6 ms·

I don't get people who say, "Well I would never hire someone who has never worked more than 5 years at a single place!!!" I would never have increased my from

I don't get people who say, "Well I would never hire someone who has never worked more than 5 years at a single place!!!" I would never have increased my from $68k to $115k in 5 years.I probably would've been somewhere at like $80k right now at best if I was didn't switch jobs twice. If it means some hiring manager is going say some snarky opinion, then yes I'll take my extra money.

dsacco 9y ago
Do you mind sharing what region you're in? You may have found it was easy to significantly increase your compensation because you were significantly underpaid, instead of just because you were frequently changing jobs.
- djloche 9y ago
  I think in the past 5 years there's been a ton of realization from non SF/NYC/VC-tech companies in the fact that they are competing from the same pool of talent and thus have to offer competitive salaries on a national basis, not just competitive for their area/city. There is still a ton of progress to be made in this regard, but it is changing. for example, a hypothetical newly graduated programmer with some skills and experience should be able to land a starting position for at least ~$80k+. companies that would have previously been trying to pay ~$40k in their area are now realizing that by offering a competitive dollar amount, the actual cost of living makes their offer the most compelling one. Whereas before, they'd offer the $40k and say, well, our offer is lower because it's cheaper to live here. The right attitude is matching the ballpark competition in dollar amounts, and saying, you should accept our offer because your money goes further here.
  - draw_down 9y ago
    Hmm, a lot of young people have the mentality that they'll learn more and go farther in their careers if they go to SF/SV to start, even if their adjusted salary is lower. I can't say whether they're right for sure, but it sounds right to me. I think my career has "suffered" for never having lived there. (I'm still doing just fine.)
    - needlessly 9y ago
      i've been working in the midwest, but I don't doubt that networking is much better in the Bay Area / Seattle.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- needlessly 9y ago
  midwest. My starting pay was only a couple thousand below my my university's CS program's average (wasn't the strongest student coming out), but it was within range of glassdoor reviews. I stayed at for 2.5 years at each role.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mikekchar 9y ago
On the other hand, look at it from a hiring manager's perspective: people who have stayed in a job long enough to see how things go wrong are also less expensive. I'll be honest, if I'm looking at a CV for someone with 10 years of experience and they have changed jobs every year or two, I will suspect that they are missing some pretty important experience as a senior developer. Everybody makes serious mistakes that don't show themselves for years. Those who don't stick around usually assume that any mistakes they find in their new company were due to incompetence. Similarly, people who have not stuck around for years have never been instrumental in doing difficult culture transformations, or fixing long term architectural problems. It's truly unfortunate that the industry rewards those who don't tackle these kinds of difficult problems. The legacy is an industry where the problems are ubiquitous: flavour of the month architecture, my way or the highway bullying, either process of the month or "pragmatic" (aka ad hoc) processes, absolute disrespect for coworkers (I'm the only one with an ounce of sense). Yep, I'm happy to take the discount on the developer who is humble, knows how to navigate political mine fields, knows how to recover from mistakes, knows how to refine techniques and processes, etc, etc. I'm also happy to take the odd "rock star" if they are actually good enough, but I'd never build an entire team of them (willingly).
- sesteel 9y ago
  It isn't one or the other, there is value in both staying for a longer period of time and moving more frequently. When moving more frequently, you can be exposed to a wider variety of problems and have a more complete picture of the profession and the various pitfalls. Plus, you may have the opportunity to learn from and correct the mistakes of others. It can accelerate your growth and pay substantially if you are doing it for the right reasons. I would never fault anybody for doing so without discovering why they moved.
  - meric 9y ago
    I think it's good to have a bit of variety - one or two roles where you stayed 3, 4, 5 years, then a bunch of companies only 1-2 years each. You'd have some depth of experience as well as breadth.
sverhagen 9y ago
They didn't say: "never hire ... who has ever worked less than 5 years at a single place". If you're looking for a mature leader, who you can trust to own, carry a team or a product line, for a number of years, after ramping up in the domain of a complex company and product, maybe you want someone who has proven and can speak to having done this before. (If I want a smart kid who has a wealth of technologies in their toolbox, I may care less about lengthy tenures.)
johnward 9y ago
I had the same experience with the same numbers too. Except I've now been at my current employer for about 5 years, after accepting a matching offer a few times. I would never be anywhere near where I am had I stayed at those first few companies.

dsacco 9y ago

Do you mind sharing what region you're in? You may have found it was easy to significantly increase your compensation because you were significantly underpaid, instead of just because you were frequently changing jobs.

djloche 9y ago
I think in the past 5 years there's been a ton of realization from non SF/NYC/VC-tech companies in the fact that they are competing from the same pool of talent and thus have to offer competitive salaries on a national basis, not just competitive for their area/city. There is still a ton of progress to be made in this regard, but it is changing. for example, a hypothetical newly graduated programmer with some skills and experience should be able to land a starting position for at least ~$80k+. companies that would have previously been trying to pay ~$40k in their area are now realizing that by offering a competitive dollar amount, the actual cost of living makes their offer the most compelling one. Whereas before, they'd offer the $40k and say, well, our offer is lower because it's cheaper to live here. The right attitude is matching the ballpark competition in dollar amounts, and saying, you should accept our offer because your money goes further here.
- draw_down 9y ago
  Hmm, a lot of young people have the mentality that they'll learn more and go farther in their careers if they go to SF/SV to start, even if their adjusted salary is lower. I can't say whether they're right for sure, but it sounds right to me. I think my career has "suffered" for never having lived there. (I'm still doing just fine.)
  - needlessly 9y ago
    i've been working in the midwest, but I don't doubt that networking is much better in the Bay Area / Seattle.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
needlessly 9y ago
midwest. My starting pay was only a couple thousand below my my university's CS program's average (wasn't the strongest student coming out), but it was within range of glassdoor reviews. I stayed at for 2.5 years at each role.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mikekchar 9y ago

On the other hand, look at it from a hiring manager's perspective: people who have stayed in a job long enough to see how things go wrong are also less expensive. I'll be honest, if I'm looking at a CV for someone with 10 years of experience and they have changed jobs every year or two, I will suspect that they are missing some pretty important experience as a senior developer. Everybody makes serious mistakes that don't show themselves for years. Those who don't stick around usually assume that any mistakes they find in their new company were due to incompetence. Similarly, people who have not stuck around for years have never been instrumental in doing difficult culture transformations, or fixing long term architectural problems. It's truly unfortunate that the industry rewards those who don't tackle these kinds of difficult problems. The legacy is an industry where the problems are ubiquitous: flavour of the month architecture, my way or the highway bullying, either process of the month or "pragmatic" (aka ad hoc) processes, absolute disrespect for coworkers (I'm the only one with an ounce of sense). Yep, I'm happy to take the discount on the developer who is humble, knows how to navigate political mine fields, knows how to recover from mistakes, knows how to refine techniques and processes, etc, etc. I'm also happy to take the odd "rock star" if they are actually good enough, but I'd never build an entire team of them (willingly).

sesteel 9y ago
It isn't one or the other, there is value in both staying for a longer period of time and moving more frequently. When moving more frequently, you can be exposed to a wider variety of problems and have a more complete picture of the profession and the various pitfalls. Plus, you may have the opportunity to learn from and correct the mistakes of others. It can accelerate your growth and pay substantially if you are doing it for the right reasons. I would never fault anybody for doing so without discovering why they moved.
- meric 9y ago
  I think it's good to have a bit of variety - one or two roles where you stayed 3, 4, 5 years, then a bunch of companies only 1-2 years each. You'd have some depth of experience as well as breadth.

sverhagen 9y ago

They didn't say: "never hire ... who has ever worked less than 5 years at a single place". If you're looking for a mature leader, who you can trust to own, carry a team or a product line, for a number of years, after ramping up in the domain of a complex company and product, maybe you want someone who has proven and can speak to having done this before. (If I want a smart kid who has a wealth of technologies in their toolbox, I may care less about lengthy tenures.)

johnward 9y ago

I had the same experience with the same numbers too. Except I've now been at my current employer for about 5 years, after accepting a matching offer a few times. I would never be anywhere near where I am had I stayed at those first few companies.