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

141–150 of 225 posts

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

#141

Post by vundercind »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #123
tayo42 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apparently I'm underpaid lol, someone upthread says "Friend getting paid $200k more than me" and I've never been paid $200k in my life

Only a very small proportion of developers make enough that they can be making what must have been north of $200k and still have another $200k difference in comp vs a peer. Low side of single-digit percentage. And I’m talking the US only, not globally.

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

#142

Post by vundercind »

Zambyte wrote: post #85
tayo42 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What market is down?

Low to mid experience and trying to land FAANG-alike or finance jobs, I think. The “merely” 1.5-3x median household income comp range sure seems to have remained healthy, even for newbies.

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

#143

Post by sonicanatidae »

diob wrote: post #106
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is - historically it hasn't bitten companies badly enough that they stop doing it. On aggregate, you can get away with massively underpaying your top talent and overpaying new hires - most of which aren't good and will go to other companies before they're even moderately productive. I question why they're so obsessed with hiring so many new people to do basically nothing. That's the reason they have to ov…

I would argue it does bite them, but by the time it does it's someone else's problem.

>I would argue it does bite them, but by the time it does it's someone else's problem.

In almost all cases, it's the consumer that gets bitten.

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

#144

Post by allthecybers »

I've been rated in top tier/exceeds status for the last two years as a Senior level tech employee at a FAANG. This is after working up from entry level at hire, and promoting two times. Despite high performance and successful delivery of large projects, my base salary* has increased less than 3% in three years.

Every single year, the company has come up with an excuse to not raise base salaries. It typically relates to economic intangibles, stock performance, or whatever corporate alphabet soup they choose. People hired halfway through my tenure got hired on with substantially higher base salaries, some who are a level below me.

I really enjoy the work I do, but I just can't sustain less than 3% income growth over the course of the next three years. That's why I am looking elsewhere, not because I want to, but because I have to. Some roles I'm seeing below Senior level have starting salaries 50% higher than mine.

*I am aware of the concept of total compensation and I do get company stock, but you can't pay bills month-to-month on funds that are six months away from being available, and you aren't sure whether you'll see a 6% upside or 6% downturn.

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

#145

Post by kayge »

jedberg wrote: post #128
kayge wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds pretty ideal! But it also sounds like you're talking about all of this in the past tense... why did you end up leaving, if you don't mind me asking? :)

Had a baby and retired. :) Retirement didn't last though, now that both kids are in school I'm back at work. FWIW I would go back in a heartbeat if they had a role for me.

Ahh, those seems like great reasons. Double congrats, and thanks for answering!

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

#146

Post by ore0s »

Saulivar wrote: post #90

There was an article at Forbes that said employees who stay with the company for more than 2 years are underpaid by as much as 50%. So why do they stay for so long? Humans are resistant to change. Speaking of myself, when I was working as a programmer, finding a new job meant going through endless interviews with leetcode tests even though I had 15 years experience. Turns out it was Joel Spolsky who invented that pra…

Any recent books you suggest on "direct response marketing and copywriting"? I've tried to read "how to win friends and influence people" "ogilvy on advertising" "traction" but haven't taken actions yet.

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

#147

Post by _pi »

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.

Yeah. just don't go on paternity/maternity leave.

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

#148

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

indigochill wrote: post #137
ranger207 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> historically it hasn't bitten companies badly enough that they stop doing it. Because VC money based around vague promises of selling data to advertisers have traditionally propped up even fundamentally unprofitable businesses so software quality hasn't significantly contributes to success or not. Now that we're out of ZIRP then companies might start learning that in 10 years or so after they've replaced a few gene…

> companies might start learning that in 10 years or so after they've replaced a few generations of programmers, nobody knows how anything works, and suddenly software quality starts to actually matter to investors and consumers I suspect in software specifically, there will never be such a reckoning because compared to maintenance, replacement is too easy.

> I suspect in software specifically, there will never be such a reckoning because compared to maintenance, replacement is too easy.

Maybe when it's not important to be bug for bug compatible. For most important software, it kind of is.

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

#149

Post by JohnFen »

allthecybers wrote: post #144

I've been rated in top tier/exceeds status for the last two years as a Senior level tech employee at a FAANG. This is after working up from entry level at hire, and promoting two times. Despite high performance and successful delivery of large projects, my base salary* has increased less than 3% in three years. Every single year, the company has come up with an excuse to not raise base salaries. It typically relates…

> I am aware of the concept of total compensation

I'm with you on this. When I'm evaluating an offer, the only part of the total compensation package that I really pay any attention to is salary because the rest is too uncertain.

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

#150

Post by jedberg »

_pi wrote: post #147
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.

Yeah. just don't go on paternity/maternity leave.

Netflix has a one year paternity/maternity leave policy, and some people take the full one year.
Post reply on HN