Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why didn't companies just grant raises more aggressively? Was the ease of poaching engineers not a clear market signal?


When I worked at a very small company we were extremely concerned about this, and so we paid people well enough that they didn't want to leave. All I can figure is that the bean counters just don't understand that churn has a cost.


some places like Amazon operate around the churn. Keep everyone anxious and they won't try to collectively bargain nor ask for raises. They won't be around long enough anyways.


Generally I understand the missing factor to be a control thing.

Th power structure that makes up a typical owners-vs-employees company demands that every employee be replacable. Denying raises & paying the cost of churn are vital to maintaining this rule. Ignoring this rule often results in e.g. one longer-tenured engineer becoming irreplacable enough to be able to act insubordinately with impunity.

A bit bleak but that's capitalism for you. Unionization, working at a smaller companies, or at employee-owned cooperatives are all alternatives to this dynamic.


Same reason why companies don't pay everyone 10 million bucks a month. Where do you think the money comes from?


Where do you think that money is going?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: