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

121–130 of 334 posts

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

#121

Post by tombert »

amarant wrote: post #116
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…

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 ga…

> and, as per your suggestion, those were the best paid ones too!

I've never worked in game dev, but at least in NYC I was being interviewed by Rockstar Games for a pretty senior-level position a couple years ago, just to find out that it maxed out at considerably less than my previous job. I didn't continue the process and I just assumed that it was standard in the games industry.

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

#122

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

datavirtue wrote: post #114
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

I'm sure you mean no _guarantee_ of stability, but clearly remaining in a current position is more "stable" than actively leaving it (by definition).

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

#123

Post by andrewmutz »

The headline sounds like it's stating a fact, but if you read the article it wasn't supported anywhere other than the author stating it. There is no data presented or study that was done. The author seems to believe that the salary jumps that accompany 2-year job changes can be sustained over time.

From my experience, I don't think this is the case. In your twenties it's definitely true, but when I look at the highest paid people (in their later career) it is not true that they did this.

I think the reason is that as you progress up a leadership structure, stability becomes increasingly important and candidates who have exhibited short tenures in roles are passed over because it is assumed this behavior will continue. It's highly damaging to have a VP leave an org leave after only 2 years in the role.

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

#124

Post by sed3 »

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.

Not really, employment is too vulnerable position, too much liability, and too many taxes.

Today such people get accused by someone, and promptly fired. Later they reappear as consultants.

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

#125

Post by aetherson »

ido wrote: post #120
nicolas_t wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Founder CTOs are young, other CTOs tend to be older.

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

#126

Post by snarf21 »

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…

I agree and healthcare (US) is a major factor. However, companies push the envelop too far. The cost of filling replacements, lost domain knowledge, decreased velocity during ramp up, etc. are far more costly that leadership admits. The main reason they just don't try to keep up even a little bit is because most leadership sees employees as replaceable resources that are all identical (not themselves though!). The thing is that people would stay forever in most cases if they gave a fraction of what they end up hiring replacements for.

People don't quit jobs, they quit bosses.

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

#127

Post by s1artibartfast »

arpyzo wrote: post #105
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…

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.

why not do both? thats what I see.

Firms give paltry pay bumps as default, but will fight with competitive salaries to retain top performers.

Top performers get completive raises by going to their boss with an offer letter from a competitor.

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

#128

Post by jjice »

Loughla wrote: post #104
laweijfmvo wrote: post #80

I'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-b…

> 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 see what you mean, but I don't think the parent commented about career success, but just specifically pay. I agree with what you're saying in that there are other valuable things besides pay from a job.

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

#129

Post by pocketsand »

A family member is paid very highly. He has switched jobs almost ever year for over a decade, including at top tier tech firms. I'm not sure why he does this but I have my suspicions. What I do know is that he is never seems happy with his work. And I also doubt how much impact he can be having with such short stints.

I have never quit a job without a major life event forcing me to (spouse getting a job, moving, etc.). I've had great experiences everywhere and I'm probably underpaid for it. I have no regrets. I'd prefer my lifestyle and job satisfaction to money.

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

#130

Post by amarant »

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.

You're not wrong, but that's not the full story here tho, at least not in my experience.

Worst job I ever had paid about 60% of what I usually earn, and I was told of by the manager for pointing out that there were compilation errors in our master branch (at this place, anything pushed to master was automatically deployed into production, with zero testing. The only reason prod didn't burn that day was because the pipeline crashed when it couldn't produce the jar file)

(Well, prod did burn that day, it burned every day at this place, but none of those fires were because of the non-compiling commit in question)

There were a lot of other problems at this place, but that was the day I handed in my resignation.

Post reply on HN