Live data from Hacker News

If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

evalcode.com

31–40 of 90 posts

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#31

If you have people on your team that are valuable enough to demand a 40% compensation increase, then you should have been paying them 40% more without them having to demand it. It never ceases to amaze me that the owner class is so continually shocked that the people who build the value that the owners leverage into growing their fortune might suddenly realize their value. The entitlement is baked deep into the minds…

"Value" is not this objective measure that can be deduced from someone's output. It depends on many variables like cost of living, the job market, tech trends, and industry competition. Could very easily fluctuate 50% or more in a short period of time.

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#32
post #13

> A senior engineer says “I want a 40% raise or I’m leaving,” and the company’s ability to respond depends entirely on what their alternatives look like. Except where I live there's a glut of people wanting any job they can find—for a variety of reasons ranging from high levels of immigration to layoffs in the last two years—and willing to accept discount rates because the alternative is being unemployed for another…

> and the employer can hire a new senior engineer at below market rates to accommodate the specific learning they have to do

It sounds like what you're saying is actually that the last engineer was being paid above-market, because the price that employers are paying new employees is literally the market rate, seeing as it's the rate in the literal market.

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#33

If you have people on your team that are valuable enough to demand a 40% compensation increase, then you should have been paying them 40% more without them having to demand it. It never ceases to amaze me that the owner class is so continually shocked that the people who build the value that the owners leverage into growing their fortune might suddenly realize their value. The entitlement is baked deep into the minds…

This is such a childish mindset. How much did you pay your plumber to fix your toilet last time? Why didn't you pay 40% more than that?

If your plumber was doing regular work for you that brought you significant, expensive-to-replace value then you _should_ pay him more.

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#34

I was wondering if there's anything behind the idea that people who learned how to code before AI will become the human capital version of low-background steel. Everyone who starts to code after AI has a problem: it's hard to believe you went through the pain and frustration that people often think is required to become a senior engineer. Even if you did, you are in a lemon market with quite a few people who took the…

How do you value people who learnt to code in the 80's, 90's or 2000's today?

Will new developers know/understand what they don't know, or will the new state of things simply become normalized?

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#35

If you have people on your team that are valuable enough to demand a 40% compensation increase, then you should have been paying them 40% more without them having to demand it. It never ceases to amaze me that the owner class is so continually shocked that the people who build the value that the owners leverage into growing their fortune might suddenly realize their value. The entitlement is baked deep into the minds…

This is such a childish mindset. How much did you pay your plumber to fix your toilet last time? Why didn't you pay 40% more than that?

How is it childish? Not all plumbers cost the same or do the same work. If you wanna hire a good plumber, you'll have to pay them more.

Likewise, if people on your team get better at their jobs and you don't want them to leave, you also have to pay them more.

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#36

If you have people on your team that are valuable enough to demand a 40% compensation increase, then you should have been paying them 40% more without them having to demand it. It never ceases to amaze me that the owner class is so continually shocked that the people who build the value that the owners leverage into growing their fortune might suddenly realize their value. The entitlement is baked deep into the minds…

The employer and the employee have different goals and metrics for "success". This mismatch comes up all the time whenever "interviewing is broken" threads come up. Many interviewees think the goal is to find the best person for the job. It isn't. It is to find someone suffciently good to do the job for the least money possible. This mean that if you filter out "better" candidates, it's not a failure if the position gets filled anyway.

So the mistakes being made here are:

1. You think you're irreplaceable. You're not. "But--". "--Nope";

2. You think it's more expensive to replace you. Possibly but irrelvant. You see, if they give you a 40% raise, there now might be 10 or 100 other people who will demand a 40% raise. It's cheaper overall not to give you that raise.

This comes up all the time when landlords lose good tenants by raising rents $100-200/month. Tenants will rightly point out that they'll lose more with the vacancy period than they'll get from $100-200/month. Also irrelevant. The landlord will often have 10 or 100 or 1000 or 10,000 units. They give a $200 increase to all of them and not all of them are moving. The increased income from those who don't will exceed the losses from those who move.

Plus, the $200/month extra increases the property value. Someone may lend against that increased value to buy even more units;

3. Ultimately any enterprise can only increase profits by raising prices or lowering costs, particularly wages. Suppressing wages becomes the entire business of the company. That's what permanent layoffs culture is for (to get more unpaid work on those that remain and to stop them asking for raises). That's what AI is for. Supressing wages is THE product for AI.

Remember there's a fundamental imbalance here. If a company loses a particular employee, most likely they either won't notice (at least for awhile) or they'll simply be temporarily inconvenienced.

What happens if you don't have a job? You might lose your house, your car, your health insurance, your childrens' school and so on.

The stakes for you are so much higher so in any difficult hiring market, you will be squeezed.

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#37
post #32
post #13

> A senior engineer says “I want a 40% raise or I’m leaving,” and the company’s ability to respond depends entirely on what their alternatives look like. Except where I live there's a glut of people wanting any job they can find—for a variety of reasons ranging from high levels of immigration to layoffs in the last two years—and willing to accept discount rates because the alternative is being unemployed for another…

> and the employer can hire a new senior engineer at below market rates to accommodate the specific learning they have to do It sounds like what you're saying is actually that the last engineer was being paid above-market, because the price that employers are paying new employees is literally the market rate, seeing as it's the rate in the literal market.

This is pretty much what's occurring in New Zealand right now, yes. 2020–2023 had pretty much zero international movement due to closed borders with COVID-19, with a low official cash rate which caused business to be in desperate need of development resource; so salaries were high.

Market rate for developers has either stagnated generally or depending on the role dropped as hundreds of applicants are willing to undercut each other on what constitutes an acceptable pay check.

But most employers don't go around reducing previously-hired people's salaries for a variety of reasons.

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#38

I was wondering if there's anything behind the idea that people who learned how to code before AI will become the human capital version of low-background steel. Everyone who starts to code after AI has a problem: it's hard to believe you went through the pain and frustration that people often think is required to become a senior engineer. Even if you did, you are in a lemon market with quite a few people who took the…

How do you value people who learnt to code in the 80's, 90's or 2000's today? Will new developers know/understand what they don't know, or will the new state of things simply become normalized?

> How do you value people who learnt to code in the 80's, 90's or 2000's today?

Personally I rate them really really highly. They are always fascinating to talk to. But they also compete with newer cohorts who mature.

> Will new developers know/understand what they don't know, or will the new state of things simply become normalized?

Yes because a 32 year old guy with 10 years of experience who got given AI recently is going to be around for an awful long time reminding everyone that he has something the younger ones don't have.

Re: If you stop hiring juniors, your senior engineers own you

#39
post #13

> A senior engineer says “I want a 40% raise or I’m leaving,” and the company’s ability to respond depends entirely on what their alternatives look like. Except where I live there's a glut of people wanting any job they can find—for a variety of reasons ranging from high levels of immigration to layoffs in the last two years—and willing to accept discount rates because the alternative is being unemployed for another…

Seems like you’re only imagining interchangeable people who dont have bargaining power?

That's probably the bulk of senior developers. We're not all inverting custom proprietary binary trees.
Post reply on HN