I don't understand the framing here; isn't salary dependent on job competition in the market (one which is currently full of layoffs) and has little to do with company profts?
Bonuses are what are usually tied to company performance.
I'm simplifying, of course, but trying to understand the issue.
There is nothing to understand. There are two classes: Shareholders and Employees. Always been. One take the risk and reward and one take a fixed salary. Some people want to have their cake and eat it too (ie: take a fixed/stable salary while also a slice of the profit).
I don't know that's a fair characterization of risk profiles.
As an employee you're still taking a risk at the company. It falls over you are out 100% of your pay + your health benefits. As an employee I absolutely take this risk into account when evaluating an employer.
Shareholders sometimes take a similar risk, but are often reasonably insulated from major downside via financial mechanisms of varying complexity, from index funds to complex options contracts.
An investment that’s insulated from risk generally has a negative real return (at least as long as the risk-free rate is negative). Insurance via options is very expensive.
The idea I'm trying to convey is not no risk it's risk capped at tolerable levels for plausible outcomes (index funds can go to zero in principle). The latter is often an option that is available to capital holders.
Employment conversely, is almost always placing all your eggs in your employer's basket. If the basket tumbles many employees will lose their shirt in a big way.
Ah ok. Software engineers typically make enough relative to cost of living to sock away quite a bit of savings, though? So losing their job and having to find a new one isn’t usually enough to lose their shirt.
And I feel like the recent bull run has made people forget that stock as a class can be extremely risky. Like the entire market going to 1/10 its former value risky (peak to trough in the Great Depression, the indices lost 90% of their value).
Happy engineers do better work. Half the reason Google is really falling on its face right now is that management has made it clear to eng that we're not respected the way we were 10 years ago. So we no longer go above and beyond for our employer because they no longer go above and beyond for us.
Doing less work is a classic and reasonable negotiating tactic for employees.
Employees are counter parties to any negotiation and they're not as powerless as big companies like to make them feel.
The saying is simply the idea that someone can have a mental impression of something, and it defines how they see that something, regardless of the truth.
It doesn’t seem that controversial to me and certainly isn’t literal.
Yes, it is. You’re right. That’s how bean counters and HR and sr management see it: what’s the absolute minimum we can pay our people.
Wiser outfits stay above that fray and compensate commensurate with employee expectations too. If you’re not getting a CoL or inflationary increase, you’re getting a pay cut. Plain and simple.
AI writing all the code for companies isn’t here yet, so I think for now they’d be wiser to keep devs happy. Especially if they’re flush with cash.
Expectations are surely based on what the market will bear. So if tech companies are all trying to cut costs and hence limit pay rises, it would be irrational for an employee to expect more.
Prices are a function of supply and demand, including how much buyers can afford to pay. How much buyers can afford to pay is a function of profits.
A business with higher profits per employer can afford to pay employees more, but that does not mean it will, since prices are still subject to supply and demand.
Whether or not it is a salary or bonus does not matter, it is all part of the price the business pays for the labor.
Bonuses are what are usually tied to company performance.
I'm simplifying, of course, but trying to understand the issue.