Research Into How to Best Ask for a Pay Raise

This is relevant research in some respects, although it’s unclear how true all of it actually is. Timing is pretty important — employers probably have to be given an incentive, and subtle hints that a valuable employee may look for a job elsewhere with higher pay may make the difference.

To avoid the common fear of sounding greedy or obnoxious, don’t simply ask for more money. Instead say, “I would like to make $X. What would it take for me to get there?”

You might then elaborate with follow-up questions: Would it mean adding extra duties? Changing roles? Improving some aspect of the way I work now?

What’s brilliant about this approach is that it basically says, this isn’t about me and what I feel entitled to. It makes the conversation about the bargaining. And because you’re not asking a yes/no question, it immediately sets up the expectation that some deal will be struck, and we just need to find out what it is. (Sales people use this tactic when they ask, “What would it take for you to accept?”)

[…]

Economists and psychologists have conducted multiple studies on pay negotiation tactics and human behavior. In 2014, psychologists at Columbia University found that naming a salary range with a high “floor” (i.e. the lowest amount you’ll accept) led to higher offers. In 2016, a Columbia Business School study said that cracking a joke about a ridiculous amount of money you’d like to make can “anchor” a conversation, and subtly influence the employer’s thought process so that they’re more likely to go high, too. If you know the job pays in the $60,000 range, ask for half a million. Ha, ha!

These ideas sound promising in theory, but they don’t address that initial obstacle— the fear that asking for what you want, however you go about it, will be off-putting. In this sense, Coffey’s non-scientific method feels more doable. It’s not manipulative, either. You’re asking how your employer values particular contributions for a given role, but you’re flagging your own agenda, too. Your ambition exists and you’ve declared it.

It applies equally well to men as to women, though its basic premise is in keeping with advice Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, shared at a forum last year about improving policies specifically to advance women’s economic opportunities. Sandberg said that although it shouldn’t be so, women generally are not treated the same way as men when they ask for money.

“If you are negotiating for a raise and you are a man, you can walk in and say ‘I deserve this.’ That will not backfire on you,” Sandberg said. “We know the data says it will backfire on a woman. So I think along with saying ‘I deserve this,’ [women should explain] that, you know, ‘This is important for [my] performance,’ and ‘This will make [me] more effective as a team member.’”

Sandberg said at the time that she hates to share this advice. Women shouldn’t have to adjust their behavior to accommodate a sexist structure. Men who happen to have less confidence than the average dude shouldn’t have to, either, of course, but they might feel more comfortable if they did. This compromise will get you further than not asking at all.

[…]

Anyone considering a job offer should probably attempt to secure a higher starting salary, experts say, because it could work, and it likely will not tarnish your reputation or jeopardize your opportunity. Andréa Mallard, chief marketing officer of athleisure wear company Athleta, who also spoke at the Well + Good panel, told the young women in the crowd that they should never hesitate, because it’s an impressive move.

Whenever she has hired someone who asked for more money, she said, the pushback made her respect that person more, not less. And, if it’s possible, most employers want to hit that number that will make someone feel excited about the job.

Improving and Extending Phone Battery Life

It is a regular complaint among smartphone users that their batteries fade too quickly. With how integral battery life is, along with how expensive newer phones have become and how having an uncharged phone could be a problem in certain dire situations, it is worth briefly addressing how to get more usage out of phone batteries.

Phones use lithium-ion batteries, which means that batteries gradually lose their capacity as the number of charge and discharge cycles grows. There are ways to lessen this degradation, but it will occur over time nonetheless.

Battery life depends on how you’re using the phone on a specific day along with how you’ve previously used it. So there’s value in adopting better charging habits to retain more battery in the future.

First of all, keeping phones plugged in once they reach full charge damages the battery in the long-run. Keeping phones plugged in like that puts them in a high-tension state that does harm to the battery’s internal chemistry. When possible, it’s also better to just charge the phone regularly instead of all the way to 100 percent charge, as the high voltage state puts stress on the battery.

The majority of battery degradation occurs during the more fully charged into discharged cycles . This means that it’s better to limit battery discharge (outside of on and fully charged) in the cycles when possible so that the battery doesn’t go into a deep discharge cycle.

Additionally, it should be noted that the fast charge option often available today can significantly reduce the battery life in a cycle, using wifi is less power-intensive than using 4G data, and reducing screen brightness, avoiding excessive heat, and limiting video use are all ways to extend battery life in a given cycle.

There will eventually be much stronger batteries, just as there eventually be battery protections from water. (Something called F-POSS — which repeals water and oil from sticking to it by having low surface energy — is already in development.) Until then though, users will probably want to handle their somewhat energy-fragile phone batteries with care.

Study: Glyphosate is Directly Harmful to Bees

Glyphosate is a carcinogen that’s the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, and there’s now evidence that it’s directly harmful to bee populations worldwide. Bees of course play extremely important role in the world’s food production.

While it has been widely established by the scientific community that the class of pesticides known as  neonicotinoids (or neonics) have had devastating impacts on honey bees and other pollinators, new research shows that Monsanto’s glyphosate—the world’s most widely used chemical weed-killer—is also extremely harmful to the health of bees and their ability to fend off disease.

Documented in a new study by scientists at the University of Texas at Austin and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the findings show, according to the Guardian, that glyphosate negatively impacts “beneficial bacteria in the guts of honeybees and makes them more prone to deadly infections” by damaging “the microbiota that honeybees need to grow and to fight off pathogens.”

Erick Motta, one of the researchers and co-author of the study, said, “We demonstrated that the abundances of dominant gut microbiota species are decreased in bees exposed to glyphosate at concentrations documented in the environment.”

Based on their study, Motta and her colleagues are urging farmers and homeowners to avoid spraying glysophate-based herbicides on flowering plants that are likely to attract bees.

Bee experts and advocates worldwide in recent years have been warning that humanity’s insatiable use of pesticides has been causing serious harm to bee populations that are essential to the global food supply.

While previous research has shown that use of glyphosate—the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup—indirectly harms bees by devastating certain flowers on which they depend, the new research is significant for showing the direct harm it has on the health of bees.

“The biggest impact of glyphosate on bees is the destruction of the wildflowers on which they depend,” Matt Sharlow, with the conservation group Buglife, told the Guardian. “Evidence to date suggests direct toxicity to bees is fairly low, however the new study clearly demonstrates that pesticide use can have significant unintended consequences.”

More Climate Change Worsens Natural Disasters

Hurricane Florence has been receiving massive media coverage for the immense damage it’s doing. There are hundreds of thousands of people without electricity in North Carolina now, and among other things, such as threatening nuclear reactors, the flooding is doing major harm.

In the news media, it is almost never mentioned that climate change has made natural disasters such as hurricanes worse. More warm air translates to more water vapor, and more water vapor means worsened superstorms. In 2017, there was a record amount of U.S. economic costs related to natural disasters, in significant part due to hurricanes like Hurricane Florence.

Amazingly, it is now 2018 and there is not even much discussion about ways that human technology can reduce the strength of superstorms. Hurricanes require a sea surface temperature of 26.5 degrees Celsius to form, and there is some research showing that sending compressed bubbles (via perforated pipes located over a hundred meters down) from deeper in the ocean brings up colder water to the surface. The cold water would cool the warmer surface water, possibly preventing hurricanes through removing their supply of energy.

The United States has given enormous subsidies to fossil fuels companies that operate oil rigs on the ocean, contributing to the greenhouse gas effect that leads to warming and worse storms. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to use the materials from them to create platforms that use the perforated pipes to cool the ocean water and prevent (or perhaps ameliorate) hurricanes. In response to data that predicts where hurricanes are about to form, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that that sort of platform could be quickly deployed or transported to other locations either.

But the absence of a discussion like this is what kind of mass media (and therefore significantly communicative) structure is currently in place — one that doesn’t discuss a key factor in making the problem much worse, and one that doesn’t really mention potentially viable technological solutions in the 21st century.

Climate change (yes, it’s real and at least largely human-caused) will keep making these sorts of disasters much worse if it continues unabated. In 20 years, Hurricane Florence may seem mild compared to the average hurricanes of 2038, and that is clearly a stormy future that needs prevented.

Some Antidepressants Are Actually Worsening Antibiotic Resistance

Another side effects of antidepressants, which are overall overrated for effectively solving mental health problems. The real solutions (antidepressants don’t help everyone and in general inadequately help many who take them) to mental health crises are methods such as creating an improved society for the general public, making concrete improvements in people’s lives through means such as better diet, use of valuable therapeutic treatments, and more exercise, and the use of mental techniques (e.g., changing thinking patterns in major depressive disorder) that make use of the human mind’s power.

Specifically though, fluoxetine, the essential ingredient in Prozac and an SSRI, has been implicated in spreading antibiotic resistance. The researchers who found this have previously reported in another study that triclosan — a typical ingredient in hand wash and toothpaste — also causes antibiotic resistance to worsen.

It was recently found that there are thousands of new antibiotic combinations that are quite effective, however, and it’s important enough to note. Antibiotic resistance is becoming a major problem that may do serious damage to the foundations of modern medicine if more research like that isn’t done and used effectively.

Research: Kindness to Employees Improves Worker Performance

There’s thus good evidence that mean employers devalue companies. Someone ought to mention this to the highest level of management in the economy — there are too many of these employers, as workers generally know quite well.

Want the best results out of your employees? Then be nice to them.

New research from Binghamton University, State University at New York finds that showing compassion to subordinates almost always pays off, especially when combined with the enforcement of clear goals and benchmarks.

“Being benevolent is important because it can change the perception your followers have of you,” said Chou-Yu Tsai, an assistant professor of management at Binghamton University’s School of Management. “If you feel that your leader or boss actually cares about you, you may feel more serious about the work you do for them.”

[…]

They surveyed nearly 1,000 members of the Taiwanese military and almost 200 adults working full-time in the United States, and looked at the subordinate performance that resulted from three different leadership styles:

  • Authoritarianism-dominant leadership: Leaders who assert absolute authority and control, focused mostly on completing tasks at all costs with little consideration of the well-being of subordinates
  • Benevolence-dominant leadership: Leaders whose primary concern is the personal or familial well-being of subordinates. These leaders want followers to feel supported and have strong social ties.
  • Classical paternalistic leadership: A leadership style that combines both authoritarianism and benevolence, with a strong focus on both task completion and the well-being of subordinates.

The researchers found that authoritarianism-dominant leadership almost always had negative results on job performance, while benevolence-dominant leadership almost always had a positive impact on job performance. In other words, showing no compassion to your employees doesn’t bode well for their job performance, while showing compassion motivated them to be better workers.

They also found that classical paternalistic leadership, which combines both benevolence and authoritarianism, had just as strong an effect on subordinate performance as benevolent-dominant leadership. Tsai said the reason for this phenomenon may extend all the way back to childhood.

“The parent and child relationship is the first leader-follower relationship that people experience. It can become a bit of a prototype of what we expect out of leadership going forward, and the paternalistic leadership style kind of resembles that of a parent,” Tsai said.

“The findings imply that showing personal and familial support for employees is a critical part of the leader-follower relationship. While the importance of establishing structure and setting expectations is important for leaders, and arguably parents, help and guidance from the leader in developing social ties and support networks for a follower can be a powerful factor in their job performance,” Dionne said.

Because of the difference in work cultures between U.S. employees and members of the Taiwanese military, researchers were surprised that the results were consistent across both groups.

“The consistency in the results across different cultures and different job types is fascinating. It suggests that the effectiveness of paternalistic leadership may be more broad-based than previously thought, and it may be all about how people respond to leaders and not about where they live or the type of work they do,” Yammarino said.

Tsai said his main takeaway for managers is to put just as much or even more of an emphasis on the well-being of your employees as you do on hitting targets and goals.

“Subordinates and employees are not tools or machines that you can just use. They are human beings and deserve to be treated with respect,” said Tsai. “Make sure you are focusing on their well-being and helping them find the support they need, while also being clear about what your expectations and priorities are. This is a work-based version of ‘tough love’ often seen in parent-child relationships.”

Advanced Automation in the Future

Over the last several decades in the U.S., productivity gains have been concentrated in the upper echelon of the income distribution. The general population hasn’t really received them.

productivitygraph

Productivity means the average output per hour in the economy. This has increased due to technological advances such as faster computer processing power and workers becoming more efficient at their jobs.

The story of robots taking all the jobs is today printed in the mass media with some regularity. However, if the robots were actually taking all the jobs today, it would show up in the data. Massive automation implies massive increases in productivity, but as it is now, productivity gains rates have been quite low. Yearly productivity growth was higher in 2003 than it is today, and since about 2005 there’s been a slowdown in it. So based on the trend of the last dozen years, it is unlikely enough that we will see significant advances in productivity (automation) over the next several years.

Society should be structured so that in the next decades, productivity gains will be distributed to the general population instead of primarily to upper-middle class and wealthy people. In a significant way, this will depend on who owns the technology.

It’s crucial that there be real care taken on the rights awarded to people owning the most valuable technology. This may frankly determine whether that technology is a curse or a blessing for humanity.

In one example, say that the groundbreaking designs for the most highly advanced robotics are developed by a major corporation, which then patents the designs. The patent is valuable since the robotics would be far more efficient than anything else on the market, and it would allow the corporation to charge much higher prices than would otherwise be possible. This would be good for the minority of people who own the company and are invested in it, but it would almost certainly be harmful to the general public.

The case of prescription drugs shows us what happens when legal enforcement via patents goes wrong. The United States spent $450 billion on prescription drugs in 2017, an amount that would have been about a fifth as much (representing thousands of dollars per U.S. household in savings) were there no drug patents and a different system of drug research incentives. The consequence of this disparity is obviously that there are many people who suffer with health ailments due to unnecessarily expensive medications.

The major corporation with the valuable robotics patents may be able to make the distribution of the valuable robotics (which could very efficiently perform a wide range of tasks) much more expensive than necessary, similar to the prescription drugs example. The robotics being too expensive would mean that there’d be less of them to do efficient labor such as assembling various household appliances, and this would manifest itself as a cost to a lot of people.

So instead of the advanced robotics (probably otherwise cheap due to the software and materials needed for them being low cost) being widely distributed inexpensively and allowed to most efficiently automate labor, there could be a case where their use is expensively restricted. The robotics may even be used by the potentially unaccountable corporation for mostly nefarious ends, and this is another problem that arises with the control granted by the patents. Clearly, there need to be public interest solutions to this sort of problem, such as avoiding the use of regressive governmental interventions, considering the use of shared public ownership to allow many people to receive dividends on the value the technology generates, and implementing sensible regulatory measures.

There are also standards that can be set into law and enforced. A basic story is that if (after automation advances lead to less labor requirements among workers generally) the length of the average work year decreases by 20 percent, about 25 percent more people will be employed. The arithmetic may not always be this straightforward, but it’s a basic estimate for consideration.

Less time spent working while employing more people is clearly a good standard for many reasons, particularly in the U.S. where leisure rates among most are low compared to other wealthy countries. More people being employed may also mean tighter labor markets that allow for workers to receive higher real wage gains.

If there is higher output due to technology, that value will go somewhere in the form of more money. Over the last decades we have seen this concentrated at the top, but it is possible to have workers both work shorter hours and have similar or even higher pay levels.