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

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

#291

Post by swiftcoder » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:33 AM UTC

datadrivenangel wrote: post #33

swiftcoder wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Inside Meta there was a robust network sharing offer and raise/promo letters. Someone hired in at your same level today would be making 10-20% more per year that you had been employed there .

So the hiring bump was going up faster than inflation? So after 2-4 years a new hire at the same level would be making almost at least 50% more than you...

Yes, compensation competition between FAANG in that era was savage (though I would guess that this has slowed down since the great layoff)

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

#292

Post by vsuperpower2020 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 6:54 AM UTC

PeterCorless wrote: post #72

crooked-v wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think calling it "feudalism" is quite right, because feudalism as a system depends extensively on personal loyalties at each step of the chain of authority. The death of feudalism came from monarchs developing enough administrative power that they no longer had to depend on the loyalty of their vassals to control areas outside their personal domains.

Late-stage capitalism is definitely different than late-stage feudalism. For example, we still have the equivalent of early Medieval English right of "socn" ("soke") — the right to withdraw our loyalty from one lord and grant it to another. We're not "tied" to our corporate overlords the same way that serfs were through strict infeudation. A recent court case threw out most of the nonsense non-compete clauses also he…

Just do you know, when outsiders see you talking about "late-stage capitalism", they have the same reaction as if I started talking about the CIA dumping brain control chemicals in the water supply.

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

#293

Post by LunaSea » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 7:54 AM UTC

cstrahan wrote: post #102

LunaSea wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not match my experience where the average retention duration for employees across all the companies I've worked for or have known has bee around 2.5 to 3 years.

In what way does this not match your experience? You’ve mentioned one variable (retention) but not the other (salary increase over time), so your comment as it stands doesn’t refute the claim of the person you’re replying to. Are you implying that you know that these people have received raises year after year that are comparable to the pay increase they could have if they took a new job?

It refutes the claim in the sense that employees leave at about the optimum time (close to two years) as per the study.

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

#294

Post by amarant » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 8:23 AM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #153

amarant wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, but that's not the full story here tho, at least not in my experience. Worst job I ever had paid about 60% of what I usually earn, and I was told of by the manager for pointing out that there were compilation errors in our master branch (at this place, anything pushed to master was automatically deployed into production, with zero testing. The only reason prod didn't burn that day was because the pi…

> Worst job I ever had paid about 60% of what I usually earn, and I was told of by the manager for pointing out that there were compilation errors in our master branch (at this place, anything pushed to master was automatically deployed into production, with zero testing. Out of curiosity, how long did it take from hiring day to resignation for this to become apparent?

I first started considering resigning after about 3 months, but I was in tight spot financially at the time so I stuck around for 6 months in the end. It was soul crushing and terrible.

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

#295

Post by amarant » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 8:28 AM UTC

oarla wrote: post #186

amarant wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong, but that's not the full story here tho, at least not in my experience. Worst job I ever had paid about 60% of what I usually earn, and I was told of by the manager for pointing out that there were compilation errors in our master branch (at this place, anything pushed to master was automatically deployed into production, with zero testing. The only reason prod didn't burn that day was because the pi…

Would you have tolerated that if you getting paid 1.5 or 2x instead of 0.6x? Maybe you wouldn't, but on average many would be ok with that environment for higher pay. One interesting data point is that places that pay higher than the market on average have much higher rate of retention as well. Barring some egregious conditions, many will tolerate an non-ideal environment for better than market pay.

I'm not sure if I would've tolerated it or not, I was in a tight spot financially when I took the job so I might have tolerated it for a bit longer at least if the pay was 2x my normal rate.

But I still would've hated every second of it. At 10x I definitely would've tolerated it for longer, but only by steeling myself with the thought that if I work 12 more months, I can basically retire afterwards.

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

#296

Post by disgruntledphd2 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 8:48 AM UTC

swiftcoder wrote: post #19

asaph wrote: post #3

This article is nearly 10 years old. Is this still true?

Yep. Inside Meta there was a robust network sharing offer and raise/promo letters. Someone hired in at your same level today would be making 10-20% more per year that you had been employed there .

Huh? This must have been in equity, right, given that the bands were consistent for everyone when I was there. I find it hard to believe that they changed that.

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

#297

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 11:06 AM UTC

ukoki wrote: post #54

Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational. At the cost of losing a minority of job-hoppers they retain the cheap majority that: - finds job interviews exhausting, or is anxious about being…

[deleted]

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

#298

Post by bravetraveler » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 11:11 AM UTC

ukoki wrote: post #54

Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational. At the cost of losing a minority of job-hoppers they retain the cheap majority that: - finds job interviews exhausting, or is anxious about being…

Nailed it, exactly. Not an endorsement but that's how it is.

I just struggled through this list for years. First, internally - then I announced my intent to leave.

People raised some of the points in a caring way. I have so many trust issues I don't know if I was being gaslit or if they truly believed it. I started to wonder who it served when I saw the patterns.

Anyway, don't believe the bastards. If you're willing to work, good people will teach you what you need. Find them.

Don't waste your time places where you aren't happy and valued

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

#299

Post by throwaway7ahgb » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 11:53 AM UTC

Terr_ wrote: post #170

nonethewiser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remote vs. non-remote seems like a huge factor here. Sure, many people when they're young are geographically flexible. But that's less true as you age and are tied down by a house, spouse's job, kid's school, daycare, etc. If you have to come into work, then all those details depend on your job location. You can't just change job locations. Again, this works for some single young people who rent apartments in NYC or…

> You can't just change job locations. Also when a family has/needs two parents working, Spouse A's next job becomes limited to locations that do not require Spouse B to also quit, and vice-versa. I have a pet theory that dual-incomes are one cause of movement to urban locations: The family needs to be in a location with enough overlapping opportunities in each person's role/field.

Urban area crime reduction starting around the 90s led to most movement back. The dual income job requirements just make it stickier and create a feedback system of higher housing prices. (which require more dual incomes...)

As soon as that dual income want kids and can afford it on a signal income in suburbia, they'll take it most of the time.

Just my .02

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

#300

Post by throwaway7ahgb » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 12:06 PM UTC

chasd00 wrote: post #232

burningChrome wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting fact and brings up a paradox I've seen at the last two major companies I've worked for. Both saw a limit on the time someone could be at the company and still be promoted. The C-Suite people really felt if people were at the company for more than 5 years, they were no longer viable candidates to move up because they had become to "accustomed" to the corporate culture and would develop a sense o…

> Both saw a limit on the time someone could be at the company and still be promoted. this is called "up or out", maybe 10-15 years ago my little sister had this same setup at Mckinsey but she's not there anymore. The idea iirc was if you haven't been promoted in 2-3 years then you're better off leaving and trying somewhere else so you get let go. I haven't heard of that setup in a long time.

Tech companies usually have terminal levels. Meaning "up or out" exists, but once you reach Senior or Staff then it is ok to stay at that level indefinitely.