4 ms·

So you're saying other companies offering tech workers high salaries will lower their salaries? I think you're missing the point.

EGreg 13y ago
Yes if we're still talking about poaching, it creates downward pressure on the salaries of everyone else. There are certain costs associated with hiring someone. Such as: 1) Recruiting 2) Interviewing 3) Onboarding and introducing to team 4) Provisioning equipment, office, etc. 5) Ramping up and getting integrated Now, if these costs are paid per employee, then the longer this employee works with us, the more valuable they become and the more money they can make. BUT Those employees that get poached, or "fail upwards" into other companies, or whatever, actually make that position cost more. Way more. And I am not just talking about the fact that they might leave mid-project or have a moral hazard of screwing up a project knowing they'll have their next job to fail upwards into. But something even more basic. For example if I have to pay the cost of 1-5 once every 3 years, that's 3 times less than if I have to pay it every year. So will I bear the full cost of 1-5 every time or pass it on to the employees I hire into that position? Of course I would pass it on, and moreover I can justify it by saying that they don't have "seniority within the organization" or that we are a meritocracy. So you are completely neglecting this side of the phenomena, and blindly claiming that salaries will go up because poaching increases. It's not at all obvious that they would!
- trekky1700 13y ago
  You're neglecting the fact that not every "poaching" attempt is successful and the fact that companies like Google have an incentive to keep salaries high in order to prevent poaching.
  - EGreg 13y ago
    I didn't neglect that. How do these facts rule out that successful poaching imposes an additional cost per employee on companies? Paying employees a larger salary doesn't prevent poaching if your opponent can do the same. People are more likely to fail upwards and projects are more likely to cost more and be finished later because of successful poaching. Who bears this cost and how?

EGreg 13y ago

Yes if we're still talking about poaching, it creates downward pressure on the salaries of everyone else. There are certain costs associated with hiring someone. Such as: 1) Recruiting 2) Interviewing 3) Onboarding and introducing to team 4) Provisioning equipment, office, etc. 5) Ramping up and getting integrated Now, if these costs are paid per employee, then the longer this employee works with us, the more valuable they become and the more money they can make. BUT Those employees that get poached, or "fail upwards" into other companies, or whatever, actually make that position cost more. Way more. And I am not just talking about the fact that they might leave mid-project or have a moral hazard of screwing up a project knowing they'll have their next job to fail upwards into. But something even more basic. For example if I have to pay the cost of 1-5 once every 3 years, that's 3 times less than if I have to pay it every year. So will I bear the full cost of 1-5 every time or pass it on to the employees I hire into that position? Of course I would pass it on, and moreover I can justify it by saying that they don't have "seniority within the organization" or that we are a meritocracy. So you are completely neglecting this side of the phenomena, and blindly claiming that salaries will go up because poaching increases. It's not at all obvious that they would!

trekky1700 13y ago
You're neglecting the fact that not every "poaching" attempt is successful and the fact that companies like Google have an incentive to keep salaries high in order to prevent poaching.
- EGreg 13y ago
  I didn't neglect that. How do these facts rule out that successful poaching imposes an additional cost per employee on companies? Paying employees a larger salary doesn't prevent poaching if your opponent can do the same. People are more likely to fail upwards and projects are more likely to cost more and be finished later because of successful poaching. Who bears this cost and how?