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

Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 207 posts

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#71

Post by michaelfeathers »

dustingetz wrote: post #37
michaelfeathers wrote: post #10

For those of us in software development, an important thing to think about is what this does to code. The industry is full of old codebases tended by people who were never involved in the planning and initial design of those systems. Knowledge transfer rarely happens sufficiently to prevent accelerating maintenance headaches. I think that we really need to find different ways of developing software to deal with this…

Pair programming fixes the turnover problem

It trades it for the problem: convince people to pair program.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#72

Post by nathanvanfleet »

notacoward wrote: post #54

This "loyalty penalty" is far from new. It was totally obvious to me, and to many of those around me, over twenty years ago. If you stayed at one company, you'd fall behind the industry-wide trend. You'd start to see people who were more junior overall, and clearly less familiar with your product, hired with salaries above yours. If you wanted to keep up with that industry trend, you were forced to keep moving. I eve…

Also Google participated in an industry wide conspiracy to keep wages down and keep other companies from poaching or even hiring applicants from Google.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#73

Post by scarmig »

firstplanthendo wrote: post #63

The conclusion of the article- that the easiest way to ensure you secure large raises every few years is to job hop, is probably true. But I think it takes a very defeatist attitude towards negotiating raises with present employers: "In 2014, the average employee is going to earn less than a 1% raise and there is very little that we can do to change management’s decision. " Most good managers know that it costs much…

Or, I could send out a resume on Monday and have a new job offer by Friday, one that includes a 20% raise and a hiring bonus.

Grueling, painful negotiation processes are, well, grueling and painful. The revealed preference of software engineers shows that the concrete benefits of jumping ship quickly outweigh the merely potential benefits of negotiating a raise at considerable stress.

I can see how it makes business sense for companies in the industry to try to make negotiation easy and the norm, and when they decide to, they'll find plenty of willing partners.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#74

Post by evan_ »

overgard wrote: post #58
alain94040 wrote: post #22

This article should create a fun discussion, but be aware that it's most likely completely bogus. I suspect it suffers from survivor bias: anyone who is in a position to jump ship and get a 20% raise consistently is not average. If you try to change jobs every 2 years and are not great at your current position, you'll likely be sorely disappointed.

Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of developers that I worked with who weren't particularly great (or even good), job hop quite successfully. I think it depends on the local marketplace more than individual skills. (And the ability to interview well).

Absolutely- and one of the reasons they job-hop is because they can obfuscate their lack of competence for six months or so and then either leave or are reassigned/fired.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#75

Post by cpprototypes »

Switching jobs works well when developers are in their 20's. But I've found in the 30's that a number of factors combine to make it much less attractive:

1) Each jump becomes less and less. There's an invisible salary cap for software engineers. By the time a software engineer is in their 30's, they've jumped a few times and are already close to the maximum.

2) There are costs associated with switching jobs. There's a risk that the new job could be far worse (team, boss, culture, etc.). And you start at zero reputation and connections at a new company. The lack of reputation often means less flexibility and influence since the others at the company don't trust you yet. The rewards are greater than the costs in the 20's, but usually not in the 30's.

3) It also happens to be the time when many get married and have babies. This increases the risk factor.

4) For total compensation there seems to be two tiers of companies, the top tech (google, facebook, amazon, etc.) and everyone else. I've noticed the big difference is not the base salary (top tech only pays a few % more). The really big difference is cash bonus + stock (RSU).

5) Unfortunately, the interview skills required to get into the top tech companies is biased against older software engineers. For an engineer in their 30's college is a long time ago. They could spend time getting algorithm books and studying, but there's less free time at this stage in life. So the only big jump that's worth it financially (top tech company) is very difficult to do.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#77

Post by Bahamut »

objclxt wrote: post #57
Bahamut wrote: post #24

I found this absolutely true in my short stint as a software engineer so far (1 1/2 years) - I have switched jobs twice, the first switch giving a 50% raise, and the second giving an 80% raise. Companies don't seem to be interested in retaining quality talent these days (or developing it), and get used to paying a certain amount for that talent, even if he/she is worth a lot more. It is in each person's self-interest…

Why not consider freelancing? When I'm hiring full time positions I don't normally see anything wrong with someone who's going to a new job every couple of years - but I'd definitely have some big, red flags for someone who was jumping ships every nine months. This is because hiring takes time, and is expensive. If the person I'm hiring is only going to be staying around for nine months, I'd be better off hiring a fr…

To be fair, my second move was mainly to relocate to the Valley (in large part for personal reasons, although it doesn't hurt that it's an attractive region for salary). I'm hoping to stay at this particular job for longer before switching, and I think for my next move, it would have to be a lead developer position (I have turned down several high profile lead developer jobs already due to my feeling not ready yet) - freelancing full-time definitely does sound attractive from an income perspective since I do charge a significant rate, but I'm worried about freelancing being a static gig professionally. I also like working on teams since I can learn a lot from others, and teach others as well.

Even with the cost of hiring, I have been an extraordinarily valuable asset to the places I have worked, far more so than they have anticipated. I have gotten high praise for my quality of work and working well on a team (& across teams). I think employers just never expected me to progress professionally so quickly.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#78

Post by SDGT »

notacoward wrote: post #54

This "loyalty penalty" is far from new. It was totally obvious to me, and to many of those around me, over twenty years ago. If you stayed at one company, you'd fall behind the industry-wide trend. You'd start to see people who were more junior overall, and clearly less familiar with your product, hired with salaries above yours. If you wanted to keep up with that industry trend, you were forced to keep moving. I eve…

> I even know people who deliberately did "out and back" jumps to leap-frog over others at the same original company.

This is commonly known as a valid strategy at the place I work. It's very difficult to come in giving a shit about my code when the future of my position is a dead end.

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#79

Post by lotharbot »

wldlyinaccurate wrote: post #62
overgard wrote: post #46

HR is really a problem here (at least in the software industry). Pay is usually based on title and how many people you manage, but I think that's pathological for managing developers because developers aren't interchangeable. You have huge variances in skills and knowledge. The thing is, development skills scale in a way most job skills can't. You can have at developer that has 10x more impact than other developers.…

> Saying "we can only give you this much because your title is X and we don't have an open management position, but we really value you!" is a great way to lose your best people. This resonates with me so much. I've left a few companies after having conversations which ended with my manager saying exactly this. In most cases they have ended up hiring somebody else at a salary higher than mine. It really confuses me.…

a couple decades back, when my dad was working for one of the big telecom companies, they invented a new job title specifically so they could promote him with the appropriate pay bump while also keeping him coding instead of managing. (They later hired/promoted others with the same title.)

I thought it was a great solution. If a dinosaur like a telecom company can do it, why can't others?

Re: Employees That Stay In Companies Longer Get Paid Less

#80

Post by watwut »

wldlyinaccurate wrote: post #62
overgard wrote: post #46

HR is really a problem here (at least in the software industry). Pay is usually based on title and how many people you manage, but I think that's pathological for managing developers because developers aren't interchangeable. You have huge variances in skills and knowledge. The thing is, development skills scale in a way most job skills can't. You can have at developer that has 10x more impact than other developers.…

> Saying "we can only give you this much because your title is X and we don't have an open management position, but we really value you!" is a great way to lose your best people. This resonates with me so much. I've left a few companies after having conversations which ended with my manager saying exactly this. In most cases they have ended up hiring somebody else at a salary higher than mine. It really confuses me.…

That is what you get when you isolate decision maker from consequences of his decisions. HR does not feel the pain of you leaving, so he does not care. However, he has trouble to find a new person for low salary, so he is forced to raise the offer.
Post reply on HN