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

61–70 of 334 posts

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

#61

Post by mjr00 »

prakhar897 wrote: post #41

Do employees suffer from having too many jumps in their Resume? After some time, companies would be less inclined to hire these people right?

IMO as someone who has done hiring at a FAANG and many other companies, short answer is no, if anything it's the opposite. As long as you hit a sweet spot of staying at each place for at least 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. A senior engineer at Amazon for 8 years knows how to do things the Amazon Way. A senior engineer who was at Google, Meta, Netflix and Amazon for 2 years each knows how to do things four ways, and as long as they can intelligently compare and contrast the way those four companies operate and the pros and cons of each, would be an extremely valuable asset.

The only time this would maybe not apply is director/VP level roles, though if you're switching at that level you presumably have a pre-existing relationship with someone near whatever role you're trying to move into.

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

#62

Post by wsatb »

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #44

Such 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?

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

#63

Post by nonethewiser »

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…

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 SF. But that will always be a subset of job candidates.

This is why the trend towards remote seems inevitable. There are just too many incentives for too much of the workforce to require it. Long term that

Of course these things have always been true, but since remote work became prevalent I think people have realized how shitty of a situation it is - especially when you're not compensated for it. In fact you are actually compensated LESS since you arent job hopping.

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

#64

Post by giantg2 »

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.

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

#65

Post by elintknower »

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 found a few 6-8 months stints really made me look radioactive even with around 5yrs of experience.

I'm open to advice here, but I don't blame people who are optimizing for consistency and a stability.

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

#66

Post by austin-cheney »

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 employers will not invest much in these employees and thus expect them to jump ship.

The other side of that coin is that employees see this too. Those who tend to be more competent and have a really good situation with their employer tend to be the people that stick around knowing they are missing out on pay raises by moving around. 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.

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

#67

Post by dakiol »

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!

I guess it depends on the region. Recently, I have quit a job to get a 15% increase (I know, it’s not a huge increase but I am already hitting this glass ceiling around here in Europe for senior developers)

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

#68

Post by wsintra2022 »

op00to wrote: post #13
whateveracct wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've run into this. I work at a place that claims they pay top market rate. I've poked around other options and it seems like they're right about that! Back in 2014 when this article was posted, it was probably more true. Lots of money frothing around and salaries were growing and growing faster than employers were willing to keep up with for existing employees (although even then, I had a job that gave me a substant…

I am in the same position where the company I work for tends to pay near the top of the market. I account for this by trying to save as much as possible and not having a lifestyle that requires this top of the market salary. I’m under no illusion that the gravy train can run out at any time and my next role may be a step down or step up in salary.

What’s top of market these days for ?

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

#69

Post by HumblyTossed »

iends wrote: post #52
asaph wrote: post #3

This article is nearly 10 years old. Is this still true?

As a manager, it seems true to me. It's much easier to convince HR to pay $X for a new employee than to give a current employee a large enough raise to hit $X.

Yeah, love how HR says, "We can't do that..." Um, yes, you can. You just won't.

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

#70

Post by giantg2 »

fire_lake wrote: post #56
s0kr8s wrote: post #53

Caution: 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 is true. The pool of companies hiring is biased towards companies with poor retention.

In general I would agree. However, you could have many people retiring early from fat salaries, or high growth with low attrition.
Post reply on HN