7 ms·

Pay. I know everyone says no, I want this or that, but at the end of the day, you are trading time for money. Only when people have enough money to not worry d

Pay. I know everyone says no, I want this or that, but at the end of the day, you are trading time for money. Only when people have enough money to not worry do they care about other things, and unless they are were getting 300k+ in a FAANG company for the last few years and now can live ok for a few years, pay is the important factor. If you can't save a penny, even if work conditions are great, people will change to start building their 401k or to get their kid to a better school. Then there is also the cultural factor that if a manager asks 'what kinds of things motivate you' if you just say money, you are branded an heretic, so people say independence or agency or whatever. I would say (assuming they have another option of course) more than 95% of the people here and everywhere would change jobs if they got a 20% payout or something, so that probably says a lot about it.

melvinroest 6y ago
I agree with the idea of pay. With that said, there really are some caveats. "I know everyone says no, I want this or that, but at the end of the day, you are trading time for money." Not all time is equal. Let's say you're paid $2000 and you're at a job that has no stress, feels cognitively easy and career advancement is possible. Now suppose you're being paid $4000, but you're lightly stressed all the time at baseline. In fact, the whole company is. Now you're being paid $6000 with chronic moderate stress. Or imagine being paid $8000 with heavy chronic stress and you barely have it under control. In these scenario's I'd choose for the $2000 in most cases, unless the other cases are short-term assignments. I could do the $4000 job for perhaps 1 to 2 years, but you start playing with your health in all other cases if you do it for that long. Now this only looked at the relationship of salary, time and stress, but I believe there are a few other variables as well, but it's a lot of typing ;-) E.g. being able to do remote work wherever and work hours whenever, as long as you average 160 hours per month on a 3 month basis. That's completely different as well, I can imagine that you have people that take 1.5 months off and then sink in all their time in the other 1.5 months while being in Argentina, traveling with their SO.
- pc86 6y ago
  $2000 a month? A week? A day? You might as well replace the numbers with letters because discussing a time-for-money exchange while ignoring the time component is pretty worthless.
  - dyadic 6y ago
    Yes, do that then. 2000 = x, 4000 = 2x, 6000 = 3x, 8000 = 4x
    - moreaccountspls 6y ago
      It doesn't work like that though. You can't ignore the diminishing value of money.
      - RhysU 6y ago
        Until all of one's marginal income is at the highest marginal tax rate, the government has already done that calculation for you. At least until then, marginal utility is essentially linear with marginal gross. Not sold? Boom, imagine that your loved ones are suddenly ill.
- UglyToad 6y ago
  Exactly, and the other thing I think is missing from the belief money is always more valuable than time is there is a scaling limit to money in most cases. In your example you go from x to 4x but taking a developer in London with say a new-senior salary of 70k for a standard low-medium stress role, (with a few exceptions such as working in finance) you might get up to 100k by making a change, which is ~1.4x. But that extra 30k is taxed at 40% so isn't significantly more and is irrelevant against the actual cost of housing in London. HN is always a SV bubble but by and large jobs that allow you to triple your income are vanishingly rare for the average developer, so given you're not going to change your situation entirely with an extra 16k why trade a known quantity for more stress, longer hours and a worse quality of life.
lolinder 6y ago
The problem with the example of getting a 20% payout is that there are diminishing returns on each additional dollar. Most software developers make far more than a living wage. After that threshold is met, most people have a lot of other things that matter more to them. For example, for me, I work to support my family. Pretty much any software job in my area will be able to do that for me, so the bigger consideration in choosing is which jobs will actually allow me to spend quality time with my family (since that's the entire reason why I go to work). No amount of additional pay could persuade me to work 60 hours a week or work in an environment that leaves me drained by the end of the day.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
  But I mentioned it is money in exchange for time. If you are paid 1000 a week and work 40 hours, or you are paid 1200 a week for 60 hours, the 60 hours one is actually less pay, thus still the main consideration. Now if you are paid 5000 a week for 60 hours, you will start to look at it differently. And believe it or not, I don't think the fact developers make more than average is the point, as they also have much higher cost of life (see any HN post about house prices, even developers mention they will probably never own) I think people in general say not work 60 hours a week, or freedom, etc. Which is fine, but for me that is the starting point. Same as I don't need to say 'not be physically or sexually assaulted at work' as I expect that is the norm.
  - pc86 6y ago
    Developers do not have a higher cost of life. People in cities do. Plenty of developers live in suburban or rural areas and make nearly as much as their urban counterparts. And plenty of HR Generalists making $35k/yr work in NYC or San Francisco as well. I don't think developers are more concentrated in urban centers than any other jobs are.
    - odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
      I don't have data, so I won't say you are right or wrong, but if you go by the anecdote in HN, SV/NY/Seattle pay significantly more than in rural areas, and have 10x or so more opportunities.
codingdave 6y ago
This is 100% true, but also completely useless if your entire team is at the point where they have enough money for a few years. Even outside of FAANG, teams full of senior devs are often full of people who don't truly need the specific job they are in. So if I don't need your job, you need to build a working environment where I want the job you are offering. The details of what that means will be different for each person, so managers need to talk to their people, and need to ask. There won't be one single thing to do to retain everyone - retention is a permanent ongoing negotiation.
jotato 6y ago
I agree, but expand it to "compensation". - match (or offer, if you don't) my 401k - increase health benefits - provide a learning benefit - no strings attached. It shouldn't matter if it "benefits the company" directly - flexible hours. (I prefer a 6-2 schedule. Why do I have to be in 9-5 just because that is what most do? - etc .. Compensate an employee well, and they will see you care about them; not just their work.
PopeDotNinja 6y ago
I'll add growth opportunities to that. When I've learned 80% of what I'm going in my current role, I'm itching to find new challenges. If I'm stuck in a position where I can't grow, it's gonna be hard to make to make a case that I deserve increased compensation.
maerF0x0 6y ago
Every time I've gone on to the next company it has been in response to a "no raises" and a subsequent 25-50% pay bump by next employer. Companies think they can retain people out of fear, this only works on people without options. The ones without options are the lowest value slice of employee to have.
karmakaze 6y ago
The way this works in my experience is, I'm usually pretty happy where I am. Whenever recruiters or other opportunities find me, they usually fall short on comp, tech stack/maturity, culture/mission. If not being paid above market value it takes away one of the big reasons to stay. And if caught at a low point it might be enough to open the door and look around.

melvinroest 6y ago

I agree with the idea of pay. With that said, there really are some caveats. "I know everyone says no, I want this or that, but at the end of the day, you are trading time for money." Not all time is equal. Let's say you're paid $2000 and you're at a job that has no stress, feels cognitively easy and career advancement is possible. Now suppose you're being paid $4000, but you're lightly stressed all the time at baseline. In fact, the whole company is. Now you're being paid $6000 with chronic moderate stress. Or imagine being paid $8000 with heavy chronic stress and you barely have it under control. In these scenario's I'd choose for the $2000 in most cases, unless the other cases are short-term assignments. I could do the $4000 job for perhaps 1 to 2 years, but you start playing with your health in all other cases if you do it for that long. Now this only looked at the relationship of salary, time and stress, but I believe there are a few other variables as well, but it's a lot of typing ;-) E.g. being able to do remote work wherever and work hours whenever, as long as you average 160 hours per month on a 3 month basis. That's completely different as well, I can imagine that you have people that take 1.5 months off and then sink in all their time in the other 1.5 months while being in Argentina, traveling with their SO.

pc86 6y ago
$2000 a month? A week? A day? You might as well replace the numbers with letters because discussing a time-for-money exchange while ignoring the time component is pretty worthless.
- dyadic 6y ago
  Yes, do that then. 2000 = x, 4000 = 2x, 6000 = 3x, 8000 = 4x
  - moreaccountspls 6y ago
    It doesn't work like that though. You can't ignore the diminishing value of money.
    - RhysU 6y ago
      Until all of one's marginal income is at the highest marginal tax rate, the government has already done that calculation for you. At least until then, marginal utility is essentially linear with marginal gross. Not sold? Boom, imagine that your loved ones are suddenly ill.
UglyToad 6y ago
Exactly, and the other thing I think is missing from the belief money is always more valuable than time is there is a scaling limit to money in most cases. In your example you go from x to 4x but taking a developer in London with say a new-senior salary of 70k for a standard low-medium stress role, (with a few exceptions such as working in finance) you might get up to 100k by making a change, which is ~1.4x. But that extra 30k is taxed at 40% so isn't significantly more and is irrelevant against the actual cost of housing in London. HN is always a SV bubble but by and large jobs that allow you to triple your income are vanishingly rare for the average developer, so given you're not going to change your situation entirely with an extra 16k why trade a known quantity for more stress, longer hours and a worse quality of life.

lolinder 6y ago

The problem with the example of getting a 20% payout is that there are diminishing returns on each additional dollar. Most software developers make far more than a living wage. After that threshold is met, most people have a lot of other things that matter more to them. For example, for me, I work to support my family. Pretty much any software job in my area will be able to do that for me, so the bigger consideration in choosing is which jobs will actually allow me to spend quality time with my family (since that's the entire reason why I go to work). No amount of additional pay could persuade me to work 60 hours a week or work in an environment that leaves me drained by the end of the day.

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
But I mentioned it is money in exchange for time. If you are paid 1000 a week and work 40 hours, or you are paid 1200 a week for 60 hours, the 60 hours one is actually less pay, thus still the main consideration. Now if you are paid 5000 a week for 60 hours, you will start to look at it differently. And believe it or not, I don't think the fact developers make more than average is the point, as they also have much higher cost of life (see any HN post about house prices, even developers mention they will probably never own) I think people in general say not work 60 hours a week, or freedom, etc. Which is fine, but for me that is the starting point. Same as I don't need to say 'not be physically or sexually assaulted at work' as I expect that is the norm.
- pc86 6y ago
  Developers do not have a higher cost of life. People in cities do. Plenty of developers live in suburban or rural areas and make nearly as much as their urban counterparts. And plenty of HR Generalists making $35k/yr work in NYC or San Francisco as well. I don't think developers are more concentrated in urban centers than any other jobs are.
  - odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
    I don't have data, so I won't say you are right or wrong, but if you go by the anecdote in HN, SV/NY/Seattle pay significantly more than in rural areas, and have 10x or so more opportunities.

codingdave 6y ago

This is 100% true, but also completely useless if your entire team is at the point where they have enough money for a few years. Even outside of FAANG, teams full of senior devs are often full of people who don't truly need the specific job they are in. So if I don't need your job, you need to build a working environment where I want the job you are offering. The details of what that means will be different for each person, so managers need to talk to their people, and need to ask. There won't be one single thing to do to retain everyone - retention is a permanent ongoing negotiation.

jotato 6y ago

I agree, but expand it to "compensation". - match (or offer, if you don't) my 401k - increase health benefits - provide a learning benefit - no strings attached. It shouldn't matter if it "benefits the company" directly - flexible hours. (I prefer a 6-2 schedule. Why do I have to be in 9-5 just because that is what most do? - etc .. Compensate an employee well, and they will see you care about them; not just their work.

PopeDotNinja 6y ago

I'll add growth opportunities to that. When I've learned 80% of what I'm going in my current role, I'm itching to find new challenges. If I'm stuck in a position where I can't grow, it's gonna be hard to make to make a case that I deserve increased compensation.

maerF0x0 6y ago

Every time I've gone on to the next company it has been in response to a "no raises" and a subsequent 25-50% pay bump by next employer. Companies think they can retain people out of fear, this only works on people without options. The ones without options are the lowest value slice of employee to have.

karmakaze 6y ago

The way this works in my experience is, I'm usually pretty happy where I am. Whenever recruiters or other opportunities find me, they usually fall short on comp, tech stack/maturity, culture/mission. If not being paid above market value it takes away one of the big reasons to stay. And if caught at a low point it might be enough to open the door and look around.