Hacker News Reader

Comment by WrtCdEvrydy | Hacker News Reader

I usually stay for about 2 years, and move on if the work becomes boring.

In all of the hiring that I’ve been a part of, this would be considered an absolutely huge red flag if it couldn’t be well justified, on the very slim chance you were given a chance to justify it.

It suggests you were a poor fit for those positions. If your whole resume suggests this, then you’re most likely a poor fit for the position you’re being considered for, which is most likely related to your experience.

I think that proving you can grow in a position is the best way to get good compensation and projects. Demonstrating that you’ll just check out means you’ll never grow or be given anything long term.

I once hired a person despite the flag that he had been in something like 15 positions in 10 years. He treated us the same and bailed in about year.

I interviewed someone recently who actually said “I usually get bored after a year and leave” in the interview. I don’t necessarily mind that, in a contractor but in a complex environment where it takes 6 months for people to hit their stride, why would I bother investing any time in such a person?

>huge red flag if it couldn’t be well justified, on the very slim chance you were given a chance to justify it.

Good lord. Are you a "we're a family here at [business]" kind of guy? The justification is obvious: money. When businesses start giving > 60% pay raises at year 2, then you can give some weight to your "poor fit" theory. Until that magical world exists, anyone who doesn't hop while the hop is actively rewarded should be the red flag.

THIS.

You'd have to be stupid to stay longer than 2 years if someone is willing to throw a whole lot more money in your face.

I agree, but that's going to run out eventually, then you're in trouble with your list of 2 year stints.

And when the job market for developers is no longer so hot (bound to happen eventually), guess whose resumes are going to the bottom of the pile?

Never forget that what goes around comes around.

It sounds like you hold a grudge against people who would rather switch companies after 2 years than sacrifice large amounts of money out of some misplaced sense of loyalty.

Loyalty? Thanks for the laugh, mate. Nope, it's just dollars and cents.

It sounds like you think employers should be happy to be somebody's stepping stone and eat the cost and man-hours of hiring a new employee to replace them before they've even contributed enough to break even on their own hiring expense. Funny how hiring managers somehow don't think being stepped on is a good deal; gosh, I wonder why?

> eat the cost and man-hours of hiring a new employee > it's just dollars and cents.

A monetary decision was made to terminate my business relation with you... a box will be provided for your tears.

Can't terminate a business relationship when they were never hired. No worries and no tears.

> you were given a chance to justify it.

I was offered more money as my skills outgrew compensation at my previous position - Tagline on resume.

2 years seems too short. IMO you start looking less valuable at some point because anyone looking to hire you knows you're going to bail in 2 years, which may reduce their willingness to invest.

2 years is the millennial average [1]

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/millennials-jobs-ca...

Don't we normally strive to be above average?

I'd certainly hesitate applying an average across a broad demographic to presumably well-paid and well-educated professionals in a technical field. As others have noted, if someone has a resume of 2 year stints for no particular reason, I assume that pattern will continue. If they bring something special, that may be fine. But I'll factor the likelihood they'll be gone in 24 months into my decision making.

Staying at a company a long time isn't intrinsically and self-evidently better. For instance, switching jobs every 2-3 years will both maximize your salary and allow you to diversify your equity compensation (for more irons in the fire) [1].

Staying at a job for a while is a means, not an ends, and as such not necessarily something to optimize for.

Myself having 0 felonies makes me below average (as 8% of Americans have at least 1 felony), and I don't see myself striving to be above average in this category ;)

[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/3946085/switching-jobs-pay-boost/

Wow. That just seems weird to me -- but I've only had two jobs in the last 16 years.

Both my mother and her father worked at the same place (a General Electric appliance factory) for most of their lives. My grandfather was there on day one and remained until he retired. My mother started there ~20 years after he did and was there until the day they shut down. I know of one man who worked there for 44 years!

Switching jobs every two years seems so foreign -- and somewhat "suspicious" -- to me.

"According to the survey, millennials who work in large, private-sector organisations have lost faith in the ethics of these organisations over the last year."

The last year? I think the rot set in during the Thatcher/Reagan era. Corporations showed they had no loyalty to their employees so they shouldn't be surprised when their employees respond accordingly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com