Ttdfjt

Since you say you don't want more salary yourself I'll start by addressing the question at the end of your post.

Can I mention anything about the interns pay?

Treat your knowledge of your colleague's salary the same way you would treat any other confidential knowledge: don't disclose it and don't discuss that you know it. That information belongs to your colleague. It's not yours to share.

But it is bothering me a bit. Not that I want more salary per se. But that the interns 2 years of part time experience are apparently worth the same as my 5 years of full time experience.

It sounds like you feel that your five years of experience should be worth more than your new colleague's two years (which in my opinion is fair enough).

I'd suggest you challenge your thinking around this: instead of thinking they should earn less because you're satisfied with what you earn, start thinking that you deserve more: you're worth more than you were 5 years ago. You can manage projects and review other people's work now. There are other questions on the site about how to approach a situation where you feel underpaid.

Salary levels for new hires increase with time, while your existing salary does not, until you get a raise - but that is completely unrelated to the intern's salary offer. If you received an offer of 3000 five years ago, you might receive 3500 with the same CV and experience today.

It doesn't make sense, but that's how it is in reality. Which is why many people change jobs fairly regularly nowadays. It is purely to keep your own salary at market level. Even with regular average raises, you would likely fall behind market levels.

This is normal. New hires wouldn't work if it wasn't. You're not paid based on experience. You're paid based on how much you'll stay at work for. If you want to earn more money, you'll have to job hop. That's pretty standard too.

Should you mention the interns salary? Yes. 100% bring it up. Glass door exists so it's not like you don't know how much people in your company are being paid. If your boss, or whoever is in charge of your salary, thinks that you won't leave or, if they think they can easily replace you, or if there isn't money they won't give you a raise. That's how salary works.

So here's what you do about it. You clearly communicate that it's going to take more money to get you to stay. What this does is let who ever is in charge of your salary know that you aren't complacent.

Whoever the person who is in charge of your salary is, your salaryman, will have essentially 3 decisions to make. The first decision is weather or not to believe you. Statistically speaking, in most fields you won't leave. It's likely that you're just putting up a front for more money. So this leads to two places. The first is just not to believe you and play chicken with your salary. If your salaryman is right, you'll stay put, keep making noise, eventually fizzle out, and choose to work for what is essentially your current price.

Your salaryman can also choose to believe you. This leads to the other two decisions. The first one of these decisions, the second decision overall, is weather you're worth more money. The fact is that if you didn't make your company more money than you cost, you wouldn't be hired. That's fairly difficult to actually measure, so most of the time that point just boils down to your company thinking you make them more than you cost. This guessing game is essentially why reputation matters. If companies think you make them a mountain's weight in money, they'll pay you a maybe 40 metric tons of cash. If the your salaryman doesn't think you're worth the extra money, then he'll play chicken with your salary again. Similarly, if the salaryman thinks he can replace you easily when you quit, he won't care if you walk. In this situation, the only way for you to get a raise is charity; you're probably not getting a raise.

If your salaryman does think you're worth the money, then there's one more decision to make. Can the company afford to pay this employee more? Sometimes the answer is no and the salaryman has no choice but to play chicken with your salary and just hope you won't move on. Often it's yes. This is one of the points at which you get a raise.

The other way you get a raise is by winning the game of chicken; convince your company you're going to leave in such a way that they believe you and are motivated to make sure you stay, without actually leaving.

Kind of a rip off if you ask me.

Employers want employees with skills. Experience is a proxy for skills, not a something that's valuable in and of itself. Apparently, your employer is satisfied that the new hire has the skills to provide the same value that you do, and has had the opportunity to directly evaluate his skills, rather than use proxies such as experience. It's up to your employer, not you, to decide how much value each employee is bringing. If you're both in similar roles providing similar work, they may see little reason to pay you more simply because you have more experience, just as they may see little reason to pay someone more simply because they have a master's and the other employees only have a bachelor's.

I agree with most of the answers here, since they all could be correct - depending on the exact context.

However, a slightly different perspective to consider is that this new hire may be atypical - s/he may be above average - and that you can't directly compare this person's salary to either your salary or the average new hire's.

1. 
   

   "Years of experience" may not be worth as much as you think. As another answer mentions, years of experience is often just a proxy for skill. In Code Complete, Steve McConnell explicitly addresses this in a section Characteristics That Don't Matter As Much As You Might Think :

   
   
   

   
   

   The bottom line on experience is this: if you work for 10 years, do
   you get 10 years of experience or do you get 1 year of experience 10
   times?

   
   

   
   
   

   The same experience repeated 10x may not be as valuable as 10x as much experience and the corresponding skills.

   
   
   

   Professional athletes, movie stars, et cetera are not paid based on their years of experience. Likewise, software development isn't really about years of experience, but skills and knowledge. And skills and knowledge don't necessarily correlate to years of experience - to quote McConnell again:

   
   
   

   
   

   You have to reflect on your activities to get true experience. If you
   make learning a continuous commitment, you'll get experience. If you
   don't, you won't, no matter how many years you have under your belt.

   
   

   
   



2. You also state that you feel your achievements are underappreciated despite a recent raise "Because the "reward" so to say is given freely to new people." Was it freely given? Or does this new hire already possess significant skills and thus has earned the reward? It's unclear whether the new hire possesses the skills you were rewarded for, or perhaps has other skills. Also keep in mind that some skills are valued more highly than others - and this new hire may have them.




3. Finally, is the salary a typical new hire rate (for intern with this experience) or is this person exceptional and thus the starting salary is also an exception? An above average starting programmer getting an above average starting salary wouldn't be unfair.

Just something to consider which may apply in this case, and would certainly apply in some other cases - basically, that this new hire may be an exceptional case and their salary may likewise be an exception.

As others have suggested, a bit of market research - including checking out some other opportunities - may help you find out what typical starting salaries are, and also what salary your skills and experience can command. Perhaps you'll learn you're undervalued, or you may find your salary is average or better than average.

Edit: I note that while typing this, @Accumulation has also addressed this general theme.