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

11–20 of 334 posts

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

#11

Post by fsckboy »

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 newly hired based on “market trends.” These reactions to the recession are understandable, but the problem is that these reactions were meant to be “temporary.”

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

#13

Post by op00to »

whateveracct wrote: post #7
shinryuu wrote: post #2

Though at some point it feels like you reach a ceiling even if you change jobs.

I've run into this. I work at a place that claims they pay top market rate. I've poked around other options and it seems like they're right about that! Back in 2014 when this article was posted, it was probably more true. Lots of money frothing around and salaries were growing and growing faster than employers were willing to keep up with for existing employees (although even then, I had a job that gave me a substant…

I am in the same position where the company I work for tends to pay near the top of the market. I account for this by trying to save as much as possible and not having a lifestyle that requires this top of the market salary. I’m under no illusion that the gravy train can run out at any time and my next role may be a step down or step up in salary.

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

#14

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

Odd to see skepticism here, I thought this was well known. I've seen it first hand just a couple years ago where a large company was offering new hires a 20% bump, and yet when I told them I was leaving the counter offer was only a 3~% bump.

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

#16

Post by eschneider »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #9
asaph wrote: post #3

This article is nearly 10 years old. Is this still true?

I assume it will always be true outside of employees who are exceptionally VIP or employees selling to union/government roles that are compensated strictly according to length of tenure. The employer gets labor at a lower price, and the employee gets lower volatility. If you want the best price, you have to do the work to keep buying and you have to do the work to keep selling, only way any market can work.

Except the employee isn't guaranteed lower volatility. At. All.

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

#18

Post by paholg »

tnel77 wrote: post #10

I wonder how stock options play into this. Assuming you have generous stock options in a thriving company, wouldn’t it be worth it to stick out 3-4 years for a majority of that equity?

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

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

#19

Post by swiftcoder »

asaph wrote: post #3

This article is nearly 10 years old. Is this still true?

Yep. Inside Meta there was a robust network sharing offer and raise/promo letters. Someone hired in at your same level today would be making 10-20% more per year that you had been employed there.

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

#20

Post by dentemple »

tnel77 wrote: post #10

I wonder how stock options play into this. Assuming you have generous stock options in a thriving company, wouldn’t it be worth it to stick out 3-4 years for a majority of that equity?

The number of people who meet the conditions of having "generous" stock options (that aren't just pretend money) in a company thriving enough for them to overcome a -50% salary deficient are probably a very, very small minority.
Post reply on HN