@jalmondale It's weird, but is my workplace the only place that uses these criteria literally? We only have "meets," "exceeds," and something that = "doesn't meet." If you are totally reliable, do a good job, and are well-liked then you get a "meets." You really do have to do something extraordinary to get "exceeds." I think it's because my team is full of amazing people who are all reliable and really good at their jobs, and management is not given the budget to give them all raises all the time. It's great for the company but can end up pushing out good people who feel they aren't being properly rewarded for their good work.
@eemusings Me too. Well, they exist at my company, but not for people with my job title. It's funny, though - if I did this same job at another company in town, I'd get bonuses twice a year.
I LOVED the linked article about becoming a rich person. Also, this was a fascinating character study. I like to believe this guy also spends some of his free time trolling.
@Theestablishment This has not been my experience at all. Maybe as a mid-level ux designer I'm not high enough up the food chain to experience this, but I currently work in the business world and make a pretty good salary. Could be that I've gone through recruiters, but I've experienced the same thing when interviewing without doing the recruiter route.
Who are these mysterious hiring managers/managers who offer a number first? In my 11 years of working in the "real world," I have NEVER encountered this (except when it was a non-negotiable number). They always pressure me to give a number first. Always. And they never relent when I ask what their range is. The best I could do was research the market and then offer a number at the top of that range. It worked, but still. I always lose at salary chicken.
@MollyculeTheory I wonder this as well. Also, how much do taxes factor into "giving?" It's compulsory giving, but you're still contributing a % of your income toward the health and wellbeing of the nation. In fact, giving to charities is a kind of a la carte distribution of income - you are paying for services that the government cannot (or won't) support. I mean, I'm all for it, but it's ultimately such a huge question and I'm not sure how to answer it. My gut says that rich people SHOULD contribute something in addition to taxes or any other services they (we?) already provide. I think that if you benefit from a system, you should also give back to it. I don't know how much. I DO know that I need to follow my own moral leanings more often.
@beastlyburden But later on, they say that a promotion brought their "pre-tax income" up to 80K. Now I'm confused about whether that 75K was gross or net. Not that it matters that much. I'm mainly impressed with anyone who can throw a 135-person wedding + honeymoon for 11K.
@andnowlights The only way I was ever able to save 10K (or around that) a year was BECAUSE I had no student loans. I'm not saying this to brag, I'm just re-stating the common knowledge that student loans are deeply limiting. It's not something you can just go fix. I couldn't have made many lifestyle changes that would have made a difference the way being debt-free did.
@siege91 You don't need life skills if you went to Princeton. That's the whole point of going to Princeton.
@Josh Michtom@facebook I would be very interested in this kind of discussion.