Dear Sanjay, kudos to you for commencing strategically important debate. Some may not like it, but money matters. After five, six years down the line in corporate world, parents, relatives and friends would like to know, whats your achievement. With sound bank balance, you can flaunt things galore namely car, house, lavish life style, hitech gadgets. What if you are working with a brand on petty salary? You only have a brand to showcase. Its cool to work with a big name, but money also matters. Still I believe, it varies from person to person. For me money and designation matters......... http://wwwkrantirajiv-rajiv.blogspot.com/
By
Rajiv Azad (Common Man with Uncommon dreams), Manager, Communications, Branding and Content Development at Leading Hyderabad based Organization, Leading Hyderabad based organization
| 11 09 2011 05:43:34 +0000
Hmm, other than that, it might be an occupational hazard, as some fields require you to shift jobs, and others offer stability. In creative jobs, you like to start out on your own as an owner, unless you're in a commnading position at the job.
By
neha singh, Content Editor, Avestia Corp
| 11 07 2011 12:21:29 +0000
Off the agenda for similar reasons are other economically sensible options, such as a small financial transactions tax. Meanwhile new gifts are regularly lavished on Wall Street. The House Appropriations Committee cut the budget request for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the prime barrier against financial fraud. The Consumer Protection Agency is unlikely to survive intact. Congress wields other weapons in its battle against future generations. Faced with Republican opposition to environmental protection, American Electric Power, a major utility, shelved "the nation's most prominent effort to capture carbon dioxide from an existing coal-burning power plant, dealing a severe blow to efforts to rein in emissions responsible for global warming," The New York Times reported. The self-inflicted blows, while increasingly powerful, are not a recent innovation. They trace back to the 1970s, when the national political economy underwent major transformations, ending what is commonly called "the Golden Age" of (state) capitalism. Two major elements were financialization (the shift of investor preference from industrial production to so-called FIRE: finance, insurance, real estate) and the offshoring of production. The ideological triumph of "free market doctrines," highly selective as always, administered further blows, as they were translated into deregulation, rules of corporate governance linking huge CEO rewards to short-term profit, and other such policy decisions. The resulting concentration of wealth yielded greater political power, accelerating a vicious cycle that has led to extraordinary wealth for a fraction of 1 percent of the population, mainly CEOs of major corporations, hedge fund managers and the like, while for the large majority real incomes have virtually stagnated. In parallel, the cost of elections skyrocketed, driving both parties even deeper into corporate pockets. What remains of political democracy has been undermined further as both parties have turned to auctioning congressional leadership positions, as political economist Thomas Ferguson outlines in the Financial Times. "The major political parties borrowed a practice from big box retailers like Walmart, Best Buy or Target," Ferguson writes. "Uniquely among legislatures in the developed world, U.S. congressional parties now post prices for key slots in the lawmaking process." The legislators who contribute the most funds to the party get the posts. The result, according to Ferguson, is that debates "rely heavily on the endless repetition of a handful of slogans that have been battle-tested for their appeal to national investor blocs and interest groups that the leadership relies on for resources." The country be damned. Before the 2007 crash for which they were largely responsible, the new post-Golden Age financial institutions had gained startling economic power, more than tripling their share of corporate profits. After the crash, a number of economists began to inquire into their function in purely economic terms. Nobel laureate Robert Solow concludes that their general impact may be negative: "The successes probably add little or nothing to the efficiency of the real economy, while the disasters transfer wealth from taxpayers to financiers." By shredding the remnants of political democracy, the financial institutions lay the basis for carrying the lethal process forward -- as long as their victims are willing to suffer in silence.
By
konkan SINGHA, Head- Talent Acquisition (IT), OptedJobs
| 10 17 2011 09:01:38 +0000
Job hop as much as you can, all the corporates will shut down in no time and the Economy will come to a standstill, if you do not follow the world than I am afraid, Global Economy is what according to Naom Chomsky:-
America in Decline Noam Chomsky Truthout, August 5, 2011 "It is a common theme" that the United States, which "only a few years ago was hailed to stride the world as a colossus with unparalleled power and unmatched appeal is in decline, ominously facing the prospect of its final decay," Giacomo Chiozza writes in the current Political Science Quarterly. The theme is indeed widely believed. And with some reason, though a number of qualifications are in order. To start with, the decline has proceeded since the high point of U.S. power after World War II, and the remarkable triumphalism of the post-Gulf War '90s was mostly self-delusion. Another common theme, at least among those who are not willfully blind, is that American decline is in no small measure self-inflicted. The comic opera in Washington this summer, which disgusts the country and bewilders the world, may have no analogue in the annals of parliamentary democracy. The spectacle is even coming to frighten the sponsors of the charade. Corporate power is now concerned that the extremists they helped put in office may in fact bring down the edifice on which their own wealth and privilege relies, the powerful nanny state that caters to their interests. Corporate power's ascendancy over politics and society -- by now mostly financial -- has reached the point that both political organizations, which at this stage barely resemble traditional parties, are far to the right of the population on the major issues under debate. For the public, the primary domestic concern is unemployment. Under current circumstances, that crisis can be overcome only by a significant government stimulus, well beyond the recent one, which barely matched decline in state and local spending -- though even that limited initiative probably saved millions of jobs. For financial institutions the primary concern is the deficit. Therefore, only the deficit is under discussion. A large majority of the population favor addressing the deficit by taxing the very rich (72 percent, 27 percent opposed), reports a Washington Post-ABC News poll. Cutting health programs is opposed by overwhelming majorities (69 percent Medicaid, 78 percent Medicare). The likely outcome is therefore the opposite. The Program on International Policy Attitudes surveyed how the public would eliminate the deficit. PIPA director Steven Kull writes, "Clearly both the administration and the Republican-led House (of Representatives) are out of step with the public's values and priorities in regard to the budget." The survey illustrates the deep divide: "The biggest difference in spending is that the public favored deep cuts in defense spending, while the administration and the House propose modest increases. The public also favored more spending on job training, education and pollution control than did either the administration or the House." The final "compromise" -- more accurately, capitulation to the far right -- is the opposite throughout, and is almost certain to lead to slower growth and long-term harm to all but the rich and the corporations, which are enjoying record profits. Not even discussed is that the deficit would be eliminated if, as economist Dean Baker has shown, the dysfunctional privatized health care system in the U.S. were replaced by one similar to other industrial societies', which have half the per capita costs and health outcomes that are comparable or better. The financial institutions and Big Pharma are far too powerful for such options even to be considered, though the thought seems hardly Utopian. contd~
By
konkan SINGHA, Head- Talent Acquisition (IT), OptedJobs
| 10 17 2011 08:56:30 +0000
"Empty vessels gives more sound" like that after getting one year experience the employer feel there is no stuff to learn, I know everything, then he get bored and feel uncomfortable. To cover this he put the mask of Salary to Switch the Job.
By
Chinna hussain reddy.E, Sales Executive/Officer, caretech systems
| 05 06 2010 09:54:21 +0000
After 1 year yu want to switch over to a new job then only deciding factor is SALARY since yu have many responsibilities.If you are a male yu have to support only 2 families( your family - wife and children and Parents).If you are a female you have to support 5 families ( yur parents, your sister - her education, married sister - her family, your in-laws, your husband and your children) .Hence for a woman SALARY is very very IMPORTANT.SHE HAS TO RUN HER HOUSE , WORK IN A COMPANY AND ALSO HELP HER FAMILIES. AS " MONEY IS VERY IMPORTANT AND NOT THE BRAND " SABSE BADA RUPAYYA.
By
vijaya shanbhag, Proprieter, Vijaya Consultancy Services
| 05 06 2010 05:55:07 +0000
THANK YOU KIRTI. SALARY OF COURSE IS THE DECIDING FACTOR.IN A SHORT SPAN OF ONE YEAR,ANY ONE COULD ONLY LEARN VERY LITTLE IN ANY ORGANISATION.IN SPITE OF THIS IF SOME ONE WANTS TO LEAVE IT SHOULD MAINLY BE BECAUSE OF MONEY ONLY. TODAY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GROW WITH AN ORGANISATION ARE VERY VERY LIMITED.ON THE CONTRARY THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE AN EVER INCREASING SALARY IN VARIOUS ORGANISATIONS ARE ON THE HIGHER SIDE.
By
s.baalu , Consultant, XYZ LTD
| 05 04 2010 11:56:10 +0000
One year into your present job , you cannot really say that you know all about your company. It is too short a period to know everything about your job , your company , your long-term prospects of growth within and outside the company , as well as your own ideas for your future. Certainly , it is enough time for you to find out all the bad points of your present job / company , one of which may be your salary. If you feel like switching jobs within a year , either you have made a mistake in joining your present company , or you are switching because you are getting a better salary.
By
K. NARAYAN, None, None
| 05 04 2010 07:09:48 +0000
Yes it is true that after some time everyone wants to switch the job mainly because they got experience now and for same reason wants salary hike.It is the question were both employee and employer should come together and solve the issue.
By
Zahid , Web Developer, STCPL
| 05 04 2010 04:45:10 +0000
ONE SHOULD GO FOR GEETING CHANGE IN TERMS OF SALARY STRUCTURE BECAUSE WHERE BRAND IS THERE THE COMPANY DOES NOT ACCOUNT UR CAPABILTY AND ALL CREDIT TAKES TO THEIRE BARAND IMAGEAND IF ONE HAVE THE CAPABILTY HE CAN MAKE A BRAND..ALSO WE SHOULD BE CONFIDENT ABOUT OURSELF THAT COMPANY OR BRAND IS NOTHING IT IS ALL WE WHOM MAKE THE COMPANY A BRAND THIS IS WHAT WE ALL TEACH A MANAGEMENT LESSION TO OUR SUBORDIANTES,THEIR ARE COMPANIES WHICH COMES N GOES IT IS OUR EMPLYEE WHOM MADEW COMPANY INTO A BRAND
By
virender kumar, REGIONAL BUSINESS MANAGER, CELON LABS LTD
| 05 03 2010 14:46:18 +0000
Its salary which is important when yu want to switchover to a new job.The reason is that yu have to support your parents, and if you are a male you have to support your wife and children.If you are a female you also have to support your parents and sometimes may be in-laws and husband too so SALARY is MORE IMPORTANT THAN BRAND.As SABSE BADA RUPAYYA remember.
By
vijaya shanbhag, Proprieter, Vijaya Consultancy Services
| 05 03 2010 12:25:48 +0000
The point of vew is obviously different if you are young and at the begining of your career or if you come to the end. Money is more important when you are young. When I was young I changed very oftent for more money or because the boss didn't hold his promises. At the end after 50 I prefered a job that pleasedme and allowed me to do what I wanted. Now that I retired I do really waht I want and don't care so muche about money.
By
Gilbert PRIEUR, Morphopsychologist Expert, Nemopsy
| 05 03 2010 11:23:11 +0000
After all everything comes on to job satisfaction, If today anyone asks MD of TATA Steel or ICICI Bank to join some other concern at a higher offer I doubt they would go as at this age and level they have with them job satisfaction if I am not wrong...
By
KUMAR SAURABH JHA, Manager-HR & Admin
| 05 01 2010 12:40:57 +0000
Generally in the initial years of service salary assumes a greater importance not only because it means more money but it is also an indication of the market value of one's skills and competence. Later in life, salary or money assumes a lower importance in comparison to factors such as challenge, engagement, motivation, job satisfaction, etc. So after one year's experience, the major factor should be salary rather than company reputation (what Sanjay may be calling as brand). But even here, a level of complexity arises when the present reputation of the company and its mention on the CV might be seen as a means of getting better paid jobs in the initial years in which case a person might tolerate working at a lower salary in a reputed company for a year or two.
By
Azhar Kazmi, Professor, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals
| 05 01 2010 11:22:49 +0000
Job switching have lot of factors. One of the most impacted reason is the one's immediate senior or boss. salary is quite important and I feel brand takes always second place compared to the salary hike.
By
Santosh Kumar, Product Technical Lead
| 05 01 2010 09:53:03 +0000
|
Obviously brand name because it can give long term favor in anybody's carrier that's why people are switching because of brand name , so that they can be a part of a brand name and can be associate with good projects and work too
By
Namrata Chauhan, IT recruiter, Pinaki Consultant
| 10 13 2011 12:06:16 +0000
If your first year experience is eventful, salary comes automatically.We can smell quality in all sectors in branded companies.Only when you excel in quality at affordable price a Brand name becomes a household name.To excel in quality at affordable rates you should have your arithmatic correct.So if you join a branded company your capacity,caliber,efficiency etc. is evaluated with a uniform yardstick and you are awarded accordingly.If you excel in the intelligent crowd and are recognised for your work you are bound prosper in all fields.
By
KUMAR SWAMY H C, Senior Manager - Mfg. Engg, PEARLITE LINERS PRIVATE LIMITED
| 05 28 2010 19:31:21 +0000
I am agree with the male salary support 2 families but never ever female salary support more than one family.In humanity may females have broad mind, but they are congest in money matters.A employed male can marry and live with the female of non employed and even uneducated ! Is any employed women can do this? They need the man like high qualities than her.
By
Chinna hussain reddy.E, Sales Executive/Officer, caretech systems
| 05 06 2010 10:04:39 +0000
A second invitation? Switch in the early part of ones career should ONLY be for learming and not salary. Learn all that you can from 2-3 corporates, then settle down in a serious job.
By
V. Srinivas, Freelancer, Information Technology
| 05 04 2010 12:44:31 +0000
First few years, Kirti you say one year, it should be LEARNING. Switch fast inthe early stages if the company does not have anything "new" to teach you. Learn for the first few years and then take the major LEAP. during the learning years, salary should not be a considerative factor.
By
V. Srinivas, Freelancer, Information Technology
| 05 04 2010 04:22:25 +0000
salary is a by-product of the brand. brand involves company values, culture, scope for learning and growth, both the motivational and hygiene factors. the fresh graduate joins with lot of expectations and when he sees himself down on many of the parameters he could decide to quit sooner not to waste his time unnecessarily sticking to the loyalty factor with low ROI on his stay. there is competition in the placement market and the person settles to join a company which is best available to him at a given point of time, while the companies make every effort to sell the company to the candidates raising their expectations. issues like quality of job induction, infrastructure, job design, treatment by the company in the name of policy and by the superiors and colleagues, misunderstanding on the terms and conditions of the appointment, etc could frustrate the fresh enthusiastic candidate. recruiting too many people more than the requirement could also lead to issues of not loading the freshers with challenging assignments the companies overconfident that they have sufficient people now and need not worry expecting some new employee turnover as a self-fulfilling smart prophecy. moreover, there is an ambitious tendency on the part of the organisations in selecting people with extra caliber and value systems which are not in congruence with what the company can really offer as part of internal culture and systems. in the process some talent wound tend to drain off for a better brand and salary. even in a company with a good brand the individual decision to stay or quit would depend on how each individual has been handled with respect to various employee engagement factors on a day to day basis starting from day one. a marketing officer cannot afford to lose one prospective order, similarly the hr division with the support of the organisation must not be allowed to lose a single candidate who has been certified as suitable for the company - may not be practically possible but with the top management clarity on organisational and hr excellence - this could perhaps become possible upgrading the people processes not compromising on selection criteria rather having in only the right size candidates matching the company's culture and capability to deliver to the prospective employees neither taking overqualified or underqualified candidates either becoming over ambitious on the selection criteria or being in the race for supply of candidates, and above all planning well every step in the induction, training, job design, coaching/mentoring, grievance handling, processes etc training all managers down the line in being professional managers placing the company's interests above much more rather than their individual opinions. hence the answer lies in upgrading the employer brand continuously with quantum changes in the competitive world, while not ignoring or being stingy or slow on the salary and other maintenance factors like infrastructure, facilities, quality of supervision, etc placing a strategic value on people with excellence in execution of the hr plan both in terms of plan, and values and behaviors, at all times by the leadership down the line. hope this adds value to the insights here, regards/kshantaram
By
kshantaram , GM-hrd/hr professor
| 05 03 2010 15:24:27 +0000
Obviously, the Branded, that I hope pay also well. Unless, the individual desires for other aspects like looking for better avenues to explore technical know-hows, business connections etc.
By
KALIYAMOORTHY , Oil & Gas Area Coordinator, Undisclosed
| 05 03 2010 13:47:58 +0000
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW BRAND IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN SALARY COZ IT HELP IN OUR FUTURE JOB AS WELL AS IT WILL HELP ME TO GAIN LOTS OF KNOWLEDGE & ABOUT SALARY IT WILL HIKE AUTOMITICALLY IF I GOT KNOWLEDGE IN MY FINGER TIPS.
By
raju kumar, FF ASM , NOKIA (under people concepts)
| 05 03 2010 11:19:13 +0000
|