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

Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

marker.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 515 posts

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#441

Post by makeitdouble »

cbushko wrote: post #434
Kranar wrote: post #11

To chime in with my own anecdotal opinion that is likely to anger some people... in my experience most developers do their best work after about 6-8 months of starting a job at a new company, and that comes to an end after about 24-36 months of working at the same company. After that the vast majority of people just stagnate, get complacent, the job stops being interesting to them and they move on. After observing th…

I agree with you that most developers do their best work after 6-8 months and that developers get less productive after 24-36 months but for totally different reasons. Developers don't get 'lazy', 'bored' or 'comfortable', they get overburdened by the company. It is common knowledge that the average developer leaves after the 2 year mark. When that happens, everyone else is left holding the bag and they become the ne…

I think it's worse than that, as some of the bags they are holding are full of junk.

Yet they can't just throw them away, because their peers are not confident enough to support the conclusion that there's nothing of value in there. A litany of "How can we be sure that XXXX" are thrown at the expert to clear, creating continuous inertia.

The choice becomes to keep holding the bags eternally, or go elsewhere they can start fresh.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#442

Post by nurspouse »

dahart wrote: post #413
SavantIdiot wrote: post #154

I don't really understand this article, or the current trend of job hopping. I'm from the generation where you have one job, maybe two, and that's it: I've had 7, but I really only ever wanted one good job. For some perspective: when I left Intel circa 2010, I was a Senior Staff Engineer fighting to get promoted to Principal Engineer (followed by Senoir Principal, then Fellow, then Senior Fellow, hahaha). FYI I loved…

I read the other replies explaining that the huge discrepancy you’ve seen should be expected. But I think it’s worth pondering if your shock & jealousy should be tempered by the ML thing. ML engineers make more than general software engineers everywhere. At least they did for a while between roughly 2015 and 2020. I don’t know what’s happening up to the minute, but ML hiring and crazy salaries seems to be cooling off…

> ML engineers make more than general software engineers everywhere. At least they did for a while between roughly 2015 and 2020.

It's not clear if SavantIdiot is a SW person (vs HW/fab), but while what you say is correct, note that Intel significantly underpays SW as well. He was a grade 9 employee, which is fairly senior - very few employees will get to that level. Even today, looking on levels.fyi, the typical Grade 7 employee (equivalent of upper L4 in Google) gets about $163K in total compensation (salary + bonus + stocks). The grade 9 person gets about $260K total. The equivalent in Google is from $356K to $490K.

Furthermore, consider this: Intel's problems involve manufacturing - fab, etc. If you're a principal engineer, your total comp is still lower than a new ML engineer with no experience. It's very hard to become a principal engineer - only 4% of employees who get to the grade level below it will ever get to principal engineer.

That ML employee isn't going to help much with fab issues - the principal engineer is. How do you think he'll feel knowing that he's a lot more responsible for the future of the company, yet the guy just out of school will reap more financial benefits than the person who actually played a bigger role in making it happen?

> Also did the ML guy have an advanced degree that your long-timer friends didn’t?

SavantIdiot was a grade 9, which is 2 grade levels above an incoming PhD. SavantIdiot was a very senior person.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#443

Post by nurspouse »

selimthegrim wrote: post #165
SavantIdiot wrote: post #154

I don't really understand this article, or the current trend of job hopping. I'm from the generation where you have one job, maybe two, and that's it: I've had 7, but I really only ever wanted one good job. For some perspective: when I left Intel circa 2010, I was a Senior Staff Engineer fighting to get promoted to Principal Engineer (followed by Senoir Principal, then Fellow, then Senior Fellow, hahaha). FYI I loved…

I thought Intel was stiffing ML people too, maybe Gelsinger kicked some butts in management.

Management doesn't get a say in this. HR does. Gelsinger is the first CEO at Intel to openly admit Intel pays below market rate and when he joined he promised an 18 month timeline to improving compensation. Most of it involves negotiating with the board.

Recently Intel paid a number of employees extra RSUs as a "first step". It does seem the ordering was ML > SW > everyone else (from anecdotes).

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#444

Post by bitcoinmoney »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #154

I don't really understand this article, or the current trend of job hopping. I'm from the generation where you have one job, maybe two, and that's it: I've had 7, but I really only ever wanted one good job. For some perspective: when I left Intel circa 2010, I was a Senior Staff Engineer fighting to get promoted to Principal Engineer (followed by Senoir Principal, then Fellow, then Senior Fellow, hahaha). FYI I loved…

Off topic but is the 400k offer SWE? Didn’t think Intel paid that much based in Blind posts.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#445

Post by cbushko »

makeitdouble wrote: post #441
cbushko wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that most developers do their best work after 6-8 months and that developers get less productive after 24-36 months but for totally different reasons. Developers don't get 'lazy', 'bored' or 'comfortable', they get overburdened by the company. It is common knowledge that the average developer leaves after the 2 year mark. When that happens, everyone else is left holding the bag and they become the ne…

I think it's worse than that, as some of the bags they are holding are full of junk. Yet they can't just throw them away, because their peers are not confident enough to support the conclusion that there's nothing of value in there. A litany of "How can we be sure that XXXX" are thrown at the expert to clear, creating continuous inertia. The choice becomes to keep holding the bags eternally, or go elsewhere they can…

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Is it really junk or are we lacking in time/money/tribal knowledge to understand how it deeply works?

I like to think that I am a Very Good Engineer™ but I am sure that I would produce a similar piece of "junk" if I was under the same lack of requirements, training and time.

  who wrote this garbage??? 
  > git blame
  oh crap, it was me 2 years ago!

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#446

Post by throw_nbvc1234 »

wpietri wrote: post #359
the_rectifier wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. In many teams half of the engineers are randomly put on pip and cannot switch team.

Half?!? In most companies, a manager with half their people on PIPs would indicate the manager is really fucking things up somehow. Bad at hiring or bad at managing. That's not the case at Amazon?

People will believe everything (negative) they hear about amazon. And not bother to verify any of it.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#447

Post by jollybean »

quanticle wrote: post #292
jollybean wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't quite work because employee productivity assessment is very grey, and there's a lot of goodwill assumed in the equation. It's difficult to measure employee productivity. Sometimes, managers don't care. Sometimes employees make every effort to hide their lack of productivity. Despite that we might think of companies as 'evil' - most of them are not. We're all human, none of us like laying people off or fi…

And truly the vast majority of employers just don't want to layoff or fire if that don't have to. I've seen far too many corporate moves that were driven by executives looking to goose the stock price to believe that. You can argue that it's the executive's job to goose the stock price, and thus they "have to" lay off people in order to avoid taking as much of a financial hit in a recession or whatever, but that just…

Layoffs to goose stock prices are not actually that common, it's also very short-sighted.

In the face of a major recession, execs are not laying off to 'goose the stock' they are adjusting to the situation.

Of course it does happen, but in the grand scheme of corporate development across all industries, it's not hugely common.

There is a difference between 'loyalty' and 'doing a good job'.

It's not expected that companies will keep contractors for the long term, but they still would be expected to 'do a good job'.

And of course companies do not lay off talented people unless they have to - that makes no sense.

Even the most darkly cynical and Machiavellian Execs will try to keep talent if they can, otherwise, they can't make money. So more appropriately, employees will at least be held onto to the extent that they materially create value.

But again, even in that context 'Do A Good Job'.

Honestly, if even it's a crap company, it still makes sense to 'Do A Good Job'. Even in the face of grind.

The only time I think it makes sense to 'not' do a good job, is where it would be truly utterly futile or illegal etc..

If someone is in a bad situation, they can eventually move on to where their 'good work' is more appreciated / better compensated.

Loyalty isn't a huge requirement, but doing good work is.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#448

Post by collaborative »

I dunno, I tried causing a positive impact, but management is deaf. That $5M new software we don't need? Don't bother explaining. You will be ignored. They will spend a fortune on it, fire/recruit, and realise it wasn't needed 2 years down the line when the execs have been made famous for being early adopters of the technology. They probably got to speak at some conference or were made an ad about how great they are

Best to keep my head down, don't want to push elbows with this lot

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#449

Post by jollybean »

scoopdewoop wrote: post #249
jollybean wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody has that objective except the very passionate." This is very cynical and pretty much wrong. I would put that attitude probably in the bottom 20%. I think most people want to do a good job. It's also kind of toxic because unfortunately it spreads. 'Doing a good job' frankly, often does not even mean working harder, from a lower-performing perspective it usually just means actually paying more attention and bei…

Won't somebody think about the poor bridges that never got built!? For real, If there is any single problem with the world its people doing too much . The oceans didn't fill with plastic from people sleeping in. The air didn't fill with CO2 because people clocked out early on Fridays. Take a step back and look at life. Why should it even be work? Do birds sow seeds? Are monkeys bad programmers? Or, are they just monk…

Oceans are filled with plastic because politicians, regulators and company leaders are 'not doing a good job'.

So many, especially systematic problems would be much better resolved when people did their jobs a little better.

Montreal just built a rail line for $500M that may likely become redundant. That's bad, it matters. It's mostly a leadership / management problem of course.

Re: Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?

#450

Post by lolinder »

cbushko wrote: post #445
makeitdouble wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worse than that, as some of the bags they are holding are full of junk. Yet they can't just throw them away, because their peers are not confident enough to support the conclusion that there's nothing of value in there. A litany of "How can we be sure that XXXX" are thrown at the expert to clear, creating continuous inertia. The choice becomes to keep holding the bags eternally, or go elsewhere they can…

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Is it really junk or are we lacking in time/money/tribal knowledge to understand how it deeply works? I like to think that I am a Very Good Engineer™ but I am sure that I would produce a similar piece of "junk" if I was under the same lack of requirements, training and time. who wrote this garbage??? > git blame oh crap, it was me 2 years ago!

> Is it really junk or are we lacking in time/money/tribal knowledge to understand how it deeply works?

I think OP was talking not about code quality but code value. A lot of legacy systems are maintained simply because we don't know for sure that there's not something that relies on them, or that they won't be needed later. The expert wants to discard them, but everyone else insists on keeping them around just in case. That adds burden on the expert.

Post reply on HN