[alex-nt]

Yes, it takes about 6m in a medium to big organizations to figure out what to do and with whom you have to speek to get stuff done. And for 2 years everything is rosy. Then you speak with you colleagues that changed jobs and find out that their income is 30% to 40% higher. That will, of course, put a downer on your day/week/quarter/year. You have 2 options, speak with your current company about compensation or leave. I tried the first option (admittently a bit late, but I did mention the problem in our review talks and other talks) after I found out that my income was 40% lower than colleagues that left 1 year before (was 3 years and a half at this company and had top marks every year, big company, a lot of cash to throw around). I was offered a measly 5% after being dragged in 4 meetings about how great I am. Left and almost doubled my income in 2 years. This is all anecdotal, but I hear it from everyone around me, you HAVE TO SWITCH jobs every 2 years, you can stretch to 3, maybe. Of course, during the last years you won't deliver as much, you have to prepare for intervews and such. This was of no benefit for the previous company. Over my 4 years there I've seen how we were bleeding knowledge that we never got back. The company didn't do so well, the thing I worked on just died after everyone left 6m after me. It's a shame, it could've been a nice thing compared with what I see offered by the competition.

[bla3]

> I was offered a measly 5% after being dragged in 4 meetings about how great I am.

The way you do this is interview elsewhere, get an offer for 40% more, and _then_ tell your manager that you have an offer for 40% more and that you'd really like to stay but they'd really have to do something about compensation. You'll get more than 5% then (but likely less than 40%). It's annoying that you have to invest the time for this, but it does provide data to your current company that your market rate is in fact what you think it is.

[DoctorDabadedoo]

I have trouble with this for two reasons:

- If am a resource critical enough for the company to match an external offer and keep me because of the work I do and not because I'm threatening to leave, why don't they act on it diligently and offer benefits accordinly (relevant pay raises, shares and etc.)?

- The moment the company becomes aware that I'm considering to leave for some place else, I'm a potential replacement, if a good candidate or a layoff comes along.

If I'm interviewing some place else, when I put my notice, I've made up my mind, I won't stay around long term.

[lmm]

> - If am a resource critical enough for the company to match an external offer and keep me because of the work I do and not because I'm threatening to leave, why don't they act on it diligently and offer benefits accordinly (relevant pay raises, shares and etc.)?

It's not about being critical. Even as a more or less interchangeable programmer, if you've shown that you're actually any good then you're worth keeping.

> - The moment the company becomes aware that I'm considering to leave for some place else, I'm a potential replacement, if a good candidate or a layoff comes along.

If the company/team/project is growing then there's no reason to drop someone, and if it starts shrinking then you're better off being the first out.

[chrismcb]

Because your were staying for the pay they offered. While they will give you a raise every one in a while, they don't really have an incentive to give you a big raise.

[projectazorian]

Worth noting that this tactic is risky, especially at smaller companies. A lot of managers might get you the raise to avoid immediate disruption, while assuming you're out the door in a few months and acting accordingly. You might suddenly find yourself frozen out of desirable projects.

[bla3]

Yes, it assumes a dysfunctional company that values profitability over keeping engs comfy. But every larger company I know of works like this, due to market forces I suppose.

[alex-nt]

The company knew the problem. I had a discussion with the manager of another team, and she was well aware that I/we were payed well under market prices. They just banked on the fact that to leave it is a lot of work, and some people will avoid that. New hires had market lvl salaries. I could leave and come back, but why would I do that in a company that clearly didn't value me.

[pklausler]

Or take the 40% boost and come back two years later for even more.

[alex-nt]

This is kind of the strategy, every 2 years. It's a new company because I/most ppl kind of feel slighted by the previous employer, especially if we know a bit more about the compensation of their direct manager/other colleagues. It's a churn and I hate it. I have ideas about how to improve the things I work on, medium to long term plans for different components/features to make things better. But now, after about 2y I have to drop everything and start interview practice. I literally have to discard all thoughts of improvements and switch to interview mode.