I often refer to this gem on salary negotiation: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/
Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
441–450 of 560 posts
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#442Job hopping works. But the more you do it, the more you can expect to see skepticism from hiring managers. Software development is a little bit different because right now there is more demand for workers than there are good developers. It hasn't always been that way and it won't always be that way. When you're working for the right employer at the right salary, an extra 25-50% isn't going to be enough to lure you aw…
"extra 25-50%" - That's really bad financial mangament on the employees part. 20-50% per annum extra, invested and compounded is A LOT of money. Literally for some people that could be an extra million at retirement.
Working for the right people has benefits beyond monetary ones. Knowing the right person can be helpful to getting your kid in the right school, or in to see the right doctor. Being vocally appreciated in a field where that is not particularly common helps you sleep better at night. Being given a certain level of autonomy can be more rewarding for some people, being given a constant stream of tasks can be more rewarding for others.
Money is a big factor with employment. It's not the only one.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on... """ Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." """
Completely honest: I would say every word of this to someone who took this approach to hiring. It is absolutely baffling to me that managers use this tact. Their reasoning is flawed and shortsighted, but has the benefit of keeping wages artificially low, so it also has the happy side effect of being very destructive. Is it civil? No, but neither is cutting the legs out of a generation of employees because you're too…
my expirience is in line with his expirience and i have been on both sides.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I call this the "one year of experience, ten times" phenomenon.
Ironically I find the developers, who have stayed at company for 10 years the worst for this. They've been maintaining the same product, for similar requests for the past years. Doing the exact same thing. Moving to different employers means you get a wider experience of different technologies.
There may also be a big project that takes years of development, with each completed part serving as a prerequisite for a new one. It's hard to judge one's career from a face value unless the CV explicitly states details like "X years sunk in product maintenance".
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it doesn't add anything of value to the thread, but that's a really good analogy.
I see a lot of employer hostility on HN. While it's good to watch your back, the constant call to go in with guns blazing doesn't seem helpful to me. I know that personal relationships aren't exactly the same as business relationships, but to pretend that they aren't somewhat analogous doesn't line up with my own experiences. I've had a lot of personal relationships in business. Almost every boss I've ever had has be…
>the constant call to go in with guns blazing doesn't seem helpful to me.
Getting independent information of your value isn't "guns blazing."
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I really wish it was as easy to get this outside of the Bay Area. I don't really want to move to the Bay Area (nor does my girlfriend) but I've been stuck making just over half of your current total comp out near Chicago after almost 10 years of experience in various tech stacks. I know in theory it should be possible out here although Glass Door salary averages for the region are about what I'm making currently, so…
What is your rent? How much does it cost when you go out to eat?
I don't know much about Chicago, but a quick look online suggests that almost all of the difference would be eaten up by cost of living differences.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#447Best 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 di…
Might work somewhere else. I always felt blackmailed in a situation like this and wished the employee all the best with his new job. [Edit] To clarify the blackmail note: It's better to talk in the weekly 1:1 about salary expectations, changing markets or during people development focus, than to pull up a competing offer out of your hat while not talking about your dissatisfaction with pay during weekly 1:1s. 1. If t…
From the employee POV it never made sense for me either. It may not feel all the way as blackmail, but it's not some nice conversation either. Besides:
1. If the company is not paying you well now, it will also not give you timely raises or promotions, so you will have to do it again and again.
2. If there's a great team there, and the only problem is with the money, unless it is a temporary thing with known causes, odds are the entire team will leave soon. So it's not something to consider.
3. It's very likely that your employer will work towards replacing you and will let you go on their schedule. It's always best to leave on your schedule than getting it forced onto you.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#448I keep seeing articles like this that fail to point out an important fact. The economy has been strong for a long time and it is a workers market. Once there is another downturn it will be an employers market. Job hoppers will be lucky to land interviews, much less command high salaries. That is unless you are in the top % of your skill level or have some skill like Oracle DBA that is highly sought after. I worry abo…
Two points: - 2% GDP growth is not exactly what I would call "strong economy": http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate - it is not a workers market - if it had been, incomes would not have stagnated I do agree with the rest of your post, though. Things will get even tougher.
"- it is not a workers market - if it had been, incomes would not have stagnated"
In general, no. But in terms of software engineering, it very much is.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's really accurate or fair. In my experience, you learn very different things in every workplace. Could be a different language or framework. Could even just be a different team arrangement or workflow. Bottom line is this: if you feel like you're not learning and growing in your current environment, why stay? Better yet, why would anyone expect you to stay?
I agree (that it's more funny than perfectly descriptively fair). The point is that a lot of people with 10 years' experience aren't necessarily more valuable than those with 3 years' experience. There's a steep initial ramp of learning that can readily plateau out if someone is complacent or actively disinterested in learning new things.
3 years' experience may sound sufficient only if we're talking about something very narrow and/or confusing "getting aquatinted with" with "mastering" something, otherwise you don't have to go to 10 years - you'll sense the difference even between 3 years' and 5 years' worth of experience.
Re: Employees Who Stay in Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blackmailed by what? The market? Some of those points are excuses for doing nothing. #2 especially - what, they'll find a better and better job every six months? Not likely. If somebody can show you how they'd be paid better somewhere else, deal with it. Denial gets you nowhere. #3 is exactly what the above remark addresses. If I can show my boss I'd be treated properly elsewhere, the boss sure better get on board an…
> #3 is exactly what the above remark addresses. If I can show my boss I'd be treated properly elsewhere, the boss sure better get on board and start doing those things. If you feel you are treated better elsewhere, as a manager I'd help you transition to that elsewhere. If that is what you really want and think is best for you, I would make it as easy for you as possible. If you think money is most important to your…
> I would make it as easy for you as possible.
I'm pretty sure you're an exception.