3 ms·

You seem to perceive it as an either/or proposition. It is possible to have a kickass, satisfying job which also pays really well. Money is important, at least

• intopieces 11y ago
  >It is possible to have a kickass, satisfying job which also pays really well. And it's possible to leave a kickass, satisfying job that pays well and end up at a job that pays better but isn't as satisfying, or has unforeseen tradeoffs. My point isn't that it's an either/or proposition -- it's that there are other things to consider besides money, and the culture around here doesn't seem to value that. Leaving one job for the next one is a calculated risk. The more times you do it, the more chances you end up in a place that doesn't hit all the sweet spots.
  • melted 11y ago
    The more times you do it, the _lower_ is the chance that you end up in a crappy job. If the job doesn't meet your needs, move. I'm not saying money is everything and it should be the only thing to optimize for. I'm just saying there's no shame in demanding more money if you can. As a bonus, awesomeness of "individual contributor" type jobs is well correlated with how much you get paid. Companies are typically interested in putting expensive folks on the meatiest problems.
    • intopieces 11y ago
      >If the job doesn't meet your needs, move. Absolutely. But you've changed the premise to fit your argument. Recall: >He likes what he does, has no commute and practically sets his own hours. In this case, a move after <1 year at BigCo is optimizing only for money. I'm starting to get the impression that there's something in Silicon Valley's fog that suppresses risk aversion -- or maybe it causes FOMO?