Badass_panda @ Badass_panda @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

137

Joined

2 yr. ago

So... this is pretty stupid, a raise in pay certainly might help.

However, from the perspective of a career spent managing teams, often organizations with hundreds of employees, if you think your people are all solely motivated by compensation, you're going to do a very poor job as a manager.

Everyone wants more money, but that's not all they want -- and there are plenty of people who quit high paying jobs that treated them poorly or gave them no opportunity to grow.

Think about appropriate compensation as necessary, but often not sufficient -- and think about the best boss you ever had. They probably did more than just pay you fairly, that's the bare minimum.

Folks who are recommending a blanket % without knowing your situation have probably not been a hiring manager before. Getting the best outcome relies on you having a good sense for what you're worth, knowing how much you'll accept, and gauging what they're willing to pay.

• How much you are worth: if people are trying to poach you, you're probably pretty good. How does your current pay compare to the market? Are you earning more than the median for your job and experience? Less?
• How much you're willing to take: sounds like you'd jump ship over to the competitors even without a pay raise. That's good (it means all outcomes are positive), but unless you are way above market right now, you can probably do better.
• How much are they willing to pay? If they're trying to poach you, odds are they're willing to offer you the high end of the market -- they know they are getting someone good.

Use a site like glassdoor, etc to gauge your current compensation vs. the market. Below the executive level they're usually pretty accurate.

If you're way below market right now, going for 20% may be shooting way too low (this often happens if you developed all these skills while staying in the same role at the same employer). If you're way above the market, asking for 20% more might look pretty unreasonable.

I'm around 11 years and a few hundred thousand karma. At this point I use reddit on desktop for a couple of specific communities that haven't made it over here.

All my mobile / time killing stuff has moved to lemmy.

It mostly just annoys the crap out of me, honestly. Glad to be in a cool new place but goddammit reddit, you didn't have to do this crap.

Yeah... this article is propagandistic nonsense. The author sets up a strawman and by golly, knocks it right down!

At no point do they consider Russia's desire to be / remain a military hegemon, or their willingness to repeatedly invade their neighbors to achieve it.

On the other hand, "the west" hasn't invaded any of Russia's neighbors, even a little bit.

Me too, I'm beginning to think my taste in movies is suspect because I liked a lot of these

Ditto, I genuinely enjoyed watching that

Genuinely surprised Sherlock Holmes was rated that low, I really enjoyed it.

I'm guessing there was a fair amount of prompting scene by scene. It's very impressive technically but it definitely falls flat at the moment

Embedded in this article

Well this was insanely insightful, thank you

I think it may have been more deliberately pro-French, since it only started after the Revolutionary War (e.g., Louisville was named for King Louis XVI in 1780 specifically in thanks, which may have created a bit of a template).

There are plenty of French-sounding place names that are due to francophones, e.g., Vermont was part of New France... but most "ville" suffixed towns have nothing to do with Frsnce, to your point.

In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find 19th century Americans (or 21st, for that matter) that recognized ville as a particularly French suffix at all.

It's a 750 ml. It refers to the size in ounces (more accurately, to the size of similar bottles before metric was adopted; a 750 is actually around 25.5 oz).

I remember them being a lot more interesting to watch, and you got a real feel for the candidate's positions (at least their public persona). But for the last ~8 years, it's been just gish galloping.

E.g., Obama vs. Romney was honestly pretty interesting to watch.

This is the opposite of a shitpost

It is seriously difficult to have negative account karma on reddit unless you are an outright troll.

Sorry, what? That's the opposite of my point. I think most subs benefit from outright trolling and off topic nonsense being prohibited, but my issue is that downvotes promote group think, and on a discussion sub, you should be able to limit or remove them.

Kinda, but not really... if you are a user who has had your account for more than 5 minutes and you're not a troll, odds are you never run into those rules.

The repost / copy paste bots were mostly to build a believable strawman that could be sold for astroturfing / "viral marketing", etc.

I think downvote rationing could work, possibly. It is only an issue for subs that are focused on discussion of divisive topics... downvotes work fine for most communities

Not every sub is for "quality content", some subs are intended for debate / dialogue between people that disagree with each other, and use the downvote button to mean "disagree" ... which means if you are coming for a quality dialogue, you tend to only see a quality monologue unless the user base is split 50/50 on the topic, which is rare.