6 ms·

Seems like "pay them more" should be at least mentioned as a possibility here.

by o_nate 11y ago

x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
If they've already chosen to quit, paying more may only keep them begrudgingly.
- gohrt 11y ago
  post-mortem actions are for the future, not the past.
- wkimeria 11y ago
  No, sometimes pay is the original issue. But if they choose to leave, do not offer them money to stay. Any employee who stays is not being very smart, the only interest the company has in paying you more is keeping you long enough to train your replacement. If you were not worth X the day before you quit, how are you suddenly worth X the day you decide to quit? I've seen people accept a counter-offer from a company, and very few of those lasted more than 6 months, or the amount of time it takes the company to make them no longer indispensable.
  - oriolid 11y ago
    > If you were not worth X the day before you quit, how are you suddenly worth X the day you decide to quit? On the other hand, why would they have paid you X even if you were worth it, if they could get away with less?
    - granfalloon 11y ago
      I wouldn't begrudge an employer for negotiating my salary and not paying me what they think I'm "worth," but I also wouldn't feel guilty about doing the least amount of work necessary to fly under the radar at the job and not get fired. (Not a direct response to your comment, I know -- it just made me think of how annoyed I get when the former is considered "just business" while its equivalent on the employee's end is usually regarded as "mooching" or a moral failing.)
  - shostack 11y ago
    >"If you were not worth X the day before you quit, how are you suddenly worth X the day you decide to quit?" This can easily happen when you are actually worth X, but the company thinks you are worth X-Y because they have a history of underpaying and perhaps were able to get away with it when the economy was down. If the market is willing to pay X for someone like you, you are worth X regardless of what your current employer thinks you are worth (as long as you act on it).
angersock 11y ago
There's a particular failure mode that bears pointing out with regards to compensation: Suppose you have a person you've brought on, and they agree to do some amount of work at a salary and tiny equity split. After some amount of time, they realize that they've produced a good deal more value than you have compensated them for. They're going to feel jilted. It's not enough to say, "We'll take advantage of you less in the future"...you might have to say, "Wow, okay, we screwed you, how can we make this right?" And sadly, the optimal capitalist strategy is to just lay them off and enjoy the surplus they unwittingly made for you.
- protomyth 11y ago
  "And sadly, the optimal capitalist strategy is to just lay them off and enjoy the surplus they unwittingly made for you." Maybe for a dumb capitalist. The optimum strategy is to pick a level of compensation that works for them and you while realizing there is a transition cost to new people and talent is worth something.
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    No, the optimum strategy is to determine if compensating them to a mutually agreeable level is more or less expensive than losing their expertise and rolling someone new in. Just because parent said optimal strategy is to lay them off doesn't mean you have to act like that's _never_ going to be the case. For the given hypothetical, the 'ol "get them to unknowningly train their replacement by pretending like you're rewarding them with more compensation and a direct report" could be the "optimal" strategy.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      > Just because parent said optimal strategy is to lay them off doesn't mean you have to act like that's _never_ going to be the case. I thought it went without saying that you cannot force someone into an agreement. Agreements sometimes don't happen and then you pay the additional costs out of necessity. > For the given hypothetical, the 'ol "get them to unknowningly train their replacement by pretending like you're rewarding them with more compensation and a direct report" could be the "optimal" strategy. That might be someone's interesting play, but I think it is a poor strategy because it shows your employees and anyone else you are going to make agreements with that you are of the duplicitous sort and cannot be trusted. This will affect your long term prospects in a negative way. Never mind its a pretty poor way to go through life. Strategy should be thought of as long term.
codingdave 11y ago
Tech people (in general) do not make job decisions based solely on money. They want recognition, good work, good teams, good leadership, a meaningful product, etc. If your solution to morale problems is to increase salaries, you have already missed the mark in some of these other areas.
- jdbernard 11y ago
  Sometimes it is about the money. Recognition, good work, good teams, good leadership, meaningful product, etc. don't feed my kids. I left all that once because I was at half market value (evidenced by finding a new job at double the pay).
- sheepmullet 11y ago
  > Tech people (in general) do not make job decisions based solely on money. Actually, money is a huge factor for most tech people. I don't know many developers who wouldn't move jobs for a 30-40% increase in pay. Not to mention salary is fairly closely tied to value within a company... unless you are getting ripped off. And once somebody realises they are getting ripped off they are likely to leave.

Seems like "pay them more" should be at least mentioned as a possibility here.

by o_nate 11y ago

Seems like "pay them more" should be at least mentioned as a possibility here.

x3n0ph3n3 11y ago

If they've already chosen to quit, paying more may only keep them begrudgingly.

gohrt 11y ago
post-mortem actions are for the future, not the past.
wkimeria 11y ago
No, sometimes pay is the original issue. But if they choose to leave, do not offer them money to stay. Any employee who stays is not being very smart, the only interest the company has in paying you more is keeping you long enough to train your replacement. If you were not worth X the day before you quit, how are you suddenly worth X the day you decide to quit? I've seen people accept a counter-offer from a company, and very few of those lasted more than 6 months, or the amount of time it takes the company to make them no longer indispensable.
- oriolid 11y ago
  > If you were not worth X the day before you quit, how are you suddenly worth X the day you decide to quit? On the other hand, why would they have paid you X even if you were worth it, if they could get away with less?
  - granfalloon 11y ago
    I wouldn't begrudge an employer for negotiating my salary and not paying me what they think I'm "worth," but I also wouldn't feel guilty about doing the least amount of work necessary to fly under the radar at the job and not get fired. (Not a direct response to your comment, I know -- it just made me think of how annoyed I get when the former is considered "just business" while its equivalent on the employee's end is usually regarded as "mooching" or a moral failing.)
- shostack 11y ago
  >"If you were not worth X the day before you quit, how are you suddenly worth X the day you decide to quit?" This can easily happen when you are actually worth X, but the company thinks you are worth X-Y because they have a history of underpaying and perhaps were able to get away with it when the economy was down. If the market is willing to pay X for someone like you, you are worth X regardless of what your current employer thinks you are worth (as long as you act on it).

angersock 11y ago

There's a particular failure mode that bears pointing out with regards to compensation: Suppose you have a person you've brought on, and they agree to do some amount of work at a salary and tiny equity split. After some amount of time, they realize that they've produced a good deal more value than you have compensated them for. They're going to feel jilted. It's not enough to say, "We'll take advantage of you less in the future"...you might have to say, "Wow, okay, we screwed you, how can we make this right?" And sadly, the optimal capitalist strategy is to just lay them off and enjoy the surplus they unwittingly made for you.

protomyth 11y ago
"And sadly, the optimal capitalist strategy is to just lay them off and enjoy the surplus they unwittingly made for you." Maybe for a dumb capitalist. The optimum strategy is to pick a level of compensation that works for them and you while realizing there is a transition cost to new people and talent is worth something.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  No, the optimum strategy is to determine if compensating them to a mutually agreeable level is more or less expensive than losing their expertise and rolling someone new in. Just because parent said optimal strategy is to lay them off doesn't mean you have to act like that's _never_ going to be the case. For the given hypothetical, the 'ol "get them to unknowningly train their replacement by pretending like you're rewarding them with more compensation and a direct report" could be the "optimal" strategy.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    > Just because parent said optimal strategy is to lay them off doesn't mean you have to act like that's _never_ going to be the case. I thought it went without saying that you cannot force someone into an agreement. Agreements sometimes don't happen and then you pay the additional costs out of necessity. > For the given hypothetical, the 'ol "get them to unknowningly train their replacement by pretending like you're rewarding them with more compensation and a direct report" could be the "optimal" strategy. That might be someone's interesting play, but I think it is a poor strategy because it shows your employees and anyone else you are going to make agreements with that you are of the duplicitous sort and cannot be trusted. This will affect your long term prospects in a negative way. Never mind its a pretty poor way to go through life. Strategy should be thought of as long term.

codingdave 11y ago

Tech people (in general) do not make job decisions based solely on money. They want recognition, good work, good teams, good leadership, a meaningful product, etc. If your solution to morale problems is to increase salaries, you have already missed the mark in some of these other areas.

jdbernard 11y ago
Sometimes it is about the money. Recognition, good work, good teams, good leadership, meaningful product, etc. don't feed my kids. I left all that once because I was at half market value (evidenced by finding a new job at double the pay).
sheepmullet 11y ago
> Tech people (in general) do not make job decisions based solely on money. Actually, money is a huge factor for most tech people. I don't know many developers who wouldn't move jobs for a 30-40% increase in pay. Not to mention salary is fairly closely tied to value within a company... unless you are getting ripped off. And once somebody realises they are getting ripped off they are likely to leave.