Live data from Hacker News

Do Not Change Your Job

candost.blog

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#61
Doesn't it just boil down to "try to stay informed about the market" and evaluate your own motives (growth, stability, etc) accordingly?

I don't see a whole lot wrong with either changing jobs frequently or staying at one place. I know people on both ends of that spectrum, one guy I know started at a Japanese bank before the 87 crash and is still there, another guy has had 6 jobs in 12 years.

I would say go have a look now, though. Just to stay informed on what's out there and what people think your value is.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#62
post #16

Strange I used to throw CV's in the rubbish bin if they repeatedly moved jobs every 2 years or under. My rational for that was that they would probably only last 2 years in our company so I preferred someone more stable. Small teams hurt when you keep loosing staff and training is not cheap.

Where are you based at? In the past decade in Silicon Valley even annual movement was not uncommon.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#63
post #10

I am not sure how you can stay at a company for more than 24 months (maybe 48 for FAANGMULA) without there becoming an enormous gap between your compensation and market compensation. In Canada, you become a veteran at 18 months it seems.

Yeah, this is the real problem. Since a job hop typically nets you an extra 10k/y 6 years in a job is going to have you down 60k/y. Why would you do that to yourself? In saying that, I've stayed longer in some rolls than the money would imply, but that is because some places are amazing, and there is a lot to be said for a place which treats you well.

To me this feels a lot like that anecdote about poor people struggling to become wealthy because they buy cheaper boots that wear out faster. If you change jobs frequently chasing relatively inconsequential salary increases, you're perhaps going to miss more lucrative opportunities.

My first internship at Toyota barely paid anything (relative to a bay area internship), but I stuck around for 4 years because the work was interesting and fun. It helped hone my technical skills, and the value from networking from that job continues to pay off 12 years later.

Since I graduated, I've been at three different companies. I've stuck around to see projects through their hardest points, and only left for exciting new technical opportunities. The first one with the lowest salary has in time been worth the most in equity. The one with the highest salary has in time been worth the least, but the liquidity at that point in my life was nice. I took a huge salary cut when joining my current company, but I had a feeling that it was a good group of people. It's been almost 6 years now, and I can only describe my experience as an embarrassment of riches.

You could write my experience off as luck or individual talent, but I think a part of my success has come from my work ethic. I work to feel useful, solve interesting problems and create tangible value. It seems like if you focus on that, everything else tends to fall into place. A college age friend once joined a project I was on, as a remote contract technician. He asked me for advice on how to become a full time engineer. I told him to figure out how to be as productive as possible by automating his job away, and document it. He ended up being 4x more productive than the other techs getting paid 3x as much, and six months later was a full time employee with a bay area salary and equity.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#64
post #42

In my opinion, employers need to do more to significantly reward existing employees they want to retain. Right now, I can see how frustrating it could be for tenured employees when new hires come in with (quite a bit) higher comp packages than them, while they get a measly pay bump in accordance with inflation (sometimes even less). Routinely see 100% increases in total compensation for switching jobs. But I’ve never…

i agree, but let me play the devil's advocate and argue that revolving doors might also play out well for the business. The biggest fear (or risk?) a business owner might have is to be held hostage by a employee whose function/knowledge/skill is essential for business continuity. This gives the employee undue leverage, which lowers the profits, and allows said employee to extract close to 100% of the value they produ…

I have witnessed this mindset. The employer was glad to let people go after they were frustrated with low wages and no raises for a while. The result: very high turnover, all technical knowledge in the company was lost after a while (fixing old products was very hard as no one knew how they worked), all in all a very bad idea if you ask me. But the boss seemed happy with this.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#65

In my opinion, employers need to do more to significantly reward existing employees they want to retain. Right now, I can see how frustrating it could be for tenured employees when new hires come in with (quite a bit) higher comp packages than them, while they get a measly pay bump in accordance with inflation (sometimes even less). Routinely see 100% increases in total compensation for switching jobs. But I’ve never…

I absolutely agree but there is this conceptual problem. I think it's the same as with retaining and finding new customers. There will always be great offers for new customers while the current ones can be happy with what they have.

There always is a barrier of changing things. Especially changing the job involves a lot of decisions and brings risk. The pay increase in the new job (and maybe a signing bonus) is trying to convince you to switch.

I guess what this means in the end is that you are seen as replaceable and are not valued enough. I heard similar statements from middle management once, when a bunch of junior colleagues left the team. They didn't realize that, although junior, they were doing a great job. It's funny because a good raise for them would still have been quite "cheap".

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Management often likes treating software engineers as being replaceable, not accounting for the lost experience they now have to build up from scratch. Or as one of my colleagues so aptly put it, "SWEs are not fungible."

Because management believes that only the business or PM (as in project manager) are worth their salts and important. For some reasons, PM are thought to have a great understanding of both functionals and technicals of a solution, while at best, the only good they are at is navigating the organization and shielding the team. So in a word, management is most likely useless and PM even more, especially if the managemen…

Citations needed

I know you are venting, and even agreeing with me, but I wasn't trying to make this a SWE vs PM thing. The dynamic you describe hasn't been my experience, at least so far.

Wherever you work, I hope you find ways show the value of your work to your management chain too.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#67
Obviously I can't speak for all companies, but a while ago I knew some people at Jimdo, the company the author worked for. And it seemed like a typical German company regarding the values mentioned: many people staying for a few years, and high job satisfaction. I can't speak about the money as none of them were telling me.

But I think this is a real big difference to the valley (or at least it was pre-covid) - first of all if you didn't want to move, then the job market was only good in a few places in the whole country (Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne region, Ruhrgebiet) - everywhere else it wasn't really possible to job hop willy nilly. Also we seem to value stability a lot more than Americans, which is not surprising per se, it's kinda hard to get rid of employees (which is a good thing imho) so if you bought a house or have a family, the status quo might be good enough. If YOU switch you have this 6 month period where you can be easily laid off.

Also the ranges weren't so big. As a medium-level developer the VAST majority was making between 40 and 100k. And probably more likely 50 than 90. I basically never heard of anyone doing +100% jumps. No big surprise in this range. I think it's changing, esp. with remote work - but I am still amazed every time I hear about these 300k salaries. Disclaimer: Have not talked to many people about salaries in a while, but a few years ago I'd say my experience wasn't too uncommon.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#68
post #42

In my opinion, employers need to do more to significantly reward existing employees they want to retain. Right now, I can see how frustrating it could be for tenured employees when new hires come in with (quite a bit) higher comp packages than them, while they get a measly pay bump in accordance with inflation (sometimes even less). Routinely see 100% increases in total compensation for switching jobs. But I’ve never…

i agree, but let me play the devil's advocate and argue that revolving doors might also play out well for the business. The biggest fear (or risk?) a business owner might have is to be held hostage by a employee whose function/knowledge/skill is essential for business continuity. This gives the employee undue leverage, which lowers the profits, and allows said employee to extract close to 100% of the value they produ…

Even in the unique world of sofware, the last problem in the world is employees having too much leverage over companies.

I agree that's what they fear, just saying that they already wield 1000x the club the employee does.

That's why everyone quits is because it's literally the only action they can take. The only button employees have is the big red one.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#69

I'm sorry but, stay at your job so that you more valuable to your company and your co-workers and quality of the code at the cost of your career and earning potential is bad advice.

I agree.

> If you’re leaving your company because the market is hot right now and your company can’t give you a raise that might not even change your life, then maybe you should question again.

If your company cannot afford to give you a raise, and that raise isn't excessive, then it sounds like the problem is still your current company.

My advice is the opposite: Make your decision on quantitative not qualitative measures. I've seen a lot of people leave a good position that pays well to go work in a technology or domain that they think will make them more satisfied in their career and then realize they left a team they enjoyed for one they didn't. If you are moving for $25k increase in salary, it makes the risk more tolerable.

Re: Do Not Change Your Job

#70
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i agree, but let me play the devil's advocate and argue that revolving doors might also play out well for the business. The biggest fear (or risk?) a business owner might have is to be held hostage by a employee whose function/knowledge/skill is essential for business continuity. This gives the employee undue leverage, which lowers the profits, and allows said employee to extract close to 100% of the value they produ…

I have witnessed this mindset. The employer was glad to let people go after they were frustrated with low wages and no raises for a while. The result: very high turnover, all technical knowledge in the company was lost after a while (fixing old products was very hard as no one knew how they worked), all in all a very bad idea if you ask me. But the boss seemed happy with this.

> But the boss seemed happy with this.

How did the company do long term? Was it growing/successful/profitable?

If so, maybe high turnover worked for that particular business. Doesn't match up with what I've seen from software businesses in general, though.

Would be interesting to see if there was any research on the impact of attrition on business success.

Post reply on HN