[my_username_is_]

Stock based compensation may be the norm in Silicon Valley, but it isn't par for the course across different roles and industries. But the ~3% raise seems to be pervasive. This tells me that it doesn't have to do with stock based compensation.

[kbenson]

~3% a year is a cost of living increase. If anyone gets 3% for a promotion they could ask where that number came from. If they recently got a 3% bump that means the promotion put them ahead by ~12 months of work at the company in the prior position. Does that make sense? If they haven't gotten a raise for close to a year, it means the promotion didn't really come with a pay bump at all if that's what they normally get.

Questioning these things when offered is probably the best way to get the employer to change them, or at a minimum it may make it clear what your future prospects at the company are.

[my_username_is_]

I've only ever had it referred to as an annual merit increase, but it's definitely more aligned with the national cost of living.

Regardless of what it's called though, the question remains. Why does your value to other companies increase faster than your value to your own company? Presumably you're learning more about your company's business and your specific domain problems, which should make you more valuable to your company than it would to others. Is that assumption not valid?

[kbenson]

> Why does your value to other companies increase faster than your value to your own company?

I think there's a lot that goes into this, which also shows how complex the topic is.

- There's your actual value and your perceived value

- When you're there and filling a niche, there may not really be a lack for a specific skill set which (might exist if you left) which there might be at the other company.

- Companies aren't always good and managing their desire to pay the least amount possible to retain an employee (natural, to keep costs down) with the employees willingness to leave, if they even have any inkling of the latter.

- An employees willingness to leave can have many inputs, some of them nothing to do with work, so it's hard to judge (e.g. lack of ability to work from home some days can go from a small annoyance to a reason to look for alternate employment depending on what else is going on in their life).

etc.

As to whether your skill should always be increased to the company you're at, I think that's generally true, but may not be in the specific instance. People get complacent, and sometimes the work environment can cause a excellent employee to perform in a mediocre manner, and vice versa.