Live data from Hacker News

How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

builtin.com

111–120 of 349 posts

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#111
post #62

I just want a straight answer from someone who knows more than me. How come every time I switch jobs I get a 30-40% raise, but at any one company I never get more than a 1-3% raise each year, no matter the growth of productivity and responsibility. There's obviously some kind of prisoner's dilemma-like iterated game that reaches that Nash equilibrium, and I'm trying to figure out what it is exactly. I would have love…

I think it's a pretty straightforward equilibrium. Most people, including good performers, don't want to bounce around jobs and consider it a reasonable personal cost to change their commute, learn new systems and processess, build up relationships with new colleagues, and so on. A significant portion of the labor market will bear tolerable adjustments, between barely enough not to get totally ticked off and enough to feel somewhat justly rewarded for effort. That will keep them happy and motivated and in-place, so it's rational to do it.

A smaller number of people are actively willing to take the personal cost and move around, and in a near saturated market those people end up defining the price of new labor. But paying everyone that rate would be irrational because the cost (to the business) of them moving, hiring and integrating their replacement and the opportunity costs loss, is less than what it would cost to pay everybody that rate.

Having another firm offer that you are absolutely willing to take is also the best way to get a raise where you already work, so there is also an intermediate option to handle some of the pressure of willing-to-movers without giving everybody a raise.

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a Netflix employee, but one of my best friends is. He got in at a mid/upper 200ks range salary, and within a single year got a double digit percentage bump. Netflix just seems to be an extreme outlier in terms of base (cash) compensation. I think the only companies that could beat it are some rare and elite financial firms (i.e. Jane Street) that are even tougher to get into than FAANG.

The Netflix philosophy is basically that the job sucks and they will drain the life out of you but they pay above market. YMMV

This is the first time I’ve seen a job at Netflix characterized this way. Total comp at Netflix also isn’t any higher than say Facebook or google.

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a Netflix employee, but one of my best friends is. He got in at a mid/upper 200ks range salary, and within a single year got a double digit percentage bump. Netflix just seems to be an extreme outlier in terms of base (cash) compensation. I think the only companies that could beat it are some rare and elite financial firms (i.e. Jane Street) that are even tougher to get into than FAANG.

The Netflix philosophy is basically that the job sucks and they will drain the life out of you but they pay above market. YMMV

I dunno, my friend seems to love it there, and claims it is much easier and laid back than his previous company.

Granted their culture sounds very demanding with the whole "pro sports team" mentality, but I can see that being a positive thing too. I wish my team/company was more like that.

That said, it seems it might be different for each team/department, as my friend claims there's still people there who are not very good but still around for a long time.

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#114
post #57
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part of why stock options are so valuable to organizations as an incentive: the retention power of high pay without the calculus of “do I have enough?” from liquid compensation

Huh? Everyone I've ever known who had significant options knew exactly what they were worth. I knew someone who changed their bash prompt to (price * unvested count / days left). He said at the time it was the only thing that kept him from quitting or punching his manager.

Long ago companies only bothered issuing options when the stock was illiquid; certainly my startup share options never had a meaningful market value from founding to acquisition.

Publicly-quoted companies issuing options is just a weird form of deferred bonus with a favourable tax treatment.

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#115
post #108
post #62

I just want a straight answer from someone who knows more than me. How come every time I switch jobs I get a 30-40% raise, but at any one company I never get more than a 1-3% raise each year, no matter the growth of productivity and responsibility. There's obviously some kind of prisoner's dilemma-like iterated game that reaches that Nash equilibrium, and I'm trying to figure out what it is exactly. I would have love…

There have been studies of Silicon Valley, and your experience is the common case. Some of it has to do with stock based compensation. I’ve not heard of any companies that, by default, renew RSUs at a dollar value comparable to what they gave the employee as a new hire (even if they’ve promoted the person!) Even if they did, that would be less than what that employee is paid when the initial grant expired, or what th…

Excellent point

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#116
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably incorrect if you look at some of the highest paying companies in SV. FAANG are of course well known for paying way way above what is necessary to satisfy "everyone's material needs and desires", and yet they are well known for still being ruthless political cultures and backstabbing. Execs might be congenial because at that level, congenial is just how you play the game. It's still cutthroat, but…

> FAANG are of course well known for paying way way above what is necessary to satisfy "everyone's material needs and desires" Do they though? Quality of Life is not just how much you make, it's relative to what you have to spend. You can't realistically afford a home -even for most of the engineers- with a decent school with a sub 30 minute commute anywhere around one of these companies unless you want to be house p…

Yes, they do. This comes up every time compensation gets mentioned on HN. Engineers claim that "I only make $500k/yr at Google and I'm poor because SF prices :(" which is just bullshit. In a previous thread, someone mentioned that they make $300k/yr in SF, and even after paying for housing in a nice area and food/utility expenses, they had over $11,000 per month left over in discretionary income. That is insane.

Unless your material needs and desires are to own a superyacht, even "just" $200k/yr starting salary is still far more than enough to satisfy you.

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#117
post #61

There's a style of management I encounter still that is very unsupportive of it's employees. Untrusting, thinking they're always out to leave just to make more money. It's interesting because the engineers I know tend to be pretty altruistic people and I won't say they don't care about money but it's not their leading factor in employment (I definitely know the other spectrum as well so don't think I'm ignoring that)…

SME == Subject Matter Expert

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#118
post #57
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part of why stock options are so valuable to organizations as an incentive: the retention power of high pay without the calculus of “do I have enough?” from liquid compensation

Huh? Everyone I've ever known who had significant options knew exactly what they were worth. I knew someone who changed their bash prompt to (price * unvested count / days left). He said at the time it was the only thing that kept him from quitting or punching his manager.

How do they know the price unless the company has IPO'd already?

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#119
post #62

I just want a straight answer from someone who knows more than me. How come every time I switch jobs I get a 30-40% raise, but at any one company I never get more than a 1-3% raise each year, no matter the growth of productivity and responsibility. There's obviously some kind of prisoner's dilemma-like iterated game that reaches that Nash equilibrium, and I'm trying to figure out what it is exactly. I would have love…

It's manager myopia in many cases. I am sure there are some situations where a company may not be able to pay someone in a given role more than X dollars. That company may not view you as capable of the adjacent and more senior role that would increase your comp. But maybe you are on the edge and otherwise a solid employee that they would like to retain, but they feel it would not be fair to other employees in your role to adjust your comp "out of band". It is actually very hard as a manager to structure compensation in a way that is "fair" to everyone. So bands for roles are used. I mean, we do that at our small company. It works okay for the most part. Where it gets tricky is, you want to hire someone that you think given a year will grow into a senior role, but they are only an "entry level" player when you hire them. But they have comp requirements that look like the senior role's band. What do you do then? I think a lot of companies fall into this trap when they are inflexible with their comp bands. So, you may be up for that "big" promotion or adjustment in a year or two, and the employer thinks nothing about making you sit in your current band.

This leads to predictable issues for companies with rigid compensation bands. You get frustrated because you feel you are doing the more senior role job now. You express this frustration or sentiment to your "manager". They tell you that you are doing great, but maybe you need a little more of X before they promote you. Maybe they see things in you that make them feel you should not be promoted to the next role / salary band at that time. This causes you to hunt around. Another company that really needs someone who can do what you can do will just hire you to the senior band because, on paper, they see you look effectively ready for the senior role, whereas your current managers may [right or wrong for their situation] think you are not ready for it. Maybe it is myopia and they should just promote you and that is the right call, but maybe you really aren't quite ready, by their standards, for the role yet.

My experience with all of this has taught me that a big chunk of people are an "edge case" with special circumstances. Like, maybe this one guy who is not ready for the senior role because of performance issues can just go to a competitor and get a job there in the senior role. And maybe they do great in that role in the new environment. Maybe they fixed the flaws they had or they put in that extra effort at at new job, etc. There are so many nuances to this. But I think I would trace a lot of it to imperfect information on both sides. One employer may not be willing to promote you for whatever reason, another one hungry for talent is happy to pay you more and give you a shot because you are "almost" there anyway.

Maybe other companies just have very different comp structure and available cash. Maybe the manager is being stubborn or they just don't have good, objective criteria to measure your performance and you deserve that comp bump. I do think it is easy to not "see" someone and the great work they do when you work with them and manage them every day.

IDK, at the end of the day at my company we try to be as fair as possible, and we are willing to, and have often, made big comp adjustments once someone has proven themselves [in a relatively short amount of time 1-2 years or less] for that exact fear. Someone we trained up, like working with, etc. It would be a shame for them to go to a competitor for a 10-20k pay raise.

One final reason not to be overlooked is plain old greed. Some companies just don't care. They will suck every last thing out of a junior developer or consultant type role and keep you in that pay band for the longest time they can, or maybe they never actually intend to promote you, but they just won't tell you that and figure you will see the writing on the wall eventually and leave. And that is fine with them.

Anyhow, I have seen all of these scenarios play out in various forms over the years as a manager and employee. So, it is a multi-faceted problem that doesn't have one obvious answer. I don't know about the game theory aspects, but I assume on a large scale companies that don't adjust to "market" wages ultimately are forced to adjust to market wages or go out of business because enough people leave and they can't hire new people if their comp is too far from market wage.

Re: How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around?

#120
post #62

I just want a straight answer from someone who knows more than me. How come every time I switch jobs I get a 30-40% raise, but at any one company I never get more than a 1-3% raise each year, no matter the growth of productivity and responsibility. There's obviously some kind of prisoner's dilemma-like iterated game that reaches that Nash equilibrium, and I'm trying to figure out what it is exactly. I would have love…

While the times are definitely changing, a lot of people are still very averse to finding a new workplace.

This means that even at a 1% raise per year, some people will stick around for decades. One of the best developers at one of the companies I worked for was exactly that kind of person.

For the company this means a large amount of extra profit year in year out.

The odds of you saying "Nevermind, I'm out" when they don't budge from a 2% raise are from the employers side pretty low. The odds of a new hire saying "Nevermind, I'm out" when unwilling to budge on salary negotiation is a lot higher.

Hence it becomes easier to give some additional leeway in that situation. Also if companies already have a large workforce, giving a raise to all current employees is a whole lot more expensive than giving more money to all new hires.

Lastly, there has been plenty of research that has shown that salary is not that big of a predictor of whether people stick around or leave in any given year. Whether that research is also true for software developers is up for debate, but it is what most companies rely on.

Lastly an anecdote, I was told by a manager once that if I wanted to get a significant raise, I could quit and come back as a contractor or "Senior Developer" after 6 months. At that time I was considered a junior, and promotion to senior was only possible after 10 years experience internally.

Post reply on HN