Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by beambot 1357 days ago
A little dated [2018], but still rings true: The average tenure for engineers at many major tech companies is ~3 years. Thus, you'd expect new hires at a rate of 30% annually just to maintain staffing levels. To determine headcount growth you, should look at year-over-year changes in total employee count, not just the number of new hires. TLDR: Meta's new-hire rate is not atypical.

https://www.businessinsider.com/average-employee-tenure-rete...

4 comments

3 years is deceptive - in an exponentially growing company, the majority of employees are fresh, pushing the average tenure low. The relevant number is "length of tenure at time of severance", which I believe skews much higher. Any company seeing 30% churn is having a bad, bad time.
“Length of tenure at time of severance”

That is such a better metric, why is this not used more often

It has its own almost-opposite problem in only counting employees who did leave.
Then you get into the field of survival analysis, where you get methods that can handle this problem (called right censoring IIRC).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimat...

Exactly. If half your workforce is happy and has been there 20 years, that’s entirely non reflected in such a figure. There must be a better metric.
Well you can also just count current employees' tenure. That fixes the problem and is qualitatively consistent IMO.
That’s how you get 3 years because everyone is new.
You're right - my mistake.
I thinkit is impossible to get this number
What do you mean? Every employer I've worked for had data for the starting date of their employees, when someone leaves you have an end date of employment. It's a pretty simple metric to calculate.
I think by "this number" they mean "a better metric", maybe?
In fact, the overall head count has been rising rapidly.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-faceboo...

Based on my limited observations having been in a similar situation for a year, I would guess the average tenure is Equity Award Years less percentage of people who get fired in less than the value of Equity Award Years.

It’s a good way to keep reinventing wheels.

And this 3 years is kept up artificially - companes like Meta or, as a colleague of mine who works there now, Github / Microsoft, offer stock packages that they can only use after four years. It's a pair of golden handcuffs; they would move on a lot faster I'm sure if it wasn't for that + the wages offered.

Having Microsoft or Google or Meta on your CV is a very valuable thing to have, regardless of what you actually did there, because they're still perceived as having high standards.