Not in this market. Got a job paying x almost 2 years ago. Now we’re hiring at 0.5x and actually find good and very good candidates…
Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
281–290 of 334 posts
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#282This 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 think that makes sense when you are already at a "good" company. Then there is opportunity for advancement. The average dark matter developer is not at a FAANG company so YMMV.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#283Caution: you might get paid 50% more to work at a company that is 500% worse managed, and therefore is hemorrhaging employees so fast that the only way they can maintain staffing levels is to offer a hefty premium above normal market wages to get new suckers to take a chance on them. If you're nihilistic and believe all employers are rotten, then jumping ship every 2 years might be a decent game strategy, but I tend…
This happened at my last job. There was literally drama every week. I stayed for a bit over two years, but it was absolutely awful.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#284Employers 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.
Job performance doesn’t really matter in tech. It’s all about interview skills and leetcode
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Stock options weren't available to most medieval thegns, sokesmen, villeins, cottars or bordars. In fact, there was just a lot less coinage back then overall. Hence why most taxes were renders of kind rather than coin.
There's also different concepts of weath. A medieval villein or sokesman might own 120 acres of land. A knight might own a whole 1-5 square miles of land (600 - 3,200 acres). Even a cottar might have 30-40 acres of land.
So what percentage of us are "land poor" these days in comparison? Almost all of us. Most land lots are about 0.2 acres in size in the U.S. "Not even big enough for a garden croft" a medieval bordar would have scoffed.
Meanwhile, there were urban burghers who did invest in various ventures increasingly over time. Yet "coin" was, admittedly, a tiny percentage of medieval wealth.
Sadly, today only about 3/4 of Americans even have a retirement account, and the median value is only $87,000 as of 2022. None of us are living like barons.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#286Employers 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…
> 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. Ambitious employees "know" that switching jobs will give them the pay they're looking for, because they see those numbers right on the job posti…
You're describing the fake breakup. Where you tell your girlfriend/boyfriend you want a break, then let them talk you back into the relationship. This is just a bad relationship move. Now they don't trust you and you have a needy or untrusting partner now.
I've had 50% pay raises that were nearly matched by the current employer. My last manager literally said the words, "What if we offered you a big bag of money to stay?". I left.
Now I work at a place where people stay literally until the die, 10, 15, 25 year tenures. My coworkers are mediocre. I'd say it's a mixture of laziness and sometimes maybe just incompetence.
It's a two fold problem. Employees that stay this long do not progress in their careers or learn new skills. I've learned next to nothing in my 5 years here. Employers that don't create churn in their workers create numerous problems. If we didn't hold a monopoly in our field, I'm sure we would have been bought out and had mass layoffs by now.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#287Such is the nature of life. FTEs who invest the considerable amount of time to continually do a job search are investing a lot more of themselves into their work than guys who stay in the same SWE II role for 10 years straight. They also, pretty much by definition, have more bargaining power even if they stay in their current roles - because they have other jobs on the table to credibly bargain with.
> FTEs who invest the considerable amount of time to continually do a job search are investing a lot more of themselves into their work than guys who stay in the same SWE II role for 10 years straight. I'll play devil's advocate on this one. Are they investing more into their work or do they care less because they'll be gone in a year anyway?
They are investing way more into their own work, is what I meant. Grinding Leetcode, searching for jobs, doing side projects, networking, etc. is a lot more exhausting than just putting in your 40 and punching out. All that on top of a normal 9 to 5 can easily put you at 55-60 hours per week.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Ambitious employees "know" that switching jobs will give them the pay they're looking for, because they see those numbers right on the job posti…
You're describing the fake breakup. Where you tell your girlfriend/boyfriend you want a break, then let them talk you back into the relationship. This is just a bad relationship move. Now they don't trust you and you have a needy or untrusting partner now. I've had 50% pay raises that were nearly matched by the current employer. My last manager literally said the words, "What if we offered you a big bag of money to s…
> You're describing the fake breakup. Where you tell your girlfriend/boyfriend you want a break, then let them talk you back into the relationship.
Oh no, you tell them before you start looking that you feel like your TC is too low based on your contribution. You don't threaten to shop around, you just tell them your skillet has value beyond what they're offering.
It goes like this: either they come back with something to make you happy and everybody is satisfied, or they don't and you start applying.
But people don't always give employers this chance and just start applying first. Then when they go to leave things get weird with counter offers.
If you think your job sucks and you're ready to move on, there's no reason to bother with this approach. But if the only reason you're thinking of moving on is to increase your pay, it never hurts to ask first.
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#289I'm not sure that this is sustainable anymore. I've definitely done the job hopping game, and it generally led to a substantial increase in salary each time, but eventually that comes back to bite you. I got laid off three times last year, and that already looks pretty bad on a resume, but then seeing a bunch of jobs beforehand where I was only there for two years makes a lot of employers really hesitant to move forw…
for the sake of being marketable to recruiters and other hiring people, I think being honest won't do much good. I'd leave a handful of jobs, not necessarily the most recent, but for example ones where impact was the most salable, and the rest just throw under the rug, make up some dates if needed. I think it is very reasonable thing to expect from senior people, to highlight the most relevant experience from their long list of jobs
Re: Employees who stay in companies longer than two years get paid 50% less (2014)
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you really bring your boss an offer letter? Even as top performer it seems like a bad idea to take any counter offer.
That is literally how I got my last promotion. I set up a meeting and told them I had an offer I intended to take. They had a 20% raise and promotion approved within 24 hours. I also routinely get asked by managers for promo recommendations for coworkers thinking about leaving. IF they refuse to counter, then you should be asking yourself why you are staying. You cant pull this maneuver more than once or twice, but i…
What company is that?