[Consultant32452]

Investing in workers is hard. I'm in a mentoring/leadership position. I approach this in two ways. One is the general mentoring everyone gets during regular stuff like code reviews. The other way is sometimes I see someone who I think has real promise and kind of take them under my wing, give them lots of 1on1 attention, etc. They improve exponentially and then leave. One guy I mentored had been with the company for over 10 years. No one had ever "invested" in him. He had a great attitude and work ethic, but terrible skills. I taught him how to program. He left the company and doubled his salary. That was a year and a half ago. This week he called me to thank me because he was changing jobs again and doubling his salary again.

So my current employer went from a low skill high dedication worker to no worker because I invested in him. I'm going to continue help/mentoring people because I find it fulfilling, but if I'm honest it's bad for my employer. They currently pay good salaries in line with the market. There's no way they can justify giving a person who's been with the company for 10 years 4x salary growth in 2 years. How could they even reasonably measure the market value of his skills changing so much so quickly?

[jimbokun]

> They currently pay good salaries in line with the market.

> There's no way they can justify giving a person who's been with the company for 10 years 4x salary growth in 2 years.

One of these must be false. According to "the market", this employee is now worth 4x previous salary, so then how can your company be paying "in line with the market?"

[Consultant32452]

Ok, so it's more like the business is in the market for a $80k/yr developer, and not a $300k+ developer. The words changed but the result is the same. The work they're doing, it honestly doesn't make sense to pay anyone that much.

[blub]

This is what many are missing: for some jobs the company can only get so much value, no matter how great the developer.

[indigochill]

Maybe it's not so bad for the employer in the long term if it leads them to realize "Hey, we need to do better about assessing the value of our employees."

I'm curious what the data point is that leads you to think your company's paying a good salary if the hard-working, motivated, skilled people can easily find work that pays quadruple, because that sounds like the market is saying otherwise (unless the missing variable is location, like moving from Nebraska to Silicon Valley or something).

[yowlingcat]

It's not bad for your employer. It's the truth. Your employer is bad for your employer if they let someone remain at the company for 10 years, paying salary without investing in said employee nor treating them like an investment.

[stcredzero]

How could they even reasonably measure the market value of his skills changing so much so quickly?

Let the market do it. When someone comes with an offer, give a counteroffer and convince them to stay.

There's no way they can justify giving a person who's been with the company for 10 years 4x salary growth in 2 years.

Why not? Markets are better at pricing things than bureaucracies.

[jvagner]

But this isn't usually the norm.

If this dev's trajectory is true, it's also something worth discussing with your management. There might be candidates for this kind of trajectory in your current dev pool, and any feelings contrariwise are to the detriment of your company.

Too often there's an emotional component to how employees are viewed. The employee today will be the same employee forever, if seen through the lens of a limited manager.

I'll say this: if you can do this 2-3 times, you should find your way to an org that can support and appreciate the lift you're able to provide. You shouldn't be holding yourself down to the poor standard of your current employer.

[Consultant32452]

Honest question: are there places where you can be a mid-level developer making $80k/yr and over the course of two years get raises and promotions lifting you up to $300k+? I've never heard of such a thing happening. In my experience, industry-wide, the only way to make that kind of raise is to leave.

[hysan]

In my brother’s company, they don’t pay anyone that much (yet), but what they’ve done to keep most of their juniors is to bump their compensation quite a bit when it’s clear that they have high potential and are realizing it. So raises end up being on the order of $10k+ a year in some cases. Combined with increased benefits (time off, etc) the longer you stay with the company, and they’ve found a formula that keeps their employees from jumping.

If you think about it from the perspective of the employee, you are working for an employer who is giving you sizable raises, continual career growth, long term benefits, and a team you enjoy working with. You can perhaps maximize your pay by going through the whole interview cycle and ending up with $10-20k bump, but is that worth it? There is no certainty that the next employer gives such large raises or invests in employees.

As for your case - $80k to $300k jump - that is exceptional. It is not going to be the norm. Not if continual investment happens. Based on your example (10 yrs experience), if they kept investing in that employee, they would have surpassed $100k long ago. If they hit the salary ceiling after 4-5 years, then conversations would shift. Maybe more days working from home, etc.

In my opinion, if you see such jumps happening regularly, then it is 100% on the employer for creating an environment that breeds large wage-skill gaps.

[Paul-ish]

> There's no way they can justify giving a person who's been with the company for 10 years 4x salary growth in 2 years. How could they even reasonably measure the market value of his skills changing so much so quickly?

If he was doing the same job I could see why he would get the same pay. If he had taken on greater responsibilities or become more productive though, why not?