When I was young, my father worked for a place where asking for a raise was a fireable offence. The founder had been a pioneer in the modern cattle-not-pets attitude toward servers, except he applied it to developers. When an employee asked for a raise, it meant on of two things:

1. The employee was a vain troublemaker who had over-value what they were worth in the market. Firing them would not only remove an inefficiency from the system (as they were likely not to work as hard if they believed that they were underpaid), but it would also helpfully remind the other developers that they were all expendable.

2. The employee was a 10x developer who was vital to the company processes and could command a much higher salary somewhere else. Even if you gave them a raise today, they could be hit by a bus tomorrow. The best course of action was to simply rip off the band aid. Fire the employee, have security immediately escort them from the building, and begin triage to ensure that the critical systems that they wrote/managed could be handled by the next resume in HR's pile.

The line I will always remember is: Developer are like eggs. They are heavily undervalued, but also will crack under too much pressure. Thankfully, like eggs, you can buy them for cheap in packs of twelve, so it doesn't matter if you break a few.

This is not an ideal way to run most companies however I can see this work under a few conditions.

1) This policy is known and communicated to current and future hires.

2) The company has found a way to pay each person the current market rate and makes efforts to adjust accordingly.

Otherwise why would anyone stay?

Many things about that company were not idea - the founder left his CEO position in handcuffs. However, the policy was not communicated to new and future hires in any manner. So why would anyone stay?

The founder was very public with other companies in the area about both his policy of firing 10x developers and hiring any warm body that could put a resume in his hand. He told stories at local business meetings of the various people he hired who couldn't find a computer and were fired on the same day. So, when you found out what the corporate culture was like after about a month on the job, you had two options.

1. Stay on for a year. This cemented to every hiring manager that you were a 1x developer (because you kept the job), but absolutely not a 10x developer. You might get a junior developer position somewhere else, but never more than that. 2. Immediately quit the job. You now had a one month stint at the firm on your resume. Every hiring manager in town knew that 5% of people with a short stint were good developers and the remaining 95% were people who just finished "COBOL for Dummies". You'd best just leave the gap in your resume if you didn't want your resume in the trash.

That's why I argue that eggs should fight back :-).

Well he's probably right. There should be fixed and immutable company policy for automatic raises and bonuses based on independent quantitative measurements, i.e. inflation, local cost of living, and project metrics. No buts, no exceptions, on both the employer's and employee's side. This is how it works in most government jobs and it makes everything fairer, easier, and more predictable overall.

I happen to work at a government job partially because I saw how my father was treated by the private sector. However, our institution is failing at the requirements that you put forth. The government ministers complained back in 2015 that the independent quantitative measurements weren't accurately capturing employee productivity. As you would expect from Goodhart's law, there certainly were certain employees being underpaid and overpaid, respectively. Thus, the measurements were scraped. However, the bureaucracy has prevented a new set of metrics from being put into place. As a result, I've been working for eight years on what I was told would be a six-month probationary salary because there is literally no mechanism for anyone to receive a raise. Thankfully, recent events are looking like this might change to something sane in a year or two, but the last proposal I saw for someone moving out of the bottom of a salary bracket was: "candidate has won awards from professional bodies in at least three countries across at least two continents".