The three year myth • Hacker News Board

Re: The three year myth

#101

Post by matwood » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 3:34 PM UTC

jtrn wrote: post #96

cardanome wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues. Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people. As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead…

I'd push back gently on 'just shut up' as the solution. In my experience, people like you are usually CORRECT about the problem, and the anger and annoyance is well funded. It can be annoyance with the bad architecture, the wasteful meetings, the dysfunctional team dynamics. But you are falling into the same pattern as the author... Where it breaks down is treating 'being right' as the end of the job. Figuring out ho…

> Where it breaks down is treating 'being right' as the end of the job.

I ask myself many times a day, 'do I want to be right or effective?'

Re: The three year myth

#102

Post by BobbyTables2 » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

ebiester wrote: post #98

bko wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. A lot of this reads as a coping story about losing a job. If you were laid off, chances are you weren't valuable enough. Pure layoffs happen. But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go. Doesnt mean theyre bad, just they weren't productive in the organization. Another thing I will note is that most startups start w very little formal process. If someone wants a promotion you can just do i…

Not true at all, having seen the other side. In a large enough organization, entire divisions will be cut if a product is missing. Sometimes productive people are on the wrong product that gets slashed to maintenance mode, or they have the wrong manager. Sometimes deep cuts are necessary because the product is failing and a productive person on a growth initiative is cut for subject matter expertise in the core produ…

I’ve only seen tenure rewarded by below-market compensation.

Except for one case where a lowly guy eventually became the vice president because he out lasted (in lean times) everyone who was promoted ahead.

Re: The three year myth

#103

Post by BobbyTables2 » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

locknitpicker wrote: post #76

krisoft wrote: post #31

If you ask for a raise and they say “maybe in two to three years” thats simply a polite no. > “you know the world outside is hostile to job seekers and a steady paycheck beats the unemployment line” You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries.

> You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries. Technically you can, but there are recruiters who tag you as unreliable and a mercenary for trying to jump ship. I had the displeasure of interviewing with a hiring manager who seemed to have booked an interview just to criticize the audacity of an applicant for…

I’ve seen too many recruiters who barely lasted 2 years at their last few positions.

Re: The three year myth

#104

Post by theonething » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 4:00 PM UTC

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #61

arjie wrote: post #38

One of the notable things about FAANG processes that I've observed from my friends there is that roles and processes are mechanized[0]. Individuals are placed like precision robotics in a bigger machine. This kind of structure means that you have a defined process for promotion or pay raises and you know what your role is. In fact, one might even posit that the ability for these large organizations to create a machin…

> A classic example of this is that no one can "get you into Google/Facebook/whatever". That is so not true.

Care to offer an explanation?

Re: The three year myth

#105

Post by theonething » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

jtrn wrote: post #92

cardanome wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues. Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people. As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead…

I find that there is a big difference between how people that use the fact that they are "A perfectionist OCD person". Some wield it at a weapon. Some use it as an excuse. Some start with the assumption that it can be harness into something good. And some beat them self up over it uses it to degrade them self. I think its most helpful to view it as a "know thy self" data point, and not make it someone else problem, b…

I'd love to have a counselor like you. How can I employ your services?

Re: The three year myth

#106

Post by JackFr » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 4:16 PM UTC

keybored wrote: post #83

jtbayly wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I challenge you to think about the implications of if you were right. If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. If paying for labor is violence, paying for a product is violence. Nobody should be allowed to buy or sell (or trade). But then everybody would die. In a good economic transaction, whether purchase of product or labor, both parties end up happy with what they got out…

That employment is exploitation is evidenced by profits. Employment is a commodity. Any business expects to get more value out of a commodity. Not to break even. > If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. Everyone would die? Are you assuming that employment gets eliminated and nothing is replaced by it? Anyone who is against the employment relation wants something different. N…

Can you accept that two parties can make an exchange that leaves them both better off? If you can’t accept that, there’s no real point in any further discussion.

Re: The three year myth

#107

Post by magic_hamster » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 4:44 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #79

krisoft wrote: post #31

If you ask for a raise and they say “maybe in two to three years” thats simply a polite no. > “you know the world outside is hostile to job seekers and a steady paycheck beats the unemployment line” You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries.

Exactly. A lot of this reads as a coping story about losing a job. If you were laid off, chances are you weren't valuable enough. Pure layoffs happen. But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go. Doesnt mean theyre bad, just they weren't productive in the organization. Another thing I will note is that most startups start w very little formal process. If someone wants a promotion you can just do i…

> But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go.

This is probably very anecdotal but I've seen entire divisions gone, hundreds of people in a flash. It's not just about what you do but also where you are in the company. Obviously this is more true in huge corporations.

Re: The three year myth

#108

Post by theonething » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 4:46 PM UTC

ozim wrote: post #45

krisoft wrote: post #31

If you ask for a raise and they say “maybe in two to three years” thats simply a polite no. > “you know the world outside is hostile to job seekers and a steady paycheck beats the unemployment line” You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries.

I am doing that but I also got annoyed by recruiters or HR or whoever that was in last 2 inquiries I sent out. They would call me out of the blue in the middle of the day expecting I pick up and have time to talk with them like I would be jobless person waiting for them to call. I didn’t pick up at all because I was busy. Earlier I remember I would get an email to at least give me heads up they will contact me next w…

You actually get phone calls from recruiters? All my initial interactions with them have invariably been over email, LinkedIn, etc. Been that way for many years now.

Re: The three year myth

#109

Post by jaredklewis » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC

locknitpicker wrote: post #76

krisoft wrote: post #31

If you ask for a raise and they say “maybe in two to three years” thats simply a polite no. > “you know the world outside is hostile to job seekers and a steady paycheck beats the unemployment line” You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries.

> You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries. Technically you can, but there are recruiters who tag you as unreliable and a mercenary for trying to jump ship. I had the displeasure of interviewing with a hiring manager who seemed to have booked an interview just to criticize the audacity of an applicant for…

Except the first one, every job I’ve ever had, I’ve found while holding another job. No one has ever commented about it. And from the other side of the table, it also seems fine to me if a candidate has a job.

I think if you regularly change jobs more than every two years or if 15 years into your career you have never held a job longer than 4 years, that might be a flag go some recruiters/companies.

But the hiring manager in your post sounds highly abnormal. Switching jobs while you have a job is absolutely the norm.

Re: The three year myth

#110

Post by skirmish » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 5:49 PM UTC

theonething wrote: post #104

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A classic example of this is that no one can "get you into Google/Facebook/whatever". That is so not true.

Care to offer an explanation?

It used to be that a referral from a current employee was a big plus and would allow the applicant to get directly to onsite interviews. Not sure how it works now.