4 ms·
By "cost of switching jobs" I mean that there's a negative cost in the long term to having a short job on your resume (especially if your previous job was also
by geofft 8y ago
By "cost of switching jobs" I mean that there's a negative cost in the long term to having a short job on your resume (especially if your previous job was also short), to not having an enthusiastic positive reference, to maybe getting a reputation as someone who doesn't want to stay at a job, etc. If I take a job paying, say, $100K, and someone is offering me $120K after six months, waiting until I've been at the job a year or two is technically costing me $10-30K over jumping right now but is probably worth more than that in the long term just to not have that six-month stint on my resume and to not burn bridges with my current employer.
After a couple of years it becomes more defensible to leave, so there are mechanisms for giving you significantly more money after several years (promotions, promotions to manager track, refresher grants, etc.) but fewer mechanisms for giving you more money in the first year or two, and basically none for within the first year, because employers know that even if your market value is theoretically higher, you can't actually take advantage of that yet.
I think that even in markets where job-hopping is high in general, any particular individual can still only job-hop so many times before it backfires on their ability to get a high salary.
- dunpeal 8y agoHopping after 6 months, or say less than a year, will definitely hurt your resume, even in the Bay. As a hiring manager, I'll typically assume your either got fired, or gave up too quickly. Both strong reasons not to hire you. Hopping after 2 years in the Bay is extremely common. So much that I'm not even sure it's considered "hopping" anymore. I'm not sure how long of a time horizon you mean when you suggest job-hops will eventually hurt you. In the Bay, at least, if you have say 5 2yr stints, what's likely to hurt you is... your age. A developer with 2 2yr startup stints is your typical Bay "senior developer". And a developer with 1 2yr startup stint is your typical "experienced" Bay developer, and generally one of the most in-demand categories of developers in the Bay. I'd go so far as to say that the 2 2yr stints will look better to a startup hiring manager than 7 years in an corporate environment like Oracle. The former is definitely in tune with SFBay startup-scene vibe, the latter looks like a corporate potato whose fit for startup life is questionable (not to mention a little too old as well ;).
- dmourati 8y agoAt least you are honest about your ageism.
- scarface74 8y agoHow is that ageism? There is nothing stopping a person in their mid 40s from keeping thier eye on the ball, not getting complacent at a company, and not letting thier skills atrophy. I’m in my mid 40s and also know plenty of other developers my age who decided not to go anywhere near management so we had to keep our skills up to date. There is nothing sadder than seeing an older developer who stayed at a company for 15 years, get laid off and spend months not being able to get a job. On the other hand, I have a former manager who retired from the military in the late 80s, started out as a Powerbuilder Developer and became a manager at a .Net shop. When his kids moved out, he “self demoted”, got a job as a developer and is now doing .Net and React. He is at least in his mid 50s.
- dunpeal 8y agoThis isn't my ageism, I personally love experienced candidates. This is a reflection of the reality in SV, where most employers aren't like my current one.
- dmourati 8y agoYou twice perpetuated the notion that older candidates are less likely to get the job because of their age. Simply giving it credence is ageism.