I’m saying this only for people who are in utter shit jobs and have the talent to find another one, but are afraid to be classified a job hopper.
Most hires will take a year to get productive (where they produce more value for the company than they cost).
I would never hire someone if I expected them to leave in a few months (except an intern).
There are exceptions. An experienced consultant may be hired only for short, specific projects. But if you're struggling to get hired, you don't fall in that category.
Anyway, I was productive within a week at my current company. Have you heard of companies trying to reduce the time to impact (or git commit) of an employee, some are proud that their employees commit go into production on their first day. If it takes one year to make back the money it costs to pay them, that sounds like we should improve that process or get more value from developers, rather than expect people to stay for longer to earn back their cost.
This is clearly a tough topic for some people on HN. I would recommend you just do some interviews (this is not treason), and see what offers you get (this is fair, you might get a nice increase). Then you'll realize its not a big deal for companies (especially the one thats making the hire), it might be bigger in your head and in your existing company.
I never fully understood this. In pretty much any company I worked, if by the end of the month you weren't productive (almost fully independent) you would get the boot. Do companies really expect for new employees to take a year to be consistently productive? In startup land, that is like 2-3 product launches, how the hell companies find the money for this?
I am not talking about someone not doing anything useful -- that should come quickly. But it may take several months or a year for them to start creating more value than their salary+benefits+other costs. And as long as the new hire shows progress to this I am perfectly OK if the process takes a year. My 2c.
I would encourage you to rethink this idea.