I wish I could give perspective on working in the same job for decades but I’m only 7 years in. 34 to go and zero intention on changing employers or careers unless I have to.
You spend more time at work then anything else, perhaps tied with sleeping. More than with your spouse. More than with your kids. More than relaxing. Why not make work mean something? If work means something, you can't just do it for 40 years as a punch in, punch out. That sounds horrible.
I like attempting new challenges. The problem is that I often don't get to use the new skills gained while attempting those challenges. That's why I switch.
I’m also unusual because I spend less time at work vs home. I’m significantly out numbered amongst other workers in the US but when you travel abroad you realize many other places take a similar attitude. Employment is a means to an end. There’s no reason to accept that work is where you spend most of your time. Reframe your mindset and find a lifestyle where work does not define you and how you spend your time.
Most jobs don't allow you that freedom, nor do I think they have an obligation to.
Lots of people are academics, not in profession, but in spirit. Why would an academic go do physics for a fraction of the paycheck than they would doing analytics for a bank or trading firm? Because they can't not. That's not to say that their work is more important than family, but it's more than a means to an end. It's the work of their life.
From that perspective, if someone is not able to extract that level of fulfillment from whatever the situation is at their day job, then assuming they are just punching in the clock, or telling them to reframe their mindset, is a bit preachy IMO.
It would be selfish (and borderline irresponsible) for me to prioritize excitement and self-actualization at work over a comfortable, stable life for my family. That’s what holidays and hobbies are for.
1) I feel like I can effect more change with fewer barriers in a smaller company - the idea to goal conversion is much more condensed vs when I worked at IBM and the number of processes and approvals it had to go through.
2) If you are in small companies there is usually very little room for progression, smaller companies = smaller budgets - when I was an employee of these the only real way to get any kind of pay increase as experience increases was to switch companies.
3) Some of us enjoy the change, I loved the work I did at IBM but it was still mostly BAU work, there was very little scope for personal innovation over the long term. Sure you could switch departments quite easily and that was a huge benefit but back to point 1 - the innovation momentum is hard to keep up. At the companies I have been working at for the past 7 years, every day is different, every day is researching the next best thing or how to improve the current things we have with a view to squeezing out more performance, or decreasing costs. Sure I have some BAU work but it's mostly meetings and developer mentoring, hardly painful!
4) To your final point, I am lucky to be doing something I have always been passionate about - this isnt a rat race for me, its not about keeping up with others, my definition of success is how much I enjoy going to work in the morning and not having to fret the little things.
You're not being rewarded for your success or your hard work in any meaningful way; you're not learning new things or barely keeping up with the status quo; you're forced to work with other individuals who do not care about the quality of their work, or the effect it will have on others, or do not offer enlightening conversation, views.
> collecting the check
The check is not keeping up with the ever increasing cost of living.
> People are so caught up in the rat race […] Career does not have to be the definition of success.
I don't want it to be. I want to be able to make enough to meet my (reasonable) life goals.
If your company is giving you meaningful work, compensating you well for it, and you would not find better on the market, then more power to you. Not all of us are so lucky.
Besides that, a person can do their job, collect a check and go home regardless of which company they work for, so why stick with a one that isn't satisfying? Why not see what the other options are and get a fuller perspective? The software world is huge, and you'll never experience it all working at the same company forever.
If I was sentenced to 40 years of randomly assigned work then I'd just clock in and clock out, but I get to do something I love at an exorbitant salary. With a taste of that I'm going fight for positions where I can do more of what I love and make more money. I don't really care about keeping up with people or prestige, I care about freedom.
I'd be making less than half of what I do now if I had stayed at my first job. This buys my freedom sooner.
There's nothing inherently wrong with either option.
You might not understand, but I think it would be worth to exercise empathy and try to understand it, instead of passing judgement. The OP is doing precisely this, not passing judgement and asking for help to exercise empathy.
Depends on what the job is, how much that check is for compared to CoL, and how much I have going on at home.
I imagine if someone hated their job and didn't make enough money, they'd want change. I've been in both camps at different stages of my career.