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

531–540 of 560 posts

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

#531

Post by mikegerwitz »

chris11 wrote: post #50
mikegerwitz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain places place high value on domain-specific knowledge and trained employees. I work at a wholesale insurance company (middleman); we have over a hundred individual systems, some simple, some quite complex. Some of those systems can be maintained by any programmer that comes in. Others really shouldn't be maintained by someone who doesn't have good experience in writing maintainable code. But many projects requ…

I'm curious, how much more do you think you could get by leaving, or if you had been job hopping? Companies say they value loyalty, but that can seem fake if loyalty ends up costing the employee money.

tbh, I haven't had the will to job hunt, so I can't say for certain; I can only speculate based on data for my area. There are other positive factors that keep me at my job.

What I maybe _should_ have said is that I may have been able to make more money more quickly if I job hopped. There's an unfortunate disconnect between a development team that understands value (and is responsible for all hiring decisions) and a non-technical upper management. I'm fortunate to have a supervisor that fights on my behalf, and I'm pretty aggressive in pushing it myself.

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

#532

Post by mikegerwitz »

flukus wrote: post #79
mikegerwitz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain places place high value on domain-specific knowledge and trained employees. I work at a wholesale insurance company (middleman); we have over a hundred individual systems, some simple, some quite complex. Some of those systems can be maintained by any programmer that comes in. Others really shouldn't be maintained by someone who doesn't have good experience in writing maintainable code. But many projects requ…

> I work at a wholesale insurance company (middleman); we have over a hundred individual systems, some simple, some quite complex. Some of those systems can be maintained by any programmer that comes in. Others really shouldn't be maintained by someone who doesn't have good experience in writing maintainable code. It sounds like you have far too few developers to cover those systems. My company is similar, although w…

> It sounds like you have far too few developers to cover those systems. My company is similar, although with much fewer individual systems. The biggest problem we have is that we expect developers to be familiar with all of them and it's simply too much ground to cover, especially when you add in decades of technical debt.

We definitely do. Unfortunately, it's difficult to hire in our area.

We've settled into our specialties, but that gives a terrible bus factor---the more senior the employee, the more the company suffers if they get hit by a bus. And goes back to the concept of theory building. We do what we can to try to mitigate certain aspects.

> The second you aren't working on something your knowledge begins to fade. If I have to pick up something I haven't touched in three months then it's pretty close to being a new product to me.

Yes---it's very useful to have people who have been there long enough to jog eachothers' memory. There are some core projects that are touched frequently enough to stay mostly fresh in our mind. It's always fun to look back 5--10 years and think about the history of the projects, or joke about the hardships. That's where the real knowledge lies.

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

#533

Post by pm90 »

moriarty-s3a wrote: post #511
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps then, you should consider looking to work for a company that will be loyal to you. :)

I have worked or consulted for a few that went too far the other way and it wasn't that great either. If the company is too loyal, then it can create a corrosive environment because good employees sometimes leave for reasons unrelated to the employee-business relationship, family, retirement, health, etc. The bad ones seem to never leave, though. Honestly, I would rather work somewhere that is willing to get rid of u…

This is sooo true. Its very easy for bad apples to abuse systems put in place to give employees stability...

Its a strange problem I guess. Systems are put in place to keep good employees around but are abused by bad ones. Then those systems are thrown out and everyone suffers.

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

#534

Post by majkinetor »

sidlls wrote: post #413
majkinetor wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. I actually don't think the one has valuable experience until one spent 2+ years on the same project. All bigger projects get more chaotic and complicated over time and that needs specific set of skills to get managed in all directions. Until you experienced it first hand, you are really just a hello-world-on-steroids.

But once somebody has done that once, it's unlikely that additional years will contribute to experience: there's a steep drop off in the marginal experience gained for additional time spent. That's why I wrote what I did: longer than a year or two on the same project in the same capacity is a negative indicator. It's not a deal-breaker, especially if it's just a small fraction of the employment history. If it represe…

'Only once' can't be true. Its like saying that your first long term project will be ideal in providing every type of experience. That is impossible.

IMO, you need to have long standing projects all the time, its a domain on its own. I agree with you that it may mean staling for some people, but no generalization is possible.

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

#535

Post by laughfactory »

elnygren wrote: post #107

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 di…

Bad idea, in my opinion. This comes across as manipulative and underhanded. My personal policy is that if the companies I work for are not able to compensate me commensurate with my value then I 1) have a conversation with the appropriate people about my dissatisfaction with my pay and the value I provide, and 2) begin looking for another job.

If they value me, and respond to my forthrightness then we'll figure out something workable for us both. If not, I find another job and leave.

Alternatively, you can talk to your boss ahead of time (say 6-12 months) and specify what you want and ask what it would take to achieve the goal (promotion, raise, etc.). Then you execute your agreed upon plan. If, at the end of that period, they fail to uphold the agreement then look for another job and leave.

Your recommended approach is akin to being in an unsatisfying relationship, and, instead of talking to your spouse/partner/etc. you go find someone else then go back to your spouse/partner/etc. and say, well, I'm going to leave you unless you do X, Y, Z. Hah! For most of us that approach would not work out very well, and for good reason. It's not the way reasonable, mature, people of integrity behave.

Plus, I don't want to work for anyone who doesn't actively recognize and reward my value, and who requires (yes, there are places like this) you to go through the whole job hunting process and bring them an offer letter to give you a raise. F that. Ideally, the employer recognizes the value I provide and proactively rewards that value. Second best is employers who will give real raises (10%+) when an employee points out how much value they provide. Third best is real, 10%+, raises annually.

The current status quo of 2-5% increases amounts to little more than COL, and is utterly offensive. That's not a performance based increase, that's simply a retainer.

As an employee I'm acutely aware, as year #2 comes to a close, that if I don't get out there and find something better (better title, better pay, better benefits) then, in terms of opportunity cost, I'm losing money. Though my current position my prove to be the exception to that rule. We shall see.

And yes, I run all the numbers on the total value of my compensation package and any improvements/increases which have transpired over the previous years.

But getting other offers and then using them to force your employers hand is just childish, in my opinion.

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

#536

Post by laughfactory »

foo101 wrote: post #457
_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the reasons stated, I would not give in. This is a slippery slope. Raising the pay of one employee out of band will usually lead to group behavior, meaning others do the same for the same reasons. I was also mostly budget constrained in the past and could not raise budget to significantly (say 20%) pay raise several employees. If the employee for whatever reasons earns say 10% below average of the other employees…

Your comment proves the point of the article. As long as the management refuses to pay a salary that is at par with the market standard, the only way to get paid as per the market standard is to get a new job.

Yep. Since I graduated from college 6 years ago, my compensation has increased 165% (starting from mid-five figures). How? By switching jobs every couple of years, and always increasing by a minimum of 10%. And honestly, I'm just getting started. Though my hope is that my current employer makes it worth my while to stay for a longer duration. I'm getting tired of switching every couple years, as is my family.

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

#537

Post by laughfactory »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #395
malka wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as companies are loyal to their employee, I will be loyal to them. Work is a simple contract. I give time. I get money. Period. The company will not hesitate to throw me under the bus if it can bring more money, and I do not see why I should be more considerate toward them ?

Perhaps then, you should consider looking to work for a company that will be loyal to you. :)

I've never seen a loyal company. I'm not even sure what that would look like.

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

#538

Post by laughfactory »

mseebach wrote: post #433
coldtea wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. If the employee is only motivated by money, he will be gone rather sooner than later as there is always a higher offer around. What else would they be motivated by? It's not their hobby. This doesn't mean they are also not into programming and coding challenges -- but those are constants that they can find in another employer too. if they like the programming, it's not that they can't find a programming job else…

> What else would they be motivated by? The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc Based on studies done at MIT and other universities, higher pay and bonuses resulted in better performance ONLY if the task consisted of basic, mechanical skills. It worked for problems with a defined set of steps and a single answer. If the task involved cognitive skills, decision-making,…

Yeah yeah, I'm familiar with the study, but it doesn't account for how we employees are generally quite aware of the value of our skill set. Sure, it may take us a bit to recognize the increase, but typically no more than a few months. And then the sense that we're compensated below our value will eat at us, even in the presence of all those things. It's not about the dollar amount, it's about the disparity between market value and compensation rate. The greater that dissonance the greater the motivation to leave. It doesn't feel like respect when an employer pays you below what you feel you're worth.

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

#539

Post by laughfactory »

foo101 wrote: post #465
mseebach wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something to be said for communication style. You can do essentially what top-GP suggests, but without the high-conflict ultimatum -- basically, communicate your worry about your salary in a series of low-drama conversations, in which you can calmly suggest that your research implies that you'd be able to make $X in a similar job elsewhere, but really enjoy your current job, etc. The key, of course, is always…

Have you tried what you are suggesting in practice? I have never succeeded in getting any raise unless I had a concrete actionable BATNA, i.e. a competing offer.

I would never tell my employer that I had another offer and was going to accept unless they met my demands. I'd keep it in my back pocket and then if they didn't respond to my treating them like an adult then I'd just inform them I was quitting and then I would. People who operate that way aren't worth working for!

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

#540

Post by flukus »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #123
flukus wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people that job hop because of that left behind technical debt? Often it's the long term employees that don't realize how much technical debt and other craziness they have, it's a kind of stockholm syndrome. The can also be woefully out of date on the industry and have likely reinvented many wheels out of ignorance.

If you've done this once or twice, sure, I think it's reasonable that the companies you worked for were exceptionally bad at keeping up with the times and ignoring technical debt. By the fourth or fifth time that you've moved jobs for this reason though, I start to question your judgement. Every company is going to have some degree of technical debt, and the speed that trends come and go in this industry means that a…

Problem is that the companies with the biggest issues are the one that need to hire the most and the ones hiring you are often the most oblivious to it because they've stuck around so long. You don't find out how bad the code is until you start the job and you don't find out how the company really intends to handle it for some time, possibly months.

What we really need is corporate code reviews when interviewing. They give me code tests for my competence, I should be able to do the same for the hiring organisation. Then I could at least ask about specific issues and ask how and when they intend to deal with them.

Post reply on HN