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

101–110 of 560 posts

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

#101

Post by gaius »

methodover wrote: post #38
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…

> Anything longer, especially if there is a lot of long-term stasis on a resume (e.g. "tech lead on product X" for more than a year or two), is an indication to me of someone who either isn't capable of stretching himself or doesn't want to. That's insane. Someone who is the technical leader of a project for more than two years doesn't "stretch himself"? I see no reason to believe that's true. If anything, it takes y…

That's insane.

It is insane, but this is how this market operates. Do you feel strongly enough to not play along, at considerable cost to yourself? I'd love to stay and grow somewhere for 10+ years - haven't managed it yet...

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

#102

Post by gaius »

nikanj wrote: post #84
methodover wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything longer, especially if there is a lot of long-term stasis on a resume (e.g. "tech lead on product X" for more than a year or two), is an indication to me of someone who either isn't capable of stretching himself or doesn't want to. That's insane. Someone who is the technical leader of a project for more than two years doesn't "stretch himself"? I see no reason to believe that's true. If anything, it takes y…

According to the modern thinking, in two years you're supposed to switch stacks twice, and rewrite the whole thing five times. With that much churn, there's no value in seniority.

The recent expansion of the industry mean that people with little or no experience massively out-vote those with lots.

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

#103

Post by deepGem »

willvarfar wrote: post #100
nilkn wrote: post #80

I think it's important to understand that there's a significant amount of selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies. The ones who are getting offered big raises may still choose to leave due to other reasons, but they often will choose to stay instead. And they won't be making a big fuss about it onli…

> selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies. The article is saying that those who stay don't get offered big raises. The article says that if you stay you get 3% or less. There's even a pretty chart to make this point. Employees aren't paid what they are worth, they are paid as little as the company c…

This is true even when a company is hiring someone. They will try to hire you at the lowest possible tier. Of course there are exceptions to this.

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

#104

Post by Bahamut »

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…

Job 2: 47% raise from base (10 months in Job 1)

Job 3: 30% raise from base (9 months in Job 2 - relocated to Bay Area)

Job 4: 32% raise from base (3 months in Job 3)

Job 5: 10% raise from base (10 months in Job 4)

Job 6: 0% raise from base, 25% raise from base in RSUs/bonuses (22 months in Job 5)

This is spanning 4 1/2 years, and even turning down up to as high as $400k in total comp between job 4 and 5, which would have been a little less than 200% raise over job 4. Some of my friends have even better results from job switching.

I currently make a little more than $200k in total comp (including RSUs). I could easily switch to get even more (I've seen as high as $250k base salary), but I am pretty satisfied with comp in the industry for myself, and don't really hurt for money. I like what I do, and I am happy with how things are going.

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

#106

Post by animex »

Ha, this is funny. I rarely ever stay longer than 2 years at a company and every time I jumped, my salary went up significantly i.e. >10%+ HOWEVER, I've seen guys who have stayed with a company earning less for years, ending up as the VP/Presdient of the company eventually and their pay going way up.

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

#107

Post by elnygren »

Best way to increase salary at current workplace? Get offers from other companies & ask for a meeting with your boss (or whoever decides your pay, so HR etc.).

Bring up the offers, discuss what you'd get from there and also go through the potential career you could build at those companies. For example: Consultancy X would pay me $k/mo and every 6months it will go up the ladder if I perform well.

With this kind of discussion you should be able to get a raise that brings your pay even above the competing offers.

Treat your current as one of the options you can make that day; make your employer fight for you every 6-12 months. And remember it's not personal, it's just business. Your employer would let you go and throw you under the bus if it made business sense.

tldr; don't get too emotionally attached to job; that's when they get you.

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

#108

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

nilkn wrote: post #80

I think it's important to understand that there's a significant amount of selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies. The ones who are getting offered big raises may still choose to leave due to other reasons, but they often will choose to stay instead. And they won't be making a big fuss about it onli…

> Finally, in general people who are average but think they're above average really do not like to confront the fact that they're average.

I don't think this is necessarily a consequence of overinflated egos. I consider myself an average to slightly above-average developer, yet my salary is consistently higher than my peers. It's higher because I'm willing to negotiate on my compensation. I don't concern myself with what I'm worth or what business value I produce. I simply try to maximize my pay

This quote from Mr Robot sums things up brilliantly: "Power/wealth belongs to the people that take it. Nothing to do with their hard work, strong ambitions, or rightful qualifications, no. The actual will to take is often the only thing that's necessary."

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

#109

Post by jondubois »

Yes that never made sense to me. Employees who have been around for a couple of years are much more efficient and know their way around - They are worth more, and yet they always get paid much less than 3-month or 6-month contractors or even new full-time employees in many cases.

Also if they say that they want to leave a company, usually employers let them go relatively easily without making any significant counter-offer. It means that employers don't even see the value there; they actually think that every employee is 100% replaceable and don't account for the massive efficiency loss incurred.

Post reply on HN