Cost of living/Inflation raises?

[vw_rabbit2.5]

What is a general cost of living/inflation wage increase percentage wise typically for employers? Does it depend on the industry?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ExtraSlow]

The entire concept of a "cost of living raise" is strange to me anywhere but a unionized job.

At a private business, the company will pay it's employees just as much as they have to. If they are having no trouble recruiting and retaining quality staff, they don't "owe" anyone a raise just because the cost of groceries went up.

I also think it's very common for people to get no raise in some years, and then they get a larger one later. That doesn't have anything to do with inflation, it has to do with company proiftability.

[Ven]

Leave companies that don't give some kind of meaningful cost of living adjustment. Don't waste another second of your time with them. Who in their right mind would work for less and less money while they get more experienced and valuable in the corporation?

[ExtraSlow]

Leave companies who don't pay you what you could make elsewhere.

Just because you don't get a small "cost of living" raise every year, doesn't mean you are underpaid.

[Ven]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow


Just because you don't get a small "cost of living" raise every year, doesn't mean you are underpaid.

You would be, quite literally, underpaid by whatever the inflation rate your employer didn't pace. That would be a loss of $723.75 at the current inflation rate to an average Canadian worker income of $48250.

[Ven]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Leave companies who don't pay you what you could make elsewhere.


We agree. Don't waste another second. Move on.

[ExtraSlow]

Originally posted by Ven


We agree. Don't waste another second. Move on.
We actually don't agree. I think either I wasn't clear, or you misunderstood me.

To be clear, I think it's normal, and not necessarily bad, to receive zero raise some years. That alone isn't a reason to leave a company.

I agree that your purchasing power is being eroded by inflation, but that doesn't mean you are underpaid. Nobody owes you a raise, regardless of inflation. The marketability of your skills and experience is what determines your wage.

As for wasting seconds, I have lots of them. I don't mind using a few here.

[bignerd]

Just got 2.6%.

[sabad66]

I would say anywhere between 1-3% per year looking at it purely from an inflation standpoint.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Ven
Leave companies that don't give some kind of meaningful cost of living adjustment. Don't waste another second of your time with them. Who in their right mind would work for less and less money while they get more experienced and valuable in the corporation? I work for a company that doesn't give COLA. Instead, they give raises and bonuses based on performance. Personally, that works for me a LOT better than a 2.5% COLA....

[bignerd]

Originally posted by codetrap
I work for a company that doesn't give COLA. Instead, they give raises and bonuses based on performance. Personally, that works for me a LOT better than a 2.5% COLA....

We get both.

[davidI]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Just because you don't get a small "cost of living" raise every year, doesn't mean you are underpaid.

Exactly. You're a commodity and the goal is to find the best value for yourself. The value of commodities go up and down with the market and so should your value.

Of course companies do their best to handcuff you so you don't "trade" yourself around, but your decision of where to work shouldn't be based on raises, but how much you can be paid elsewhere (of course "pay" is not just about $$$ but job satisfaction and perks too).

[Prail]

We get standard merit increases on top of inflationary. 2.5% this year was for inflation alone.

Can't say I would stick around at a place that doesn't do it.

[davidI]

Originally posted by Prail
We get standard merit increases on top of inflationary. 2.5% this year was for inflation alone.

Can't say I would stick around at a place that doesn't do it.

Sounds like a union mentality to me...

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
The entire concept of a "cost of living raise" is strange to me anywhere but a unionized job.

At a private business, the company will pay it's employees just as much as they have to. If they are having no trouble recruiting and retaining quality staff, they don't "owe" anyone a raise just because the cost of groceries went up.

I also think it's very common for people to get no raise in some years, and then they get a larger one later. That doesn't have anything to do with inflation, it has to do with company proiftability.

Union mentality? Hardly. Its the simple fact that you are taking a 1-2% pay cut year over year unless you get a raise. And then if you DO get a raise, you really should be factoring in how long it took you to get that raise versus how much inflation has taken out of your raise.

To do anything less is to do accounting like the Albertan government does. If you don't get a raise for two years, and then get a 10% raise, not only did you realistically get a 6% raise, but you also LOST 2% of what you earned the previous year, and 4% in the 2nd year. So you actually DIDN'T even get a 6% raise if you factor that in.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Prail
We get standard merit increases on top of inflationary. 2.5% this year was for inflation alone.

Can't say I would stick around at a place that doesn't do it.
Ditto with us. Big 4 global oil producer so I wouldn't call it a union mentality.

[ExtraSlow]

Well, I guess different places work different ways. I know I've had several years with zero raise, but my average annual raise for more than a decade has been better than 8 percent. I'd say I'm not falling behind even with some "zero" years.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Well, I guess different places work different ways. I know I've had several years with zero raise, but my average annual raise for more than a decade has been better than 8 percent. I'd say I'm not falling behind even with some "zero" years.

You aren't falling behind. But you aren't as far ahead as you could be :dunno:

At the end of the day, I get what you are saying; businesses pay people what they will pay people. And that is fine.

But if you had choice A that didn't match cost of living, and choice B that did, why would you go with choice A (all things being equal)?

What I've found with companies that do raises as you've suggested is that it easily allows them to get out of giving you ANYTHING, even though you *should* be more valuable to the company through more experience in your role. Instead they cite "bad company performance" and give you nothing... I'm sure the CEO and managers felt the pinch too :rofl:

[Prail]

We are far from a union... producer as well.

As said all thing being equal, why work at a place that doesn't do it?

I'm not (if I have a choice) going to work at a place that pays me less than the year before... when arguably I'm worth more though better productivity, experience, etc.

[TurboMedic]

Wow this is where the true colors of beyond show up.

I recall in numerous other threads, government workers such as myself are crucified for our (non existant actually, if you check recently) COLA increases that are negotiated.....I've been told by so many of you guys that all these private companies don't give you more money year after year because stuff costs more, trying to make us out to be bad people.......Now you're defending it, and backing it up with numbers we couldn't touch? Plus some with bonuses on top of that??

Typical beyond anti-union bullshit parading


By the way, I absolutely agree that I should not "make less" year after year. My work load increases every year, statistically proven, so I'm working harder for less....thats a hard enough pill to swallow before being told 0's for a few years

[JRSC00LUDE]

Turbo, it's the free market at work and paid from private profits not public tax revenue.

No point beating this horse again.....

[davidI]

Just curious if all those who believe they're entitled to COLA year over year see an associated growth in their company revenues/profit to allow for it?

I'm all for profit sharing and incentives, but COLA is not based on performance or profit or and I just find it to be a strange expectation given it's not tied to the market in any way. The same cost increases will be affecting the employer, so unless they're able to re-price their product to account for inflation or otherwise bring in higher revenues, it just doesn't make sense as an employee expectation to me. I've always viewed salary as being a measure of your value to the company, and a higher cost of milk doesn't change that.

I guess I'm just a strong advocate of "pay for performance" rather than "pay for driving your desk for a long time".

Interesting to see the different perspectives in this thread though.

[Kloubek]

I must say - I'm envious.

If you get a 2% raise at my company, you're considered lucky. This year I got nothing. Yet, we've had our best year-over-year profits in history.

[davidI]

Originally posted by Kloubek

If you get a 2% raise at my company, you're considered lucky. This year I got nothing. Yet, we've had our best year-over-year profits in history.

Explore your options? :dunno:

Supply and demand...if they can't retain good employees they'll change their tune.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by TurboMedic
Wow this is where the true colors of beyond show up.

I recall in numerous other threads, government workers such as myself are crucified for our (non existant actually, if you check recently) COLA increases that are negotiated.....I've been told by so many of you guys that all these private companies don't give you more money year after year because stuff costs more, trying to make us out to be bad people.......Now you're defending it, and backing it up with numbers we couldn't touch? Plus some with bonuses on top of that??

Typical beyond anti-union bullshit parading


By the way, I absolutely agree that I should not "make less" year after year. My work load increases every year, statistically proven, so I'm working harder for less....thats a hard enough pill to swallow before being told 0's for a few years

I think most on here is staying on par with the message. If you don't like it, leave. The more of you leaves, the harder is for the organization to function and they adjust according to compete for resources.

The problem with union is that it's entitlement. While I agree with some sort of union for safety issues, union for pay is totally a retarded idea.

COLA is nice but nobody owe you anything. If you fall behind and can't get it remedied with current employer, move along to someone that will meet your needs. The more people willing to leave their jobs for greener pasture, the more likely will be the industry will be compensated more as a whole.

I know many places in the past that doesn't do COLA and ended up has to do a market adjustment 4-5 years down the road to keep people around. The is most prevalent during 2005-2007 boom.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by davidI
Just curious if all those who believe they're entitled to COLA year over year see an associated growth in their company revenues/profit to allow for it?

I'm all for profit sharing and incentives, but COLA is not based on performance or profit or and I just find it to be a strange expectation given it's not tied to the market in any way. The same cost increases will be affecting the employer, so unless they're able to re-price their product to account for inflation or otherwise bring in higher revenues, it just doesn't make sense as an employee expectation to me. I've always viewed salary as being a measure of your value to the company, and a higher cost of milk doesn't change that.

I guess I'm just a strong advocate of "pay for performance" rather than "pay for driving your desk for a long time".

Interesting to see the different perspectives in this thread though.

I think you are being very narrow minded in thinking that a company hasn't priced into their products/services the fact that stuff gets more expensive year over year. Which is what makes the whole concept very irritating, while the company can easily make that 2% back (I say "easily", which can be taken to mean various things, but I will argue on a purely cost basis, especially if you are supplying a product or service that no one else can readily fill, you can raise your prices 2% and nothing really changes).

Point being, the 2% given to employees does not represent the company giving up 2% of its revenue. Conversely, if an employee does not get the COLA, then they LITERALLY just gave up 2% of their pay. Why would you want to take a 2% paycut? As someone just pointed out, their company just had an awesome year and they still saw nothing.

And I'm going to be fairly blunt (and rude here), but fuck off with the "change jobs/seek better opportunities" crap. That is not an option for various reasons for 75% of job force at any time. We're lucky in Alberta that it can be done relatively easily (again, that easily word), but to just go "why don't you get a better job?" is sort of like asking a sick person "why don't you get better?". Not everything is within people's control, and people make mistakes. :dunno:

[Type_S1]

^ so if you cannot get another job easily them why should your employer pay you more? If you are not being sought out or are a hot commodity on an open market as an employer I would pay you as little as possible! If you are worth a raise you should easily be able to enter the job market and get a higher paying job.

[davidI]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1

I think you are being very narrow minded in thinking that a company hasn't priced into their products/services the fact that stuff gets more expensive year over year. Which is what makes the whole concept very irritating, while the company can easily make that 2% back (I say "easily", which can be taken to mean various things, but I will argue on a purely cost basis, especially if you are supplying a product or service that no one else can readily fill, you can raise your prices 2% and nothing really changes).

Point being, the 2% given to employees does not represent the company giving up 2% of its revenue. Conversely, if an employee does not get the COLA, then they LITERALLY just gave up 2% of their pay. Why would you want to take a 2% paycut? As someone just pointed out, their company just had an awesome year and they still saw nothing.

And I'm going to be fairly blunt (and rude here), but fuck off with the "change jobs/seek better opportunities" crap. That is not an option for various reasons for 75% of job force at any time. We're lucky in Alberta that it can be done relatively easily (again, that easily word), but to just go "why don't you get a better job?" is sort of like asking a sick person "why don't you get better?". Not everything is within people's control, and people make mistakes. :dunno:

Not even worthy of a response. Please learn basic economic principles.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by davidI


Not even worthy of a response. Please learn basic economic principles.

It has nothing to do with economic principles, and more to do with your view of society.

Beyond that, when companies/corporations form what is price fixing on the wage of their employees (which is a distortion of the free market and makes it not very free at all, nor based on supply and demand), it leads to these sorts of discussions.

If every company plays by the unwritten rule of paying X type of employee X amount no matter their experience, attitude, etc etc, the game is already lost before it has started. Does this happen to everyone? Not at all. But it certainly happens to a large portion of the population. On top of that, there are many reasons to give COLA in the form of employee retention.

At the end of the day, you can view business as a way for some CEO to suck millions/billions out of the pockets of the everyday folk and destroy the middle class. Thats cool. But I won't be a part of that thinking :dunno:

[themack89]

I don't fully understand inflation (what it is yes, but where it comes from and how it really affects things no). Maybe someone who does understand can enlighten us which will aid this discussion.

Anybody study monetary economics? I was more of a micro/regulatory guy.

[davidI]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


It has nothing to do with economic principles, and more to do with your view of society.

Beyond that, when companies/corporations form what is price fixing on the wage of their employees (which is a distortion of the free market and makes it not very free at all, nor based on supply and demand), it leads to these sorts of discussions.

If every company plays by the unwritten rule of paying X type of employee X amount no matter their experience, attitude, etc etc, the game is already lost before it has started. Does this happen to everyone? Not at all. But it certainly happens to a large portion of the population. On top of that, there are many reasons to give COLA in the form of employee retention.

At the end of the day, you can view business as a way for some CEO to suck millions/billions out of the pockets of the everyday folk and destroy the middle class. Thats cool. But I won't be a part of that thinking :dunno:

:rofl:

You're right. Economics have nothing to do with employment, GDP, or quality of life. It all comes down to your view of society.

I guess Karl Marx and the USSR had it right all along. :nut:

[davidI]

Originally posted by themack89
I don't fully understand inflation (what it is yes, but where it comes from and how it really affects things no). Maybe someone who does understand can enlighten us which will aid this discussion.

I'm not an expert on it but have done a few coursera classes on monetary supply and such. Inflation goes beyond monetary supply though and here's a relatively quick and dirty summary I found with a quick google search.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/Causes-Of-Inflation.htm

As expected with any economics discussion, there are loads of variables and factors but it generally boils back down to supply and demand. Whether that supply/demand applying to goods, labour, money (debt & cash), or raw materials, etc.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
It has nothing to do with economic principles, and more to do with your view of society. Ok.. so imagine you're a small business owner. You hire a clerk to sit at the till and do cash. He's fine at it from day one. Now, flash forward to tomorrow. Your milk supplier tells you that milk is more today. 2% more in fact. So you raise your milk price by 2%.

Now over to your milk drinking clerk. He want's a cost of living increase because milk got more expensive.

What are you going to do? Are you going to pay him more to do exactly the same thing he did yesterday? Or do you tell him that increases in wages will require an increase in responsibility?

[bjstare]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


It has nothing to do with economic principles, and more to do with your view of society.

......

At the end of the day, you can view business as a way for some CEO to suck millions/billions out of the pockets of the everyday folk and destroy the middle class. Thats cool. But I won't be a part of that thinking :dunno:

L O L

FYI, business in a capitalist society is all about making money. And obviously, any smart CEO is going to make the most money they can for the company (which obvi will result in incentives for them) - in fact, maximizing profits probably has a lot to do with getting into a CEO position.

[Cos]

.

[TurboMedic]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
Turbo, it's the free market at work and paid from private profits not public tax revenue.

No point beating this horse again.....

Thats funny, last I checked my services get billed....

Regardless of that fact, why am I not entitled to increases, when I am an "essential service", one of many provided by government workers to keep your life and surroundings ticking along.....Or maybe we should find ways to cause market increases aswell...

All I've every said is that there is a very black/white range of opinions on Beyond (clearly, unless it involves anyone EXCEPT government workers). You exemplify this perfectly. In your mind, gov't workers = lazy/useless/burdensome despite providing services you don't think twice about using any given day. Is our source of revenue the tax payers? Partly, yes, but those are what government services are for. Those employees, myself included, are no less valuable because of our employer.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by TurboMedic
Removed due to lack of comprehension.. Maybe you should read back through the responses. Pretty much without exception, whenever anyone on beyond is union bashing, they say "EXCEPT FOR FIRE/EMS/RESCUE".. as we pretty much all respect and value those services. So really, your ongoing rants about how we don't give a shit about you is just you lacking reading comprehension.

[davidI]

Originally posted by Cos

Union doesnt instantly mean no work and huge pay. In our case it means hiding behind the union and manipulating the system in such a way that the company can still do what they want but simpler employees blame the system they are in, not the people abusing it.

I completely agree with you, except that maybe it's not the 'simpler' employees blaming the system but the smarter ones?

To me a union is all about "fairness" and "equality". If you're a top performer, do you really want to be brought down to the level of those abusing the system to be more "equal" with them?

[davidI]

Originally posted by themack89
I don't fully understand inflation (what it is yes, but where it comes from and how it really affects things no). Maybe someone who does understand can enlighten us which will aid this discussion.

Anybody study monetary economics? I was more of a micro/regulatory guy.

I just thought I'd add another comment for those to lazy to do some google research.

The whole point of inflation and the reason the government targets 2% inflation is so that people have the expectation something will cost more tomorrow than it does today. The purpose of that is to maintain growth through consumerism.

For example, if you thought a car would be the same price (or cheaper) in 2015 than it does today, would you buy it today? Probably not. You'd put off the purchase which would put of the earning by the car manufacturer which would put off their reinvestment which would prevent growth. That is why deflation is so dangerous. No expenditures = no growth = no profits = no reinvestment = no jobs = no expenditures.

[max_boost]

All I know is inflation helps me pay off old debts faster lol

[davidI]

Originally posted by max_boost
All I know is inflation helps me pay off old debts faster lol

While eroding my savings. :banghead: