Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less • Hacker News Board

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#31

Post by jknightco » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:04 PM UTC

I've been saying this for years now, so its somewhat comforting to see someone else repeat it with a bit more evidence than my personal anecdata.

The main reason, in my opinion, is that corporate promotion practices have not responded to the incredible amount of intercompany competition for labor. At my current employer, the promotion process is a 3 month nightmare which requires an incredible amount of an employee's (and his/her manager's) time, including the compilation of a detailed packet which describes the reasons for why the promotion is deserved and involving an approval process through a separate committee. Meanwhile, any software engineer at one of the big guys can walk down the street to one of their competitors, say "I want a job," and probably have a seat and a 15% raise by the end of lunch time. With pay, benefits, perks, and culture being about the same at any of these companies, its easy to see why a career-focused individual would choose to jump ship every two years.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#32

Post by debian69 » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:05 PM UTC

GreenPlastic wrote: post #28

alain94040 wrote: post #22

This article should create a fun discussion, but be aware that it's most likely completely bogus. I suspect it suffers from survivor bias: anyone who is in a position to jump ship and get a 20% raise consistently is not average. If you try to change jobs every 2 years and are not great at your current position, you'll likely be sorely disappointed.

Agree with this. One of the side effects of this is your top performers are always jumping and the people who tend to stay the longest tend to be average or below average.

or they might just enjoy there jobs enough to not need to move.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#33

Post by zanny » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC

gph wrote: post #25

alain94040 wrote: post #22

This article should create a fun discussion, but be aware that it's most likely completely bogus. I suspect it suffers from survivor bias: anyone who is in a position to jump ship and get a 20% raise consistently is not average. If you try to change jobs every 2 years and are not great at your current position, you'll likely be sorely disappointed.

I think that's one of the important parts of the article; corporate management is either unwilling or completely incapable of differentiating between average and exceptional talent and often doesn't reward the latter properly. This means the only option for exceptional talent to be justly rewarded is to continually jump ship. IMO that's terrible business practice, especially in software development.

I wouldn't even say talent, necessarily. Every year you work somewhere is another notch against all the jobs that want 10+ years iOS experience. But all industries are like that, and want more years of experience, and often will pay you that 20% difference just because you have worked in the industry longer.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#34

Post by chopete » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC

Companies (with middle management) work like a family... all things optimized to welcome a new kid or take care of a crying child. As a senior (outside of executives) you are expected to shoulder the responsibility. This setup may look odd in light of this article. The only reason it works and is working fine is the setup feels natural and many have accepted it. Employees who couldn't express their concerns in a smart way were seen as misfits. At the same time employees, worth even a tiny bit, who cried smart every 6 months were take care of.

There are limits on how many times you get taken care of for crying as the articled mentioned and finding another family is a perfect thing to do when you reach the limit. That new company is all ready to repeat the cycle for you.

Unfortunately, in many companies the middle management is a pack of caring elders and the people who didn't exercise smart crying. Another reason why it(accept 3% annual raise, don't expect more) became a norm. -- from a middle manager

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#35

Post by scarmig » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #26

the_af wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had one junior guy who had been working for some years confess to me that he hadn't learned much in all his years of working. The reason? He was always chasing better pay, which in software development almost always means changing employers, and he never stayed long enough to learn the ropes of any job. Granted, he was a junior developer, but I can see this applying to people with more "seniority" (measured in year…

How often did he change employers? I can't see how changing often somehow prevents learning. Even if he changes his employer every year, there should easily be enough time to learn.

I'd guess that someone who jumps ship every year or two years will know more than someone of equivalent experience who's stayed at the same place for a decade. I learn the most the first six months at a new job.

Relatedly, there's the big benefit of much higher knowledge transfer of best practices in markets where job mobility is high. Individual companies, of course, end up giving up equal amounts of knowledge to peers and competitors, but ecosystems which support job mobility will outperform those that look down on it.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#36

Post by scotty79 » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:07 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #13

michaelfeathers wrote: post #10

For those of us in software development, an important thing to think about is what this does to code. The industry is full of old codebases tended by people who were never involved in the planning and initial design of those systems. Knowledge transfer rarely happens sufficiently to prevent accelerating maintenance headaches. I think that we really need to find different ways of developing software to deal with this…

I had one junior guy who had been working for some years confess to me that he hadn't learned much in all his years of working. The reason? He was always chasing better pay, which in software development almost always means changing employers, and he never stayed long enough to learn the ropes of any job. Granted, he was a junior developer, but I can see this applying to people with more "seniority" (measured in year…

You become senior developer not by advancing technically. You just request salary that's too high for junior developer on your next job hop. If they want to hire you (and some will want to) they have to hire you as developer or senior developer. Also being older helps.

Once you are senior developer no one even dreams of offering you position of developer or junior developer.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#37

Post by dustingetz » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:08 PM UTC

michaelfeathers wrote: post #10

For those of us in software development, an important thing to think about is what this does to code. The industry is full of old codebases tended by people who were never involved in the planning and initial design of those systems. Knowledge transfer rarely happens sufficiently to prevent accelerating maintenance headaches. I think that we really need to find different ways of developing software to deal with this…

Pair programming fixes the turnover problem

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#38

Post by GreenPlastic » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:10 PM UTC

jknightco wrote: post #31

I've been saying this for years now, so its somewhat comforting to see someone else repeat it with a bit more evidence than my personal anecdata. The main reason, in my opinion, is that corporate promotion practices have not responded to the incredible amount of intercompany competition for labor. At my current employer, the promotion process is a 3 month nightmare which requires an incredible amount of an employee's…

The thing is a lot of people value the security or aren't aware of the difference between market and their pay. Let's say this is 80% of people.

If you're corporate HR, you can retain 80% of your top talent without big pay increases and promotions while knowing that you'll lose the top 20%. This may be palatable whereas it wouldn't be if you were only retaining 60%.

I think Google and FB were the first to figure out that you could get the top 5%, that they would make a big difference in your org. You'd have to greatly increase compensation but those individuals are probably contributing and worth more than that.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#39

Post by scarmig » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

wallflower wrote: post #12

I've known people who stay for 4 months at a new higher-paying gig and then leave. Because the paycheck and new title didn't make up for the toxic culture/culture clash that they dove into. Since you see them more than you see your real friends, the people you work with become your extended family of sorts. "If all you get from work is a paycheck, you are underpaid" -Jim Rohn Daniel Pink says it best. The best jobs g…

Of course, if you get paid half the market salary, you're also getting underpaid.

This isn't a tradeoff: in my experience, the places that treat their employees well by providing a good work environment and not trying to nickel and dime them are also the places that pay well. Seek those out, and reward them and yourself by working for them.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#40

Post by lucisferre » Sun, Jun 22, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

michaelfeathers wrote: post #10

For those of us in software development, an important thing to think about is what this does to code. The industry is full of old codebases tended by people who were never involved in the planning and initial design of those systems. Knowledge transfer rarely happens sufficiently to prevent accelerating maintenance headaches. I think that we really need to find different ways of developing software to deal with this…

This is interesting, because I've also seen something that is quite the opposite. A codebase where an initially a small but quite inexperienced team wrote most of the original code and while these people are in fact still around they've been promoted to management roles based on their seniority in the company. Usually they never really advanced that far as software developers and are neither really experienced technically nor good technical managers.

These people protect and maintain the original code, architectures and practices almost reflexively. They resist better practices and refactoring, as well as education as they fear it will expose what they don't know. These companies also become a revolving door for anyone with any experience or talent for obvious reasons.

Honestly, I think the one of the worst problems for both codebase and technical culture is not beginning with a team of sufficient expertise and experience that can grow and mature appropriately over time.