ah, see, so your job description includes, besides being a dev, also being a project manager. that's fine, there's nothing bad about it, it's just that your job requires a bit more from you than other places.
I just had a very valuable teammate quit this week from lack of salary progression. New-ish grads are making more than him for much lesser jobs. The business refused to do even a token salary increase because of the ‘economic climate’
Now a critical project won’t happen on time, which will cost the company many magnitudes more in revenue than it would have cost them with a token increase.
I've seen this before so many times, and recommend people quit and sometimes even apply back at their same company.
I got my friend a 30% raise after he quit, worked at a new place for two months, it blocked implementation of key projects and the CEO started freaking out.
I asked him how much he would pay to fix the problem, and he gave me a number.
I said if we paid that as the new salary to my friend we could have him working there in a week.
This is easily fixed by giving management attrition targets. Some companies (Amazon) say "you need to let go of ~6% of your headcount every year."
Others will flip this and say: "you need to retain 94% of your headcount every year."
The effect on salaries is more or less the same. If you know you need to keep employees, you give salary increases to the one's most at risk of leaving. If you know you need to let go of employees, you don't provide salary increases to the one's you want to get rid of.
Many companies don't have an attrition target at all, though.
But a rank stack is cause for insurance because somebody is being let go. Needing to keep at least 94% of headcount, with no penalty to management for being above (and possibly a bonus for staying above the minimum) sounds like the opposite.
Are you all extremely underpaid or something? Or how are new grads getting so much in a down market? I'm decently experienced saw lots of relatively low paying jobs in general
Only a very small proportion of developers make enough that they can be making what must have been north of $200k and still have another $200k difference in comp vs a peer. Low side of single-digit percentage. And I’m talking the US only, not globally.
The company puts A LOT of effort into its program for hiring new grads. But is horribly inept when it comes to providing a career path for individual contributors.
So unless you manage to get a promotion to a senior IC position (like me), your compensation stagnates.
Low to mid experience and trying to land FAANG-alike or finance jobs, I think. The “merely” 1.5-3x median household income comp range sure seems to have remained healthy, even for newbies.
I’ve seen similar problems. Not wanting to give a raise to a critical person, and then having to replace them with 3 people. Not wanting to pay 10% more and ending up paying 300% more…
In my experience, this kind of thing might not even register with most companies
There's a meta-game that most sociopaths/narcs are playing like their lives depend on it to get their supply and climb the internal ladder, that's taking up so much energy/time/resources of the company, falling upwards
That there's nothing left to care about this sort of thing
What do you mean “cost them money” I legitimately can’t think of situation where releasing a product behind deadline would cost a business money? Obviously they just allocated resources more efficiently because they have fewer people. Likely they made more money because of increased demand.
Different businesses have different meanings to deadlines and timelines.
If it's v6.8 of your internal software product, no, the deadline doesn't usually matter that much. Maybe you are a bit behind your competition, but the only problem with just being at the 6.7 feature set a little longer is a small percentage of customers not sticking around. Your manager probably overpromised and underestimated, but aside from a bit of abuse and panic, you're right, it doesn't really matter.
But if you're one of 120 companies building parts for the 2025 F150 and your part isn't ready and the other 119 companies are ready, whether it's your supplier or you or your customer who is behind, you'd better believe that they've got you over a barrel in the contract. Like, the contract has a line that reads "for every minute of downtime after [date] you owe $25k". Your PM hopefully underpromised with an aim to overdeliver, but missed really bad. And all the checks and balances failed. If you've got adequate financials you can survive a miss once in a great while, but two or three in a row and even big shops will go under.
It's often important to understand the consequences of missed deadlines that your coworkers, vendors, or especially customers are accustomed to, people have wildly disparate experiences in this area.
I have a product that can bring in $10,000 in profit each week. If I launch it four weeks late, I just lost $40,000.
Or I have a product that relies on certain hardware. I've already bought/leased that hardware, so I'm now paying depreciation/lease payments for that hardware. Every week I delay the launch I'm losing money on those payments because the hardware is sitting unused.
It is fairly obvious. If it is expected that a product or set of features will drive X revenue per month, and you are late by Y months, then a decision that directly contributes to that delay just cost the company money.
In addition to everything mentioned here, projects based on holiday dates (Christmas sale feature, Thanksgiving promotions etc) not rolling out on time means that the feature can go out only in the next year.
Some contracts specify liquidated damages if deadlines are not met. The contracts I’ve been a party to have daily cash penalties that will quickly erode any margin away.
(former Amazon employee here - left before the RTO pressure ramped up but still have friends/colleagues there)
A lot of the issue is that middle management and senior management are not on the same page here, in a rare example of middle management's interests being more aligned with rank-and-file workers. A lot of middle managers at Amazon (think L6 through L8) aren't any happier with RTO than the lower ICEs are, and so they're really slow-walking the process: giving false status reports of progress and granting lots of exceptions. (I know one L7 at Amazon who gathered all his directs' badges and beeps them into the office every morning to make it look like people are there). Senior leadership at Amazon is really grumpy about this and trying to find leverage wherever they can to get everyone back even when middle management is lying to them.
> And the only reason they didn't land people on the moon first too is because their country was falling apart and they reduced investment in their space program.
This is most definitely not the case in the late 60s. The Soviets very much wanted to land on the moon up until the Apollo landing.
What a lazy response. At least you got the no evidence part right.
For about a year governments around the world were willing to do _anything_ to get past Covid ASAP. To ignore that and chalk this up to a lazy conspiracy theory has less than zero merit.
