I know blind complains about pay a lot, but isn’t it more financially sound for a company to retain employees? Assuming $150k salary, if someone leaves they: 1. Leave with all institutional knowledge. Probably at least 1 year of knowledge. 2. Takes 3 months to hire replacement 3. Takes 3 months to onboard Overall it’s about 6 to 12 months of lost productivity at least, which equates to at least $75k to $150k per year. Compare this to 3% years raises, companies should be more incentivized to keep employees. But right now, we’re incentivized to job hop.
Adam is that you, the inventor of the first wheel?
Yes it is. I’ve re-incarnated from the past to invent comp structures. You’re welcome.
I think the amount of people that aren't min/maxing their career makes it more profitable for companies to underpay current employees and deal with the cost of constantly losing people and hiring new people. If min/maxing culture grows, companies may be forced to switch their strategy at some point. If I had to guess, I'd say career min/maxing culture is growing rapidly right now, especially during this period of the great resignation / migration. Curious if others agree/disagree about the trend.
This is a good point. I guess that’s the role blind can play, helping promote a min/maxing culture until they change approach.
This is it. Most people are deathly afraid of leaving their work, especially as they become more tenured, comfortable, and relied on.
Incentivizing 100 members every year is expensive than hiring 10 members. And even if companies gives good incentives they can only control half of the ppl leaving. Very less percentage leaves for salary, actual triggers will be different. Most of the times it’s leadership which cannot be changed.
Is that still what they're saying? People don't leave for salary, they leave because they don't like people?