If you let it go too long before you bring it up, when you finally do, you'll get some BS about how they "can't" bump you up because they "can't" authorize that large of a salary bump. A purely BS, arbitrary, rule.
Oh - just FYI - be prepared to jump ship if you do this. Some people are manipulative assholes that react strongly and quickly to any employees standing up for themselves - and other companies are legitimately failing and can't afford the pay bump. In either case you're better off at the new shop. Having an actual job offer to another shop should give you the confidence to risk your current position.
To be honest, $3k sounds like a tiny variance. I frequently see 20-30k differences on middle management roles. Often 10%-30% differences. Getting several years of 3% increases can put you well behind the market.
This is one of the reasons salary bands are so wide. Employers don’t want to bring current staff up to market but want the ability to hire top talent. Also, there’s a fair bit of budget exceptions that get made when a great candidate comes along (whether they’re great or not, TBD)
This is very true. They value your ability to do a job. If you've been around a long time and aren't being valuable in your current job they often won't value you. But, if you are being useful in your current job they will value you.
Tenure is not valued. Usefulness to the company is. Whether you're 20 or 60 this same thing applies.
> you’re often better off changing companies for promotion, salary increases, etc.
This depends.
Companies often view their people as expenses. They often want to get the maximum they can out of someone at the least expense. There are exceptions to this but it's the rule.
So, you need to learn to maximize the thing you value if you want that. Things like position and compensation.
When being courted by a new company they will use these to pull you in. But, if you learn the system at your current employer you can use that system to your benefit as well. Your current company doesn't often see benefit from paying people more and promotions. In some cases, they're looking for the people motivated enough to seek them and not wait for them to be given. Especially at the higher levels.
Of course, using your current companies system to your benefit means you want to stay there.
> 10%-30% differences
Hiring companies are looking for that number which will pull people away. Even from a job they like. What they initially offer is almost always lower than they are able to go.
Just my 2 cents after many years in the systems.
I think this point is correct - but I think a more important point is that companies forget how much value an employee that prevents fires creates. If you work in a position where you reduce risk to the company you'll need to work hard to constantly remind the company of how much risk you're helping them evade.
> Hiring companies are looking for that number which will pull people away. Even from a job they like. What they initially offer is almost always lower than they are able to go.
That's absolutely a core truth - nobody wants to pay more than they have to and salary negotiation is one of the only fields where (in western cultures) we actually haggle over prices. Employees almost never have significant experience advocating for themselves since haggling is a very rare activity.
For many devs, the first 3ish months you lack context to be super useful, then that first 2-4 years of hard work and enthusiasm are probably your peak productivity. It gets harder to maintain enthusiasm as the years go by, so some devs who are cruising with 5+ years might actually provide less long term value than a new hire.
The reality was she was quite under paid. It's quite saddening that her prior employer seemed to have convinced her that such low pay was top of the industry mark.