6 ms·

The numbers I had suggested approximately 17,000 tech jobs per quarter. So, not too far off from your number. I was also told to expect 30 to 40 percent attrit

The numbers I had suggested approximately 17,000 tech jobs per quarter. So, not too far off from your number. I was also told to expect 30 to 40 percent attrition every year, as engineers burnt out.

akhmatova 4y ago
So, not too far off from your number. "Off by factor of 3.9 -- so not too far off from your number". Is that how engineers talk at Amazon? Or is this the privilege of management types, only?
- saulpw 4y ago
  17,000 per quarter = 68,000 per year
  - akhmatova 4y ago
    The reason I misread that as "per year" as the quarterly figure can't possibly be right. Going by federal compliance reports, for example - they just don't have that 68k engineers, total (in 2022, let alone when that number was passed down to you).
    - turtledove 4y ago
      Tech jobs encompasses CS grads in roles beyond just engineer. Amazon experiences attrition rates of 30% per year plus a 5% rate of "top grading" mandated every six months. So right away, we're looking at tens of thousands of roles to fill if there is zero growth. I don't know why you think these numbers are so wildly impossible if you look at the number of tech roles and Amazon's growth rates pre pandemic.
      - akhmatova 4y ago
        I don't know why you think these numbers are so wildly impossible if you look at the number of tech roles pre-pandemic. And that number was what, specifically? Going by which source? So right away, we're looking at tens of thousands of roles to fill if there is zero growth. I can totally imagine they have 10k+ actual tech rolls to fill per year; just not 68k, and probably not even half that number. Even assuming their ridiculous (and artificially accelerated) attrition rates.
ryandvm 4y ago
> expect 30 to 40 percent attrition every year Christ. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is.
- koliber 4y ago
  What would you say is an average engineer tenure in our industry? Roughly speaking, 35% attrition means an average tenure of 2.7 years. When I asked engineers how many year do they think an engineer stays at a job in the industry, I got answers between 2 to 3 years. While I aim for longer relationships and lower attrition rates, knowing the benchmarks is helpful when judging whether something is good or bad.
  - Frost1x 4y ago
    This approach results in a bit of a self-fufilling prophecy, though. If you aim for meeting averages (anecdotal or not), then why would you expect turnover better than average? You'll probably end up optimizing just above that average and likely not hit a critical point high enough to deviate form the underlying problem, because your goal isn't about minimizing turnover even if it's an idealistic goal, when push comes to shove its about getting ROI above all and everything else is secondary. I argue that aside from TC optimizing engineers, most engineers do not want to jump ship that often, especially in the current hiring process. Unfortunately, there's a business culture that created these environments where turnover is this high, sometimes higher. If you provide no stability for your engineers, no WLB, poor internal growth opportunities relative to market, poor training, and grunt work then you should expect this. The way to reduce employee turnover is to provide a significantly better overall deal to employees, otherwise you'll continue to have flighty engineers and just point at the numbers, "well this is what's going on in the industry." Yes, and if you've adopted the rest of the culture of the industry, why would you expect yourself to be much different then? Don't start with the expectation engineers will leave in 2.7 years and build a culture around that, look at places engineers stay longer and build a culture around that. Issue is that those places tend to be less efficient and profitable for investors because the engineers are getting a bigger slice of the pie in some fashion, be it improved WLB, better training, less hostility, etc.

The numbers I had suggested approximately 17,000 tech jobs per quarter. So, not too far off from your number. I was also told to expect 30 to 40 percent attrition every year, as engineers burnt out.

akhmatova 4y ago

So, not too far off from your number. "Off by factor of 3.9 -- so not too far off from your number". Is that how engineers talk at Amazon? Or is this the privilege of management types, only?

saulpw 4y ago
17,000 per quarter = 68,000 per year
- akhmatova 4y ago
  The reason I misread that as "per year" as the quarterly figure can't possibly be right. Going by federal compliance reports, for example - they just don't have that 68k engineers, total (in 2022, let alone when that number was passed down to you).
  - turtledove 4y ago
    Tech jobs encompasses CS grads in roles beyond just engineer. Amazon experiences attrition rates of 30% per year plus a 5% rate of "top grading" mandated every six months. So right away, we're looking at tens of thousands of roles to fill if there is zero growth. I don't know why you think these numbers are so wildly impossible if you look at the number of tech roles and Amazon's growth rates pre pandemic.
    - akhmatova 4y ago
      I don't know why you think these numbers are so wildly impossible if you look at the number of tech roles pre-pandemic. And that number was what, specifically? Going by which source? So right away, we're looking at tens of thousands of roles to fill if there is zero growth. I can totally imagine they have 10k+ actual tech rolls to fill per year; just not 68k, and probably not even half that number. Even assuming their ridiculous (and artificially accelerated) attrition rates.

ryandvm 4y ago

> expect 30 to 40 percent attrition every year Christ. If that's not a red flag, I don't know what is.

koliber 4y ago
What would you say is an average engineer tenure in our industry? Roughly speaking, 35% attrition means an average tenure of 2.7 years. When I asked engineers how many year do they think an engineer stays at a job in the industry, I got answers between 2 to 3 years. While I aim for longer relationships and lower attrition rates, knowing the benchmarks is helpful when judging whether something is good or bad.
- Frost1x 4y ago
  This approach results in a bit of a self-fufilling prophecy, though. If you aim for meeting averages (anecdotal or not), then why would you expect turnover better than average? You'll probably end up optimizing just above that average and likely not hit a critical point high enough to deviate form the underlying problem, because your goal isn't about minimizing turnover even if it's an idealistic goal, when push comes to shove its about getting ROI above all and everything else is secondary. I argue that aside from TC optimizing engineers, most engineers do not want to jump ship that often, especially in the current hiring process. Unfortunately, there's a business culture that created these environments where turnover is this high, sometimes higher. If you provide no stability for your engineers, no WLB, poor internal growth opportunities relative to market, poor training, and grunt work then you should expect this. The way to reduce employee turnover is to provide a significantly better overall deal to employees, otherwise you'll continue to have flighty engineers and just point at the numbers, "well this is what's going on in the industry." Yes, and if you've adopted the rest of the culture of the industry, why would you expect yourself to be much different then? Don't start with the expectation engineers will leave in 2.7 years and build a culture around that, look at places engineers stay longer and build a culture around that. Issue is that those places tend to be less efficient and profitable for investors because the engineers are getting a bigger slice of the pie in some fashion, be it improved WLB, better training, less hostility, etc.