5 ms·

While the times are definitely changing, a lot of people are still very averse to finding a new workplace. This means that even at a 1% raise per year, some pe

While the times are definitely changing, a lot of people are still very averse to finding a new workplace. This means that even at a 1% raise per year, some people will stick around for decades. One of the best developers at one of the companies I worked for was exactly that kind of person. For the company this means a large amount of extra profit year in year out. The odds of you saying "Nevermind, I'm out" when they don't budge from a 2% raise are from the employers side pretty low. The odds of a new hire saying "Nevermind, I'm out" when unwilling to budge on salary negotiation is a lot higher. Hence it becomes easier to give some additional leeway in that situation. Also if companies already have a large workforce, giving a raise to all current employees is a whole lot more expensive than giving more money to all new hires. Lastly, there has been plenty of research that has shown that salary is not that big of a predictor of whether people stick around or leave in any given year. Whether that research is also true for software developers is up for debate, but it is what most companies rely on. Lastly an anecdote, I was told by a manager once that if I wanted to get a significant raise, I could quit and come back as a contractor or "Senior Developer" after 6 months. At that time I was considered a junior, and promotion to senior was only possible after 10 years experience internally.

oarabbus_ 6y ago
>This means that even at a 1% raise per year, some people will stick around for decades. One of the best developers at one of the companies I worked for was exactly that kind of person. As someone in their 30s who has spent in-person time at about a dozen companies (a stint in consulting will do that) ranging from start-ups to large enterprise, this is exceedingly rare from what I've seen. Hardly anyone makes it to a single decade, much less multiple. Maybe at a law firm, but not in a development role. I don't doubt these people exist but I'm a bit skeptical they are that significant in number to the point of defining the equilibrium as mentioned in the OP post.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  My experience has been the opposite. I've worked for large hospitals and oil and gas companies, and on any given team 50% of our senior engineers had been there over a decade.
  - oarabbus_ 6y ago
    I used to work in medical devices and hospitals, and while it's _more_ true in those industries, the numbers of developers employed is less than in Tech. In other words, it isn't the Energy or Medical industries defining the equilibrium for developers. Jumping around in medical device/hospitals also results in smaller raises than in the Tech industry. Can't speak for Oil & Gas on that part.
- YetAnotherMatt 6y ago
  I forgot to mention, my experiences are all based on EU countries. When we worked with US companies, we would occasionally joke that a 2 year tenure is considered long at the US companies we worked with. There would be people joining / leaving their teams every single month. In the teams I've been part of, average tenure at the company was over 5 years in every single case. In one case over 15 years. These are all development positions. Management positions and marketing positions did tend to move around a bit more often.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  Hardly anyone makes it to a single decade, much less multiple. Maybe at a law firm, but not in a development role. I’m guessing you’re a webdev and this is normal for that industry but in more “traditional” fields programmers behave much more like other white-collar workers. I’ve met plenty with 20-30 year stunts at the same company.
  - oarabbus_ 6y ago
    I used to work in medical devices, where I saw more along the lines of what you're referring to. But while you'd occasionally see 10+ year stints, "multiple decades" was still rare. Regardless, the number of developers at these companies is much fewer than in tech; therefore, they cannot be setting the equilibrium referred to by OP.
  - john366366 6y ago
    I don't know how to put it less bluntly here it goes, in my experience at non-faang orgs the software developers who stay over 5 years are not competent and likely won't pass the interview.
- greedo 6y ago
  At my company, there are developers who have been there 30+ years. They have seen a lot... Insurance companies change slowly. We still have COBOL, mainframes, etc. Applications that cost $10k/minute if they're down. Part of the equation is job security. You eat enough shit, put up with enough mgmt BS, but you get a steady paycheck, decent benefits, and little threat of downsizing.
  - mcnichol 6y ago
    Isn't it crazy this is what it all boils down to...looking over our 30 some odd years grinding away and we are looking to stay safe. You can live your dream or help someone else build theirs.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Or, we could have an actual social safety net where if you lose your job and can't find one for a few months, you don't lose your health insurance, your home, and your ability to eat. Most people do not have sufficient savings to cover an extended job search, UI simply doesn't cut it, COBRA is prohibitively expensive, and Medicaid only kicks in at absurdly low income levels.
      - mcnichol 6y ago
        Yeah...I mean I think money is genuinely this necessary evil we've built a society around and I am constantly questioning it. How interesting that we can build a system that can fluctuate enough to upend lives both good and bad. You become so focused on it, it is seen as this brass ring. Once you have it, you question everything. I realize this is a bit philosophical and idealistic. You appear to have a similar viewpoint as mine in terms of a society that supports the whole, I just wonder if you can do that effectively when you have a source of power so specific like money. There are some very revolutionary thinkers/philosophers/minds that were somewhat detached from money (in that they came from such wealth they didn't have to care or they chose a life detached from it) Plato, Aristotle, Wittgenstein...many more. I'm curious if there is a connection or merely just a representation of the population. This is something I've rolled in my head for a while but first time I've said it out loud so a lot of people are now coming to my mind now that were not wealthy. I cannot necessarily see it going away but perhaps more of a direct representation of what it means...our time/energy.
vmception 6y ago
> While the times are definitely changing, a lot of people are still very averse to finding a new workplace. This is one thing I've coached career-focused and executive aspiring women on. If they are worried about being assertive and being called a "bitch" at their current organization then they are already playing at a disadvantage. The competition is full of men that got called "cocky" and self absorbed at many organizations, before landing in one at a senior level in a different place that needed someone new to shake things up or "make the hard decisions". I don't really see that factored in to the outcomes. Whether this idea results in a bunch of women finding that no organization wants their assertive attitude? Time will tell. A level playing field definitely involves normalizing behavior.

oarabbus_ 6y ago

>This means that even at a 1% raise per year, some people will stick around for decades. One of the best developers at one of the companies I worked for was exactly that kind of person. As someone in their 30s who has spent in-person time at about a dozen companies (a stint in consulting will do that) ranging from start-ups to large enterprise, this is exceedingly rare from what I've seen. Hardly anyone makes it to a single decade, much less multiple. Maybe at a law firm, but not in a development role. I don't doubt these people exist but I'm a bit skeptical they are that significant in number to the point of defining the equilibrium as mentioned in the OP post.

JamesBarney 6y ago
My experience has been the opposite. I've worked for large hospitals and oil and gas companies, and on any given team 50% of our senior engineers had been there over a decade.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  I used to work in medical devices and hospitals, and while it's _more_ true in those industries, the numbers of developers employed is less than in Tech. In other words, it isn't the Energy or Medical industries defining the equilibrium for developers. Jumping around in medical device/hospitals also results in smaller raises than in the Tech industry. Can't speak for Oil & Gas on that part.
YetAnotherMatt 6y ago
I forgot to mention, my experiences are all based on EU countries. When we worked with US companies, we would occasionally joke that a 2 year tenure is considered long at the US companies we worked with. There would be people joining / leaving their teams every single month. In the teams I've been part of, average tenure at the company was over 5 years in every single case. In one case over 15 years. These are all development positions. Management positions and marketing positions did tend to move around a bit more often.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
goatinaboat 6y ago
Hardly anyone makes it to a single decade, much less multiple. Maybe at a law firm, but not in a development role. I’m guessing you’re a webdev and this is normal for that industry but in more “traditional” fields programmers behave much more like other white-collar workers. I’ve met plenty with 20-30 year stunts at the same company.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  I used to work in medical devices, where I saw more along the lines of what you're referring to. But while you'd occasionally see 10+ year stints, "multiple decades" was still rare. Regardless, the number of developers at these companies is much fewer than in tech; therefore, they cannot be setting the equilibrium referred to by OP.
- john366366 6y ago
  I don't know how to put it less bluntly here it goes, in my experience at non-faang orgs the software developers who stay over 5 years are not competent and likely won't pass the interview.
greedo 6y ago
At my company, there are developers who have been there 30+ years. They have seen a lot... Insurance companies change slowly. We still have COBOL, mainframes, etc. Applications that cost $10k/minute if they're down. Part of the equation is job security. You eat enough shit, put up with enough mgmt BS, but you get a steady paycheck, decent benefits, and little threat of downsizing.
- mcnichol 6y ago
  Isn't it crazy this is what it all boils down to...looking over our 30 some odd years grinding away and we are looking to stay safe. You can live your dream or help someone else build theirs.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Or, we could have an actual social safety net where if you lose your job and can't find one for a few months, you don't lose your health insurance, your home, and your ability to eat. Most people do not have sufficient savings to cover an extended job search, UI simply doesn't cut it, COBRA is prohibitively expensive, and Medicaid only kicks in at absurdly low income levels.
    - mcnichol 6y ago
      Yeah...I mean I think money is genuinely this necessary evil we've built a society around and I am constantly questioning it. How interesting that we can build a system that can fluctuate enough to upend lives both good and bad. You become so focused on it, it is seen as this brass ring. Once you have it, you question everything. I realize this is a bit philosophical and idealistic. You appear to have a similar viewpoint as mine in terms of a society that supports the whole, I just wonder if you can do that effectively when you have a source of power so specific like money. There are some very revolutionary thinkers/philosophers/minds that were somewhat detached from money (in that they came from such wealth they didn't have to care or they chose a life detached from it) Plato, Aristotle, Wittgenstein...many more. I'm curious if there is a connection or merely just a representation of the population. This is something I've rolled in my head for a while but first time I've said it out loud so a lot of people are now coming to my mind now that were not wealthy. I cannot necessarily see it going away but perhaps more of a direct representation of what it means...our time/energy.

vmception 6y ago

> While the times are definitely changing, a lot of people are still very averse to finding a new workplace. This is one thing I've coached career-focused and executive aspiring women on. If they are worried about being assertive and being called a "bitch" at their current organization then they are already playing at a disadvantage. The competition is full of men that got called "cocky" and self absorbed at many organizations, before landing in one at a senior level in a different place that needed someone new to shake things up or "make the hard decisions". I don't really see that factored in to the outcomes. Whether this idea results in a bunch of women finding that no organization wants their assertive attitude? Time will tell. A level playing field definitely involves normalizing behavior.