6 ms·

A bonus is a bonus. Presumably this is on top of whatever they had before, so an extra $20K to $45K per year is icing on the cake. In reality, most engineers a

A bonus is a bonus. Presumably this is on top of whatever they had before, so an extra $20K to $45K per year is icing on the cake. In reality, most engineers aren't bouncing around from company to company every year trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their compensation. The strategy works well for a few iterations in early careers, but eventually it starts becoming counter-productive. If you have 10 jobs in 10 years on your resume, every hiring manager who sees it will instantly recognize that you're a job hopper who isn't likely to stay longer than a year. It also becomes difficult to really accomplish anything big if you're always leaving a company before you can really hit your stride. Most people I know who end up at FAANG level companies are interested in sticking around for at least 3-4 years, if not longer. This provides the chance to accomplish bigger things, build an actual reputation within the company, and move up the in-company career ladder. Jumping to other companies for a $10-50K immediate bonus could be shooting yourself in the foot relative to sticking around long enough to get a promotion and retention awards.

echelon 5y ago
> In reality, most engineers aren't bouncing around from company to company every year trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their compensation. Not in my experience. Most engineers spend 1-2 years, then leave. > move up the in-company career ladder. That's a hard ladder to climb from the inside. Politics lead to entrenchment. > accomplish anything big A great deal of work is plumbing and KTLO. What do the folks working on these things get? They're not great promo or resume fodder for internal mobility.
shrimpx 5y ago
My perception is that everyone knows job hopping is normal and companies will be happy to have you for that 1-2 years if you’re good. It’s not a black mark on your resume. For me a questionable resume is someone who spent the past 20 years at Accenture or something. Signals possibility of being too entrenched in those habits to make a contribution in a new environment.
- Shebanator 5y ago
  As an engineering manager, this is definitely not true for me. If you have a long history of short tenures, you aren't worth the time to bring up to speed (which is generally 4-6 months). Having a short stint or two isn't a big deal though, people work for companies that have financial problems, or they get a bad manager, or whatever.
  - 19h 5y ago
    I agree. If an applicant doesn’t seem to be invested into any previous company enough to stay more than a year they’re going to be sorted out very early on. On top of that, most of our most productive engineers stayed over 4 years. Unless you’re a senior or lead, it’s unlikely that you have had the opportunity to gain enough deep exposure to many technologies and problems in a very short tenure at a company.
    - mancerayder 5y ago
      Seniors and leads aren't going to get a lot of depth in a short period time, either. Seniors and leads do a lot of non-deep work that, depending on their responsibilities, may involve "lead" activities that take away from deep-diving uninterrupted. Also I don't think seniors and leads with short stints are to be trusted (from recent experience with such people).
      - htkibar 5y ago
        This really depends on the projects / companies people are involved with as well. Especially on the front-end, it is very common to take a project from start to post-launch support in a year, especially in a "non-tech" company. Staying after that in a lot of these cases mean a lack of interesting projects, and also end up with stagnation. My experience may be a bit affected by freelancing though :)
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    Also a hiring manager and I agree: The job-hopping mentality is greatly exaggerated online. I go through a lot of resumes, but hardcore job hopper resumes are still very rare. Numerically, they'd have to be overrepresented in the applicant pool due to changing jobs 2-5X more frequently than everyone else. It's not a big deal if someone has a couple short jobs on their resume or even a series of short-term engagements. But what may not be obvious until you've done a lot of hiring is that it's really hard to tell the difference between someone who changes jobs every 12 months for a pay increase compared to someone who changes jobs every 12 months because they get PIPed and managed out of every company they work for. Some people are really good at interviewing, but will show up at your company and proceed to ride your performance management track until they're pushed out, at which case they hop into the next company and move on. So at minimum, job hoppers get much more intensive interviews and reference checks. But more realistically I just give priority to candidates who have track records of accomplishing bigger things over longer periods of time at companies.
brandall10 5y ago
Maybe not most, but I'd gather those in the FAANG/unicorn game do - the upside is far too great to not do it. Not 1 year... but more like 1.5-2 years is probably most likely. And we're not talking a measly $30k bump, but more like $100k. It's far more advantageous to move on than to work toward an internal promotion. As someone in charge of hiring at my current company, having brought on 17 devs over the past year, the ones we really worry about have a bunch of 6-9 month engagements. But every 1.5 years or so, with some lesser here or there... no problem at all. More likely than not they're great at what they do.
masterof0 5y ago
> If you have 10 jobs in 10 years on your resume, every hiring manager who sees it will instantly recognize that you're a job hopper who isn't likely to stay longer than a year. HMs in small companies, maybe, in big companies , they dont care, they are paid to bring talent in, they don't get penalized if an employee quits after a year. > This provides the chance to accomplish bigger things, build .... I have seen your other comments along the same line, is mostly wrong, at least here in the US, is always business , you have an obligation to yourself(or your family, etc...) not to your employer, most smart people hiring understand that you switch jobs seeking a higher TC, in the same way businesses change course/pivot seeking higher profits. The "stay forever and maybe one day you will get promoted", is a thing of the past. You make more money switching jobs than waiting for a promotion, lots of companies don't have enough "senior positions" or all the next level positions are covered, so you would have to wait until your manager (or next level pos) retires or leave. Also, managers see people who are afraid to leave, or "loyal" to the company as people then can squeeze more work out of. > It also becomes difficult to really accomplish anything big if you're always leaving a company before you can really hit your stride. "Anything big" like what?
- deanCommie 5y ago
  > HMs in small companies, maybe, in big companies , they don't care, they are paid to bring talent in, You're confusing recruiters for line managers. HM == Hiring Manager == the person who's trying to build a team to accomplish a project, and at large companies most likely a multi-year roadmap. They absolutely care about people staying a long time - it is expensive to train people on the internals of each company. At a FAANG++ company, you get your first code checked in in your first week, but it takes a YEAR to be truly productive where you are fully autonomous, and have paid off the initial ramp-up period. > I have seen your other comments along the same line, is mostly wrong, at least here in the US, is always business According to you. Not everyone's focus is 100% financial-based. Do I want to maximize my earning potential? Of course. But work is also 1/3 of my life. Another 1/3 is sleep. They money is for the last 3rd. So is my entire focus on 1/3 of my life to make the other waking 3rd to be as lucrative as possible? I think that's one way to approach it, but I think that's extremely short-sighted and unfulfilling. I want my work to be meaningful, challenging, interesting, and impactful. At this point in my career I can control all this by finding workplaces, coworkers, and projects that match my skillset and my impact, and I can realize this. This means committing to multi-year plans to achieve something significant. (In the olden days we would have called this a "legacy", and I suppose that's still appropriate to some degree, though I don't expect to get a plaque on a bridge for it). I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me. It's also part of the hacker and startup ethos - to make an actual dent in the universe. Your attitude is very cynical, and while I agree with you that you don't owe anything to the capitalist system that is cynical about using you, that doesn't mean seeking money is the only way. > lots of companies don't have enough "senior positions" or all the next level positions are covered Absolutely not true. All the FAANG++ companies do promotions based on accomplishments and achievements, not a quota of budget or availability of folks at the next level. > Also, managers see people who are afraid to leave, or "loyal" to the company as people then can squeeze more work out of. Not the case. These managers exist, but they're not the majority. Most people who go into management genuinely care about people, and are interested in developing them. They'd like to reward loyalty. Unfortunately the aforementioned capitalist system does not permit this, but on an individual level managers are human beings with usually more empathy than IC's (out of necessity). > "Anything big" like what? A major software project that takes a team of people several years to accomplish.
symlinkk 5y ago
It is significantly harder to get promoted than to change jobs, and the former almost always pays less than the latter.
capableweb 5y ago
> Most people I know who end up at FAANG level companies are interested in sticking around for at least 3-4 years Which, unsurprisingly, also happens to (usually) be the vesting period for their stocks/options they agreed to receive when starting there.
mgh2 5y ago
"Job hopper" bias: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_the-dumbest-part-of-employers-bias-against-activity-6846435502795689984-fvsd/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_the-dumbest-part-of-e...
ryandrake 5y ago
> In reality, most engineers aren't bouncing around from company to company every year trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their compensation. The strategy works well for a few iterations in early careers, but eventually it starts becoming counter-productive. This is a good point. Most people singing the praises of job hopping are early (<10 years) into their careers. That's when you get the big jumps in comp when you hop. My first job hop netted me +50%. The next one, about +20%. The next one, maybe 5%? I don't know, it wasn't remarkable. Now that I'm 20 years into my career, changing jobs doesn't really increase comp at all (last change was probably negative when you considered the difference in equity). You hit the comp plateau, after which, changing jobs really doesn't get you anywhere unless you can get a higher "level" (senior eng -> staff eng or manager, staff eng -> principle eng, principle eng -> executive) which is not always easy. The youngsters among us will eventually understand, after you've reached that plateau and your next job is going to be +1% at best, all the work it takes to reskill, grind leetcode, interview prep, interview, negotiate, move your family, change your mailing address, etc. kind of stops being worth it.
- smoe 5y ago
  At least for me, even before hitting comp plateau, money lost quite a bit of value, because I already own most of what I want to own, can set aside plenty for longer term goals or emergencies as well as having multiple pensions plans. So other aspects of work/live took over in terms of priorities what I'm looking for. That might be the biggest luxury of being in this field at least for the time being. You don't need to constantly looking for a different job that pays a little more to not live hand to mouth, nor do you need to climb the corporate ladder or move to a specific city/country to be able to have a good quality middle class life.

echelon 5y ago

> In reality, most engineers aren't bouncing around from company to company every year trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their compensation. Not in my experience. Most engineers spend 1-2 years, then leave. > move up the in-company career ladder. That's a hard ladder to climb from the inside. Politics lead to entrenchment. > accomplish anything big A great deal of work is plumbing and KTLO. What do the folks working on these things get? They're not great promo or resume fodder for internal mobility.

shrimpx 5y ago

My perception is that everyone knows job hopping is normal and companies will be happy to have you for that 1-2 years if you’re good. It’s not a black mark on your resume. For me a questionable resume is someone who spent the past 20 years at Accenture or something. Signals possibility of being too entrenched in those habits to make a contribution in a new environment.

Shebanator 5y ago
As an engineering manager, this is definitely not true for me. If you have a long history of short tenures, you aren't worth the time to bring up to speed (which is generally 4-6 months). Having a short stint or two isn't a big deal though, people work for companies that have financial problems, or they get a bad manager, or whatever.
- 19h 5y ago
  I agree. If an applicant doesn’t seem to be invested into any previous company enough to stay more than a year they’re going to be sorted out very early on. On top of that, most of our most productive engineers stayed over 4 years. Unless you’re a senior or lead, it’s unlikely that you have had the opportunity to gain enough deep exposure to many technologies and problems in a very short tenure at a company.
  - mancerayder 5y ago
    Seniors and leads aren't going to get a lot of depth in a short period time, either. Seniors and leads do a lot of non-deep work that, depending on their responsibilities, may involve "lead" activities that take away from deep-diving uninterrupted. Also I don't think seniors and leads with short stints are to be trusted (from recent experience with such people).
    - htkibar 5y ago
      This really depends on the projects / companies people are involved with as well. Especially on the front-end, it is very common to take a project from start to post-launch support in a year, especially in a "non-tech" company. Staying after that in a lot of these cases mean a lack of interesting projects, and also end up with stagnation. My experience may be a bit affected by freelancing though :)
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  Also a hiring manager and I agree: The job-hopping mentality is greatly exaggerated online. I go through a lot of resumes, but hardcore job hopper resumes are still very rare. Numerically, they'd have to be overrepresented in the applicant pool due to changing jobs 2-5X more frequently than everyone else. It's not a big deal if someone has a couple short jobs on their resume or even a series of short-term engagements. But what may not be obvious until you've done a lot of hiring is that it's really hard to tell the difference between someone who changes jobs every 12 months for a pay increase compared to someone who changes jobs every 12 months because they get PIPed and managed out of every company they work for. Some people are really good at interviewing, but will show up at your company and proceed to ride your performance management track until they're pushed out, at which case they hop into the next company and move on. So at minimum, job hoppers get much more intensive interviews and reference checks. But more realistically I just give priority to candidates who have track records of accomplishing bigger things over longer periods of time at companies.

brandall10 5y ago

Maybe not most, but I'd gather those in the FAANG/unicorn game do - the upside is far too great to not do it. Not 1 year... but more like 1.5-2 years is probably most likely. And we're not talking a measly $30k bump, but more like $100k. It's far more advantageous to move on than to work toward an internal promotion. As someone in charge of hiring at my current company, having brought on 17 devs over the past year, the ones we really worry about have a bunch of 6-9 month engagements. But every 1.5 years or so, with some lesser here or there... no problem at all. More likely than not they're great at what they do.

masterof0 5y ago

> If you have 10 jobs in 10 years on your resume, every hiring manager who sees it will instantly recognize that you're a job hopper who isn't likely to stay longer than a year. HMs in small companies, maybe, in big companies , they dont care, they are paid to bring talent in, they don't get penalized if an employee quits after a year. > This provides the chance to accomplish bigger things, build .... I have seen your other comments along the same line, is mostly wrong, at least here in the US, is always business , you have an obligation to yourself(or your family, etc...) not to your employer, most smart people hiring understand that you switch jobs seeking a higher TC, in the same way businesses change course/pivot seeking higher profits. The "stay forever and maybe one day you will get promoted", is a thing of the past. You make more money switching jobs than waiting for a promotion, lots of companies don't have enough "senior positions" or all the next level positions are covered, so you would have to wait until your manager (or next level pos) retires or leave. Also, managers see people who are afraid to leave, or "loyal" to the company as people then can squeeze more work out of. > It also becomes difficult to really accomplish anything big if you're always leaving a company before you can really hit your stride. "Anything big" like what?

deanCommie 5y ago
> HMs in small companies, maybe, in big companies , they don't care, they are paid to bring talent in, You're confusing recruiters for line managers. HM == Hiring Manager == the person who's trying to build a team to accomplish a project, and at large companies most likely a multi-year roadmap. They absolutely care about people staying a long time - it is expensive to train people on the internals of each company. At a FAANG++ company, you get your first code checked in in your first week, but it takes a YEAR to be truly productive where you are fully autonomous, and have paid off the initial ramp-up period. > I have seen your other comments along the same line, is mostly wrong, at least here in the US, is always business According to you. Not everyone's focus is 100% financial-based. Do I want to maximize my earning potential? Of course. But work is also 1/3 of my life. Another 1/3 is sleep. They money is for the last 3rd. So is my entire focus on 1/3 of my life to make the other waking 3rd to be as lucrative as possible? I think that's one way to approach it, but I think that's extremely short-sighted and unfulfilling. I want my work to be meaningful, challenging, interesting, and impactful. At this point in my career I can control all this by finding workplaces, coworkers, and projects that match my skillset and my impact, and I can realize this. This means committing to multi-year plans to achieve something significant. (In the olden days we would have called this a "legacy", and I suppose that's still appropriate to some degree, though I don't expect to get a plaque on a bridge for it). I think a lot of people are in the same boat as me. It's also part of the hacker and startup ethos - to make an actual dent in the universe. Your attitude is very cynical, and while I agree with you that you don't owe anything to the capitalist system that is cynical about using you, that doesn't mean seeking money is the only way. > lots of companies don't have enough "senior positions" or all the next level positions are covered Absolutely not true. All the FAANG++ companies do promotions based on accomplishments and achievements, not a quota of budget or availability of folks at the next level. > Also, managers see people who are afraid to leave, or "loyal" to the company as people then can squeeze more work out of. Not the case. These managers exist, but they're not the majority. Most people who go into management genuinely care about people, and are interested in developing them. They'd like to reward loyalty. Unfortunately the aforementioned capitalist system does not permit this, but on an individual level managers are human beings with usually more empathy than IC's (out of necessity). > "Anything big" like what? A major software project that takes a team of people several years to accomplish.

symlinkk 5y ago

It is significantly harder to get promoted than to change jobs, and the former almost always pays less than the latter.

capableweb 5y ago

> Most people I know who end up at FAANG level companies are interested in sticking around for at least 3-4 years Which, unsurprisingly, also happens to (usually) be the vesting period for their stocks/options they agreed to receive when starting there.

mgh2 5y ago

"Job hopper" bias: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_the-dumbest-part-of-employers-bias-against-activity-6846435502795689984-fvsd/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/lizryan_the-dumbest-part-of-e...

ryandrake 5y ago

> In reality, most engineers aren't bouncing around from company to company every year trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their compensation. The strategy works well for a few iterations in early careers, but eventually it starts becoming counter-productive. This is a good point. Most people singing the praises of job hopping are early (<10 years) into their careers. That's when you get the big jumps in comp when you hop. My first job hop netted me +50%. The next one, about +20%. The next one, maybe 5%? I don't know, it wasn't remarkable. Now that I'm 20 years into my career, changing jobs doesn't really increase comp at all (last change was probably negative when you considered the difference in equity). You hit the comp plateau, after which, changing jobs really doesn't get you anywhere unless you can get a higher "level" (senior eng -> staff eng or manager, staff eng -> principle eng, principle eng -> executive) which is not always easy. The youngsters among us will eventually understand, after you've reached that plateau and your next job is going to be +1% at best, all the work it takes to reskill, grind leetcode, interview prep, interview, negotiate, move your family, change your mailing address, etc. kind of stops being worth it.

smoe 5y ago
At least for me, even before hitting comp plateau, money lost quite a bit of value, because I already own most of what I want to own, can set aside plenty for longer term goals or emergencies as well as having multiple pensions plans. So other aspects of work/live took over in terms of priorities what I'm looking for. That might be the biggest luxury of being in this field at least for the time being. You don't need to constantly looking for a different job that pays a little more to not live hand to mouth, nor do you need to climb the corporate ladder or move to a specific city/country to be able to have a good quality middle class life.