I saw a sheet of salaries for a random subset of employees. Pre-funding engineering hires were universally paid substantially less than post-funding hires. The way we're structured, there isn't an equity upside which would cover the difference. If this was a one-off, you could chalk it up to hiring error, negotiations, Dunning-Kruger with regards to estimate of my own skills, etc. However, even myself excluded, a few of our best engineers are being paid substantially less than people much worse than people hired later on. It was pretty universal.
Often it's simply dependent on when you were hired. Employers have to stay competitive but won't give you a raise if you don't express discontent. When wages trend upward new hires can often end up making more money.
Some employers, anyhow. But I think it requires a certain level of negligence or callousness. You might be able to save a little money on payroll. But I think that ignores the hidden costs in reduced goodwill, lowered trust, and higher turnover.
That's pretty much true, but in the more "responsible" startups an employee who's been around long enough would be compensated with equity (or the equivalent in benefits) to compensate for the difference.
You would be surprised about how few "responsible" startups there are. Most will never be responsible until they're under scrutiny. I've been with a few that actively derided the idea of compensating employees who were underpaid during the initial growth phases. They thought that because they'd agreed to help "build the business" that nothing more was owed in better times.
One of them got a lot of press as a successful startup and landed several new large contracts. Which is why, after a year of executive self-congratulations and bonuses, their lead developer, who had saved several failed projects singlehandedly, left for more realistic pastures. They only brought him up to just below market when he talked about leaving, had no intentions about rewarding him for past underpaid accomplishments (which were obviously investments on his part), and despite their poor compensation packages had an overly strict culture for non-executives. Management compensation was top priority, and retention was assumed - they thought people would just stay despite having better alternatives. Even if he stayed, he'd have to watch other people get screwed. He wasn't the first, and doubtless he won't be the last rat to abandon that ship. I left as well, seeing that they really didn't care about anyone who didn't have ownership and a briefcase.
It's really not that uncommon. Being at the top of a company requires only one of three things: luck, lies ("charisma") or capital. Quite a lot of new business owners get mislead by their own kool-aid. They start believing that their vague "vision" is the most important thing and treat the people who do the real work as replaceable cogs. They give no thought to training costs or productivity and have high turnover rates. Merely treating the staff better could have a huge and positive financial impact. They'd probably know about these management issues if they didn't defensively fire people who voiced dissent. But a fool and his competent staff are soon parted.
I agree with the overall sentiment of your comment. However, I think psychologists would disagree with the idea that charisma -> dishonesty, and I think holding such a viewpoint is damaging to long-term success.
Or more simply, just throw it in the back of a passing pickup truck (like in "Short Circuit", when Number 5 realizes he's being tracked by a beacon in his vehicle. Unfortunately I can't find the clip on youtube.)
The toast that can be eaten in the car is not the true toast. That is at best, previously warmed soggy buttered bread.
I feel a Neil Stephenson level discursive diversion coming on, complete with descriptions of the proper feel of toast on the roof of the mouth as the butter softens, but doesn't eliminate the sharp pointy bits, but it's late, and I should be paying attention to my wife while the kids manage to sleep.
(((Thank gnu that the kids sleep now. 7 years of one of them waking up every. single. night. gets very old. )))
Tell us, oh wise one, how we may enter Breakfast Nirvana with you. Teach us, oh enlightened Breakfast Master, how to enter into the Kingdom of Breakfast Heaven.
I eat two pieces of toast in the morning for breakfast because I want to eat two pieces of toast in the morning for breakfast. Just like I haven't eaten red meat in 26 years because I don't like red meat. I am not starving myself, I am not sacrificing my tastes, I am eating exactly what I want to eat.
Should I list other things I enjoy doing that happen to be healthful that you can disparage?
