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

181–190 of 225 posts

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

#181

Post by zem »

thrwaway1985882 wrote: post #130
JohnFen wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is awkward This is why I don't discuss my salary, nor do I want to know what my coworkers make. It's not information that is terribly useful, but can make for very awkward situations. I do want to know whether or not I'm making a salary that is in line with the norms in my area, but I can easily find that information without knowing what any individual is making.

> 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…

depends on whether you feel like you have the leverage to do something about it, or if all that happens now is you do the same job with the same pay and the additional knowledge that someone else is making more.

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

#182

Post by logtempo »

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.

In other words, they're trying to keep the variance of the distribution of salaries constant over time.

Limiting economic disparity have always been beneficial to the group I believe (I don't have data for that).

In the same company, the top should not be paid x% more than the lower salary. In the same country, the maximum wage should not exceed x% more than the minimum wage (after taxes).

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

#183

Post by willcipriano »

newaccount7hhhf wrote: post #70
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.

What do you mean “cost them money” I legitimately can’t think of situation where releasing a product behind deadline would cost a business money? Obviously they just allocated resources more efficiently because they have fewer people. Likely they made more money because of increased demand.

Legal change requires a go live on a certain date.

Modernizing and moving functionality to the cloud now instead of in a few months prevents renewal of a expensive contract.

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

#184

Post by i_am_a_peasant »

jpalawaga wrote: post #152
i_am_a_peasant wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Had that at Wind River years ago. They'd both give you RSUs as a kind of bonus but you could also invest a part of your salary in RSUs. Don't know if they're still a thing.

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

#185

Post by proc0 »

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…

You can only do this so much before you hit the pay ceiling of your role more or less. Then there is also the age factor, which whether it's justified or not the older you get the more expectations there are and the harder it becomes to jump ship.

Personally my biggest gripe is how technical careers evolve into non-technical roles because of how companies underestimate the engineering and overestimate people skills. The pay gap would be easier to bridge if yearly reviews were based mostly on technical skill growth instead of other corporate jargon like "impact" or "leadership".

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

#186

Post by jmholla »

thisiszilff wrote: post #134
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…

> Which required me to learn "direct response marketing and copywriting". How’d you go about getting good at these things?

Not an answer to your question, more bolstering your comment, hoping someone else will come along and be encouraged to answer. Trying to learn about this on the internet is a nauseating series of blogspam.

Edit: Although, this particular article doesn't seem so bad: https://mirasee.com/blog/direct-response-copywriting/

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

#187

Post by jodrellblank »

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…

> "Turns out it was Joel Spolsky who invented that practice. I'm sure most programmers want to strangle that guy. Lol."

Really? Here's Joel writing about his interviewing technique for software developers, it's a 1 hour interview with the focus on letting the interviewee talk about how smart they are: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...

    1. Introduction
    2. Question about recent project candidate worked on
    3. Easy Programming Question
    4. Pointer/Recursion Question
    5. Are you satisfied? [with your whiteboard code answer]
    6. Do you have any questions?
Has he changed from that in the last 20 years?

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

#188

Post by bevekspldnw »

JohnFen wrote: post #139
thrwaway1985882 wrote: post #130

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…

I don’t care about money, that’s not my personal issue. I’ll happy to pay my bills, have good food on my table, and have a roof over my head.

It’s the feeling that I’ve been hoodwinked that I refuse to tolerate.

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

#189

Post by mooreds »

s3tt3mbr1n1 wrote: post #112
bboygravity wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read a book or watch some Youtube videos about negotiating (in general)?

Anything you would recommend, specifically for salary negotiations?

Josh Doody's stuff is pretty good: https://fearlesssalarynegotiation.com/

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

#190

Post by bevekspldnw »

peteradio wrote: post #33
bmitc wrote: 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.

Shhhh…never mention caste in SV.
Post reply on HN