Stack Overflow: 79% of Developers Considering a Career Move | Hacker News Reader

Stack Overflow: 79% of Developers Considering a Career Move

blobstreaming.org

56 pointsbytearray41 comments

This seems more like a social commentary about job satisfaction for the career at almost 80%, but I suspect the pattern of movement that the “only way to get a significant salary upgrade is to switch jobs” is the secret pressure. There are a LOT of disincentives to moving right now, especially with coast housing stock being at record cost and such low levels. Add to the fact that employers seem to be having a great time laying everyone off, and you have a powder keg for dissatisfaction.

Even if you can find a sw Eng job, salaries have dropped to ~2019-2020 levels

Factor in inflation since then and it’s a huge effective pay drop

Absolutely, my best reading is 9 percent anfter factoring the official inflation numbers and it’s really affecting the greener staff. But it’s still double the average US knowledge worker.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/tech-salaries-are-dropping-her...

I think it’s pretty unevenly distributed. Definitely affecting some segments more than others. Everyone I know who’s a general purpose software engineer is worried (almost), but everyone I know working in AI really is not.

I’ve seen this show before though. This happened in 2001 and 2009 as well…

My signing RSUs have all vested and were not renewed, and my salary increase hasn’t matched inflation. I’m pretty sure I can end up effectively better paid by moving this year.

Best of luck.

My pay peaked in 2001. If subsequent job moves and raises had kept up with inflation, I'd be making just under $150,000 a year today.

As it stands, the job market is so poor (and my skills need updating, to be honest) I'm having trouble getting a job that pays even $80k.

Are you in tech?

I'm just one data point, but after quitting a 12-year position writing RFID related apps, I'm raising chickens and writing.

There are no jobs for me; even for positions that totally align with my skills, the employers express no interest. For one thing, they get hundreds of applicants per posting. For another, DEI.

One nice thing--my old employer is hiring me back on a consulting basis. Meanwhile, I'm retraining and looking into side hustles, AI-related opportunities, manufacturing (a lifelong interest).

Technology as a career is not dead, but it has significantly downsized and is no longer a guaranteed job.

I could see a future where people switch to other white collar jobs like accounting, law, and engineering. Software skills will come in handy here.

> Software skills will come in handy here.

Less than you think. In many of those the corporate issue machines are so locked down and the red tape so bad that just getting to a python hello world is a challenge.

I’ve used coding skills in accounting maybe half a dozen times in a decade.

No doubt there are exceptions but the 5 places I’ve worked for were 0 for 5

>For another, DEI.

What is DEI?

Diversity, equity and inclusion. In extreme cases, this is affirmative action. Hopefully in most cases it means hiring managers keeping an open mind and checking their biases when comparing candidates of differing genders and cultural backgrounds.

Is this that US thing I heard about where women and minorities of color get hiring priority over white men?

Yes

That’s how it gets described sometimes, but it’s about as accurate a description as “US white men prioritize hiring white men over any other demographic unless they are actively discouraged from doing so”.

One of the things to come out of discovery in the Damore lawsuit was Google's head of HR declaring a moratorium on hiring white males. Technically a Civil Rights Act violation, but more commonly practiced and tolerated on the downlow than one might suppose absent insider information like what came out of discovery in the Damore lawsuit.

> One of the things to come out of discovery in the Damore lawsuit was Google's head of HR declaring a moratorium on hiring white males.

Do you have a source for this? The closest thing I could find is [1], which says some Google employee (not the head of HR) suggested such a moratorium on an internal mailing list. It’s not clear that such a policy was ever implemented or even seriously considered.

[1]: https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james...

No, it's that thing where white guys complain that women and minorities are being hired instead of them even though there is no objective evidence of that.

Companies generally don't use DEI in hiring decisions since this would be a violation of anti discrimination laws (they protect white guys too). DEI only applies to the start of the hiring process to get more female and diversity candidates. Candidates still need the skills and background to make it the rest of the way. So when you hear someone complain about DEI, it's really a complaint that they no longer have the skills to get hired.

> There are no jobs for me; even for positions that totally align with my skills, the employers express no interest.

I often wonder who they have working there and applying that is so much better than me they won’t grant me an interview. I’ve always been a top performer so it’s really quite puzzling.

Many positions are not actively hiring. I’ve been applying on linkedin and the same positions are reposted weekly for months on end, never getting taken down and never getting replies.

They’re cluttering up job boards because so few roles are available.

Top performers are divas. Much better to have an average youngster who can be more readily abused.

This tells you something: It's shitty everywhere and moving employers will most likely just get you a new set of problems.

In today's climate, I would advise people not to change jobs unless it's an outstanding opportunity.

No. This is backwards. Peoplw should change jobs and should optimize for better working conditions and fair treatment. Super talented people should do it right now. The time for loyalty is over!

The corpos will never change their ways unless they are literally bleeding talent and money.

"Peoplw should change jobs and should optimize for better working conditions and fair treatment"

I get that we need this, but now is not the time to do it. It's an employers market and when you leave your current job, there will be 100+ applicants waiting to replace you and you will have just as much competition finding your next job.

You find your next job and after that you move. Yes, it's tough, but the whole RTO debacle allowed corpos to show their true colors.

What makes you think that employers are not looking to replace everyone right now? It would make sense to me if there are 100x replacement queue, presumably desperate to accept lower pay, right now. All the more reasons to make a move if you can.

In my experience, if you have a decent tenure in an organisation where institutional knowledge trumps documentation (a dysfunction, but a common one) then you're not likely to be forced out and replaced with someone cheaper. That institutional knowledge has value.

> All the more reasons to make a move if you can.

So that you too can be one of the job seekers "desperate to accept lower pay, right now"?

I have seen that work out for some people, but I think that they intentionally contributed to said distinction to the detriment of everyone else. Best to steer clear.

ok, make your move. Reddit is filled with people that thought this way and have now been unemployed with no job in sight or were forced to take a job at reduced pay.

Like waiting in the stock market, I would make my move when it's an employees market. This way, you actually have some negotiating power.

Having low seniority in a company makes you more likely to be laid off if layoffs happen.

Source: I switched jobs at the end of 2019, got a 30% pay bump, then got laid off 3 months later.

Not necessarily, a longer tenure person can easily get put on the list just by being mildly disliked by the person writing the list.

Youre right, being highly disagreeable has its downsides.

Similar to being snarky, I imagine

Same problems, higher pay. Always Be Interviewing.

my two cents (from personal experience): Getting money when you are from low SES is not that stimulating, because the money is inevitably spent on mundane purchases: i.e. buying a new pair of school shoes or school supplies, or beef instead of chicken for a meal that week, or fixing your car.

If that money would be able to be spent on anything that the child desired, then I am sure that even a lower-SES would be more excited.

I fundamentally believe that the higher-SES you are, the more agency you have (especially financial), where lower-SES are in constant survival mode. It is hard to get excited by small sums of money when you know that it will just be immediately spent on boring things.

Does "SES" mean "socio-economic status"?

I think you replied to the wrong post

you are correct

Well duh. It’s shitty everywhere. Might as well keep my options open and do shitty work for more pay at the next place.

(2023)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com