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

241–250 of 334 posts

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

#241

Post by synthc »

JohnFen wrote: post #224
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.

> 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…

This is so shortshighted, it's not about 'respect', its about market value. By bringing an offer your employees are proving their market value, and you don't want to match it, so they will leave.

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

#242

Post by JumpCrisscross »

antonyt wrote: post #192
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> than enduring getting laid off

“Probability of job loss is strongly monotonically declining in tenure,” with job-loss probability falling from 15% for first-year private sector employees to 5.8% after twenty years [1].

(If you’ve ever had to do lay-offs, you know that it’s easier to lay off the new guy than someone with deep ties to the team.)

[1] https://www.princeton.edu/~ceps/workingpapers/171farber.pdf page 31, Figure 16

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

#243

Post by LoulouMonkey »

giantg2 wrote: post #64
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…

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.

If anything, I have found my own disability to be a huge plus when looking for a new job. I'm one of these job hoppers and it's been almost 10 years since I have stayed over 3 years within the same company. Coincidentally, I was diagnosed with some condition that I won't name here about 10 years ago.

Now, this is solely based on my own experience, which of course might not apply to your specific field of work and disability type.

What I mean is, most large companies have a voluntary self-identification form at the end of their job application. And I tend to get a lot more responses when applying for roles where I am invited to disclose my disability.

On a funny note, recruiters always want to confirm that I indeed have a disability, but they can't just reach out and ask "hey dude you sure you didn't click on that button by mistake?".

Instead, they always send this very P.C. email that reads like "Here at [insert company name] we pride ourselves on bein inclusive and bla bla bla. You informed us that you had disability, and we want to make sure that we can accommodate you and make you feel welcome. If you need any special arrangement, please let us know".

To which my response is always "Yes I do have this thing, and no I'm fine thanks".

My disability has fucked up a lot of things in my life, but it's boosted my career.

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

#244

Post by kagakuninja »

sed3 wrote: post #12

Quitting just because you are not paid enough is so 2014. I will gladly take 50% less, if you keep me!

Take 50% less, until you get a better offer. The job market will pick up again.

There is no guarantee that your current stable job will not suddenly come to an end for many reasons. Outside of a few rare companies, there is absolutely no reason to stay, if they are not paying you market rate.

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

#245

Post by edward28 »

sunshowers wrote: post #229
mondomondo wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well oxide isn't exactly a simple crud app, is it.

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

#246

Post by JohnFen »

lupire wrote: post #231
JohnFen wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You admit to intentionallu underpaying your employees, and then insinuate moral failing on their part for proving their worth to after you told them your underestimate of it? Good for them that they left, and left you poorer for it.

> You admit to intentionallu underpaying your employees

Not at all. I've never intentionally underpaid anyone.

> then insinuate moral failing on their part for proving their worth

Also not at all. Presenting an offer letter from someone is not "proving their worth". My objection is the manipulation they're engaging in rather than just asking for what they think they should be getting.

> and left you poorer for it.

Only one of them left, and I was not left poorer for it at all.

I'm not sure why you seem so hostile here. I never dealt with anyone in bad faith, even a little.

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

#248

Post by thayne »

jprete wrote: post #172
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.

> 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 yo…

Or maybe people who are better and more confident at negotiation and interviewing are also more confident at hopping jobs. But those skills may or may not correlate with the skills you care about.

Just because you are a good software engineer doesn't mean you are good at finding a new job.

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

#249

Post by whateveracct »

schrodinger wrote: post #211
wsintra2022 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s top of market these days for ?

levels.fyi

I'll also just be explicit with recruiters who email me. Say I'd be looking for X amount. And they pretty much always say "oh no that's too much" and we go our separate ways. So that channel feels dried up.

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

#250

Post by kagakuninja »

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…

Even for a shitty interviewer like myself, it does work. It just takes me more interviews to finally get the offer.

I've tried doing a good job and asking for raises, they never match market rate.

Post reply on HN