Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Two year tenures isn't job hopping. It's a reflection of how this industry works. Very few companies offer sufficient breadth and depth of product complexity, career advancement, or other similar things to make it worthwhile. I'd say the sweet spot is 2-4 years, except at very large companies (e.g. Google) (EDIT:) or companies which are developing complicated products with physical engineering or regulatory factors complicating development. Anything longer, especially if there is a lot of long-term stasis on a resume (e.g. "tech lead on product X" for more than a year or two), is an indication to me of someone who either isn't capable of stretching himself or doesn't want to. Anything less, especially if more than one project per job exists, indicates an inability to see a project through to maintenance or someone who is easily bored.

I don't work for a large company, my job title hasn't changed, and my salary has doubled from the starting salary over 5 years.

Sometimes stasis exists because valuable people are paid extremely well not to leave. So well they can't actually find a job that will compensate them comparably despite repeated attempts to find one.

Why exactly should people like me leave when even places like <insert large company> want to pay me 10% less than I make now?



> Why exactly should people like me leave when even places like <insert large company> want to pay me 10% less than I make now?

You shouldn't, necessarily. However consider that <insert large company> may offer more career advancement (if that's your goal). Also consider that you're going to be well-liked by hiring managers who mistake "years at the same company" with "years of experience", and those managers are much more common than not. They're as mistaken as the people they deride as having "the same year of experience 10/20 times", but because of the way work has evolved they have a lot of cultural inertia behind them.


> Sometimes stasis exists because valuable people are paid extremely well not to leave. So well they can't actually find a job that will compensate them comparably despite repeated attempts to find one.

Sometimes you work at a different kind of unicorn too, there are companies that offer reasonable raises to valuable employees and provide new challenges on a regular basis. I've gotten two raises since I started at my current employer 3 years ago, and I make out well for a work-from-home employee in Idaho. There's always an interesting new project for me to work on, new technologies to explore and potentially integrate, and my input and experience is valued at a personal level by the lead on our team as well as our new manager.

Also, there's always standard benefits to consider - my employer matches 150% of my 401(k) contributions, plus profit sharing contributions. I'd easily have to put a hefty chunk of my own money into my retirement working somewhere else that might negate any salary increase I'd get.


You have to balance what you're doing now with where you want your career to go, whether you like where you are now (work, location, etc.), and how much you're getting paid. If you're getting paid a lot to occupy a niche that's a career dead-end, and probably won't carry you through retirement, you should leave, even if it means taking a pay-cut. If you're terribly unhappy with what you're doing there or your company or team, you should look for something better. If you hate the area you live in, you should look for a way to move someplace you like better. But if you like where you live, you like the company and the work, and you don't see it as a resume-killer and don't see a problem getting a similar job if something goes south with this one, you might as well stay.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: