| > They can be onboarded and trained Over a period of 6 years, until they reach 30% of the knowledge/velocity of the people who wrote the original thing. /s Basically the company: - hires a new engineer on the new market rate so they get up spending extra money - spends extra time and resources to onboard the new engineer to a fraction of the productivity of the engineer that's had tenure Over the years, I used to think that companies are taking the hit on money and productivity in order to not have "irreplaceable" engineers. Better have replaceable cogs in the machine rather than important pillars of your company, right? Workers need to know their place, even if it costs you money and productivity. Nowadays, I just think it's the sheer incompetence and the stubborn insistence of managers in thinking that giving a new engineer the same title as the title of one of your tenured engineers will somehow magically mean they both can do the same things, at the same pace. I used to think that kind of company behavior was calculated malice, now I believe it's simply brutal stupidity. |