5 ms·

I think it's important to understand that there's a significant amount of selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are th

by nilkn 9y ago

I think it's important to understand that there's a significant amount of selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies. The ones who are getting offered big raises may still choose to leave due to other reasons, but they often will choose to stay instead. And they won't be making a big fuss about it online. There's another phenomenon here. Almost by definition, average developers are not going to get big raises. They'll get average raises. The average developer raise is probably 3-5%, which is not big but it's more than the average raise across all professions, at least in the US. This leads to an interesting question: why can the average developer get a big raise by switching jobs? I think at least part of the answer is that companies simply have more information about employees who've been around for at least a few years than they do about potential hires still on the market. It's a lot easier for a company to realize an employee is about average once that person has been on the job for 12+ months than it is during the interview phase, where the questions are heavily sandboxed and generally focused on basic problem solving ability rather than the candidate's ability to convert that into business value. Finally, in general people who are average but think they're above average really do not like to confront the fact that they're average. So average developers with big egos being offered average raises will often very vehemently argue that the problem is all with the companies they've worked at and never with themselves. --- Another point worth focusing on here is that raises are really determined by the business value that you're producing, not your raw intelligence or passion for coding. Very smart coders may or may not be any good at converting that talent into lots of value for the company. It may even be that sometimes a less talented coder gets offered a much bigger raise because other skills allowed them to create significant value. I think this explains why so many folks are average but think they're above average. It's because they might indeed be above average in some metrics, but not the metrics that matter to their employer.

sverhagen 9y ago
Great analysis. Small addition, it highlights that being a developer is such a different skill than interviewing well. It all makes me feel so much better. /me gonna dig up them yearly salary letters and checking some percentages.
- Evelyn533 9y ago
  My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I'm a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can't believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do, •••••••••>>http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k
sverhagen 9y ago
Old joke, not mine: 90% of developers believes they're above average.
- FRex 9y ago
  90% of a population can easily be above average in a real life scenario where most of the group is roughly equal with few elements dragging the average slightly below their level. Example: nine 11s and one 10, the average is 10.9 and 90% of the population is above it. If you want to split a group in half then you need to use the median.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    I'm glad that someone is finally giving the 0.1x programmers like myself the credit the deserve.
    - Lewton 9y ago
      0.1x could still be above average http://wiki.c2.com/?NetNegativeProducingProgrammer http://wiki.c2.com/?NetNegativeProducingProgrammer
    - hamandcheese 9y ago
      The wisdom I [like to] hear is that as long as you're above 0x, you're golden.
    - daemin 9y ago
      That would still be higher than the 0.0x Wally in the Dilbert comics.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    Alternatively, you could have nine 5s and a 1 and you have an average of 4.6 with 90% above average.
  - marvin 9y ago
    Also, developer skill is not a one-dimensional attribute, e.g. you could be better at writing maintainable code but worse at translating business requirements into $$$. Most developers are probably above average in one metric.
blub 9y ago
Most companies do some kind of review where they tell the employee how good they did. I assume they review employees based on business value. So, if one consistently gets good reviews and small raises it's quite clear what's happening.
willvarfar 9y ago
> selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies. The article is saying that those who stay don't get offered big raises. The article says that if you stay you get 3% or less. There's even a pretty chart to make this point. Employees aren't paid what they are worth, they are paid as little as the company can get away with. The delta is profit to the company, which is the whole purpose of the company's existence. Employees who stay are demonstrating they can put up with flatter wage development, and they are being taken advantage of by the employers.
- deepGem 9y ago
  This is true even when a company is hiring someone. They will try to hire you at the lowest possible tier. Of course there are exceptions to this.
  - nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
    The negotiating situation is different when hiring someone vs when offering a raise.
- nilkn 9y ago
  I hoped it was clear I was discussing this topic beyond what the article says. After all, that is what comment sections are for.
FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
> Finally, in general people who are average but think they're above average really do not like to confront the fact that they're average. I don't think this is necessarily a consequence of overinflated egos. I consider myself an average to slightly above-average developer, yet my salary is consistently higher than my peers. It's higher because I'm willing to negotiate on my compensation. I don't concern myself with what I'm worth or what business value I produce. I simply try to maximize my pay This quote from Mr Robot sums things up brilliantly: "Power/wealth belongs to the people that take it. Nothing to do with their hard work, strong ambitions, or rightful qualifications, no. The actual will to take is often the only thing that's necessary."
- softawre 9y ago
  > myself an average to slightly above-average developer His point was that everybody thinks this about themselves. This is the "I'd rate myself about a 8/10" thing.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    I understand. My point was that it isn't necessarily true. A lot of people say the "Id give myself an 8" because that's how you get higher compensation. I think a large number of people don't really care how good they actually are because a lot of people aren't especially excited about their jobs, they're just there for they money
RangerScience 9y ago
> Another point worth focusing on here is that raises are really determined by the business value that you're producing I mean, notionally, yeah. But that's putting the employer up a pedestal of competency that may not be justified. Less poetically: it's forgetting just how hard it can be to measure that value, and the role of optics and "managing up"; there's also the consideration for excellence on never-released projects; in such a case, do you or do you not deserve a raise? There's many more factors that go into "your business value"; intelligence, passion, communication, and luck (right place, right time) are some, but not all, of the factors. What you are saying is definitely correct in an ideal world, but we live in a sub-ideal world; that's why there's valuable problems to solve in the first place.
- softawre 9y ago
  The more correct way to say it is that you should be paid based on what value you expect to bring to the company in the future. Value you have brought to them in the past is a good indicator but there are others.
netcan 9y ago
Most of our labour laws and policies are based on long term employment, as close to permanent as possible. There are several "stories" we could formulate, though it's hard to know which dynamic is significant or dominant in the overall scheme of things. That's why it's hard to get conclusive results from ex post analysis (expiremental study is rarely possible). Maybe young people (on a faster learning/earning curve) switch jobs more often. Maybe underpaying employers have higher attrition rates. Maybe people only leave if the prospective job offers a big raise (causation is reversed). There is also the question of lead indicators in changing markets. 6-7 years ago, new employees (where I live) were earning far less than old ones. The labour market was terrible, so you could hire new employees for cheap. Older employees were earning salaries based on raises they received during the boom years, 2-3 years previous. As the market changed, the newer employees got bigger raises. In this case, the dominant ( I think) dynamic for about 3-4 years was a slow gradual reaction to a big market shock, because salaries are negotiated iregularly an seldom adjusted downward.
curun1r 9y ago
> In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies I think the selection bias works in the opposite way that you assume. The employees switching jobs every two years are the ones that are in higher demand and are easily able to get and pass job interviews. They're the ones that better know their market value and the ones that are most easily able to leverage one offer against another to negotiate a better offer. It's this phenomenon that leads companies to even consider morale zapping policies like always laying off the bottom X% of their employees. The theory behind that idea is that if you just allow other companies to poach your top employees, you'll be left with nothing but your bottom employees who have trouble landing other work. Having seen this play out in a few of my employers, I believe it's a very real danger, though forced layoffs are a really terrible way to deal with it.
archeantus 9y ago
This jives with another phenomenon I have noticed over the years: the smartest or best devs in the company aren't necessarily making the most money. Imagine you have a very talented engineer that joins Company A out of college. They pick up new skills quickly and do an excellent job with everything they get thrown their way. The reality is that the company isn't likely to give them a 50% bonus overnight just because they deserve it. Whereas you can get another person that comes in from another company (and many more before that) and due to the nature of jumping around has the title and the base salary going for them. They very well aren't as good as this other person, but just because they have what they have, they keep getting it. To be really successful as an engineer, you need to know your stuff, and also know what you are worth. I've seen so many talented engineers stick with companies that are paying them way under market value just because they don't feel like applying anywhere else and they don't know how much more they could be making elsewhere.
mseebach 9y ago
> significant amount of selection bias possible here There's another one: I once heard the phenomenon described as "the difference between having ten years of experience versus having one year of experience ten times". The kind of people who end up having ten years of experience will typically be the kind of people who will want to move on and do something new/more after having mastered a given set of tasks. Sometimes they can do this inside the same company, but oftentimes they will need to look outside and switch jobs for the challenges they're after. The other kind will typically value stability and comfort over money (and let's not underestimate the stress of applying, interviewing and switching jobs). Sometimes they will have "fallen" more or less accidentally into this mode, but I've met more than a few good people who actively choses this, and explicitly acknowledges that it's not exactly a money-play. When the former kind makes more money, it's not because they switch jobs often, that's just a symptom. People in investment banking or management consulting with clearly defined up-or-out career paths are subjected to the same dynamic, and also make a lot of money.

by nilkn 9y ago

sverhagen 9y ago

Great analysis. Small addition, it highlights that being a developer is such a different skill than interviewing well. It all makes me feel so much better. /me gonna dig up them yearly salary letters and checking some percentages.

Evelyn533 9y ago
My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I'm a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can't believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn't be happier. Heres what I do, •••••••••>>http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k

sverhagen 9y ago

Old joke, not mine: 90% of developers believes they're above average.

FRex 9y ago
90% of a population can easily be above average in a real life scenario where most of the group is roughly equal with few elements dragging the average slightly below their level. Example: nine 11s and one 10, the average is 10.9 and 90% of the population is above it. If you want to split a group in half then you need to use the median.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  I'm glad that someone is finally giving the 0.1x programmers like myself the credit the deserve.
  - Lewton 9y ago
    0.1x could still be above average http://wiki.c2.com/?NetNegativeProducingProgrammer http://wiki.c2.com/?NetNegativeProducingProgrammer
  - hamandcheese 9y ago
    The wisdom I [like to] hear is that as long as you're above 0x, you're golden.
  - daemin 9y ago
    That would still be higher than the 0.0x Wally in the Dilbert comics.
- hndamien 9y ago
  Alternatively, you could have nine 5s and a 1 and you have an average of 4.6 with 90% above average.
- marvin 9y ago
  Also, developer skill is not a one-dimensional attribute, e.g. you could be better at writing maintainable code but worse at translating business requirements into $$$. Most developers are probably above average in one metric.

blub 9y ago

Most companies do some kind of review where they tell the employee how good they did. I assume they review employees based on business value. So, if one consistently gets good reviews and small raises it's quite clear what's happening.

willvarfar 9y ago

> selection bias possible here. In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies. The article is saying that those who stay don't get offered big raises. The article says that if you stay you get 3% or less. There's even a pretty chart to make this point. Employees aren't paid what they are worth, they are paid as little as the company can get away with. The delta is profit to the company, which is the whole purpose of the company's existence. Employees who stay are demonstrating they can put up with flatter wage development, and they are being taken advantage of by the employers.

deepGem 9y ago
This is true even when a company is hiring someone. They will try to hire you at the lowest possible tier. Of course there are exceptions to this.
- nf05papsjfVbc 9y ago
  The negotiating situation is different when hiring someone vs when offering a raise.
nilkn 9y ago
I hoped it was clear I was discussing this topic beyond what the article says. After all, that is what comment sections are for.

FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago

> Finally, in general people who are average but think they're above average really do not like to confront the fact that they're average. I don't think this is necessarily a consequence of overinflated egos. I consider myself an average to slightly above-average developer, yet my salary is consistently higher than my peers. It's higher because I'm willing to negotiate on my compensation. I don't concern myself with what I'm worth or what business value I produce. I simply try to maximize my pay This quote from Mr Robot sums things up brilliantly: "Power/wealth belongs to the people that take it. Nothing to do with their hard work, strong ambitions, or rightful qualifications, no. The actual will to take is often the only thing that's necessary."

softawre 9y ago
> myself an average to slightly above-average developer His point was that everybody thinks this about themselves. This is the "I'd rate myself about a 8/10" thing.
- FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
  I understand. My point was that it isn't necessarily true. A lot of people say the "Id give myself an 8" because that's how you get higher compensation. I think a large number of people don't really care how good they actually are because a lot of people aren't especially excited about their jobs, they're just there for they money

RangerScience 9y ago

> Another point worth focusing on here is that raises are really determined by the business value that you're producing I mean, notionally, yeah. But that's putting the employer up a pedestal of competency that may not be justified. Less poetically: it's forgetting just how hard it can be to measure that value, and the role of optics and "managing up"; there's also the consideration for excellence on never-released projects; in such a case, do you or do you not deserve a raise? There's many more factors that go into "your business value"; intelligence, passion, communication, and luck (right place, right time) are some, but not all, of the factors. What you are saying is definitely correct in an ideal world, but we live in a sub-ideal world; that's why there's valuable problems to solve in the first place.

softawre 9y ago
The more correct way to say it is that you should be paid based on what value you expect to bring to the company in the future. Value you have brought to them in the past is a good indicator but there are others.

netcan 9y ago

Most of our labour laws and policies are based on long term employment, as close to permanent as possible. There are several "stories" we could formulate, though it's hard to know which dynamic is significant or dominant in the overall scheme of things. That's why it's hard to get conclusive results from ex post analysis (expiremental study is rarely possible). Maybe young people (on a faster learning/earning curve) switch jobs more often. Maybe underpaying employers have higher attrition rates. Maybe people only leave if the prospective job offers a big raise (causation is reversed). There is also the question of lead indicators in changing markets. 6-7 years ago, new employees (where I live) were earning far less than old ones. The labour market was terrible, so you could hire new employees for cheap. Older employees were earning salaries based on raises they received during the boom years, 2-3 years previous. As the market changed, the newer employees got bigger raises. In this case, the dominant ( I think) dynamic for about 3-4 years was a slow gradual reaction to a big market shock, because salaries are negotiated iregularly an seldom adjusted downward.

curun1r 9y ago

> In general, folks who switch jobs every two years are the folks who are not getting offered big raises by their current companies I think the selection bias works in the opposite way that you assume. The employees switching jobs every two years are the ones that are in higher demand and are easily able to get and pass job interviews. They're the ones that better know their market value and the ones that are most easily able to leverage one offer against another to negotiate a better offer. It's this phenomenon that leads companies to even consider morale zapping policies like always laying off the bottom X% of their employees. The theory behind that idea is that if you just allow other companies to poach your top employees, you'll be left with nothing but your bottom employees who have trouble landing other work. Having seen this play out in a few of my employers, I believe it's a very real danger, though forced layoffs are a really terrible way to deal with it.

archeantus 9y ago

This jives with another phenomenon I have noticed over the years: the smartest or best devs in the company aren't necessarily making the most money. Imagine you have a very talented engineer that joins Company A out of college. They pick up new skills quickly and do an excellent job with everything they get thrown their way. The reality is that the company isn't likely to give them a 50% bonus overnight just because they deserve it. Whereas you can get another person that comes in from another company (and many more before that) and due to the nature of jumping around has the title and the base salary going for them. They very well aren't as good as this other person, but just because they have what they have, they keep getting it. To be really successful as an engineer, you need to know your stuff, and also know what you are worth. I've seen so many talented engineers stick with companies that are paying them way under market value just because they don't feel like applying anywhere else and they don't know how much more they could be making elsewhere.

mseebach 9y ago

> significant amount of selection bias possible here There's another one: I once heard the phenomenon described as "the difference between having ten years of experience versus having one year of experience ten times". The kind of people who end up having ten years of experience will typically be the kind of people who will want to move on and do something new/more after having mastered a given set of tasks. Sometimes they can do this inside the same company, but oftentimes they will need to look outside and switch jobs for the challenges they're after. The other kind will typically value stability and comfort over money (and let's not underestimate the stress of applying, interviewing and switching jobs). Sometimes they will have "fallen" more or less accidentally into this mode, but I've met more than a few good people who actively choses this, and explicitly acknowledges that it's not exactly a money-play. When the former kind makes more money, it's not because they switch jobs often, that's just a symptom. People in investment banking or management consulting with clearly defined up-or-out career paths are subjected to the same dynamic, and also make a lot of money.