Hacker News Reader

Comment by saberworks | Hacker News Reader

Really dissatisfied with pay increase this year in February. CEO talked up how everyone was going to be really happy with big bumps to make us more competitive (they have been struggling with high turnover after a couple of acquisitions). I get "exceeds expectations" multiple years in a row and did everything my manager suggested last year to try to get a bigger bump this year. I got 2% base salary increase and 5% bonus target increase. Chances of seeing the full bonus targets this year? Not high.

I'll be looking for a new job this year for sure.

View on HN

I have to wonder why anyone bothers to ever exceed expectations except for intrinsic reasons.

I assume from the day I start that I will be gone in less than 18 months.

This this this. "Exceeds expectations" gets you the B+ treatment, at best. Meanwhile, slacking off and doing the bare minimum gets you a C rating. Every year that I bust my ass with proven results, there's always some excuse in store for me and "well maybe things will be better next year," and the same customary 2-5% raise as last year.

Eventually I got bored, stopped trying, and still walked out of reviews with average or above-average marks and same pay bump. This is after getting talks from my manager about upping my game and narrowly avoiding a PIP.

If an employer wants me to bust my ass for them they need to make it worthwhile. If my work unlocks significant value (verifiable 6 or more figures) for the company then I expect more than a token amount of that to be sent my way.

SWE pay may be high but they use that as a cudgel to keep you from claiming value proportional to your contributions, and don't even get me started on the trap that is equity compensation

This career really feels like interviewing skills are the real skill and everything else is just a mandatory socially enforced cooldown period.

As an industry we have favored marketing of software over the quality of software. Promotion has been tied directly to that choice (expressed as "productivity" and "delivery") and then the people promoted by that system make hiring choice. It would be unexpected if the emergent outcome was not as you have described it.

Not as an industry, as a society! In "free market" liberalism, selfishness manifests as self-promotion, because money and success is tied to others perceiving how good job we are doing. In other words, the (supposedly objective) free market metric of selling service to others becomes a target and is being manipulated.

It helps to perform well enough to get influence as to what you get to work on, as that ends up on your resume.

bingo

Last year (or financial year ends in summer) there were basically four numbers.

The minimum amount a promotion was worth. The impact on the base salary (and the slight impact on the bonus) if you were considered important talent.

The impact on the bonus (and only slight impact on the base salary) if you had outstanding contributions last year.

The overall base increase for everybody based on seniority (higher for more junior positions).

The latter more or less covered inflation. The others improved on that (sometimes by quite a margin).

I can see why outstanding contributions won't make a big dent in salary, but they absolutely have to make a huge difference in bonus. If I have an outstanding year my bonus should be at least an integer multiple of a more normal year.

SWE work can be super impactful depending on what you're working on (especially in startups), why can't we share in more of the glory? In some companies, if you run the numbers and divide that result by the total number of hands that have touched the project you can STILL come up with net revenue or even profit that is 100x+ what you're being paid. And not seeing more than a token piece of that is just wrong.

If I knew that performance could net me 2x or more of my salary, you can bet I'd be a lot more motivated to work hard.

> I assume from the day I start that I will be gone in less than 18 months.

This is my mindset now, but man, I would like to be able to actually stay at a place for 5+ years.

My father worked at an engineering firm for over 15 years. Although this had its own cons like everything, I'm jealous of the camaraderie that my father had with his coworkers. I suspect I'll hit local maximum for pay/career at some point in my future and try to find a job where I can stay long and cultivate meaningful connections.

It kinda sucks that effective teams that takes decades to build aren't valued higher in the corporate world.

Networking. If I'd have been a better performer in the past, I'd have probably followed some of my high performing coworkers to their jobs and gave better overall job satisfaction. Being in teams that value good code and perform with good work life balance makes work enjoyable.

This is true. I’m currently working 3 remote jobs (just gathering as much cash as possible) and one is a good one with a tech firm and the other two are at technologically incapable places.

The two tech incapable ones are pretty annoying, or at least would be if I gave a damn about my performance there.

Also never met such mean people. Tech is so nice in comparison.

> Also never met such mean people.

You think this has anything to do with putting in the bare minimum?

You work for three places in the same 8 hours?

I probably should have followed this route. I've been at my job for over a decade and all my big promotions and large pay raises happened in the first half of that. Been single digit raises since then and I don't think there's any more room to move up unless I want to try management, which I really don't.

How long can you keep hoping jobs like that in the long run though?

I see resumes like that a lot. In generally move past them. The cost of churn is high and people who constantly job hop aren't worth the effort or the potential impact to team morale. I say this as an engineering hiring manager. I've job hopped too but I always shoot for at least for years. I don't always make it but I plan for it.

Normally people don't like to job hop. It is unnecessary stress. However, people have responsibilities to their families. If you are concerned of job hoppers then why don't you help them to alleviate their burden. If not, and if other companies are paying higher somewhere else, why would that person stay? That would be doing a disservice to him/her and his/her family.

son: "dad, why can't we go to vacation this year?"

dad: "sorry son, don't have enough money. still got bills to pay and dad's company don't give enough raise."

son: "why can't you just find another job?"

dad: "that's treason son, we don't do that here. think of the team morale son."

son: "okay dad. i love you."

wife: "Look(showing Instagram) Your CEO bought new Tesla Model S Plaid"

If someone job hops I don't recommend them for further interview rounds. Even in an agency setting were turn over is high. I don't want people like that on my team.

I have one 7 months stint in my resume and that is framed by 5.5 on one side and now more than 7 years in my current job.

My pay increased by >90 percent in my current job. The people I work with are really great and I couldn't in good conscience recommend someone for that team that goes out of their way to support each other that is only in it for themselves. I personally don't want hedonistic people on the team I am playing on.

And a word about crafting BS emotional stories around how a family suffers because someone doesn't job hop. WTF.

If one can't go on vacation because they did not receive a raise they are not acting financially responsible. Especially when having a family.

Vacation imho always should come out of a play money budget. Put aside some amount of money every month for play and/or vacation. Next to money you put to the side for emergencies. Then pay the bills and still have money to spend. This is financially sound planning.

If either one of these is missing people are not planning their financials good enough. At least imho.

If anyone ever tells their kid that they are incapable of going on vacation because of a raise too low their kid should answer that they are sad their parents are lying to them about their financial incompetence.

Repeat after me:

The majority of people do not like interviewing.

The majority of people do not like investing their own time to change jobs.

The majority of people do not want the mental and emotional burden of changing jobs and feeling guilty over it.

The majority of people do not get amazing job offers frequently and will have to manually filter to find better opportunities.

The majority of people do not like taking a risk which may not pan out. Especially while having little savings.

Job-hopping being so prevalent is a result of the market. Despite the increasing number of barriers. If you do things differently from the market that prevent those incentives, I assure you, the majority will stop job-hopping.

Thanks for the long reply. It seems our way of seeing things are just different, irreconciliably different. Like, fire and water different. Like, extra terrestial beings different.

That being said, skipping on job hopper’s resume actually brings positive on both sides. We avoid wasting each others’ time. You are doing the right thing.

Actually, real life is way way more cruel than the 5 line dialogue that I described above. You don't know what people struggle in their life.

Maybe, hmmm, just maybe, they are supporting a few older generation women in their family that are all divorced and no longer can work? Just maybe, hmm...

Maybe, just maybe, that person has an aspiration of doing better for the world instead of chasing compensation, but limited by his/her circumstances, so he/she has to do leetcode + jumping ships all the time, just maybe.

Reality is brutal, cruel. Some people have so much, yet some people have so little.

I value other personality traits and people scoring differently on the big five. Especially agreeableness. I experienced them providing a better and more long term productive team setup.

So I pass on candidates that (on average and I might miss out on great people once in a while) tend to value short term personal gains.

In the end it is a question of how (better in which direction) one tries to influence the environment one is in.

And I decided to take an approach geared towards longevity and sustainability of the team environment.

> My pay increased by >90 percent in my current job.

I've increased my comp by 250% over 8 years vs your ~90% in 7 years. That's what you're missing out on.

I see I wasn't able to make my point.

I don't just do things purely for monetary reasons. I am glad my parents instilled quite different values in me.

And you can't see my point, which is that increasing your income by 250% enables you to do other things you otherwise wouldn't be able to do. I work to live as much as anyone, but I expect to be paid market rate to do it.

I just realized we are comparing apples to oranges here.

I am paid above market median already in my current job. I could probably reasonably add 15 - 25 percent if I jumped once, maybe 60 percent if I jumped 3 times over 3 - 5 years.

I would have to change my role though and switch from an expert role into leadership/management with responsibility for people (wouldn't be a problem) and way less time to do the stuff I like about my job.

Btw. looking back over a somewhat longer time frame my current compensation is higher by a factor of 4.5 then around 11 or 12 years ago.

It isn't as if I would not look out for myself. Or would want to be compensated significantly below market rates. Just that for myself and the team I am part of I try to optimize for agreeableness and long-term thinking.

Well, I got over 200% in the last 5 years. And my current employer will give a raise of 20% after one year with them. This was negotiated before.

In short: if you are unhappy with your payment, you have to realize owe more to yourself and your family than to some random company. Find another job, negotiate as much as you can and move on.

So basically you are in for the money only? There are no other factors?

>If someone job hops I don't recommend them for further interview rounds. Even in an agency setting were turn over is high. I don't want people like that on my team.

You can get assured, people don't want someone like you near them, too. You are doing them a favor. :)

I don’t like to job hop. I hate change. I hate having to learn new people.

I’m the kind of person who has eaten the same breakfast since I was 13. I have 5 of the same shoe as I don’t want to have to find another new kind of pair. I like rules and consistency and knowing a system well.

But if I don’t, I will end my career millions of dollars poorer.

Essentially as soon as I am comfortable in an org, I have to leave unless I want to forsake a big chunk of money.

It's such a seemingly self-contradictory view and I love that you're sharing it because it makes complete sense in the world of ill-logic in which we find ourselves.

Loyalty means nothing as an employee now (and for a while) in the same way that existing customers don't get the perks that new sign-ups get. Employees are being viewed more and more the same way as customers; is this an extension of "if all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail"? It worked for customers, which are people, why can't it work for employees since they're also people and therefore afflicted with the same psychological pressure points.

It's all a calculation of the individual status: Is their leaving going to cost them more than staying for a lower-than-CPI "raise"?

The "churn" cost to the company doesn't seem to be a KPI in most places. "Seat-filled = seat-filled" may be the equation, with no preceding multiplier as to the knowledge or expertise held in each seat.

I wonder when loyalty to a company meant anything? I mean, I'm sure there are, and were companies where it did. But was it ever a norm?

Good point, it's probably always been just a story and after a certain amount of bitter experience we eventually realise it is not true.

A persistent, rolling wave on the sea of fiction that eventually breaks on the shores of the gritty-sanded beach of experience behind the dunes of which is built the school of hard knocks.

I think it meant something in the West long time ago. And it still means something in Japan. But to have employees giving you loyalty, you have to give them something else in return.

Okay. You might end up millions poorer. But at what cost?

I once had an offer that was 20 percent higher than the current salary I received at that time. I passed on it. I valued working with my coworkers more.

I have a standard of living that is fine by me. I do not complain. My SO was able to go back to university and we still have our house, are able to pay the mortgage, put aside play and emergency money.

Sure. I could already make more money. But to what end? What should I do with it? I would probably increase the amount of money I donate as I did with every raise. I would put more into my retirement fund. Other than that? I would probably buy more crap.

Why should I care about theoretically making millions more (or hundreds of thousands in Germany to be more realistic). I enjoy the fact that I can trust in my colleagues offering help and trusting my knowledge and my opinion. We know each other well enough to trust each other and have a good relationship. We can be vulnerable with each other.

Something I did not have before.

Why would I throw this away just because I theoretically could make a few bucks more?

Wow. I just realized why I value my team/environment so much (and believe me, there are a ton of things I am unnerved about at my current job regarding processes from the parent company).

A heart attack in the US can cost over $1 million to survive. Hope this put things in into perspective.

Yes it does. But how to people manage that don't make these IT job salaries? How do "regular" Americans survive such an event?

Bankruptcy, or they die from not being able to afford care beyond the stabilization emergency rooms are obligated to give (and bill extremely high for) even without insurance or ability to pay. Plenty of people can't afford chemo, for example, and just die.

Think you already know the answer to this… :-)

They don't, or they go bankrupt.

> Okay. You might end up millions poorer. But at what cost?

Not to be snarky but... "millions"? the answer is right there in your question. You are making it seem like getting that extra money is going to cost OP their health or family, when in reality, the higher paying job will likely have better WLB and more interesting technology.

> Not to be snarky but

Yeah. Exactly.

Why should I want to earn millions while doing something I despise. As if money was worth living against my values. Not everybody buys into this ideology.

I actually don't do things purely for monetary reasons. Gladly my parents instilled some better values in me.

To be clear - I definitely have no problem with earning money. I absolutely like to make money if it coincides with my values. But only then.

You don't have to do anything you despise. I love what I do and the impact that it has on society, in my area of work there are companies that pay worse (and have worse wlb btw) than the one I'm currently at. I worked at some of those, and as soon as I was able to, I left, and I don't regret it a bit.

Same here. And there are companies I could probably at least get 50 to 80 percent more. With less secure job, with more cut throat management, with toxic culture and the need to work for clients in military or clients like Nestlé and the likes.

So there goes some of the the reasons I am not working there.

You move past them but there are another ten hiring managers who wouldn't, so it wouldn't make an impact on the guy sending the resume.

People job hop either because the payment is not enough, either the work environment is bad. As a hiring manager, if you want to have stable teams on the long run, you just have to make them happy. Push for decent salary raises and provide them a nice environment.

> generally move past them

> I've job hopped too

Nice double standard, lucky that your current employer didn’t apply your heuristics to you, so you could close the door behind you.

Changing jobs is such a hassle, I suspect most people wouldn’t do it as often if companies were nice places to work with raises to match the market. But that’s harder to do than blame candidates and only hire those that appear to settle for less.

I'm twenty five years in and have about 15 companies now. I finish projects and move on to a new one typically at a new company. Only a couple times were leaving part way through something. Would I be seen as a job hopper?

Are you contract? Then maybe not, if it was "contract ended, moved on". If FTE, yes, very much so. I usually don't care if someone job hops, but that's at best 7 years you haven't stayed at a place for more than 6 months...unless you have unicorn skills that I needed for 6 months I'd not take a chance on you.

I agree. Seeing this resume I wouldn't even ask HR to schedule an interview.

Actually I wouldn't schedule an interview if I needed the skills for six months. I would rather hire a freelance person because that would give me more control and flexibility. Even with the ability to let someone go within 2 weeks in the first 6 month of an employment in Germany.

Yeah, did a five year stint at a company before going contract.

Yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com