Hacker News Reader

> 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.

That's insane. Someone who is the technical leader of a project for more than two years doesn't "stretch himself"? I see no reason to believe that's true. If anything, it takes years for you to realize design flaws in components of the earliest-developed systems. The extent to which you can learn about how to design well-designed systems is going to be quite limited if just peace out after a year or two, as you suggest.

Yeah, it's taken us more than two years to bring our product to market. It is a medical device. 2 years seems specific to web apps or something, where there isn't any hardware to support and there aren't any other engineering disciplines changing their stuff. After the first year of development we had a prototype. After the first year of verification testing we learned a lot about how the product needs to work to meet standards. After the second year we've learned about most of the edge cases.

Now that we have a working product we're marketing it, and we'll finally get feedback from the field rather than product-market fit data. That's easily two more years of data.

I hope GP isn't really throwing out candidates that have more than two years in the same position.

> If anything, it takes years for you to realize design flaws in components of the earliest-developed systems.

This is more a symptom of the lack of engineering that occurs in this industry than it is an indication of deep technical knowledge gained over years of study.

I'd agree with what you say if I thought there were anything like engineering happening. I've worked on code bases and systems that are quite large. I never saw the learning you suggest. I saw lots of fighting the last battle and the accumulation of years of poor engineering decisions, usually by people who had been a lead for years.

According to the modern thinking, in two years you're supposed to switch stacks twice, and rewrite the whole thing five times. With that much churn, there's no value in seniority.

The recent expansion of the industry mean that people with little or no experience massively out-vote those with lots.

Great point.

I actually don't think the one has valuable experience until one spent 2+ years on the same project. All bigger projects get more chaotic and complicated over time and that needs specific set of skills to get managed in all directions. Until you experienced it first hand, you are really just a hello-world-on-steroids.

But once somebody has done that once, it's unlikely that additional years will contribute to experience: there's a steep drop off in the marginal experience gained for additional time spent.

That's why I wrote what I did: longer than a year or two on the same project in the same capacity is a negative indicator. It's not a deal-breaker, especially if it's just a small fraction of the employment history. If it represents the majority of the developer's history, then I expect to see significant expansion of his role as time progresses. Otherwise he's just doing the "same experience, N years over" trick, just on the other extreme end from the guy who never lasts longer than a year or so to see a project from initial development through maturity and maintenance.

'Only once' can't be true. Its like saying that your first long term project will be ideal in providing every type of experience. That is impossible.

IMO, you need to have long standing projects all the time, its a domain on its own. I agree with you that it may mean staling for some people, but no generalization is possible.

That's insane.

It is insane, but this is how this market operates. Do you feel strongly enough to not play along, at considerable cost to yourself? I'd love to stay and grow somewhere for 10+ years - haven't managed it yet...

Yea, at least in tech, the whole "get a 10% raise by switching jobs" thing works great early on, but pretty much ends once you're 10-20 years into your career. There's a ceiling that you asymptotically approach. Here's an example, adjusted for cost of living but not inflation (sample size = 1). This spans about 20 years, switching roughly every 3-4 years:

Job 2: 33% raise over Job 1

Job 3: 15% raise over Job 2

Job 4: 10% raise over Job 3

Job 5: 0% raise over Job 4

Job 6: 2% raise over Job 5

Job 7: ??? we'll see!

Unless my experience is unlike most, I'd say the job hopping strategy is best when you're more junior.

Base + signing pay for me over the past ten years:

Job 2: +14.29%

Job 3: -18.75% / 23.08% / 25.00% (Motionloft... let's just say Mills and Garrison were full of shit and it took a while for me to get what had been promised initially)

Job 4: 25.00%

Job 5: 8.00%

Job 6: 31.11%

Job 7: 2.64% (back to employer #5, so about 35% over that)

I know everyone likes to look at total comp, but especially if you're looking at smaller companies the non-cash stuff is often worthless. Even when the non-cash stuff is valuable, the extra base pay helps. For example: ESPP purchases by law can be at most 15% of your pay, 401k matching and profit sharing may be a percentage of your base pay, and so-on. Technically total 401k contributions may be limited by your salary, but this only comes into play if you're making around $50,000 annually in a job where your employer is willing to make very generous contributions.

This last time around though I traded some cash (base and signing) for RSUs because the company is large and publicly traded. Total comp while the RSUs vest is a bit north of $200k, but once the RSUs vest my take home will definitely take a hit. The sad part is that this company was willing to authorize a heft hike in base pay over my previous gig... but for the fact that I was a rehire. The didn't give a crap how much I was making at the previous gig, they cared how much they were paying me previously. Lesson learned: always go for the cash. Always.

Are you in Bay Area/Seattle/NY? 200k total is not much for somebody with 10 years experience. Picking right employer and sticking with it could have netted you better pay.

The issue is that "the right employer" where what you describe is possible is also almost certainly highly competitive for junior roles and gets worse the higher up the tech ladder one climbs.

The actual data indicate that for the vast majority of developers "sticking with it" puts them behind the salary curve. In this industry especially that's bad because of the effects of ageism.

What you describe is possible, but represents a minority of career tracks, especially in this industry.

Are "average" developers really making much more than 200k/year in base/signing in those cities?

No. In fact most make much less, on the order of $140k all-inclusive.

I figured Glassdoor was not crazy!

You have to wonder, if most people who say things like "You only make 200k, you should try $x" are such great developers that they don't realize they are unique, or if they are full of it.

There is a lot of ego in this industry. A lot. And a lot of denial about how very much like many of the people they deride its practitioners are.

Yeah, sticking with an employer could've been beneficial, and by leaving when I did cost me the opportunity for about $90k income from stock. Not returning could've also been beneficial. Being a rehire lowered their offer by 20-30k base. However, while I'm sure there are some places that do pay more, without jumping to an architect role $200k total comp looked to be pretty typical for a senior ops/SRE gig to me.

There were a number of reasons I chose to return, but among the top were the commute and culture. Which is to say no, I'm not at Google or Facebook and that was a very deliberate choice. Likewise I'm not stuck driving to the middle of San Mateo (or worse) on a daily basis either.

> 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.

Job 2: 47% raise from base (10 months in Job 1)

Job 3: 30% raise from base (9 months in Job 2 - relocated to Bay Area)

Job 4: 32% raise from base (3 months in Job 3)

Job 5: 10% raise from base (10 months in Job 4)

Job 6: 0% raise from base, 25% raise from base in RSUs/bonuses (22 months in Job 5)

This is spanning 4 1/2 years, and even turning down up to as high as $400k in total comp between job 4 and 5, which would have been a little less than 200% raise over job 4. Some of my friends have even better results from job switching.

I currently make a little more than $200k in total comp (including RSUs). I could easily switch to get even more (I've seen as high as $250k base salary), but I am pretty satisfied with comp in the industry for myself, and don't really hurt for money. I like what I do, and I am happy with how things are going.

I really wish it was as easy to get this outside of the Bay Area. I don't really want to move to the Bay Area (nor does my girlfriend) but I've been stuck making just over half of your current total comp out near Chicago after almost 10 years of experience in various tech stacks.

I know in theory it should be possible out here although Glass Door salary averages for the region are about what I'm making currently, so I don't know.

I will say that my route hasn't necessarily been easy either - I am the fastest coder most people I have worked with has worked with, and I have worked with few who match or beat my capability for strong scalable abstractions prior to my current job (and those handful are working/have worked for the big tech giants, i.e. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.). I also have had to work 60-80 hour weeks for 2 of my 3 years in the area.

I have also seen many people not able to attain such compensation boosts as well - the market is fierce for developers here, where if you don't measure up to a certain level, it can be difficult. The number of extremely smart people I have encountered in the tech industry here dwarfs anywhere else I have been (although percentage-wise not as high as where I went to grad school, UIUC).

However, those who spend a couple of years here (or even one if you choose right) can take those benefits with them when they relocate away from the Bay Area in compensation and knowledge. I once worked with a junior developer who spent a little under a year in the Bay Area - he used the opportunity to level up his skills, and when he moved back to NYC after the company fired him, he got into a unicorn and boosted his compensation dramatically (went from $130k base to over 100% increase in total comp - a little less than half in equity) since he was able to take the skills he learned working in code bases of various qualities at the company (very strong to very weak) and apply the knowledge to companies that have no concept of such knowledge or thought processes.

Just food for thought - obviously many factors come into play in choosing what to do, foremost being personal situation.

What is your rent? How much does it cost when you go out to eat?

I don't know much about Chicago, but a quick look online suggests that almost all of the difference would be eaten up by cost of living differences.

Maybe true. But if you save 20% of your income for retirement at either job, and would go retire in Florida or some constant place after you are done working, you'll have a lot more money to retire to if you work in a high COL area with high pay.

About $1600/month. We rent a townhouse in the suburbs. I know that's a huge difference (I've heard people claiming they'd happily pay $4500/month for a 2 bedroom apartment in San Francisco), and it has been a contributing factor to not moving out there.

Usually out there's not even really a distinction between 'base salary' and 'total compensation' out here. It's practically one and the same. So that higher base salary in SV usually covers the higher living expenses, and in addition to that, they usually throw in additional forms of compensation as well, and that seems to make a big, big difference.

Going out to eat is probably similar. We often spend ~$50 when we go out between the two of us. Although my girlfriend was recently in SF for her job and she said it cost her $18 for two tiny tacos out there, that were half the size of what you'd get here for like $6, which does seem pretty ridiculous.

It wouldn't be, unless one just had to live in the city center. When I moved from the Midwest my housing spend doubled, but I also doubled my saving rate (started saving 30% of my previous gross salary annually). The increased cost of living is well worth it.

"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. "

Or someone who's found a technologically complex niche they like and feel they can grow in. For example, two years is a really _short_ time to achieve anything in my niche (CAD, more or less).

Coding the same thing over and over may mean stagnation, but projects that change tech leads that often are usually mess. It takes time to get up to speed to that position, it takes time to people around to adjust (handle related turf wars and what not), create relationships and all that political stuff. Nor does it allows you to see long term consequences of your decisions.

> Coding the same thing over and over may mean stagnation, but projects that change tech leads that often are usually mess.

Absolutely.

> It takes time to get up to speed to that position, it takes time to people around to adjust (handle related turf wars and what not), create relationships and all that political stuff.

What you describe has value within an organization. These skills don't actually mean one is better at designing or implementing any software. They also don't necessarily transfer to another company. The people, political systems and bureaucracy at a given company aren't the same as at any other.

> Nor does it allows you to see long term consequences of your decisions.

True, but the way this industry works in most cases there is very little one can do about that after the fact. And, even if there were, it doesn't necessarily translate into having learned something.

There's a reason it's common that it is hard to get time and resources to work on technical debt: it's because companies (generalizing here--exceptions exist) don't value what you describe.

It means that if you was tech lead for two years and then for a year, I don't really want you for long term tech lead position here. Because you don't value nor see precisely things tech leads needs to do and be good at. Júst being good in architecture is not enough, through you need that too. Political and negotiation skills are transferable actually, you learn then with experience. Fine for coder though.

As for your last point, we are in the middle of rather large refactoring. New people here are not trusted with refactoring, because they are not trusted as much. If you have track record not to underestimate difficulties, you are placed at positions that are assumed to require refactoring. The issue with refactoring is that many if not most refactoring attempts fail and leave system in even larger mess. That is why many managers are scared of it. Inexperienced highly confident person trying, unfinishing due to difficulties (whether technical or political) and then leaving mid job.

Refactoring larger project where half the team is still learning and the other on the way out sounds like bad idea. Of course you need to change people to get new ideas in, but positions for stable and less stable people are different.

Guess I am lucky with my current job.

> It means that if you was tech lead for two years and then for a year, I don't really want you for long term tech lead position here. Because you don't value nor see precisely things tech leads needs to do and be good at.

Being tech lead on the same project for more than a year or two (or possibly longer for more complex systems) yields rapidly diminishing margins. Put it this way: other things being equal a person who was lead on the same project for 4 years has less added experience than a person who has been lead on two different projects for 2 years each. In fact, the second guy very likely has a much larger cumulative value, because he's carried two projects through and has the perspectives and experiences of having to make different tradeoffs.

I'd rather have one of my tech lead reports leverage his skills learned from leading one project to leading a different one. Then he can draw on the experience of leading each in addition to having the ability to compare different experiences. That is is itself valuable experience, and positions him to grow even more.

I'm trying to figure out when to switch myself, due to a changed situation on my team (doesn't fit the focus I want for my career, etc.)..

The problem is I've only been full-time 7 months and before that I was an "intern" for basically 10 months, though I worked on the exact same tasks pretty much as everyone else except for being on the PagerDuty schedule.

I respectfully disagree that you can tell whether or not a person is "capable of stretching himself" or not based on length of stay at a job.

There is an overwhelming amount of outside factors that can dominate those decisions much more than your own personal ambitions. The most important of those would be the needs of your family.

I do the same :)