3 ms·

Unless your previous company went out of business I'm not sure they've made an incorrect decision. They're able to get the work they need done at a lower price.

Unless your previous company went out of business I'm not sure they've made an incorrect decision. They're able to get the work they need done at a lower price. Sure they don't keep the highest performers but if they're not doing "rocket science" you don't need a rocket scientist.

jedberg 4y ago
Usually the replacement is at market rate, ie. the amount OP got at the new place.
- bink 4y ago
  And they lose the money they'll spend on recruiting and training, so it costs more in the long run.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    I'd love to see some numbers behind that. The article calls out nearly 15%/job when switching vs 3%/yr from staying. A 12% gap adds up fast.
    - bink 4y ago
      I'm comparing the costs of hiring a new employee versus offering a raise. The assumption is that most people will leave if they get an offer that includes a 15% raise rather than stay and only get 3%.
- lumost 4y ago
  Companies with these policies often end up in an uncomfortable position that they start lowering expectations to market. Over time this problem becomes bigger as the company can’t offer competitive wages anymore as the gap with existing employees is too large. A startup that started 1-2% band adjustments in 2016 probably pays half the market rate for the same talent in 2022.
overgard 4y ago
Well, in that case it was for a project that required a very specific and somewhat rare set of skills (IE, you couldn't just throw a dart and hit a web developer). I was friends with a lot of people there, so I know it took them about 6 months to find a replacement, and even then the person was more expensive and had a long ramp up time to become as productive.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  That's the big trick is most software companies aren't doing anything particularly novel or innovative that requires particularly skilled or inventive people. Where I work there's largely pocket of innovation where something new is brought into the company and then several other squads take that same process and apply it a few dozens times in a somewhat rote fashion.
  - overgard 4y ago
    Sure, but theres always ramp up time, domain knowledge, and the risk the new person is not as competent as they may have appeared in the interview, even if the skills are commodity
    - rtkwe 4y ago
      When most of the team can do the work because it's so generic the ramp up impact is more limited and there's usually some small back burner or simple work a new hire can be put on as a test and onboarding project.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jedberg 4y ago

Usually the replacement is at market rate, ie. the amount OP got at the new place.

bink 4y ago
And they lose the money they'll spend on recruiting and training, so it costs more in the long run.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I'd love to see some numbers behind that. The article calls out nearly 15%/job when switching vs 3%/yr from staying. A 12% gap adds up fast.
  - bink 4y ago
    I'm comparing the costs of hiring a new employee versus offering a raise. The assumption is that most people will leave if they get an offer that includes a 15% raise rather than stay and only get 3%.
lumost 4y ago
Companies with these policies often end up in an uncomfortable position that they start lowering expectations to market. Over time this problem becomes bigger as the company can’t offer competitive wages anymore as the gap with existing employees is too large. A startup that started 1-2% band adjustments in 2016 probably pays half the market rate for the same talent in 2022.

overgard 4y ago

Well, in that case it was for a project that required a very specific and somewhat rare set of skills (IE, you couldn't just throw a dart and hit a web developer). I was friends with a lot of people there, so I know it took them about 6 months to find a replacement, and even then the person was more expensive and had a long ramp up time to become as productive.

rtkwe 4y ago
That's the big trick is most software companies aren't doing anything particularly novel or innovative that requires particularly skilled or inventive people. Where I work there's largely pocket of innovation where something new is brought into the company and then several other squads take that same process and apply it a few dozens times in a somewhat rote fashion.
- overgard 4y ago
  Sure, but theres always ramp up time, domain knowledge, and the risk the new person is not as competent as they may have appeared in the interview, even if the skills are commodity
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    When most of the team can do the work because it's so generic the ramp up impact is more limited and there's usually some small back burner or simple work a new hire can be put on as a test and onboarding project.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]