5 ms·

A little dated [2018], but still rings true: The average tenure for engineers at many major tech companies is ~3 years. Thus, you'd expect new hires at a rate

A little dated [2018], but still rings true: The average tenure for engineers at many major tech companies is ~3 years. Thus, you'd expect new hires at a rate of 30% annually just to maintain staffing levels. To determine headcount growth you, should look at year-over-year changes in total employee count, not just the number of new hires. TLDR: Meta's new-hire rate is not atypical. https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-retention-at-top-tech-companies-2018-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-rete...

dougmwne 4y ago
In fact, the overall head count has been rising rapidly. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-faceboo...
tclancy 4y ago
Based on my limited observations having been in a similar situation for a year, I would guess the average tenure is Equity Award Years less percentage of people who get fired in less than the value of Equity Award Years. It’s a good way to keep reinventing wheels.
brilee 4y ago
3 years is deceptive - in an exponentially growing company, the majority of employees are fresh, pushing the average tenure low. The relevant number is "length of tenure at time of severance", which I believe skews much higher. Any company seeing 30% churn is having a bad, bad time.
- dadoge 4y ago
  “Length of tenure at time of severance” That is such a better metric, why is this not used more often
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    It has its own almost-opposite problem in only counting employees who did leave.
    - askafriend 4y ago
      Well you can also just count current employees' tenure. That fixes the problem and is qualitatively consistent IMO.
      - ivalm 4y ago
        That’s how you get 3 years because everyone is new.
        askafriend 4y ago
        You're right - my mistake.
    - jrumbut 4y ago
      Then you get into the field of survival analysis, where you get methods that can handle this problem (called right censoring IIRC). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimat...
    - matt-attack 4y ago
      Exactly. If half your workforce is happy and has been there 20 years, that’s entirely non reflected in such a figure. There must be a better metric.
  - neves 4y ago
    I thinkit is impossible to get this number
    - piva00 4y ago
      What do you mean? Every employer I've worked for had data for the starting date of their employees, when someone leaves you have an end date of employment. It's a pretty simple metric to calculate.
      - michaelcampbell 4y ago
        I think by "this number" they mean "a better metric", maybe?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
And this 3 years is kept up artificially - companes like Meta or, as a colleague of mine who works there now, Github / Microsoft, offer stock packages that they can only use after four years. It's a pair of golden handcuffs; they would move on a lot faster I'm sure if it wasn't for that + the wages offered. Having Microsoft or Google or Meta on your CV is a very valuable thing to have, regardless of what you actually did there, because they're still perceived as having high standards.

dougmwne 4y ago

In fact, the overall head count has been rising rapidly. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-faceboo...

tclancy 4y ago

Based on my limited observations having been in a similar situation for a year, I would guess the average tenure is Equity Award Years less percentage of people who get fired in less than the value of Equity Award Years. It’s a good way to keep reinventing wheels.

brilee 4y ago

3 years is deceptive - in an exponentially growing company, the majority of employees are fresh, pushing the average tenure low. The relevant number is "length of tenure at time of severance", which I believe skews much higher. Any company seeing 30% churn is having a bad, bad time.

dadoge 4y ago
“Length of tenure at time of severance” That is such a better metric, why is this not used more often
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  It has its own almost-opposite problem in only counting employees who did leave.
  - askafriend 4y ago
    Well you can also just count current employees' tenure. That fixes the problem and is qualitatively consistent IMO.
    - ivalm 4y ago
      That’s how you get 3 years because everyone is new.
      - askafriend 4y ago
        You're right - my mistake.
  - jrumbut 4y ago
    Then you get into the field of survival analysis, where you get methods that can handle this problem (called right censoring IIRC). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimat...
  - matt-attack 4y ago
    Exactly. If half your workforce is happy and has been there 20 years, that’s entirely non reflected in such a figure. There must be a better metric.
- neves 4y ago
  I thinkit is impossible to get this number
  - piva00 4y ago
    What do you mean? Every employer I've worked for had data for the starting date of their employees, when someone leaves you have an end date of employment. It's a pretty simple metric to calculate.
    - michaelcampbell 4y ago
      I think by "this number" they mean "a better metric", maybe?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

And this 3 years is kept up artificially - companes like Meta or, as a colleague of mine who works there now, Github / Microsoft, offer stock packages that they can only use after four years. It's a pair of golden handcuffs; they would move on a lot faster I'm sure if it wasn't for that + the wages offered. Having Microsoft or Google or Meta on your CV is a very valuable thing to have, regardless of what you actually did there, because they're still perceived as having high standards.