Why switching jobs is almost always a good idea | Hacker News Reader

Why switching jobs is almost always a good idea

alexpotato.com

106 pointsalexpotato102 comments

If you're not happy in your current role, make your employer aware of that fact. If you believe you are underpaid, say it. If you're overworked, say it. I'm not saying you'll necessarily get results but I think people all too often look for the door when what is making them unhappy can probably be resolved where they are. Of course if you're miserable and need a change that's a different story. But remember that if you're good, losing you is going to hit your employer hard. The cost of replacing good people is so high, any good employer will try to resolve any issues you may have in order to keep you.

I'm having this exact issue with my current employer and my past two as well. I was and am being significantly underpaid compared to my coworkers because of my age and experience despite bringing the same level of technical skill and often taking on the larger workload (not speculative; also have 3 dependents). With the exception of the first, I have not been miserable, but without exception, all 3 have been unwilling to go to bat for my wages and would rather lose me, even while professing that that course of action would be a value loss.

Maybe I'm delusional about my skill and work ethic but I have found that issues of wages are never easily resolved and it's easier to just increase your wages by switching jobs. One startup of ~20 employees and two large companies.

Salary is a very touchy issue and there's several things to consider. One, that its a negotiation and you have to be very careful in your communications and diligent about protecting your own interests.

As an employee you're at a built-in disadvantage. Management knows everyone's salaries, you don't. Salaries are a closely guarded secret and they maintain that informational advantage against you. So, you really have to look at industry averages for your role and decide if you are not being appropriately compd.

Now, about mgmt valuing you and not letting you go. First, NEVER threaten to leave. They may preempt that and cut you, or you'll go on a list of troublemakers. Managers have lists of people in their heads they would like to cut if given the opportunity. It's the people that get cut whenever there is a layoff, when teams have to be downsized.

It's important to understand mgmt's perspective. They have dozens of people in slots to get things done. No one person is indispensable, especially at the staff level where most programmers are. A slot goes open, they fill it. I've worked with managers with the biggest hearts, good guys, not mean spirited or unappreciative of their employees at all. They will not necessarily blink twice when an employee says they'll walk.

I would say, if you have a good case you're under compd, or unhappy. NICELY go to mgmt. If they won't do anything, get an offer from another company. Then you have the choice to just leave, or go back to your company and you have leverage and then its going to essentially be an ultimatum to keep you. But be very nice and polite about it.

> As an employee you're at a built-in disadvantage. Management knows everyone's salaries, you don't. Salaries are a closely guarded secret and they maintain that informational advantage against you. So, you really have to look at industry averages for your role and decide if you are not being appropriately compd.

Not sure about other places but everywhere I've been, this is simply official policy but in reality, employees talk. While it's not always exact, I can pretty accurately say who gets paid what with a fairly slim margin of error. Keeping salaries a secret seems more for the benefit of the company who may or may not be unfairly compensating their employees for not-so-good reasons (not saying there isn't other benefits). That bit has without a doubt been key in determining, since salaries can greatly vary between companies, regions, etc.

> Now, about mgmt valuing you and not letting you go. First, NEVER threaten to leave.

Agreed, and this is certainly not a tactic in my arsenal because I generally like where I work and respect my managers. I have gone outside to get offers and came back with that as leverage in case things didn't work out, and that's how I ended up where I am today. That seems to be the best option since you never quite know what is going on in management's head once they know you're unhappy.

Honestly I think in the case of the larger companies, managers have their hands tied by upper management or HR and aren't really willing to put their skin on the line, something I can't really blame them for for obvious reasons.

I've worked for 4 major companies and none of them could change anything that concerned me (mostly pay and interesting work). My suggestion is not to expect much, there is just too many constraints in large companies for things to change. I think the one I'm working for now I'll be the last. Curiously, I've bothered to discuss and escalate as much as I could stand and, without getting into too much details, I was told perhaps in 1 year I should see some change. Life's just too short and we're selling our time too cheap.

I've been exposed to many big co. IT depts and there's a conflict inherent in the situation I believe.

You're there to fill a slot (do one specific job) - even more likely in big co than in small co. but the smarter someone is - the more difficult to keep them motivated. So the smarter/better employee is more likely to be unhappy.

I think this is where having non-technical people managing technical people is a mistake. The technical manager is going to empathize much better with their staff and help them stay interested during those periods when a smart person becomes bored with their job. There's ways to do it. Special projects for instance, but it depends on the person. That's where there's no cookie-cutter answer and the manager actually has to make some effort and do their job.

Going back with an offer is a huge mistake. They may renegotiate now but now you are a defector and will look to rid themselves of you as soon as possible.

That's the conventional wisdom but I disagree. If you're good (in their eyes, not yours) they'll want to retain you

If you're good, just start lining up a new gig and leave. Easiest way to increase your salary is to get a new job. This is what I used to do even if I was happy wherever I was working.

That's absolutely true. Giving a person who has proved his/her value the 15% pay raise they want or something similar is so much cheaper than letting them go, hiring someone new, training them, and hoping they will work out.

Unfortunately, in many larger companies (with hundreds of employees), there are so many layers of managerial bullshit that prevent that. People who actually know the employee who wants to leave (direct managers) often don't have power to decide the salary etc, and people who have that power are at the other end of company and they are not concerned about the productivity, etc., just making spreadsheets green.

I know a large company, where pay raises are almost non existent, and it's normal for employees to leave in 6-12 months. Needless to say, the productivity there is pretty bad.

but statistics shows that this person will likely leave anyway, the 15% provides only very short term relief from the real reasons why someone wanted to leave in the first place.

if I see someone in this position who works for me, I immediately start looking for their replacement.

Alternatively, you could try to address the things that make them want to leave instead of writing them off as misanthropes?

Once my living expenses went up and a 15% raise would've absolutely kept me with the company if I'd been given it when I asked, because it was the difference between making ends meet and not. I left the company because I had no other choice when I found a higher paying position.

In every other position, it's been cultural. If you can't make your employees happy with money, maybe you should think about your management style, your communication with said employees, and the culture as a whole.

That's a solid point. I agree with you when it comes to small pay raises - usually the pay is not the problem, if the person is leaving for extra 15% or so.

>>> very short term relief from the real reasons

Unless the real reason is that the employee believes that he is being strongly underpaid. I'd define strongly underpaid as a situation, when an employee is certain that he could get (or already got) multiple job offers with 20%+ higher compensation.

Because at the end of the day, vast majority of people work to earn money. Some employers try to make you feel that you are changing the world and what not, trying to say that it's not all about money, but well, it largely is about money. Some jobs are enjoyable where compensation is not extremely important (meaning that an employee would leave only for a significantly better deal), but I'd say that it's a rather rear case.

At the end of the day, it's a free market. We all have a price tag :)

I generally agree with your advice, but what I've seen at a lot of companies is that HR will put in policies that really tie managers hands. I know one place I worked at was notorious for underpaying people, and HR was stingy about how large of a raise someone could get, but if you brought in an offer letter they'd almost always match it. Which IMO is a very dumb policy -- basically the only people that got paid well were the people that already had one foot out the door.

I've worked at a small startup for over a year and am a self taught developer. If I asked for more money and got it, I think I'd still be a little dismayed.

All I wanted was to have someone above me, an engineering manager or CTO, to help me fill the gaps in my education, but have been largely out on my own working on mission critical projects. While I have learned a ton from my mistakes, I have taken the brunt of all of them, many which I feel a superior could have spotted and steered me away from.

I'm curious to hear your advice on the following: At once point I was hired by a bigCo, had been working at a university as a research sysadmin. They made a mistake, and thought that because they hired me _at_ a university I was a college hire, apparently ignoring the years of industry experience on the resume, and placed me at the lowest salary level. After 6 months, this mistake came to light, and after agreeing with my manager that the position was basically insulting given the background, I was told simply "well we can't do anything about it until the next promotion cycle, and even then we can't really 'catch you up'". This still stings in terms of time that I've now entirely lost pushing my career upwards. I decided to stay and wait it out rather than fight the decision or leave, I'm just curious about whether that would have been your decision in the situation.

(this turned out a bit long and ranty; my takeaway is just, I've run into too many situations where telling my employer I was unhappy/underpaid resulted in basically a "nothing we can do", and my switching to a higher paying base job)

I'm not the OP you initially posed your question to. But if you ask me, they just gave you the runaround. With what I would currently consider an insulting excuse. There is always a way, no matter how silly the "rule" if you could even find it written anywhere. Any manager, or moderately-motivated HR person would immediately find a way around it. If not, you don't really want to work there.

I was in a slightly similar situation at some point a long time ago. Did a 3-month "internship" as part of my degree at a real business. It was a token salary at that point, and I was fine even when the 3-month internship was extended for another three months. After that three months, I got a 10% raise, and when I questioned it I was given a cheesy response by a just-below-ceo-level person of "10% is a huge raise" as if ignoring the base salary that the 10% was adding onto.

Being a fairly shy, non-confrontational person I agreed. 6 months later when the year was over, and it came time to further renew the "contract", I told them I'm not signing diddly. That's when the story changed and they tripled the salary to a very good entry-level point. Two things: One, I made my point clear that they knew they would be losing a very productive and useful member of their team. And two, I spoke to someone a little lower down the hierarchy that ended up vouching and making my case to the "higher ups".

Your manager was wrong to not fight to correct this for you.

Even if his/her hands were tied higher up, I would have considered leaving on this basis alone: it shows nobody at the company is willing to look after your interests.

However, you must have agreed your salary at some point?

As illustrated in the article, the start of the job is the most opportune time to negotiate. Once you have started on a low salary, employer can safely assume you don't need a high salary and has little reason to pay you more. (You confirmed that this was the correct decision for them by deciding to wait it out)

My conclusion is that you'll now likely always be behind on your salary for as long as you stay with this company.

To his credit, my manager was extremely forthright in fighting for me, but his hands were tied in being limited to the typical periods.

Yes, I did agree to the salary, but as that I was coming from an academic position (and was honestly/still am relatively new to shopping around for jobs) the salary seemed like a vast improvement and I didn't think to dig deep into actual level.

Thanks (to other child posters as well) for your thoughts.

(to answer some side posts as well; I didn't mean to come across as having excessively many years experience, but that I was just not a college hire and hope I didn't mislead. This introspection also doesn't preclude looking for other options simultaneously, and I've certainly learned my lesson about asking more of some sorts of questions during my offer.)

Why aren't you looking for a new job? And if you had years of industry experience, why did you take the low salary? I feel like this is more a reflection on your passiveness rather than the bigCo. If you want more money and a better job it's up to you to go get it, you can't wait for your paymasters to pat you on the head and throw you a bone.

One option to consider is to interview around and get a few firm, written job offers with companies you'd want to work at and with compensation you know to be fair. With those in hand, go to your employer and hand them your resignation "effective immediately". You can then say you're now available to be hired at an appropriate compensation level (and with firm offers in hand, they can't easily low-ball you) without having to wait for some arbitrary cycle. If they're unwilling then your fallback is the several better jobs you've already lined up.

Doesn't work in most cases. My wife, after a lot of encouragement from me, tried what you suggested. She told the current employer that she had not gotten a decent raise for the past 4 years. Her peers had gotten much better raises because they showed job-offers from other employers. She was getting a lot of calls from other potential employers too, but she didn't want to play the ransom game (I have this offer, now match it!). The employer told her that they can't offer her a good raise till she does exactly that -- bring an offer from outside. The problem is that when she does bring an offer and they try to match it, she'll not be interested in the match because she'd have made up her mind to leave.

This policy seems to attract and keep the wrong kind of employees -- those you're willing to play the ransom game from time to time.

If someone threatens to leave for more money, then they've already made up their mind and they're not invested anymore.

Exactly! But the "bring offers from outside to get real raises " policy tries to keep exactly those kind of not-invested employees and forces invested employees to quit because they won't get good raises without looking outside.

Ok but self defeating policies are the problem of the employer, she isn't responsible for fixing their company. Perhaps even more reason to get outz

Does that make those people the "wrong kind of employees"? Why? Business is business and employers have no business paying their employees unfairly. Sure, if you're paid fairly then that's a different story, but I'm not going to invest myself in a business that is potentially ripping me off.

I think assuming that someone isn't invested is a faulty assumption. If I had made up my mind, I wouldn't give you a chance at all. I would just take the offer and put in my notice. At the very least, someone who goes back and gives their employer a chance to meet an offer is doing things respectably and at most has some value in their current employer, enough so to give them a chance.

You make a good point, but what I was aiming at was that people shouldn't have to threaten to leave to get a pay rise, it should be a discussion. Threatening is a hostile move, not a negotiation tactic.

Why? I have seen multiple people being ready to leave, getting raise and then staying few more years.

The first part of your response sounds agreeable - I suppose it's not the "more money" aspect as much as the "threat" aspect which shows that for one reason or another the relations between the company and the individual have gone beyond amicable negotiations into ultimatum territory and the employee is not very savvy - 9.9 times out of 10 the company has far much leverage in these sorts of negotiations.

But the rationale sounds a bit weird to me:

"they're not invested anymore."

How could an employee be invested in a company if they've not actually invested? This sounds like an employee should have some sort of weird feudal allegiance for the corporation they work for.

That's why the employer should pay market rates so there's no reason for the employee to switch jobs to get a raise.

IMO, you guys are putting too much stock into worrying what people might think of you. It is just that, a game, and only those who are willing to play can come out the winners. _Wages are your livelihood_ and if the only way to get a fair increase is to go outside and come back then so be it. I don't think people would look down on you for doing so if you were legitimately not being paid fairly.

You are right. I'm glad she finally tried to have a conversation about it. In a way, that conversation helps one come back to the right mind-set about the employer-employee relationship. Staying in a company for more than 3-5 years may be one of the best ways to get underpaid.

I agree. If you honestly believe you're underpaid compared to market value of your skills, and you're otherwise happy in your current position, it's a good idea to politely say that to your manager (in private of course).

I'm in management, and if one of my employees came to me and said that, I would definitely hear him out and do whatever I could to make it right. Even if I didn't feel he deserved a raise at that time, I would tell him what I felt he needed to work on in order to earn one.

But if someone came to me with another offer in hand, I would be extremely unlikely to make a counter offer. At that point it is just too late.

And on the other hand, if you are unhappy with where you work or the people you work with, and generally hate your job, but are seeking more money as consolation for your complaints, you're probably better off just going out and finding a new job, because more money alone won't fix your unhappiness for very long.

>>> But if someone came to me with another offer in hand, I would be extremely unlikely to make a counter offer. At that point it is just too late.

Exactly. I don't understand asking for a counter offer at all. Even if you get one, you will be tagged as someone who's looking to leave and chances are, you will be replaced pretty soon.

Probably the only exception would be if you have some skills and knowledge which makes you very hard and expensive to replace, and both you and the employer know it.

Agree somewhat, but in large companies there is so much politics going on that it makes sense to just quit and move to a more sane place. I work 60 hour weeks on average at one of the world's largest software companies on a paycheck that shows 38 hours official. It pays much better than my home country but if you try to raise your voice that you're not happy, HR will show you the door. If you're on a H1B visa, you really don't want that outcome.

So the sane option is to keep your mouth shut and code. Code like your life depends on it.

Appreciate that you have the freedom to move jobs, not everyone has the luxury.

> The first six months of a new job is taken up primarily by learning new systems, procedures, who to talk to etc. <…> in the beginning, you will probably feel a lot less stressed out.

Weird, for me it’s the opposite—the most stressful time is when I don’t know how things work. Battling lacking or missing onboarding processes instead of working on challenges I thought I was hired to solve can be demotivating.

Yes, the first 6 months are by far the most stressful. You are far more replaceable in the first 6 months than you are after a few years.

You will earn more money though. Switching jobs is the fastest way to get a pay raise.

The post really makes the OP sounds like a headhunter ("don't worry, the grass is always greener somewhere else..."), in which case I would be very wary of his advice.

"I’m a career coach and can help you master every part of the job search process."

Right on the money.

My Dad always said to me that if you ever wake up and realise that you're not enjoying work anymore (or even worse, dreading it) then that's the day you start finding something or somewhere else.

He's right, burning out in your job and staying in that job makes people age quickly. Life is too short to be stuck in a miserable job, if you can do anything about it.

In my current role, I like the company, the product, and my co-workers, but I'm almost positive I could be making 20,000 more a year in the same area. My pay is (I feel) relatively low because I'm a junior software engineer, so I'm torn on whether I should just stick it out and ask for a large raise/promotion in a few months, or put my feelers out.

Is it the lack of making enough money that bothers you? If you dig deeper, what would you say? If you were to ask yourself "What it is that would keep me motivated?" -- what answer emerges?

In his book, "Drive", author Dan Pink argues mostly successfully that it's not the salary or the stock options or other perks that keeps effective individuals motivated. He summarizes that it is the pursuit of that illusive trio -- "Mastery, Autonomy, and Purpose" that keeps people motivated in their work and in their life.

In my experience, if remaining in a job or switching jobs cannot be traced to one of these three, then the decision one takes (remain in a job or switching jobs) is not likely to turn out to be a good decision.

It's not the money that motivates me. I get the most satisfaction from writing good code and pretty/usable UIs, and that is what ultimately drives me.

My feeling is that I could get the satisfaction I describe above at many workplaces, but all things equal, I'd like the option that pays more.

I think you meant "elusive". Illusive is a tad pessimistic :)

its actually more profitable for the business to offer you a 5% raise every year (i heard thats average given anyway) when inflation is 7% anually, so definitely ask for a raise every 6 months, the worst that can happen is they say no.

Inflation is more like 2%, and I don't think raises average that high.

depends which inflation measure governments game the system so your RPI or CPI may actually not be a true reflection of inflation as it effects you

As a junior software engineer you should definitely put feelers out. I would bet changing jobs will increase your pay by at _least_ 10% (that's what happened to me) when most companies only give a raise of about 5%. Even if you don't want to change jobs, if you get an offer somewhere else for more pay you can show that to your current employer. If they really want to keep you then they will increase your pay to match.

I know for a fact that I could walk out the door and get a 20k raise. Well, not quite because our benefits are phenomenal so in terms of total compensation it'd be a but less.

But that's not everything in life, I really enjoy where I work and the company's mission resonates with me.

If the money is important, do both of what you suggest but consider that money ain't everything

You should start interviewing and see what offers you get. Then you can see if you're really worth an extra 20k, or more than that, or less. You can then take this back to your employer and if they don't want to match you already have a job in hand.

I wanted to add my own experience regarding your situation since it is very similar to mine - I liked my company for the most part, I liked what I was working on, and I liked my co-workers. However, my company was going through some rough patches and our raises/bonuses were dependent on the company performing well. I had already missed a raise opportunity so it would mean I would have to put in a total of 2 years before I had the chance to get ~3% raise (adjusted for inflation) when I could get a 20K bump in salary by switching - well that is exactly what I got when I went to another company.

Based on how everything happened, here is my personal take-away:

- In the current economic landscape, most big companies looks at all employees as being replaceable (my company did not even ask if they could offer anything to make me stay, even though I was hired specifically for a new role they created).

- I do not believe a company deserves your loyalty as much as one would think because they would just as quickly let you go regardless of years put in. In the end, both parties are involved in a business relationship and nothing more.

- Money is not the only driving force in life, but as a person that is just starting to build their career, you have to think about how much you will be losing out 10 years from now. We are want financial security later in life, so you have to take the steps to insure that.

Points regarding the article specifically:

- I was recruited while still at my current job and I believe that was an advantage for me just as the author states.

- I am in my 3rd month and for the most part I am still learning the systems and routines of this company - so low workload/stress-free for the most part.

If you're young and want a wide range of experiences, I do not think it hurts to at least see what the job market is like outside of your current company.

Again, this is my personal experience and everyone's situations will vary especially in bigcorp vs startup.

It's always worth it to put your feelers out. Even for jobs I love I'll occasionally respond to recruiters just to keep up with the market and see what's out there. Often this will confirm my happiness with my current role.

But if you're on the fence at all, there's a really good chance you can find another job that has better pay and even better product, coworkers etc.

Interviewing when you're not desperate to leave is much easier. If you have something good to fall back on, all sorts of red flags become more obvious during an interview because you have very little to lose if it doesn't go well. It's also much easier to negotiate salary, if you think you're worth 20k more than you are now, open negotiations at Salary + 30k. Since your primary concern is pay potential employers have very little leverage in terms of pressuring you to take a salary less then you think you are worth, and you already have a clear picture of what you're worth.

This post shows the best of hacker news: comments are often way more better than the original post!

I'd agree with one of the comment got downvoted: the post itself is really 'manipulating' and like an ad of nonsense: the only good thing is its title.

But the comments here, which are people's real experiences and lessons, are so valuable!

If every "five years of experience Java Swing developer" starts looking around for a better job position, isn't that a bit similar to a sector wide union asking for a raise?

Yep.

No.

Unions can collectively bargain.

Individuals cannot.

You say that as if it were a bad thing...

The problem with this mentality is that if you move around TOO much, then people won't want to hire you because they will think, rightfully so, that you won't stick around. I routinely reject resumes where the person has 3 or more jobs of 2 years or less on their resume.

You're missing out on a lot of talented people with that kind of prejudice against short term job terms. You have no idea the background on why people chose to move jobs so simply dismissing them on that one fact seems premature.

I disagree, and I very much disagree with the assertion that I would be missing out on "a lot" of talented people. "Talented" and "excellent contributor" are not the same thing. I would much rather put in the effort to recruit someone who is very good that will stick around for 2-3+ years and contribute versus a genius that sticks around for 12-18 months. This comes from experience.

Very short sighted mentality. It assumes that people are cogs and the measurable effect of working with someone is the amount of tangible output. Working with extremely talented developers can fundamentally change your perspective about how you should be building your system / approaching a problem that can have huge future benefits. I would rather work with a genius for 12 months than a cog for 3 years.

> I would rather work with a genius for 12 months than a cog for 3 years.

That's a false dichotomy. There's plenty of "geniuses" that will stick around for many years and plenty of "cogs" that will be gone in one.

Are you kidding? The notion that people (even talented people) can be swapped in and out every 12 months is a far greater assumption that people are cogs.

From a co-worker perspective, yes, I'd rather work short-term with someone talented. From a managerial perspective, I'd first choose the talented employee who has demonstrated an ability to commit, then I'd choose a less talented (but with potential to improve) employee who I believe has an ability to commit, then it's roughly a tie between someone mediocre and someone talented who will likely abandon their project in the lurch. Those last two are both pretty lame options.

Great point. There are people so good you're lucky to work with them for a week. Of course, a lot of times those people don't even have resumes.

If somebody joins your company and finds that it isn't a good fit, isn't it preferable for both parties that they leave?

When an employee isn't motivated, both the employee and employer lose.

They would probably stick around if you would promote them and give them equivalent raises of changing a job in that time frame. It's definitely a lot less work!

Many places take a few months to get integrated into the codebase, not a year.

Yup, I agree with you Steven.. I'm one who has worked through some hard times where most would have given up.. partially so I could build that resume that you like to see. I have 4 years with my current company and now looking. I've worked through 3 reorgs and many stressful situations.

I did this because of what you're saying. Now, when I ask hiring managers how the company is doing in their intended business cycle, it puts them on the defensive. As I followup by saying, "I ask because if extended an offer, I intend to stick around a while". They have proof I'm not BSing or a flake on the job. They love it.

I'm getting a lot of interest after only being on the job market for 1 1/2 weeks. I'm going to get hired soon.

it can also be a big red flag, people who can't stick to something for any length of time are either consistently bad at picking companies to work for, or the companies they pick find they aren't what they had hoped. Either way, it doesn't bode well for the next employer.

You can't expect people to stay around when they can get a new job every year with an at least 10% higher salary.

Was going to say exactly this.

I've stayed at jobs with an under market salary because I believed in the company/boss, but eventually can't ignore the onslaught of recruiters on LinkedIn with better paying gigs.

It seems to me this mindset comes from not being comfortable with the employees having the leverage over the employers.

Can't think of a better thread then this for a question that's been on my mind. I started at a new company last May. In the beginning I was on one team, I had a pretty rough time because the work was so different from my previous company (very boring). I was about ready to move on, but then my wife found she was pregnant, and so I decided to stay anyways because the fact that the work was easy meant I never worked over 40 hours.

A few months later my boss moved me to a new team because I had completed literally the next 5 months of planned work in about a month so there was little left to do, and things did a complete 180. On this new team I had a bigger role, but I was able to work on more interesting things. Basically I built a framework that around 8 developers worked full time on. It's now at the point where just one overseas guy can do all the work.

Last week we started talking about new projects I could attack at the company. Then on Friday he announced that he's leaving. When I went into his office to congratulate him on the new position, he hinted that he wanted me to join him at the new company in a position that would be kind of a bump for me.

I'm inclined to follow him because the current company is a company where engineers are lead by non-engineers, and he's one of the few gems in the place. However i'm not sure if it's a good move (especially with the baby coming in 3 months!).

I should also mention that last week he told me they were planning on letting go of all but 2 of the developers that my framework replaced :( I felt safe with him around because I built it, but i'm not sure if they hired an MBA to replace him he would do the same math.

I have found that, when they have kids or kids on the way, people greatly overestimate risk. If you're s good as you say you are, there is no reason you should ever be long out of a job.

If you have a great boss and he leaves for greener pastures, and gives you the opportunity to follow him, I think it's usually a good idea to accept. Having a boss who you like and who likes and trusts you enough to take you with him to the next company, is priceless. Staying can be risky, as the replacement boss is an unknown factor. In your case, it sounds like a no-brainer.

My company made employees sign agreements that if they did leave, they were not allowed to actively recruit people from the company. One guy did it and they sent him a cease and desist. Your manager should be careful incase he signed something similar and doesn't remember.

That's why his boss _hinted_ about job opportunity at the next company, but did not directly offered a job.

Do you live in an area where there are a lot of programming jobs? If so, then go for it, having a boss that appreciates you is worth its weight in gold.

But also do due diligence on the company that he's going to. If it looks strong, then go for it.

This is why all the big tech companies give substantial raises in RSUs. It's that carrot stick along with the promise of a promotion always just within reach that makes job hopping difficult. At least plan to stay with a company for 2 years. It never looks good to have resumes with pages of jobs.

I have been in the same job for the past 9 years. I am happy here, but I feel a need to change. Team is great and friendly, pay is above average, but I am not concerned with it much as it's enough for me and my family to live happily.

Another reason I feel is that I have become comfortable here. Things are being gotten-done pretty easily. I don't have to exert myself too much. Team has faith in me. I love the ppl and do as much as possible for them (I am an Engineering Manager). But the urge to change is heavy and to some extent inexplicable to me. I already have 2 offers from other companies. I am wanting to talk to my boss, but fearing a bit. Sigh...

If you're happy why change? Yes change is almost always good. But it's similar to saying that you should leave your girlfriend simply because you've been with her for too many years. Think of a job as a relationship. If it's good both ways, no need to change.

That's another way of looking at it, and that's where the confusion is stemming from. I am still undecided.

If you're undecided you're probably a bit unhappy in your current position. Therefore change! :)

Nice revelation :) Thanks. I resigned.

Wow really? Well I hope you thought it through and didn't just rely on a "stranger's comment" for this decision. In any case, I wish you the best and trust you'll have the skills to find something you really love - everyone should aspire to do what they love.

Oh no, I thought it through. There's some risk involved and some leap of faith, but I will own anything that happens. Good or bad, it's going to be my shit.

There is one point that was missed in this post: promotion. Are you more likely to land a promotion in your current job, or are you more likely to find a another job that is also a promotion to a position that you have no experience in?

My guess would be that it doesn't matter. Plenty of managers and senior people are hired from outside of companies these days. And in any case, if you don't make more money, it doesn't even really matter: http://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/06/22/employees...

The set of candidates that leave to get another job is different from those that stay. They are likely more skilled/motivated, and that's a large part of the job-switching premium. If everyone were to try to switch jobs many people would not be as effective.

There's a much worse point to miss in this post.

Four years down the line, do you want companies looking at your CV and seeing you change jobs every 10-12 months? How good an investment are you as a hire if you're going bail shortly after you're up to speed and a productive member of the team?

The post assumes that you're unhappy in your job. If you like where you're working and the money is enough to sustain you comfortably, why move? Just ask your bosses. If they decline a raise, then ask them what you'd have to do to get paid more. Most places should give you at the very least an annual performance review where you can discuss this sort of thing.

I would be wary about someone who kept leaving after 12 months and if interviewing I would ask them to explain why. On the other hand if you have quantifiable things that you have done/built during your tenure there shouldn't necessarily be an issue. It could be a simple reason like your partner's job kept changing location and you moved with them.

Not to mention that if you have a family, kids, a mortgage (i.e. a stable life), moving jobs every year isn't in any way practical.

I thought this was gonna be a riff on the Monty Hall problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

You wanted a more fulfilling job, but what you got was a goat. Bummer!

#winner http://xkcd.com/1282/

This should be titled, "Why switching jobs is usually a good idea for overworked, underpaid people who have been working for at least a few years at their current job."

But that wouldn't fit on HN.

This is bad advice. The right answer is often to change jobs, but the explanation given here is pretty terrible.

If you have a pattern of working significantly less in your first 6 months on a job than later on, then you're making a mistake. That's the time to establish a reputation, figure out what is worth working on, and get a mental map of the organization so that you can actually get things done. It's the hardest time in a job, if you do it right.

If you let the "honeymoon period" blind you and slack in your first 6 months, you start getting grunt work thrown at you and that's how you end up overwhelmed and struggling at the 3-year mark. If you do the first 6 months right and gain the credibility, alliances, and reputation that'll put you on a good vector, you (a) have a much higher chance of getting on a fast-track, which means better work rather than more of the same, and (b) can get away with slacking and recharging (as you seek external promotion) if you are passed-over for some reason.

Also, for higher-level positions, switching jobs often means changing locations and doing that every year is pretty miserable... especially if you have kids. At some point, you're specialized enough that unless you live in New York or SF-- which are pretty much out once you have kids, unless you're in a hedge fund or a VC firm-- you're going to have to stick with a job for a few years just because there aren't many jobs in your specialty and location.

It's worth changing jobs for a genuine promotion, but a high frequency of lateral movement looks really bad. Given also that it can be hard to tell if a new job is a genuine promotion, it's better to stay where you are if you have something good and you're continuing to advance.

If somebody ever asks me "what does mansplaining mean?" I'm just going to say, "Well you see, it's quite easy. Just read this blog post"

In all seriousness, there was no need for the point in this post to be explained through such exemplary mansplaining.

We used to call this a Socratic dialogue, but I'll update my vocabulary. Thanks for the notice.

Oh come on. I'm not even sure "mansplaining" is a thing, but even it is, in no way does "mansplaining" == "socratic method".

Also, did you even know Alex Potato is a man†? I know two Alex's, one male, and one female. I've never spoken to a potato.

Or is it automatically "mansplaining" because the topic is about a specific woman being underpaid/overworked, and any helpful suggestions to that specific women (that reframe the situation and empower her to improve things herself) are automatically sexist? I mean, I'm happy to condemn employment conditions that systemically underpay women, but that won't actually help Sam, whereas this advice might.

In conclusion, whilst obviously not everything men write or say that is intended to be supportive of feminism is actually helpful and supportive, it really worries me that if men who are trying to help are shot down for missing the mark, then fewer will try in future, and the only ones left commenting will be the trolls who are looking for such a reaction.

† I mean, we could assume they were because they appear to work in software or the like, and play paintball, but we shouldn't do that because it would be sexist, right‡?

‡ Did I just "mansplain" there too? Ooops.

He's a man: http://alexpotato.com/career/about.pl

I don't see anything on that page that indicates Alex has stated a gender identity, so that's an awfully presumptuous thing to say. Maybe you should stop mansplaining?

Mansplaining is a thing, really. But this reads like Socratic dialogue to me. At least I hope it's not a literal transcript of an actual conversation.

This really isn't an example of mansplaining.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com