4 ms·

> You will spend year teaching someone then he leaves for another company who gave him 20% rase. This only makes sense if you hired the person at 20% below the

> You will spend year teaching someone then he leaves for another company who gave him 20% rase. This only makes sense if you hired the person at 20% below their market rate under the belief that they were less valuable as a hire simply because they didn't have a specific skillset you needed, and then once they acquired that skillset you failed to adjust their salary accordingly. But the entire thesis of the OPs comment is that we shouldn't be valuing staff based on any one specific technical skillset, but rather based on their broader software development skills and experience, because learning the ins and outs of any specific software stack is not itself that difficult given enough experience. Solution: hire and retain at a competitive market rate. Problem solved.

orra 5y ago
> But the entire thesis of the OPs comment is that we shouldn't be valuing staff based on any one specific technical skillset, but rather based on their broader software development skills and experience, because learning the ins and outs of any specific software stack is not itself that difficult given enough experience. Exactly. Tech stacks are extremely transferrable, at least to an experienced developer. Imagine hiring a painter. You want a green wall. You don't rule them out, or pay them 20% less, because the last wall they painted was pink.
native_samples 5y ago
I think the assumption behind the post you're replying to is that this will happen regardless of what you are paying them, that is, there is no actual stable "market rate" that can be precisely targeted. It may seem this cannot happen, but in a system experiencing rapid inflation it's what you'd expect to see. This doesn't have to be on a macro level. The endless tide of VC + crypto funds have created a form of (hyper?) inflation inside the tech industry in which wages are spiralling upwards without any fundamental link to increased value. It's simply a bidding war in which those who fight for closer access to the flow of inbound money can always outbid other firms, regardless of how much they pay, because there is no "market rate", just "whatever this guy currently makes + 20%".
- BaseballPhysics 5y ago
  > I think the assumption behind the post you're replying to is that this will happen regardless of what you are paying them, that is, there is no actual stable "market rate" that can be precisely targeted. > The endless tide of VC + crypto funds have created a form of (hyper?) inflation inside the tech industry in which wages are spiralling upwards without any fundamental link to increased value. It's simply a bidding war in which those who fight for closer access to the flow of inbound money can always outbid other firms, regardless of how much they pay, because there is no "market rate", just "whatever this guy currently makes + 20%". . Of course there's a market rate, it's just increasing. That's called supply and demand. And it would happen regardless of any one specific technical skillset. If anything this just further emphasizes the OPs point as specifically because demand so significantly outstrips supply, companies should be willing to train someone up rather than forego a promising hire, as that increases their potential labour pool (this is basically the labour market version of a substitute good). For the same reason companies are looking at partial- or full-remote hires, launching offices in other markets, etc, as that gets them access to a broader labour market outside the SV bubble. Frankly, I don't know what you even mean by the claim that there's no "fundamental link to increased value". There is a demand for labour. There is a clearing price in the market for that labour. That clearing price is going up due to a high demand for that labour relative to the supply. Buyers are willing to pay for labour at the clearing price based on their assessment of cost-vs-benefit. You may not think that labour is being put to productive use. But that doesn't imply the labour market is in any way flawed or that the laws of supply and demand have somehow broken down.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    "Buyers are willing to pay for labour at the clearing price based on their assessment of cost-vs-benefit." If you're competing against firms like Google or startups that just raised unicorn funding, and these days everyone is, then the people bidding in the market or labor are not doing cost benefit analysis. They just need to hire. They have the money, they need to hire and they're going to do it no matter what the price ends up being because that's just what they do. Whether the hires actually generate more value than they're costing is only rarely assessed because the money won't dry up anytime soon. Additionally, market rates are an abstraction. Consider a simplified example where you have 3 people who need to buy a chicken. They're all starving so they need the chicken or else they die. First person bids $1. Second person says, I'll pay $2. Third person says no wait, wait, I'll pay $3. First person says, I'll bid $4. This loop ends when only one of the people can still pay and everyone else starves. It does not end when the price has reached some a-priori knowable "market rate" that you could go out and measure ahead of time. To the people actually in the market, they have limited information and don't know what the bidding limit is for the other players, and thus to them it can appear that regardless of what price they bid, they are always beaten by 20%. In a properly functioning liquid market in which nobody has access to printed money, this cycle is supposed to reach an equilibrium fairly quickly with supply catching up to counterbalance demand. In the actual software market there's been a fairly direct flow from quantitative easing and crypto directly into employers, as well as the yearly 20% revenue bump Google always seems to achieve, so some participants have effectively "unlimited" money. It doesn't make sense to talk about a clearing price in that situation. From the perspective of any normal business that gets money from customers, they will always lose.
dzikimarian 5y ago
> and then once they acquired that skillset you failed to adjust their salary accordingly. Or your budget took a hit due to half year gap in delivery, caused by boot camp you conducted and then bigger company snatches your team, while you have no way to react.
- BaseballPhysics 5y ago
  If you need a half year to train up a developer to a reasonable level of productivity, you have a problem. If you need to slip or stop development for a half year because you need to train up a whole new team, you have a whole other problem. If, prior to hiring, you failed to budget for an appropriate market rate reflecting a skilled up staff, you have yet another problem. Honestly, at what point can we agree the real problem is bad management?
  - dzikimarian 5y ago
    >If you need to slip or stop development for a half year because you need to train up a whole new team, you have a whole other problem. Yes, which is why nobody reasonable does that. Which leads us to the original point, that many companies will not be interested in taking risk to introduce flutter.

orra 5y ago

> But the entire thesis of the OPs comment is that we shouldn't be valuing staff based on any one specific technical skillset, but rather based on their broader software development skills and experience, because learning the ins and outs of any specific software stack is not itself that difficult given enough experience. Exactly. Tech stacks are extremely transferrable, at least to an experienced developer. Imagine hiring a painter. You want a green wall. You don't rule them out, or pay them 20% less, because the last wall they painted was pink.

native_samples 5y ago

I think the assumption behind the post you're replying to is that this will happen regardless of what you are paying them, that is, there is no actual stable "market rate" that can be precisely targeted. It may seem this cannot happen, but in a system experiencing rapid inflation it's what you'd expect to see. This doesn't have to be on a macro level. The endless tide of VC + crypto funds have created a form of (hyper?) inflation inside the tech industry in which wages are spiralling upwards without any fundamental link to increased value. It's simply a bidding war in which those who fight for closer access to the flow of inbound money can always outbid other firms, regardless of how much they pay, because there is no "market rate", just "whatever this guy currently makes + 20%".

BaseballPhysics 5y ago
> I think the assumption behind the post you're replying to is that this will happen regardless of what you are paying them, that is, there is no actual stable "market rate" that can be precisely targeted. > The endless tide of VC + crypto funds have created a form of (hyper?) inflation inside the tech industry in which wages are spiralling upwards without any fundamental link to increased value. It's simply a bidding war in which those who fight for closer access to the flow of inbound money can always outbid other firms, regardless of how much they pay, because there is no "market rate", just "whatever this guy currently makes + 20%". . Of course there's a market rate, it's just increasing. That's called supply and demand. And it would happen regardless of any one specific technical skillset. If anything this just further emphasizes the OPs point as specifically because demand so significantly outstrips supply, companies should be willing to train someone up rather than forego a promising hire, as that increases their potential labour pool (this is basically the labour market version of a substitute good). For the same reason companies are looking at partial- or full-remote hires, launching offices in other markets, etc, as that gets them access to a broader labour market outside the SV bubble. Frankly, I don't know what you even mean by the claim that there's no "fundamental link to increased value". There is a demand for labour. There is a clearing price in the market for that labour. That clearing price is going up due to a high demand for that labour relative to the supply. Buyers are willing to pay for labour at the clearing price based on their assessment of cost-vs-benefit. You may not think that labour is being put to productive use. But that doesn't imply the labour market is in any way flawed or that the laws of supply and demand have somehow broken down.
- native_samples 5y ago
  "Buyers are willing to pay for labour at the clearing price based on their assessment of cost-vs-benefit." If you're competing against firms like Google or startups that just raised unicorn funding, and these days everyone is, then the people bidding in the market or labor are not doing cost benefit analysis. They just need to hire. They have the money, they need to hire and they're going to do it no matter what the price ends up being because that's just what they do. Whether the hires actually generate more value than they're costing is only rarely assessed because the money won't dry up anytime soon. Additionally, market rates are an abstraction. Consider a simplified example where you have 3 people who need to buy a chicken. They're all starving so they need the chicken or else they die. First person bids $1. Second person says, I'll pay $2. Third person says no wait, wait, I'll pay $3. First person says, I'll bid $4. This loop ends when only one of the people can still pay and everyone else starves. It does not end when the price has reached some a-priori knowable "market rate" that you could go out and measure ahead of time. To the people actually in the market, they have limited information and don't know what the bidding limit is for the other players, and thus to them it can appear that regardless of what price they bid, they are always beaten by 20%. In a properly functioning liquid market in which nobody has access to printed money, this cycle is supposed to reach an equilibrium fairly quickly with supply catching up to counterbalance demand. In the actual software market there's been a fairly direct flow from quantitative easing and crypto directly into employers, as well as the yearly 20% revenue bump Google always seems to achieve, so some participants have effectively "unlimited" money. It doesn't make sense to talk about a clearing price in that situation. From the perspective of any normal business that gets money from customers, they will always lose.

dzikimarian 5y ago

> and then once they acquired that skillset you failed to adjust their salary accordingly. Or your budget took a hit due to half year gap in delivery, caused by boot camp you conducted and then bigger company snatches your team, while you have no way to react.

BaseballPhysics 5y ago
If you need a half year to train up a developer to a reasonable level of productivity, you have a problem. If you need to slip or stop development for a half year because you need to train up a whole new team, you have a whole other problem. If, prior to hiring, you failed to budget for an appropriate market rate reflecting a skilled up staff, you have yet another problem. Honestly, at what point can we agree the real problem is bad management?
- dzikimarian 5y ago
  >If you need to slip or stop development for a half year because you need to train up a whole new team, you have a whole other problem. Yes, which is why nobody reasonable does that. Which leads us to the original point, that many companies will not be interested in taking risk to introduce flutter.