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

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

builtin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 349 posts

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

#291

Post by jlokier »

leonardteo wrote: post #235

Honestly I have given up trying to “keep” engineers because it’s a losing battle. It’s impossible to compete with big tech. From the offers I’ve seen, if FAANG/Big Tech really wants one of your team members, they will get them and there is nothing you can do. My employees stay because they want to. They enjoy the work, domain, colleagues. The salary is competitive and fair. They can thrive in this environment. But I…

> From the offers I’ve seen, if FAANG/Big Tech really wants one of your team members, they will get them and there is nothing you can do.

True, but your team members aren't getting any offers from FAANG/Big Tech unless the team members put in some effort. At least, they have to do a series of interviews.

FAANG positions are notoriously coveted, at least here on HN, and most people have to work hard, including preparation, to get into them.

So the question comes, what does it take to make your engineers comfortable enough they don't think it's worth going through the process to get those other offers.

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

#292

Post by tidepod12 »

bradlys wrote: post #290
tidepod12 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even at $7000/month income that leaves "thousands" left over but that is a fucked ratio of expenses. You shouldn't be spending close to 50% of your take home on RENT. You will never be able to retire and live the same lifestyle. The general guidance is that 30% of your gross income should be spent on rent. After taxes, that equates to ~40-50% of your take home goes to rent. That's normal for everyone, not just in SF…

Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house. Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. Your third is nearly $2mil. Have you ever tried to get a loan for that much at that income with a traditional 20% down? (Assuming you have 350-400k laying around) You will not get approved for a loan on that at $250k/yr. Your monthly cost on that first home is $8,375 a…

If you're just going to move the goalposts, then this discussion is pointless. But in good faith, I'll try one last time:

>Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house.

It's not an apartment, it's a condo, which is a form of housing.

>Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m.

At $1.7m sale price you're still close to the 30% rule and still have more than 5k/mo discretionary spend, which again, is more than most americans make monthly, period, even before paying for a house. The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting. I'm sure my friend who owns that house in Sunset and has a boat and goes on nice vacations all the time will be bummed to hear that he's apparently "poor". I'll also let my Nob Hill friend know, too. Tell me, do you think commenting on their pic from the St Regis Bora Bora is a good way to break the news to them that they are actually poor?

All of this is also completely ignoring the fact that this is talking about someone making $250k/yr (which is near the beginning of their career for a FAANG engineer) paying for this house by themselves, when in reality the expectation in the entire rest of the world is that you shouldn't be expecting to buy a home like this until your 30s or 40s. There's a reason "starter homes" are a thing, and these listed homes are not that. You have incredibly warped expectations if you think that the target market for these 3br, 3bath homes are 25 year old single people. If you were an engineer in your 30s, you're looking at an income more like 300-400k at a FAANG, and if your spouse also has an income, these houses are trivially affordable.

Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine. For you to sit here and try to argue that "$300k isn't enough" is ludicrous and reeks of ultra privilege. You need a reality check.

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

#293

Post by greedo »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #219
YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

>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. As someone in their 30s who has spent in-person time at about a dozen companies (a stint in consulting will do that) ranging from start-ups to large enterprise, this is exceedingly rare from what I've seen. Hardly anyone makes it to a…

At my company, there are developers who have been there 30+ years. They have seen a lot...

Insurance companies change slowly. We still have COBOL, mainframes, etc. Applications that cost $10k/minute if they're down.

Part of the equation is job security. You eat enough shit, put up with enough mgmt BS, but you get a steady paycheck, decent benefits, and little threat of downsizing.

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

#294

Post by greedo »

antisthenes wrote: post #277
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember many, many years ago my boss at IBM explaining that I did not qualify for a raise because I was just over the industry median pay for my band. Honestly, if they had just kept giving me 3% raises every year, it might never have occurred to me to wonder whether I could be making more elsewhere. The weird thing about paying at the 50% line is that it means that your policy is, in effect, "we do not want any a…

Average inflation over the last 20 years is 2.1% Honestly being given anything under 2.5% is just insulting. Pay freeze or COL adjustment in line with inflation is for a few years in bad recessions imo, like 2009-10 or, probably the upcoming 12-18 months. Being given 3% is in the neighborhood of "better than nothing", but nowhere near what it should be for an employee trying to get ahead and putting in the required e…

Yup. Our team is only allowed to have one person with "Exceeds standards." One. A bastard form of stack ranking. So the mgr picks based on his gut feelings, and then justifies it with a vague review.

The lucky team member gets a 5% raise, everyone else is usually ranked as "Meets standards" which merits a 2.5% raise. A few people who need time in the penalty box get a 1% raise.

So what happens is your actual performance doesn't matter unless you make the boss look great, or look terrible. He's a non-tech person, so he can't effectively evaluate you on any other criteria.

This leads to employees doing enough work to avoid being fired, or (as is usual with Stack Ranking) sabotaging other workers.

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

#295

Post by oarabbus_ »

goatinaboat wrote: post #272
oarabbus_ wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. As someone in their 30s who has spent in-person time at about a dozen companies (a stint in consulting will do that) ranging from start-ups to large enterprise, this is exceedingly rare from what I've seen. Hardly anyone makes it to a…

Hardly anyone makes it to a single decade, much less multiple. Maybe at a law firm, but not in a development role. I’m guessing you’re a webdev and this is normal for that industry but in more “traditional” fields programmers behave much more like other white-collar workers. I’ve met plenty with 20-30 year stunts at the same company.

I used to work in medical devices, where I saw more along the lines of what you're referring to. But while you'd occasionally see 10+ year stints, "multiple decades" was still rare.

Regardless, the number of developers at these companies is much fewer than in tech; therefore, they cannot be setting the equilibrium referred to by OP.

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

#296

Post by BeetleB »

gkop wrote: post #231
eloisant wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you make 400k at Netflix instead of 200k of cash + 200k of FB stock at Facebook, you can just buy FB stock by yourself with the Netflix cash...

This analysis is missing the appreciation of the grant during vesting, which is material. The 200k of FB stock was granted as 800k over 4 years. So if the stock goes up just 10% a year, by the time the 1st year vests it's actually worth 220k, the 2nd year is 242k, 3rd year is 266k, and 4th 290k in stock comp due to appreciation. If it goes up more than 10%, effect is even more pronounced, plus with refreshers, you ge…

It's not missing that analysis. The GP said if given $400K cash you could buy $200K worth of stock. Yes, FB stock will appreciate during vesting, but that's no different from me buying $200K of FB stock and simply holding on to it for a few years. The benefit of cash up front and you buying the stock is you can buy any stock and play this game, not just your own company's.

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

#297

Post by BeetleB »

dlp211 wrote: post #157
tidepod12 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most Engineers do NOT make $500k total comp per year at FAANG companies, most engineers don't make $300k TC/yr at these companies, and those aren't the engineers I'm talking about anyways. These companies are made up mostly of engineers who make between $100k-$250k. That's still not a small amount of money; and I never claimed that these people are poor; just that these salaries don't satisfy their needs and desires…

I don't live in SV. Looking at Mountain View, there are quite a few nice 2000 sq ft houses to rent for about $6500/month. When I compare that to what I'm paying in a cheaper COL area, I can assure you that the difference in pay between me and typical Google compensation, after taxes, more than compensates for this increase in rent.

I won't say it's "luxury", but it's still better than most people get around the country.

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

#298

Post by whynaut »

tidepod12 wrote: post #292
bradlys wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house. Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. Your third is nearly $2mil. Have you ever tried to get a loan for that much at that income with a traditional 20% down? (Assuming you have 350-400k laying around) You will not get approved for a loan on that at $250k/yr. Your monthly cost on that first home is $8,375 a…

If you're just going to move the goalposts, then this discussion is pointless. But in good faith, I'll try one last time: >Your first listing is an apartment. Shouldn't have to explain why that's not a house. It's not an apartment, it's a condo, which is a form of housing. >Your second listing has an estimated sale value of nearly $1.7m. At $1.7m sale price you're still close to the 30% rule and still have more than…

> You can't buy a house now with $250k/yr in inner sunset. Go to Zillow and find me a nice house you can afford on $250k/yr and won't be house poor in the end with.

> You're not even close to being "poor in the end with it"

> The fact that you think this would make you "poor" is absurd and quite frankly, insulting

"House poor" is a distinct term that describes a home purchase where home expenses (not just mortgage) drain cash flow in a way that prevents hitting other goals - hence this point:

> You shouldn't be spending close to 50% of your take home on RENT. You will never be able to retire and live the same lifestyle.

A very different notion than "poor" alone. Also, you'd have to put at least closer 25-30% down on that home without absolutely perfect credit; jumbo loans have been tightening awhile.

> Again, the median family income in SF is less than $100k, and they seem to be doing fine.

What do you mean by doing fine, exactly? Not to nitpick, but I was under the impression most people buying in SF are not native to the city.

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

#299

Post by _57jb »

greedo wrote: post #293
oarabbus_ wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. As someone in their 30s who has spent in-person time at about a dozen companies (a stint in consulting will do that) ranging from start-ups to large enterprise, this is exceedingly rare from what I've seen. Hardly anyone makes it to a…

At my company, there are developers who have been there 30+ years. They have seen a lot... Insurance companies change slowly. We still have COBOL, mainframes, etc. Applications that cost $10k/minute if they're down. Part of the equation is job security. You eat enough shit, put up with enough mgmt BS, but you get a steady paycheck, decent benefits, and little threat of downsizing.

Isn't it crazy this is what it all boils down to...looking over our 30 some odd years grinding away and we are looking to stay safe.

You can live your dream or help someone else build theirs.

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

#300

Post by abc_lisper »

dominotw wrote: post #197
codegeek wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone on H-1B this is doubly hard. I left every single time, without even asking.
Post reply on HN