Comment

Comment on Employees Who Stay In Companies Longer Than Two Years Get Paid 50% Less

maegul@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

That being said, word is that in the tech industry at least, hiring budgets are clearly higher than promotion budgets and that moving every 2 years or so is clearly the best strategy for career advancement.

Just one industry, of course, but the pattern certainly seems to have settled in there, and it may not be a stretch to speculate it will spread to other industries perhaps under the shitty influence of AI.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Hagdos@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Backing up “word is” by an article that says “word is” is kinda meager though. There are many things widely believed to be true that are not, or only mildly so our in specific circumstances.

source
- maegul@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Backing up “word is” by an article that says “word is” is kinda meager though.
  
  Well I’m relaying what is basically common knowledge in the industry shared by people in the industry. The thing about promotion/hiring budgets is something I know directly or through people at their companies.
  
  Sure, it may not be industry wide, of course, but I’ve not seen any hint of a countervailing trend or pattern. What’s more, in the tech industry, it makes sense. There’s a fair amount of pivoting which is often deemed to be done best by hiring (at least some) new staff with the required expertise/experience. And maintaining existing/legacy systems is often de-prioritised such that those who’ve been at the company for a while who understand the existing systems well are not as valued as those who may help the company “grow”. Which is why I bring up the possibility that these patterns may spread to other industries.
  
  source
  - markstos@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The countervailing trend in the tech industry is layoffs.
    
    source
    maegul@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I’m not sure what you’re saying. The size of the labour force and the way salary “growth” relates to employer movement rate seem to me relatively independent dynamics. Moreover, I’d imagine increased layoffs positively correlate with the advantage that regularly moving employers can provide.
    
    Am I missing something?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Asafum@feddit.nl ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Every single time I see this type of conversation come up it’s always about the more privileged higher paying white collar work.

In my shit experience, blue collar work is “get shit raises or take massive pay cuts.” There is no “change job and also make more.” I’ve been stuck in the same cycle for 15 years now… Every time I leave a job I get knocked back to the wage I made when I first started the job I left regardless of the new position.

But that’s because only white collar workers are seen as people. Us blue collar workers are just meat machines that never deserve more than we were “bought” for. :/

source
- maegul@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Oh I hear you. I’m in no way celebrating any of these dynamics or the white collar focus of “how to run your career advice”.
  
  source
eldavi@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- Thrashy@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I’ve averaged about a 4 year tenure at my previous employers – some a bit more, some a bit less – but usually with a competing offer or two in that time period that I’ve used as a lever for a pay raise. Nobody’s complained about me being a job-hopper or short-timer.
  
  I have noticed that my two last employers, both large national firms, have moved towards a model of career-tracking with a defined pay structure, similar to government work where different positions and experience levels have a pay range attached to them and you’re not able to negotiate out of that range. This has been framed as a protective move against wage inequality suits, but I suspect it’s more about preventing employees from negotiating especially high compensation packages. I haven’t had it cut against me yet – in both cases I got a very minor pay bump when my employers actually went out and compared their pay scales to what the market was demanding – but if enough employers start benchmarking against each other and using that to cap pay, it will functionally become like a wage-fixing cartel similar to what’s happened to rent in the last 5-10 years.
  
  source
Copernican@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
How does this work out with all in value when it comes to stock options or other vesting based non salary compensation?

source
- eldavi@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - Copernican@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    My company gives up to an extra 2 weeks of PTO based on years of service. Stock Options/RSU have like a 3 to 5 year pay out vesting timeline with a % of it vesting every year. but you get new grants every year. So after you’ve been working for 3 or more years, you basically have a “full” grant value vesting every year. throw in 6 percent 401k match at 100 percent match my on paper below market value salary actually returns a pretty good total comp package. I’m not sure if switching every 2 or 3 years would provide me any significant benefit.
    
    source
- maegul@lemmy.ml ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Don’t know! AFAIK, some stock options do partially vest before two years. But this isn’t just salary, it’s career advancement, which means seniority and arguably experience, all of which tend to stay locked in for the rest of your career and lead to more stock options should you arrive somewhere you’re willing to stay longer at.
  
  source
  - Copernican@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Idk about it being locked in. I have seen people with Sr and Lead titles interviewing for a lower position these days. Those things don’t always stay with you the rest of your life. But titles are cheap. Salary, bonuses, and stock are money.
    
    source