3 ms·

Why would I spend money hiring and training someone that I expect to leave before they contribute anything significant? Contrary to what most people think of th

Why would I spend money hiring and training someone that I expect to leave before they contribute anything significant? Contrary to what most people think of themselves, they aren't capable of hitting the ground running. This is even more important in a senior dev position where they need to know how everyone under them actually performs. I don't hire monkeys, I hire employees. They should be a benefit to each other and the company, not just themselves.

flukus 10y ago
If they can't contribute anything significant in 6 months then that's a problem with the company.
- lloyd-christmas 10y ago
  In my career, I've only seen one person contribute significantly within 6 months, and they got a 10% pay boost that quickly. "Contribution" is a lot more than just "Hey! I deployed some code!". The first year for an employee is mostly just breaking even on the cost to hire them. Hiring is expensive^. For a junior role, it's probably 1x salary. For an experienced hire, it can easily be 2x salary. That means that hiring someone at a 100k salary has actually already cost you 150k by the time they leave 6 months into their job. I sincerely doubt they've managed to contribute 150k revenue to your bottom line. ^ This is why nepotism is so strong. I got my job through my brother, which was effectively free for my employer. Beyond just that cost, it makes me more likely to stay. The next hire cost us 70k, and he ended up leaving after... you got it! 6 months.
dnh44 10y ago
I guess you'll have to pay more than bananas then.
- lloyd-christmas 10y ago
  What you pay them is irrelevant if they are only using you for the 10% boost from "my last salary was...". It's a personality trait, not a salary issue.
  - eropple 10y ago
    You are trying to turn economic transactions into "personality traits" and it's kind of really disgusting. What you pay them isn't irrelevant if you are dedicated to paying them what they can get elsewhere. Because it's an economic transaction. Be more desirable, pay market rates, and people won't bounce. But nobody wants to invest in their people and nobody wants to pay market rates once you've signed on the dotted line. No, "yearly reviews" to get a five or even ten percent raises are not sufficient. I create a lot of value--in much less than six months, at my last full-time job by the time six months had elapsed I'd built out a deployment system that reduced developer time for every deployment by literally seventy percent and gotten an "attaboy, maybe at the next perf review", which never happened because I got a new gig with a sixteen percent comp increase, before options in a publicly traded company no less, that would never have been matched by that perf review. This is why I consult now, as it happens: because I can parachute in and create a lot of value, because I don't need a bunch of ramp-up time, and I can get paid literally double per-hour to do it. (And it's why I can work three-ish days a week and make more money than my last full-time job.)
    - lloyd-christmas 10y ago
      > No, "yearly reviews" to get a five or even ten percent raises are not sufficient. Sounds like you've had a shitty work career. None of what I'm talking about is anything like that. > You are trying to turn economic transactions into "personality traits" and it's kind of really disgusting.... I create a lot of value--in much less than six months... You talk about it as an economic transaction, but you fail to actually acknowledge the economic transaction that's actually taking place. You don't just magically spring into existence into my company when you drop your resume at the door. The cost to hire you is significant. You simply haven't recouped that cost of hiring you within 6 months, regardless of whether or not you're God's gift to programming. > I don't need a bunch of ramp-up time, and I can get paid literally double per-hour to do it. Sounds like you're living the dream, congrats. Most people aren't as talented as you are. Using your experiences to make hiring decisions for the other 99% of society would seem silly, don't you think?

flukus 10y ago

If they can't contribute anything significant in 6 months then that's a problem with the company.

lloyd-christmas 10y ago
In my career, I've only seen one person contribute significantly within 6 months, and they got a 10% pay boost that quickly. "Contribution" is a lot more than just "Hey! I deployed some code!". The first year for an employee is mostly just breaking even on the cost to hire them. Hiring is expensive^. For a junior role, it's probably 1x salary. For an experienced hire, it can easily be 2x salary. That means that hiring someone at a 100k salary has actually already cost you 150k by the time they leave 6 months into their job. I sincerely doubt they've managed to contribute 150k revenue to your bottom line. ^ This is why nepotism is so strong. I got my job through my brother, which was effectively free for my employer. Beyond just that cost, it makes me more likely to stay. The next hire cost us 70k, and he ended up leaving after... you got it! 6 months.

dnh44 10y ago

I guess you'll have to pay more than bananas then.

lloyd-christmas 10y ago
What you pay them is irrelevant if they are only using you for the 10% boost from "my last salary was...". It's a personality trait, not a salary issue.
- eropple 10y ago
  You are trying to turn economic transactions into "personality traits" and it's kind of really disgusting. What you pay them isn't irrelevant if you are dedicated to paying them what they can get elsewhere. Because it's an economic transaction. Be more desirable, pay market rates, and people won't bounce. But nobody wants to invest in their people and nobody wants to pay market rates once you've signed on the dotted line. No, "yearly reviews" to get a five or even ten percent raises are not sufficient. I create a lot of value--in much less than six months, at my last full-time job by the time six months had elapsed I'd built out a deployment system that reduced developer time for every deployment by literally seventy percent and gotten an "attaboy, maybe at the next perf review", which never happened because I got a new gig with a sixteen percent comp increase, before options in a publicly traded company no less, that would never have been matched by that perf review. This is why I consult now, as it happens: because I can parachute in and create a lot of value, because I don't need a bunch of ramp-up time, and I can get paid literally double per-hour to do it. (And it's why I can work three-ish days a week and make more money than my last full-time job.)
  - lloyd-christmas 10y ago
    > No, "yearly reviews" to get a five or even ten percent raises are not sufficient. Sounds like you've had a shitty work career. None of what I'm talking about is anything like that. > You are trying to turn economic transactions into "personality traits" and it's kind of really disgusting.... I create a lot of value--in much less than six months... You talk about it as an economic transaction, but you fail to actually acknowledge the economic transaction that's actually taking place. You don't just magically spring into existence into my company when you drop your resume at the door. The cost to hire you is significant. You simply haven't recouped that cost of hiring you within 6 months, regardless of whether or not you're God's gift to programming. > I don't need a bunch of ramp-up time, and I can get paid literally double per-hour to do it. Sounds like you're living the dream, congrats. Most people aren't as talented as you are. Using your experiences to make hiring decisions for the other 99% of society would seem silly, don't you think?