Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
marker.medium.com
Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
1–10 of 515 posts
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#2You have to see this from the point of view of a middle-manager whose main concern is his own career and salary. First, it's much easier to manage junior than seniors, more so when you are not an engineer yourself. Also, it's more likely you get a better salary when managing a large team of junior than a small team of senior. Even better, you can become a manager of managers if there is a bunch of juniors to manage. Another problem is that an employee cannot earn more than his boss, and non-tech managers salaries cap at a certain point.
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#3> The hard truth that many companies struggle to wrap their heads around is that they should be paying their long-tenured engineers above market rate.
From an ethical point of view, maybe. From a rational point of view, maybe not.
Jobs are "sticky" — it's a pain to apply for jobs, arrange interviews, deal with the possibility of getting rejected. And if you do get an offer and accept you will be leaving colleagues that may be friends, risk your position being less stimulating, have to move house and/or deal with a new commute.
There is a very real salary range between "low enough that I'll think about applying for other jobs" and "so low I'll actually start applying for jobs". Employers are aware of this and are paying salaries accordingly. It sucks for everyone in that salary band but — ethics and long-term viability aside — it's still the rational economic choice for employers. Every now and again someone will quit and get their deserved 40% increase, but many will delay leaving for years, or simply put up with it indefinitely, saving employers tons of money.
Of course this may not be the case forever. It seems like recently the cohort of people who find interviewing and changing jobs more tolerable (the so-called "job-hoppers") is increasing in size. If you happen to be a part of this cohort, then congratulations, you're winning the job-market pain-of-change-vs-salary arbitrage game and will enjoy above-average year-on-year salary increases for at least the near future.
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#4> The hard truth that many companies struggle to wrap their heads around is that they should be paying their long-tenured engineers above market rate. From an ethical point of view, maybe. From a rational point of view, maybe not. Jobs are "sticky" — it's a pain to apply for jobs, arrange interviews, deal with the possibility of getting rejected. And if you do get an offer and accept you will be leaving colleagues th…
> [...] Jobs are "sticky" [...]
My experience has been the opposite, in that sticky jobs are jobs held by people who aren't in demand. There's a balancing act for employers ("brilliant but flighty" is less desirable than "good but sticky") so it's certainly possible to argue that jobs being sticky for less-than-brilliant people is a good thing... but in my experience, jobs aren't sticky because of inertia for brilliant people.
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#5And bring back the defined pension.
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#6You have to see this from the point of view of a middle-manager whose main concern is his own career and salary. First, it's much easier to manage junior than seniors, more so when you are not an engineer yourself. Also, it's more likely you get a better salary when managing a large team of junior than a small team of senior. Even better, you can become a manager of managers if there is a bunch of juniors to manage.…
>>Another problem is that an employee cannot earn more than his boss, and non-tech managers salaries cap at a certain point.
This is only a problem in some places and is made up problem by management. Why can't someone make more then there boss, besides ego?
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#7>I’ve watched talented engineers leave companies for greener pastures after painfully short tenures. I’m even guilty of this myself — I left an amazing company after less than two years to join Ethena as VP of Engineering.
Engineers can leave after months and still get jobs. You're not guilty of anything for leaving after 2 years for a VP position.
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#8> The hard truth that many companies struggle to wrap their heads around is that they should be paying their long-tenured engineers above market rate. From an ethical point of view, maybe. From a rational point of view, maybe not. Jobs are "sticky" — it's a pain to apply for jobs, arrange interviews, deal with the possibility of getting rejected. And if you do get an offer and accept you will be leaving colleagues th…
You laid out the exact reasons I stayed as long as I did at my last job, even after it became clear I was not happy with my compensation. (except for the moving part - hurray living in a 'tech' town with lots of opportunities I guess.) Although I am really confident at this stage of my career in my abilities and reputation, interviewing is such a pain in the ass overcoming that inertia takes a bit, and you are right, companies count on that inertia.
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#9> The hard truth that many companies struggle to wrap their heads around is that they should be paying their long-tenured engineers above market rate. From an ethical point of view, maybe. From a rational point of view, maybe not. Jobs are "sticky" — it's a pain to apply for jobs, arrange interviews, deal with the possibility of getting rejected. And if you do get an offer and accept you will be leaving colleagues th…
> [...] Jobs are "sticky" [...] My experience has been the opposite, in that sticky jobs are jobs held by people who aren't in demand. There's a balancing act for employers ("brilliant but flighty" is less desirable than "good but sticky") so it's certainly possible to argue that jobs being sticky for less-than-brilliant people is a good thing... but in my experience, jobs aren't sticky because of inertia for brillia…
I mean, I won't claim the 'brilliant' label, but I am competent and in-demand, and my experience is just what the OP laid out. Once I started interviewing, opportunities came left and right. Getting starting interviewing was a hump though, and there IS always the fear of landing somewhere that seems good, but isn't, especially if your current job ONLY lacks for adequate compensation.
Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
#10[deleted]