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

221–230 of 334 posts

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

#221

Post by JohnFen »

Excluding cost of living increases, the only time that I've received a pay increase is when I've switched jobs. Every time I change jobs, I increase my minimum acceptable salary by 20%.

I don't change every two years, though. I usually go about 5. Even then, I don't change jobs for the purpose of getting a pay increase (that's just a nice side-effect), but more typically because I've learned everything that I'm going to learn from a the job and need to move to a different one in order to learn new skills (or sometimes just to work on something fresh).

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

#223

Post by hansoolo »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #106
nonethewiser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remote vs. non-remote seems like a huge factor here. Sure, many people when they're young are geographically flexible. But that's less true as you age and are tied down by a house, spouse's job, kid's school, daycare, etc. If you have to come into work, then all those details depend on your job location. You can't just change job locations. Again, this works for some single young people who rent apartments in NYC or…

>This is why the trend towards remote seems inevitable. I wish, but not in my country. Remote here means 2-3 days/week WFH tops and that's it. Nobody offers more. Meaning you're still tied to the location of your employer as you have to come regularly in the office. It boggles my mind that employers don't see the advantage of employing people remotely nation-wide as that gives them access to a wider talent pool outsi…

What country is it you are living in?

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

#224

Post by JohnFen »

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.

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

In my businesses, I've had employees do this a couple of times. Both times my response was "you should take that offer". Also both times, if they'd asked for a pay increase equal to what the offer represented, they probably would have gotten it.

Coming to me with an offer letter in an attempt to get a pay raise is a thing that I think speaks very poorly of the person. It's an attempt to extort me, their current employer, and it's showing great disrespect for the company they got the offer letter from (because the employee is basically just using that employer and wasting their time).

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

#225

Post by giantg2 »

mjr00 wrote: post #99
giantg2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 9-12 months with no gaps in between jobs--in reality, this means "it doesn't look like you were fired"--switching jobs not only makes you look more motivated, it also gives you a wider breadth of experience to draw from." Fuck HR. 12 months is nothing for actual deep learning. I've seen job hoppers come through my company and it's obvious most of them don't get very deep in the work and just move on instead of beco…

For general software engineering roles, like senior and below, 12 months is plenty of time. Good employees, in my experience, can reach full productivity in ~3 months as long as the company isn't a total mess. This isn't to say they're total experts and know all they need to know about the technology/domain/etc., but it's enough time to pick up what's needed to be a productive contributor.

Eh, I haven't seen it. Maybe my company is a mess. Usually they think they know what they’re doing and can contribute on delivering individual tasks. But it seems they lack the background on the strategy, business acumen, and reasoning behind the technical architecture. So yeah, they're productive in the role, but they probably haven't learned enough of value to significantly grow and bring thought leadership to their next role. Especially regarding longterm implementations of their designs/actions since theyre just onto the next thing.

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

#226

Post by ghaff »

Terr_ wrote: post #170
nonethewiser wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remote vs. non-remote seems like a huge factor here. Sure, many people when they're young are geographically flexible. But that's less true as you age and are tied down by a house, spouse's job, kid's school, daycare, etc. If you have to come into work, then all those details depend on your job location. You can't just change job locations. Again, this works for some single young people who rent apartments in NYC or…

> 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.

That's long been a problem with relatively rural universities. If one spouse gets a tenured or tenure-track position, in a lot of cases there aren't great options for the partner.

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

#227

Post by downut »

willcipriano wrote: post #204
mmh0000 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd feel bad wasting the time of the other company just because my current one doesn't value me.

Why? You proved you're competent to the potential suitor by obtaining an offer. They got some valuable quality candidate interviewing experience which can be difficult to achieve, and you got a rock solid tangible improvement in your work QoL, even if the target ultimately didn't achieve their hopeful hire. Possibly they got some data that (to them) implies they should have offered more money. Win win. I would say a win for all of us because "more money".

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

#228

Post by simplyluke »

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…

I’ve observed the same. I do often wonder how much of this is strategy vs being in the right place at the right time as a talented individual. If you’re on a rocket ship, the incentive is to stay and ride that train.

I think past a point (roughly ~senior SWE level) it becomes hard to develop deeper expertise in a series of two year stints.

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

#229

Post by sunshowers »

mondomondo wrote: post #188
sunshowers wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excessive job hopping simply does not look good on a resume! I want to work with engineers and PMs who build lasting monuments, seeing them through to completion, dealing with both the fun and the unfun bits.

Yeah but IMO most people learn 90% the stack in a year, smart people usually get bored after two years. I say that as someone who’s been at the same job for 12 years now. I never met a dev who worked at the same place for more than 4 years that was actually worth the money.

Well, I was at my last job for 10 years :)

To be honest, none of the stuff I've worked on I've gotten comfortable within a year. At Oxide I feel like I understand maybe 30-40% of the stack at the moment after 18 months?

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

#230

Post by willcipriano »

downut wrote: post #227
willcipriano wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd feel bad wasting the time of the other company just because my current one doesn't value me.

Why? You proved you're competent to the potential suitor by obtaining an offer. They got some valuable quality candidate interviewing experience which can be difficult to achieve, and you got a rock solid tangible improvement in your work QoL, even if the target ultimately didn't achieve their hopeful hire. Possibly they got some data that (to them) implies they should have offered more money. Win win. I would say a…

Sure, I guess you could play it back and forth like your sibling comment implies, that seems risky though (you might end up with no offers).

Also why do I want to stay with the cheap people? They proved to be unable to deliver market rates for my efforts unless I make a big scene about it. I don't like to do business with people like that.

Post reply on HN