Why does the company prefer to spend 15K to recruit new employees rather than spend 10K to retain old employees? ! !

Many companies would rather recruit a newcomer at a high price than give an old employee a salary increase. I believe this is a problem that many friends in the IT circle have encountered.

The reason is that some are company issues, some are employee issues, and I have recently compiled some answers from netizens, hoping to give some inspiration to newcomers who are new to the workplace and veterans who have been in the workplace for many years.

An old programmer, aged 35, with a monthly salary of 25k, asked for a salary increase of 5k, that is, a monthly salary of 30k after the increase.

The reason why it is assumed that the monthly salary of the old programmer is 25k is because if he asks for a salary increase of 5k, the original salary level must not be lower. This assumption is already a 20% salary increase.

Why spend 15k to recruit fresh graduates? People don’t come because they don’t give enough, or the quality of what comes is not good. The starting salary of fresh graduates is clear. What school and what price are clear. The boss just wants to recruit students from first-class universities, so he must be able to afford first-class salaries.

Why not raise the salary of internal test programmers? Let's do the math, what is the concept of a 20% increase per person. If the monthly salary of 20k is the average level, the total monthly labor cost of a software company with 500 employees is about 13 million. If the general increase is 20%, the monthly labor cost will increase by 2.6 million, and the annual cost will be 31.2 million. If it were you, would you do this?

In R&D enterprises, labor costs are the largest expenditure, and the control of labor costs is the top priority. Some people say it’s not all raises. The source is from the official account: Advanced Notes for Code Farmers Programming, so who do you think will raise wages? Enterprises must have the current salary adjustment system. In regular companies, every salary adjustment must have a basis for salary adjustment, especially for a certain individual individual salary increase. sense of injustice.

In particular, it is even worse to rely on the method of resignation and salary increase. If you are not careful, you will become the person who is happily sent away by the leader.

Really have to fully realize where your abilities and values ​​lie. When the longer the experience, the higher the salary and reach the critical point, it is very likely that the leader really doesn't want to give you a salary increase. We must also find ways to improve ourselves and find our own value.

Why do some software companies prefer to spend 15k to recruit a new graduate, rather than raise the salary by 5k to retain the company's old programmers?

This kind of thing is a kind of corporate culture of some small workshop-style software companies today, and it does not represent the image of the entire software company. It fully demonstrates that the management level of this software company is the same thing, and it does not have universal significance. Source public number: Coder Programming Advanced Notes

Things in the workplace are very complicated, and there are no rules to follow; the high-level employees have been nurtured by the corporate culture, and they already know the corporate culture and development prospects; Since I have just entered the social workplace, although I partially know some things that should be paid attention to in the workplace, I am always stupid, almost a relatively clean piece of white paper, and can be kidnapped by the morals of the bosses at will.

      In the true sense, a well-informed boss will not take the initiative to drive away old programmers, especially programmers with real talents. In fact, programmers changing jobs are the main way for programmers to increase their salaries quickly; Emotional, although it is immoral for a programmer to ask to be tied up with a software company, after all, after getting along for a while, he still has a little bit of emotion.

Leaving aside the moral factors, as far as the situation of the software company and the programmer is concerned, of course, both of them trust each other. In the end, everyone is based on the fact that the vast majority of people will choose the second path- ..."Selling friends for fame".

In institutional economics, teachers often tell students such a story. Countless people form a small group to live together. The problem... the problem of eating, I have to share a pot of porridge every day, but there are no weighing utensils and containers with scales.

      At the beginning, everyone will be humble to each other. It doesn’t seem to matter if you have more and I have less, but after a long time, everyone will not get along well, so a system needs to be established to solve this problem. We tried many methods:

1. Elect a person with high moral character to divide, but after a long time, I found that no one can "resist corruption and never touch".

2. Everyone takes turns to distribute the porridge, which means that those who share the porridge by default can share more for themselves. Every day, there will be situations where some people support others and others are hungry, resulting in waste of resources.

3. Set up a porridge distribution committee and a supervisory committee, and found that the efficiency is low... Finally, the most concise, efficient and fair system was finally created: each person takes turns to distribute porridge, but the person who distributes porridge must wait for others to finish their porridge before he can take his own that one. If he did not share equally, there could be no doubt that the least share must be his own.

The real economic principle is actually so simple, it is hidden in every story of daily life. No matter how the textbooks explain these stories, we can still understand them in our own way. The first story tells us: As an economic man, everyone will use the information they have to make decisions that are most beneficial to themselves. Although after a game, the final overall effect cannot be optimal, but this is human nature . Under possible conditions, he has the right to pursue the maximization of his own benefits. The second story illustrates the importance of institutions. Since everyone is likely to be selfish, we need a system to ensure that everyone's interests are relatively fair. Economic cooperation cannot be established on the moral restraint mechanism, but should be established on the guarantee of the system.

To protect one's own interests, one is to be more "cunning" than the other party, and the other is to have a fair, reasonable and easy-to-operate system. Anyone's temporary cleverness and stupidity is only a temporary phenomenon. If you want to "long-term stability", you must rely on the so-called "porridge distribution system".

Let us return from theory to reality, and return to our theme of investment and financial management. For many of us, whether we invest in starting a company or work as a high-paying professional, we will face the problem of choosing a partner and cooperating with others. On this issue, we often fall into such misunderstandings:
1. We do not have enough economic rationality. This problem is very obvious in many small enterprises. When small business owners expand their scale and choose partners, they often choose not the person they need most, but the person who needs them most; Best interests of the person, but choose the person you like the most. To put it bluntly, it means that friends and buddies are often brought in. It’s not that friends and buddies can’t cooperate, but that we must exclude personal likes and dislikes, and don’t bring in a large number of people who are very similar to our own personality traits, ways of thinking, and behavior tendencies. Such homogeneous repetition will inevitably make the company lose its vitality. .

Friends and buddies are naturally different from colleagues and partners. What friends care about is equal mentality, common hobbies, and close friendship, while for colleagues and partners, the emphasis is on hierarchical order, multiple complementarities, etc., and it is easy for colleagues to be friends, but it is necessary for friends to be certain. Difficulty: How to establish a hierarchical order on the basis of the original equality? Often things are not done well, and friends have nothing to do.

As long as he can bring great benefits to himself and the company, he is suitable for this job and his way of life. What do hobbies have to do with you?

Furthermore, neglecting the construction of the system and paying too much attention to the binding force of morality. The premise of a market economy is the rational assumption of economic man. We are not denying the power of morality, but this is completely different from economic behavior. In economic behavior, we must first make such an assumption: the other party is selfish, he will use all possible means to pursue the maximization of his own interests, and this is completely reasonable .

You can't hope that you "report" him and he "keeps the lid on it", right? It's also impossible for him to use himself to bargain with the police because he resisted to the death. Acquittal, right? Of course, having a good system and "the system is on the wall" does not mean that everything should be loud and must be implemented resolutely. The indulgence of those who break the system is the punishment for those who abide by the system.

Therefore, as long as you are engaged in economic activities, you must believe in rationality and systems.

You can demand yourself with a high moral standard, but that doesn't mean you can demand the same from others. The economy has its own laws of operation and logic. In the economic field, it is best for you not to take things for granted in your own "moral" way.