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

141–150 of 334 posts

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

#141

Post by zug_zug »

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…

Except if an employee knows they provide more value to their employer than they receive, then an employee has every reason to stop working hard and start coasting off the social-capital / past-accomplishments / strong-relationships.

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

#142

Post by lotsofpulp »

PeterCorless wrote: post #72
crooked-v wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think calling it "feudalism" is quite right, because feudalism as a system depends extensively on personal loyalties at each step of the chain of authority. The death of feudalism came from monarchs developing enough administrative power that they no longer had to depend on the loyalty of their vassals to control areas outside their personal domains.

Late-stage capitalism is definitely different than late-stage feudalism. For example, we still have the equivalent of early Medieval English right of "socn" ("soke") — the right to withdraw our loyalty from one lord and grant it to another. We're not "tied" to our corporate overlords the same way that serfs were through strict infeudation. A recent court case threw out most of the nonsense non-compete clauses also he…

> In other terms of what I consider "corporate feudalism:"

What about having an SP500 index fund (or other broad market fund) compose the majority of your life savings? Or your city/county/state government’s pension fund savings?

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

#143

Post by bradlys »

HEmanZ wrote: post #71

This seems very generally true to a point, so on average it works out. But I think there is a big caveat. My thoughts are centered around software development, but I know there are many analogous career paths. I really believe if your career goal is to peak a lot higher than just middle-management or senior software engineer, and earn the pay that comes with those higher positions, you need to stay on the same compan…

People who continually get rewarded at their companies (higher level positions, promotions, etc.) tend to stay at said companies. That’s all you’re seeing.

I’ve seen folks go from new grad to staff in under 4 years at FAANG. They just had a favorable relationship with their manager. It’s a ton of luck. You don’t get to entirely choose your manager and company trajectory in most cases.

Almost everyone in SV is overqualified. I’ve rarely met anyone who I felt was incapable of doing the job adequately. Often when I felt that way, it was someone who was “distinguished” in the way you’re mentioning… which speaks more to my point. It’s about your relation with management and your luck in said relation.

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

#144

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

I totally believe that.

Nevertheless, after job-hopping a bit, in my twenties, I stayed at my last job for almost 27 years.

I have found that money isn't everything. I know that's basically heresy, around here, but it's been my truth.

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

#145

Post by fundad »

spauldo wrote: post #86
mondomondo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop suppressing wages and quit.

I'm one of the only ones being paid what I'm worth, so I'm not going anywhere.

Accepting proper pay is suppressing wages of others. It's ok because you need money.

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

#146

Post by setgree »

andrewmutz wrote: post #123

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 highes…

Even if there were observational data to this effect, the obvious confound is that more skilled people are more in demand -> more likely to hear from recruiters -> more likely to move

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

#147

Post by jcon321 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #127
arpyzo wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you really bring your boss an offer letter? Even as top performer it seems like a bad idea to take any counter offer.

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

#148

Post by PopAlongKid »

snarf21 wrote: post #126
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 th…

>healthcare (US) is a major factor.

Not as much since Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) became law over ten years ago. Anyone can get minimum essential coverage, with a subsidy if income is low enough (as it would be when out of a job), regardless of pre-existing conditions.

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

#150

Post by shinryuu »

wsintra2022 wrote: post #68
op00to wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What’s top of market these days for ?

Depends if you're in US and if you're working at fang I guess.

Could probably get higher if I made an effort getting a fang role but not really interested in fang.

Post reply on HN