It's rare to also see these articles point out the immense pay discrepancy that can occur.
Companies seem to want loyalty but they don't want to give it. This leads to the merc approach of just selling to the highest bidder.
Companies seem to want loyalty but they don't want to give it. This leads to the merc approach of just selling to the highest bidder.
Often time's it's not actually about the money. But the low pay (relatively) is a signal to the developer of how much / little you value them.
The people that say this simply rationalize it differently than people willing to say it is about the money. (but yes, there is a group where it really isn't about money)
There is a large segment of the population that feels a stigma for admitting monetary motivation, so if its not "ALL" about the money, where all possible factors are money, they will say it isn't.
People that don't feel a stigma around admitting monetary motivation will reveal that money is a factor if it is at least 1 of the factors. It will be misinterpreted by the other population as being only about the money, whether it is or isn't.
It is just a form of conditioning that will distort any survey for now.
I happily admitted if someone offered me %30+ more money I would think hard about leaving. I remember telling my boss that exact thing at the time and he understood. The honesty is one of the reasons I enjoyed the job.
Quitting generally has more to do with:
A) "You (the employer) Waited Until The Exit Interview To Ask What’s Wrong"
B) "You (the employee) Waited Until The Exit Interview To Convey What's Wrong"
Leaving my last job, I told them what I wanted 1-2 years before I actually left (for more money, but that wasn't the primary cause). The CEO basically told me in the exit interview if it was about money, he'd give me another 30% to get me to stay (and they had countered with that before, back when I told them what I needed to stay long term).
Money isn't necessarily the cause. Its the lack of willingness to communicate and meet the other person's needs.
This can come from two reasons:
1. The company doesn't have sufficiently valuable projects to capture the developer's potential. There are a lot of companies which simply don't need very senior developers and hence cannot match the price for a senior developer on the open market.
2. The company perceives developers as second-class relative to management or their core business leaders. Thus, they can never have developers paid more than those core people.
These companies see a very consistent talent pool of mediocre developers (who have been mediocre for a long time) and junior developers who come in and leave after 1-2 years once they realize they can get more elsewhere.
Work less, get out and do fun things more.
So? That's pretty irrelevant since any good developer job in the US comes with excellent health coverage.
Health insurance being so culturally tied to "employment" is ... very problematic.
Good luck finding a senior developer for £70k over there.
You should be able to find remote work that pays £50k+ relatively easily. Although the whole Brexit thing may make that harder. :\
To me, £70k was more a geographic / economic area issue. Under $50k/£50k you just have to get out.
Most people aren't primarily motivated by money once they are making a full salary as a developer.
PTO, Work/Life Balance, and Geography are more relevant to my life choices than how much I'm paid (to a point, certain areas I've noticed don't pay enough).
https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/profit_margin
Alphabet was running a 13.55% margin for its latest quarter.
https://ycharts.com/companies/WMT/profit_margin
Walmart was at a 2.59% profit margin for its latest quarter.
Which of these companies do you think are providing better PTO, Work/Life Balance, etc.?
The reality is intangibles mean more to developers than another 10% salary bump once they are making $150k.