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

311–320 of 334 posts

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

#311

Post by samspot »

gamepsys wrote: post #139
tombert wrote: post #81

I'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…

Did you leave positive impressions on your coworkers? Did you maintain contact? Part of the advantage of moving every few years is that you work with more people, which means more people are willing to recommend you for open positions. In those three jobs you were laid off from did any of your coworkers also get laid off? Where did they go to, and can they give you a recommendation? No matter what story your resume t…

I don't know that it's true that moving a lot means you work with more people. I'm at my current company 10 years. From being here 10 years I now know tons of people who came here for 2 years and left. Not to mention all the relationships with people still here.

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

#312

Post by toyg »

zrn900 wrote: post #310
toyg wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they have to answer about the budget in aggregate. If three developers are paid $100k each on year 1, and they hire a new one on 120k on year 2, the average salary has only gone up 5%. If they don't hire and just bump the veterans to 120k, overall expenditure is lower but the average salary is now 20% higher and it looks bad (and you're not growing).

What a self-sabotaging setup. No wonder the mainstream tech got so bloated.

Sadly it's the norm across all companies and all sectors.

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

#313

Post by ghaff »

chasd00 wrote: post #232
burningChrome wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting fact and brings up a paradox I've seen at the last two major companies I've worked for. Both saw a limit on the time someone could be at the company and still be promoted. The C-Suite people really felt if people were at the company for more than 5 years, they were no longer viable candidates to move up because they had become to "accustomed" to the corporate culture and would develop a sense o…

> Both saw a limit on the time someone could be at the company and still be promoted. this is called "up or out", maybe 10-15 years ago my little sister had this same setup at Mckinsey but she's not there anymore. The idea iirc was if you haven't been promoted in 2-3 years then you're better off leaving and trying somewhere else so you get let go. I haven't heard of that setup in a long time.

As I understand it, it's mostly a reflection of partnership structures at big law firms and consultants. At some point, you become a partner and bring in new clients or... there's a limited need for super-senior associates that mostly do billable hours and expect increasing salaries.

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

#314

Post by carlosjobim »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #309
carlosjobim wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take off the union tinted glasses and read again, you see that these employees are exercising their agency to the fullest by moving to better paying jobs at other companies.

My glasses are tinted by reality and data.

1. Individual workers are leaving to better paying jobs 2. This is evidence that they have no agency and should be in a union

Is that a realistic take on the situation?

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

#315

Post by sashank_1509 »

fishpen0 wrote: post #255
sashank_1509 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RSU’s most of the time are not gambling. You’re talking about gambling in startups (or small companies ) that can get acquired, run out of funds etc. Tech layoffs, people don’t realize that after the dot com crash this might be the first time layoffs happened at big tech companies (even then Apple and NVIDIA didn’t layoff). Not taking RSU’s in these tech companies is a very bad idea financially, I like to think of it…

> You can always sell your RSU immediately to get cash. This is not true at all. My current company is privately held and has RSUs. Over the last two years there has been a single buyback and it was at a fixed closed market price and we were limited to selling 10% of our vested RSUs. Lots of startups flipped to RSUs with no plan to go public or be bought out in the last few years. Additionally, even if your company i…

Private company RSU’s are a different ballgame entirely. They are essentially paper money and I would classify them under startups.

Yeah I’d agree for a more risky venture, cash is better (unless you are in a gambling mood), I’d disagree that being true for FAANG or any of the 100 billion + tech companies (Airbnb, Uber, snowflake, Palo Alto networks etc)

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

#316

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

francisofascii wrote: post #57
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #14

Odd to see skepticism here, I thought this was well known. I've seen it first hand just a couple years ago where a large company was offering new hires a 20% bump, and yet when I told them I was leaving the counter offer was only a 3~% bump.

I think people are skeptical of the 50% figure. New employees joining a firm might make more than the current employees at the same level, but do they make 50% more?

Anecdotally, I knew someone who had been at the company 17 years, I had only just joined, was my boss in the software engineering space, and the VP had me report directly to him so that my salary wouldn't be visible.

I later found out when I was leaving I made ~55% more than this person.

Also of note, 50% more of someone's salary is less than 50% of your own. If you make 200k and someone makes 100k, they need a 100% raise.

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

#317

Post by fsckboy »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #119
fsckboy wrote: post #11

this whole thing is sus. why isn't this a better explanation: High performing, "desirable" or "skilled" employees get enticed (i.e. rewarded) for jumping to a new employer. Average schlubs do not. explanation from TFA: Why are people who jump ship rewarded, when loyal employees are punished for their dedication? The answer is simple. Recessions allow businesses to freeze their payroll and decrease salaries of the new…

A lot of people fucking hate having to switch jobs. This has little to do with their skills and a lot to do with all the stress and uncertainty that comes a major life change. Some people enjoy making big changes and shaking themselves up, and that's fine too, but don't confuse that with some sort of inherent superiority.

5 factor personality model, one of the factors is "neuroticism" (the others being openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness; the mnemonic OCEAN)

neuroticism measures "the tendency toward negative emotion". Stress in the face of uncertainty is a good example of a negative emotion that can be exaggerated in some people. Negative emotions also correlate to less success in social and job situations.

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

#318

Post by PhasmaFelis »

fsckboy wrote: post #317
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people fucking hate having to switch jobs. This has little to do with their skills and a lot to do with all the stress and uncertainty that comes a major life change. Some people enjoy making big changes and shaking themselves up, and that's fine too, but don't confuse that with some sort of inherent superiority.

5 factor personality model, one of the factors is "neuroticism" (the others being openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, and agreeableness; the mnemonic OCEAN) neuroticism measures "the tendency toward negative emotion". Stress in the face of uncertainty is a good example of a negative emotion that can be exaggerated in some people. Negative emotions also correlate to less success in social and job situations.

This seems like a lot of justification to say that people who enjoy changing jobs frequently are objectively better than people who don't. I'm guessing you're in that first group?

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

#319

Post by sedawk »

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…

In a recent org-wide all-hands a member from senior leadership (C-suite) did explicitly say that they always have a much higher budget for new hires than the budget for rewarding/retaining existing talent; and that this is by-design. This was an eye-opener to me :-|

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

#320

Post by JohnFen »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #273
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…

That's strange to me. Why is it extortion? They're doing you a favor by giving a chance to compete. Seems like honest communication to me. It is no different than giving customers a notice of price increase or giving contractors an option to bid.

It smells of extortion to me because the reason for doing it is to use the offer as a threat.

> Seems like honest communication to me.

Extortion is honest communication, too. The existence of an offer doesn't do anything to help me decide whether or not I can go along with a pay increase. It only communicates that the employee wants to threaten me into agreeing to one.

In my opinion, the better way is to ask for the pay raise without mentioning the offer. If they I don't give them the raise and it's that important to them, then they should just take the offer.

> It is no different than giving customers a notice of price increase or giving contractors an option to bid.

I think it's very different from that, actually. You can require a raise as a condition to stay at the company without trying to use another offer as a weapon.

Post reply on HN