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

191–200 of 334 posts

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

#191

Post by nanidin »

kbolino wrote: post #157
PopAlongKid wrote: post #148

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.

Can you clarify on the "invasive examination of your finances"?

In my experience, when you apply on healthcare.gov, you simply enter your estimated income for the year you're applying - that's it, and you get the subsidy. Then when you file your taxes for that year, you either get more subsidy as a credit, or pay some back depending on whether you came in above or below the estimate you provided on the application.

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

#192

Post by antonyt »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #122
datavirtue wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Only because you've chosen a certain definition of stability. For most people, I'd bet leaving a job voluntarily for a new opportunity yields a higher sense of stability than enduring getting laid off, having your teammates get laid off, or having your org structure drastically change.

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

#193

Post by mulmen »

mjr00 wrote: post #87
austin-cheney wrote: post #66

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…

Huh. I would have the exact same response to your questioning my work ethic and competence based on tenure. Definitely a yellow flag that a company could have a toxic busywork culture and doesn’t value experience.

I am coming up on 10 years and I frequently help my newer peers avoid pitfalls we fell into previously. Historical context is useful. That doesn’t mean I live there.

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

#194

Post by mulmen »

austin-cheney wrote: post #173
mjr00 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your response is curious to me because it suggests multiple unstated biases. I am inferring you suggest: 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 t…

> The goal of economics is always to redistribute resources to a more desirable pattern.

Economics is a social science that studies and attempts to explain the behavior of markets.

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

#195

Post by Terr_ »

rshah_45 wrote: post #190
Terr_ wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't just change job locations. Also when a family has/needs two parents working, Spouse A's next job becomes limited to locations that do not require Spouse B to also quit, and vice-versa. I have a pet theory that dual-incomes are one cause of movement to urban locations: The family needs to be in a location with enough overlapping opportunities in each person's role/field.

You have it backwards. In remote areas, it can get lonely and hard to find a partner. Think about people who's only social interaction for the most part is coworkers. Moving to where other people are increases your chances of finding others you click with.

That sounds less like "backwards" and more like "separate contributing factor".

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

#196

Post by mmh0000 »

jcon321 wrote: post #147
s1artibartfast wrote: post #127

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.

Yes! I've done it several times. It's one of the best and most reliable ways to get a raise.

It's "business." Your manager isn't going to make a counteroffer, then wait a month and fire you. I mean, they might if they're a total D.bag, but I've not yet had that experience. And if I had, I'd already proven to myself and my manager that I could get a higher-paying job elsewhere. It'd be a minor annoyance on my side.

I don't want to give away specifics, so take these numbers with a lump of salt; the ratios are correct:

Went from $50k/yr [1]-> $80k/yr [2]-> $120k/yr [3]-> $205k/yr

[1] The company wanted me to stay and raised my pay to match the competing offers.

[2] The company wanted me to stay and raised my pay to match the competing offers.

[3] The company didn't want to pay that much, so I put in my two weeks and moved to a different company.

From my experience, I've found that requesting a raise without a competing offer often leads to a small or no increase in pay. However, when I've approached my manager with a better offer in hand, it has consistently resulted in substantial pay raises.

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

#197

Post by dasil003 »

It's probably true on average job hopping pays off when you're young, it also has some real upside risks as more senior positions generally require you to think longer term, and that's very hard if you don't see how your actions and decisions play out.

As a hiring manager, three 2-year stints would be perfectly reasonable for an L5 candidate, but five 2-year stints I would be very concerned about hiring an L6 expected to drive long-term architectural directions.

Ultimately I think the "learning or earning" advice is better. When you are young you should chase your interests and prioritize personal growth and finding out what you are good at. The primary heuristic should be whether you are learning quickly, and are you surrounded by people and structure that help you with that. Later on in your career when you have more personal responsibilities you should prioritize earning, and hopefully you have built a foundation of strong and deep expertise that qualifies you for more senior positions. Of course if you can get both, that's great, but you also need to be careful because a lot of things you learn at the best paying companies have limited applicability outside that bubble.

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

#198

Post by giantg2 »

greentxt wrote: post #98
giantg2 wrote: post #64

Earlier 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.

Depressed people get paid less. I'm guessing that's the dissability. Apropos the larger context, job hopping correlates with over-confidence. It's all related.

Autistic. Research out of the UK shows a pay gap of 70 cents on the dollar. This seems to track in the US too.

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

#199

Post by kbolino »

PopAlongKid wrote: post #175
kbolino wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>invasive examination of your finances, The househpold income is voluntarily self-reported.

You're right. I misremembered; no amount of information would have helped. The option was Medicaid or full out of pocket.

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

#200

Post by elintknower »

justsocrateasin wrote: post #111
elintknower wrote: post #65

Job hopping works if you're already in the top 10% of engineers and really talented when it comes to... interviewing. I suck at leetcode so maybe that's why I'm just not cut out for this. As long as I'm making $150k+ and can WFH I'm not exactly confident I could go out and interview and get something better. My work history isn't great because I tried job hopping and was a co-founder at a few startups. I quickly foun…

I thought for a long time that I was trash at leetcode. I would regularly fail the coding portions of interviews. Then a recruiter reached out with a tempting JD and I became good at leetcode, it just took a lot of hard work of tricking my brain into thinking it was a good use of my time.

I'm getting tired of wasting my time at startups so 4.7 years into my career it might be time to finally just waste the time necessary to nail these problems.
Post reply on HN