5 ms·

Unless you work at a company that “gets” it (as listed below): instead of hoping or arguing for a raise that puts you and your colleagues in tech in-line with t

Unless you work at a company that “gets” it (as listed below): instead of hoping or arguing for a raise that puts you and your colleagues in tech in-line with the market, just go out and interview for offers that should increase your total compensation 30-50%. I’ve been writing about this topic for months, including publishing how much companies in 2021 did one-off adjustments as discussed on HN [1] (a list of about 50 companies, between 5-30% as one-off increases outside annual raises) and suggesting to those in charge of budgets to do one-off adjustments ASAP to retain their engineers. Although many CTOs and VPEs read and understood the rationale, the majority could not get meaningful budget increases. The reason? Their non-technical CEO and CFO. This very hot market is only the case for tech and the rest of the business struggles to understand why tech should be any exception at annual budgeting. I see it as the typical story of execs assuming tech leaders are crying wolf when there is no wolf. By the time the wolf takes away most the sheep, it’s too late. The only exceptions I’ve seen are: 1. Companies seeing attrition impossible to ignore. In May 2021 a company in the UK announced no pay raises till Apr 2022 answering an all-hands question. 25% of senior engineers left the next 3 months, and the company did an emergency 15% raise across engineering in November. 2. Companies that collect, and act on market data. This is mostly Big Tech. It’s why Amazon has been decisive in increasing base salaries, and why Meta increased RSU refreshers by ~20-25% this year. They know the market better than any salary benchmarking company does (which companies’ data is outdated). I still get messages of engineering managers asking how they can make their leadership understand their dire situation. I tell them that unless their company is in the #2 category, the only way is to put them in #1, and suggest these engineering managers lead by example in securing much higher offers, leaving, and after enough people leave, non-technical leadership might eventually act. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29320889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29320889

iamacyborg 5y ago
> This very hot market is only the case for tech and the rest of the business struggles to understand why tech should be any exception at annual budgeting. This is not correct. Digital marketing skills are in super high demand over the last 18+ months and salaries have risen accordingly. I suspect this is true of other areas as well.
onion2k 5y ago
instead of hoping or arguing for a raise that puts you and your colleagues in tech in-line with the market, just go out and interview for offers that should increase your total compensation 30-50%. I'm not sure if you're suggesting interviewing and then using the offer to go to your boss and ask for a raise, or if you're suggesting actually changing job, but at a company that really doesn't understand the value of retaining staff going to your boss with an offer that's 30% more than you're on now is going to mean you end up changing job. Few companies are willing to match that sort of increase. They'll let you go and try to find a replacement. This is the danger of using an offer to try to force your boss to give you a raise - a lot of bosses don't really understand the value you bring, so they'll say no. That's not a particularly big loss - you still get a 30% raise by changing role, but if you really like your job you should be aware of the risk.
- wyclif 5y ago
  but if you really like your job you should be aware of the risk I get your last line, I really do. But what I and many others have found by going through this COL raise cycle several times is that leaving for a role that offers 30%+ total comp isn't much of a risk. Think of what that offer signals. It's not just money. Does anyone really think that a company willing to make an offer like that is going to be a worse place to work at compared with your previous company in terms of non-salary perks, benefits, and quality of projects?
  - borski 5y ago
    Sometimes, yes. Twice I’ve been offered roles that paid literally 2x my salary at that time (which was already pretty high), but did so because they knew the work was boring and they had trouble finding great engineers for it. Sometimes, the salary gap is literally there because the work is that much less interesting, and whether it’s attractive or not depends on your values.
    - satsuma 5y ago
      it could also be there because the work is for a company that some have moral objections to, like raytheon or meta. i think i remember a story on here that meta had to highball offers for similar positions when compared to their contemporaries because of how they've been torched in the media lately. i think of it like free agency in sports -- unsuccessful teams, teams in small/undesirable markets, and teams with unliked coaching/management will have to pay a premium to attract talent. why go to detroit, a basement dweller team with a coach who is universally reviled when you can go to los angeles and be on a winning team with a respected front office for a modest pay cut?
syshum 5y ago
>>This very hot market is only the case for tech and the rest of the business struggles to understand why tech should be any exception at annual budgeting. That is very much a regional thing, as most employment is. In my area most companies are having trouble filling less skilled position than they are filling skilled positions like IT. Granted filling skilled positions here has always been hard as there is not a huge talent pool in the first place, but I would not classify the market as any "hotter" or "colder" than a few years ago for tech workers. However for production line workers, warehouse, and other non-skilled trades it is very hot. As more and more companies start to Rescind their WFH rules I figure things are about to return to normal in that regard as well
Kharvok 5y ago
This is exactly my struggle as a CTO in a non-tech company. The comp & ben budget I'm operating off of started taking shape 18+ months ago and is now "locked-in". It's not only overcoming non-technical CEO's as you're also having to convince your other non-technical peers that Tech should be the exception. The best "evidence" most CEOs and CFOs will accept is outdated aggregated market data that can't be accurately sliced for applicable skils. I've had to knowingly let attrition happen to prove a point. If you can't change your company, change your company I guess.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  My eyes are watering thinking of the tortuous experience it must be in a C-suite. Really man, how do you make it through each day? And what company prepared a budget during the first summer of Covid and expects it to still be viable today?

iamacyborg 5y ago

> This very hot market is only the case for tech and the rest of the business struggles to understand why tech should be any exception at annual budgeting. This is not correct. Digital marketing skills are in super high demand over the last 18+ months and salaries have risen accordingly. I suspect this is true of other areas as well.

onion2k 5y ago

instead of hoping or arguing for a raise that puts you and your colleagues in tech in-line with the market, just go out and interview for offers that should increase your total compensation 30-50%. I'm not sure if you're suggesting interviewing and then using the offer to go to your boss and ask for a raise, or if you're suggesting actually changing job, but at a company that really doesn't understand the value of retaining staff going to your boss with an offer that's 30% more than you're on now is going to mean you end up changing job. Few companies are willing to match that sort of increase. They'll let you go and try to find a replacement. This is the danger of using an offer to try to force your boss to give you a raise - a lot of bosses don't really understand the value you bring, so they'll say no. That's not a particularly big loss - you still get a 30% raise by changing role, but if you really like your job you should be aware of the risk.

wyclif 5y ago
but if you really like your job you should be aware of the risk I get your last line, I really do. But what I and many others have found by going through this COL raise cycle several times is that leaving for a role that offers 30%+ total comp isn't much of a risk. Think of what that offer signals. It's not just money. Does anyone really think that a company willing to make an offer like that is going to be a worse place to work at compared with your previous company in terms of non-salary perks, benefits, and quality of projects?
- borski 5y ago
  Sometimes, yes. Twice I’ve been offered roles that paid literally 2x my salary at that time (which was already pretty high), but did so because they knew the work was boring and they had trouble finding great engineers for it. Sometimes, the salary gap is literally there because the work is that much less interesting, and whether it’s attractive or not depends on your values.
  - satsuma 5y ago
    it could also be there because the work is for a company that some have moral objections to, like raytheon or meta. i think i remember a story on here that meta had to highball offers for similar positions when compared to their contemporaries because of how they've been torched in the media lately. i think of it like free agency in sports -- unsuccessful teams, teams in small/undesirable markets, and teams with unliked coaching/management will have to pay a premium to attract talent. why go to detroit, a basement dweller team with a coach who is universally reviled when you can go to los angeles and be on a winning team with a respected front office for a modest pay cut?

syshum 5y ago

>>This very hot market is only the case for tech and the rest of the business struggles to understand why tech should be any exception at annual budgeting. That is very much a regional thing, as most employment is. In my area most companies are having trouble filling less skilled position than they are filling skilled positions like IT. Granted filling skilled positions here has always been hard as there is not a huge talent pool in the first place, but I would not classify the market as any "hotter" or "colder" than a few years ago for tech workers. However for production line workers, warehouse, and other non-skilled trades it is very hot. As more and more companies start to Rescind their WFH rules I figure things are about to return to normal in that regard as well

Kharvok 5y ago

This is exactly my struggle as a CTO in a non-tech company. The comp & ben budget I'm operating off of started taking shape 18+ months ago and is now "locked-in". It's not only overcoming non-technical CEO's as you're also having to convince your other non-technical peers that Tech should be the exception. The best "evidence" most CEOs and CFOs will accept is outdated aggregated market data that can't be accurately sliced for applicable skils. I've had to knowingly let attrition happen to prove a point. If you can't change your company, change your company I guess.

listenallyall 5y ago
My eyes are watering thinking of the tortuous experience it must be in a C-suite. Really man, how do you make it through each day? And what company prepared a budget during the first summer of Covid and expects it to still be viable today?