Hacker News Reader

Comment by rumcajz | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the problem the high turnover rate in the industry? Why invest in educating someone if they are going to quit in one year or so?

View on HN

What I've seen (and frankly even what I experienced in my own career) is that really junior people are grateful to the company that gave them their first opportunity and also (to a degree that might even be called naive) invested in what their companies do, and for that reason tend to stay at companies a long time compared to more senior people.

More ops than dev, though still have to do both, but this has been the case with me as well. I have been open to staying at a company longer given they are willing to pay a reasonable salary and have the right type and amount of work. No point in switching every year if you're somewhere decent.

'Why invest in educating someone if they are going to quit in one year or so?'

'What happens if you don't invest in them, and they decide to stay?' - Quote from a management guru, can't remember his/her name

But what if the company's plan is to exit or bust in a few years? There's not much of a future for them either way..

You know you are living interesting times when companies bust on purpose !!!

It's a bit of a chicken or the egg problem. Why stay at a company that doesn't invest in you?

Most developers doing the one year stint thing don't care about anything other than salary. No matter what you do for them they will jump after a year. Seeing that pattern on a resume a big warning sign. These people are simply mercenary and deserve to be treated as such.

Maybe, but how many times do people sign on at positions that either weren't at all what was pitched or else have changed so much as to be completely unrecognizable in a few years after the company changes hands and turns everyone over a few times?

Most companies seem to think that a good years raise is just a cost of living increase. If one side acted better I could see getting all high and mighty about it, but that's not the case. When companies decided to cut all loyalty to employees they shouldn't be surprised when the feeling is reciprocated

This. Loyalty is a two-way street. Seeing a series of one-year terms on a resume means that the candidate is probably mercenary now, but it also means that none of those previous companies invested anything into retention or morale. They could probably be converted back to a company stalwart if only someone would treat them right.

On my resume, the "at-will" terminations outnumber the number of times I jumped ship for a better situation, 5 to 1. This last year's raise was just a cost of living increase, and they crappified the health benefits, so I may have to even those numbers up a bit soon. The only thing stopping me is the horrid, nauseating, bile-raising gauntlet of developer interviews.

The problem is that devs can get much larger salary increases by jumping to a new company rather than staying put. The solution to this problem is to reward them for their performance and increased usefulness, especially in their first few years.

It should just be budgeted in as part of their total cost

Reply on news.ycombinator.com