> So If I'm paying you a salary of $100k, In six months I've actually spent $150k. When you put the numbers on paper, anyone viewing them would call me an idiot.
What I see is that the person's salary is not the biggest part of their total cost to you as an employer, particularly in the first year or two when you're amortizing out your acquisition cost. If you're paying them $100k, six months in your total cost is $150k. If they are qualified for a job at another company that pays $150k, perhaps you should have bumped their salary to the $150k that is apparently the market value of their labor - after all, is it better to spend $150k and lose that employee to someone paying them 50% more, or to spend $175k and have that third-party offer not be attractive to them?
> What I see is that the person's salary is not the biggest part of their total cost to you as an employer
This is exactly why salaries are pretty negotiable.
> If they are qualified for a job at another company that pays $150k
We address this once a week on HN. People don't pay for qualifications, they pay for most recent salary. They'd still stick around for 6 months and then look for their next 10% bump. A "6 months here and there" person isn't magically going to change their perspective on life just because they finally had the opportunity to work for me! People that are willing to stick around typically aren't just using me for their "my last salary was...", and they are much more likely to get salary bumps within (which does actually happen, contrary to popular belief).
> A "6 months here and there" person isn't magically going to change their perspective on life just because they finally had the opportunity to work for me
I've seen those people stick for multiple years when they found the right fit. Of course, they got paid for their time and their employers worked to keep them happy because that right fit understood their value.
I'll be real with you: from every post you've made in the thread, this isn't the employee's problem. This is a you problem. You want to hire people who actively work against their own interests. That's super gross.
>I've seen those people stick for multiple years when they found the right fit.
And I've seen them not. I guess our anecdata cancels out.
> Of course, they got paid for their time and their employers worked to keep them happy because that right fit understood their value.
I pay people for both their time and talent. Why would they ever stick around if I treated them or their career poorly? That's just silly. Your assumption is that people who hop every 6 months have a notable difference in talent. That's a very poor assumption. Again, it's just a shitty personality trait.
> This is a you problem.
Even if it is us, it doesn't negatively affect us.
> You want to hire people who actively work against their own interests.
As I've stated, that's simply not true. I want to hire people that want to work for us, not just treat us as a stepping stone.
> Your assumption is that people who hop every 6 months have a notable difference in talent. That's a very poor assumption. Again, it's just a shitty personality trait.
I'm making no such assumption. What I am saying, however, is that the idea that "I shouldn't pass up on a huge salary bump that will have reverberations through my entire lifetime's earning potential" is a "shitty personality trait" is absolutely mad. This is irrespective of skill or ability in any way, because it boils down to a simple question: why should someone incur damage to their entire life's income potential to stay at a job (unless you're, like, literally curing cancer)?
It's a business transaction between the supplier and the purchaser. Continuing to sell to you when a worker can otherwise maximize their income (and, let's be real, not suffer a bit in terms of peripherals at 90% of companies) is literally and inescapably self-harm.
> I want to hire people that want to work for us
Wanting to work for you is working against a worker's economic interests. Working for you as long as you offer the deal that is most beneficial to them is not. And in the current market, that means moving on when you can move up the ladder. You are a stepping stone, unless you take active measures to the contrary (pay top-of-market, make people want to be there).
If you don't want to be a stepping stone, then be the desired destination. There are companies that figure this out (your Apples, Googles, etc.), and they don't have silly policies like "must have been at a company for two years."
What I see is that the person's salary is not the biggest part of their total cost to you as an employer, particularly in the first year or two when you're amortizing out your acquisition cost. If you're paying them $100k, six months in your total cost is $150k. If they are qualified for a job at another company that pays $150k, perhaps you should have bumped their salary to the $150k that is apparently the market value of their labor - after all, is it better to spend $150k and lose that employee to someone paying them 50% more, or to spend $175k and have that third-party offer not be attractive to them?