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

The quitting economy

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 196 posts

Re: The quitting economy

#61

Post by sidlls »

mcguire wrote: post #59
sidlls wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead, 2 years is a pretty common stretch before turnover in white collar jobs, especially for younger folk. Employees become better off from firm-hopping, and employers have no reason to offer long-ROI incentives such as paid masters' programs. I'd have gladly stayed at my third job for much longer than the ~21 months I did had there been training, retirement, reasonable pay increases, and career development off…

My longest jobs both lasted around 8 years. In both cases, I stayed because I liked my coworkers and the environment. As a result, my salary history is well below average for my location and experience. Further, since I was paid less than my less experienced (and less capable) coworkers, my input was usually ignored and I was basically sidelined except when something went badly wrong and I spent much of my time clean…

At this point in my career I've reached a salary plateau for the technical track. Short of landing a high-profile project at one of the major tech firms the ~6%-7% raises I've had the last couple of years are about the max of what I might expect from a "hop." Instead I'm looking to both exit this industry completely and, while I build the cushion necessary to do so, switch to management (which has ample support, currently).

Re: The quitting economy

#62

Post by 0x4f3759df »

wyc wrote: post #18

The most recent resource I've read on this was The Alliance by Reid Hoffman. In it, he postulates that both employees and employers are lying through their teeth: employers tell employees about the benefits, investment in its people, and family-feel. Employees say they want to be lifers. This never happens. Instead, 2 years is a pretty common stretch before turnover in white collar jobs, especially for younger folk.…

One idea I've heard is that Wall Street has solved this problem in the form of bonuses.

If companies want their talent to stick around, a bonus structure would go along way, especially since a quick job move can get a person $10k bump.

Re: The quitting economy

#63

Post by zimpenfish »

wastedhours wrote: post #46
currymj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do devs get paid in London on average? I always had the impression, perhaps wrong, that software engineers seem underpaid in England relative to the US, even accounting for currency and cost of living and such (which, probably London is as bad as SF on that front). (i've also gotten the impression that there's not the same level of cultural esteem for engineers and scientists and such in England, and that this m…

I've seen RoR jobs go from £35k to £60k in London (and even ones as low as £27k...). Might just be the ones recruiters have tried to pitch though.

"How does £35k sound?" "Like a three day week."

Re: The quitting economy

#64

Post by zimpenfish »

currymj wrote: post #9
usgroup wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure X years of experience matters all that much. For example, Java dev goes to employer and adds Hadoop to her experience, then applies for other jobs for 10k more ambiently for a few months. Eventually nails one and packs her bags, and so on recursively. Sometimes dev don't add anything at all and just go for more money because of change in condition. JS or mobile app dev is a great example. Nothing changed; th…

What do devs get paid in London on average? I always had the impression, perhaps wrong, that software engineers seem underpaid in England relative to the US, even accounting for currency and cost of living and such (which, probably London is as bad as SF on that front). (i've also gotten the impression that there's not the same level of cultural esteem for engineers and scientists and such in England, and that this m…

Contracting is reasonably good in London. You can easily get £5-600 a day if you're a (provably) senior Rails/Java/C++ and well above that with exotic financial or uberniche things.

(Which is probably why more people are turning to contracting in London.)

Re: The quitting economy

#65

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

One of the serendipitious consequences for the "quitting economy" in my experience is that I have gained experience working in a number of diverse industries such as finance, insurance, biotech, entertainment and gaming, hospitality, etc. giving me first hand insight into how such sectors work. This has not only increased my ability to apply novel solutions when new problems approached, it has informed and broadened my world view in seeing how the pieces of society and the economy fit together for professional and personal benefit.

Does anyone else feel this way?

Re: The quitting economy

#66

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

wyc wrote: post #18

The most recent resource I've read on this was The Alliance by Reid Hoffman. In it, he postulates that both employees and employers are lying through their teeth: employers tell employees about the benefits, investment in its people, and family-feel. Employees say they want to be lifers. This never happens. Instead, 2 years is a pretty common stretch before turnover in white collar jobs, especially for younger folk.…

I am happily at the 2.5 year mark at my first real job out of college, and my employer-sponsored master's degree courses begin this fall. Couldn't be happier.

Higher education is a great place to work.

Re: The quitting economy

#67

Post by Bartweiss »

wonderwonder wrote: post #12
spoonie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is it that there is always another company willing to pay more? Do companies hire devs with X years of experience without planning to pay more for X+1 years of experience?

They will pay you the range you ask for. If Joe is offered a job at 50k but he does not know the position range is 50 - 70k, he might accept it. Joe now has a job making 50k a year with the potential to earn 3% raises annually. Bob might be offered the same position, but right from the beginning he has indicated he expects to earn 67k or more, they will offer him 67k. The company will hire you for as little as they c…

> The company will hire you for as little as they can. Which is logical for the company.

I know this logic is common, but I'm not at all sure it's true. Hiring at the minimum you can is a major source of turnover, at least in high-turnover industries like software. If someone is work 50k-70k and you offer them 50k, there's a real risk that they'll get a recruiter calling in 8 months talking about 70k. Hiring is expensive, both directly (several months salary in costs?) and indirectly (repeated ramp-up periods and a loss of institutional knowledge), which makes this into a serious false economy.

I've seen several companies get themselves into real trouble by striking too many 'good' salary deals. They ended up serving as springboards for people who didn't yet know their own value, and losing all their hires within a year or two. Well, almost all - the ones who stuck around were often the less-capable hires they'd overvalued in the first place!

Re: The quitting economy

#68

Post by tmat »

sidlls wrote: post #61
mcguire wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My longest jobs both lasted around 8 years. In both cases, I stayed because I liked my coworkers and the environment. As a result, my salary history is well below average for my location and experience. Further, since I was paid less than my less experienced (and less capable) coworkers, my input was usually ignored and I was basically sidelined except when something went badly wrong and I spent much of my time clean…

At this point in my career I've reached a salary plateau for the technical track. Short of landing a high-profile project at one of the major tech firms the ~6%-7% raises I've had the last couple of years are about the max of what I might expect from a "hop." Instead I'm looking to both exit this industry completely and, while I build the cushion necessary to do so, switch to management (which has ample support, curr…

This happened to me as well, the only way I was able to get above that plateau was to go freelance and start my own thing. Charging a fair market value for my time. Best decision I ever made.

Re: The quitting economy

#69

Post by mcguire »

I have a question about the term 'neolibral'.

I seem to have missed when it became common. Further, it seems identical to what we called neoconservative back in the 1990s: free market economics, very limited government, Hayak, etc.

Is William F. Buckley a neolibral? Ronald Reagan?

Re: The quitting economy

#70

Post by mcguire »

sidlls wrote: post #61
mcguire wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My longest jobs both lasted around 8 years. In both cases, I stayed because I liked my coworkers and the environment. As a result, my salary history is well below average for my location and experience. Further, since I was paid less than my less experienced (and less capable) coworkers, my input was usually ignored and I was basically sidelined except when something went badly wrong and I spent much of my time clean…

At this point in my career I've reached a salary plateau for the technical track. Short of landing a high-profile project at one of the major tech firms the ~6%-7% raises I've had the last couple of years are about the max of what I might expect from a "hop." Instead I'm looking to both exit this industry completely and, while I build the cushion necessary to do so, switch to management (which has ample support, curr…

! I've seen 6 to 7 percent about twice in my entire career. 3% is the usual max, and 1-2% more common.
Post reply on HN