4 ms·

I think many employers are able to justify it because When an employee is at the best position (age wise), they hop jobs a lot and negotiate higher pay even at

I think many employers are able to justify it because When an employee is at the best position (age wise), they hop jobs a lot and negotiate higher pay even at the detriment of the company. Yes, it does cost a lot when an employee hops too much. Employers have no option here. This system will always have winners, you can definitely improve the situation but you'll have to tax the winners, it has never worked well in past.

ihsw2 8y ago
> Employers have no option here. Employees hop because of wage stagnation -- there is an option here, prevent wage stagnation.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  They also hop because of growth stagnation. If you have young employees working on the same outdated technology every year, don't be surprised when they quickly leave, even if you have "competitive wages and benefits". A large part of an engineers' compensation is in marketable skills and experience.
mmt 8y ago
> Employers have no option here. Considering employers hold the vast majority of the power in the relationship, that's a rather extreme conclusion. As other commenters have pointed out, it's easily within the employers' abilities just to pay more money (and/or offer better terms to increase job stability, like meaningful severance packages or usable retirement plans). This actually used to happen routinely, but employers stopped valuing employment longevity, so job-hopping is what they got. Additionally, as another commenter alluded to by mentioning job growth, working environment matters, too. Although not every employer can offer every employee (enough) growth, other forms of respect and opportunities (not just lip service) make a difference. Companies like Southwest Airlines make it something of a point of pride that they keep their turnover low by keeping their employees happy, so it's not as if the principle has somehow aged out of applicbility. The far likelier explanation, to my mind, is that everyone else is concerned with short-term incentives over long-term value.

ihsw2 8y ago

> Employers have no option here. Employees hop because of wage stagnation -- there is an option here, prevent wage stagnation.

humanrebar 8y ago
They also hop because of growth stagnation. If you have young employees working on the same outdated technology every year, don't be surprised when they quickly leave, even if you have "competitive wages and benefits". A large part of an engineers' compensation is in marketable skills and experience.

mmt 8y ago

> Employers have no option here. Considering employers hold the vast majority of the power in the relationship, that's a rather extreme conclusion. As other commenters have pointed out, it's easily within the employers' abilities just to pay more money (and/or offer better terms to increase job stability, like meaningful severance packages or usable retirement plans). This actually used to happen routinely, but employers stopped valuing employment longevity, so job-hopping is what they got. Additionally, as another commenter alluded to by mentioning job growth, working environment matters, too. Although not every employer can offer every employee (enough) growth, other forms of respect and opportunities (not just lip service) make a difference. Companies like Southwest Airlines make it something of a point of pride that they keep their turnover low by keeping their employees happy, so it's not as if the principle has somehow aged out of applicbility. The far likelier explanation, to my mind, is that everyone else is concerned with short-term incentives over long-term value.