4 ms·

Based on what my engineering manager seems stressed about and has his calendar filled with, it is hiring. I'm surprised that the high rate of turnover in tech

Based on what my engineering manager seems stressed about and has his calendar filled with, it is hiring. I'm surprised that the high rate of turnover in tech is not considered a crisis given all the time he spends on that. Even assuming that employee tenure is worthless, a senior level engineer loses 1/3 of his time to this.

asdfman123 5y ago
It doesn't make any sense that you have to leave your job to get a big salary raise. Surely you're a lot more valuable to a company with two years' of experience in a codebase vs. a new company with no experience.
- vbtemp 5y ago
  My other comment here was cheeky, but I think what happens is the following: Applicant A has the precise set of skills Business B needs desperately at that moment. Business B is willing to pay whatever needed to get Applicant A ASAP (because they are growing quickly, or in crisis, or just need that role filled fast). This is normally what causes salary bumps in job switches... because A would not accept an offer if it _wasn't_ substantially above what they make now.
- rorykoehler 5y ago
  Generally people are wired to need a push rather than jump. This works both ways in hiring. Employers will try get away with lower salaries until the employee shows they have leverage and employees won't make the effort to get leverage.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    But is that true in tech where tenures keep on decreasing? If you are losing the entire staff every 2-3 years or so (my last employer), the push clearly exists and it is widespread.
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      If the employer is bad the employees will leave. If the employer is good then the incentive will be reduced. Practically no one leaves my company.
- gpm 5y ago
  I don't completely disagree, but to take the other side: When you're being hired both you and the company are taking a bet. The company is betting that you're worth $x+$y/year, where $x is the salary and $y is bit extra to accommodate the risk that you aren't, you're betting that it's worth working for the company for $x-$z/year, where $x is the salary and $z is a bit extra to accommodate the risk that you aren't. I.e. both sides price in risk. After a year or two, the risk on both sides has largely evaporated. The company now knows that you are (or aren't) worth $x+$y, and you know that it actually is (or isn't) worth working for the company at $x-$z. There's now a delta between $y and $-z (assuming the initial estimates were accurate) where it "makes sense" for you to stay, the company could pay you more, but why would they? If it wasn't for the fact that shrinking salaries is a negative experience for the employee (more negative than the dollar difference) they could also pay you less. Splitting the difference by not changing the salary at all seems fair, and nicely lines up with the agreement you already have in place.
  - Frost1x 5y ago
    >Splitting the difference by not changing the salary at all seems fair, and nicely lines up with the agreement you already have in place. You're not splitting the difference if market rates change. If pay is going up for marketable skills, the employee is eating the cost, if pay is going down for marketable skills, the employer is eating the cost. If there's inflation, the employee is eating the cost. General inflation alone needs to be accommodated at bare minimum, otherwise the employee is incurring debt by remaining in place year over year. Most likely by staying somewhere, your skills are also being refined around said employer, so the value of your skills for said employer should be going up. This ignores all the other factors. Businesses created this sort of employment market with high rates and high turnover because it's what they wanted, it's not the labor force that largely want it, they've just adapted to it.
    - gpm 5y ago
      Right, my argument above is assuming a sort of "all else remains constant (or within the value range of the raises you are given)" except for experience with the company. Change in market place conditions, and change in skills, definitely do create an argument for raising pay. In the tech industry I'd argue that this isn't being accounted for enough (why turn over rates are so high), but if we look at something like "wallmart manager" I think it probably is. This is a good portion of why I started my post with I don't completely disagree.
- aplummer 5y ago
  > Surely you're a lot more valuable to a company with two years' of experience in a codebase vs. a new company with no experience. You're not paid your value, you're paid the least amount a corporation can get away with paying you - which is a very different number. (Not that I resent it, it's part of doing business)
- vbtemp 5y ago
  Over the past 4 years, my salary more than doubled. And my role is two rungs lower on the "career ladder". Every time I switch companies for a reduction in job title, I get a 50% raise. At the current rate, I'm looking forward to being an intern while making an executive salary.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
qudat 5y ago
I'll echo the same sentiment as others: we get the biggest salary raises by switching jobs. Like others have mentioned, there is a pernicious incentive for employers to not adequately bump salaries over time.
- noir_lord 5y ago
  My salary went up 60% by changing job twice. The first place could have kept me by offering me fair market rate for the role I had. The 2nd place couldn't have kept me with a bar of Gold every morning but it was a pay bump which levelled me into the salary I'm on now. If your biggest issue is recruitment then it seems pretty obvious you pay your existing staff fair-market rate because replacing them is more expensive than just paying them (and because it's fair though fairness doesn't appear to a motivation).
deedubaya 5y ago
Well idk about you, but when my program crashes frequently and consistently, I just spawn new processes rather than retrospectively look at the code I've written to see what is causing the crash. /s Maybe if managers spent more time on making sure their employees are happy, challenged, managed effectively and compensated adequately instead of looking for the next hire they'd be in a better spot? It seems that most employees quit managers, not jobs.
- w0mbat 5y ago
  Some companies (e.g. Amazon) have a policy to fire the lowest performing x percent every year, even if the whole team is good, which makes churn inevitable. It also leads to odd situations like hiring low quality talent just to provide the rotating foundation your real team rests on. And of course constant in-fighting to stay out of the bottom x percent by sabotaging rivals if necessary.

asdfman123 5y ago

It doesn't make any sense that you have to leave your job to get a big salary raise. Surely you're a lot more valuable to a company with two years' of experience in a codebase vs. a new company with no experience.

vbtemp 5y ago
My other comment here was cheeky, but I think what happens is the following: Applicant A has the precise set of skills Business B needs desperately at that moment. Business B is willing to pay whatever needed to get Applicant A ASAP (because they are growing quickly, or in crisis, or just need that role filled fast). This is normally what causes salary bumps in job switches... because A would not accept an offer if it _wasn't_ substantially above what they make now.
rorykoehler 5y ago
Generally people are wired to need a push rather than jump. This works both ways in hiring. Employers will try get away with lower salaries until the employee shows they have leverage and employees won't make the effort to get leverage.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  But is that true in tech where tenures keep on decreasing? If you are losing the entire staff every 2-3 years or so (my last employer), the push clearly exists and it is widespread.
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    If the employer is bad the employees will leave. If the employer is good then the incentive will be reduced. Practically no one leaves my company.
gpm 5y ago
I don't completely disagree, but to take the other side: When you're being hired both you and the company are taking a bet. The company is betting that you're worth $x+$y/year, where $x is the salary and $y is bit extra to accommodate the risk that you aren't, you're betting that it's worth working for the company for $x-$z/year, where $x is the salary and $z is a bit extra to accommodate the risk that you aren't. I.e. both sides price in risk. After a year or two, the risk on both sides has largely evaporated. The company now knows that you are (or aren't) worth $x+$y, and you know that it actually is (or isn't) worth working for the company at $x-$z. There's now a delta between $y and $-z (assuming the initial estimates were accurate) where it "makes sense" for you to stay, the company could pay you more, but why would they? If it wasn't for the fact that shrinking salaries is a negative experience for the employee (more negative than the dollar difference) they could also pay you less. Splitting the difference by not changing the salary at all seems fair, and nicely lines up with the agreement you already have in place.
- Frost1x 5y ago
  >Splitting the difference by not changing the salary at all seems fair, and nicely lines up with the agreement you already have in place. You're not splitting the difference if market rates change. If pay is going up for marketable skills, the employee is eating the cost, if pay is going down for marketable skills, the employer is eating the cost. If there's inflation, the employee is eating the cost. General inflation alone needs to be accommodated at bare minimum, otherwise the employee is incurring debt by remaining in place year over year. Most likely by staying somewhere, your skills are also being refined around said employer, so the value of your skills for said employer should be going up. This ignores all the other factors. Businesses created this sort of employment market with high rates and high turnover because it's what they wanted, it's not the labor force that largely want it, they've just adapted to it.
  - gpm 5y ago
    Right, my argument above is assuming a sort of "all else remains constant (or within the value range of the raises you are given)" except for experience with the company. Change in market place conditions, and change in skills, definitely do create an argument for raising pay. In the tech industry I'd argue that this isn't being accounted for enough (why turn over rates are so high), but if we look at something like "wallmart manager" I think it probably is. This is a good portion of why I started my post with I don't completely disagree.
aplummer 5y ago
> Surely you're a lot more valuable to a company with two years' of experience in a codebase vs. a new company with no experience. You're not paid your value, you're paid the least amount a corporation can get away with paying you - which is a very different number. (Not that I resent it, it's part of doing business)
vbtemp 5y ago
Over the past 4 years, my salary more than doubled. And my role is two rungs lower on the "career ladder". Every time I switch companies for a reduction in job title, I get a 50% raise. At the current rate, I'm looking forward to being an intern while making an executive salary.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

qudat 5y ago

I'll echo the same sentiment as others: we get the biggest salary raises by switching jobs. Like others have mentioned, there is a pernicious incentive for employers to not adequately bump salaries over time.

noir_lord 5y ago
My salary went up 60% by changing job twice. The first place could have kept me by offering me fair market rate for the role I had. The 2nd place couldn't have kept me with a bar of Gold every morning but it was a pay bump which levelled me into the salary I'm on now. If your biggest issue is recruitment then it seems pretty obvious you pay your existing staff fair-market rate because replacing them is more expensive than just paying them (and because it's fair though fairness doesn't appear to a motivation).

deedubaya 5y ago

Well idk about you, but when my program crashes frequently and consistently, I just spawn new processes rather than retrospectively look at the code I've written to see what is causing the crash. /s Maybe if managers spent more time on making sure their employees are happy, challenged, managed effectively and compensated adequately instead of looking for the next hire they'd be in a better spot? It seems that most employees quit managers, not jobs.

w0mbat 5y ago
Some companies (e.g. Amazon) have a policy to fire the lowest performing x percent every year, even if the whole team is good, which makes churn inevitable. It also leads to odd situations like hiring low quality talent just to provide the rotating foundation your real team rests on. And of course constant in-fighting to stay out of the bottom x percent by sabotaging rivals if necessary.