171–180 of 334 posts
In fact, what I observed is that people are constantly looking for place with better pay, regardless if he/she ACTUALLY finds one.
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.
The same effect might even be partially responsible for the OP observation. I.e. the cause and effect might not be "job-hopping gets you paid more" but it might instead be "having a lot of skill gets you paid more and also enables you to job-hop more confidently".
I remember seeing numbers several years ago that the average retention at Uber was around 18 months. My big learning from employer hoping as a JavaScript developer is that it’s risky. There is a universal assumption that the people who do that work fall below an accepted baseline of delivery and maturity compared with other developers as qualified by the amount of tooling and hand holding they require. That said many…
> For example if I get to spend half my office day watching movies and working on side projects in a stable company with no stress that potential raise from the next employer might not be worth it. tbh when I'm on the hiring side, this is why I consider a long tenure in the same role at a company a... not really a red flag, but maybe a yellow flag, something to talk about in an interview. Hate to say it, but lots of…
1. Ambition is more a product of social mobility than product delivery.
2. Success is more a product of prior established salary than personal goals.
From an economics perspective these seem weird to me for two reasons. The goal of economics is always to redistribute resources to a more desirable pattern.
One of the first things I look for in job interviews from interviewers and hiring managers is perception of bias. This is easily discovered by looking at what they want which can be some mixture of technical competency, charm/vanity, or communications dominance. Interviewers want to control the conversation, so just let them until the conversation concludes or I achieve communications dominance passively. I don't want to play games, but when there is noise in the inter-personal communication I have to be a little bit smarter than I appear. I just want a job doing what the paper says, but people are silly.
The second reason why its weird is that in the past I have been that 10x (or much more) developer because my goals are different. The only point of software is automation, which means if I can automate my own job then I don't have to do it either. I usually keep this to myself, because the goal is time maximization so I can do other things with my day while delivering superior quality work. If I told other people about it my peers would whine and I would be tasked to do things outside of product delivery to compensate for their whining. I am certainly not looking for anybody's adoration. I just want to do less stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
If you go without a job for a while and you don't want Medicaid [edit -- not even an option: and you don't want to submit to an invasive examination of your finances], you are paying out of pocket for individual marketplace plans. While they run a lot cheaper than COBRA, they are still hefty (ca. $500/mo for 2 people at minimum coverage). Maybe it was worse before the ACA but it sure isn't a picnic after.
The househpold income is voluntarily self-reported.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I don't know. I try to maintain empathy, even for the most despicable -- but that doesn't mean their actions need to be tolerated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously. My brother received $1 million in Tesla stock options when they recruited him. They certainly aren’t worth that much anymore. Does he stay and hope the Musk will stop tanking the stock or jump ship?
Tesla is giving options instead of RSUs still? Usually big public companies grant RSUs except to the top-most senior leadership team.
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…
Two more: - The company has a limit for how many times you can leave and come back. For example (last I checked), Intel is 2, Apple is 0. - For large companies, internal transfers can be diverse enough to make someone happy with a change. Although, pay raises are more limited.
In my vicinity the trend seems completely opposite - HR is trying to get a smoother rehiring experience for employees they lost due to their high turnover.
This might be because the talent pool of people willing and able to do IT jobs in my country is very small, so you run into the same people over and over again in this field.
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…