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

81–90 of 334 posts

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

#81

Post by tombert »

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 forward, especially in 2024 (ten years after this was written).

At this point I'm happy enough to just sit my ass down and stay at my current place; I didn't realize how much I valued stability over anything else until 2023 came along and became the worst year of my life.

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

#82

Post by divbzero »

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…

Ironically, the value of employees tend to go up the longer they stay as they grow more familiar with the people and systems at the company.

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

#84

Post by giantg2 »

mjr00 wrote: post #61
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 seni…

" 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 becoming a real expert in the system. It's one thing not to hold it against them, but it's something else to say count it as an advantage at such short intervals.

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

#85

Post by jvanderbot »

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.

Why not both? Just kidding! It is almost certainly the lack of "flight risk". I've been on the management side long enough to know that you reward the most useful folks who "could go anywhere".

As GP said, it's a rational strategy for them. I personally have lowered my expectations of salary growth over the years, and would be happy with some of those other benefits GP listed in the mean-time.

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

#86

Post by spauldo »

mondomondo wrote: post #39
spauldo wrote: post #26

Yep, I see this in industrial automation. My company is particularly bad about it, since the corporate office is in Houston where you can hire people for the duration of a project fairly easily. Problem is, my part of the company isn't in Houston, so qualified employees are hard to find. So we need to hold on to people, which is hard when we rarely hand out raises. I do my best to train up my guys, but I know that th…

Stop suppressing wages and quit.

I'm one of the only ones being paid what I'm worth, so I'm not going anywhere.

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

#87

Post by mjr00 »

austin-cheney wrote: post #66

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…

> 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.

tbh when I'm on the hiring side, this is why I consider a long tenure in the same role at a company a... not really a red flag, but maybe a yellow flag, something to talk about in an interview.

Hate to say it, but lots of long-tenured employees are in this situation. They remain at companies because of interia. Processes have been built around them; they have tribal/domain knowledge which is poorly documented and not readily replaceable; they may be functionally a "C player" but they have additional value they bring via historical context ("Oh, this bit of weird nonsense code? Yeah, I remember we hacked that in right after the acquisition in 2017, we don't need it now...") It's a real concern that someone coming from a situation where they only do ~4 hours of actual work per week might not be able to handle a new job where they have to provide value through other means, i.e. shipped code.

It's not a total disqualification of a candidate for me, obviously, but it'd certainly be something I'd ask about.

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

#88

Post by s1artibartfast »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #60
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 would be interested to see this after switching every 2 years for a couple decades. It goes up 20% each switch, but there still has to be a ceiling where the company can just hire 2-3 young people for the same price.

presumably they also change roles over those decades and accumulate experience that new hires would not have.

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

#89

Post by PaulRobinson »

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.

I don't know you, but I know you aren't a piece of shit. Nobody is.

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

#90

Post by giantg2 »

dakiol wrote: post #67
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)

15% is a huge increase for most. I've never seen a 15% increase at one time.
Post reply on HN