> The problem is this is the incentive gradient that is an emergent effect. Obviously, if it was generally in organizations' interest to retain people, there would be some kind of incentive sink to keep them there (i.e., everyone would stop finding more competitive compensation at other companies).

It's cultural.

The tech scene has turned into a "gimmegimmegimme" culture. People have been incentivized to live a lifestyle, and hold values, that are commensurate with significant wealth.

My secret is that I've lived like a pauper, my whole life. It has earned me many sneers, but I don't really care. That would not be the case for a lot of people. I'm kinda weird.

In my case, I have found that shallow excess is not actually very satisfying, but no one wants to hear that. I'm told that "I'm just jealous, because I don't have it."

There's also tremendous cynicism; for good reason. Corporations try to sell asceticism, so they don't need to pay their developers (so their corporate officers and shareholders can live large). I know that there are "compensation consultants" that specialize in synthesizing low salary scales, so corporations can feel justified in offering a pittance. There was that collusion thing, in SV, where all the big companies colluded to suppress salaries.

That goes a long way towards earning respect and loyalty. 


Until there is less of a cultural "pull" to excess, there will always be people using money to "keep score."

The recording industry figured this out, long ago. Most of the excess that you see musicians (at least, ones getting started) living, is actually owned by their recording company. If they leave the recording company, they lose the crib and the ride. Sort of a seven-figure "company store."

I think that fostering an atmosphere of simple, basic respect would go a long ways towards retaining talent.

True Respect; not "pretend" respect. Most folks that run companies have very little respect for their employees, and that makes it easy for employees and applicants to justify holding their feet to the fire, compensation-wise. It's really the only leverage that a lot of folks have. They hate me anyway, so why shouldn't I make them pay for it?

I think this is obvious in the ridiculous hazing rituals that masquerade as job interviews. Corporations go to drastic lengths to make it plain that they are the ones in charge of the relationship, and that applicants are, in reality, supplicants.

This results in cynical people that learn to manipulate the hazing process, and extract what they want; with absolutely no respect or loyalty to the people that deliberately humiliated them, on the way in. I can't say that I blame them. No pride of ownership or craftsmanship. No loyalty. No incentive to leave a legacy. Just "smash and grab." I'll be gone in a year, so why bother writing software that's maintainable? It won't be my problem.

It's a very different world, from when I had been doing the interview circuit.

Also, as long as customers (including B2B customers) are happy with dreck, then dreck, they get. Why bother putting in the considerable extra cost for Quality, when the suc- um, customers, will be happy with garbage?