[SR2Z]

> There’s a limit to how many large raises you can give if you intend to give x% for the rest of time.

The tl;dr for this is that if the company makes getting paid a market rate and promoted internally more difficult than just interviewing, they should expect people to just leave.

I'm really not sure how the economics of this work out. Obviously Google has a much easier time swapping engineers in and out (it's responsible for basically everything that people hate about the company both internally and externally) but there are still specific teams where engineers leaving represents significant knowledge loss.

Hell, companies that DON'T follow the same engineering practices that let Google hotswap engineers still do this and there's no way it doesn't have significant hidden costs for them.

[Aeolun]

Yeah, I didn’t mean to say it’s actually impossible, but if you are at 200k+ and more likely towards 300k/year given the information, you are already at the top of the market for most positions (that I’m aware of).

If you still expect 200k raises in such a position you are likely in for a bad time (nothing is guaranteed though, you might get lucky).

[SR2Z]

> are already at the top of the market for most positions (that I’m aware of).

This is not even remotely close to true for high-paying SWE jobs in the Bay, and the part of me that grew up in the middle of nowhere still has a hard time believing it.

Staff engineers make between $500k to $1M a year. My first year at Google I was sat in a row of absurdly high-level engineers, many of whom made even more.

[Aeolun]

> My first year at Google

At Google is already not the norm is it?