Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
1–10 of 560 posts
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#2From 2014, but still relevant. Unfortunately, the best negotiating tactic is to bring a competing offer and essentially threaten to quit. Or just switch firms every ~18 months like the post suggests.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#3From 2014, but still relevant. Unfortunately, the best negotiating tactic is to bring a competing offer and essentially threaten to quit. Or just switch firms every ~18 months like the post suggests.
For software I feel like you will start to max out from switching alone once you reach sr software engineer from FAAMG. Past that you have to make real changes such as improving your skills to become something worthy of staff or become some sort of manager.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#4It's a bit strange that this sort of job-hopping isn't a red flag to employers. You'd think managers would be reluctant to hire an employee who has jumped ship many times before, just as they were becoming useful.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#5It's a bit strange that this sort of job-hopping isn't a red flag to employers. You'd think managers would be reluctant to hire an employee who has jumped ship many times before, just as they were becoming useful.
I think it's a bit strange that employers don't consider a fully trained employee to be worth more than a fresh recruit, and compensate them accordingly.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#6It's a bit strange that this sort of job-hopping isn't a red flag to employers. You'd think managers would be reluctant to hire an employee who has jumped ship many times before, just as they were becoming useful.
It's more of a red flag in some industries than others. In the tech field it is quite common, though it's still viewed as a minor red flag, in my experience.
Much more important are skills, experience, and team fit.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#7I'm reluctant to apply this mindset to the tech, or at least SV tech, industry. While it's common practice to hop jobs every 2-5 years, it seems to be more for new or different opportunities (Different sized company, a new domain, new technical challenges, etc.) than it is for a more competitive offer. Internal promotion, both in compensation and position, seems to be the relative norm.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#8It's a bit strange that this sort of job-hopping isn't a red flag to employers. You'd think managers would be reluctant to hire an employee who has jumped ship many times before, just as they were becoming useful.
> just as they were becoming useful.
If it takes that long for a employee to become useful then the company has much bigger issues and the need to compensate for whatever it is that makes those 2 years of experience so vital.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#9There's this management mythology that:
- Worker bees will stay because they're clueless and don't have the initiative to keep moving.
- Pressure from on high to fudge performance reviews downwards to "save the company money." (At where my mom worked, a middle manager blanket reduced all subordinate reviews down because BS: "people are overly generous.")
If you want least turnover / most morale / most productivity, pick people whom can grow the most and grow them until they no longer can keep up or find something else. Develop people (training, mentoring, promotions, bonuses, raises, perks, etc.), don't just consume them as static widgets to fill a hole.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#10This is a really poor article, and I'm surprised Forbes would publish it. As far as I can tell, there's absolutely no data behind any of the assertions in the article, and the title is just conjecture by the author based on a whole lot of assumptions.