Sorry. I'm not arguing it doesn't happen. (I agree that it's an extremely common outcome.)
I'm arguing that it shouldn't happen and, if it does, that would explain that layoffs disproportionately hitting those whose return-on-cost is lowest means disproportionately hitting those whose candles-on-cake is highest.
> Slowly accumulating raises as you age without seeking a management role means out eventually.
At whatever the career level is for your org, some people should probably stop getting merit raises entirely. If their merit isn't increasing, there's no reason their pay should be either. They could drift up as the entire market wage drifts up, but if a 10-years-at-VP is just as valuable as a 20-years-at-VP, they should be paid the same. (I'd much rather start having that conversation when they're 11-at-VP and get no merit raise and it's still a good time economically than 9 years later when they're surprised to be shown the door with zero warning after a string of merit-free merit increases and a stack of "meets expectations" performance reviews.)
I'm arguing that it shouldn't happen and, if it does, that would explain that layoffs disproportionately hitting those whose return-on-cost is lowest means disproportionately hitting those whose candles-on-cake is highest.
> Slowly accumulating raises as you age without seeking a management role means out eventually.
At whatever the career level is for your org, some people should probably stop getting merit raises entirely. If their merit isn't increasing, there's no reason their pay should be either. They could drift up as the entire market wage drifts up, but if a 10-years-at-VP is just as valuable as a 20-years-at-VP, they should be paid the same. (I'd much rather start having that conversation when they're 11-at-VP and get no merit raise and it's still a good time economically than 9 years later when they're surprised to be shown the door with zero warning after a string of merit-free merit increases and a stack of "meets expectations" performance reviews.)