If the average salary of new recruits is about 30,000, then the company is more willing to hire new people than raise salaries, perhaps because engineers are easy to replace
I don't think your conclusion should be quite that lop-sided. If you're talking about FAANG-like companies then they direct their engineers to create infrastructure which makes any one engineer not indispensable. Whereas infrastructure at many big finance firms is laughably bad (worked in one for 13 years and heard horror stories at others) so any key personnel leaving can cause disruptions. And of course such firms have star traders/salespeople so retaining personnel is not all about tech either.
As for non-FAANG-like tech companies, though you'd think they ought to build solid tech infrastructure too, I think it's simply that they don't have the scale to make the revenue/compensation math work like the FAANG-like companies do.
If the average salary of new recruits is about 30,000, then the company is more willing to hire new people than raise salaries, perhaps because engineers are easy to replace
I don't think your conclusion should be quite that lop-sided. If you're talking about FAANG-like companies then they direct their engineers to create infrastructure which makes any one engineer not indispensable. Whereas infrastructure at many big finance firms is laughably bad (worked in one for 13 years and heard horror stories at others) so any key personnel leaving can cause disruptions. And of course such firms have star traders/salespeople so retaining personnel is not all about tech either.
As for non-FAANG-like tech companies, though you'd think they ought to build solid tech infrastructure too, I think it's simply that they don't have the scale to make the revenue/compensation math work like the FAANG-like companies do.