Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay? • Hacker News Board

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

#511

Post by jollybean » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

handrous wrote: post #143

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…

Right—I don't get how not putting in something resembling full effort can be corruption, but a company not paying you as much as they could , rather than what they must , isn't corruption.

First - 'Doing A Good Job' is not 'Maximal Effort'.

Second - professionals have incredible power and market wages are what they are. Most corporations do not profit in some exceptionally linear way beyond employees.

The 'Giant Lie' is that corporations are some magical entities that collect magic surpluses and shareholders and owners run off or private jets.

The vast majority of companies are not hugely profitable, and most small and mid-sized one's are not. Especially not in some disproportionately 'non linear' way.

Stock prices may be crazy - and those who trade stocks may or may not be making bank - but that's a very odd historical situation we have where shares are trading at absurd levesl relative to profits. That's a market 'dysfunction that may or may not be around for a while that some people managed to make money from, like Bitcoin, it's just a Ponzi-ish thing that has happened.

Corporations are not drowning in profits, and White Collar employees soak up the vast majority of corporate spending.

FYI everything I'm saying applies to mostly white collar professionals, for unskilled labour it's a different story.

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

#512

Post by jollybean » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 12:07 PM UTC

salt-thrower wrote: post #365

jollybean wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't quite work because employee productivity assessment is very grey, and there's a lot of goodwill assumed in the equation. It's difficult to measure employee productivity. Sometimes, managers don't care. Sometimes employees make every effort to hide their lack of productivity. Despite that we might think of companies as 'evil' - most of them are not. We're all human, none of us like laying people off or fi…

You don't have to think of companies as evil. They are not inherently immoral , but they certainly are amoral . They will let you go the moment it is no longer profitable to keep you. Have you been through a layoff before? The executives wring their hands, talk about what a tough decision it was, uproot dozens to thousands of lives - and then get a nice fat bonus when the cost savings reports come in, and the stock v…

" They will let you go the moment it is no longer profitable to keep you. "

First - you're mixing streams here.

This is not 'amoral'.

This is just people trading services.

It's not 'amoral' of you to not keep the plumber on when he's done.

Second - companies actually do avoid layoffs. Most companies could layoff 10% right now and not skip a beat. Especially white collar. Google could dump 1/2 it's staff and be just fine.

Most companies have slack and generally avoid doing layoffs unless there's a special situation.

"the relationship between an employer and an employee is always transactional, and any feeling otherwise is an illusion."

Generally, this is the case, yes, why on earth would anyone think it's anything else?

Why on earth would a company employ people otherwise?

But again, once people are employed, they're not doing to drop them instantly.

It's all besides the point, in any case, one should be aspiring to 'Do A Good Job'.

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

#513

Post by salt-thrower » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #512

salt-thrower wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to think of companies as evil. They are not inherently immoral , but they certainly are amoral . They will let you go the moment it is no longer profitable to keep you. Have you been through a layoff before? The executives wring their hands, talk about what a tough decision it was, uproot dozens to thousands of lives - and then get a nice fat bonus when the cost savings reports come in, and the stock v…

" They will let you go the moment it is no longer profitable to keep you. " First - you're mixing streams here. This is not 'amoral'. This is just people trading services. It's not 'amoral' of you to not keep the plumber on when he's done. Second - companies actually do avoid layoffs. Most companies could layoff 10% right now and not skip a beat. Especially white collar. Google could dump 1/2 it's staff and be just f…

"Amoral" means neither moral nor immoral. That's exactly how I would describe a transactional relationship, so yes, I'll stick with that word.

> Most companies have slack and generally avoid doing layoffs unless there's a special situation.

You're just making arbitrary claims here - the fact that companies can and do lay people off without notice and, sometimes, without severance, still confirms the nature of what I'm saying. It's all feel good until it isn't.

> why on earth would anyone think it's anything else?

I don't know; ask the others in this thread. There are plenty of people here claiming that they owe their company things (time, emotional investment) that go beyond the scope of their employment contract simply because it's "nice."

> once people are employed, they're not doing to drop them instantly.

This is simply not the case. Or, rather, it can be the case so easily and at any time that it's foolish to assume otherwise.

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

#514

Post by salt-thrower » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 3:48 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #508

salt-thrower wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what all the cool-aid drinkers are missing in this thread. You can feel like you worked your ass off, or you can feel like you've been coasting, and still get the same performance review. I've seen genuinely valuable engineers get middling performance reviews because they didn't commit as many lines of code to Github that quarter as the other guy on their team. That's an extreme example, but even in a "good"…

It's not just about performance reviews. Imagine a world in which it's very difficult to assess performance, because that's often the reality. How does this system flourish if everyone is doing the minimum / least? It doesn't. It fails. 'Do A Good Job'. That the performance reviews say are a secondary factor. If you all stop doing good work, it will fall apart quickly and you will all be poor.

> If you all stop doing good work, it will fall apart quickly and you will all be poor.

I'm replying late, but wow, this is a gem of an argument.

Really? The economic incentives that create this lucrative field in the first place are all gonna collapse if devs realize they don't need to bust ass at their job anymore? It's amazing that you think the individual work ethic of engineers is the only thing holding the tech economy together.

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

#515

Post by ptr » Thu, Aug 12, 2021, 5:56 AM UTC

salt-thrower wrote: post #514

jollybean wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about performance reviews. Imagine a world in which it's very difficult to assess performance, because that's often the reality. How does this system flourish if everyone is doing the minimum / least? It doesn't. It fails. 'Do A Good Job'. That the performance reviews say are a secondary factor. If you all stop doing good work, it will fall apart quickly and you will all be poor.

> If you all stop doing good work, it will fall apart quickly and you will all be poor. I'm replying late, but wow, this is a gem of an argument. Really? The economic incentives that create this lucrative field in the first place are all gonna collapse if devs realize they don't need to bust ass at their job anymore? It's amazing that you think the individual work ethic of engineers is the only thing holding the tech…

How would software get written if the people that write software don’t write software? Curious.