Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

marker.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 515 posts

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#31

Post by ggggtez »

slibhb wrote: post #26

They don't? I was given an 11% raise (without negotiating) this year because the tech company I work for wants me to stay. I could probably get more by leaving and finding a new job (15-25%) but 11% is more than enough to convince me to stay. Also, there are factors other than money at play, such as not having someone breathing down your neck, having coworkers who are nice, respecting your superiors, and so on. I hav…

Your anecdote proves the point. If your friend was paid more, they might not have left.

But in essence what you highlight also shows why companies don't pay to keep people to stay. Instead of paying someone money who hates their job, they might prefer paying less money to a new grad who isn't burnt out on their culture yet.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#32

Post by pizza234 »

nine_zeros wrote: post #24
Kranar wrote: post #11

To chime in with my own anecdotal opinion that is likely to anger some people... in my experience most developers do their best work after about 6-8 months of starting a job at a new company, and that comes to an end after about 24-36 months of working at the same company. After that the vast majority of people just stagnate, get complacent, the job stops being interesting to them and they move on. After observing th…

This is ridiculous. I would prefer being at my current job, leverage my tribal experience to build things (and I have specific things on my mind) better and faster. If I pitch this to my CTO, he will agree that using my knowledge to build things better and faster aligns with business goals. Only middle management rationalizes theories such as you proposed. Middle management sometimes just forgets what is the goal of…

It's not necessarily "ridiculous".

AFAIK in US is typical to change SWE job every few years (those 2-3 years indeed). Those who succeed in doing this consistently (I'm not implying one should, or not) ganerally end up with a high salary, a higher position, and more satisfaction (assuming that change give them satisfaction).

Parent's observation may be a reasonable explanation when looked into context - the time to move on arrives after 2-3 years, and if there's no strong incentive, devs will start to feal uneasy, and move on.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#33

Post by sam_lowry_ »

ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #13
vsareto wrote: post #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.

Also director and VP positions skip the leetcode.

I wonder why.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#34

Post by esprehn »

Kranar wrote: post #11

To chime in with my own anecdotal opinion that is likely to anger some people... in my experience most developers do their best work after about 6-8 months of starting a job at a new company, and that comes to an end after about 24-36 months of working at the same company. After that the vast majority of people just stagnate, get complacent, the job stops being interesting to them and they move on. After observing th…

You may enjoy the concept of the "tour of duty": https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-emplo...

http://www.theallianceframework.com/about-the-book.html

Thinking about my career (and others) this way has helped me remove a fair bit of stress when making job, role or project changes.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#35

Post by paul_f »

ukoki wrote: post #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 th…

Software engineers especially can take on side projects to supplement their income. Maybe a bit less focus on the day job to reflect the below market pay. Keeps things in balance.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#36

Post by midnightclubbed »

Established tech companies can and do pay their engineers to stay using stock grants. The upside to the company is they can modify those grants based on market forces and performance, the compensation is not (entirely) a fixed bottom line cost. The upside to the employee is they can earn some multiplier of their base salary for some number of years.

If you are a smaller company or start-up where you cannot give tradable equity then you have to offer something else. But if Amazon are hiring in your city then best to not try to compete.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#37

Post by simiones »

pizza234 wrote: post #32
nine_zeros wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. I would prefer being at my current job, leverage my tribal experience to build things (and I have specific things on my mind) better and faster. If I pitch this to my CTO, he will agree that using my knowledge to build things better and faster aligns with business goals. Only middle management rationalizes theories such as you proposed. Middle management sometimes just forgets what is the goal of…

It's not necessarily "ridiculous". AFAIK in US is typical to change SWE job every few years (those 2-3 years indeed). Those who succeed in doing this consistently (I'm not implying one should, or not) ganerally end up with a high salary, a higher position, and more satisfaction (assuming that change give them satisfaction). Parent's observation may be a reasonable explanation when looked into context - the time to mo…

You've got it the wrong way around: usually companies have decided for whatever classist reasons that they have some kind of maximum raise per year. This ensures that after a few years people who are actually getting better at their jobs are falling quickly far below market rate for their level of experience. So, those that feel like they can move on, since it is the only possibility for increasing their pay meaningfully.

This is not specific to engineering positions, it is a pretty common fixed policy in many industries.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#38

Post by swiftcoder »

pizza234 wrote: post #32
nine_zeros wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. I would prefer being at my current job, leverage my tribal experience to build things (and I have specific things on my mind) better and faster. If I pitch this to my CTO, he will agree that using my knowledge to build things better and faster aligns with business goals. Only middle management rationalizes theories such as you proposed. Middle management sometimes just forgets what is the goal of…

It's not necessarily "ridiculous". AFAIK in US is typical to change SWE job every few years (those 2-3 years indeed). Those who succeed in doing this consistently (I'm not implying one should, or not) ganerally end up with a high salary, a higher position, and more satisfaction (assuming that change give them satisfaction). Parent's observation may be a reasonable explanation when looked into context - the time to mo…

Anecdotally, all the devs I personally know who hopped around like this did so because promotions/compensation were stalled out at their current job. Almost all of them would have stuck around if offered competitive titles and compensation, but they were often being paid 25-50% less than they would be as a newhire at the same company.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#39

Post by hiq »

hiram112 wrote: post #29

Maybe in FAANG world, salaries really do increase linearly like the graphs from the blog showed, but in the F500 corporate and contracting world, the slope starts leveling out after 10 years of experience. A decent and ambitious dev can definitely gain 30% salary increases after their first few jumps, but once you're at the "senior" level, it's just not happening. In the first 5-6 years of my career, I jumped about 4…

> in the F500 corporate and contracting world

Why are you stuck with this world if there's a clear ceiling?

> at best I'm going to get a salary offer of maybe $180K

If you get a $20k increase every 2 years starting from $160k by hopping jobs, that's way more than your yearly 2%. If you're in the right location, the only risk is to quit a job 2 months in because it's actually not what you expected and come back to a company you initially rejected, or start applying again. If you're a dev in your 30s you should have enough money to stay afloat for at least a few months, in which case this is not that big of a risk.

There's also a risk staying in the same company for very long: if you keep doing the same, using the same tech, you can become complacent and your skills irrelevant. At which point staying at your company is not really a choice anymore.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#40

Post by donretag »

How many engineers leave for salary as opposed to other reasons?

When I started my career after the dotcom bus, salaries were quite low. At one point, I was making less at each position after yet another layoff. Then the market improved, and I was making considerably more with each new job.

Nowadays, I still job hop, but primarily because I do not like the role I am in. Companies will over promise and then never deliver. Bad managers. Many many bad managers.

Post reply on HN