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 (2014)

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 334 posts

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#111

Post by justsocrateasin »

elintknower wrote: post #65

Job hopping works if you're already in the top 10% of engineers and really talented when it comes to... interviewing. I suck at leetcode so maybe that's why I'm just not cut out for this. As long as I'm making $150k+ and can WFH I'm not exactly confident I could go out and interview and get something better. My work history isn't great because I tried job hopping and was a co-founder at a few startups. I quickly foun…

I thought for a long time that I was trash at leetcode. I would regularly fail the coding portions of interviews. Then a recruiter reached out with a tempting JD and I became good at leetcode, it just took a lot of hard work of tricking my brain into thinking it was a good use of my time.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#112

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

ukoki wrote: post #54

Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational. At the cost of losing a minority of job-hoppers they retain the cheap majority that: - finds job interviews exhausting, or is anxious about being…

Job hopping works till you hit the ceiling. At some point you are at the relative max of your skillset and then other variables become more important.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#113

Post by seattle_spring »

irrational wrote: post #25
paholg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With options, there's always a risk that they will be worth nothing, or very little. I would rather have some options in several companies than a lot of options in one to increase the chance that some of them will be valuable. That approach does require you to buy the options, whereas staying at one company means you can delay the purchase

Seriously. My brother received $1 million in Tesla stock options when they recruited him. They certainly aren’t worth that much anymore. Does he stay and hope the Musk will stop tanking the stock or jump ship?

Tesla is giving options instead of RSUs still? Usually big public companies grant RSUs except to the top-most senior leadership team.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#114

Post by datavirtue »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55
ukoki wrote: post #54

Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational. At the cost of losing a minority of job-hoppers they retain the cheap majority that: - finds job interviews exhausting, or is anxious about being…

In a sense, it’s trading convenience and stability for compensation.

There is no stability. Maybe in government jobs. Any stability is just luck.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#115

Post by gnarcoregrizz »

giantg2 wrote: post #64
ukoki wrote: post #54

Employers don't reward long-term employees because they don't need to. Even though everyone knows you make more by job-hopping, companies are following a rational strategy because too few people "walk the walk" despite wanting more salary. Arguably unethical, but rational. At the cost of losing a minority of job-hoppers they retain the cheap majority that: - finds job interviews exhausting, or is anxious about being…

Based on my experience, I assume disabled people also job hop less often. I often wonder if my lower pay is because I don't job hop, because of my disability, or if I'm just a piece of shit.

I'm in that basket. I can't reliably commute due to a neurological disability that prevents me from driving. I've been WFH since 2015. It's harder to find WFH jobs that pay as well. I also rely on expensive drugs to manage the condition. I absolutely cannot take the risk of being without health insurance. It definitely makes it a lot harder. I can't really tell prospective employers about the disability, it will just scare them off.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#116

Post by amarant »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #76
s0kr8s wrote: post #53

Caution: you might get paid 50% more to work at a company that is 500% worse managed, and therefore is hemorrhaging employees so fast that the only way they can maintain staffing levels is to offer a hefty premium above normal market wages to get new suckers to take a chance on them. If you're nihilistic and believe all employers are rotten, then jumping ship every 2 years might be a decent game strategy, but I tend…

Perhaps this is just personal experience, but the worst jobs I've ever had also paid the worst. The places that are badly managed either don't know or can't afford market rates, so they try and hire cheap labor. Think body shops, game dev, government positions, etc. By contrast, a place that has expensive employees is going to see their time as more valuable, so there's a direct monetary incentive not to waste it and…

I agree on all your points, but find it funny that you mention game-dev as a bad example. I know the industry has a bad reputation but some of my best gigs were at gaming companies(and, as per your suggestion, those were the best paid ones too!)

probably relevant detail is that I did contractor work for backend/server stuff for those gaming companies. And the two studios in question have each published the biggest games in their respective categories in the world(which basically means they both have infinite money)

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#117

Post by roarcher »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #29

The highest paid people are often the ones with the highest tenure. Have seen many people at a company over ten years, making 1-2M a year, head and shoulders above their levels comp bands. If you cant get promoted, then you have to job hop. But at some point, its really that you just arent that valuable.

I've seen this too, but it was because those people were early/founding members and got some significant equity or options package as a result.

If you're not one of those people at your company or there isn't a high chance of your equity being worth something in the future, sticking around isn't going to lead to more money.

I'd also note that in many of the cases I've personally seen, those people actually did leave at some point but came back, sometimes even multiple times over the years. They were valuable enough to the company (or at least were perceived to be by leadership) that they could pretty much come and go as they pleased.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#118

Post by [deleted] »

oarla wrote: post #96
AlotOfReading wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is just personal experience, but the worst jobs I've ever had also paid the worst. The places that are badly managed either don't know or can't afford market rates, so they try and hire cheap labor. Think body shops, game dev, government positions, etc. By contrast, a place that has expensive employees is going to see their time as more valuable, so there's a direct monetary incentive not to waste it and…

The worse pay is what adds on to the feeling of the job being terrible. As much as many want to claim, its not very satisfying to slog away and ship an elegant product for peanuts. When the pay is lower than what is the standard, it's always going to make the job feel terrible.

[deleted]

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#119

Post by PhasmaFelis »

fsckboy wrote: post #11

this whole thing is sus. why isn't this a better explanation: High performing, "desirable" or "skilled" employees get enticed (i.e. rewarded) for jumping to a new employer. Average schlubs do not. explanation from TFA: Why are people who jump ship rewarded, when loyal employees are punished for their dedication? The answer is simple. Recessions allow businesses to freeze their payroll and decrease salaries of the new…

A lot of people fucking hate having to switch jobs. This has little to do with their skills and a lot to do with all the stress and uncertainty that comes a major life change.

Some people enjoy making big changes and shaking themselves up, and that's fine too, but don't confuse that with some sort of inherent superiority.

Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)

#120

Post by ido »

nicolas_t wrote: post #97
HEmanZ wrote: post #71

This seems very generally true to a point, so on average it works out. But I think there is a big caveat. My thoughts are centered around software development, but I know there are many analogous career paths. I really believe if your career goal is to peak a lot higher than just middle-management or senior software engineer, and earn the pay that comes with those higher positions, you need to stay on the same compan…

That’s how I became cto at 40 years old, I stayed long enough while being indispensable enough and always taking the difficult projects. It’s a gamble though and I needed to play hardball when negotiating with the owner for the new salary to properly reflect my new position. That only worked because I was more willing to walk away than he was. I’d honestly recommend doing 2-3 years stints in the early 20s and then pr…

Is 40 an unusually young age to become CTO? I’m pretty sure most CTOs I worked under took the position first around that age or younger.
Post reply on HN