Live data from Hacker News

When new hires get paid more, top performers resign first

hbr.org

151–160 of 225 posts

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

#151
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.

If only there were lots of people from not-the-US who wanted to live in the US...

Expanding legal immigration is a political impossibility at the moment. We'll have a lot of near slave-wage bodies for the worst jobs around though.

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

#152
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix doesn’t do stock comp.

apparently for some people they do lol

historically they've had an options program that you could optionally participate in, with your salary.

the rumblings i've heard seems to imply they'll be rolling out an RSU system in the future as they continue to destroy the unique corporate culture they had.

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

#153
post #95

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…

> The problem is - historically it hasn't bitten companies badly enough that they stop doing it. The reason for that is the culture around keeping compensation secret. Most people (in the US at least) believe it's impolite to talk about salary directly. I do wonder how much of this taboo has been cultivated by corporations that benefit from workers feeling like they shouldn't talk about salary. On top of that, some c…

To be clear, Federal law is very explicit that you have the right to discuss and disclose your salary.

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

#154
post #35
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…

The devs that I've known who've dropped out of the market have lived on their savings and investments.

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

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not information that is terribly useful This opinion feels alien to me. Some of the most useful information you can have in a company is around salary/bonus/commission structures. From a purely self interested perspective, knowing this makes you a far better negotiator around review season. And from an organizational perspective, understanding what kind of things get people their bonus or commission goes a lon…

I think that it's a matter of priorities. I am not interested in making the most money I possibly can, I'm interested in doing the most interesting work that I possibly can. I have even taken jobs where I was paid well below market rates because the work itself was interesting enough to me or taught me a skill that I really wanted to learn. As long as I'm being paid at least an amount that I consider fair, it doesn't…

[deleted]

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

#156
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.

Wasn't Netflix a family-friendly place? How common was part-time employment? Did the culture of fear prevail?

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

#157

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.

This is easily fixed by giving management attrition targets. Some companies (Amazon) say "you need to let go of ~6% of your headcount every year." Others will flip this and say: "you need to retain 94% of your headcount every year." The effect on salaries is more or less the same. If you know you need to keep employees, you give salary increases to the one's most at risk of leaving. If you know you need to let go of…

Teams start to battle to have low performers on their team in a climate like that, though, as an insurance from being let go. It's absurd.

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

#158
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The social order is fundamentally nepotistic. Family/Tribe/Caste matters more than experience/performance within the managerial bubble. Keeping the actual workers down helps to keep them desperate to put food on the table, but you better perform well enough to float the non-workers. Deloitte/Wipro/Infosys/et.al know how to play this game very well to discourage anyone not in the tribe from advancing.

Yep. It's not the clueless HR but systematic. I have yet to read anything specific about why this happens and the benefits of it.

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

#159
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wasn't Netflix a family-friendly place? How common was part-time employment? Did the culture of fear prevail?

They were plenty friendly to families, but I was ready to go full time at home. We didn't really have anyone working part time, and at the time there was no remote work either.

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

#160
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is - historically it hasn't bitten companies badly enough that they stop doing it. The reason for that is the culture around keeping compensation secret. Most people (in the US at least) believe it's impolite to talk about salary directly. I do wonder how much of this taboo has been cultivated by corporations that benefit from workers feeling like they shouldn't talk about salary. On top of that, some c…

To be clear, Federal law is very explicit that you have the right to discuss and disclose your salary.

You have the right to do it, but your coworkers might become bitter and envious if you make more than them. You have to judge how mature your coworkers are and whether it would cause trouble for you if they made a complaint to your manager. For example, if you are on a team of like 5 people, it could be impossible for them to maintain your anonymity as they say "Why am I making less than others?" You might also imagine that if your coworkers don't get the raise, they will not be as motivated to work, and may cause problems for you that way.

I've been on both ends of this, usually the lower end, and I can say first hand it is hard to not take getting paid less as a personal affront to your dignity. And every time I was underpaid I not only didn't get a big raise, but I took much longer than expected to find another job. If you are underpaid, your best option is to leave in most cases. Don't underestimate how long you have to tolerate the low pay while you try to leave.

Post reply on HN