Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 334 posts

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#271

Post by s1artibartfast »

willcipriano wrote: post #230
downut wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? You proved you're competent to the potential suitor by obtaining an offer. They got some valuable quality candidate interviewing experience which can be difficult to achieve, and you got a rock solid tangible improvement in your work QoL, even if the target ultimately didn't achieve their hopeful hire. Possibly they got some data that (to them) implies they should have offered more money. Win win. I would say a…

Sure, I guess you could play it back and forth like your sibling comment implies, that seems risky though (you might end up with no offers). Also why do I want to stay with the cheap people? They proved to be unable to deliver market rates for my efforts unless I make a big scene about it. I don't like to do business with people like that.

If you want to get the best deal, you always have to shop around and negotiate.

No employers going to give you the maximum that they can afford without negotiation or a reason to. It's not being cheap, it's common business sense.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#272

Post by laweijfmvo »

sangnoir wrote: post #137
laweijfmvo wrote: post #80

I've experienced this to varying degrees over my 15 year career, but can safely say that my current job at a FAANG probably pays more than any job I could get today (including another FAANG). Stock appreciation and more importantly, extra stock awards, are difficult to match. Or I could be a sucker and 100% wrong.

Setting aside stock appreciation, are your refreshers greater than new hire FAANG RSUs for a similar position? Most FAANG total compensation dips in year 5 due to 4-year vesting schedules, and refreshers for existing employees being lower than nee hire grants (assuming stock price remains flat).

Generally speaking, probably not; new-hire grants are generally one of the largest stock grants you get (promotions and bonus awards being second); annual refreshers are relatively small.

But do I today have more RSUs earned cumulatively than a brand new hire at the same level? I would say yes, but only because of promotions and bonus grants -- Based on levels.fyi (grain of salt), my stock compensation is comparable to a new hire one level up.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#273

Post by s1artibartfast »

JohnFen wrote: post #224
s1artibartfast wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not do both? thats what I see. Firms give paltry pay bumps as default, but will fight with competitive salaries to retain top performers. Top performers get completive raises by going to their boss with an offer letter from a competitor.

> Top performers get completive raises by going to their boss with an offer letter from a competitor. In my businesses, I've had employees do this a couple of times. Both times my response was "you should take that offer". Also both times, if they'd asked for a pay increase equal to what the offer represented, they probably would have gotten it. Coming to me with an offer letter in an attempt to get a pay raise is a…

That's strange to me. Why is it extortion? They're doing you a favor by giving a chance to compete. Seems like honest communication to me.

It is no different than giving customers a notice of price increase or giving contractors an option to bid.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#274

Post by nomel »

rcbdev wrote: post #179
nomel wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two more: - The company has a limit for how many times you can leave and come back. For example (last I checked), Intel is 2, Apple is 0. - For large companies, internal transfers can be diverse enough to make someone happy with a change. Although, pay raises are more limited.

The first point sounds insane. In my vicinity the trend seems completely opposite - HR is trying to get a smoother rehiring experience for employees they lost due to their high turnover. This might be because the talent pool of people willing and able to do IT jobs in my country is very small, so you run into the same people over and over again in this field.

From what I've been told, Intel allows 2 so you can go try to start a company. I once worked at a startup founded by a whole group from Intel doing this (including one of the original architects of 8086!). Several were on their last attempt. Every one of them went right back to intel, after it didn't work out.

And, from what I've been told about Apple, the idea is that if you can't find something within Apple (since they literally do everything, even textiles!), then Apple probably just isn't a good fit, especially since it is possible to spin up a team to make something new internally.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#275

Post by s1artibartfast »

JohnFen wrote: post #251
synthc wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so shortshighted, it's not about 'respect', its about market value. By bringing an offer your employees are proving their market value, and you don't want to match it, so they will leave.

It's about treating people decently, in my view. It's not necessary to try to set up a bidding war in order to demonstrate market value. The disrespect that rankles me is the treatment of the company that made the offer, honestly. I just choose not to play that game. It's unnecessary. If an employee can't just come to me and be straight about their compensation requirements, that's a problem.

>If an employee can't just come to me and be straight about their compensation requirements, that's a problem.

That's exactly what they are doing, but with evidence to boot so you are on the same page.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#276

Post by VirusNewbie »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #80

I've experienced this to varying degrees over my 15 year career, but can safely say that my current job at a FAANG probably pays more than any job I could get today (including another FAANG). Stock appreciation and more importantly, extra stock awards, are difficult to match. Or I could be a sucker and 100% wrong.

>stock appreciation and more importantly, extra stock awards, are difficult to match.

Other FAANGs will likely match. That's how comp went bonkers the last four years (and is normalizing now). People were leveraging their unvested stock appreciation in negotiations for new offers.

(Netflix and Meta in particular have said they'll beat any other offers from FAANG).

Now if you're already at Meta and got a huge grant at the low, then yeah you're probably topped out for a while but congrats on being pretty rich :)

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#277

Post by perfectstorm »

mjr00 wrote: post #61
prakhar897 wrote: post #41

Do employees suffer from having too many jumps in their Resume? After some time, companies would be less inclined to hire these people right?

IMO as someone who has done hiring at a FAANG and many other companies, short answer is no, if anything it's the opposite. As long as you hit a sweet spot of staying at each place for at least 9-12 months with no gaps in between jobs--in reality, this means "it doesn't look like you were fired"--switching jobs not only makes you look more motivated, it also gives you a wider breadth of experience to draw from. A seni…

as an EM, 12mo is too short and I will pass them if i see 3+ of those in their career (say 10yrs). why would I spend my resources to train you for a couple of months and you leave me in another 6-8mo. it will take a senior dev at least 3-4mo to be fully productive. In your example, you are effectively doing a temporary hire for 6-8mo.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#278

Post by giantg2 »

LoulouMonkey wrote: post #243
giantg2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on my experience, I assume disabled people also job hop less often. I often wonder if my lower pay is because I don't job hop, because of my disability, or if I'm just a piece of shit.

If anything, I have found my own disability to be a huge plus when looking for a new job. I'm one of these job hoppers and it's been almost 10 years since I have stayed over 3 years within the same company. Coincidentally, I was diagnosed with some condition that I won't name here about 10 years ago. Now, this is solely based on my own experience, which of course might not apply to your specific field of work and dis…

Good for you, but that's the opposite of most people's experiences.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#279

Post by sgerenser »

kbolino wrote: post #201
nanidin wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify on the "invasive examination of your finances"? In my experience, when you apply on healthcare.gov, you simply enter your estimated income for the year you're applying - that's it, and you get the subsidy. Then when you file your taxes for that year, you either get more subsidy as a credit, or pay some back depending on whether you came in above or below the estimate you provided on the application.

I was wrong. My estimated income for the year was $0, so the only choice was Medicaid or full out of pocket.

You did it wrong. Just always estimate just above the Medicaid threshold (assuming you legitimately don’t think you’ll make much in the year). Then you get the maximum subsidy, which might even make a Bronze plan completely free. If you end up making less at the end of the year, and really should have been on Medicaid, nothing gets clawed back. If you end up making more than estimated, you just have to pay back some of the subsidy.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#280

Post by s0kr8s »

kerkeslager wrote: post #240
s0kr8s wrote: post #53

Caution: you might get paid 50% more to work at a company that is 500% worse managed, and therefore is hemorrhaging employees so fast that the only way they can maintain staffing levels is to offer a hefty premium above normal market wages to get new suckers to take a chance on them. If you're nihilistic and believe all employers are rotten, then jumping ship every 2 years might be a decent game strategy, but I tend…

The primary reason for having an employer in your life at all is for them to pay you, so the primary measure of a good employer is good pay. Yes, there are other factors, but many of those factors (read: benefits) have known monetary values which are effectively equivalent to pay. There is no such thing as a good employer who doesn't pay their workers competitively. While this may not be your intent, your post sounds…

I never suggested that there are good employers who don't pay their workers competitively.

I instead suggested that there are bad employers who pay above market rates as a way to compensate for problems with employee retention. Sure, they'll run out of money doing that eventually, but you'd be surprised how long a business can cover up their mistakes with such a strategy, especially with the right funding partners behind them.

If you have not had the misfortune of working for such a business, that's great, but I believe there are plenty of comments here on HN to support the notion that such businesses not only exist but are fairly common in any industry touched by Venture Capital or Private Equity, and I have seen many even suggest that their higher financial compensation ends up not being worth it in light of the added psychological and physiological toll.

Post reply on HN