Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/kids-win-the-right-to-sue-the-us-government-over-climate-change <comment><USER2> I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16.

They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have.

When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field.

We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not?

<comment><USER3> >but if this is the only solution, why not?

It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution.

People who don't turn off lights (also TVs, computers) at their homes over night. I met a lot of them, one of the dumbest excuse was... light bulbs break if we turn on and off the lights frequently, so they were leaving 3x 100W lightbulbs overnight, irony, they were working as council of Greenest Capital of Europe :)))

People who burn coal and wood to heat homes, burn coal = more CO2, burn wood = less forests.

People who don't recycle stuff - I'll just throw away that TV on a street or drop from 2nd flow window for fun! Ha! People who buy new phones and computers because that's a new fashion.

People who eat food that was grown in places were 10years ago we could see amazon rainforests.

People are too lazy and it's too hard for masses to leave their comfort zones.

<comment><USER4> > It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are > causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars > and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route > anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution.

This is what's wrong. The government is supposed to be the people. The point of government is for people to steer people (as a collective) in the right direction.

<comment><USER5> And yet the true power is the policy makers in governments and board rooms who have(had?) the ability to incentivize and influence adoption of more sustainable actions. These people make decisions every single day. Their primary motivation? Profit for them and theirs. Their business models & the global economy relies on people consuming & throwing shit away, thus creating jobs, increasing production and, in turn, infinite quarterly growth... jusy like a parasitoid or a cancer. The dichotomous messages is what irritates me to no end with every "don't change habits, buy X to reduce your carbon footprint" news piece run ad infinum every. single. day.

I don't have the answers and, luckily, I am not a policy maker or <hardware maker> would be fined for deprecating 2 year old equipment, producers would account for the residual effects of their products' existence after it's usefulness expired, etc..

Now everyone run out and get in that Black Friday line to binge buy all those new XYZs, they're so much newer than the last iterations!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean.

Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.

<comment><USER7> > it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make > something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect > another set of representatives.

You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in representatives won't change the status quo. This is in large part due to Congress abdicating their rule-making role and handing it to the executive branch. Sure, electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't, and it's been on a downward trend of the past decade or two?

One example is the NSA surveillance. You should be able to sue the government to stop it if you think it's unconstitutional. We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. So citizens need another avenue to protect themselves from laws and regulations which they feel to violate their rights.

<comment><USER8> I think this is a mischaracterization of the way government operates. congressional representatives are not "abdictating" any role. They provide guidance that is all too specific in many cases, because the legal standard requires it. The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a _good thing_ that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.

Your example of surveillance is completely misplaced. If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.

If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.

<comment><USER7> > The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, > but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to > agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical > knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.

This is true, but only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous. Otherwise it effectively allows agencies to write the law. But, yes, there's a gray area and where that line is drawn is unclear. But the "we need to pass the law to find out what's in it" of the Affordable Care Act is probably not how congress should operate.

> If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread > surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American > people are fine with it.

This is only accurate if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues. It's entirely possible for people to be concerned about it but to be more concerned about military policy, the economy, etc., and to vote on those instead.

> If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to > address the issue is the courts.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make to the OP commenter. :)

<comment><USER8> "only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous"

If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous.

"if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues"

... but can't the same thing be said of any particular policy? if this policy isn't as important as other policies, that's the public deciding that we're fine with it. you and I as individuals may disagree, but this is the reality we face. it's simply not going to get fixed through legislative action, until and unless we are able to reframe the national conversation sufficiently.

<comment><USER7> > If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous.

Yea, that's why I was arguing that being able to sue the government is a Good Thing. I think we're basically in agreement...

<comment><USER8> ah yes, so you were. cheers!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am glad kids are taking action rather than just complaining, however, people can take _personal_ action. The money for any pay out from a suit will most likely come from their future social benefits rather than the industries they are suing.

Some personal choices to take action on:

Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods.

Cut back on electrical, and gas usage. Most homes I have visited in the US have multiple TVs, each family member has more than two computers, or smartphones and tablets.

Car pool. Buy economy cars, not SUVs. Walk. Run. Cycle to work. Americans can sure use the exercise and diet changes. (DISCLAIMER: I am an American, born and raised). I was working physically 9-11 hours a day in Las Vegas, and cycling 6 miles to and from the construction site each day. Obese co-workers called me crazy. Then before Christmas 2009, I gave CPR to a 35 year old man with two kids and new born baby on the site, but he died before he hit the ground from a massive coronary. He had just arrived to work with Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts in a bag and dropped. He stopped taking his heart medication his wife said.

After being in SE Asia for 8 years, and returning to the US, my perception of just how obese Americans have become is striking. I have been living in the rice fields of East Java, so it is even more stark.

I am a libertarian and mainly capitalist, so I don't wish any of this forced on anyone through legislation, and people are free to continue in their ways; I am just presenting some perceptions that might make people think twice about their lifestyles. They can choose what they want, but their are consequences locally and globally.

For me, I have not felt healthier, and less stressed, and I will take these tools, perceptions and lifestyle choices back with me to the US. I went vegetarian 3 years ago, haven't drank alcohol in 7 years, and I run and exercise everyday. I know it might be harder when I get back, but I have built a solid foundation to continue there anyways.

Big country-wide, policy changes need to be thought out economically, since we can only throw so much money and manpower at a particular solution. Some of the more rational choices may seem to go against feelings, and unfortunately, those who want the vote, vote for what makes people feel happier, not what's probably best for them and the country as a whole.

<comment><USER10> > people can take personal action

They can, but it won't help. Just watch Mythbusters to understand that things you don't consume will be consumed by someone else. When we need to divide our emissions by 10, people who make an effort won't offset people who don't.

Carpooling won't help enough. Economy cars won't help. Renewable heating won't help. Wind turbines won't help. All of that together will never even divide your consumption by 2, plus since we save money by using less energy, we have more money available that we spend on other carbon-emitting products. We need everyone to take action, so that the ecologist worker isn't disadvantaged in his life compared to the meat/petrol/flight/wasteful worker. Let's look at the numbers:

\- Nature absorbs 3GtC per year [1] (Giga-tons of carbon. 1t of Carbon = 3.7t of CO2).

\- We'll be 9 billion people on Earth in 2050, so each human can emit 0.333tC per year (or 1.23t of CO2). The argument that some (USA) consume more than others (Philippines) is offset by the facts that the development of most poor countries is soaring (hear: China will access the consumer market just like USA) and the poor also use inefficient and polluting processes.

\- So our goal is 1.23t of CO2 (=0.333t of carbon) per person per year. We emit 22t of CO2 per year in USA, 9t in France, 5.5t in Romania and 4t in China. You can calculate the rate for yourself [3].

And that's only to come back to nature-reasonable footprints. If we want to offset the carbon that's already in the air, we need to make even more effort.

So the effort in every industrialized country is to divide our emissions by ~10, which is unreachable by simple personal action.

[1] [https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/...](https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/quota_GHG.html)

[2] [http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_fo...](http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/)

[3] [http://www.carbonindependent.org/](http://www.carbonindependent.org/) \- Carbon footprint calculator

Since you too believe in the power of markets, a huge tax on carbon will advantage those who emit fewer CO2 and will be much easier to manage for corporations than any regulation. It has to be offset by lowering other taxes, so we don't increase the global tax pressure on the economy. It just has to be high enough so that all the cost of global warming weighs on CO2 emitters only, which probably means some types of jobs (e.g. half of car factories) belong to the past. But it's either that, or a global warming that creates such pressure on our civilizations that we might live in endless wars.

<comment><USER9> I'll have to review all of it in more detail, but I still believe change happens at the individual level including not spending the savings on other carbon-emitting products. It's similar to emergence in self-organized systems. Great, coordinated actions follow from simple, local rules or behavior or action.

I fully understand wasted effort, like paper vs. plastic bags (as so aptly argued in Guesstimation book), when you consume more gas driving to the supermarket, and if you cut down on frequency of trips you offset the non- issue of plastic vs. paper.

I do believe in both individual and societal action, however society is construct of individuals, and ultimately action happens at the individual level. Law suits seem to be counter to both your argument and mine. I don't think they accomplish more than my suggestions. I am in great health now, and I consume half the food I used to, and not the carbon-emitting heavy hitter like meat and dairy anymore. I am an optimist, and I think if 100 million US citizens cut their food consumption by quarter or half, it would be a significant change on quality of life, society and carbon emission.

The power of markets for me is consumer-driven, not government mandated like a carbon tax. Government cannot legislate intelligence or change, and to look to government for this is part of the problem in my opinion. People need to take a look at their lifestyles and choices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I doubt this will get very far. It seems like it would open up a whole can of worms and completely subvert our entire system of law making.

>She declared the facts of man-made climate change "undisputed," and supported the plaintiffs' challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming.

>Aikin wrote: "This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants' actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty."

So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?

<comment><USER12> > So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax > rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?

How does that flow from these quotes?

To be equivalent, you would need to prove that the tax rate is so insane that it has a substantial chance of killing you. Equivalent arguments for tax relief are in relation to poverty, medical costs, food and basic necessities, etc and generally win.

<comment><USER11> They do? People have actually sued the government because their taxes were too high for their particular circumstance? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't know much about this topic.

<comment><USER12> No, the same civil rights allow you to start a process to invalidate a tax completely and they are used that way all the time. Civil rights arguments have everything to do with why your laffer curve isnt optimal and we pay higher set rates so there are things that are completely exempt. Look at state sales tax exemptions as an example of people lowering their effective tax rate, but not the overall tax collected or the average benefit of government.

It seems to me like you are trying to warp the discussion into every tool with a visible political outcome being equivalent and open to "democratic" systems. The republic is a tool for a specific purpose that is usually opposite of delivering optimal solutions to the majority. The democratic systems are supposed to deliver what you seem to want until they violate civil rights. If they dont for a reason other than civil rights, then your recourse is to petitition the republic to change the election process. But you cant make the republic actually care about your general tax rates or any other problems it allows the democratic process to handle, it can only make sweeping rules when parties are in violation of the core rules.

The argument that the state is killing you is only significant if you can make it rationally, and a 10-99% tax isnt killing you unless it doesnt exclude the poverty level in its gradients and then you dont need to be the one being killed to make the argument. A 99% tax rate that can get 50% of the vote may indicate another failure though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> These sorts of lawsuits are going to be necessary with the rise of Trump's EPA --or what should be called Coal Protection Agency. We're about to enter a brave new world of environmental governance, one that is led by a climate change denier and one that believes "global warming" is a Chinese plot to weaken our economy.

<comment><USER14> It's possible that he believes that global warming is a real phenomenon but that our treaties with the rest of the world place us at a major disadvantage.

<comment><USER13> If he does believe global warming is real, why is he picking Myron Ebell, a Coal lobbyist, to lead the EPA? [0] He was quoted to say: "The whole case for global warming is silly, and I believe the vast majority of scientists thinks it's silly, and therefore I'm a little bit embarrassed that I waste my time on this silly issue." [1]

[0] [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron- ebell-t...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the- climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/)

[1] [https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI](https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI) (at 9:13)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand US law nearly well enough, but aren't they essentially suing for future damages (e.g. something that hasn't happened yet)? How does this work as anything other than a PR stunt and a trophy-for-everyone move from a judge in Oregon?

<comment><USER16> Generally it's hard to pre-emptively sue to prevent the government killing you -- even though in the US the Constitution requires due process before a person can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" \-- because most ways the government has of killing you (guns, bombs, etc.) happen very quickly.

In this case the mechanism by which the government is alleged to be killing people is slow-acting enough that the people who claim they will be harmed have time to file a lawsuit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> A carbon tax initiative was on the ballot in (very blue) Washington State, but sadly went down in flames. Which is strange considering how blue the state is.

A carbon tax is one of the best ways to address CO2 pollution.

<comment><USER18> The initiative wasn't so simple. In addition to the carbon tax, it included a reduction in the state sales tax, with the net result being an overall reduction in tax revenue for the state. With social services and education already underfunded (at least in people's minds), this was a difficult tradeoff to make.

My sense was that the initiative was formulated to appeal to two different groups of voters but in doing so ended up alienating both.

<comment><USER19> As I understand it, the carbon tax proposal in Washington was supposed to be revenue-neutral. Do you have a pointer showing it would come out revenue- negative?

<comment><USER17> It was designed to be revenue neutral, but it's a bit hard to predict behavior changes which will affect the result (and the whole point was to change behavior).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Nice idea. Conservative attention seekers could sue over inherited debt.

<comment><USER21> Can we sue the government for not funding Social Security properly thus making future generations work more years?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I also like the approach of Polly Higgins, who is trying to make the Earth a legal entity with her own fundamental rights, which can be defended in a court of law [1].

[1] [http://pollyhiggins.com/](http://pollyhiggins.com/)

<comment><USER23> Since the Earth is a nonsentient ball of rock and dirt, who will be given the unaccountable political power to represent it in the legal system?

Whaaaaaaat? Higgins, and people who agree with her political views, will be given that power? Smack my head, what are the odds!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Though I totally agree with cause, I find USA system suing your government/municipal/etc. a weird system.

1\. Law works mostly well to enforce current system. E.g. There is law that you have to process my application in 30 days, but it was delayed by year and I lost something because of that.

2\. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same.

3\. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/.

4\. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax).

5\. Some of my misunderstanding is based that I'm used to civil law (we interpret rules passed by some government) vs. common law (law is based on individual cases that have precedential effect on future cases). However, I find that using it on government/state/municipal level is a stretch.

<comment><USER25> >2\. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same.

It's used to contest laws that are believed to possibly be in violation of existing law.

>3\. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/.

Huh? What's the outcome going to be based on if not on the current law? Unless you're specifically referring to common/civil law difference that makes no sense.

>4\. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax).

It sounds like you're suggesting that _cities_ should have significantly higher legislative powers not restricted by the courts? I must be misunderstanding, but in case I'm not... why?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Just being critical here: This still seems like a valid statement: "Their opposition was based on a "lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.""

It seems like the new judge ruled for it because, "[their] action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants' actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.", emphasis on constitutional right to life and liberty. Although that may be true, I am having trouble seeing as to how this may pertain solely to the Federal Government; It is possible to amend the constitution with an environmental specific amendment, but it would have to go through the legislative branch; I see nothing wrong with that. But looking at article 1 section 8 of the constitution, I do not see as to how this solely pertains to the Federal Government alone? Keep in mind that this country is a democratic republic and not a democracy; the federal government should be subject to the states rule, not an entity on its own.

</comment><comment><USER27> If they want to sue someone, they'd have to definitely prove it exists and is human caused, this could be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER23> What a ridiculous joke. "Kids" aren't suing anyone. Cynical adults who haven't been able to get their way through the democratic system are trying to ram their policy preferences through the courts, and they are abusing innocent children to do it. In a saner world, that judge would have called Child Protective Services.

</comment><comment><USER28> Hey. I live there!

But seriously, this could be a big deal.

</comment><comment><USER29> What are these kids doing to develop non-CO2-emitting energy sources? Why don't they spend their time and energy on that instead? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that such lawsuits are justified, all they do is suck up resources that could be used for developing energy technologies to fix the problem.

<comment><USER30> See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them. Not research - not even productize - all of the suggested approaches are based on productized approches.

<comment><USER29> _> See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them._

Can you give a reference for this? I'm not finding anything helpful on the conference website.

<comment><USER30> Sorry, the references can be found under the title 'nordic green to scale'. e.g. [http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate- change/nordic-...](http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate- change/nordic-green-scale-marrakech)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I ask for a salary increase? - <AUTHOR> I know that it is un-HN-like to be "working for the man".  But at some point, most of us will have been.  I'm relatively new to the workforce, below median salary and feel like I'm doing an above average job.<p>Have you ever asked for a raise and, if so, how did you get it? <comment><USER3> I asked to meet with my boss, we set up a meeting. I walked in and asked if my salary was up for negotiation. We had a short discussion where basically he wanted to know if I was unhappy or had already started looking for a job. I was quite pleased with my job and hadn't started to look (and probably wouldn't have if I didn't get myself a raise, but don't tell my old boss that). He then asked me what I think my salary should be. I told him. He said that probably wasn't going to happen (It was like an 18% raise) but he'd talk with his partners (He was the CTO/founder). A few days later they came back with like 15%. I told them I appreciate the effort but the number I gave wasn't really a starting point for negotiation and I still think I deserve what I asked for. I told him I wouldn't turn it down, but those are my feelings. A few days later the CEO met with me and basically did the same thing to make sure I wasn't unhappy about anything. He then gave me what I asked for and everything was good.

I wouldn't start sending out resumes and interviewing, seems like a lot of hassle when you haven't even talked to them yet.

<comment><USER4> If you really like the job I don't think pushing for the extra 3% is worth it. Obviously you got it, but 15% is pretty generous and asking for 3% more sorta feels like a shakedown.

<comment><USER5> Really? I think being honest with your employers is as valuable to them as it is for you. If you can't do that you certainly don't deserve to complain about what you get, or how you are treated.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. The place was awesome and there were no egos or politics in the office, things like this were straight business. I was honest with them and they were honest with me. I didn't say "somewhere around $X" I had a specific figure for a reason.

I didn't throw a tantrum or threat to quit over 3% (I think thats shady and wouldn't have quit anyway). I accepted the offer, thanked them, and told them how I felt.

<comment><USER6> Could you tell about the nature of the reasons that made you ask for 18% as opposed to say 19% or 17%?

<comment><USER3> It was just a round number and that's the way percents worked out. I mean, it was more like 18.43%, but for the sake of brevity...

The actual number I gave took into account current market rates, my job requirements, responsibilities and how I stacked up against other developers in the company.

<comment><USER6> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's actually very simple. So simple, in fact, that I'm surprised when people don't realize how to do it. But I've noticed that many people with greater social awareness than me feel there should be more to the process. Apart from being polite during the conversation, there isn't.

Step 1: send out a few feelers, try to find out your market worth. Call this $X.

If $X <= $YOUR_PAY + 3% (margin of error), STOP. You are not above the median and you do not deserve a raise. (Most people think they are above average. Almost 50% of them are wrong.)

Step 2: start interviewing. Ideally get an offer above your pay (but not necessarily as large as $X).

Step 3: have a private conversation with your boss. Tell him you'd like more money, and you feel you deserve at least $X.

If he gives you the raise, declare victory and decline your external offer (unless you like it better). If he refuses or gives you a raise that is insufficient, either a) point out your external offer or b) give 2 weeks notice and accept your external offer.

<comment><USER8> One critique, if you explore leaving your company don't use it as a bargaining chip. That raise your boss offers you is only to buy him enough time to find your replacement. You will not be viewed in the same light or with the same dedication to the "team," justified or not.

<comment><USER9> This may be true for some bosses, but it's not a good general rule. You often don't hear about it, getting an outside offer and a raise happens all the time, and within a month it's pretty much forgotten.

If you present it by saying "I really love it here and want to stay, but the compensation being offered here is really good," then your boss should be fine. If your boss can't handle a business negotiation, then you should be looking to get out anyway.

Bottom line: it's a market, and you have to negotiate. Once the papers are signed, things usually go back to normal.

<comment><USER10> "it's a market" and "you have to negotiate" can't be stressed enough.

hell, the simple fact that you can negotiate should be stressed more.

<comment><USER11> you know what else should be stressed? collective bargaining..it helps sometimes when your fellow coworkers band together to get a raise or to make the work environment better.

<comment><USER6> Do you have experience with collective bargaining?

As far as I can tell lots of hackers abhor it.

<comment><USER11> They abhor it but they may never have tried it. A lot of other workers have collectively bargained and received higher pay and other non-pay benefits.

Also, it's not like you have to form a union or anything. Just collectively bargain for a raise or whatever this one time.

<comment><USER6> Has there ever been a controlled study about whether collective bargaining leads to higher wages in the long run? (Excluding effects like lobbying for restrictions on entering the market.)

From what I know, I can't rule out that collective bargaining for higher wage is like advancing the tide with a bucket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The "new to the workforce" thing raises a flag for me. It can create a LOT of discontent to give a new guy a raise for performance reasons. At many companies, raises are due to length of tenure (sad, but true). Prepare to be told, "But you've only been here for a year. It'd be bad if we gave you a raise."

I don't think you should shop around, but you do need to understand market rate. Have a casual conversation (coffee?) with your boss (say that you'd like to talk about how your compensation will evolve as you continue to work for the company) and ask them a few questions.

1) Where does the company feel it should pay folks? Do they like to pay a little above market rate to encourage retention, at market rate to be competitive, or... (don't finish the sentence) (almost everyone will say at market rate)

2) Does performance effect that? If an employee is top notch among his peers, should that effect his pay?

3) Where would you place me among my peers and could you give me some advice about how I could excel even further?

The big Q: Given that we agree that I'm in the top n%, do you feel like my compensation is appropriate? My research has indicated that an average salary for a person of my level is X (might be worth padding a touch for anchoring purposes).

NEVER give the indication that you're shopping. There are plenty of places to research salary without doing interviews. Most managers know that once people start interviewing, there's no point in trying too hard to keep the person. Stress that you really like your job and you see a long/bright future at the company.

<comment><USER7> _At many companies, raises are due to length of tenure (sad, but true). Prepare to be told, "But you've only been here for a year. It'd be bad if we gave you a raise."_

If a company wants to buy tenure and you want to sell performance, it's a bad fit. Find someone wanting to buy what you are selling and do business with them.

If the language section of your resume lists Java, J2EE and Java 1.6, you should stick around. You'll never get a better deal elsewhere.

<comment><USER12> I totally agree. But take two programmers. 1 is good and has been there for 5 years. The other is GREAT and has been there for 6 months (and is 20 years old w/out a college degree). The second programmer gets a fat raise, placing him above the first in terms of pay. The first doesn't necessarily agre that the younger fella is clearly better: "Yeah, he cranks out code and he kisses the right asses. But a lot of it needs to be rewritten and he gets 'creative' with the spec," or somesuch. "Performance" is subjective. In the above scenario, you might have 5 disgruntled good programmers when you give you young star a fat raise.

I'm all for a meritocracy, but it's tricky with anything that's hard to measure (exception: sales).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a founder, and therefore Mr Cost Control, I hope you _never_ , _ever_ read <http://valerieaurora.org/howto_salary/>. :)

Here's Val Aurora's "short version", but you should really read the whole thing;

1\. Negotiate! It will almost never hurt you, and almost always help. Screw up your courage and just do it!

2\. Do your research - know what you are worth. Ask for advice from knowledgeable, well-compensated people with more skill and experience than you.

3\. Never ever give the first figure for salary - make the person hiring say a number first, even if they ask, repeatedly. Never ever ever! If there's a form, don't fill in the "Salary" blanks. Just don't do it.

4\. Always act slightly disappointed, no matter what the job offer is. Ask for time to think about it (i.e., plan your strategy) before getting back to them.

<comment><USER14> What's the best strategy to get the other party to put out a salary figure first?

<comment><USER15> It comes down to the type of person you are dealing with really but the most pragmatic approach would be to indicate that you feel you deserve an increase but are stuggling to quantify how much as your perception of your worth to the company won't be as accurate as theirs. At that point ask them to suggest a figure. Give them the opportunity to take time away from the discussion to think about it.

The only negative about putting the ball in their court is that it gives them control of the negotiation as they can easily come back with an extremely low figure stating that they have discussed all of the options with the appropriate personel and the quoted figure is their absolute maximum allowable increase, leaving you with zero scope to stretch it.

<comment><USER13> The original article is more focussed on "I've just got a new job", where there isn't your current salary as a peg. It's going to be a lot harder to negotiate given that.

What you have to do is somehow reframe the conversation in terms of what it'd cost to hire - and train - someone to replace you. This only works if you really _are_ essential, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just one data point, but...

Based on experience around me (ie friends etc), the slightly depressing conclusion is that you will have more raises if you change of company on a regular basis (ie each 12 to 24 months).

I've even seen people leave their company, then one year after, being proposed a lot more money by the very same company they left one year before, while the coworkers wages had barely evolved.

The situation is different on high paying jobs (still around me), where companies apparently try to ensure people won't leave (eg: > 100k€ per year + 15 weeks of holidays per year for a european insurance job I know of).

<comment><USER17> 15 weeks ? Are you absolutely certain?

What would a person need to learn to get that kind of job?

<comment><USER16> I guess you need to learn some kind of luck at this stage :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'll give you the manager's viewpoint. There are 2 considerations:

1) I have no motivation to increase your pay beyond you being a happy contributor. More money to a happy employee doesn't make the employee more productive or more happy. Therefore, unless you tell me that your pay is making you _unhappy_ , I have no reason to give you a raise, no matter how well you perform

2) It's all about balance with the rest of the team. You as an individual tend to focus on _your_ perceived worth. I don't care so much as keeping fairness among the team. I know how much I pay more senior people than you, and how much I pay more junior people. If you need a raise (as defined earlier), then I don't really mind as long as you don't mess up the equilibrium with the rest of the team.

That's it. Of course, those basic facts can lead to millions of subtle variations.

<comment><USER19> That's why I only work up to the perceived worth of my salary. Want more work done? Pay more. But I won't tell you this, it's up to you to notice.

I'm a much better programmer than the rest of the team, so I deserve a much better pay. If you pay me just a little above them, you get just a little more work. And I have more time to think about my startup.

<comment><USER20> > Want more work done? Pay more. But I won't tell you this, it's up to you to > notice.

As someone who has worked as an employee, I can understand why you feel that way.

As someone who has worked as an employer, good god, do you realize how useful that information could be to your boss?

If you can figure out how to convey that information to your boss in a socially appropriate way, it would allow him to more efficiently do his job.

Seriously, most people don't work that way. I'm slowly learning this through trial and error; personally, I'm strongly motivated by money. But I don't think this is true of most people. When its crunch time and I want my guys working nights and weekends, I will occasionally declare that I'll pay double for hours between certain dates. It gets me almost no extra work vs crunch time when I pay regular rates, at least from my regular sysadmin. (time and a half for time over 40 hours a week is normal of course, but even 'crunch time' doesn't usually mean more than 40 hours a week for me... I think working more than that usually has seriously diminishing returns.)

So my SysAdmin- you know what gets him to work harder? not money- as far as I can tell, that doesn't make any difference at all. I gave him a raise and he quit his other job, but he didn't really increase his hours working for me, which is what I wanted. What motivates him is me working alongside him on the project, as far as I can tell.

Sometimes this works out great; I mean, he's at the beginning of his career, so he's working for the experience more than he's working for the money, and like most arrogant people, I enjoy teaching, especially teaching bright people who pick things up quickly. It makes me feel like I'm a good teacher, and really, working with him keeps /me/ on track and helps prevent me from doing things like wasting time on hacker news. But it's requiring me to re-think how to motivate people.

(on the other hand, my brother, who also works for me occasionally, is a total mercenary in this regard. He eats up the double time hours, and isn't particularly interested in my regular rates.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've done this more times than I can count. It all comes down to _accurately_ valuing your contribution and evaluating your position in the company.

If the work is steady and you are making a solid contribution, then there is usually much to be gained by bargaining for a pay increase. If work (ie: not necessarily "profits") is slow it is harder to claim you are due a raise if the organization is not operating near capacity.

I usually try to get a feel for other salaries in the company first (note: it is helpful to make friends with the HR people, even if you don't particularly _like_ them, they can be a useful source of info). If the company has a general principle of paying way below average salaries, it's going to be harder to negotiate. But, if other people are making decent bank, your request is likely to be evaluated in proportion to other team members, and perhaps seen as more reasonable/rational.

But what it really comes down to is scheduling some time with your manager and laying out the details. There are a million variables, but you probably want to highlight your lack of salary growth while you've been there, your increasing contributions, fair market value for your position and so on. If your boss is weak, he'll probably tell you he needs to get approval and may reference some semi far-off non specific date/event ("the next staff meeting", or "after HR is done with the new benefits policy") if he won't commit to a specific time, tell him you'll check back "next Thursday" or some specific time.

In the end, few people have ever gotten fired simply for trying to better their salary and move up the ladder. Don't be intimidated by the process or make it into anything larger than what it is: a simple conversation.

</comment><comment><USER22> In technology, the solution is to switch companies. I did this twice and approximately doubled my take-home pay each time.

Companies are desperate for good programmers. If you have the goods (and can prove it), you should have no trouble making whatever reasonable amount of money you want. If your company doesn't care that much, you can convince them to care (hard), or go elsewhere (easy).

It's a business, and you are the product.

(Oh, and something I've noticed when reading people's resumes... it's apparently fine to go back to your original company after you've gotten a raise via some other second company. The finance industry makes incest look good.)

</comment><comment><USER23> I entered the professional workforce a little late but had always been considered good with computers. Starting low($45k) I quickly came to conclusion that people where making way more money($85k) than me and I was just as good if not better at the task at hand than they where. With my managers support I asked my employer for parity with my co-workers. I received a good bump to start(65k) and over the course of a few years I was into a six figure salary. There was some drama that helped along the way, people quiting, epic weekends of coding, and normal BS of not working at a "google/fog creek" type of place but it worked out for me.

</comment><comment><USER24> I did the following two times. They were the only times I tried and I was successful in both cases:

-I researched how much I should be getting and brought that data to the meeting with my boss. It's usually a little tricky because most data is one-dimensional (e.g. salary per years of experience) but it also opens up more ways to interpret it to your benefit. I insisted on comparing to the market and not to my co-workers.

-I always highlighted what the company or my boss was getting with my work. Never what I needed for myself. Also think about how much it would cost them to replace you.

-I highlighted how my work was changing and how that change should be reflected in my salary (e.g. more responsibility).

-I was open to creative solutions, such as getting half of the raise now, half of it a year later.

-I was prepared to leave if he had strictly refused without good reasons (e.g. a strict company-wide freeze on raises).

The last time I did this, the raise was 33%.

</comment><comment><USER25> "I'd like a salary increase please, how do I go about ensuring I get it next pay raise period?"

<comment><USER26> That's less assertive than I'd recommend. There's no need to wait for the "next pay raise period". Just ask.

<comment><USER27> That's not always true, especially for people working in large agencies where there is actually 1-2 windows per year for raises, I've seen people leave over it. I've seen it done to people being elevated to the Managing Director level, but having to wait x months before compensation kicks in.

When you're part of a larger whole that controls the HR scale, showing you can work within that isn't always bad.

<comment><USER26> It's a good point, but that still seems like a bad starting position, even in that sort of organization. If raises have to happen at predefined periods, you should just assume it's a given without mentioning it. If they say, "Yes, but you have to wait", that's fine. If they say, "Okay, we'll give it to you", that's better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> As an employer I can tell you step #1 would be to make sure you're worth it to your boss. If you don't know that your boss would be very unhappy to see you go, he probably wouldn't.

Assuming you're one of the most valuable employees, and you have a good reason (ie. your boss is paying you well under market rate for someone of your skill set) then keep in mind that your boss probably won't be upset. Nobody is happy to pay more for the same thing, but they'd be less unhappy than losing you. What an employer pays his employees is often based on what they asked for rather than what they deserved.

</comment><comment><USER29> You just ask, but take the advice that others have posted and definitely do your due diligence on local market research before asking.

On a side note:

I've had 4 jobs in the past 3 years, and I've had significant pay increases everytime I started with a new employer (except for my current job).

Job 1 -> Job 2: +30%

Job 2 -> Job 3: +50%

Job 3 -> Job 4: -15%

I took a pay decrease for Job 4 as the job was still paying well over the median, was more interesting, and had a way better work environment.

Sometimes the best way to get a raise is to find another job.

</comment><comment><USER30> There's a tendency here to excuse any such request with, "there's no budget", and, "these are tough times", which frustrated me when I was in the same position as you. Unfortunately, my advice isn't that good: I wrote a nice letter explaining why I deserve a raise and ended it with a threat that if I don't get it, I'm gone. Then, all of a sudden, the money was there ;)

</comment><comment><USER31> Stop thinking that above average is good enough --- you shouldn't be happy with that. You should be thinking about top 5% (of people with your number of years experience).

Listen to the other advice here and go negotiate, but if the best point you have is I'm average and not paid average, you aren't at a strong negotiating point, yet (I know you said "above" average, but you also said that you "feel like" it's that -- meaning you accept that you might not be).

If you don't get the raise, and you feel like it's hopeless to get it. End with: What do I have to do to merit this raise in 6 months? Then go exceed it by a lot, and keep going. Future negotiations will be much easier.

Also, becoming more than marginally above average will make finding a different job much easier too.

</comment><comment><USER32> As others have said, know you value to the company. But, there are two parts to that. First (as already stated), know what a competitive salary is for your position and experience. Second, _be able to back up your request_. Have documentation of goals, successes, and anything else you've done to move the company towards its goals. The latter is worth a lot more than an article or job posting telling you what you're worth (and generates a bit less animosity than waving an offer letter in their face).

</comment><comment><USER33> I've asked for a raise and gotten it once. My other raises were all from switching jobs, although I usually left for other reasons and you generally get a step up.

When I did ask I knew the company was small and relatively informal. I said that I had done X, Y and Z that included taking more responsibility and really delivering and that I would like a raise. They asked me how much and I said $15K and they said yes. It was pretty sweet.

Not to say you don't deserve it, but I would not really consider doing "above average work" to be a good enough reason for a big raise. A small annual one, sure. I would think you'd need to be taking on additional responsibilities. Assuming you're doing that, then I think you should be able to make a compelling argument. Also, since you know that you're underpaid, you could bring that up as a point.

Whatever you do, don't make it into a threat that you will leave if you don't get the raise. If they say no, just ask what steps you can take so that you WOULD be worth $10K more money to them. If the answer is "nothing", then get the hell out. Most likely the answer will be "you would need to doing X independently" or something like that. In that case, do it, get your praise in writing from your managers/coworkers, and then ask again in 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER34> On a slight tangent, if you work at a large corp that has very organised payroll/HR procedures, such as reviewing pay only at fixed times (eg. once every 12 months, as my current employer does), how hard is it usually to argue for a payrise ahead of schedule?

If the next pay review is 6 months away, is it feasible to argue for a payrise now, or would managers have very limited power to fight against the HR process?

<comment><USER35> In my experience, managers are actually more constrained during the annual review cycle. They tend to have very specific quotas for promotions and raises. One large company I worked for literally had a bell curve for raises that managers had to fit their employees into. Every meaningful raise I've gotten has come outside of the annual process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I hate to sound all macho, but you have two options in your case:

If you're new to the workforce, and think your underpaid, get a new job, or shut up.

</comment><comment><USER37> Out of college, I received a decent job offer and I took it. About a year later, I felt like I was doing as much as most of the senior guys (maybe a little lower in quality but higher in quantity), and felt like my salary should be closer to theirs. Their salaries were 30-50% higher. So, I went to my boss, and basically said "look, when you hired me, I was just out of college, you were taking a risk, you didn't know what I could do or not do, etc. Over the last year, I think I proved that I can do good work and lots of it, and I hope my salary can reflect that." I asked for a 12% raise, my boss said it sounded high but he would think about it. A few days later, I got what I asked for.

TL;DR: you don't have to threaten to quit, and presenting good, logical reasons for a higher salary can be pretty effective. Just figure out what those reasons are and then present them to your boss in a non-threatening manner.

</comment><comment><USER38> Ask "the man" if he has any plans to increase your salary, or if there is a company policy that dictates that kind of thing. This way he will know that you are interested in a raise, you will know from his answers if you have any hopes of getting one, and then you can decide whether to stay there or not.

</comment><comment><USER39> If you are not happy with your pay aren't you basically indirectly implying that you are not happy with your job?

I would say if you are not happy with your pay, find a new job or at least offers and take it from there.

You may not be unhappy at your current job (not your dream job, but not terrible either), so if you present any real offers to your current employer and they like you and see you as a valuable asset that they do not want to lose I would think they would offer you more if that's what you wanted. Then you can decide from that point if you want more pay (assuming they offer to pay more and keep you) or do you want more pay and a different job?

</comment><comment><USER11> You should talk to your co-workers and ask them what their experience was asking for a raise. Another idea is to compare salaries and then see if maybe most workers deserve a raise too. If the management keeps denying raises, then you can collectively bargain for raises...I'm not sure how big the company is, but it's kind of a pain in the ass to sack 5+ workers at a time and re-hire especially when there are projects going on.

</comment><comment><USER40> I had an offer in hand and asked them to match it. To do this, however, you have to be willing to accept the offer and leave.

</comment><comment><USER41> Some time ago I've blogged about it,

"Top 10 Tips (+1) to Get a Pay Raise"

<http://codemonkeyism.com/top-10-tips-1-pay-raise/>

</comment><comment><USER42> For a good book on the topic see "how to make $1000 a minute". Some of the techniques are dated, but overall the principles are solid.

</comment><comment><USER43> The best way to get a raise is to get a new job.

</comment><comment><USER44> two options:

1\. Just ask what you need to do to get a raise. You should expect something about the economy being bad as the answer.

2\. Get another offer, Tell your current employer that you are very happy with the current job but, they are not competitive in compensation, and you will be giving you two weeks notice the next Monday. The wait to see if there is a counter offer.

</comment><comment><USER45> If you do not ask you will never get. That is what you should be thinking all the time.

Your boss will not give you money just because you are a good guy (or girl). They will always try to maximize their fortune and not yours. Sure you will get a raise at some point to address inflation but that will come as late as possible.

What I have done in the past was a long term one and not a 30 minute conversation. I would throughout the course of the year, send emails to my boss outlining my achievements of that period. So for instance if I managed to upgrade X servers to save the company money, I would send an email at the end of the task outlining that. This would be ammunition for me later on to ensure that my request is not seen as unreasonable.

When the time comes to ask for the raise I was printing the emails and started discussing the matter with my boss. 9 out of 10 the boss would not remember half of the things that I had done throughout the year. I would let him/her tell me first what they thought regarding a raise. I would approach it as "What do you think I am worth here - what is my value to this company". To this day it has worked wonders since only once I got an offer less than what I wanted.

Finally you will need to have an accurate picture of the company's financial position before you do that. You cannot ask for a raise when the company is in trouble. If that is the case then you should be looking for another job.

A very good piece of advice is from yummyfajitas also as far as assessing your value.

Good luck!!

<comment><USER46> "You cannot ask for a raise when the company is in trouble"

Isn't this the standard for most companies (especially IT) in today's economy?

<comment><USER47> Yeah. Most tech companies are facing an "uncertain economy" yet the execs are still paying themselves $300k/yr cash and as-much-as-possible w/ options/RSUs. If you are talented, you can negotiate. Many people in senior management are insecure, they know they are overpaid, and need people that can actually produce, to help them hold their position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> 1) Work somewhere where they have the resources to pay you more. You ain't gettin a raise if they dont have the money.

2) Justify your raise, this will probably mean talking to the guys in accounting, make up something about helping sales but get the sales numbers and a rough estimate of profit margin. Show your boss the numbers and how you contribute to them, admittedly I got cut off from the official numbers after I almost doubled my salary doing this.

3) Send out resumes. Yes, most employers don't want to hear you're leaving because the pay is crap, others do, you want to work for the latter. If 1 and 2 don't work then usually this one will as business is a bit like dating, it's much easier to get the girl if you already have one. When you have a job and ask for money you will do so with confidence. If you are looking for money then you are looking for money. Focus on the goal you want, be willing to jump ship if the pay isn't there.

4) Be interesting, if you don't have some funny stories, make some up, you want to be affable, when you talk to whoever will give you the raise do not go in talking about your raise immediately, make some small talk about whatever THEY are interested in first. Then move to your pitch.

5) There is a lot more to a job than money, make sure you really want the cash, and not any other kind of perk.

Edit: I also wanted to say, that asking for a raise is a bit of an art, like interviewing. You want to get good at it so do it frequently. Admittedly, you can't ask for a raise every month or two, I personally never asked more than once a year. So go do lots of interviews.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have a very humble experience in workforce myself (less than 5 years). But these are my takeaway lessons.

1\. Never ask for a raise with "or else I'm leaving" threats. This is an important lesson, that some of my coworkers don't understand - so they believe that I got my raises through threats - since I am inclined to stand my ground on important issues. I have threatened to leave for various stuff - even gave my notice a couple of times. But never for trying to get a raise. I also categorically refused to accept a raise as bribe instead I demanded to sort the pressing issues out and after awhile I came to negotiate a raise.

2\. Make sure you're really that good OR at least perceived as good. Run the extra mile, jump through extra hoops, endure extra hardships - don't overextend yourself just step out of median (messianic complex is bad in itself) - be a little more thorough, a little more reliable,... And your efforts shall be noticed.

3\. When asking for a raise make your mind beforehand of what you're worth and stick to the plan. If they refuse of the bat - persist, don't cave in (don't be an ass - just ask what will it take to get what you want). What actually happened with one boss is that I was commended, he said that he didn't realize I was that aggressive and that this trait was exactly what he required - <USER2> was actually a big boost to my early career.

</comment><comment><USER49> Many, many years ago in my first job developing software I made the worst possible mistake and asked for an absurdly low salary out the gate. I was happy just to be paid to code at all, and I was utterly naive about how money truly drives the entire software industry. It took a few months until I realized how badly I cheated myself so I asked the boss/owner of the company (a small non-startup, less than 10 employees) for something like a 50% raise. I knew I had to slightly highball to get the going fair market amount, since nobody in this world can just be honest about money, so I expected the boss would counter-offer with a lower rate. The boss avoided me for two weeks straight, he shut himself in his office, constantly had his phone glued to his ear, took extra days out-of-office, and completely let go of asking for progress updates for my work, all to avoid talking to me at all.

It was kind of nice actually. I made a mental note of this trick, so that the next time I want some breathing room to get the boss off my back, the easiest way is to drop a hint that I want a big raise. :)

I did eventually get the raise, and oddly for the exact amount I requested, but it was quite a painful first lesson to learn. Why will a modestly wealthy person who owns a successful company have no issue whatsoever with completely ripping of a just out of college kid who is slaving away for the owner's profit margins, and yet exhibit the most irrational behavior when it comes time to play fair and pay up? I don't know.

But it is absolutely true that in the software industry the easiest way to get a raise is to switch jobs. That's just how the game is played. Any human enterprise premised on profits is forced to be hugely wasteful, especially when you consider how much talent is thrown away to another company in order to avoid being honest about money, all so some jerk at the top can keep a larger piece of the pie for himself. This kind of direct experience is why I laughed at that stupid blog article from a few months back that said to never hire "job hoppers." IMHO job hopping developers, acting like all out software mercenaries, guns blazing on behalf of whoever is signing the checks, are automatically amongst the smartest of the pool, since they see the fundamental economic pattern underneath the entire software industry.

This silly money pattern also leads to the unusual circumstance that requires when you switch jobs, always, every time, no matter what, _ask for a higher salary than what you received at your last job._ Even if it's only a little bit. Never, ever move backwards, at least unless there are other external constraints preventing it. This is the only way to keep yourself from sliding down into the economic sinkhole. Sadly, it is money and not geeky ideology about OS, programming languages, etc that is the true driving force to align yourself with. Money is magnetic north in all things.(Unless you have enough Fuck-You Money, but that's a different story.)

Anyone who doesn't follow this negotiation pattern, and who isn't in some highly custom circumstances is a complete fool who probably deserves to get fleeced and left as a beggar by those shark-mouthed, pointy-haired MBAs we all love. But we _can_ absolutely beat them at their own game. :)

Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER50> If you _really_ want more money the most effective method is to to "play hardball". This play can double or even triple your income from a entry point salary if you're worth it and you play it right.

The deal with hardball is that you have to leave your current company. You may not actually leave the company but you must be _prepared_ to, otherwise it wont work and you will back down too quickly.

As usual, look around the market for better pay and try to get a job interview and a position for pay that you like the sound of. Once this is done and dusted, hand in your resignation and state that the reason you are leaving the job is due to pay. State a figure that would keep you at the company but obviously keep this very private between yourself and your manager. You can be a little cheeky with this figure, depending on how much you want to remain there.

If they value your work sufficiently they will accept your figure and modify your salary to keep you there. If they don't you leave for the other job that pays better.

For best results you need to get the timing of the hardball perfect. You need your employers to either be desperate, guilty or a bit of both. Desperation is achieved by doing this at a critical moment. Say, the most senior member of staff on your project leaves, thus leaving you with the most knowledge of the system. Or in my case, regulation of the mortgage market was about 8 months away and I was the only member of staff with sufficient knowledge to implement their new system.

Guilt can be even better though depending on the type of manager you have. Essentially you want the manager to feel as though they owe you something. For example, if your pay review was supposed to happen six months after your start but it has been twelve or eighteen months then they will feel guilty about not doing it sooner. If they have cancelled a project you worked hard on or did you some other kind of disservice your guilt ratio increases and you can cash in.

I managed to push my salary from £12k to £36k in one fell swoop this way about 8 years ago. It's how I started contracting.

For context, the company had cancelled my own software development project (which despite being poor code (when i look back on it) was fit for purpose and worked). They replaced this with a system bought in (which they had to buy on a management agreement from joining a particular group) that was just a confusing mess of VBScript and SQL stored procedures. It didn't work, wasn't built for purpose (a common operation would lock up the database server for 2 minutes+) and I only _just_ managed to stitch it together in time for regulation day (actually it was a few days after, I had to manually do a lot of the quotes in the first few days of regulation.. ). And when I say stitched this process involved a bunch of programs I had also hacked together to cover the gaps.

</comment><comment><USER51> Read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" first...

</comment><comment><USER52> Best not to ask for a raise, just keep working hard and good things will probably happen. Karma and all that.

<comment><USER53> Doesn't work if your bosses are clueless / nontechnical or powerless (or a combination of all of the above).

I've got hardworking coworkers that deserve a raise, and they won't since they won't negotiate and the boss (deservedly) doesn't have the political clout within the company to negotiate for us.

Edit: this at a largish company. Obviously doesn't apply to startups and smaller companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The web has thousands and thousands of posts on this subject - you can get a lot of great ideas from them. I'm not trying to be rude either by implying that you haven't search; I'm completely serious: go to Google/Bing/whatever and ask this question. There are some great posts out there.

<comment><USER55> People ask a lot of questions here that -could- be answered elsewhere. I always assume they're asking here because they want to know what this community in particular has to say about the issue.</comment></comment>


The Pinnacle of LaTex Demo's - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/luismbat/status/1134696299570196480 <comment><USER2> Not quite the same, but there is a TeX-Font for the initials:

[https://ctan.org/pkg/yinit](https://ctan.org/pkg/yinit)</comment>


The rise and fall of AMD: How an underdog stuck it to Intel - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-underdog-stuck-it-to-intel/ <comment><USER2> It's not so much that AMD "stuck" it to Intel as Intel shot itself in the foot. The only reason AMD was successful was that Intel made a gigantic mistake in NetBurst ("10 GHz or bust!")

When Intel finally rectified that mistake and released Conroe it was game over for AMD. AMD simply can't compete with Intel whether in architecture or fabrication.

What AMD could've done was to concede the PC market to Intel and focus on the emerging mobile device market - the classic disruptive attack. ARM went that route and now has a market cap that's 10X bigger than AMD. Qualcomm adopted a similar strategy with Snapdragon and now has a market cap equals to that of Intel's.

Lesson: never fight a dominant incumbent in its own game. You will get killed. Play a different game. Better yet, invent a new game where you know the rules best.

<comment><USER3> >>Lesson: never fight a dominant incumbent in its own game. You will get killed. Play a different game. Better yet, invent a new game where you know the rules best.

What about Google[1], Apple[2], Facebook[3], etc? Not disagreeing with you but I'm genuinely curious on what you think about these companies. I probably can think of many more examples but these are the ones that sprang to mind when thinking of companies that "fought the dominant incumbant in its own game".

<comment><USER2> 1) Google - when Google came into existence in late 90's there were no dominant search engines. The orthodoxy at that time was that there was no money in search. Accordingly nobody wanted to be a search engine and everyone tried to be a portal. The dominant player back then - Yahoo - emphasized its use of human editors and partnered with AltaVista and Inktomi for search.

So Google never really defeated a dominant search engine - it merely took advantage of a giant vacuum in the market.

2)Apple - Apple never defeated Microsoft in the PC game. Instead it focused on emerging markets: ipod, iphone, ipad. Eventually these new products (smartphones & tablets) became powerful enough to erode the PC market. Even now Microsoft is still dominant in the PC market. It's just that PC is no longer where the action is at.

3)Facebook - there were no dominant players in social networking when facebook was founded. Myspace was the biggest player, but "big" was a relative term back then. Even at the height of its popularity the vast majority of the population was not Myspace users. Sure if you were 16 year old in 2004 then you were probably on Myspace. but outside of that demo Myspace was far from dominant. Most people were not on any social networks. In short it was a wide open market.

I'm sure there are examples where a challenger took on a dominant incumbent head on and won. But those are the edge cases. You pretty much need all the stars to align perfectly to have a chance. It's not a strategy I'd bet on.

<comment><USER4> 1) Google > Apple in mobile 2) Apple > Nokia in mobile 3) Facebook > Google in ads

<comment><USER5> What exactly do you mean by google > apple in mobile?

<comment><USER4> After Apple hit the marked everyone was buying an iPhone. Now most of the people have Android phones.

<comment><USER6> Not really. While the iPhone has been influential and a huge success for Apple, it didn't really kill any of existing smartphone incumbents. "Everyone" was only buying an iPhone for fairly limited values of "everyone" (e.g. excluding several continents). Instead, Android killed off those incumbents, taking advantage of the opening the iPhone had created.

So it's really Google > Nokia (Symbian), Microsoft (Windows Mobile), Palm and RIM, with Apple off to the side somewhere. And the complex, multi-faceted Apple vs Google battle in mobile isn't an upstart vs an incumbent, it is a battle of two upstarts who have become the incumbents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >AMD began life as a second-source supplier for companies using Intel processors.

Ars should know better. AMD started in 1969, making their own logic parts. In the late minicomputer era, their Am2900 series of bit-slice[1] components was king, being used to build CPUs for models of DEC PDP-11 and PDP-10, DG Nova, Xerox Dandelion ("Star"), Wirth's Lilith, Atari vector arcade machines, and countless other machines.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_slicing>

(Not especially relevant disclaimer: I work for Intel.)

<comment><USER8> Ars hasn't known better in a good long time.

<comment><USER9> Agreed. Their quality has gone down a lot over the past couple of years. Every article they write is full of mistakes and inaccuracies. Honestly they only reason I still visit the site is to see Aurich Lawson's artwork.

<comment><USER10> It's funny that you mention mistakes and inaccuracies, because I'm actually waiting for the author of the OP article (Cyrus) to get around to replying to an email I sent him 4 days ago pointing out that the claims about Silk Road in [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/fbi-halted-one- ch...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/fbi-halted-one-child-porn- inquiry-because-tor-got-in-the-way/) are completely false and this can be proven by merely reading the PDF used as the source for the article.

Thinking about complaining to him on Twitter, maybe if I start being more public about it he'll bother to do something about a year-long mistake...

<comment><USER10> I pinged him on Twitter and he fixed it within the hour. I guess I've learned a lesson here.

<comment><USER9> Yeah. I find it kind of sad just how bad people are with email. I hate the idea of having to rely on Facebook or Twitter to get people to respond.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What a wave of nostalgia. I took a job at AMD in 2005, right at the zenith of their success. I was totally enamored of the great technology that went into K7 and K8, and I was ready to help this underdog company stick it to Intel and turn the microprocessor world on its ear.

I worked there for six years, through fumble after disaster after boondoggle. I could go on and on about all the reasons I believe AMD went down the tubes -- and I'm really looking forward to reading the second installment -- but I think a lot of it reduces to the disfunctional corporate culture alluded to in this piece.

During my time at AMD -- and the old-timers confirmed that it was ever thus -- there was _always_ the sense that every project was make-or-break for the company, that we were always on the brink of disaster. Long-term strategic planning is simply not in the company's DNA. We lurched around like a headless chicken, and when -- through a combination of good products and missteps by Intel -- AMD finally got a taste of sucess, we squandered it in the most ham- handed and disastrous (and predictable) way.

P.S. Bulldozer project was a total horror show, beginning to end.

<comment><USER12> > P.S. Bulldozer project was a total horror show, beginning to end.

I'm intrigued. In your opinion what were the pain points - Management? Schedule? Technical? Foundry? Methodology (EDA synthesis vs old school hand- layout etc)? Something else?

All of the above?

<comment><USER11> The whole project was over-scoped and over-ambitious. Flush with the success of K8, AMD decided to undertake a completely new from-scratch processor design. New architecture, new cell libraries, new design methodologies, new tools -- we chucked everything out and started over completely.

It's like AMD had their first taste of champagne with the success of K7/K8, and we immediately got drunk and fell on our face.

I would also like to single out for opprobrium Bruce Gieseke, the technical director of the project, who shoved an utterly impractical and labor-intensive design methodology down our throats, and would not relent even when it became clear how much it handicapped the project. We should have been trying to synthesize much more of the chip from day one.

Over all, the project was plagued by delays, bugs, and dead ends. It was way over budget and well past schedule; in the end, it came to market at least two years too late to have an impact. By the time bulldozer-based products reached market, the technical innovations of the new architecture had already been bested (or at least matched) by Ivy Bridge. And of course, Intel has Haswell on deck; AMD, having poured all its resources into bulldozer, has nothing left in the tank.

But bulldozer was also disastrous for all the resources it leeched away from other projects, and the way it focused the company's energy on a product whose market was at least flat, if not yet shrinking. There were some really promising projects that got cancelled so that AMD could throw more engineering resources at bulldozer.

management: fail

schedule: fail

technical: would have been awesome in 2009

foundry: Working with Global Foundries was not entirely smooth, but it would be inaccurate to lay too much blame here.

methodology: fail++

<comment><USER12> Thanks for the write up. In particular I'd seen comments[1] that seemed to imply big disputes between the old school (highly tuned custom chip layout) vs new school (progress via faster iteration with synthesis/automation) design styles.

[1] e.g. [http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111013232215_Ex_A...](http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111013232215_Ex_AMD_Engineer_Explains_Bulldozer_Fiasco.html) (ignoring the misleading intepretation in the article itself).

<comment><USER11> I worked with the engineer cited in that article. He left the company, on less than amicable terms, pretty early in the bulldozer project. I'll just say he lacks credibility, and leave it at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From my perspective, AMD really screwed up the AMD/ATI merger in the worst way possible. When AMD bought ATI they were well positioned to beat everyone to market to release their APU chip. However, the problems started almost immediately when neither AMD nor ATI did anything to combine resources. They should have put in the time and money to merge teams at all levels of the company. Instead they built a few small groups that included senior personnel from both units, then they left most of the lower level teams to work on whatever they were working on previously. Never mind the fact that there were a lot of really clever people all over the place ready to contribute really great ideas.

In other words, there was zero global direction down the ranks. It was just business as usual; keep doing what you've always been doing, and maybe we'll show you some nice slides a few times a year about how great APUs will be. This lack of organization meant that no one had any idea what anyone else was doing. Worse-- even if you wanted to find out there was absolutely no company- wide documentation or organization on anything. Your only hope for getting information was hoping one of your co-workers had bookmarked some magical page with the info you required. l This just got worse when you accounted for the problem of elitism. The hardware teams were just so much better than the software teams. After all, software is easy, so what sort of useful input could those code monkeys offer. And far be it from the software teams to actually talk to someone from the QA teams; those QA people were beneath notice. Finally, add in a very wide distribution of personnel seniority, insane levels of paranoia about job security, grade-school level office politics, and completely disparate management styles, then hit blend.

So really, the results are not at all surprising. You can't have two companies pretend to be one while playing tug-of-war, and still be competitive.

<comment><USER14> > They should have put in the time and money to merge teams at all levels of > the company

How would forcing the teams to merge quickly rather than gradually achieve anything other than messing up everyone's development schedules?

<comment><USER15> Yes because teams are like liquids, just pour them in a cup and stir that stuff up. _sigh_

<comment><USER16> that's not what was said at all. _sigh_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How I remember those days! after the complete disaster that were the first PIIIs comes the Athlon. It was just so amazing, so unbelievable that you could get that much power without breaking the bank.

And it was the same story until about 2006, you could get an Athlon or a FX and get more than enough CPU power to run almost anything in the market at the time. Even the Sempron which was the cheap option was _good enough_ , I remember guys in forums getting mobile version and OCing 'em to the very limit.

But then came Core2Duo, and AMD literally had nothing against it. The first Phenom sucked, big-time, there is no other way to put it. The Phenom II was much better but not good enough and the only talk about it was how you could turn on the disabled cores in the X2 and X3 variants since they were the same silicon than the quads.

I really wanted the FX to be as good as the Athlon-era FX, but it wasn't, not even close.

</comment><comment><USER18> Hang on, what about consoles? AMD are doing the CPU and GPU for the PS4 and presumably the next Xbox if rumours are true.

Surely this is quite a windfall? Particularly if they're pumping out the same part for ~5 years, much longer than the average CPU stays on the market. Is this not a cash cow?

I'm disappointed AMD are no longer competitive on the CPU desktop performance market, but I'm not sure I understand _why_ they cant compete with Intel on CPUs given the stable revenue offered by consoles and their competitive GPU line. Is it Pure R&D budget? Or Intel are too far ahead tech wise? Intel have the best engineers? What is it?

<comment><USER19> Console parts are commodity, not cash cows. I'm sure AMD will make a profit, but not much. NVIDIA and Intel never made much money here either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Apparently AMD will have the upper hand in the next gen video game consoles PS4 -> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4#Hardware> xbox 720 -> [http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a471564/xbox-720-to-...](http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a471564/xbox-720-to- use-amd-processor-lacks-backwards-compatibility.html) or at least that's the rumor.

<comment> SG- The margins are likely extremely low and performance doesn't seem to be anything amazing, it's likely current or slightly last generation. Don't forget that consoles will still have to sell for <$500 and make some profit.

<comment><USER21> Indirectly, it does makes AMD CPUs and GPUs more attractive to PC gamers:

[http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future- proo...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing- your-pc-for-next-gen)

<comment><USER22> Which is another shrinking market. AMD needs a mobile and/or GPU/CPU integration strategy. I think ARM is about to eat everyone's lunch for consumer products. Not sure what may happen with Intel, as there's still some life left for servers.

<comment><USER2> > Not sure what may happen with Intel, as there's still some life left for > servers.

For now. But sooner or later ARM will become powerful enough to run servers. The chips are cheaper. The operating costs will also be lower as ARM draws lower power. Before you know it data centers will switch over to ARM, first as a trickle, then as a deluge.

ARM will do to x86 what Intel did to SPARC & Alpha & PA-RISC & MIPS. Intel will have to keep retreating to higher and higher end niches.

<comment><USER23> What do you think is the moat that will keep Intel from doing to Arm what they did to the RISC chips? Intel has better process and very capable designers. They are quickly moving down-market. Why assume that Arm moves into Intel's territory before Intel moves into Arm's?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> AMD has only stayed in the game to begin with because Intel was 'forced' to license x86 to them in order to avoid government anti-trust prosecution.

<comment><USER25> And we should be glad that they did or history may have turned out very different. I doubt that an Intel without any real competition would have innovated as quickly as they have.

<comment><USER24> It's a very interesting notion, that we'll never get to test unfortunately.

Without the artificially propped-up AMD perhaps the market would have served up a far superior competitor than a half-the-time mediocre AMD that is now on life support.

ARM is tremendous evidence that the market can produce competition to beat Intel. I think the ARM model is kind of like how Windows & Android both managed to beat Apple in market share, in regards to the business model (ARM being distributed amongst numerous competitors, advancing the market faster than it would with a solo supplier).

It's also worth considering that it nearly always takes a new epoch / inflection / radical shift in markets to dislodge industry standards (and that as a consequence AMD may never have stood a real chance). Which is also why ARM now has a chance to rock Intel.

I'm not aware of too many standards that have been killed off in tech without a big shift in the underlying technology segment in question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I found it interesting that Bill Gates had a hand in AMD buying NexGen, the company that gave AMD its' K5/6 technology and brought them Raza.

I don't really know what was going on with Microsoft and Intel around 1995 but it appears pretty clear that Bill wanted to have atleast two x86n chip suppliers available for PC manufacturers.

</comment><comment><USER27> A book recommendation relevant here: Inside Intel is a great book about the founding and early-days sparring with AMD - it's old - I bought my copy in the late nineties en route to Silicon Valley from London. But it's a great scene setter and backgrounder for these sorts of stories. Great read.

<comment><USER18> So whats its called and where can we find it?

<comment><USER28> It's called "Inside Intel", and appears to be available at Amazon. [http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Intel-Worlds-Powerful- Company/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Intel-Worlds-Powerful- Company/dp/0452276438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366642565&sr=8-1&keywords=inside+intel)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> AMD also had a niche in supercomputers, for example the Cray XT/XE series. Not sure the absolute volume really made a difference there though, the number of Cray sales would be dwarfed by ordinary PCs and servers.

<comment><USER30> Cray's next generation is going Intel BTW.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is a very scary image for AMD:

<http://i.imgur.com/pCiDEKP.png>

Their revenue is falling, and falling consistently.

They pretty much lost as a CPU manufactured in every area - desktop, laptop, tablet, phone.

Their only option at the moment is to keep making the best damn APUs and GPUs, and try to invent something new. I wish they came out with a 1000-core CPU or something.

<comment><USER32> Unified CPU and GPU memory is an awesome concept that game developers in particular love (but not just them). We'll see if unified memory in both the next-gen consoles will spur something interesting in PCs. I'm not holding my breath though, since Intel have no interesting GPU story.

<comment><USER33> It makes a lot of sense for laptops and tablets and console-like PCs (e.g. SteamBox). There may be a market there for AMD.

<comment><USER32> But in the former and latter, people are likely to wish for Intel CPUs instead (even if they don't actually need them).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Single atoms antenna - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/a-new-antenna-using-single-atoms-could-usher-in-the-age-of-atomic-radio/ <comment><AUTHOR> The paper on arXiv : [https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08589](https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08589)</comment>


Heroku is down in parts of Europe - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/search?q=heroku&src=typd&lang=ca <comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the link, but there is not an official announce or anything in their status page ([https://status.heroku.com/](https://status.heroku.com/)) yet.

<comment><USER2> There is now:

We are investigating reports that some apps in the EU region are unavailable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> All (~70) of our Heroku apps are down, deliveroo also seems to be down as well

<comment><USER4> 70 heroku apps? Microservices? Or clients?</comment></comment>