Some companies (Linkedin, Amazon, for example) seem to have a huge cliff at 4 years. Seems like this would discourage anyone sticking around for too long. Genuinely, what benefit does this serve? TC 160K, 1 YOE
I thought the incentive in amazon is stocks and you TC will not go down unlike salesforce where it takes a big hit after 4 years
If enough people choose to stay despite their cliff, it's worth it for the company to have a cliff.
If youâre a top performer you will get re upped enough to the point that the cliff isnât as big a deal
My theory is that it's designed so that high performers can be rewarded through strong refreshers while average people might start to work harder or look to leave.
Speculating here. 1) Policies are from earlier days when stock grants and cliffs weren't this big. In general this economic and tech boom is unprecedented. 2) A lot of people stick around because of inertia. The pay is still good enough to maintain QoL and after that it's just numbers on a screen.
This. Inertia is hell of a thing. Most people are comfortable in their jobs and wouldnât want to look elsewhere. This is what corporations feed on
Agreed. I would understand why FAANG engineers do it though. The companies treat you really well. Top notch food, top notch facilities, and WLB.