ban these if you make under $300k per year, but a judge in TX struck that down, unfortunately. And my company has recently sued employees that have left for similar companies for under $100k a year technician positions, which is insane to me.
Because that's when this started and it never stopped or went back to normal. Companies have been doing these types of raises as the default for almost 20 years now.
The only thing notable would be if companies shifted back to rewarding internal talent.
In case anyone’s wondering, “peanut butter” raises are wage hikes that are spread relatively evenly over a company’s workforce, as opposed to disproportionately rewarding high performers. In my opinion, we need a lot more peanut butter style wage increases.
edit: wow, looks like I touched a nerve with this one
These peanut butter raises that you think are a good thing do nothing if the hikes don’t keep up with inflation and you’re foolish if you think executives are getting a 1% raise like the rest of us.
I’m saying they’re good relative to the same kind of hikes spread unevenly (eg, if most workers don’t get a raise and a few high performers get a big raise).
My experience in corporate environments is 20% of the people generate 80% of the value. But they do not earn 80% of the wages. If anything, compensation is spread too evenly.
Then the solution the “most people” you refer to should be to work to become one of those 80% instead of expecting a handout in the form of taking raises from the top performers so they could essentially receive their participation trophy in the form of a raise.
I guess what they're saying is people who just do their job also deserve raises. Keeping up with inflation shouldn't require you to be ultra competitive and sacrifice other aspects of your life to be considered a "high performer" so you can maybe get a raise.
That’s not what you said, why is it better to be evenly spread instead of high performers? Using your logic it’s because you know you can’t keep up, and selfishly want the pie still.
Gotcha, my fault for being rude, in that case why not just give a baseline raise to everyone (except the unsatisfactory performance review ppl), and give a spiked raise for ‘top’ performers? A blanket raise for everyone irregardless of effort only incentives unproductive labor.
Because you need a certain number of bodies do to stuff, and even average performers are capable of jumping ship. This pisses off the least number of people, making, on aggregate, for less quitters, and so less problems going forward. The information is also at least nominally secret as well, along with precise salary numbers - so none of the employees are getting to fully know what everyone is getting, making it harder for anyone to know where they compare to others. Plus if a company is doing this, the % involved is going to be fairly small - someone that was going to jump is likely to jump regardless of if they got a 3% or a 4.5% increase, there simply isn't scope for a bigger bump, so keeping as many people merely 'disgruntled' is the aim, rather than giving a not-very-good reward to a few people, and pissing off a bigger number by a greater amount
I mean, even low performers can jump ship! Nobody ‘has’ to work for any private company if they don’t want to. I’m not trying to diminish what the average worker contributes, obviously it takes everyone in an org for it to succeed. (We all play a role)
But if you’re worried that you’ll lose the “average” worker, because you reward a top performer(s) wouldn’t that ruin the whole culture? Every worker deserves dignity, and to be able to afford the local conditions. To me though, if you’re a superstar performer I’d do everything in my power to keep you including larger bonuses…because they put in larger effort.
Nope. My company used to do this and it was frustrating. They moved to merit and now I’m getting the lions share because I’m busting my ass and getting tangible returns while others do less and get less. My boss legit tells them what I’m doing and why I’m getting more, it’s no secret. Everyone deserves COL adjustments yearly but peanut butter raises across the board is for the birds.
I agree, but after years of being the high performer, I decided that the stress and long hours were not worth the extra money. So I switched to keeping my head down, doing a good job, leaving at 5pm, and forgetting about work as I walked out the door. Huge change in well being lol
This is a good call out. The irony in my scenario is that the lower performers are doing that and I’m enjoying evenings with my kids. It’s not an output based role so efficiency is key in my scenario and I’ve got it down pat.
My senior leadership downgraded some high performers and made me mark everyone on the team as "expected", so everyone gets a peanut butter merit increase spread evenly.
I'm honestly surprised they didn't have a quota for "needs improvement". That is probably coming next year.
People with low motivation will continue down their current path. People with high motivation will either reduce their effort, or leave for a better situation. Net loss.
So better to give the raises to only 10% of your workforce and everyone else can go pound sand with nothing?
Everyone should get peanut butter raises as the minimum. If you want to reward high performers, then it should be on top of the base raise everyone should get.
COLA adjustments for all staff while offering much bigger raises for high performers is possible. Peanut butter raises specifically refers to spreading things evenly across workers -- not having a floor and providing high performers commensurate raises.
I have never heard of COLA adjustments as it pertains to the private sector. The only time I regularly hear that term is in regards to Social Security yearly increases.
The "peanut butter" raise is the best the average employee can get in terms of COLA.
So to hear people support a system that effectively gives a pay cuts to average workers is disheartening. We shouldn't be supporting a system that requires one to bust their ass day in and day out for 30, 40 or even more years. Having a job should be ok. Showing up and doing your job, and going home working no more than 40 hours should be ok.
If fact, we should be transitioning to at the very least, 4 days a week / 32 hours a week.
Many nursing contracts contain COLA raises. Lots of union jobs, too. It's very industry-dependent, but they do exist.
If you think I'm supporting pay cuts to workers, you're misinterpreting my comment. I am against the equal distribution of reward for unequal effort. I think everyone should, at a minimum, have a raise commensurate with inflation.
However, if I'm going to receive the same exact raise give or take a few bips as those who phone it in... What's my incentive to not phone it in, too? I should have the choice of putting in the minimum required amount of effort and maintaining my purchasing power in the face of inflation, or seeing how much extra effort is really rewarded in a company through being a high-performer.
I am not motivated to work for a company due to some "shared purpose." I am there to get paid. The more I get paid, the more willing I am to do extra work. Take away the extra pay, and my great work will turn mediocre until I jump ship to a company that rewards effort.
You are bringing in a lot of irrelevant points to this conversation btw. No one is talking about national ideas of work-life balance; this is a discussion on the utility of equalizing raises across all employees or increasing raises for high-performing employees. Whether that's worth it or not is up to an individual, and I don't think we need moralizing cultural views (that I do happen to agree with) in this framing.
Tale as old as time. Corporate America all seem to collude to do the x% near inflation “raises” across wide swaths of an industry. Basically managing labor costs keeping wages flat.
They do. Raises are not based on performance, they’re based on seniority and how close you are to the money.
It’s really a balance between “how hard are you to replace + how much do you bring in + how much of a flight risk + seniority”.
I’ve never really seen performance make more than 1-2% difference. Very few roles have performance metrics that aren’t arbitrary or actually mean anything.
>Raises are not based on performance, they’re based on seniority and how close you are to the money.
This varies wildly from between industries, and from company to company. There are plenty of good employers that reward based on performance, not seniority.
>I’ve never seen performance make more than 1-2% difference.
Uh, yeah? A 2% difference in the context of a merit increase is huge. If you get a 4% merit increase and your colleague gets 2%, you got double the merit they did. A few years of that and you’re making noticeably more than other people in the same role.
A 2-4% raise is not a raise, that’s just inflation most of the time. Companies like this will band your salary so that you won’t make significantly more than someone in the same role.
If you want a raise, your best bet is to hop to a different employer, or get a higher title at a new employer. Your existing employer will always lowball you compared to market rate, as their whole game is labor arbitrage
“2-4%” is just an example to illustrate that 2% is a huge difference in the context of a raise. I’ve gotten merits like 7% and 5% in the last few years, not counting things like title changes. And for the record, a 4% raise would outpace inflation in all but a few years in the last few decades.
Job hopping isn’t as effective as it used to be, that’s a relic from Covid where every company was starved for labor. But it can definitely make sense for some people, and everyone should at least keep an eye out for other opportunities. Internal promotion is the best route these days in my experience, if you actually are a high performer.
Point being, merit isn’t the only way to increase your compensation, but it’s still important. It’s one of the tools everyone should have in their “get paid” bag.
I mean, the promise of potentially earning a few grand more a year after multiple consecutive years of double the effort of your colleagues isn't exactly motivating to young workers.
If you can devise a system that works, and rewards the high performers you'll be the first.
I have had to deal with a "performance" culture in a few firms. It is the worst way to reward performance.
You'd think that some roles would be easy. Even roles that look like individual contributors rely on a team of people, etc.
I've seen these performance based approaches do nothing but make more and more people leave, creating a worse situation. The people who leave tend to be the people who can
How is that an ideal? Do you not like being compensated for the level of effort you offer?
If one farmer works harder and produces 10 bushels of corn in a day compared to another who also works a day, but half-assess it and only produces 5, should they be paid the same? (assuming there's no contractual agreement re: a fixed amount of pay)
The size of the raise pool directly impacts how people feel about any type of raise, peanut butter or otherwise. If there's no money in the raise pool, everyone gets 0% regardless of what your allocation philosophy is.
Sorry, bonuses have been cancelled due to poor market conditions.
This isn’t a joke, this is verbatim from my company’s last earnings call, right after they announced a few site closures and the accompanying layoffs.
We’re just rebranding COLA raises and twisting it into an excuse to abolish merit increases at this point. Bonuses are great when profits are good, but they can quickly be cancelled with a “policy adjustment”.
I’m curious to see what kind of peanut butter raises CEO’s and Board Members are getting this year.
I like how all of the comments you are getting are missing your last point entirely and they are reverting to a “talking point” soaked in talking points they’ve been given by the people who are really keeping them from getting that extra 5% yearly they claim they are owed for “overperforming”.
99.9% of the time these types of pay increases do not even keep up with inflation. In what developed country is inflation 1%?
That is also just that years inflation. If you joined in 2010 and inflation was 1% in 2011, and you got a 1% "bonus" in 2011, then what about 2012, 2013, 2014 etc.? Those 1%'s per year don't do shit because inflation is compounding. For a peanut butter bonus to actually have any impact it needs to be 1%+ whatever last years inflation was.
It always confused me when colleagues at work were neutral or positive towards the 1% scraps we got each year. I can't tell if this is like a form of Stockholm syndrome, or if people are just that clueless about economics.
And I'm telling you that this is the dumbest possible view to take on the issue because it is likely doing more harm in the long run than if you just changed job.
That 1% is quite literally a -0 in real terms. It's not even a 0, its less than 0 because inflation is still greater than the 1%. You're still in the red by the end of the year and nothing has actually changed in your job, or account balance.
As of now, and likely for our lifetimes, the only real way to get a wage increase is to change job. Any company giving a 1% bonus is doing the bare minimum to retain as much staff as they can. That's it - they just don't want to go through the headache of a high turnover and the disruption it brings. They don't want to pay staff, and they don't really care about productivity. This is a balancing game only your interests aren't even being equated for. You're not even a number of their ledger this is why they can throw out the 1%.
It's a zero sum game and you're on the losing side. It's really indicative of the current state of the modern economy. It's not a question of "at least its nothing" because "nothing" should never be on the table when it comes to your household income and fulltime employment. This is how you get priced out of your own housing market, and eventually your own lifestyle. It used to be the norm in the early 2000's and throughout the 90's that you actually received real bonuses. The magical 13th month pay in December was standard. If you didn't get it people would quit and talk mad shit about the company. These days we're lucky to even get a fucking wage at this point.
I'm saying I'm out and in another job because I don't want a lower wage. The 1% is the lower wage. I don't think this is clicking just yet - your income is shrinking each year. The number stays the same but how much you can buy shrinks in increments each year. The 1% is nothing at all - it honestly a meaningless number.
This is just how value and the economy works. $1000 isn't a $1000 forever - it decreases in value every single year and this is reflected in how much you can obtain with this $1000 per month. The cost of everything increases by a number bigger than 1% therefore you're earning less, not more by taking the 1%. People just see bigger number and think I'm rich but this isn't how pricing works in economies. You're poorer despite the number being bigger.
Whether you take the 1%, or leave it - the outcome is going to be the exact same in terms of how you live, and your wellbeing. That 1% is gone before you touch it because inflation is beyond 1%. See past the number for a second and think about pricing and value - is 101% bigger or smaller than 103%? (or whatever inflation is in your country)
The 1% isn't designed to give you more money. Its designed to trap anyone who doesn't understand into staying so that the companies can reduce the extent to which turnover will disrupt business. The 1% is quite literally a lotus, and you're the lotus eater. The only smart move to make is to leave your job because in the long run, this is the only way you can offset inflation to some extent. We are in a very broken economy right now, and will be for the remainder of this century.
There aren’t other options in my example because I’m trying to stick to the topic (peanut butter raises). In the 0% scenario, the money would be going to the minority of top performers. In the peanut butter scenario, it’s spread out to everyone.
Is this clicking yet? You're fucked either way only in one context you're somewhat deluded by a misunderstanding of value and inflation.
If you're in a position which is paying you 1% bonuses then you're not in a good job and it makes zero sense to push productivity. The entire point of this article, and what I'm trying to tell you, is that the logic of the 1% is a sign of corporate death - its a sign that a company does not value staff at all, and it is prepared to pursue very short-term policies knowing it is going to tank future productivity, and ultimately profits.
The person who takes the fall is you. - the company is taking from you despite likely incorporating inflation into pricing for whatever goods and services you provide. The issue is they are not doing the same when calculating your pay which means they're pocketing the difference and contributing to you, and your family being priced out of the economy.
The 1% is a sign of death. It's a sign that the economy is in terminal decline and the risk is being distributed to the most vulnerable.
I'm sorry but this is an economics subreddit which at one point in time used to mean you had to have some basic knowledge of economics.
I'm just telling you the truth and what I'm saying isn't insane because we are commenting in a thread about an article saying exactly what I am saying. Take the 1%, or leave it, it makes no difference in the long-term. You're just carrying more risk despite earning very little relative to the top salaries in the firm who should carry more of the risk. If they did, you might get a bonus that at the very least matches inflation - even then you're breaking even at 0.
If the context was take 1% or nothing - I'm saying it is a false choice.
What it should be is inflation% or nothing - in this context then the answer is obvious if you want to break even at 0.
You're focusing on the number going up, and I'm trying to push to you that this is not how economics works. It isn't the number, but the value behind it which matters. We are not in the 90's and 2000's anymore - that world is long gone. This is the post 2008 world and in it, value is king. Chasing numbers is what our parents did back when everyone lived in the National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. You, your kids, and your kids' kid's are going to be poorer if you don't adapt. This is pure mathematics and this is going to be true even if you keep taking the 1% bonus. That is the point of this article, and it is the point I am making.
White collar wages are already under enormous downwards pressure. All jobs seem to be slowly drifting down to minimum wage level.
I've had no pay increase at all in 6 years. Not a penny.
In previous years I've had low increases (All under 1%) or no pay increase because "there is no money in the pot this year for senior staff because it's all gone on updating low paid staff to be on the living wage. This is continuously since 2008.
In that time inflation has been insane. For example I bought a car brand new in 2019 for £12.8k, the same car now costs just over £25k. That before you consider energy cost increases or food inflation.
However, in my experience the only guarantee of a pay rise is changing Job and while I don't move often (I've been in this job 6 years and my previous job 10) I get a 25% - 50% increase each time i leave.
I guess the reason for this is that the budgets are small so it's not worth everyones time to try to differentiate 1 percent budget. Just give everyone 1 percent and call it a day.
Healthcare raises or any situation where large groups of people are basically interchangeable depending upon their license - it’s understandable from a company perspective - they can’t defend themselves from claims of discrimination if their wages aren’t in a tight band and they are really just paying for the task.
But man it does just crush everyone’s motivation to actually be good at their job when they know they will be getting paid the same as the weakest link.
Yeah and productivity stagnates. I am not gonna work hard for no pay. Idk what these morons think is gonna motivate us but it’s not “family”. Go enjoy your mediocrity.
Betty isn’t sucking off the corporation, so good on her. Any incentive to do better for the company so you see a pittance of what you brought in is part of the scam. Your anger should be directed at the top that is definitely getting more of a pay increase for the money YOU brought in - compared to Sticker Faced Betty -and that’s choosing to distribute lower increases and don’t account for inflation.
The peanut butter raises should honestly be the standard, like surrogate CoL raises. If type A high performers are very motivated, I don't see why they can't negotiate their base salary.
(Not that I actually think most companies are handing out significant salary increases anyway, it just seems like more of a situation where you advocate for yourself.)
Yeah we do need peanut butter wages, but like, a whole additional sandwich worth. Wages have had a laughably bad time keeping up with productivity, and stock price growth.
Spreading raises evenly despite differing real outcomes of employees is how you get your high performers to leave or burn out. No one is going to go above and beyond at their job if that extra work isn't rewarded commensurately. All you're going to do is reward mediocrity.
Media companies and journalists have discovered what a cost of living adjustment aka bullshit raise is. Why are we giving these things new names? Completely unnecessary. Same shit with vibecession -> K-shaped economy -> boomcession.
I worked for a bank that did that as policy. There was no such thing as a merit raise at all for anyone. They got away with it because it was a smaller city with limited options for that field and they were fairly decent to work for. But if you were willing to relocate and a good performer you didn't stay long
I really hate all these stupid twee fucking euphemisms everyone keeps inventing about the workplace in recent years. Peanut butter raises. Quiet quitting. The Great Resignation.
Yes and workers leave companies in the lurch when the labour market is tight. Know your own value and make decisions based on the long term view, not this year’s bonus, raise or employment prospects.
So instead of getting enrolled in a jelly-of-the-month club in lieu of your bonus, you're now being "upgraded" to the peanut-butter-and-jelly-of-the-month club! You should be happy that it's the gift that keeps on giving the whole year! ;-)
Peanut butter raises can be good if you have a high performing team and don’t want to be forced to lay anyone off which would compromise the team. I’ve seen this work at high performing teams in companies that want to layoff some percentage. HR loves stacked rankings so they can layoff the ones ranked lower.
My company promised me guaranteed bonus and merit raise will be based on performance.. come during review time..all bonus is gone and only got a meager 1% raise even though with a stellar performance?
As a small business owner, I was able to do better than that with my company this year (8% on average) but last year was less (4%). I tried to make it up to them this year. Unfortunately, things are a bit crazy these days and work could drop off quickly. It's always a gamble for a small business.
I wonder if this is a misread of how compensation policies have evolved.
In salaried roles, performance (especially at the higher levels) is usually not rewarded with merit-based raises.
Raises are tied to promotion. You get paid more because your scope of responsibility has gotten bigger.
Organizations have moved to rewarding high performance with bonuses and retaining high-potential employees through vesting compensation (RSUs, deferred compensation).
My guess would be that the "thinner" peanut butter is tied to slowing inflation.
Last year my boss pulled some strings to get me a "promotion" (nicer title and pay on paper, bonus eligible, same workload) because I was performing so high.
This year I got the same level of review, but my raise was lower than I expected. I expressed some disappointment and he told me that, percentagewise, it was actually higher than most people got this year.
I got 7% with a performance review of exceptional, while I’m not complaining as I know others are getting 2% or the likes, even the 7% is hardly enough to cover the inflation we’ve been feeling the past few years. People are already getting squeezed hard and it’s only going to get worse. Word words words words words.
What I was able to read of the article before hitting the paywall tracks. My full time employer has been doing 1.5% increases since…2009. I put the wage tables through the inflation calculator a bit over a month ago and it’s grim. No wonder everyone’s felt the financial noose tightening, especially the last few years.
I tore strips out of the union reps the last time they had their information table out. They’re not concerned about the basics like wages, benefits, working conditions or any of that stuff, not when there’s social justice wedge issues to flog. The problem is, everywhere wants their bills paid with money.
pandabearak | 7 hours ago
And that’s why smart workers usually just jump ship in order to get larger pay bumps. Unfortunately, when nobody is hiring and you’re only creating 15,000 jobs a month (according to the revised BLS report for 2025), that’s going to be tough.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 7 hours ago
That’s where I am in life right now.
I took part of the “great resignation” of 2021-2022, and got to an income level I could only have imagined a few years earlier.
Spouse and I both had those large increases yanked from under us by end of 2023.
We’ve found work again, at far less of a wage, by early 2024.
But our own personal “recession” began at end of 2023. Fortunately; we always live below our means. Unfortunately, those “means” didn’t keep up with the continued climb into the sky of the cost of basic necessities of life. We feel squeezed, caught in a vice, a chess game waiting for us to have a moment of real weakness, before life steamrolls us.
And it’s now 2 years long of it. Needless to say, the idea of “mental health” is one more of those thoughtful things America says, but doesn’t give a fuck about.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 7 hours ago
Yup. I took a 20% pay cut (where I am no versus 2022). In the meantime, my electric my has increased 50%, groceries are up 19%
Btw, adjusted for inflation, my pay cut is 27.29%. Yeah. Fucking brutal.
Edit: for what it’s worth, I blew the whistle (internally) and was fired. Now my former company is dealing with a criminal investigation related to what happened.
Doesn’t help me though. I am thoroughly screwed.
rabble1205 | 7 hours ago
I’m gonna be honest, you being fired for whistleblowing something that resulted in a criminal investigation is the easiest layup of a lawsuit in most states so if this is real you should be lawyering up.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 7 hours ago
When it comes to whistleblowing and the feds, the reprisal investigation process is on hold until everything is finally adjudicated. That can take years.
The second piece is that whistleblowing laws are very particular, especially when dealing with the DoD. I was not directly coded for specific contracts either through my employer or coded through the defense contractor.
In the meantime time keeps ticking along, bills have to be paid and I am kept in the dark regarding the status of the investigation as is DOJ policy (as outlined in the Justice Manual).
Edit: a word.
Huge_JackedMann | 5 hours ago
Oh yeah, if you're dealing with the feds you're currently totally screwed. No way they even provide you with any useful investigation findings for a civil suit. "Open" until at least 2029. Even if the maga Mafia gets voted out they'll probably shred the records to cover up their wrong doings.
Good luck to you and good for you for doing the right thing. I'm sorry it had a heavy price. That does make it more respectable though as that's true bravery.
Spugheddy | 4 hours ago
His former company just cut a nice 1.2mil check for a ballroom somewhere in D.C. coincidentally, they dropped all charges.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 3 hours ago
Maybe. Oddly enough, they should be in the crosshairs of the administration for their overt focus on DEI stuff.
Honestly, I think once you crack a certain tier there is basically nothing that can hold a company accountable and that includes its executives.
I tried to protect the company. Did it all internal. Took it to the appropriate people. Protect us, our customers and national security. Should have been a win win win and we all keep being profitable.
But nope.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 3 hours ago
Thanks guy.
Now I just need to figure out how to pay the lawyers to keep custody…
I am never marrying again. Even dating sounds horrible.
DarkElation | an hour ago
2022 was the Biden administration…
CloudTransit | 6 hours ago
This feels like a comment from yesteryear. So much knowledge given. I hope you can stay strong regardless of how it all turns out or what decisions you make.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 3 hours ago
What do you mean yesteryear?
eulb42 | 2 hours ago
Reddit used to have a different vibe, full of informed people who wrote like it (so, not me.)
This is a great reply full of substance that sounds like it was written by a real person. So it stands out.
MixtureSpecial8951 | an hour ago
Ah, well thank you. I make an effort to put my voice into what it is I am writing. While I am certainly not a great or particularly skilled writer/essayist, I hope that what I type communicates the conversational tone that plays in my head.
As for how Reddit used to be…
Reddit has certainly changed as have we elder redditors. How you or I write, respond, post, etc. has evolved as we have evolved and matured in our lives. Meanwhile, young people com to the site with their state of maturity and development. We were once them. They will become like we are now. And we will be something else.
With that said, I think the quality of the site has markedly declined along with all “social media.”
I feel like users used to actually read articles before commenting. Weird concept.
Moderating teams & practices have also changed a lot. And not for the better either. There are still some communities that seem to strike the right balance. Yet a great many, certainly the majority of the popular ones from my experience, that are extremely stifling.
My suspicion is that it is an outgrowth/symptom/accelerant of the “othering” of our society and public discourse.
Oh well, all we can do is continue to tilt at windmills.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 7 hours ago
Crazy thing is, my new gig, landed me almost exactly back (I mean to the damn dollar) of where I was in early 2022 before I made the job change to higher comp.
In actual dollars, our household is about 20% off from where we were in early 2022, before I made a change.
In actual dollars, we’re about 40% lower than we were at peak earning, Q3 2023.
Again, made 2 steps forward, 1.9 steps back. Guess I’m just not “American” enough to be doing my best ever. 🙄
Striking-Ad-1746 | 7 hours ago
I made 1/3rd what I did in 2023 last year and performing higher than ever (only able to land contracts that end in being caught up in layoffs vs converted to FTE). Most frustrating part is coming into new positions and seeing how poor the talent is at these companies where my peers are making what I used to make. I end up in defacto lead roles and management gives me great reviews, then budget cuts happen and as a contractor I’m the first to go.
Adjusted for inflation I’m back to making what I did as an analyst 10 years ago :|
MixtureSpecial8951 | 7 hours ago
Yup, adjusted for inflation I have lost a decade of wage increases. I am back where I was in my early 30s.
And even then I was behind the curve due to a shitty situation where a divorce had derailed my career (divorce and ordination don’t mix in my particular denomination). So I was a decade behind then.
I am now, salary wise, roughly where my peers were in their early 20s. Only I am in my 40s.
There was that glorious period where I was making bank but then I saw a problem with how we were handling what turned out to be classified information (some of which was classified as Top Secret Compartmentalized Information, TSCI). And I got screwed. Hard.
Edit: and I made the mistake of opening up about it to my ex. Well, she took the opportunity to accuse me of being in a mental crisis (amongst other things), sued for full custody of our son, etc. So I am fighting that now.
Looks like I am going to have to withdraw a large chunk of my retirements savings I have to pay lawyers. Sigh. Fuck.
But my little guy is worth it. I will spend every red cent I will ever earn for him.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 7 hours ago
I feel you on that feeling of being “behind” in life.
For me, the carnage of 2008-2010 held down my career and savings goals. Child care ate the savings during that time. Once I got back up, around 2016-2017, I picked up the savings.
But, bottom line is that for many of us, we’re not going to reach that magical retirement age and dollar amount on anyone else’s schedule. I’m fine with that. I’m aware many are going to be able to retire early, but none of those folks need to think they are somehow “superior”. Different circumstances, different hand that fate dealt.
Available-Range-5341 | 6 hours ago
on the other hand, the tax brackets shift every year. I can now afford to work for 80K because it's now 4850 a month in NYC if you don't have any deductions. I remember it being closer to 4200 before covid when it was taxed like it was a rich person salary
bihari_baller | 7 hours ago
>Doesn’t help me though. I am thoroughly screwed.
Sounds like you left a sinking ship that was your previous company.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 7 hours ago
Oh they are doing great. Multi billion dollar annual revenues. Big fancy buildings.
My former boss, who all but told me to stuff it, has a nice promotion making a solid six figures.
Fuck those guys.
MythicalCaseTheory | 7 hours ago
>I blew the whistle (internally) and was fired.
Was it not a wrongful termination?
MixtureSpecial8951 | 6 hours ago
The way it works with defense related stuff, the reprisal case picks up only when the criminal side has been fully and finally adjudicated. That often takes years.
Another wrinkle is that my company provided services to the defense primes who in turn provided services to the DoD. So I was not coded to a specific contract. I was just a back office operations dork.
But… I happened to have insight to hundreds of defense programs, who was working on what, which programs were being run by which defense prime, what individuals were doing within those programs, all sorts of stuff. None of which I should have had.
Also, the company was sharing all of that information with offshore contractors. I later found out that a portion of it was classified as Top Secret Compartmentalized Information (TSCI). Look up what that means. We were generating and sharing that stuff openly inside and outside the company. Totally uncontrolled and unencrypted.
I was later told that a single word in my complaint to the OIG meant it went to the Air Force chief of staff’s desk. He then personally directed a special agent to fly in to be part of the interview process. It was wild.
Best part was he asked me if I knew X information. I replied yes and his response was “shit.” I then added that I had a list of the engineers and a bunch of other information for that program. His response? “Oh fuck.”
It was wild. NCIS, DCIS, OSI and the FBI were all present and/or phoning in from DC.
I’m a nobody. I don’t do anything sexy or particularly interesting. I saw something and so I said something. I did the right thing to safeguard national defense information. No regrets on that decision.
MythicalCaseTheory | 6 hours ago
I would still petition someone. Anyone. Being out on your ass for doing the right thing just feels wrong. Though I'm aware that's often the case. Though I'm not usually hearing of actual criminal investigations taking place in those cases - and the firing was a CYOA on the employer's part, not a blatant and obvious retaliation.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 3 hours ago
Yeah it sucks. But it is also typical for such cases. Companies do not like finding out there is a risk; the default is to say “nope” and shoot the messenger - sometimes literally.
Which is weird because firing people is risky, especially when there is a potential for whist lower related investigations and charges. On the other hand, companies are very good at finding a reason why they just had to fire Jimmy.
“It wasn’t that Jimmy reported we were allegedly committing fraud. It was because he said he didn’t like being called names in meetings. Jimmy is a big guy and that is intimidating. If he had some issue he should have contacted HR who would have initiated an investigation. See, it’s his fault.
“Oh, and the person who made the complaint about how he asked not be called fat, dumb, stupid, boring, etc. in public? Oh her promotion has nothing to do with any of this. Was she also made aware of the mishandling problem? What problem?”
The best thing to do in such situations is to take a report seriously, make the fix and give the whistleblower a pat on the back. Long term doing that actually reduces risk from litigation and investigation, limits potential criminal culpability, improves morale, etc.
But, shooting the messenger is the default. Oh well.
Gamer_Grease | 6 hours ago
The economy is absolutely brutal lately. The cost of a no-hire, no-fire economy is everybody is taking pay cuts or not getting raises.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 3 hours ago
I was just reading of the return of “peanut butter” raises. Basically, low rate wage increases spread evenly through departments as happened after 2009.
Overall wage earners lose out as increases are typically below the rate of inflation and high performers are discouraged because they outperformed but have nothing additional to show for it versus peers.
DJPho3nix | 2 hours ago
You're literally commenting on an article about those "peanut butter" raises...
MixtureSpecial8951 | an hour ago
Derf. Got lost in the sauce…
Thanks for letting me know;)
Dry-Interaction-1246 | 6 hours ago
Altman decided AI is more important that electricity for peasants. You should thank him you can even afford lights and plumbing at all.
MixtureSpecial8951 | 3 hours ago
That and decades of underinvestment in the electrical generating and transmission infrastructure in the US.
The US has been adding generation capacity but demand has outstripped that. Consequently, the US has had to increase imports.
Per the DOE, a summary; 1999-2024:
net electrical production increased at an average rate of 0.69%. A total increase of 16.61% (613.83 billion MW).
Net electricity consumption: increased at an average rate of 0.73%. A total increase of 17.88% (635.24 billion MW)
The difference between production and use has been made up by imported energy, overwhelmingly from Canada.
In the past 5 and 10 years through the end of 2024 (2025 data is available only through November), US electrical generation growth has slightly outpaced consumption. 0.78% & 0.59% respectively.
Preliminary estimates indicate that 2025 was a big year for demand increases, up to 3.1%, driven by data center building. Generating capacity increased roughly the same, also largely driven by data centers. So, net net roughly zero, right?
Except that data centers increased their demand 22%. In 2023, data centers consumed ~4% of production. In 2025, it looks like their share has increased to 6.7% of total production.
In other words, other kinds of customers are decreasing electricity use while data centers use is rapidly increasing. On top of that, the share of overall energy production/consumption (not just retail electricity use) that is consumed by data centers is scaling rapidly.
Basically, data centers increasingly have onsite generation capacity that is not included in grid production figures but those generators require fuel in various forms. This diverts available fuel resources to off grid uses, increasing the cost to power the grid. Thus, the average residential price per kWh has increased from $13.01¢/kWh in 2019 to 17.78¢/kWh. This is a 36.66% increase in electricity cost.
Are you making 36.66% more money? I’m not.
The industrial sector (manufacturers, mining, construction and agriculture) accounted for the following share of consumption. There is an interesting story in the breakdown of the mix, but that is pretty granular. The long term trend being a decline though it appears to have stabilized: 2000: 31.1%
2016: 26-28%
2018: 25%
2020: 25-27% (note, overall demand fell to its lowest level since 2009).
2022: 26%
2025: 25-26%.
The commercial sector has seen a multi year decline is energy use since 2020.
coke_and_coffee | 6 hours ago
Wtf are you talking about?
big-papito | 7 hours ago
I feel you. My salary as a software engineer has not changed since 2017. Once you hit a certain point, you hear "oh, we can't do it, it's too expensive" - and I am not even at $200K.
Hey, at least we are not in South Korea when it comes to work/life balance.
True_Human | 7 hours ago
Wow, actual purchasing power in the US seems to be complete dogwater. I'm at like €40k in Germany and while, granted, I am single: I own a car, can splurge on delivery almost every day and am still several hundreds in the black each month with no fear that I might lose it all with one trip to the hospital.
And that is, mind you, like 5-8k € below the median line here 'cause I'm still relatively new to the job.
Head_of_Lettuce | 7 hours ago
Purchasing power is greater in the US than in Germany. That person makes almost $200k annually, they can afford all those things too.
True_Human | 7 hours ago
Ah, yeah sorry I conflated their income and the comment by the user they were replying to
But also: if I can afford basically whatever I, as a reasonable normal person could ever want, at 40k, what difference does "more purchasing power" even still make?
Head_of_Lettuce | 7 hours ago
Ah, I see now. That makes more sense!
Arkanin | 5 hours ago
Americans do have to pay for healthcare and usually more for childcare, and in some places housing is very expensive but at the same time prices aren't that sky high, that guy should feel cushy in all but maybe a few of the most expensive cities.
coke_and_coffee | 6 hours ago
> if I can afford basically whatever I, as a reasonable normal person could ever want, at 40k, what difference does "more purchasing power" even still make?
You can’t though. “Normal” Americans expect to be able to afford a vacation home in Florida or Tahoe and a couple waverunners. You certainly can’t afford that.
l0R3-R | 3 hours ago
I regard myself as a normal american and not only have i never owned anything as wild or expensive as wave runners, I've never had a vacation, and I am over 5k in debt for basic medical care. I work full time, all the time, and I barely break even.
There is no way you are a normal american and I doubt you've ever met one
coke_and_coffee | 2 hours ago
The average American family spends almost a decade making more than $150,000. They can certainly afford a waverunner.
l0R3-R | 2 hours ago
Average how? Mean or median?
Also, $150k used to be a big deal, was once "wave runner" money but it's not the 80's anymore, so now it's "how do I afford childcare" money
big-papito | 6 hours ago
Actually - no. I live on the outskirts of NYC. My rent is $2700, and I have a non-working wife and two kids. That's + $500 for energy bills as well, which just keeps going up.
I cut out most subscriptions I used to have, we go out like twice a month for non-fancy dinners to "treat" ourselves (no kids), NO delivery ever, we only shop at whole-sale like BJs.
Once a year we go a for a cruise vacation, when there is a deal ($1K for each of us, unlimited food and booze, we party balls to the wall and costing the cruise line money for sure).
It takes a lot of effort to not be in the red. I manage to save a little for retirement. It's not luxury, it's trying to not die in poverty.
Now one of the kids is getting into daycare, goodbye monthly savings.
Thank goodness for NYC free pre-K, but that's later this year.
Hauling in $10K after tax, you'd think I'd be rolling in it, but that's not even close, fighting the extraction economy tooth and nail.
DarkElation | an hour ago
Actually - yes. You’re comparing your household income to their individual income. Apples to apples, your individual purchasing power is much, much higher than theirs.
coke_and_coffee | 6 hours ago
> Wow, actual purchasing power in the US seems to be complete dogwater.
It’s not. These are just pathetic people complaining on the internet. I guarantee this person lives in a beautiful two-story home, drives an Tesla, and will retire with $3.5M net assets.
big-papito | 5 hours ago
I rent one floor from the in-laws and do not own a car myself. If not for ex-US and gold investments last year, my retirement would have been below $500K - I am 45.
coke_and_coffee | 5 hours ago
I do not believe you. “Not even at 200k” gives it away. Software engineers make great money. You are lying.
big-papito | 3 hours ago
Haha, OK, pal, you don't have to believe me. Everyone works at Google, apparently.
You can just Google it.
>...indicating a national average around $133,490. Salaries typically range from $97,500 to $158,500 depending on experience, with major tech hubs like NYC or SF often seeing median base salaries closer to $150,000 or higher.
coke_and_coffee | 2 hours ago
What do you think this is proving?
Difficult-Square-689 | 5 hours ago
I think your first job in software really sets the tone for your career. Big tech companies prefer to recruit from other big tech companies.
And the gap is going to get wider, at least in the short term. AI adoption is getting pushed hard, and big tech has access to all the cutting edge toys. By the end of the year at most, interviews will probably ask about your cleverest professional application of AI.
EvidenceMinute4913 | 4 hours ago
The inflation is killer man. I’ve slowly been getting my salary up through negotiations and 2 job hops, but my purchasing power is barely more than when I was a junior engineer.
big-papito | 3 hours ago
I remember when I was at $80K living alone in NYC. I drank top-shelf bourbon in bars and maxed out my 401K. That sounds crazy now.
idungiveboutnothing | 7 hours ago
>Hey, at least we are not in South Korea when it comes to work/life balance
Some of us in software engineering can't even say that, especially if you're at a start-up, smaller company, or certain industries like supply chain/logistics/manufacturing.
coke_and_coffee | 6 hours ago
You chose that line of work…
idungiveboutnothing | 5 hours ago
lol chose is a funny word to use at this point with all the layoffs, off-shoring, and AI
coke_and_coffee | 4 hours ago
What?
idungiveboutnothing | 4 hours ago
Software Engineering has changed drastically from when I "chose" it 3 decades ago. You think I "chose" to go through these off-shoring cycles? "Chose" all the layoffs and everything?
It was a very different career even 5 years ago.
coke_and_coffee | 3 hours ago
You choose to work for startups. There are tons of SWEe with very stable jobs and normal hours.
idungiveboutnothing | 3 hours ago
I didn't choose that, it was just an example of one such industry. A lot of SWEs right now don't necessarily have a choice in where they're working either because it's a very difficult market. Just because you still have it nice doesn't mean other people don't? I really don't understand what you're trying to say? Should the 16,000 people laid off by Amazon in the past few months just not work? Or Intel? Microsoft? Oracle? Accenture? HP? Meta? Block? Salesforce? Pinterest? AutoDesk? Synopsys? Verizon?
Gamer_Grease | 7 hours ago
My wife and I moved out of the big city for her career last year, and in the tough job market I had to take a 25% pay cut, plus our rent actually rose (Chicago to a midwestern college town), plus we had to pick up a car with its own expenses. We’re definitely feeling the squeeze. I think living in Chicago, with high pay and relatively low expenses, we were insulated from how bad the economy has gotten for the rest of America. The people around us pay a lot in COL and are paid terribly, and aren’t even aware of how much better they could have it.
gohblu | 7 hours ago
The income to cost of living ratio is actually pretty good and underappeciated in Chicago. Must better than many other comparable cities.
coke_and_coffee | 6 hours ago
Why did you move away for your wife’s career if you got paid less and it made your life worse?
Gamer_Grease | 6 hours ago
Well, we didn’t think it would be such a hit for me, because my career is more flexible. We still think we can take advantage of the resume-building for her for the time being, then move somewhere better when the opportunity arises. She has a PhD, which usually means delaying your career until nearly your thirties, and then spending your early thirties picking up and moving every few years. We also didn’t expect a much smaller town to be much more expensive than where we came from, but COL is way higher than where we were in Chicago, especially when you add in a car. Food and drink prices are not meaningfully lower, utilities are much higher. Internet is cheaper, though.
I still don’t regret it at all (and might actually end up getting my old job back soon), but it made living in the economy of 2025-2026 a lot more difficult for us. Especially because we’re both nonprofit people, essentially (her research, me fundraising), and this administration is, to put it lightly, unfriendly to the broader nonprofit and educational economy. We’re also lucky that neither of us have any debt at all, not even student loans. If we did it would just be flatly impossible to take any kind of risk like this. We’d be frozen in place.
coke_and_coffee | 6 hours ago
So it has nothing to do with the broader economy and everything to do with short-term delayed consumption that you willingly accepted?
Gamer_Grease | 5 hours ago
No, it does. Both of us are caught up in the major pullback of research and education funding that started in January of 2025 (her), as well as a precipitous decline in charitable giving that happened at the same time (me). There is really troubling stuff happening in the not-for-profit world lately, fiscally speaking. I am not aware of any org of any size that is not slashing budgets, cutting programs, eliminating positions, freezing hiring, freezing pay, cutting health insurance benefits, freezing retirement benefits, or recycling funds (e.g., my SIL’s hospital now requires all staff to use their own pharmacy for prescriptions). Then I read that similar things are happening in the for-profit world.
This all being nonprofits may make it sound like not such a big deal, but a) universities, hospitals, and regular nonprofits make up a HUGE sector of the economy, and the majority of it in many communities, and b) its downstream from how good the private sector feels about the economy.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 7 hours ago
You say that you and your spouse moved to a “college town”. Don’t blame you there. I always wanted to return to Tuscaloosa, my Alma mater. Job market and low wages there never made it possible.
More, one can’t help but think that the job market is being somehow “held hostage” by corps who are using AI as a hedge against the rebellion of workers toward RTO policies.
In their minds, if we won’t willingly come back, they’ll just stop hiring altogether, and threaten everyone else with “computers will replace you.”
Feels petty. Childish. And may be entirely made up in my paranoid brain😂.
Gamer_Grease | 6 hours ago
We did. We actually really don’t like it, as we’re city people at heart. She’s just “early” in her career as a PHD and this was the right move for her.
slimninj4 | 7 hours ago
few years ago we were doing great. all cars paid off. bills paid. we started to increase and save. decent vacation that year. then within 2 years it seemed we were pinched again. Wife no raise. me 2-3% a year. food increased, house tax, hobbies, bills, it all started to add up.
Really the only way to go is find new work every few years.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 6 hours ago
It’s a shame that we don’t get to build long term careers at one place anymore.
My job change in 2022, for that big pay increase, was disguised by the owner of that small Atlanta-financial services firm, as he had the firm in the middle of due diligence to be sold to an industry aggregator. Absolutely did not share that information prior to hiring me.
So, I changed companies whether I wanted to or not. And I was hired a firm director level in 2022!
So, the new gig in 2024, at a steep pay cut, was a life saver. But, once again, a large aggregator firm gobbled us up too, in 2025. Here we are in early 2026, a decent inflation bump, 4%, but I know I can’t stay here forever.
Gamer_Grease | 6 hours ago
Some places do, but a lot of firms just don’t really value inside knowledge, and prefer to have people with diverse experience from all over.
Difficult-Square-689 | 5 hours ago
It's a real K shaped economy. We were lucky to be on the upper arm for now.
Tech jobs are changing rapidly, but I've been working long enough and spending little enough that super early retirement is an option.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 5 hours ago
I’m in the crease in the K. Accumulated some assets, but real earnings didn’t start until 7-8 years ago for me. And finally got the kids grown. 1 is out of college thank God.
Now, at the back half of my career, the decisions I make with money have a lot less runway to play with.
Difficult-Square-689 | 5 hours ago
My oldest recently graduated from daycare, so a long ways to go in the parenting department.
The kids are the only reason I'm still working... or so I tell myself. In reality, I switched into a slightly less busy team and I'm already bored without enough work to do. I joke about wanting to get laid off, but I think I'd fall apart without the structure.
boringexplanation | 7 hours ago
Sorry about the layoffs.
That’s part of the risk no one wants to admit on chasing greener pastures, no?
I had similar coworkers chase a doubled salary after a decade of discontent only to get laid off after a couple of years too. Sometimes certain jobs/salaries are too good to be true to be sustainable, gotta know the long term outlook of your industry
coke_and_coffee | 6 hours ago
Wha kind of salary are you talking about here?
It’s very possible to save A LOT for retirement if you invest properly. How much do you save each month?
DustShallEatTheDays | 4 hours ago
Yeah. Spouse and I both laid off in 2023, and let me tell you - in a HCOL situation, there is no amount of being frugal that will stop you bleeding out savings.
Luckily I found work again relatively quickly, but I feel like I am saving for my next layoff rather than retirement.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 4 hours ago
You are not alone in this feeling. And I work in the 401k plan management industry. Anymore, when speaking with employees like you and I, I preach “security” rather than retirement.
Just this month, a long time saver, relatively lower income, made a total distribution of his account, $145k, to pay off the mistakes that his current wife and her two teenage sons had made with credit cards.
Total distribution. He’s 60.
DustShallEatTheDays | 3 hours ago
Ouch. That pains me to read. I have a healthy 401k for my age and retirement goals. I can’t imagine having to entirely start over right at potential retirement age, just to cover for reckless spending by my household.
I’m not counting on being able to work forever. I’ve seen too many people in my family become disabled due to stroke or cancer treatment, or early dementia. Their plan to just work until death didn’t account for the loss of their health. I think security is right. You’re saving so that if you reach a point where you simply cannot work, you won’t just die.
vovap_vovap | 5 hours ago
Well, you basically like one side of the sword when you change job with a big race but do not like other when you lost it. But that 2 sides of same thing. You want more risk / reward or you you want less of both.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 5 hours ago
There is truth to this. I took that risk at a time of my life when I afford to have it blow up on me. And it did. I’ve learned from it. What I learned is never put myself in a position where a bad bet leaves me desperate. I could afford to be out of work a long time, but not forever.
Take the risk, but make it be very calculated.
seppukucoconuts | 3 hours ago
>I took part of the “great resignation” of 2021-2022, and got to an income level I could only have imagined a few years earlier.
I was fortunate and got a huge pay bump from this, and still work at the same company. I got moved into a new part of the company. Currently, no one has any idea what I'm supposed to do, or who to report to. I'm constantly waiting for someone to find out how much I make and can me.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 3 hours ago
😂😂
Sounds like you’ve “won” at life so far. The stories of the “AI monster” have to give you some pause, tho, if you’re a white collar professional like I am.
I’d tell you to go ahead and be looking for a new job, but I’d be gaslighting you- there aren’t any jobs. Nothing. This nation isn’t hiring, not firing much, but not hiring.
seppukucoconuts | 2 hours ago
I'm in more of a grey-collar type of job. Its sales, service, and support. One hour I'm doing forklift training or unloading a truck, another one I'm ordering 60K in parts, or scheduling service on something. Sometimes I'm fixing equipment, or trying to teach a boomer how to use a computer. I don't think there's a single person that could replace me, not that they wouldn't just stick someone here without training and hope for the best.
I made a pretty big mistake (that got fixed), it was a copy paste error in ordering. Corporate had to have a meeting about who I report to, and no one could figure it out. Everyone just sorta shrugged. I've become Milton Waddams.
KAM7 | 50 minutes ago
Right there with you, man.
We went from household of $110k in 2020 to $170k household by the end of 2023, when it was then yanked away from us end of 2025.
Stabilized and doing okay, but back to a household of $120k, which is rough because we bought a new car (that we desperately needed, and got a good deal on it), and took out a heloc for $100k to remodel our 25 year old house in early 2025. But it was a shock to the system to lose about $3k a month after getting used to that budget.
We can float on $120k even with those new expenses, but it went from us having incredible savings, emergency funds, vacation funds, back to living paycheck to paycheck, and that extra $10k we’re making that we weren’t making 5 years ago just barely covers inflation if feels like.
We’re hoping to get back to at least $150k household soon, but it might take a while in this economy.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 43 minutes ago
Your story and mine, and I’m sure others, are in direct contrast to the vast amount of stories here on Reddit, truthful as they may (or not), of households earning $300k-$500k-more, everyone retiring early, vacationing everywhere on the planet, a new EV for every driver in the household. Whichever “home” they are in between vacations.
It’s not all roses out there, folks. I’ve been in worse financial shape in my life than I am now. But where I am NOW is no accident. It started with closing my wallet. Telling the wife, kids, friends, neighbors, relatives, anyone - No.
KAM7 | 34 minutes ago
Yep, and it feels like we’re one hvac, roof leak, or medical emergency away from being right back in debt again after getting credit debt free (except for heloc and car loan).
It sucks because one of our dogs needs a medical treatment that can cost $1,500 - $5,000 depending on what happens when they go in there to do it (it’s a dental thing, but on a very important molar) and we’ve been debating on if we can afford to do it for her, whereas before it would have been a no brainer for our little fur baby. Fortunately they said we have a little time as it’s not causing her any pain right now, maybe minor discomfort, but it’s an awful feeling wondering if you can afford to help your pet. And the second you pull that trigger, another big emergency might be right around the corner.
It also feels like massive whinging to be worried about your dog’s teeth when so many people are struggling in scarier ways, but people should be able to afford to take care of themselves and their pets in this country without worrying about going into credit debt to do so. It’s all so broken right now.
Available-Range-5341 | 6 hours ago
I tried but the great resignation was not even a real thing. For every story of "I got multiple interviews" loads of people barely got one or two. I was in this camp. The fact that some companies were hiring at all was the miracle, but they were still picky as hell and ghosting and had ridiculous requirements etc.
A few tech companies collecting warm bodies really created a pretty fake narrative that most didn't live through
You want an actual "great resignation" go back to 2006. Idiots were getting call backs on half their resumes and paid enough $$$ to afford a house because they could make a pivot table
Top-Acadia-1936 | 6 hours ago
No argument from me. I didn’t even want to leave my employer I was at. Things were going great, but a 30% pay bump is not easy to walk from.
Knowing what I learned quickly after making the change, my God, would I have done things differently.
I’m probably fortunate to have not lost ground, but just held onto it, since 2021. Sure, inflation adjusted, I’m way off the pace. But in real dollars, I have managed to just cut back on dining out completely, cut back on stupid spending like at bars or elsewhere.
Gamer_Grease | 6 hours ago
I, on the other hand, got recruited for a pretty big salary bump. Nonprofit fundraising.
SnooCakes2703 | 4 hours ago
Holy shit it's like you just described my whole life the past couple years.
bitter_twin_farmer | 3 hours ago
What line of work were you in? I think a lot of these stories are job dependent.
Top-Acadia-1936 | 3 hours ago
Ironically enough: 401k administration/investment management!!!
Yeah, we get paid by increasing 401k amounts. Markets go south for a longer period of time(which they never do anymore for any lengthy period of time), and our industry loses heads.
bitter_twin_farmer | 2 hours ago
Interesting. That wasn’t a sector on my radar for loosing jobs.
I’m sorry you all have felt squeezed. Hang in there.
GingerSnapSurprise | 7 hours ago
Yep. I made that jump last year. I liked the people I worked with, but when the pay increase is 20%, and your current employer says go fuck yourself, it's unfortunately a clear choice (my current coworkers are fine, just not the same).
The trade off is the long term culture/expertise/worker morale, but our current version of shareholder/crony pseudocapitalism, the big companies aren't going to realize until it's too late.
My father worked for the same American aerospace company for about 40 years; alas, that company loyalty to employees is gone.
Illustrious_Fudge476 | 6 hours ago
It’s so depressing. My kids are getting a little older and were staring to talk careers here. They are good students but not amazing and I struggle to even guide them. Go to college and it will work out is not a strategy, and hadn’t worked out for me. My wife is a teacher and the guaranteed raises and stability were I thought the way, but pensions are now gone there too.
Medical field appears to be the way to go I guess as wages of non-doctors seem to be outpacing other professions requiring similar education levels, but I really don’t know.
12destroyer21 | 5 hours ago
Just become an electrician, hvac tech or plumber.
Kdave21 | 3 hours ago
Or learn to take care of our boomer overlords in retirement homes
DetroitLionsSBChamps | 7 hours ago
Yea since when have we been in an economy where jumping ship and getting a new job with a big pay bump is even remotely possible for the majority of workers?
Hell my company hasn’t hired domestically since like 2022. I’ve probably applied to 40 or 50 jobs in the last 5 years and gotten like 3 interviews, all off recommendations.
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 6 hours ago
It was always better. Going to where you are most highly valued is better for you and the economy. This changes over time as employees and companies' needs change over time. The entire fake, one sided loyalty expected of employees is a psy op by shitty companies who want to manipulate people into working for less.
Gamer_Grease | 6 hours ago
Since like the 1990s. That’s the only way you get pay raises most of the time.
DetroitLionsSBChamps | 6 hours ago
What I’m saying is: it’s not possible to do that and hasn’t been for years because hiring is low and wages are being kept low
White collar world is all fucked up right now. International hiring and AI are taking a bite out of all of us in this unstable bubble-ass economy
Petrichordates | 5 hours ago
This is true, but "been true for years" is like 2 years.
Gamer_Grease | 5 hours ago
It is possible. I’ve personally done it, and so have many people in my circle.
Optimal_Beyond_1600 | 6 hours ago
I doubled my salary over the past 5 years by job hopping twice. I’ve only seen promotions happen after someone leaves/gets fire. Otherwise, everyone gets 2% raises and “meets expectations” ratings (at best).
My wife’s company has had 4 back-to-back record-breaking years but refuses to pay their people market rate, give raises over 2%, or even give their staff free product from time to time.
purz | 4 hours ago
Still mostly only applies to certain sectors. Generally ones that are already paid well. I’m a public employee myself so you can also throw in the golden handcuffs. But in general there’s a lot of jobs that are limited to the public sector and other jobs in the private sector that have limited mobility.
TheGoodNoBad | 4 hours ago
Yeah, I did that a lot early on in my career but… with how the job market is for my sector, I’m scared to leave the one I’m at right now
Turgid_Donkey | 4 hours ago
My plan with my current job was to use it to build skills and pad the resume, then hop. But then I decided to work on a degree, so that added a couple more years. Now that I'm about done, trump went and got elected then tanked the economy. So now I'll have a few more YOE when I finally do bounce which will at least look better going in.
captainstrange94 | an hour ago
Yep this is very true. Loyalty is absolutely not rewarded anymore. Companies will keep stripping your benefits and raises until you quit and they can rinse and repeat.
Anecdotally, I am on my third company since graduating in 2020, and my salary is up 125%. If I had stayed at the first company, I likely would have been up like 60%, which is not bad, but barely keeping with inflation/S&P returns.
GoldenFox7 | 7 hours ago
My company is doing peanut butter for individual contributors and zero raises for leadership opting for 4 year RSUs instead (our stock is in the gutter).
FatDaddyMushroom | 6 hours ago
I work in HR and in every workplace I have ever been in the performance reviews are basically set up to flatten out pay increases.
I have heard all sorts of things:
No one is perfect so there should be no 5's given out.
Managers told that they can't give a perfect review or setting a quota.
The performance review metrics get changed/altered every year to guarantee almost no one can even get a perfect score.
That's not to mention that the difference in most cases is a 1% increase. Even if it's higher, leadership wants to flaunt that its possible while knowing they will do their best to make sure as few as possible, or none, get it.
Ambitious_Watch_6477 | 5 hours ago
I just got laid off from a place of 8 years.
Literally every single year the performance review was different. I KNEW it was intentional.
UsualMix9062 | 2 hours ago
The company I work at just stopped doing performance reviews/1-on-1s all together 3 years ago. They were ahead of the game it seems!
UWMN | 8 hours ago
“Workers eagerly awaiting big pay hikes after their stellar performance reviews are in for a rude awakening: Instead of rewarding employees based on merit, many bosses will be dishing out flat and low “peanut butter” raises spread to all staffers in 2026. And worryingly, it’s a trend that last emerged during a perilous economic time in history.”
Y’all are getting raises?
Catch_ME | 7 hours ago
My employer has been giving 2.5%
The only real way for a pay increase is a promotion or a different job.
TWIT_TWAT | 7 hours ago
Employers will just give you more responsibility without calling it a promotion and without the raise. If you handle the additional responsibility well enough, you’ll get a 2% raise next year for meeting expectations.
Wind_Yer_Neck_In | 7 hours ago
I've literally never had a raise more than 3% that wasn't part of some known plan that involved me passing exams or getting a certain number of years in the company for a promotion. And that's working in consulting with amazing client feedback literally every year.
The only big bumps are from moving around.
kelfupanda | 7 hours ago
5% 4% 3.75% over the last 3 years, unions are good
Paulinfresno | 7 hours ago
Unions are the only way to turn the situation around. With no unions, the deck is hopelessly stacked against workers.
Petrichordates | 5 hours ago
Yes but still way more complicated than that. Unions for example are a large part of why the US automotive industry can't compete internationally anymore and possibily isn't long for this world.
In such a case, the unions are incentivizing protectionism to keep the jobs, and that's a net negative for the rest of the population.
Present-Wonder-4522 | 4 hours ago
My union helps the company break laws to avoid fines from the government.
They don't want the plant shut down and loss of dues said the union business agent. Unions are businesses too.
They are grifters.
azurite-- | 7 hours ago
Guess I'm lucky because my raises the past 3 years have been those and this last year was a 4% raise and I'm not part of a union. Thankful I actually have what people consider a good employer lol
SweetWolf9769 | 5 hours ago
same. the company i've been with is really good with raises. 4% COLA every year, and that's separate from any promotions/salary negotiations when you reach some milestone
Neravariine | 6 hours ago
Covid was the only time I got a raise that was more than 3%.
andrew_ryans_beard | 7 hours ago
My current employer offers a flat <10% salary increase for any internal promotion, regardless of how big of jump in title and duties it is. A promotion I am aiming for by end of year (if it gets offered at all) should result in >50% salary increase from my current role's salary if I got it applying as an external candidate.
And employers wonder why their good employees are always leaving for better opportunities...
KillahHills10304 | 7 hours ago
3.5% here. I calculated my living expenses increase in the last year and it was 38% (and thats just mandatory food, shelter, and transportation costs). In two years I will be operating in the red and need to sell the house if the trend continues.
helluvastorm | 7 hours ago
The only thing I can say my friend is you are not alone. We are all approaching the end of the line. If I was younger I’d leave the country. I see nothing changing for us anytime soon. The democrats are gutless even if we have free and fair elections they will wring their hands and do nothing!
slimninj4 | 7 hours ago
yeah about same for me. each year it is more of a crunch.
bihari_baller | 7 hours ago
>The only real way for a pay increase is a promotion or a different job.
For me, I consider the equity in my company via my employee stock purchase plan as a "pay increase" of sorts. It's not an increase in my wage, but is additional money I would not have gotten otherwise.
JollyWaffleman | 6 hours ago
I haven’t gotten a COL adjustment in two years.
Gaaaarrraah | 5 hours ago
It's been almost five years for me.
computer-machine | 5 hours ago
I got a promotion last year. 0.96% boost woopl woop!
Turgid_Donkey | 4 hours ago
Most companies I've ever heard of give between 2-4% cost of living increase. I worked for a university for a bit and those raises were abysmally low at around 1.25%. These increases are really just to keep up with inflation as it's typically around 3%, but that also doesn't help offset insurance premiums increasing by 10% YOY.
samsaraisdivine | an hour ago
I think that is a huge raise. I've always gotten zero or less than 1%.
bordumb | 7 hours ago
If you’re doing really well at your job and not getting a raise…
It’s time to leave.
Raises should AT LEAST cover the rise in inflation, if not more.
Otherwise you’re actually losing money by sticking around at a job that doesn’t raise your salary.
thebbman | 4 hours ago
The point of the post is that there aren’t enough jobs to safely hop to.
FlyingBishop | 5 hours ago
A raise that only covers inflation is not a raise. Not giving cost of living increases is a pay cut.
Illustrious-Lime-878 | 6 hours ago
Exactly, job hop until you get to a company that actually values you and rewards you. No one gives raises to the meek people they know won't leave either way.
crazyk4952 | 7 hours ago
I got a $600 raise last year. My annual health insurance premiums increased by $1000 this year.
So, I guess that means I got a -$400 increase…?
Different_Height_157 | 6 hours ago
This shows the disconnect between “economist” and real people. Peanut Butter raises has been the standard barring large tech companies during a growth era and perhaps banking/investing that are commission based.
throwawaythepoopies | 7 hours ago
Not for 2 years. Just layoffs and more work.
Happy_Confection90 | 7 hours ago
>Y’all are getting raises?
Since 2020 we've gotten across the board raises of 0-4% (that 4% was during that 1 year when nationally average raises were near twice that outside of education, and inflation was 9%) and haven't had merit raises since The Before Times. So peanut butter raises for years.
Nojopar | 7 hours ago
Nope, not really. We get a token raise every year that occasionally exceeds inflation, usually a tiny bit under inflation, and occasionally 'there's no budget for raises'.
Nagbae_ATLUTD | 7 hours ago
Yeah, my company promoted me with no raise
Yay
sharpiebrows | 7 hours ago
Mine has been doing 5% a year for the six years I've been there. It doesnt always beat inflation but it has kept me remaining in the upper mid-high range of salaries in the industry for what I do. Thats enough for me to stay because the work life balance is good and I like the people I work with.
Ethereal_Nutsack | 7 hours ago
I work for one of the largest chemical companies in the world. Every year there is a STUPID amount of discretionary spending. And this year they announced no raises.
GonePhishingAgain | 6 hours ago
2008 - 21% change jobs 2012 - 22% changed jobs 2015 - 20% changed jobs 2018 - 8% changed jobs.
My last few years at the 2018 job
2019 - 4% 2020 -(1.9%) 2021 - 1.2% 2022 - 9% 2023 - 0% 2024 - 0% 2025 - 2%
SimilarStrain | 6 hours ago
I left a job because of the flatline raises they offered. Found a new job during the great resignation a few years back and got myself a whopping 15% raise.
Unfortunately, its practically a slave labor place demanding long hours and constant high pace high stress with absolutely batshit insane work loads. They recently laid off a few employees. Even though one of which was absolutely fucking useless and didnt do or know shit. I would still rather have her here than not. Now Ive got her expected workload too.
ksnyd72 | 5 hours ago
we usually get between 3-5% each year dependent on your performance review.
Johnny-Unitas | 4 hours ago
New manager ranked many staff as a three out of five. Many of us work for free at night, implemented things used company wide, have stepped up when called upon to do so, and were told face to face what great jobs we were doing.
Whatever we get will be minimal at best. Despite having had a great year last year and off to a great start this one.
scuddlebud | 4 hours ago
I'm gonna get somewhere between 3-4%
zeezle | 3 hours ago
I've gotten at least 5-7% every single year of my career, sometimes more, without changing jobs.
grosseelbabyghost | 3 hours ago
Y'all are getting "stellar performance reviews"? Last place I worked told me that it was company policy to score no higher than "meets expectations" on all 1st year reviews, which meant no raise
demlet | 6 hours ago
"Peanut butter raises"? What dork comes up with these terms?
ScoffersGonnaScoff | 8 hours ago
1%
Romanticon | 7 hours ago
Not to break the circle jerk, but I did. Almost 10% with no role change.
Our company did skip raises entirely last year, though. This year we smashed our earnings goals so everyone got rewarded.
Paulinfresno | 7 hours ago
Anecdotal evidence is not generally applicable to the general population. Congratulations for your situation, but it doesn’t seem like the normal state of affairs.
throwawaythepoopies | 7 hours ago
I mean this with all honesty, but congratulations!
We got 70% of our 10% bonus this year, better than 50% last year, but our team is effectively doing all the work our contracted developers are refusing to do, and somehow they got 100+% of their bonus that is comically higher than that but I'm not going to be specific.
My boss is apoplectic.
BeenDragonn | 6 hours ago
My last raise at Panera Bread was .05 cents...
EmergencyComplaints | 4 hours ago
Yeah, like that's new? Never had a job in my life that gave better than a quarter an hour here or there, maybe once a year. The only way to make more money was to take a different position (either in the same company or at a new one). I started working in 2003.
ellsego | 7 hours ago
Well, this is a very good way to demotivate your staff… if you have a stellar review and you get the same increase as somebody who doesn’t it’s taking away a lot of motivation for you to repeat that stellar performance.
794309497 | 7 hours ago
Every place I've worked has had that problem.
Icy-Lobster-203 | 6 hours ago
My company had a system where you get rated between a 1 and a 5. But for some reason the system is such that 95% of people get a 3, and a few people get 4s. No one gets 5.
I have no idea how bad you would have to screw up to get a 2.
No one (not even the managers) like or understand this system.
StardogChamp | 5 hours ago
Most big companies are like this
Turgid_Donkey | 4 hours ago
I really hate those that still use the 20/60/20 model where the top 20% get a big raise, 60% get a meager raise, and the bottom 20% get to keep their job. Since you know there are always overachievers, it's difficult to get into that top 20% without sacrificing your personal life, so you just do the bare minimum to stay in the middle.
dyslexda | 5 hours ago
Most of the time HR/C suite/whatever decides what ranking bands there will be ahead of time, and managers have to fit employees into those already-sized buckets. It's not that everyone is a 3, but that there's only X money allocated to 4s and 5s for raises, so managers are only allowed to rate a couple people like that.
mikeveeUI | 5 hours ago
I was a manager and did performance reviews. If we scored someone to high, which gives them a bigger raise, we were told to lower the score. I think that is not uncommon at all.
lumpialarry | 4 hours ago
As a manager don’t have much room to work with raises. To give one guy a big raise, I have give another guy a raise that’s below inflation. I have more flexibility with bonuses.
Christmashams96 | 5 hours ago
My company’s review rating is a 2-4… they literally took the 1 and 5 out of the conversation
Hurricaneshand | 2 hours ago
My old company had a 1-5 scale of 7 or 8 metrics which all average out of course. One year I went the entire year without a call out and was on time 99% of the time. For "attendance" I rated myself a 5 "exceeds expectations" and my boss rated me a 3 "meets expectations". I was pissed and asked them why despite my attendance record. His response was that coming to work every day on time is the expectation. I asked what someone would have to do to get above a 3. His response was it's not possible lol. Of course it brought down my otherwise great average. Great way to make what was their best employee at that position really stop giving a shit
computer-machine | 5 hours ago
We had that for a while.
I hear Jesus scored a 5, but only one time.
Diver_Ill | 4 hours ago
Same thing at my old company and they straight up told us nobody EVER gets a 5. 4 maybe if your work your ass off AND suck up to the bosses... but never a 5.
lordfrijoles | 4 hours ago
My school has a similar rating system. HR this past year decided that everyone in student affairs had too high of scores at 4 and had our VP instruct everyone to reduce the scores to 3’s. This resulted in an average 3% raise for everyone in the division. Meanwhile we have faculty members running around bragging about their 6% raises in meetings. This is also after a two year system migration that was handled predominantly by staff and faculty refused to aid in their part of it. Leadership got an averaged 10% raise. I hate everything and everyone.
adamdoesmusic | 3 hours ago
My last company did this to me a few times. I was ready to burn the whole place down when I was told that I had technically earned a perfect 5/5, but then they deducted it down a point and change because otherwise “it would make other people feel bad” if they found out I did better than them. This number HEAVILY impacted how much our raise would be. They offered me a bunch of bonus possibilities to make up for it, which I never believed.
I made the apparently outlandish demand that if I didn’t get the equivalent of approximately a 40% raise the next year with the bonuses, I’d make sure nothing got done until I did. The next year rolled around, they tried giving me an even smaller incremental raise. I paused every project I was involved in (essentially ALL of them) and gave them a counter offer, the exact number I had told them the year before.
They got mad and tried to insult me over it, so I added another 20K to that number and issued it again, which is “not how negotiation is supposed to work” they said. I held out, got threatened a few times with demotion, and eventually received a very exhausted and tired call from the CEO inviting me to lunch, where he wrote my highest offer, minus a few grand, onto a piece of paper, sighed and said “just please accept it already.”
TrexPushupBra | 2 hours ago
Loads of companies tell management they can only give so many non 3 reviews. So if you aren't on the path to being fired and aren't the obvious number 1 you will be getting a 3 regardless of your actual performance.
This is due to budgets.
neddiddley | 4 hours ago
They’re banking on people’s desire to keep their job in a bad job market. THAT’S the motivation.
If you’ve been in the workforce long enough, you’ve seen this play out. Sure, the people not getting great reviews are gonna be let go first, but guess who’s going to be expected to pick up the slack? The people with stellar reviews who will only get these peanut butter raises even after seeing their workload increase 50%.
We’re just in the early stages of this but smart people should see the writing on the wall, because the peanut butter raises won’t keep the 1% happy forever.
buttbuttlolbuttbutt | 5 hours ago
Oh out company found a way to get us excited about 3% max raise, down from the 5% we used to get.
They just didnt give raises for the last two years after new owners came in.
MermaidFunk | 7 hours ago
My employer isn’t giving out raises this year. This is the second year in a row that I’m not getting a raise at my current company. I’m a top performer, too. I’m supposed to get a 15% bonus. Instead, I’m getting a 1.5% bonus this year. Absolutely unreal.
Fine-Standard1232 | 4 hours ago
Should've quit quietly after the first year
SdBolts4 | an hour ago
You mean this is the second year in a row you're taking a pay cut, because inflation is making your same salary buy less
eastbay77 | an hour ago
How's your CEO doing?
Illustrious_Fudge476 | 7 hours ago
My company has been giving 2.5% raises. This year our CEO said in the annual year in review that we had a great year and it would be reflected in our raise. The raise this year? 3 %. Yes a measly 1/2 percent over the norm, seriously fuck off.
I also have “maxed” out my performance review getting the highest score possible each year I’ve been here. There is literally no reward for doing your job well, so I’m back to doing what I’m supposed to do and will be job searching to hopefully get proper compensation. I know right, wish me luck.
Edit: Yes, I’m here screwing around on Reddit as my motivation today is zero. I’ve hit the wall here, all while my boss is talking about giving me more responsibility to move into a management role. The issue of course if that if I get one more responsibility dropped on my plate I’m probably going to lose it. I’ve been at literal max capacity for a while putting in 10 hours a day on average. My compensation to work ratio is already way out of balance, and now I need to do more?
Distinct-Response907 | 7 hours ago
Need to be careful what you wish for. The overall increase budget will stay the same size, so if you give a top performer 6% upper management will immediately want to know what the plan is for getting the bottom 20% of workers out the door.
riddermarknomad | 5 hours ago
That's a stagnant company made worse by an uncertain and stagnant economy (except for AI I guess).
exalted985451 | 7 hours ago
is we getting a forced buzzword news article?
new SEO buzzword slop article
fif SEO buzzword economics slop analysis
quiet peanut butter forced giga layoff AI econominics article
FrugalKrugman | 7 hours ago
Peanut butter looksmaxxing delulu rizz type shi article
shivaswrath | 4 hours ago
I took a 40% drop in pay when I was reorganized out in 2024. New job in 2025...did exceptionally well, but gave me a 1% increase because I make too much and salaries are compressing / crashing.
FFS this is the sign of a recession. I lived through 2008-2012, feels exactly the same....
Only now we have a 🤡 screaming at everyone we are winning when truly the median and plus or minus 2 standard deviations are NOT winning.
Proof_Duty1672 | 6 hours ago
Ha!! that’s been where I work SINCE THE 2008 recession.
2% or 3% max raise regardless of the market conditions or financial situation and if you worked hard or didn’t.
M0RALVigilance | 5 hours ago
My company did this. This was after we spent all of 2025 picking up the slack for the company’s failure to hire enough staff. At my performance review, I was told I’m a top performer.
I put up a stink and was awarded an additional .5%. I will be putting in .5% extra effort this year.
Whacksess_Manager | 7 hours ago
I'd kill for peanut butter right now. Outstanding performer for the last 10 years at my job, no raise since 2022 (and that one was less than the rate of inflation). I'm looking, but things seem pretty damn thin out there.
Stack0verf10w | 2 hours ago
Same here. Came to my current place in 2022 to leave a horribly toxic management but was at least a fortune 100. Place hasn't given raises or bonuses once since I have been here and I doubt they ever will. I've been applying for a little over a year and just hearing back from anyone is cause for celebration.
NavierIsStoked | 7 hours ago
I guess I am in the minority here. I love "peanut butter" raises. It makes life a whole lot less stressful and allows me the freedom to put family first. I don't give a shit about running myself ragged for an employer that will lay me off in an instant.
But I am late into my career and don't need to improve my standard of living, so i am not chasing raises or higher paying positions.
TLDR, don't work yourself to death. Do just enough to be an "OK" employee. That is my TEDx talk.
Responsible-Food3681 | 6 hours ago
That's all well and good if you're at least maintaining your purchasing power. Raises at 1-2% are below the rate of inflation, meaning your purchasing power steadily decreases the longer you stay at a company that offers paltry increases like that.
The best move is to move to another job if possible, and to determine the minimum amount of work you need to do to maintain that sliding salary if necessary.
Crazy that employers don't understand (or rather don't care) that higher compensation incentivizes and rewards higher effort and massively helps to retain institutional knowledge and team stability.
LoompaDoompa94 | 5 hours ago
Job I had years ago had 3% yearly raises. If I wanted to make $20 an hour I would have had to stay there six years. I quit that job for one that gave me a 24% raise, then I took another job where it was a 40% jump from the first job. I tell everyone to change jobs instead of sticking with one.
brosjd | 6 hours ago
This is my perspective. I don't expect any company to go above and beyond for me, whether I'm their customer or employee. I just want to do my job and complete my tasks for an agreed upon rate of pay. I don't want to run ragged or show my belly for a few bucks more per pay period; I will work for a certain pay, until that pay does not work for me, and then I will find a new source of pay.
It's wild that so many employers don't understand this, and push for more and more returns for your salary.
Front-Air-8302 | 6 hours ago
My work did 1-3% raises this year and it was "performance" based, top 1/3rd got the 3%, bottom 1/3rd got a 1%, etc. The one thing that's a real problem is holding a lot of us hostage with non competes. The FTC under Biden tried to ban these if you make under $300k per year, but a judge in TX struck that down, unfortunately. And my company has recently sued employees that have left for similar companies for under $100k a year technician positions, which is insane to me.
alilhillbilly | an hour ago
Is this article from 2008?
Because that's when this started and it never stopped or went back to normal. Companies have been doing these types of raises as the default for almost 20 years now.
The only thing notable would be if companies shifted back to rewarding internal talent.
burnthatburner1 | 8 hours ago
In case anyone’s wondering, “peanut butter” raises are wage hikes that are spread relatively evenly over a company’s workforce, as opposed to disproportionately rewarding high performers. In my opinion, we need a lot more peanut butter style wage increases.
edit: wow, looks like I touched a nerve with this one
UWMN | 8 hours ago
These peanut butter raises that you think are a good thing do nothing if the hikes don’t keep up with inflation and you’re foolish if you think executives are getting a 1% raise like the rest of us.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
I’m saying they’re good relative to the same kind of hikes spread unevenly (eg, if most workers don’t get a raise and a few high performers get a big raise).
welshwelsh | 7 hours ago
What's wrong with that though?
My experience in corporate environments is 20% of the people generate 80% of the value. But they do not earn 80% of the wages. If anything, compensation is spread too evenly.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
I’m sure it seems fine if you’re one of those people getting the fat raise. Most people aren’t.
drooply | 5 hours ago
Then the solution the “most people” you refer to should be to work to become one of those 80% instead of expecting a handout in the form of taking raises from the top performers so they could essentially receive their participation trophy in the form of a raise.
burnthatburner1 | 5 hours ago
20%, not 80%. It’s not mathematically possible for most people to be in that 20% category.
Lil_LempelZiv | 7 hours ago
I actually would prefer the latter. Merit. High performers are distinguished by being just that.
CaptainShaky | 6 hours ago
I guess what they're saying is people who just do their job also deserve raises. Keeping up with inflation shouldn't require you to be ultra competitive and sacrifice other aspects of your life to be considered a "high performer" so you can maybe get a raise.
hockeynomics_ | 7 hours ago
Why?
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
Would you rather get a raise or not?
hockeynomics_ | 7 hours ago
That’s not what you said, why is it better to be evenly spread instead of high performers? Using your logic it’s because you know you can’t keep up, and selfishly want the pie still.
jhawk3205 | 4 hours ago
Where did you see "instead of" in their comment?
hockeynomics_ | 3 hours ago
He blocked me idk what he said
jhawk3205 | 3 hours ago
That doesn't answer the question lol
hockeynomics_ | 3 hours ago
You tell me what he said, and I’ll give you an answer bud
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
> That’s not what you said
It is what I said. Can you answer my question?
hockeynomics_ | 7 hours ago
Sure, when you answer mine without your own question bozo
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
For most people, the difference between peanut butter style raises vs not is simply zero raise or some raise. And some raise is better.
hockeynomics_ | 7 hours ago
Gotcha, my fault for being rude, in that case why not just give a baseline raise to everyone (except the unsatisfactory performance review ppl), and give a spiked raise for ‘top’ performers? A blanket raise for everyone irregardless of effort only incentives unproductive labor.
Mejiro84 | 6 hours ago
Because you need a certain number of bodies do to stuff, and even average performers are capable of jumping ship. This pisses off the least number of people, making, on aggregate, for less quitters, and so less problems going forward. The information is also at least nominally secret as well, along with precise salary numbers - so none of the employees are getting to fully know what everyone is getting, making it harder for anyone to know where they compare to others. Plus if a company is doing this, the % involved is going to be fairly small - someone that was going to jump is likely to jump regardless of if they got a 3% or a 4.5% increase, there simply isn't scope for a bigger bump, so keeping as many people merely 'disgruntled' is the aim, rather than giving a not-very-good reward to a few people, and pissing off a bigger number by a greater amount
hockeynomics_ | 5 hours ago
I mean, even low performers can jump ship! Nobody ‘has’ to work for any private company if they don’t want to. I’m not trying to diminish what the average worker contributes, obviously it takes everyone in an org for it to succeed. (We all play a role)
But if you’re worried that you’ll lose the “average” worker, because you reward a top performer(s) wouldn’t that ruin the whole culture? Every worker deserves dignity, and to be able to afford the local conditions. To me though, if you’re a superstar performer I’d do everything in my power to keep you including larger bonuses…because they put in larger effort.
Slothstradamus13 | 7 hours ago
Nope. My company used to do this and it was frustrating. They moved to merit and now I’m getting the lions share because I’m busting my ass and getting tangible returns while others do less and get less. My boss legit tells them what I’m doing and why I’m getting more, it’s no secret. Everyone deserves COL adjustments yearly but peanut butter raises across the board is for the birds.
Dadoftwingirls | 7 hours ago
I agree, but after years of being the high performer, I decided that the stress and long hours were not worth the extra money. So I switched to keeping my head down, doing a good job, leaving at 5pm, and forgetting about work as I walked out the door. Huge change in well being lol
Slothstradamus13 | 7 hours ago
This is a good call out. The irony in my scenario is that the lower performers are doing that and I’m enjoying evenings with my kids. It’s not an output based role so efficiency is key in my scenario and I’ve got it down pat.
DungeonsAndDradis | 6 hours ago
My senior leadership downgraded some high performers and made me mark everyone on the team as "expected", so everyone gets a peanut butter merit increase spread evenly.
I'm honestly surprised they didn't have a quota for "needs improvement". That is probably coming next year.
StardogChamp | 5 hours ago
All this accomplishes is to flatten productivity which in most cases is a net loss
burnthatburner1 | 5 hours ago
nonsense
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 4 hours ago
People with low motivation will continue down their current path. People with high motivation will either reduce their effort, or leave for a better situation. Net loss.
burnthatburner1 | 4 hours ago
I’d certainly have more motivation if I were getting peanut butter raises vs nothing.
NavierIsStoked | 6 hours ago
So better to give the raises to only 10% of your workforce and everyone else can go pound sand with nothing?
Everyone should get peanut butter raises as the minimum. If you want to reward high performers, then it should be on top of the base raise everyone should get.
Responsible-Food3681 | 6 hours ago
COLA adjustments for all staff while offering much bigger raises for high performers is possible. Peanut butter raises specifically refers to spreading things evenly across workers -- not having a floor and providing high performers commensurate raises.
NavierIsStoked | 6 hours ago
I have never heard of COLA adjustments as it pertains to the private sector. The only time I regularly hear that term is in regards to Social Security yearly increases.
The "peanut butter" raise is the best the average employee can get in terms of COLA.
So to hear people support a system that effectively gives a pay cuts to average workers is disheartening. We shouldn't be supporting a system that requires one to bust their ass day in and day out for 30, 40 or even more years. Having a job should be ok. Showing up and doing your job, and going home working no more than 40 hours should be ok.
If fact, we should be transitioning to at the very least, 4 days a week / 32 hours a week.
There is more to life than work.
Responsible-Food3681 | 6 hours ago
Many nursing contracts contain COLA raises. Lots of union jobs, too. It's very industry-dependent, but they do exist.
If you think I'm supporting pay cuts to workers, you're misinterpreting my comment. I am against the equal distribution of reward for unequal effort. I think everyone should, at a minimum, have a raise commensurate with inflation.
However, if I'm going to receive the same exact raise give or take a few bips as those who phone it in... What's my incentive to not phone it in, too? I should have the choice of putting in the minimum required amount of effort and maintaining my purchasing power in the face of inflation, or seeing how much extra effort is really rewarded in a company through being a high-performer.
I am not motivated to work for a company due to some "shared purpose." I am there to get paid. The more I get paid, the more willing I am to do extra work. Take away the extra pay, and my great work will turn mediocre until I jump ship to a company that rewards effort.
You are bringing in a lot of irrelevant points to this conversation btw. No one is talking about national ideas of work-life balance; this is a discussion on the utility of equalizing raises across all employees or increasing raises for high-performing employees. Whether that's worth it or not is up to an individual, and I don't think we need moralizing cultural views (that I do happen to agree with) in this framing.
UWMN | 6 hours ago
Did I say that, buddy?
rupert20201 | 8 hours ago
So high performers get the same pay as low performers?
stedun | 7 hours ago
Tale as old as time. Corporate America all seem to collude to do the x% near inflation “raises” across wide swaths of an industry. Basically managing labor costs keeping wages flat.
I
das_war_ein_Befehl | 7 hours ago
They do. Raises are not based on performance, they’re based on seniority and how close you are to the money.
It’s really a balance between “how hard are you to replace + how much do you bring in + how much of a flight risk + seniority”.
I’ve never really seen performance make more than 1-2% difference. Very few roles have performance metrics that aren’t arbitrary or actually mean anything.
Head_of_Lettuce | 7 hours ago
>Raises are not based on performance, they’re based on seniority and how close you are to the money.
This varies wildly from between industries, and from company to company. There are plenty of good employers that reward based on performance, not seniority.
>I’ve never seen performance make more than 1-2% difference.
Uh, yeah? A 2% difference in the context of a merit increase is huge. If you get a 4% merit increase and your colleague gets 2%, you got double the merit they did. A few years of that and you’re making noticeably more than other people in the same role.
das_war_ein_Befehl | 7 hours ago
A 2-4% raise is not a raise, that’s just inflation most of the time. Companies like this will band your salary so that you won’t make significantly more than someone in the same role.
If you want a raise, your best bet is to hop to a different employer, or get a higher title at a new employer. Your existing employer will always lowball you compared to market rate, as their whole game is labor arbitrage
Head_of_Lettuce | 7 hours ago
“2-4%” is just an example to illustrate that 2% is a huge difference in the context of a raise. I’ve gotten merits like 7% and 5% in the last few years, not counting things like title changes. And for the record, a 4% raise would outpace inflation in all but a few years in the last few decades.
Job hopping isn’t as effective as it used to be, that’s a relic from Covid where every company was starved for labor. But it can definitely make sense for some people, and everyone should at least keep an eye out for other opportunities. Internal promotion is the best route these days in my experience, if you actually are a high performer.
Point being, merit isn’t the only way to increase your compensation, but it’s still important. It’s one of the tools everyone should have in their “get paid” bag.
jhdragon742 | 7 hours ago
I mean, the promise of potentially earning a few grand more a year after multiple consecutive years of double the effort of your colleagues isn't exactly motivating to young workers.
6158675309 | 7 hours ago
If you can devise a system that works, and rewards the high performers you'll be the first.
I have had to deal with a "performance" culture in a few firms. It is the worst way to reward performance.
You'd think that some roles would be easy. Even roles that look like individual contributors rely on a team of people, etc.
I've seen these performance based approaches do nothing but make more and more people leave, creating a worse situation. The people who leave tend to be the people who can
tossawayheyday | 7 hours ago
I think pay raises should be even but bonuses should reflect merit
OnlyInAmerica01 | 7 hours ago
Whats wrong with that, comrade?
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
ideally
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 4 hours ago
How is that an ideal? Do you not like being compensated for the level of effort you offer?
If one farmer works harder and produces 10 bushels of corn in a day compared to another who also works a day, but half-assess it and only produces 5, should they be paid the same? (assuming there's no contractual agreement re: a fixed amount of pay)
burnthatburner1 | 4 hours ago
> Do you not like being compensated for the level of effort you offer?
I’d say most people (non-top performers) aren’t being compensated for what they offer.
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 4 hours ago
That may be true, but that speaks more to the size of the raise pool, not the allocation of it.
burnthatburner1 | 4 hours ago
Nah, it’s allocation.
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 4 hours ago
The size of the raise pool directly impacts how people feel about any type of raise, peanut butter or otherwise. If there's no money in the raise pool, everyone gets 0% regardless of what your allocation philosophy is.
burnthatburner1 | 4 hours ago
Good.
Head_of_Lettuce | 7 hours ago
Found the low performer
Momoselfie | 7 hours ago
Yes. Hopefully the high performers at least get a bigger bonus.
SpecificSkunk | 7 hours ago
Sorry, bonuses have been cancelled due to poor market conditions.
This isn’t a joke, this is verbatim from my company’s last earnings call, right after they announced a few site closures and the accompanying layoffs.
We’re just rebranding COLA raises and twisting it into an excuse to abolish merit increases at this point. Bonuses are great when profits are good, but they can quickly be cancelled with a “policy adjustment”.
I’m curious to see what kind of peanut butter raises CEO’s and Board Members are getting this year.
Head_of_Lettuce | 7 hours ago
Why a bigger bonus, instead of a bigger merit increase? What if the company doesn’t do bonuses?
trib76 | 6 hours ago
Same raise, not same pay. It's bullshit, but as long as it's not a new long-term trend, high performers should still be doing better in the long-term
plotholesandpotholes | 7 hours ago
I like how all of the comments you are getting are missing your last point entirely and they are reverting to a “talking point” soaked in talking points they’ve been given by the people who are really keeping them from getting that extra 5% yearly they claim they are owed for “overperforming”.
Thom0 | 7 hours ago
99.9% of the time these types of pay increases do not even keep up with inflation. In what developed country is inflation 1%?
That is also just that years inflation. If you joined in 2010 and inflation was 1% in 2011, and you got a 1% "bonus" in 2011, then what about 2012, 2013, 2014 etc.? Those 1%'s per year don't do shit because inflation is compounding. For a peanut butter bonus to actually have any impact it needs to be 1%+ whatever last years inflation was.
It always confused me when colleagues at work were neutral or positive towards the 1% scraps we got each year. I can't tell if this is like a form of Stockholm syndrome, or if people are just that clueless about economics.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
I’m saying a 1% raise is better than a 0% raise, not that a 1% raise is good.
Thom0 | 7 hours ago
And I'm telling you that this is the dumbest possible view to take on the issue because it is likely doing more harm in the long run than if you just changed job.
That 1% is quite literally a -0 in real terms. It's not even a 0, its less than 0 because inflation is still greater than the 1%. You're still in the red by the end of the year and nothing has actually changed in your job, or account balance.
As of now, and likely for our lifetimes, the only real way to get a wage increase is to change job. Any company giving a 1% bonus is doing the bare minimum to retain as much staff as they can. That's it - they just don't want to go through the headache of a high turnover and the disruption it brings. They don't want to pay staff, and they don't really care about productivity. This is a balancing game only your interests aren't even being equated for. You're not even a number of their ledger this is why they can throw out the 1%.
It's a zero sum game and you're on the losing side. It's really indicative of the current state of the modern economy. It's not a question of "at least its nothing" because "nothing" should never be on the table when it comes to your household income and fulltime employment. This is how you get priced out of your own housing market, and eventually your own lifestyle. It used to be the norm in the early 2000's and throughout the 90's that you actually received real bonuses. The magical 13th month pay in December was standard. If you didn't get it people would quit and talk mad shit about the company. These days we're lucky to even get a fucking wage at this point.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
You’re saying you’d prefer a lower wage?
Thom0 | 7 hours ago
I'm saying I'm out and in another job because I don't want a lower wage. The 1% is the lower wage. I don't think this is clicking just yet - your income is shrinking each year. The number stays the same but how much you can buy shrinks in increments each year. The 1% is nothing at all - it honestly a meaningless number.
This is just how value and the economy works. $1000 isn't a $1000 forever - it decreases in value every single year and this is reflected in how much you can obtain with this $1000 per month. The cost of everything increases by a number bigger than 1% therefore you're earning less, not more by taking the 1%. People just see bigger number and think I'm rich but this isn't how pricing works in economies. You're poorer despite the number being bigger.
Whether you take the 1%, or leave it - the outcome is going to be the exact same in terms of how you live, and your wellbeing. That 1% is gone before you touch it because inflation is beyond 1%. See past the number for a second and think about pricing and value - is 101% bigger or smaller than 103%? (or whatever inflation is in your country)
The 1% isn't designed to give you more money. Its designed to trap anyone who doesn't understand into staying so that the companies can reduce the extent to which turnover will disrupt business. The 1% is quite literally a lotus, and you're the lotus eater. The only smart move to make is to leave your job because in the long run, this is the only way you can offset inflation to some extent. We are in a very broken economy right now, and will be for the remainder of this century.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
You’re completely missing the point. If faced with a 1% hike (peanut butter style) or 0%, with no other options, which is better for you?
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 4 hours ago
> You’re completely missing the point. If faced with a 1% hike (peanut butter style) or 0%, with no other options, which is better for you?
Why are there no other options? In the 0% scenario, where is the money going that would have been used in the 1% scenario?
burnthatburner1 | 4 hours ago
There aren’t other options in my example because I’m trying to stick to the topic (peanut butter raises). In the 0% scenario, the money would be going to the minority of top performers. In the peanut butter scenario, it’s spread out to everyone.
1-Dollar-Doge-Coins | 4 hours ago
IMO the ideal is this:
Top 10% get more
middle 80% get peanut butter
bottom 10% get nothing (you want them to quit, essentially)
If you are getting nothing in this scenario, you should look for a new job, or start doing your current one better.
Thom0 | 7 hours ago
The answer is neither.
Is this clicking yet? You're fucked either way only in one context you're somewhat deluded by a misunderstanding of value and inflation.
If you're in a position which is paying you 1% bonuses then you're not in a good job and it makes zero sense to push productivity. The entire point of this article, and what I'm trying to tell you, is that the logic of the 1% is a sign of corporate death - its a sign that a company does not value staff at all, and it is prepared to pursue very short-term policies knowing it is going to tank future productivity, and ultimately profits.
The person who takes the fall is you. - the company is taking from you despite likely incorporating inflation into pricing for whatever goods and services you provide. The issue is they are not doing the same when calculating your pay which means they're pocketing the difference and contributing to you, and your family being priced out of the economy.
The 1% is a sign of death. It's a sign that the economy is in terminal decline and the risk is being distributed to the most vulnerable.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
Neither is better for you? Ok, I think we’re done here.
Thom0 | 7 hours ago
I'm sorry but this is an economics subreddit which at one point in time used to mean you had to have some basic knowledge of economics.
I'm just telling you the truth and what I'm saying isn't insane because we are commenting in a thread about an article saying exactly what I am saying. Take the 1%, or leave it, it makes no difference in the long-term. You're just carrying more risk despite earning very little relative to the top salaries in the firm who should carry more of the risk. If they did, you might get a bonus that at the very least matches inflation - even then you're breaking even at 0.
If the context was take 1% or nothing - I'm saying it is a false choice.
What it should be is inflation% or nothing - in this context then the answer is obvious if you want to break even at 0.
You're focusing on the number going up, and I'm trying to push to you that this is not how economics works. It isn't the number, but the value behind it which matters. We are not in the 90's and 2000's anymore - that world is long gone. This is the post 2008 world and in it, value is king. Chasing numbers is what our parents did back when everyone lived in the National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. You, your kids, and your kids' kid's are going to be poorer if you don't adapt. This is pure mathematics and this is going to be true even if you keep taking the 1% bonus. That is the point of this article, and it is the point I am making.
regprenticer | 7 hours ago
Why?
White collar wages are already under enormous downwards pressure. All jobs seem to be slowly drifting down to minimum wage level.
I've had no pay increase at all in 6 years. Not a penny.
In previous years I've had low increases (All under 1%) or no pay increase because "there is no money in the pot this year for senior staff because it's all gone on updating low paid staff to be on the living wage. This is continuously since 2008.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
So in the past 6 years you’ve had no pay increases. Are you ok with that, or would you have liked to have a small increase one or more of those years?
regprenticer | 6 hours ago
I don't think anyone would be ok with that
In that time inflation has been insane. For example I bought a car brand new in 2019 for £12.8k, the same car now costs just over £25k. That before you consider energy cost increases or food inflation.
However, in my experience the only guarantee of a pay rise is changing Job and while I don't move often (I've been in this job 6 years and my previous job 10) I get a 25% - 50% increase each time i leave.
burnthatburner1 | 6 hours ago
Glad we agree pay raises are better than no pay raise.
Momoselfie | 7 hours ago
My company has always done this. Any real raise requires a promotion, but even that is capped at 10% raise.
Hamster_S_Thompson | 7 hours ago
I guess the reason for this is that the budgets are small so it's not worth everyones time to try to differentiate 1 percent budget. Just give everyone 1 percent and call it a day.
Careless-Degree | 7 hours ago
Healthcare raises or any situation where large groups of people are basically interchangeable depending upon their license - it’s understandable from a company perspective - they can’t defend themselves from claims of discrimination if their wages aren’t in a tight band and they are really just paying for the task.
But man it does just crush everyone’s motivation to actually be good at their job when they know they will be getting paid the same as the weakest link.
ObviouslyNotAnEnt | 7 hours ago
Yeah and productivity stagnates. I am not gonna work hard for no pay. Idk what these morons think is gonna motivate us but it’s not “family”. Go enjoy your mediocrity.
ElectroMagnetsYo | 7 hours ago
Take away the incentive for high achievers and the companies will take drastic action to maintain productivity such as action trackers.
ConglomerateCousin | 8 hours ago
Where’s the incentive to do better if Betty is getting the same raise as me and she puts stickers on her face to feel different
dam072000 | 7 hours ago
About the same as the C-suite getting bonuses while there just isn't enough to go around this year.
Momoselfie | 7 hours ago
They're hoping you don't notice. Don't let Betty tell you what she's making.
AAAMFA | 6 hours ago
Is sticker-face Betty single?
ConglomerateCousin | 6 hours ago
She prefers Betty Sticker Face, and no, she’s taken
PretzelMoustache | 7 hours ago
Betty isn’t sucking off the corporation, so good on her. Any incentive to do better for the company so you see a pittance of what you brought in is part of the scam. Your anger should be directed at the top that is definitely getting more of a pay increase for the money YOU brought in - compared to Sticker Faced Betty -and that’s choosing to distribute lower increases and don’t account for inflation.
brosjd | 6 hours ago
The peanut butter raises should honestly be the standard, like surrogate CoL raises. If type A high performers are very motivated, I don't see why they can't negotiate their base salary.
(Not that I actually think most companies are handing out significant salary increases anyway, it just seems like more of a situation where you advocate for yourself.)
spondgbob | 5 hours ago
Yeah we do need peanut butter wages, but like, a whole additional sandwich worth. Wages have had a laughably bad time keeping up with productivity, and stock price growth.
Responsible-Food3681 | 6 hours ago
Spreading raises evenly despite differing real outcomes of employees is how you get your high performers to leave or burn out. No one is going to go above and beyond at their job if that extra work isn't rewarded commensurately. All you're going to do is reward mediocrity.
TheNewOP | 6 hours ago
Media companies and journalists have discovered what a cost of living adjustment aka bullshit raise is. Why are we giving these things new names? Completely unnecessary. Same shit with vibecession -> K-shaped economy -> boomcession.
DFWPunk | 6 hours ago
I worked for a bank that did that as policy. There was no such thing as a merit raise at all for anyone. They got away with it because it was a smaller city with limited options for that field and they were fairly decent to work for. But if you were willing to relocate and a good performer you didn't stay long
nicetriangle | 5 hours ago
I really hate all these stupid twee fucking euphemisms everyone keeps inventing about the workplace in recent years. Peanut butter raises. Quiet quitting. The Great Resignation.
Deeply cringe.
overlapped | 5 hours ago
Companies always screw workers on raises and bonuses when the labor market is shit.
Companies always screw workers on raises and bonuses when the labor market is shit.
Companies always screw workers on raises and bonuses when the labor market is shit.
Darkoveran | 3 hours ago
Yes and workers leave companies in the lurch when the labour market is tight. Know your own value and make decisions based on the long term view, not this year’s bonus, raise or employment prospects.
SiliconEagle73 | 4 hours ago
So instead of getting enrolled in a jelly-of-the-month club in lieu of your bonus, you're now being "upgraded" to the peanut-butter-and-jelly-of-the-month club! You should be happy that it's the gift that keeps on giving the whole year! ;-)
mtn_viewer | 4 hours ago
Peanut butter raises can be good if you have a high performing team and don’t want to be forced to lay anyone off which would compromise the team. I’ve seen this work at high performing teams in companies that want to layoff some percentage. HR loves stacked rankings so they can layoff the ones ranked lower.
Calm-Background2247 | 4 hours ago
I lost my last full time job 6 years ago today.
Got stuck at home during the pandemic with no job prospects, so I leaned into being a stay at home parent.
Luckily my spouse has continued to stay employed.
I managed to get a remote job for an Edtech company making $20/hr.
I’ve been applying, in ernest, for full time jobs since July of 2023. I’ve had 3 interviews and no offers.
So, when ”people say” that “we’re winning so much that we can’t take it anymore,” I don’t know what fuck they’re talking about.
ActualSpiders | 4 hours ago
LOL my company hands out 3% bumps in a regular year. Thankfully, that was just pushed out so they can't cut them lower than that til next year.
rusself | 4 hours ago
My company promised me guaranteed bonus and merit raise will be based on performance.. come during review time..all bonus is gone and only got a meager 1% raise even though with a stellar performance?
MysteriousDudeness | 4 hours ago
As a small business owner, I was able to do better than that with my company this year (8% on average) but last year was less (4%). I tried to make it up to them this year. Unfortunately, things are a bit crazy these days and work could drop off quickly. It's always a gamble for a small business.
JaMMi01202 | 2 hours ago
I'd fucking love a 3% raise. 1.5% this year and 0% the year before. Maybe 2% the year before that.
That's on a £85k to £95k UK white collar job, for context.
lolexecs | 2 hours ago
I wonder if this is a misread of how compensation policies have evolved.
In salaried roles, performance (especially at the higher levels) is usually not rewarded with merit-based raises.
Raises are tied to promotion. You get paid more because your scope of responsibility has gotten bigger.
Organizations have moved to rewarding high performance with bonuses and retaining high-potential employees through vesting compensation (RSUs, deferred compensation).
My guess would be that the "thinner" peanut butter is tied to slowing inflation.
DJPho3nix | 2 hours ago
Last year my boss pulled some strings to get me a "promotion" (nicer title and pay on paper, bonus eligible, same workload) because I was performing so high.
This year I got the same level of review, but my raise was lower than I expected. I expressed some disappointment and he told me that, percentagewise, it was actually higher than most people got this year.
attrackip | 2 hours ago
That's why I've been a contractor most of my life. Sure, the job security isn't there, but you negotiate outside of the pool.
I'm not a fan of what society is turning into, but demanding equality is just going to push capitalists towards a less equitable talent pool.
The_Cows_Are_Home | 7 hours ago
I got 7% with a performance review of exceptional, while I’m not complaining as I know others are getting 2% or the likes, even the 7% is hardly enough to cover the inflation we’ve been feeling the past few years. People are already getting squeezed hard and it’s only going to get worse. Word words words words words.
LonghornJct08 | 7 hours ago
What I was able to read of the article before hitting the paywall tracks. My full time employer has been doing 1.5% increases since…2009. I put the wage tables through the inflation calculator a bit over a month ago and it’s grim. No wonder everyone’s felt the financial noose tightening, especially the last few years.
I tore strips out of the union reps the last time they had their information table out. They’re not concerned about the basics like wages, benefits, working conditions or any of that stuff, not when there’s social justice wedge issues to flog. The problem is, everywhere wants their bills paid with money.