Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 560 posts

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#61

Post by sesteel »

mikekchar wrote: post #55
needlessly wrote: post #21

I don't get people who say, "Well I would never hire someone who has never worked more than 5 years at a single place!!!" 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.

On the other hand, look at it from a hiring manager's perspective: people who have stayed in a job long enough to see how things go wrong are also less expensive. I'll be honest, if I'm looking at a CV for someone with 10 years of experience and they have changed jobs every year or two, I will suspect that they are missing some pretty important experience as a senior developer. Everybody makes serious mistakes that d…

It isn't one or the other, there is value in both staying for a longer period of time and moving more frequently. When moving more frequently, you can be exposed to a wider variety of problems and have a more complete picture of the profession and the various pitfalls. Plus, you may have the opportunity to learn from and correct the mistakes of others.

It can accelerate your growth and pay substantially if you are doing it for the right reasons. I would never fault anybody for doing so without discovering why they moved.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#62

Post by sverhagen »

needlessly wrote: post #21

I don't get people who say, "Well I would never hire someone who has never worked more than 5 years at a single place!!!" 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.

They didn't say: "never hire ... who has ever worked less than 5 years at a single place". If you're looking for a mature leader, who you can trust to own, carry a team or a product line, for a number of years, after ramping up in the domain of a complex company and product, maybe you want someone who has proven and can speak to having done this before. (If I want a smart kid who has a wealth of technologies in their toolbox, I may care less about lengthy tenures.)

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#63

Post by jpatokal »

vacri wrote: post #57
cakedoggie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the hostility? Are people not allowed to talk about events happening now? I mean, do you make a similar comment on all the articles you read? "Oh thanks a lot ENCODE for telling us that 80 percent of the genome had a biochemical function. I didn't know we were going to repeat stuff that everybody new in 2012."??

The hostility is because it's ridiculously obvious that moving from a minimum-wage job to a run-of-the-mill professional job is going to net you an incredible percentage increase in salary, especially in the US where the minimum wage is a joke. And where is the 'events happening now' in what I said? Job-hopping? Not exactly a new thing. > I mean, do you make a similar comment on all the articles you read? So... I can…

The person was working as a marketing manager in her first job, so it was a "a run-of-the-mill professional job" from day one, and she's still in marketing, only with 5x more salary.

Then again, her first job was at YMCA, and non-profits tend to have low salaries.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#64

Post by sverhagen »

johan_larson wrote: post #4

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.

The article carefully keeps repeating the two years... I feel this is often perceived as a bit of a magic number, after which it's okay to switch without getting yourself a bad name. One year... raising eyebrows. (I'm sure, like some other suggested, that perception may differ between industries...)

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#65

Post by jurassic »

Maybe I'm more conservative than others here, but anything less than 2 years tenure at a company seems suspicious to me. The people I've known who bounced after ~18 months or less were often the ones I would've wanted to quit anyway, who weren't cutting the mustard and weren't on track for promotion. For them, talking a big game at interview time every two years probably is income-maximizing because the longer they stick in the same job without promotions the more obvious their stagnancy is on the resume.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#66

Post by sverhagen »

Sad, I am. I think I'm perfectly capable to sell myself to the next job. But I like what I'm doing, I like the goals that are still ahead and being worked towards, great team, all good. And whether you read the article with a bit (or a lot) of skepticism, it seems common knowledge that the biggest steps in salary are made when going to that next job. So... where's the silver lining for loyal dogs? Should I just pick up a book on negotiating, and take it up with my VP of People?

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#67

Post by vpribish »

josephjrobison wrote: post #51
usmannk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Was Forbes ever a respectable publication though? I ask with all sincerity. It seems their volume is super high and that's about it, so they get name recognition from repetition, not sure what else from.

yeah, it used to be. It's literally 100 years old. As recently as in the 80's/90's it was a medium weight business magazine. Some time in the last 5 or so years it hollowed out and is just a republishing platform. They have a lot of algorithmically-generated articles on the stock market - this made me start blocking them. They are worthless trash now.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#68

Post by coliveira »

josephjrobison wrote: post #51
usmannk wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Was Forbes ever a respectable publication though? I ask with all sincerity. It seems their volume is super high and that's about it, so they get name recognition from repetition, not sure what else from.

Opinions vary, but I never though of Forbes as respectable. They are in the "business porn" industry, i.e., uncritically presenting the latest and greatest business moves so the masses will dream about what the rich are doing.

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#69

Post by [deleted] »

sidlls wrote: post #34

There is a plateau as one reaches senior positions. As I went from "no" experience to my current position my job switches (every ~2 years) always were for 10%-25% (in one case, 100%, but that was Midwest to Bay Area so other factors are at play). I never got more than 5% merit increases otherwise. Most of my friends who have been at the same place for >10 years in engineering (not software) are just now reaching pari…

[deleted]

Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

#70

Post by meric »

sesteel wrote: post #61
mikekchar wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, look at it from a hiring manager's perspective: people who have stayed in a job long enough to see how things go wrong are also less expensive. I'll be honest, if I'm looking at a CV for someone with 10 years of experience and they have changed jobs every year or two, I will suspect that they are missing some pretty important experience as a senior developer. Everybody makes serious mistakes that d…

It isn't one or the other, there is value in both staying for a longer period of time and moving more frequently. When moving more frequently, you can be exposed to a wider variety of problems and have a more complete picture of the profession and the various pitfalls. Plus, you may have the opportunity to learn from and correct the mistakes of others. It can accelerate your growth and pay substantially if you are do…

I think it's good to have a bit of variety - one or two roles where you stayed 3, 4, 5 years, then a bunch of companies only 1-2 years each. You'd have some depth of experience as well as breadth.
Post reply on HN