4 ms·

That's the only way I see the tens of thousands number being accurate. What's your over/under for how many engineers AppAmaGooBookSoft will hire this year? Mi

That's the only way I see the tens of thousands number being accurate. What's your over/under for how many engineers AppAmaGooBookSoft will hire this year? Mine is 50k. I did a back of the envelope calculation for this last year but can't find it. 90% retention rates imply a 5 year survivorship of ~60%; feel free to take any of several thousand HNers out to coffee if you want to confirm what competent, worksmanlike execution means your 6th year pay package looks like.

vonmoltke 9y ago
The five combined have a total headcount of roughly 660k, meaning they would need to be hiring annually roughly 7.5% of their total just in software engineers. At that level I don't buy it. Since the number is dominated by Amazon, who has a huge logistics contingent, I'm not sure specifically about engineers. I'd say roughly half of that total is engineers that have something to do with software (not necessarily software engineers). That bumps your number to over 15% of the total engineering headcount. I'll be conservative and say 25% of the engineers are not software (with most being in Apple and Amazon). Now we're looking at 50k being 19% of the total software engineers. You seem to be talking about hired at all levels, while I was talking about only senior hires. In that case, I am closer to you than I indicated. My (possibly wrong) impression is that the majority of hiring by these companies is new grads and juniors, since that is what their interview processes are heavily biased towards. I put the total number of senior hires at 10k - 15k. As for total hires overall, I'll buy either your total hires or your retention rate, but not both. These companies are not growing headcount fast enough to be doing that much hiring at that retention rate in software engineers alone.
- JoachimSchipper 9y ago
  Median tenure at Google is about a year: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/07/28/turnover_rates_by_company_how_amazon_google_and_others_stack_up.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/07/28/turno.... Amazon is famous for burning out some of its employees very quickly. Why do you think 7.5% is a reasonable number?
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    You seem to be agreeing with me, so I'm not sure if I understand you... I was addressing Patrick's numbers (50k software engineers per year and >90% retention rate). Your link provides evidence that the latter number is incorrect, which was part of my point in both posts. In fact, it demonstrates that Patrick's 5-year scenario is the exception rather than the rule.
    - JoachimSchipper 9y ago
      I'm sorry, I just misread your post - I am, in fact, agreeing with you. (Of course, both you and Patrick can be right if the typical 5-year trajectory involves only well-paying jobs, even it's usually more than one job.)
ahh 9y ago
(I work at Google but don't speak for them; I have access to internal retention data but I'm not looking at it or using it here.) I think 90% retention is (probably?) an underestimate. People tend to look at measurements of tenure, see a short number, and assume Google et al burn people out/have revolving doors. Instead, that's really a function of the still explosive growth we're going through (for better or worse; I say worse but who listens to me?) (Which still serves Patrick's larger point.)

vonmoltke 9y ago

The five combined have a total headcount of roughly 660k, meaning they would need to be hiring annually roughly 7.5% of their total just in software engineers. At that level I don't buy it. Since the number is dominated by Amazon, who has a huge logistics contingent, I'm not sure specifically about engineers. I'd say roughly half of that total is engineers that have something to do with software (not necessarily software engineers). That bumps your number to over 15% of the total engineering headcount. I'll be conservative and say 25% of the engineers are not software (with most being in Apple and Amazon). Now we're looking at 50k being 19% of the total software engineers. You seem to be talking about hired at all levels, while I was talking about only senior hires. In that case, I am closer to you than I indicated. My (possibly wrong) impression is that the majority of hiring by these companies is new grads and juniors, since that is what their interview processes are heavily biased towards. I put the total number of senior hires at 10k - 15k. As for total hires overall, I'll buy either your total hires or your retention rate, but not both. These companies are not growing headcount fast enough to be doing that much hiring at that retention rate in software engineers alone.

JoachimSchipper 9y ago
Median tenure at Google is about a year: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/07/28/turnover_rates_by_company_how_amazon_google_and_others_stack_up.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/07/28/turno.... Amazon is famous for burning out some of its employees very quickly. Why do you think 7.5% is a reasonable number?
- vonmoltke 9y ago
  You seem to be agreeing with me, so I'm not sure if I understand you... I was addressing Patrick's numbers (50k software engineers per year and >90% retention rate). Your link provides evidence that the latter number is incorrect, which was part of my point in both posts. In fact, it demonstrates that Patrick's 5-year scenario is the exception rather than the rule.
  - JoachimSchipper 9y ago
    I'm sorry, I just misread your post - I am, in fact, agreeing with you. (Of course, both you and Patrick can be right if the typical 5-year trajectory involves only well-paying jobs, even it's usually more than one job.)

ahh 9y ago

(I work at Google but don't speak for them; I have access to internal retention data but I'm not looking at it or using it here.) I think 90% retention is (probably?) an underestimate. People tend to look at measurements of tenure, see a short number, and assume Google et al burn people out/have revolving doors. Instead, that's really a function of the still explosive growth we're going through (for better or worse; I say worse but who listens to me?) (Which still serves Patrick's larger point.)