[scarface74]

It's complicated to move internally in a corporation , so thinking as to moving to another company to another position when you have responsibilities it's pretty much like playing the Russian roulette with your finance and your situation.

How is changing jobs like Russian Roulette? Since both salary compression and inversion are real phenomena, the statistically best way to provide better for your family is changing jobs.

From personal experience, and not living in Silicon Valley, I changed jobs 3 times in the last 4 years and made $45K more. I changed jobs 5 timed in the last 10 years and made $65K more. Before that, I stayed at one job 9 years and only made $7K more in year 9 than year 2 with measly 3% raises and bonuses being cut.

[pnutjam]

You absolutely have to change jobs to get raises, but I can certainly see the Russian Roulette comparison. Especially as you get near the top of your salary range. The biggest problem I see is how different benefits can be and cost from company to company. From the simple (like comparing payroll deductions), to the complex; time spent in office, time spent working, commute time, coworkers, quality of health coverage, quality of work, vacation accrual.

I generally try to stay at a job for 3 to 4 years, but my last job at HP, cut my knees off when the spun me over to DXC and our benefits costs tripled. To keep the same benefits would have amounted to a 10% pay cut. I probably would not have taken the job if it's benefits had been as offered post merger, so I had no qualms in quitting as soon as I could line something else up.

[scarface74]

I can certainly see the Russian Roulette comparison. Especially as you get near the top of your salary range.

I can see this causing me an existential crisis in three years. Using my usual framework of basing jobs on technology, environment, and money, will I be able to move from an environment I like where I make “enough” to jump ship to stay on the technology train? Especially when we are at a point where more money won’t have any effect on our current lifestyle by much or will I get complacent? The next stage of my career to make any appreciable salary jump is going to require me to go into management (not happening) or work for a consulting company that will definitely be more stressful and more traveling.

The biggest problem I see is how different benefits can be and cost from company to company. From the simple (like comparing payroll deductions),

Yes that is simple. Because of the ACA, you can basically be guaranteed a minimum quality of coverage. Yes the cost can be more or less, but that’s just a number when you are comparing total comp.

In our case, there is a known upper bound in health care cost. If it’s too expensive on my job, we switch to my wife’s coverage - she works for the state.

to the complex; time spent in office, time spent working, commute time, coworkers, quality of health coverage, quality of work, vacation accrual.

Commute time is known up front, not really a risk. Adjust your required compensation accordingly. You can also gauge the type of technology they use up front.

[pnutjam]

My point is not that you can't measure these things, but that they are complicated to measure when comparing offers from multiple places. And the ACA guarantees coverage, but there is still a huge difference between a copay style plan and a high deductible plan. Especially when it comes to family coverage. The amount each company subsidises for family coverage is all over the place. I've been on plans where it's $20 to see a doctor or $90, right now I pay everything out of pocket until I hit $6k.