I know very well. But that new hire somehow managed to find that time, didn't they? If they are that much better than the long term folks, than the salary parity seems to be justified by that also.
It's easier to find the time if you're already laid off / between jobs, or your current position is awful for whatever reason. Otherwise, for most folks with tolerable jobs and things to keep them busy outside of work, it's tough to justify the time (especially since it often entails taking time off work).
The effort to search, even in good times, shouldn't be underestimated
The measure differs by the person, but I've legitimately been putting up with a job bad for my mental health for years. We can get accustomed to a lot
This only happened to get better for me in the last week because an opportunity landed in my lap. Had my network forgotten me, I would toil here for years until something broke permanently
I don't think the salary difference is completely unjustified. It makes sense companies want to save as much as possible. Constantly being on a job search is not feasible though, at least not if you want to have some time for yourself and family.
There is a sort of asymmetry with how full time salary jobs work, where companies push employees to their limit, implicitly asking for all their focus (or else you risk bad reviews or worse), and at the same time they treat them like assets than can be moved around like chess pieces. The consistent thing would be to allow employees to do their job without caring about the organization, without liking the product, etc., or if the company wants that level of loyalty and passion, they should reciprocate and make sure their salary is growing with their careers and compensating for things like inflation.
My wife is in a licensed field. She still has interviews.
Not the technical take home type, but she still spends 1+ days for every company she pursues. Total time is not much different than what I do per interview.
I've been looking at IBEW and the path of pursuing electrical as an alternative now that software development seems to have dried up entirely and need to find something less volatile. Haven't pulled the trigger yet though, because software was such a natural path originally, it's a little intimidating to go back to school and I have no idea what the trades are like. Got the time though, nearing a full year since being laid off and seems like it'll be another if I don't do something else.
It also seems naive to think I'd be capable of becoming an electrician or succeeding in trades, but might be worth a shot.
> why don't long time employees look for a better paying opportunity?
comfort, convenience, they know all the shortcuts, they know the tribe, they know the people who that will help them and the people to avoid. They pick up the phone and get the thing they are looking for in 5mins, no begging required. A learning curve can be a b*tch, and folks that have been sitting in the same chair for 20y got nothing new to learn. If they are smart they are doing 100% of their tasks at 50% of the time, so they nap at home, or take really long coffee breaks in the office. Work is close to home (probably) and getting another job that is 30mins driving more (meaning 1h/day, 5h/week) ain't worth the extra $500 per month.
Why not? Being the new guy/gal sucks - all the institutional knowledge that you have accumulated means that you’re much more efficient that when you move to a new place, plus you know everyone and you’ve got relationships and likely friendships that you’ve cemented over the years. When you move to a new place, you suck until you’ve worked how things work - you need to hope the excitement of a new job carries you while you find your feet.
Market rate isn't what the average person is being paid. It's the amount that both parties accept.
Pay = (cost of change) + (value of work)
For new hires, the cost is high (interviews, effort) so the pay needs to be high. For long time employees, the cost of staying is negative (friends, familiar/working code, devil you know) and the cost of moving is positive, and this gap increases with tenure.
There are a number of reasons why a job in the hand might be worth two in the bush. Each situation is different though so ymmv.
Firstly there's more to a job than just pay. Some places are better to work at than others. Perhaps it's team dynamics, geographic location, remote or office, good or bad office etc.
Some financial perks improve with length of tenure.
Long-termers tend to have more job security than newbies. First in, first out when positions are cut.
Fewer, or more, responsibilities. Things like being on-call over weekends.
Seniority often comes with non-financial perks that aren't monetary, but make life better. More flexible working conditions. Better parking. Work from home, and so on.
None of which stops people discussing pay with their manager. Which is a Lot easier to do than switching jobs.
Because it's a red flag if you leave before 1 year. So if you figure out in your 6th month that you were were getting underpaid well tough luck because you have endure 6 more of the same crap or your next job will take a lot longer to find especially in this market.
> Here is another, but related question: why don't long time employees look for a better paying opportunity?
The devil you know is often better than the devil you don't know.
Why risk ending up with a bad employer for more pay if you can already coast at an OK employer for good enough pay?
I see it much like that Treehouse Of Horror episode of The Simpsons where Homer time travels to the past and finally comes back to the present to discover that everything is the same except everyone now has a long tongue they eat with; after all the things he went through earlier, his response is "Eh... close enough."