5 ms·

Embed salary upgrades within the employment contract. We already know jumping gives on average a 15% salary increase every two years, so you just have to beat

Embed salary upgrades within the employment contract. We already know jumping gives on average a 15% salary increase every two years, so you just have to beat or match that. Now people might still leave for more interesting projects, but you get one of the larger motivational factors out of the way. People often leave because negotiating a salary upgrade is way harder than navigating an interview. So, unless your hidden motive is to have cheap labor just write down in the contract that every two year the salary will increase 15% minimum, unrelated to objective bonus and all that bullshit. The you have it. The secret for training and retaining talent in a competitive market.

ben_jones 8y ago
The problem from zero to hero is more than that. Entry-level college graduate non-developer positions might net 50-60k even in the Bay Area. So if you hire a 22 year old with a degree at that base and then teach them how to be a react pro over the course of two years they will then be eligible for 100k+ salaries. That's a 200%+ increase that is very difficult for even modern businesses to take sitting down. If Starbucks starts making coffee 3x as good will people happily start paying $12 for coffee?
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  If you can't pay the guy who has spend the last two years learning everything about your business and your tech stack the going rate for a programmer with two years experience, how are you going to afford new hires at that rate?
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  Those positions are in exceedingly short supply. Also contact can follow whatever salary curve your local market has, so this whole point is moot
- patmcc 8y ago
  >>That's a 200%+ increase that is very difficult for even modern businesses to take sitting down. Because businesses would rather have a person leave and then hire someone at 1.5x or 2x their salary than just pay the first person 2x what they were making the year before. This happens all the time. Employers want to have 2x people at 1x prices, and that doesn't work for long.
  - arvinsim 8y ago
    I am not business savvy so I am curious why businesses choose to do this.
    - sergiosgc 8y ago
      It's very simple, really. If you only raise salaries on personnel rotation, you do not have to raise salaries of those employees that do not jump ship. You save a bundle if you have a large workforce. This attitude introduces a skew where your workforce gets progressively filled with people who do not switch jobs. It's a dangerous outcome, to be managed with care. If you get stuck with those who do not switch jobs because they are too incompetent, you have a big problem. If you manage to get those who are competent but content, and not very concerned with higher earnings, you have the ideal result: stable, competent, performant team, with controlled costs.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - collyw 8y ago
    One place I worked "wasn't able" to give me a pay rise, yet they were able to hire 1 and a half people to replace me (one full time and one on split between projects).
    - geekbird 8y ago
      I had the same thing happen: They co7uldn't take me from contract to permanent at the pay rate I was getting contract, but they could hire TWO younger men to replace me (both of whom left after six months of 10 hour days, 6 days a week at lowball salary.)
- Mikeb85 8y ago
  > If Starbucks starts making coffee 3x as good will people happily start paying $12 for coffee? When Starbucks entered the market here, their $5 coffee was about 3x the price of the status quo cup. Also, if businesses can't pay the market rate for labour (by definition, the money the employee can get in an open market is the market rate) then they don't have a sustainable business model.
rightbyte 8y ago
I wonder if that job jumping statistics is "poisoned" by causality. You could argue that head hunted employees that's a good match for the job they leave for probably get higher salary. The current job of a dev is more likely to be the first job for the dev (after job jumping it's never the first job). Since the dev age pyramid is quite base heavy, job jumping is a indirect measurement of more experience. Just being able to job jump is a indirect measure that you are sought after and that brings higher wages.

ben_jones 8y ago

The problem from zero to hero is more than that. Entry-level college graduate non-developer positions might net 50-60k even in the Bay Area. So if you hire a 22 year old with a degree at that base and then teach them how to be a react pro over the course of two years they will then be eligible for 100k+ salaries. That's a 200%+ increase that is very difficult for even modern businesses to take sitting down. If Starbucks starts making coffee 3x as good will people happily start paying $12 for coffee?

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
If you can't pay the guy who has spend the last two years learning everything about your business and your tech stack the going rate for a programmer with two years experience, how are you going to afford new hires at that rate?
LoSboccacc 8y ago
Those positions are in exceedingly short supply. Also contact can follow whatever salary curve your local market has, so this whole point is moot
patmcc 8y ago
>>That's a 200%+ increase that is very difficult for even modern businesses to take sitting down. Because businesses would rather have a person leave and then hire someone at 1.5x or 2x their salary than just pay the first person 2x what they were making the year before. This happens all the time. Employers want to have 2x people at 1x prices, and that doesn't work for long.
- arvinsim 8y ago
  I am not business savvy so I am curious why businesses choose to do this.
  - sergiosgc 8y ago
    It's very simple, really. If you only raise salaries on personnel rotation, you do not have to raise salaries of those employees that do not jump ship. You save a bundle if you have a large workforce. This attitude introduces a skew where your workforce gets progressively filled with people who do not switch jobs. It's a dangerous outcome, to be managed with care. If you get stuck with those who do not switch jobs because they are too incompetent, you have a big problem. If you manage to get those who are competent but content, and not very concerned with higher earnings, you have the ideal result: stable, competent, performant team, with controlled costs.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- collyw 8y ago
  One place I worked "wasn't able" to give me a pay rise, yet they were able to hire 1 and a half people to replace me (one full time and one on split between projects).
  - geekbird 8y ago
    I had the same thing happen: They co7uldn't take me from contract to permanent at the pay rate I was getting contract, but they could hire TWO younger men to replace me (both of whom left after six months of 10 hour days, 6 days a week at lowball salary.)
Mikeb85 8y ago
> If Starbucks starts making coffee 3x as good will people happily start paying $12 for coffee? When Starbucks entered the market here, their $5 coffee was about 3x the price of the status quo cup. Also, if businesses can't pay the market rate for labour (by definition, the money the employee can get in an open market is the market rate) then they don't have a sustainable business model.

rightbyte 8y ago

I wonder if that job jumping statistics is "poisoned" by causality. You could argue that head hunted employees that's a good match for the job they leave for probably get higher salary. The current job of a dev is more likely to be the first job for the dev (after job jumping it's never the first job). Since the dev age pyramid is quite base heavy, job jumping is a indirect measurement of more experience. Just being able to job jump is a indirect measure that you are sought after and that brings higher wages.