> Bringing junior developers up to speed just for them to jump ship within three years or less doesn’t benefit anyone at the corporate level.
What? Of course it does. If that's happening everywhere, that means other companies' juniors are also jumping ship to come work for you while yours jump ship to work elsewhere. The only companies that don't see a benefit from mentoring new talent are those with substandard compensation.
> That’s true, but why should I take on the work of being at the beginning of the pipeline instead of hiring a mid level developer.
Nominally, for the same reason that you pay taxes for upkeep on the roads and power lines. Because everyone capable needs to contribute to the infrastructure or it will degrade and eventually fail.
> My incentives are to meet my quarterly goals and show “impact”.
To me, that speaks of mismanagement - a poorly run company that is a leech on the economy and workforce. In contrast, as a senior level engineer at a large technology company that has remarkably low turnover, one of my core duties is to help enhance the capabilities of other coworkers and that includes mentorship. This is because our leadership understands that it adds workforce retention value.
> To a first approximation, no company pays internal employees at market rates in an increasing comp environment after a couple of years especially during the first few years of an employee’s career where their marker rate rapidly increases once they get real world experience.
That's why I mentioned it being a cross-industry symbiotic relationship. Your company may not retain the juniors that you help train, but the mid level engineers you hire are the juniors that someone else helped train. If you risk not mentoring juniors, you encourage other companies to do the same and reduce the pool of qualified mid level engineers available to you in the future.
> On the other hand, the startup I worked for pre-AWS with 60 people couldn’t, wouldn’t and shouldn’t have paid me the amount I made when I got hired at AWS.
While unrelated to my point, I do have a different experience that you may find interesting in that the most exorbitant salary I have ever been paid was as a contractor for a 12-person startup, not at the organizations with development teams in the hundreds or thousands.
> Nominally, for the same reason that you pay taxes for upkeep on the roads and power lines. Because everyone capable needs to contribute to the infrastructure or it will degrade and eventually fail.
On the government level, I agree. I’m far from a “taxation is theft” Libertarian.
But I also have an addiction to food and shelter. The only entity capable of that kind of collective action that is good for society is the government. My (and I’m generalizing myself as any rationale actor) goal is to do what is necessary to exchange labor for money by aligning my actions with the corporations incentives to continue to put money in my bank account and (formerly) vested RSUs in my brokerage account.
> To me, that speaks of mismanagement - a poorly run company that is a leech on the economy and workforce. In contrast, as a senior level engineer at a large technology company that has remarkably low turnover, one of my core duties is to help enhance the capabilities of other coworkers and that includes mentorship
The only large tech company I’ve worked for has a leadership principal “Hire and Develop the Best”. But for an IC, it’s mostly bullshit. That doesn’t show up on your promo doc when it’s time to show “impact” or how it relates to the team’s “OKR’s”.
From talking to people at Google, it’s the same. But of course Amazon can afford to have dead weight. When I have one shot at a new hire that is going to help me finish my quarterly goals as a team lead, I’m not going to hire a junior and put more work on myself.
I’m an IC, but in the org chart, I’m at the same level as a front line manager.
> While unrelated to my point, I do have a different experience that you may find interesting in that the most exorbitant salary I have ever been paid was as a contractor for a 12-person startup, not at the organizations with development teams in the hundreds or thousands.
As a billable consultant at AWS (and now outside of AWS) because of scale, I brought a lot more money into AWS than anything I could have done at the startup.
That’s why I said the startup “shouldn’t” have paid me the same close to 1 million over four years that AWS offered me in cash and RSUs. It would have been irresponsible and detrimental to the company. I couldn’t bring that much value to the startup.
That’s true, but why should I take on the work of being at the beginning of the pipeline instead of hiring a mid level developer. My incentives are to meet my quarterly goals and show “impact”.
To a first approximation, no company pays internal employees at market rates in an increasing comp environment after a couple of years especially during the first few years of an employee’s career where their marker rate rapidly increases once they get real world experience.
On the other hand, the startup I worked for pre-AWS with 60 people couldn’t, wouldn’t and shouldn’t have paid me the amount I made when I got hired at AWS.