[sjfidsfkds]

I don’t get it. What makes it worth staying 1-2 years, but not 2-3 years? What happens at 2 years that makes you want to do the job before and not want to do it after?

If you never like your job I don’t think switching every 2 years helps. And if you are in it for the paycheck, 4 is usually optimal.

Personally, I found whether I’m having a good time depends on the team and the project. And usually one or the other changes periodically.

[bsder]

> What makes it worth staying 1-2 years, but not 2-3 years?

A 4% raise.

Management are idiots and will only give out small single digit percentage point raises while jumping companies will result in 20+% raises. The longer you stay with a company the further your salary falls behind.

This financial dictate means that your max tenure at a company should be 5 years--and definitely not even that long without a REALLY good reason.

[nyarlathotep_]

It's also pretty frequent at larger companies that new hires (even those at a level lower) will get higher comp than tenured employees.

Many of these same companies also have very difficult promo processes, requiring you to effectively "got to trial" and defend why you should be promoted.

This exact scenario has occurred with multiple co-workers of mine (most have now left, the rest are actively interviewing:

If, after the months of preparation for promo you "got to trial" and do so successfully, you may find a newly hired, less experienced, lower leveled co-worker with no experience with any of the internal processes or tooling makes 25% more than you.

When companies behave this way, what's the incentive to stick around?

[matheusmoreira]

Yeah. If companies want people to stay, they should just pay for it. Pay more, give better and frequent raises, offer more benefits, more everything. Then people won't want to leave for the other companies offering better compensation. It's very simple.

Any "red flag" talk is just companies trying to disincentivize employees from effectively negotiating better compensation for themselves. They're trying to eliminate employee BATNAs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

Lots of tech companies give a stock grant that vests over 4 years. Then each year an additional “refresher” grant that also vests over 4 years. So your comp increases each year because of the stacking grants (a lot better than 4%) then drops a lot after year 4 when the initial grant expires.

Obviously many circumstances can change the equation.

[eyelidlessness]

Idk, I got a ~400% raise over 3 years as I showed I was more valuable than my comp and got the right ears to listen to that, with help of a V-level who recognized it. I’m not saying that will be everyone’s experience, but its odds become much more favorable for people hopping startups with smaller overall org charts

[ttymck]

Is it possible that, given the information your employer has, they can determine you are worth no more than a 4% raise? While, on the other hand, the prospective new employer does not have the same information (the experience of actually being your employer) and risks a 20% premium? In the end, maybe the market is actually operating efficiently?

[SpicyLemonZest]

In a typical company, raises are budgeted based on a company-wide assessment of how much people "should" get. So even if your manager is sure you're worth 20% more, you simply can't get a 20% raise without some exceptional justification.

[snovv_crash]

How exactly are you measuring impact such that you think you have it characterized with 4% error bars?

[davesque]

For me, it's the fact that roughly 1 year seems to be the average cutoff point for how long I can tolerate doing something that feels meaningless to me and otherwise doesn't bring me any financial advantage that would allow me to duck out of the game altogether.

[microtherion]

Have you considered the possibility that with a 1-2 year time horizon, you're more or less setting yourself up for exactly the series of meaningless jobs with limited financial upside that you're seeing as the reason for your time horizon?

[devoutsalsa]

No one leaves a job that’s interesting & lucrative. How many companies make it a priority to make jobs interesting & lucrative? Very few.

[BurningFrog]

But you expect the next job to be just as meaningless.

So changing does nothing to address your stated problem.

[jlokier]

Variety is good regardless. It's refreshing.

Variety also tends to bring financial advantage, increased skills and exposure to new knowledge, a larger personal network in the same time, and if most (but not all) jobs are unsatisfying, variety gives you more chances to eventually find one that's the exception worth staying with.

[gumby]

Perhaps you're choosing the wrong jobs, as suggested by the article?

[jxf]

> I don’t get it. What makes it worth staying 1-2 years, but not 2-3 years?

Frequently, a vesting cliff.

[LatteLazy]

May I ask: Why do you think 4y is optimal for pay increase?

For me, I would swap anyway after 2y for the below reasons but I've found that optimal for income...

Year 1:

* You're learning a lot

* You're on significantly more money and better benefits than before

* You can plausibly believe that all the cultural/structural issues you have will be solved in the next 12m

Year 3:

* None of the above. You're learning very little, you've gotten cost of living raises or a little above but not the 20% + a job change should bring, you realise now the business has no intention of dealing with it's issues. You will just have to live with them...

[kovac]

1-2 years can happen due to changes like your manager changes, large number of your team mates leave, company gets acquired. Such circumstances can bring about major changes to culture/environment/scope.