[blue039]

> Money aside, did you ever leave a job you were happy with to find one where you were even more happy? Did that work?

I understand you said money aside but money is genuinely all you should care about. You are trading decades of your waking life to the rat race. It should be your first, and in my opinion, most imperative concern. If you were truly a generous and austere person you'd be a volunteer.

Frequently. I've only recently maintained "tenure" in my later engineering years. Mostly because I don't want to fight with scrappy new grads for positions anymore. First piece of advice I can give you is ignore anything about "fun tech stack" or "culture". It's all bullshit. Of course, parrot the lines they want to hear about how these are the things you look for. Appear fun and excited to work in their "fun stack" in their "culture". Use this as cover for what you really want: money. At the end of the day money may not buy happiness but I have rarely met a happy person that can't afford to be comfortable. Beer coolers, pizza, ping pong, and "fun activities" don't buy you time with your family, friends, and neighbors. Money does.

Second piece of advice: never fall for the "find a job you love" trope. Remember this: if you do not own the company you will never love it. You may like it. Hell, you may enjoy it. But the specter of a layoff, getting fired due to a bad review, etc will always be just a few steps behind you. Always remember as a software engineer the pinheaded MBAs have you squarely under the "cost center" line in the balance sheet. And no, getting shares in a company does not imply ownership no matter how many times HR tells you so.

Fact of the matter is for the first two decades of your career you should honestly be looking to move on from any company in <= 5 years. So, a minimum of 4 companies in 20 years. You'll want to reduce that to a move-on-rate of every 3 or so years if you're in start up land. Loyalty is not awarded. Not here, and not anywhere else. That ship sailed 50 years ago.

The reason? More money and more responsibility. You have a chance to redefine yourself at every new job. These redefinitions can bring you more money and more power. More money and more power is very "sticky" and you'll find people who "fail up" execute this strategy brilliantly. You are more likely to see a significant raise via quitting than by staying around. This advice is universal. It applies equally to tech as it does to landscaping.

Of course, this is just a rule of thumb. Don't leave a company that values you and gives you good raises every so often. Evaluate carefully the opportunity cost. One example from my career: I had a job where I made $X where $X was a little below average. I liked the company and the people. I interviewed around after I got my second or third "money is tight" in a review (despite others seemingly getting rank and pay). I found a company that I could tolerate willing to pay me 1.3x $X. That is a slam dunk. Without question I put my two weeks in and GTFO. Especially when you are young this is very important. If your raise is 10% and a competitor offers you 15% you may want to weigh other facts. But when you're talking multiples of your potential raise...just leave. You are not married to the company and they are CERTAINLY not married to you. If you like your coworkers that much get their phone numbers and meet them at a bar. Despite the himming and hawing from your boss they're probably doing the same thing as you.

[dan-robertson]

I don’t think this is great advice. I think this is an overly certain and overly cynical take that does not apply so well to the kinds of jobs that many people have at HN. I think the main way that money (above a point) matters a lot is that it tends to correlate with other good qualities like not being stressed or overworked, being respected by your colleagues / bosses, etc. So I think it mostly isn’t like you choose between company A and company B where they are equivalent except company A pays less to have beer and ping pong, but rather that they aren’t equivalent and company A probably has beer and ping pong and pays more. Indeed, I think one should be wary of abnormally high pay (compared to competitors) as the high pay may be required to compensate for poor conditions. Given the amount of one’s life spent working, I think it’s good to find a job you like. Certainly, I wouldn’t knowingly trade a $100k raise for e.g. being yelled at every day or working 6 days a week, but I think this isn’t a commonly offered trade for the reasons above.

There do exist companies that value tenure more than others. An easy example to describe is that Amazon backloads their stock awards so if they say they will give you $X over 4 years when they hire you, you might get (made up numbers) 30% in the first two years and 70% in the next two. One explanation is that this is to make it cheaper to hire people because many will hate the job and quit after two years, but another is that it expresses that the company values long-tenured employees. One can survey salary reports online and get an impression of whether the company more values people with a lot of experience at the company or people who were recently hired.

[lupire]

With Amazon it's very explicitly to push people out without paying them.

[blue039]

> I think this is an overly certain and overly cynical

Like most engineers I didn't start out that way so perhaps you are right and a few grains of salt would make it better. However, I do not think the average HNer represents a weird aberration of happiness on the scale. I think most companies that hire on this site likely chronically underpay people. Not their fault most likely. HN caters to early stage startups.

However, I think my overarching message is clear. Happiness is entirely relative. At any rate, you should never prioritize happiness over financial security because you should be well compensated, first and foremost, for the time in your life you will never get back. Your compensation should be even better for dealing with a bad company. You might argue that spending those hours of your life in a relative happy state is healthier. I'd agree. But to me, that eventuality comes about after establishing good pay. I don't plan on retiring extremely wealthy but I think I'll be okay looking back at the sacrifices I've made sitting on the veranda with fewer financial worries. Perhaps this is a uniquely American perspective. I don't know.

Certainly, trading $100k and a good job for $150k and a job that gets you yelled at all the time is not a very good trade. Analyze the opportunity cost. The big point here is two things I think and I think you'd agree:

1. Analysis of opportunity cost is important. That means, to me, quantifying "happiness" with some dollar value. Is happiness worth $10k to you? $30k? I guess it depends. I'd actually quite enjoy a research position, for example, but I cannot take the make-ends-meet-and-no-retirement pay that most academic positions give.

2. People are often afraid to leap into a new position. To me, this is because they fail to quantify happiness with some dollar value. People often use qualitative metrics. Those are useful but only in the context of the quantitative reality.

[dan-robertson]

I mostly assume people here are above the threshold you describe but maybe that’s just wrong? I think the uniquely American perspective is software developers getting paid very well at plenty of big tech companies. That’s the kind of compensation that people who go into biglaw or investment banking would get without the poor working conditions or high barriers to entry. That sort of compensation is much less common in Europe, even from the same American tech companies. A thing people often say is that this compensates for high cost of living but plenty of European cities are expensive and cost of living adjustments for these companies in the US often aren’t so large relative to the compensation, presumably because people could threaten to move to a high-CoL area. Maybe this will stop being the case (software developers might get paid less in the US) at some point. And maybe that is already happening (stock prices no longer massively increasing making stock grants magically worth more) to a lesser extent.

Personally, I think most people don’t quit because of a lack of quantitative approaches but rather because they are afraid about losing what they have, ending somewhere else that’s worse, making big, irreversible-seeming decisions, etc.