Why don't tech companies pay their engineers to stay?
To chime in with my own anecdotal opinion that is likely to anger some people... in my experience most developers do their best work after about 6-8 months of starting a job at a new company, and that comes to an end after about 24-36 months of working at the same company. After that the vast majority of people just stagnate, get complacent, the job stops being interesting to them and they move on.<p>After observing this I don&#x27;t really mind hiring people to work for 2-3 years and then have them move on to another role, and most people I hire I do so with the expectation that I&#x27;ll get a good two years of work and not much more.<p>A very small percentage of people continue to improve over the long term, and those people I am happy to continue increasing their pay, but I don&#x27;t really go out of my way to retain employees and I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s particularly worth it to do so.<p>This blog post mentions a kind of impact based compensation structure, and while I can respect the idea behind it, I am skeptical that they&#x27;ve managed to find a deterministic and impartial way of measuring &quot;impact&quot;. I don&#x27;t presume to have such a system so I pay based on what I observe in the market and let the market decide what the value is of software developers. For example, I genuinely don&#x27;t know if software developers have more of an impact than the product designers, or the legal department even though I pay software developers much much more. What I do know is that it&#x27;s much easier for me to hire a competent lawyer or UX designer than it is to hire a competent software developer and there are many more competent lawyers and designers out there... so I pay them less, regardless of whatever objective measure of impact may exist.