Hacker News Reader

Comment by kfk | Hacker News Reader

I am on the hiring side in this crazy market, please think long term and find something you like and that fits your long term development goals. I have had to go through plenty of mediocre candidates jumping every year or two to a new salary increase, they lack deep knowledge and basically copy paste stackoverflow answers. I would never give them a serious role. The moment we have another 2008 crisis all these people will struggle to find a decent job.

View on HN

As someone who's resume looks like one of these jumpers (but really it just hasn't worked out many times), I do see some potential problems with this. Is it not possible that people are leaving because they didn't see a way that they'd land a serious role or pay increase in your company? Are you asking that people stick around despite those things not being present? Seems like a very poor value proposition to me. Likewise, how is someone supposed to find something that they'd stick with long term if they don't play the field?

The top people I met during my carrier always find ways to be productive, add value and become key team members. Those people probably make less money because they don't job hop as much, but they are valued a lot more by their bosses and peers. When I hire I try to find such people because I know I can trust them. Your knowledge, reputation, and trust is your biggest asset, it is much more valuable than a 30% salary increase today, in the long run I believe your "brand" is a much bigger driver of wealth than job hopping.

> Those people probably make less money because they don't job hop as much

> in the long run I believe your "brand" is a much bigger driver of wealth than job hopping

This seems to imply that in the long run one can be "much" wealthier by... making less money? Compound interest comes to mind.

I think many would agree that reputation/"brand" doesn't pay the bills, and just like any social media platform, only the .01% of creators/employees actually benefit from having a "brand", while most spend a ton of time trying to create one without much luck. In the same way, I'd assume that it takes a lot to actually be a name which is associated with a "brand" in a tech field - many, I'm sure, have failed and wasted a lot of energy which could have been put towards living life outside of work

> Those people probably make less money because they don't job hop as much, but they are valued a lot more by their bosses and peers

If they were truly valued more by their bosses, they would be paid more.

This is ridiculous, but not unsurprising coming from a recruiter

That depends. Not every industry or company has the margins of tech or a truck of VC money.

I don't know if it does depend. If you have low margins, but do a ton of volume in any industry, you should be able to generate more money by retaining good shipping ppl. That has a ceiling where competition won't pay more, or the business can't realistically afford you for some reason, but at that point you should probably move to where you can generate more with the same time, supposing that other factors aren't more important than the gain in $

Reading your two posts, it sounds more like you've got a bad code base, no-one wants to work on it and quickly flee when they've seen it.

You're also a bad boss who never gives people payrises, and that's why you need to find people to "trust".

I think we'll all be fine if there's another 2008 without your 30% below market rate jobs, thanks.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect between "top" people adding value and literally not being valued as high as another company. In my experience, a company that won't reward you more despite your measured contribution being valuable isn't worth a second thought. I'd go one step further, and point to the gaming industry whose primary reputation characteristic is leveraging talented people's motivation against them for executive and shareholder profit. I've also witnessed apparently "key" team members being refused a stake in the company, and that's just one more nail. If you ain't being valued accordingly, and you can't get a stake, find something else.

There is a tension there. Your ideal candidate is by definition not a candidate, or rarely a candidate.

It’s an interesting situation. Companies are trying to make their founders billionaires, but we must begrudge and judge the workers for a chance of becoming a millionaire by playing it like business.

Job hopping is the perfect strategy for mediocre developers in this "bull market", if done quickly you'll only tell stories of glory, never having to deal with your bad decisions long term.

I'm not saying only bad developers do this, but there's an extra incentive for them to do so and increase noise for recruiters.

> they lack deep knowledge and basically copy paste stackoverflow answers

If thats all the job calls for why should I do anymore?

How long do you like to see someone stay in a position before moving for you to not consider them hoppers? Ie minimum.

I (not OP) would say 2-3 years minimum. If an employer doesn't have enough varied work for you to tackle and learn during that time then maybe less. One perspective is long enough to get a promotion.

As a hiring manager, I would generally exclude, from the 2-3yr min concept, roles like consultancy/freelance or circumstances beyond the candidates power to avoid (layoffs, acquisitions, etc.)

I don't see it as a hard rule to follow, just something to ask about if there are like three 1 year stints at different places in same town.

Yes, but until then they are catapulting up the ladder at crazy speed and making money out the ass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com