[latency-guy2]

> But after a period of time, I got it. Sure it took longer, but I got there.

And then you leave the company. So it's not really at all in the best interest of the company for you to take longer to get up to speed.

Average tenure of a SWE is still low across the entire market, at Meta it's probably even lower given who they hire for.

[prirun]

> And then you leave the company. So it's not really at all in the best interest of the company for you to take longer to get up to speed.

Maybe it would be in their interest to pay more, so you don't leave. If average tenure of a SWE is low, they are probably switching jobs for better pay. In that case, paying them more to stay makes more sense than having to pay to get a cheaper but unproductive new hire up to speed.

[JohnFen]

> Maybe it would be in their interest to pay more, so you don't leave.

I think that would have limited effectiveness. In my experience, people usually don't leave because of pay reasons, and more pay wouldn't get most of them to stay.

They usually leave because they want to learn something new, or work on something different, or there are things about their working conditions or company that makes them very unhappy.

Offering more money would keep some of them around, sure, but not most of them. And those that it keeps around will still have those problems, but they'll no longer be able to address them. That can't be good for them or for the company they work for.

[latency-guy2]

Meta consistently paid the highest out of all FAANG for it's entire lifetime, only beaten by Netflix at specifically senior, but easily overtaken just by stock performance YoY. How much more could you possibly want? Even if you don't limit it, all FAANG pays consistently well, maybe minus Apple who is just on par or slightly ahead of Microsoft, even then, you are paid insanely well.

I don't believe paying more would instill any sense of loyalty in SWEs.