If you love in the USA, I don't know how you job hop if you have more than two specialist doctors. Everytime I have to figure out how an insurance plan works is suffering.
Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
101–110 of 334 posts
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#102Employers 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…
This does not match my experience where the average retention duration for employees across all the companies I've worked for or have known has bee around 2.5 to 3 years.
In what way does this not match your experience? You’ve mentioned one variable (retention) but not the other (salary increase over time), so your comment as it stands doesn’t refute the claim of the person you’re replying to. Are you implying that you know that these people have received raises year after year that are comparable to the pay increase they could have if they took a new job?
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#103I'm applying to every job under the sun and no call backs this year. Either the job market sucks right now or my resume sucks right now.
[deleted]
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#104I've experienced this to varying degrees over my 15 year career, but can safely say that my current job at a FAANG probably pays more than any job I could get today (including another FAANG). Stock appreciation and more importantly, extra stock awards, are difficult to match. Or I could be a sucker and 100% wrong.
The problem with all of this is that it assumes the attitude that pay is the most logical, if not only, measure of success in your career.
I decided to work in higher education after a WILDLY successful short career in sales. I lost over 80% of my compensation annually to make that switch in the first year.
And I did it because the time off benefits, pace, and stability are much better for my mental health and well-being.
If you feel like you are compensated appropriately for what you're doing, don't worry about gaming the system. Just be happy with your life. Have you ever read The Razor's Edge by W. Somerset Maugham?
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#105Employers 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…
My observations suggest that this applies far more to lower performing employees than higher performing ones since the barrier to change jobs is lower for top tier talent.
In effect this means that while companies that give paltry pay bumps that don't keep up with the market may successfully hold on to lower performing employees, they'll be continually churning through top performers.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#106Employers 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…
Remote vs. non-remote seems like a huge factor here. Sure, many people when they're young are geographically flexible. But that's less true as you age and are tied down by a house, spouse's job, kid's school, daycare, etc. If you have to come into work, then all those details depend on your job location. You can't just change job locations. Again, this works for some single young people who rent apartments in NYC or…
>This is why the trend towards remote seems inevitable.
I wish, but not in my country. Remote here means 2-3 days/week WFH tops and that's it. Nobody offers more. Meaning you're still tied to the location of your employer as you have to come regularly in the office.
It boggles my mind that employers don't see the advantage of employing people remotely nation-wide as that gives them access to a wider talent pool outside their area making it a win-win. But no, old-school boomer MBA managers want to see buts in seats in the office, otherwise to them it means people are slacking off as they can't possibly imagine motivating people to work if they're not within physical reach.
We also need to post pictures of the employees pretending to have fun at barbecues, teambuilding events and sitting in cramped open space offices on yoga balls wearing headphones with coffee mugs with nerdy memes on them. But it's ok, there's a weekly fruit basked, employee organized sports events and you can bring your dog to work. Totally worth spending 2h per day on commuting.
I just don't get it, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Is it me the one being unreasonable, or "is it the children who are wrong"?
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#107Employers 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…
Ironically, the value of employees tend to go up the longer they stay as they grow more familiar with the people and systems at the company.
And it takes less effort to do the usual.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 don't know you, but I know you aren't a piece of shit. Nobody is.
I had to deal with many pieces of shit when I was a child. Maybe you aren't looking hard enough?
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it depends on the region. Recently, I have quit a job to get a 15% increase (I know, it’s not a huge increase but I am already hitting this glass ceiling around here in Europe for senior developers)
15% is a huge increase for most. I've never seen a 15% increase at one time.
I got a 20% increase the other year. But only because I threatened to quit aggressively and got promoted in the same year and was valuable to my small team of ~4 engineers.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#110One hypothesis I don't see mentioned is that time limited roles pay more. For example, a person brought into to oversee an acquisition or transition is going to be paid phenomenally well (and, I think, rightly so). But part of that job is making your own position redundant. If you're still there after a few years, you aren't doing your job. I expect there are many other examples, roles that are project based and become redundant when the project is completed. And, I expect, many of these pay more than operational jobs, taking care of some day to day tasks of the business. Probably rightly so; if the projects successful, I would think building something new would create more value as it should produce something that continues producing value into the future - higher risk, higher reward.