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

When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 225 posts

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#51

Post by fakedang »

bmitc wrote: post #21
bevekspldnw wrote: post #4

Used to be a high performer at Big Tech. Found out a coworker with less experience at the same level had $200k/year more in comp. I didn’t care about the money, I care about being taken for a fool. There were additional factors, but I left and started my own company within three months and nobody in my old team has anywhere close to my experience.

Not only is it an example of the idiotic decision making processes that companies use that are not effective in the long run, it demonstrates how they are happy to pit employees against one another. It is awkward for a person to know that they make substantially more than coworkers. It forms a feeling of guilt and other negative feelings. But what are they supposed to do? Negotiate lower salaries when starting or aft…

Honestly is it company culture, or is it just clueless HR teams who can't hire for shit?

I'm not complaining though, stupid HR and hiring policies are the reason we're consistently getting some really good people from FAANG to join our tiny firm.

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#52

Post by tayo42 »

dragon-hn wrote: post #37

I just had a very valuable teammate quit this week from lack of salary progression. New-ish grads are making more than him for much lesser jobs. The business refused to do even a token salary increase because of the ‘economic climate’ Now a critical project won’t happen on time, which will cost the company many magnitudes more in revenue than it would have cost them with a token increase. Oops.

Are you all extremely underpaid or something? Or how are new grads getting so much in a down market? I'm decently experienced saw lots of relatively low paying jobs in general

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#53

Post by geraldwhen »

turtlebits wrote: post #44

This is why you don't stay at a company for more than X years - IME, it's probably around the 3 year mark? I once received > 2x comp after leaving a company I had been at for 6 years.

Some companies pay fine. I’m not going to find 250k for how easy my work is jumping ship.

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#54

Post by georgemcbay »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #32
rjbwork wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the industrialized world, the fertility rate is almost universally below replacement rate, and has been for a long time. So, as boomers are retiring, there are not as many people replacing them.

[flagged]

Or we could slightly rethink our economic system and buy ourselves some time to deal with all the problems we caused previously due at least partially to unsustainable population growth.

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/01/25/tomtoro03_wide-6...

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#55

Post by tombert »

akavi wrote: post #43
tombert wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In particular if someone gives up on looking for a job because they're too discouraged, I've never understood that either; do other people just not have to pay rent or buy groceries? How do you "give up looking for a job"? I understand becoming a stay at home parent, but what else would make it so you "give up" looking for paid work? This isn't a rhetorical question, I am actually asking because I feel like I'm mis…

They rely on the incomes of family members, savings, or governmental transfer payments (social security, welfare, disability, etc). Not sure the percentages of each, but those categories probably about cover it.

That's fair, I guess if you're already around retirement age, being unable to find a job might be an impetus to quit looking.

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#56

Post by ghaff »

tombert wrote: post #35
cbhl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do not have a job and are not actively looking for work, you are not part of the "labor force". The "labor force" is defined as (working + actively looking). Also, the denominator of the unemployment rate is the size of the labor force, not the size of the working-age population. In particular if someone gives up on looking for a job because they're too discouraged, or if someone decides to become a stay-at-ho…

> In particular if someone gives up on looking for a job because they're too discouraged, I've never understood that either; do other people just not have to pay rent or buy groceries? How do you "give up looking for a job"? I understand becoming a stay at home parent, but what else would make it so you "give up" looking for paid work? This isn't a rhetorical question, I am actually asking because I feel like I'm mis…

To put a positive spin on it, within a certain age and savings range, someone might choose not to be underemployed or just say screw it if they weren't finding anything they were looking for. Admittedly that's basically a fairly high earner story so a fairly small part of the mix. But I can absolutely see someone checking out a few years before they might have chosen to if they're not finding what they're looking for and don't want or need to be a Starbucks barista.

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#57

Post by austin-cheney »

With higher pay plus less experience comes entitlement. It’s the attitude of I shouldn’t have to do x, y, or z. Usually it’s because they can’t do those things and in full fear mode vomit some bullshit excuses.

That, more than anything else, is why I’m in another line of work full of former programmers who are eager to do something else.

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#58

Post by mupuff1234 »

bevekspldnw wrote: post #4

Used to be a high performer at Big Tech. Found out a coworker with less experience at the same level had $200k/year more in comp. I didn’t care about the money, I care about being taken for a fool. There were additional factors, but I left and started my own company within three months and nobody in my old team has anywhere close to my experience.

Was it the result of them getting lucky with timing the RSU grant or was it just their original offer?

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#59

Post by zerr »

jedberg wrote: post #9

This is one of the reasons I loved Netflix. Each year they would say "to get new people in the door with your level experience, we had to offer them $XXX. Therefore we are raising you to $XXX." Some years I got 25%+ raises. Netflix understood this like no one else.

That's better than being forced to do interviews at other FANGs, getting offers and only then getting raises matching those offers. I heard Netflix suggested this as well, for determining the current "market rate". Offloading the market research to engineers basically.

Re: When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

#60

Post by adolph »

I have a periodic thought exercise of a counterfactual where our culture had developed in a way that paid early career people relatively more than now and vice versa for late career. The concept behind it is that interest compounds and beyond basic competence it can be difficult to tell the relative value of experience versus eagerness and top performers with/without the supportive environment in which they operate.
Post reply on HN