[fokov]

It means all of the previous sacrifices the good employees made were for nothing in the eyes of management. Therefore, there is no reason to work hard at all. It is better to go leave for a competitor that knows how to treat their hard working employees.

[GVIrish]

But if you were getting compensated fairly before, why are you no longer getting compensated fairly because other people got a raise? The most rational action would be simply to match your work output to your peers.

I mean if the market rate for the job you were doing is $70k, and all of a sudden fresh college grads are getting paid that at your company, it doesn't mean that you'll now get $100k elsewhere if you leave. If that is the case, you should have already left.

Now if you were already being underpaid and you were staying at the company for some other reason I could see bailing when others got a pay bump regardless of their contribution.

[mistermann]

> If that is the case, you should have already left.

It's interesting how disingenuous conversations can become on HN. Where in one thread everyone will happily acknowledge that lots of developers work extremely long hours at startups for peanuts (in hopes of a possible big future payday) compared to what they could make guaranteed going to work at a larger established company, in another thread the mentality is that everyone is always optimizing for short term earnings.

[jsprogrammer]

You got it right at the beginning. People weren't being paid fairly before.

To the point the person you responded to brought up though:

Those years of sacrifice could have been compensated through equity grants instead.