TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why Don't Tech Companies Pay Their Engineers to Stay?

175 点作者 samspenc9 个月前

44 条评论

BadHumans9 个月前
This entire piece starts from the conclusion that engineers leave because they aren't paid enough then works backwards from there. This is wrong from my experience. Anecdotally, I have never left a job because of money. Sure, I left jobs and got ones that ended up paying more money but the reason I started looking in the first place wasn't money. It was for other reasons that usually included frustrations with management.
评论 #41462230 未加载
评论 #41462235 未加载
评论 #41462114 未加载
评论 #41462357 未加载
评论 #41462302 未加载
评论 #41462190 未加载
评论 #41463182 未加载
评论 #41462799 未加载
评论 #41462588 未加载
评论 #41462210 未加载
评论 #41464159 未加载
评论 #41462160 未加载
评论 #41462222 未加载
red_admiral9 个月前
As a regular reader of Rachelbythebay - I agree with the sentiment of a lot of other posters here, it&#x27;s not the money that makes people quit.<p>A classic story here is the &quot;Sodas are no longer free&quot; one: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;steveblank.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;12&#x2F;21&#x2F;the-elves-leave-middle-earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;steveblank.com&#x2F;2009&#x2F;12&#x2F;21&#x2F;the-elves-leave-middle-ear...</a><p>The total cost of free sodas for engineers is probably small compared to their salaries, and for the individual engineer, the new $0.50 per soda cost is probably negligible compared to their salary. But moving from free (as in free soda) to non-free signals a culture change, and so the best engineers started updating their CVs.
评论 #41464288 未加载
评论 #41464075 未加载
评论 #41465824 未加载
评论 #41464190 未加载
gregfjohnson9 个月前
A person close to me works at a law firm. She was feeling a bit stagnant, so she connected with a recruiter. She got a very solid offer with a significant pay bump. She gave her two weeks&#x27; notice to her firm, including appointments with the partners. One of the partners asked her for a half hour. They came back with a massive pay raise, and a promotion to partner if she would stay. She was in a state of shock, but then informed the other firm that she was staying at her current firm.<p>By way of contrast, an engineering firm I am familiar with had an employee who had been there six years, and knew the company&#x27;s very complex product inside and out, every nook and cranny. He was one of the only people who had such deep understanding of the system that he could fix any issues that might come up, hardware, firmware, software, everything. He gave his two weeks&#x27; notice, and then went to a different job. He&#x27;s a very talented guy, who would command a very attractive offer, but his talent to the current company is vastly greater than his generic value on the market, because of his detailed knowledge of the product. Although he diligently documented his knowledge, the company was still left in a jam after his departure. It would have been great if the company had fought for him the way the law firm fought for the other individual described above.
评论 #41463895 未加载
评论 #41462672 未加载
hintymad9 个月前
Amazon used to have an internal Slack channel that allowed employees to share their total compensations anonymously. Thousands of people shared and the numbers were eye opening. Basically, if one was not a star and got consistently promoted every two or three years, she would not get compensated at market price. As a result, an L6 who stayed in the company for years often got lower total compensation than an L5 new hire who was actually an L4 before jumping to Amazon.<p>Note: No L7 or above shared, or so as I knew. That said, like any large company, resources tend to concentrate to the top. L8 and plus were still compensated really well, but L7 were so so because L8 became the new L7 after waves of rapid promotions inside Amazon.
评论 #41462563 未加载
评论 #41462572 未加载
评论 #41463885 未加载
评论 #41462804 未加载
gkoberger9 个月前
This is from 2021. Since then, they hired their Head of People a month later, and ~6 months later published a follow up:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goethena.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;a-public-and-transparent-formula-for-engineering-salaries-ethena&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goethena.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;a-public-and-transparent-formu...</a>
评论 #41462326 未加载
评论 #41462423 未加载
n_ary9 个月前
Management Mindset: As long as the employee is not complaining, why throw more money? Besides, they can&#x27;t be &quot;that valuable and hard to replace&quot;.<p>I have even seen management who don&#x27;t even bat an eye or goes extra mile to hire some 5-10x more expensive(even compared to market value) limited time contractor but zero interest or energy in putting up a fight to give a fair pay bump to one or more severely underpaid employee(s).<p>The tainting is a mind game: an employee suddenly hears from their friend or random recruiter about some lucrative offer(usually at least 25-100% raise in pay), tries out their luck and lands an offer, but now manager(assuming a sensible person) needs to put a fight[1] with upper management to bring that same bump(or comparable).<p>However, the relation is now tainted: employee now feels that injustice had been done and there is no guarantee that in future further raises&#x2F;promotions will not come easy[2] and the manager might be looking into replacing them soon. The manager is now also sad that, they got under pressure by a leveraged employee+upper management will push to de-leverage such assets(yes a term managers use), and seek to replace such expensive assets soon. Now, both sides are running on bad trust and it gets immensely uncomfortable, hence the employee leaves anyways or get replaced by some shiny new hire who will command more than the original employee being replaced attained at their level.<p>[1] This is often difficult, unless your manager is politically influential, because once you have neglected an employee too long, adjustment can be bit high, it is now difficult to justify, how suddenly a particular employee became so much valuable out of the blue. Human mind is wired in such a way that, slowly ascending a hill feels less tiring compared to ascending steep jumps, as the latter takes more energy(or in case of employee big pay bump).<p>[2] Even though the adjustment being a correct valuation, any raise&#x2F;bump of significance also brings expectations of more responsibilities and higher performance which is the same ol&#x27; undervaluing again in action.
mppm9 个月前
It&#x27;s always puzzled me why many tech companies seem so reluctant to give counter-offers to departing employees. Trying to pay as little as possible and not easily giving raises, even to their most productive employees, is at least somewhat understandable. But if a valuable employee is about to leave, possibly taking some critical knowledge with them, you&#x27;d think that a 50% raise should be on the table out of pure self-interest. So why doesn&#x27;t this usually happen? Is it just part of keeping up the charade (a big raise is a tacit admission that they have been underpaying massively)? Is it to increase the barrier to negotiations (you have to actually leave rather than just get an offer)? Is it because HR people get more points for bringing in &quot;new talent&quot; rather than keeping the current workforce? Or is it just that neither HR nor management have any clue who their critical employees are, so they are unable to prioritize?
评论 #41464300 未加载
评论 #41464127 未加载
评论 #41464078 未加载
评论 #41464137 未加载
评论 #41467262 未加载
knallfrosch9 个月前
The article ignores that &quot;the market&quot; works.<p>Switching jobs, with new physical locations, new informal structures, new colleagues imposes a change cost on the software engineer too. That&#x27;s why a lot of people stay. Additionally, paying every engineer the market rate wastes money on those that would have stayed anyway.<p>As a similar problem, countries that pay for babies find that 98% of their money is wasted on couples that have babies anyway. The Economist says: &quot;schemes in Poland and France cost $1m-2m per extra birth&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;leaders&#x2F;2024&#x2F;05&#x2F;23&#x2F;why-paying-women-to-have-more-babies-wont-work" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;leaders&#x2F;2024&#x2F;05&#x2F;23&#x2F;why-paying-wome...</a><p>Now that&#x27;s a scale problem. Is one engineer staying really worth $10m? $1m? You&#x27;ll pay way more than you think.
评论 #41464838 未加载
colesantiago9 个月前
It is simple.<p>Because they have no money.<p>For startups, they want engineers to take a pay cut to work 996-like hours.<p>Especially in the UK, where there is a running joke where companies complain about a “skills shortage” when in reality companies cannot find engineers at top universities that want to take a pay cut and work for less pay.
评论 #41462215 未加载
评论 #41462131 未加载
codr79 个月前
Fairness.<p>I&#x27;ll work hard for less money if it feels like we&#x27;re in it together and the potential compensation is fairly distributed.<p>But if someone pays me less just because they think they can get away with it, I&#x27;m out.
sameermore9 个月前
My 2 cents - I think this is also a function of the domain the organisation operates in. IMHO, there are predominantly two types of companies - one where the technology creates the business vs. one where the business uses the technology as an enabler.<p>For the former, think of companies like Boeing, nVidia or the Windows&#x2F;Office divisions at Microsoft. Here, the product of technology is what brings in the money. For the latter, think of almost any &quot;IT company&quot; in the world which pieces solutions for clients in various businesses by leveraging existing technology&#x2F;tooling and applying some amount of customisation.<p>The former tend to value engineers more (exceptions are always there) as there are usually less number of competitors, but the risk of the employee switching and enriching the competitor&#x27;s knowledge (and hence, business) is significant. The latter tend to look at engineers as replaceable (with little to medium effort) resources, and value their payroll expenses more than retaining top talent.
评论 #41469592 未加载
atleastoptimal9 个月前
Hiring people is like gambling for companies, as in most tech companies hire some person on the off chance they&#x27;re a 10x developer, though expect them to be a 1.5x one on average. Even if you&#x27;re a 2x developer, you haven&#x27;t lived up to the hypothetical 10x ideal to your employer, so they aren&#x27;t willing to put in the extra money and effort to convince you to stay, there&#x27;s more incentive to put that money into hiring the next potential 10x-er<p>An analogy is, let&#x27;s say you get a treasure box that can be opened for 100 dollars and may contain 1000 dollars. You open it and find 150 dollars. There is a smaller box inside which you can open for another 50 dollars which could contain at most 75 dollars but will most likely only contain 50 dollars. Do you spend those 50 dollars on opening the smaller box, or do you use the money to buy another larger chest that could contain 1000 dollars?
评论 #41464536 未加载
评论 #41463380 未加载
评论 #41468862 未加载
评论 #41463537 未加载
anothernewdude9 个月前
By the time the Engineer has gone through the effort to find some place to go to, it&#x27;s well past time for the company to increase pay.<p>They&#x27;d have to pay more than the difference, so they don&#x27;t. And they&#x27;d have to be able to predict which engineers are about to leave (and churn models are terrible.)
评论 #41462497 未加载
treebeard9019 个月前
Middle and upper management never want to be put in a position to explain why they designed a team where it is not easy to just swap someone else in instead of paying more to keep someone. Usually if this happens, they will pay more to keep you until they find a way to solve this problem.
ralferoo9 个月前
I worked in the UK at a FAANG, so I was on a different bonus system, but my US colleagues had a very significant lock-in. Both your starting bonus and annual bonuses were implemented in terms of share grants that vested at 25% each year. I heard from several of these colleagues that the annual bonuses were often about the same as the base salary, so for some of these guys it was around $200k. So, at any given time they had between $150k and $200k locked up in un-vested shares that would be lost if they left the company. It&#x27;s framed as a benefit rather than paying someone to stay, but ultimately it&#x27;s structured this way so it serves the same purpose of providing a strong disincentive to leaving.
评论 #41465523 未加载
评论 #41463909 未加载
MathMonkeyMan9 个月前
I wonder if what&#x27;s going on is that most of the work is done by people who joined within the last two years.<p>Or maybe somebody leaving and having to be replaced by a new hire kind of rolls the dice on headcount, which low and mid-level managers might find interesting.<p>The answer I like the most is that, as the article says, when you hire a new person you have to pay, on average, market rate. When you&#x27;re evaluating whether to change the pay of Joe Lifer, you sometimes have to pay market rate but often you don&#x27;t have to. Maybe you&#x27;d save money by giving raises to Joe Lifer, but who knows? You&#x27;re hiring people anyway, so if Joe Lifer wants to leave, that&#x27;s a shame, pay the new guy instead of him.
siliconc0w9 个月前
The people running companies are mostly &quot;professional managers&quot; who see engineers as a fungible resource. If anything, tenure in the same role is mostly a negative signal. Why haven&#x27;t you gamed the promotion system yet? Don&#x27;t you want to grow into management or &#x27;technical leadership&#x27; and spend your days in meetings? What is wrong with you?
评论 #41464470 未加载
leros9 个月前
I&#x27;ve heard the argument that an engineer who wants to go should be let go. They won&#x27;t be motivated anymore even if you pay them more to stay. Not sure if that&#x27;s valid.
评论 #41463744 未加载
评论 #41462469 未加载
评论 #41464064 未加载
评论 #41462375 未加载
yowlingcat9 个月前
&gt; Sep 26, 2021 &gt; 5 min read<p>Although it was only 3 years ago, from a macroeconomic standpoint, this feels like centuries ago. Since then, the tech industry has weathered several erosion events (SVB implosion, interest rate hikes) and it seems that aside from generative AI (which with the recent NVIDIA drop, may be showing first signs of slowdown), at least the VC funded startup space is at a local minimum in terms of market heat. Anecdotally, I&#x27;ve seen a lot of colleagues I&#x27;ve worked with at previous colleagues in hotter markets struggle with finding their next role for much longer periods of time with much more frustrating processes. The market for candidates seems tougher today than it&#x27;s been in over a decade; in fact, I&#x27;m not sure what the last time was that it was this rough -- perhaps right after the 08 crash?
graycat9 个月前
&quot;The impact&quot; of an engineer? How to measure that? Hmm. Let me think ....<p>Think of a new company the customers will &quot;love&quot;. Start the company and, being a good engineer, be the CTO and CEO. &quot;Impact&quot;? The value of the new company. Pay? They OWN the new company.
thot_experiment9 个月前
It&#x27;s honestly wild. Just had someone leave because of an incredibly dumb money-saving corporate policy reason. The overall impact will DEFINITELY be that projects get delayed and we waste a ton of time training the new guy, it would have been much cheaper to fix by just paying him more (or fixing the actual benefits issue). It&#x27;s mind boggling how short sighted some of these fucking decisions are.
brianshaler9 个月前
&gt; &quot;With a market this hot&quot;<p>Maybe the title should get a [2021] because it sounds like the market has cooled substantially in the last year or so.<p>The article doesn&#x27;t seem to take into consideration market cycles, assuming market rate always goes up at a rate that outpaces cost-of-living comp adjustments. While this may be the case more often than not, how are companies supposed to absorb market downturns? A salary reduction, if legal (?), seems almost as bad as redundancy except you risk being saddled with disgruntled workers who might decide to jump ship at the next moment that is convenient for them.
sceptical9 个月前
Some companies do. At my previous company (I have since retired), I would get yearly outsized stock grants to motivate me to stay. I sincerely doubt I could have found matching compensation at another company.<p>I never had any expectation of loyalty from the company and it didn&#x27;t from me either, otherwise the stock grants would be unnecessary. I had some loyalty to my manager and had promised him to give a heads up before leaving the company. He knew I would retire once I hit my target.
dimitrios19 个月前
In my experience, the job hopping for an increase only works up to senior &#x2F; lead level (or engineering manager for manager counterpart). Anything after that requires time in role having a consistent, positive impact, and building up a portfolio that you can then use to sell yourself at the company for one of the coveted principal &#x2F; staff &#x2F; otherwise distinguished roles.
评论 #41462515 未加载
cryptos9 个月前
I see one obstacle by this transparency approach: How to create a fair measure for &quot;impact&quot;? I would say that it is very hard to measure the actual impact of a senior developer. He gives advice here and there, he influences decisions in a good way, he asks the right questions, he recognizes risks early and so on. All that can hardly be measured.
moritz649 个月前
it&#x27;s the same everywhere, not just with jobs and careers. contracts for (mobile) internet are always much cheaper for new customers than for old customers. or old customers don&#x27;t automatically get the better conditions of new customers. and that although old customers are even more valuable, because they have already earned their acquisition costs.
the_jeremy9 个月前
The issue no one here seems to be talking about is that paying people according to tenure is anticompetitive for the company <i>on both sides</i>.<p>If you pay people more because they&#x27;ve been at your company longer (the way the follow-up post by Ethena describes[0]), you&#x27;re explicitly choosing to pay them more than they can get elsewhere. You don&#x27;t want to pay more than you have to for talent, so this is a hard sell to whomever manages the budget.<p>On the flip side, if you&#x27;re attempting to pay people in proportion to their worth to you as a company, you&#x27;re going to be paying less than the competition, because the competition front-loads this money. A new engineer takes a few months or more to ramp up, so if you&#x27;re making an attempt to pay engineers based on their impact, you will be outcompeted by companies willing to give sign-on bonuses and extra comp to convince people to switch. That&#x27;s built into the plan of the four-year cliff - you pay them a lot to start with and hope you get the savings on the other side when they don&#x27;t spend the effort to switch jobs later.<p>Lastly, turnover isn&#x27;t as much of a negative for the company as everyone seems to ascribe. Being forced to keep up with industry best practices and technologies to be able to recruit talent, to onboard new devs when someone leaves, and to retire unmaintainable legacy cruft when the creator leaves are not strictly negatives - they are risk reduction. That&#x27;s not mentioning the benefit of fresh eyes and fresh ideas.<p>(Honestly, I think all of this discussion on both sides ascribes too much rational decision-making to what is essentially cargo-culted hiring processes. The biggest companies copy decisions from each other to the point that it&#x27;s literally collusion[1], and everyone else follows suit because they are smaller and don&#x27;t have the economies of scale to make researching alternatives positive expected value. People at the top setting policies don&#x27;t have lines of communication to front-line managers to be able to determine whether their particular company needs extra focus on retaining developers for business continuity reasons, so to the extent that it&#x27;s a conscious decision at all, it&#x27;s based on industry-wide studies or company-wide turnover statistics.)<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goethena.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;a-public-and-transparent-formula-for-engineering-salaries-ethena&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goethena.com&#x2F;post&#x2F;a-public-and-transparent-formu...</a> [1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;2014&#x2F;apr&#x2F;24&#x2F;apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;2014&#x2F;apr&#x2F;24&#x2F;apple-goo...</a>
hiddencost9 个月前
It&#x27;s challenging being in big tech right now. I spent a year applying for equivalent level jobs at peer institutions and startups. Finally got an offer from a startup that was heavily stock weighted. Took the offer to my boss and got a $100k raise within a week.<p>TBH suspect I was being seriously underpaid.
etchalon9 个月前
1. Roles have budgets and companies only have so much cash to pay people.<p>2. Raises done arbitrarily to match market rates snowball across the organization. One 20% raise is going to turn into 2, or 3. See #1.<p>3. &quot;Losing time&quot; because of a junior hire is, oddly, less of a disruption than issue 2 becoming issue 1.
naffty_draw9 个月前
How can a company effectively measure an employee&#x27;s impact? In my experience, when performance metrics are tied to salary, employees often manipulate the numbers to reflect a more favorable outcome, which may not accurately represent their true impact.
port199 个月前
While the conclusion that engineers leave because they aren&#x27;t paid enough does hold some truth, I&#x27;m much more compelled to cite the old &quot;People quit managers, not jobs&quot; saying.
xilis9 个月前
In my experience money is absolutely part of the reason why people quit. Not everyone lives in places or is in circumstances where finances don&#x27;t matter that much.
VirusNewbie9 个月前
I am making over 100k more this year than I expected at my current job due to stock increase, that’s pretty damn good retention.
jppope9 个月前
I wrote a related Article &quot;why aren&#x27;t software developers paid more&quot; (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jonpauluritis.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;why-arent-developers-paid-more&#x2F;_" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;jonpauluritis.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;why-arent-developers-paid...</a>)<p>the reality is that we get comp way wrong... and its related to hiring, and its related to Venture Capital and related to a million other things
评论 #41463071 未加载
fungiblecog9 个月前
So the new head of people will help come up with a magic remuneration formula… right…
评论 #41464734 未加载
mtsolitary9 个月前
I think this reads a bit differently today than 2021… should be in the post title
m1keil9 个月前
All this effort, metrics, measuring impact, performance reviews, blah blah blah. You want to make sure your engineers paid top dollar? Tell them to go interview in other places. If you truely value them - beat whatever they were offered by X%.
quantified9 个月前
From 2021.
jauntywundrkind9 个月前
With apologies, they are idiots. That they can&#x27;t frelling figure out even remotely who is worthwhile to keep around or not is 300% on them, something so few orgs actually calibrate on, or do so based off awful anti-signals on, and it&#x27;s embarrassing that this pathetic foolery has just gone on and on and on and on, with zero signs of improving.<p>My boss loves me, swears I&#x27;m so full fo awesome knowledge &amp; smarts. But every review, there&#x27;s some VP pissed off I asked a question about why we were switching to OKRs or how to was going to work or how it would help or some security team pissed off because I have complained about NetSkope or their shitty undocumented USB drive blocking policies. There&#x27;s always some fuck doing a shitty job offended that some engineer dare speak up, and my boss is telling me again and again it&#x27;s costing me many dozens of $k in raises.<p>It&#x27;s so so so sad. Even if there aren&#x27;t the dogshit losers, there&#x27;s still so little discernment &amp; taste. And there&#x27;s so many people who can look busy and suck up, but actual deep knowledge is so so rarely respected. There&#x27;s so many orgs that straight up deserve to fail, based on how bad they are at supporting their truest asset, their human resources.
评论 #41462687 未加载
spl7579 个月前
greed
nextworddev9 个月前
Supply and demand
评论 #41462091 未加载
kennyloginz9 个月前
Salary?
snvzz9 个月前
Because it&#x27;s easier to enslave them with non-competes.
android5219 个月前
if the salary of a role is 100k and you can pay seniors up to 400k (or some number). After some point, it won&#x27;t make sense financially to increase salary as you can hire people for this role with much less. So the limit of the pay is set by market. If engineers want bigger and bigger pay, they would need to change to other roles that pay more.
评论 #41464155 未加载