Hacker News Reader

Comment by somtum | Hacker News Reader

Staying in the first company of my professional career for too long. I would have learnt more and earned more if I moved companies regularly early on.

View on HN

I have been at the same company for 25 years, and so have many of my co-workers, who have grown up with me, and I always wonder if that has been a mistake.

Whoa, that's pretty cool. Mind sharing the company or at least the industry?

Financially I have to imagine it is because of the pay raises that you get from switching vs not. Companies simply do not value their employees enough.

What if you're happy where you are, you're perfectly satisfied with your salary (above median income right after leaving school and increased ~35% since then), and there is basically 1 alternative company nearby (where you'd have a lot more travel) and the rest is either a leap (hoping that you'll like a different kind of work) or more than doubles your commute time (to >1h one-way)?

I heard this advice before and at 4 years I'm quite due for a change in the statistical sense, and I've been offered more money already but... I feel like I'm already rich with no expensive hobbies and the money just flowing into long-term ETFs for retirement. Am I just in an exceptional situation or does the advice still apply to me and should I leave within the next 1-2 years?

An argument I would make would be for future proofing your employability. You clearly care about thinking long-term. What if the current gig goes under, are you properly trained in technologies other companies in 5-10 years would use, that maybe your current gig doesn't?

Just spitballing. If you really are 10/10 happy, and aren't concerned with the possibility of that company blinking out of existence and being screwed, I would probably just say ride with it until you feel like quitting.

Thanks for the input!

There's an opportunity cost in _moving_ too; ever heard the saying that three moves equals one fire? If you're in a position you find satisfying, and see a technical and financial advancement path that seems acceptable, don't trade the roots you're putting down for some theoretical improved later slope of earnings.

But keep your resume up to date, and go on interviews from time to time. See what the offers are, and do the math on them. And if the math says "Stay put", ignore the techbros who disdain roots. :)

I think it really depends on the industry and location. There's a clear tendency on HN to only consider the tech market in California, where it makes the most sense to hop companies regularly. It's not the case for everyone.

I work in a large European industrial company in aerospace, and the vast majority of the employees stay until retirement. Yes most change job regularly, even relocate to different countries, but within the same company. Outside options aren't great, you're not looking at large potential raises and will have difficulty finding as good of a package unless you go into another industry completely. If I was fired I'd probably have to move to a different country and get into another industry to get a good offer.

You probably should not leave.

At the very least, preserve the option to come back. Be honest with your employer, tell them you enjoy the work but are just curious what else is there.

I have this weird feeling that I'm making the same mistake right now.

If you feel that way, you probably are.

If you've been there longer than 3 years, then yes, you're making the mistake.

This is a strange attitude; if you change jobs every three years, then how much are you going to get done, really? If everyone took this approach, then would any large project ever get finished?

Why wouldn't six months be more than enough time to ship a project?

It can take time to build political capital to be trusted to lead/ship a project.

Depends on the project. I just launched something last week I'd been working on for the previous 18 months.

Not every company works only on small software products.

Well, OP is talking about their first job, so my advice is targeting that specific situation. As a general rule, engineers see a fairly large bump in pay when going from their first to their second job, particularly if they did a poor job of negotiating their first salary. So yes, in terms of career development and realizing your earning potential, you should not stay at your first job for more than a few years.

At the company, or in a specific position?

I'd say continuity is fine, if the firm is large enough to offer a career path.

In many startup product companies, the specific knowledge about the product is not interchangeable with other tech companies. The tech skills and the soft skills are, but a large part is know-how about the product and the market.

It makes sense to stick around longer if you see yourself as a "knowledge worker" rather than as an interchangeable techie. It certainly makes sense from the company's perspective to keep knowledgeable people around.

It's very likely. 2 years seems to be standard, and I'm moving jobs after 1.5 next week. 20% raise for very similar work, there's no reason not to move.

I was recently told I was "long" with the company for moving after a bit under 2 years (I'm leaving 31st July, I joined on 15th september).

I can't help but think that it's pathological to consider that "long" :/

I wish it wasn't. Many companies simply make it too difficult to move up and grow internally.

Part of me says I did this with my first job in the computer industry. On the other hand I was reasonably compensated (for the time) and that job led directly to a progression of a few other jobs that have served me fine.

I had the benefit of my first 4 companies imploding within 2 years.

what did you learn from the first 4 that made 5 go to the moon?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com