How Much Should You Pay Your Engineers to Ensure They Stick Around? • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by PaywallBuster » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

vbtemp wrote: 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…

Maybe companies try to gamify growing inside the company, make it look like an achievement.

I've worked at a company where most engineers have been in the team for 2/3+ years, maybe more, some of them first and only job, so far.

Most of them were probably low-ish to medium salaries but they were happy with the team and the company. Had no plans to leave or try to argue for salary raises. confortable Some people simply don't care so much about money and will be happy to have a nice stable environment they're comfortable with.

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

#192

Post by WrtCdEvrydy » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

RussianCow wrote: post #151

buster wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask yourself, did you provide a 40% increase in value in the last year compared to the year before? Probably not. For another company, that possibly desperately needs a new employee, you might have the value that without you the added income will be zero, with you... More then that.

This doesn't track, though, because this happens within the same company . It's not uncommon to struggle to get a small raise, and then have the same manager hire someone new for a much higher salary.

Leave, then. Seriously, just give two weeks and call it a day.

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

#193

Post by iso1631 » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #173

iso1631 wrote: post #44

The large UK broadcaster I work for is having to make large amounts of savings. They've decided that they don't like paying for slack (for £10 per user per month), and instead are going to force everyone to use MS Teams. Since 95% of people have been working from home (and no plans for most to go back this year), they won't allow people to take unused monitors back because they might end up lost. These are £80 monito…

Saving £1.6 million/month isn't nickel-and-diming. That's almost £20 million/annually, which is more than many companies make. As for the monitors, that may be COVID19 related. If the office is locked up, there are almost always physical/security procedures that must be followed in order to allow non-essential staff into the office...and that doesn't include any cleaning or sanitation that might be required by any CO…

Our offices are still open, just with 10% of the staff in them.

And the "£1.6m a month" view is the problem -- if you are spending £5k a month, or 40p a minute, on the costs of keeping an employee (probably more with the cost of office space), an extra £10 a month is neither here nor there. If it costs just 1 minute extra a day, you're losing.

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

#194

Post by codegeek » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

vbtemp wrote: 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…

Simple answer: Capitalism.

Companies don't want to pay you more just because there is a perceived value. They will only pay you once you threaten and you are good for it (supply demand) or you change jobs (supply demand again).

I have thought about this hard. Both as an employee back in the day and now for 6+ years as a business owner. As an employee, I thought the same as you but then stopped expecting from current employers. When I was ready to jump, I jumped. Period. No ifs. No negotiations with current company. As a business owner though, I definitely understand why I am not just going to give someone a 30% raise. Now, if you are a small company and there is no a whole lot of management red tape (like my company), I encourage anyone to ask for a 30% raise and be ready to be able to justify it. If you are worth it (capitalism), I would do it. But if you never ask, I absolutely won't give you a 30% raise. Remember, you are not the only one in the company.

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

#195

Post by laurencerowe » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #143

yibg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But Netflix pays real money, right? FB and G heavily compensate with stock that has historically been valuable, but could always tank with a cooling ad market or strong privacy regulations.

FB and G stock grants vest monthly and employees often have them setup to sell immediately on vesting. While there is some volatility in exactly how much you get paid its much closer to Netflix than to compensation at startups and not yet IPO'd companies where you can't realize the stock options until much later.

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

#196

Post by _57jb » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:22 PM UTC

vbtemp wrote: 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 for the same reason that large financial institutions hire entry level engineers as "VP's"

There are internal systems, some significantly older than others....they are trying to adapt the real world to their internal representation of the perceived world.

The value you truly provide vs. the value they believe you provide is lost on them....so you must find/show it. Many enterprises assume 3% bumps for all employees yearly, associate this to overhead, and report back to shareholders. This trickles down to managers as "room to work with their employees." If someone gets rewarded, this means someone else is getting punished. Need an exception....take it to the top.

Now you have a system of incentives and disincentive...want to get more for your people, take from others or take on more work.

You now have potential for lost information at your inability to display value (doing work quietly and not advocating for yourself), your manager (overloaded/ignorant of effort), the process (outdated or accounting for a percentage of unhappiness), and arguably the stock market....

You can get very analytical with game theory here which I think can be very interesting. If you find that interesting you may find Thalers "Guessing Game" and Keynes "Beauty Contest" interesting as well.

My opinion has been the more layers, the more places to lose information. These companies are accounting for external factors/information on the hiring front, once you are inside, it is internal factors/information.

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

#197

Post by dominotw » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

codegeek wrote: post #194

vbtemp wrote: 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…

Simple answer: Capitalism. Companies don't want to pay you more just because there is a perceived value. They will only pay you once you threaten and you are good for it (supply demand) or you change jobs (supply demand again). I have thought about this hard. Both as an employee back in the day and now for 6+ years as a business owner. As an employee, I thought the same as you but then stopped expecting from current…

> They will only you once you threaten

employees don't threaten, they simply leave. Why would someone go through the arduous process of finding another job just to 'threaten'. If you 'threaten' they will agree at that point and fire you later.

Capitalism should account for that. So thats not it.

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

#198

Post by iso1631 » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #141

iso1631 wrote: post #44

The large UK broadcaster I work for is having to make large amounts of savings. They've decided that they don't like paying for slack (for £10 per user per month), and instead are going to force everyone to use MS Teams. Since 95% of people have been working from home (and no plans for most to go back this year), they won't allow people to take unused monitors back because they might end up lost. These are £80 monito…

I see this sentiment a lot. from what I hear of our management Slack's enterprise sales folk are a bit shit w.r.t working out deals and the like. 10 quid per person, for context, is roughly the price of all the MS software stack if you're a decent size. So for 10-bob you get email, word, excel, teams and exchange/AzureAD -- or a chat app. So that's the context that they're dealing with; but I fucking hate teams with…

> So for 10-bob you get email, word, excel, teams and exchange/AzureAD -- or a chat app.

And the people making these decisions use word, excel, teams and exchange a hell of a lot in ways to try to work out how to save some money.

I for one don't need that. I need jira, confluence, slack.

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

#199

Post by yboris » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

vbtemp wrote: 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…

One helpful perspective: a company hiring an individual has a specific problem they want to solve. If they hire you, you are the best candidate out of many they interview. You will bring a lot of value to them immediately.

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

#200

Post by bradlys » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

tidepod12 wrote: post #116

dlp211 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Unle…

I’d be curious to know where that person got such cheap housing. $300k/yr translates to $15k/month take home. Houses are like $10k/month if you’re looking to own. Even if you rent, it’s still close to $5-6k/month if you want a decent neighborhood.

I’m not even talking about nice houses btw.

Maybe they rent an apartment and share the rent. That’s the only way I see them coming up with those numbers.

$300k/year isn’t enough for single income families in the Bay Area.

EDIT: I'm curious if you live in the bay area and where you get your notions.