My understanding is that at many of these companies you’ll experience the four year cliff. I think the exception is if you get promoted in which case you might get an extra grant or bigger refreshes. In addition, it seems like for most people changing jobs will help them bump their TC and reset the cliff. I’m trying to understand why this is logical. Do you not want people to stay long-term? One hypothesis I have is that most tech companies (Two Sigma included) don’t like firing people or even being critical of them. With this scheme, it seems like what you’re doing is disincentiving people to stay unless they get promoted in that four year period. The big initial grant helps you get them in the door and then the four year cliff helps you get them out.
Yes. If that's not the case in your company, your company isn't growing fast enough
Even with promotions you still fall off the cliff. Got promoted to L5 last cycle, but my comp is slated to drop by 60% next year...
Wtf 60% !?
Probably because he/she is getting paid 60% more than the target
The cliff is usually a result of your initial grant finishing the vesting schedule. Typically your annual refreshers are less than that big new hire grant, but if you’re getting refreshers and are a high contributor, the cliff shouldn’t be as steep and you’ll be on a nice roll vesting stock every 6 months.
Honestly I wouldn't mind staying at companies longer but my experience has always been jumping is the only way to get $. For example worked for UHG for 5 years got promoted 3 times and I got offered $30k (~36% increase) more for a job doing less work but I have friends who stayed and are still only getting 2% raises
No, they DON'T want you to stay. You know why? The interview process and using performance factor to determine your initial grant/salary is not perfect. What it means that they took a risk and brought you in at a higher price but you AREN'T worth that. They reached this conclusion after evaluating your perf for 4 years and not 5-6 interviews. Now they know how much you're worth. But good news is other companies don't know about you yet, so leetcode and job hop.
Why can't other companies determine it's the case from the fact that you are applying to them after 4 years at Google? Shouldn't they understand that if you were a really high performer then you would stay at Google?
Not necessarily... I have been promoted multiple times and got the highest possible rating in the last cycle. Still falling off a cliff. The difference is that Google will counteroffer for top performers.
Having cliffs has a positive expected value for a company if less than n% of people leave after their cliff.
Another sensible argument. Basically people are comfortable where they are at and like stability, so structure their comp on a way that gets them in the door and then automatically lowers afterwards
Stayed at amazon for 6+ years, got promotions and etc, never saw a cliff and actually got paid 3x more due to stock growth
That is because Amazon pays peanuts. At F and G, I've seen new grads with competing offers get like 270k (which is what newly promoted sde3 makes at Amazon) or L5 new hire getting 400k ( principal engineer band at Amazon). Cliff is real at F and G.
Amazon, congrats on your $100k becoming $300k after 6+ years, which is about the same comp we pay new grads
Tech Industry
16h
2332
Go woke, go broke: Google fires 28 employees involved in pro-Hamas protest
Tech Industry
Yesterday
47353
Goog Employees Arrested
Cars
Yesterday
1827
Why are Americans obsessed with SUV?
Layoffs
Yesterday
36311
Google CFO confirms 'large-scale' layoffs (Apr 17)
Software Engineering Career
Yesterday
513
Foreigners who worked on your accent to sound more American, did you notice a career benefit?
If getting promoted just keeps you above the cliff, you're better off getting the new hire grant at the new level elsewhere