21–30 of 560 posts
I would never have increased my from $68k to $115k in 5 years.I probably would've been somewhere at like $80k right now at best if I was didn't switch jobs twice.
If it means some hiring manager is going say some snarky opinion, then yes I'll take my extra money.
It'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.
In my experience, good candidates ramp up very quickly (<1 month) and having them on board for 2 years is plenty of time.
This 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.
> I'm surprised Forbes would publish it Unfortunately much of Forbes has become nothing but a fancy blog, very much akin to Business Insider. With the amount of "contributors" posting to the site nowadays the Forbes name in the URL isn't exactly a positive indicator, if not a warning sign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Fully trained employees are worth more to the company. They just don't want to pay for extra value unless they have to. To get new recruits, they have to. Most employees don't want to change jobs if they can help it and employers use that "static friction" to pay them less than market.
It'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.
With how thin the job market is, any time I interview a good candidate the situation is that they have competing offers and the hiring team/our whole company is the one applying to have the candidate. In my experience, good candidates ramp up very quickly (<1 month) and having them on board for 2 years is plenty of time.
Making bigger changes takes longer; taking leadership on a new top-level feature without breaking other parts of the app or distorting the architecture isn't going to happen in a few months for a codebase of any real size. The question is: is a developer who ramps up quickly going to be able to do that eventually?
It'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.
Seems perfectly plausible to me that the more confident candidates are more likely to be poached by other companies, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google
> Apple, Amazon I was under the impression that Apple and Amazon tended to fall lower on the compensation scales.