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

411–420 of 515 posts

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

#411

Post by ampdepolymerase »

maxbreaker wrote: post #244
Justsignedup wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked with an engineer. She told me that when working at her previous company they permitted you to switch teams every 2 years. Every 2 years she would take that opportunity and got to work on a huge variety of projects with lots of different people. Some of them good, some of them not. It kept her there for 12 years or so.

I've worked at a (giant well known) company/bank in New York that basically mandated that people switch jobs internally every 18 to 24 months. It was part of the expectations. I was there for 4 years. I had 3 different roles in 3 different teams. It helped a lot in fact in doing quality work. Thinking that you will inherit things you didn't do. That some other people will inherit your work / decisions. And always lea…

For finance, the primary goal is to prevent corruption, the intent is not quite the same as tech.

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

#412

Post by mcot2 »

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…

IMO I think your hiring is broken. You should look for things like willingness to learn and ask about previous jobs to see if the candidate experience stagnation. Is your company really getting a decent ROI after only 2-3 years of an employee in a specific role??

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

#413

Post by dahart »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #154

I don't really understand this article, or the current trend of job hopping. I'm from the generation where you have one job, maybe two, and that's it: I've had 7, but I really only ever wanted one good job. For some perspective: when I left Intel circa 2010, I was a Senior Staff Engineer fighting to get promoted to Principal Engineer (followed by Senoir Principal, then Fellow, then Senior Fellow, hahaha). FYI I loved…

I read the other replies explaining that the huge discrepancy you’ve seen should be expected. But I think it’s worth pondering if your shock & jealousy should be tempered by the ML thing. ML engineers make more than general software engineers everywhere. At least they did for a while between roughly 2015 and 2020. I don’t know what’s happening up to the minute, but ML hiring and crazy salaries seems to be cooling off a bit now as far as I can tell. Also did the ML guy have an advanced degree that your long-timer friends didn’t? That’s another way to start higher.

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

#414

Post by lmm »

nickforr wrote: post #356
errantspark wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the all-important point. It would be insane for me to try my best to make money for a company when the effort reward curve is so non linear. The only reason the idea of "doing the best job you can" is propagated is because it allows one to abuse workers. I could see myself working hard at a company with a flat-ish compensation structure tied directly to the revenue of the company. "If I make a penny my boss m…

And if the revenue tanked would you accept half your salary, say, or would you expect a floor to be applied?

If I burn out for a bit can I go down to working two days a week, or do they expect a floor to be applied?

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

#415

Post by flippinburgers »

nharada wrote: post #25
heisgone wrote: post #2

You 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.…

> it's much easier to manage junior than seniors, more so when you are not an engineer yourself I definitely have not found this to be the case. Good senior folks require very little active management.

I believe they are saying that senior engineers will know what to do and give pushback when an ignorant manager gets fixated on unnecessary goals. Juniors are easily told. The product will be worse for it.

In a good team trust and experience are essential parts of the formula.

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

#416

Post by [deleted] »

Nursie wrote: post #187
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...I can't help but stop caring about the job I'm doing when it's only real utility to me is that I don't have to put in any effort to keep having it. Yikes! That's my current situation in a nutshell. My biggest concern is that I don't want to risk jumping ship and landing at a toxic company/team, or landing in a bad work culture. Don't get me wrong, I've got a nice vision about what I want to do where I am, but I c…

If you land somewhere toxic, you can always move again. In my experience there’s almost always something toxic about a workplace, it’s finding one you can live with for a few months or years that’s the trick.

[deleted]

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

#418

Post by [deleted] »

errantspark wrote: post #87
b3morales wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not really making an independent measurement here. You see developers "stagnating" and moving on; how do you know that's not caused by lack of pay increases and other things you're doing (letting people pick new projects, for example, to keep them interested)? Maybe if you did "go out of your way to retain employees" you'd have employees who end up making your business even more successful during their longer…

Pretty much. Honestly if I can get a 20% pay raise by switching jobs, my job is to do the absolute minimum amount I can do to stay under the radar, why would I try? If I wanted to try I would go work somewhere else. There's just a complete mismatch in how much the company I work for values the experience and skill I gain over time and how much everyone else values it. Over time recruiters come to me with opportunitie…

[deleted]

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

#420

Post by [deleted] »

captainredbeard wrote: post #384
Retric wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Performance ratings are meaningless if you’re jumping ship every 2-4 years and the difference is between working twice as hard is a 2% raise vs a 4% one. What companies forget is new employees see the legacy of how you treated old employees over time. The basic structure of small consistent pay bumps was extremely effective when people stayed at companies for decades. Work twice as hard and make 2 percent more for th…

The gap at big tech companies between okay and "doing well" (i.e. twice the effort) is not a 4% raise, it's a 40% raise.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN