301–310 of 349 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually when an employee leaves it means you have to find somebody else anyway, so that point is not valid.
That's a bit like paying a blackmailer: "You want us to give you a 40% raise just so you won't reduce current productivity?" In terms of productivity it would be rational to pay. But there's a decidedly different quality between paying for an improvement, and paying someone to not make things worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nobody knows how to quantify the benefit that an engineer brings to a company. It is, in most cases, impossible (or at least excruciatingly difficult) to put even a rough dollar amount on the worth of a knowledge worker. Because of this, companies tend to use very vague strategies for coming up with offers, like "the lowest they'll accept", or "X% below the maximum we can afford". In those cases, the numbers…
Do you feel like this problem is unique to engineers? I can see how other positions like sales can be more quantitatively measured in terms of contribution but my hunch is that many positions fall into this area of nebulous value estimation. Or perhaps is more pronounced in software because of the amount of margins these companies work with
There is also the issue that the value of two different knowledge workers, even at the same company, may be wildly different depending on their specific skills and the project they are working on. For instance, someone working on product features at a software company is much more valuable than someone maintaining an internal reporting tool, even at the same company and even if their skills and the type of work are nearly identical.
The point is, there are a ton of variables at play here, most of which can't really be measured, so everyone plays a guessing game to determine what engineers are "worth". The asymmetry of information also doesn't help, because it's hard to know how much you could make if you don't know what anyone else is offering—many people take salaries well below their potential and don't even realize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually when an employee leaves it means you have to find somebody else anyway, so that point is not valid.
That's a bit like paying a blackmailer: "You want us to give you a 40% raise just so you won't reduce current productivity?" In terms of productivity it would be rational to pay. But there's a decidedly different quality between paying for an improvement, and paying someone to not make things worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be careful though. For example, I don't really care that much about money, but I do care very strongly about fairness. So if you try to cheat me by paying me unfairly (for example, compared to coworkers), even if I would be happy with the money all things considered, I could be unhappy just because you're being unfair.
This was exactly why I left my previous position. Place was great to work, brilliant team, laid back culture. But refusing to give me an annual raise, on top of paying me below market value (and below my peers) for my experience and skill set was precisely what triggered my departure a month later for a nearly 90% raise. Sacrificed other things, but at the end of the day, "thank you's", "good jobs", and a kegerator d…
I'm curious - how did you end up accepting that job in the first place that was underpaying by nearly 100% ?
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…
There have been studies of Silicon Valley, and your experience is the common case. Some of it has to do with stock based compensation. I’ve not heard of any companies that, by default, renew RSUs at a dollar value comparable to what they gave the employee as a new hire (even if they’ve promoted the person!) Even if they did, that would be less than what that employee is paid when the initial grant expired, or what th…
> Even if they did, that would be less than what that employee is paid when the initial grant expired, or what they could make by moving jobs (since they’re now 4-5 years more senior). If employee became more senior that would mean they got promotions (base salary increase in double digits, bonus increases) and their annual refreshers are much bigger now (they almost double between levels [1]). If they did not get promotion over past 4-5 years (that's only possible for senior roles, grad and junior levels need to get promotion in certain time frame otherwise they are out) there's quite low probability they would get hired to more senior role at other FAANG (though they might be offered big initial RSU offer)
> More cynically, it might be political. If only a few cherry picked employees stay, and all the other organizational memory walks out the door every 4-5 years, then all the organizational power eventually accumulates in middle management. Same salary rules apply to management, so they could also walk out if they hit salary cliff. However if you are manager/director/VP you will be higher level and your annual refresher might be high enough to keep you there.
[1] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-range-of-the-RSU-stock-ref...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Year 1: At Netflix you get 400k in cash, you buy 200k of FB stock, so you have 200k cash, 200k worth of FB stock At FB you get 200k of cash and 200K worth of stock
Year 2 - FB stock goes up by 10% so 200k of FB stock from last year is now worth 220k: At Netflix you got another 400k in cash and you will buy another 200k worth of FB stock. So now you have 400k of cash and 420k worth of FB stock At FB you get 200k of cash and 220k of FB stock, so now you have 400k of cash and 440k of FB stock.
Also RSUs vests quarterly so you can (and should) sell it and invest in other things to diversify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like being praised for my work, and would be annoyed if I was never congratulated for doing a good job. But if I'm often praised and never see a compensation increase, that will make me feel the praise is fake: if my work is so valuable, why am I not being compensated for it?
I hear you, but I think it depends on the context of your job. Are you doing good work within the context of the duties in the job description? I think a good manager will praise that work but that’s essentially fulfilling your end of the work/pay contract. Expecting continuous raises for meeting agreed upon expectations comes across as entitlement beyond the scope of that labor agreement. But if you’re consistently…
It probably depends quite a bit on the engineer's life outside of work. For much of my career, I was the only income earner in a family of 6. Making ends meet was sometimes a challenge, which made me very salary-sensitive and averse to the risk of income disruption. My family finances have somewhat improved in recent years, letting me unclinch a little regarding money. This lets me put more weight on other factors re…
"Making ends meet was sometimes a challenge, which made me very salary-sensitive and averse to the risk of income disruption." This. I think a large chunk of society forgets that after you get past 25 and actually have a life and responsibilities, that a meager $100k in a particular region is barely enough to cover base expenses, childcare, car/home loans, etc. Out of curiosity, how long were you the sole earner befo…