[regularfry]

This is literally the approach recommended in Team Topologies. The same team should own vN and vN+1, so that they both have to operate their own design and have the opportunity not to make the same mistakes again. It should be the default.

[rafaelmn]

That would require staying in one company for more than 2 years, which means you probably lost out on 20-30% of income over next 2 years.

[jorgesborges]

It’s okay to enjoy work and focus on your craft for two years rather than jump for more money. If you like your employer and colleagues and are growing as an engineer isn’t that better in the long term? I think jumping around can risk creating an engineer who leaves a place worse than when they started.

[lmm]

> If you like your employer and colleagues and are growing as an engineer isn’t that better in the long term?

No, growing as an engineer just means the reality of software development will make you more miserable.

> I think jumping around can risk creating an engineer who leaves a place worse than when they started.

Of course it does, but companies have made the choice to pay more for that than for someone who stays and makes the place better, we should give them what they want.

[kerkeslager]

> It’s okay to enjoy work and focus on your craft for two years rather than jump for more money.

These aren't mutually exclusive.

> If you like your employer and colleagues and are growing as an engineer isn’t that better in the long term?

Better than liking your employer and colleagues and growing as an engineer and also having more money? No.

This isn't a field with low demand for talent. You can have all these things--don't settle for less.

> I think jumping around can risk creating an engineer who leaves a place worse than when they started.

That's a risk that companies should be willing to pay to avoid.

But a lot of companies aren't willing to given their engineers adequate pay increases each year, and it's not engineers' responsibility to accept less money than they are worth. If you want more experienced engineers, you have to pay for more experienced engineers. That's just basic free market economics: if you don't like that you don't like capitalism.

Some companies understand this and do better, but these are the exceptions not the rule. If you find such an exception, stick with them!

I fundamentally disagree with the narrative that engineers are supposed to be passionate about their craft and learning and interest and not care about the money. That's propaganda spread by corporations to get us to accept less pay, and if you believe it you'll be exploited. And as it turns out, the places that pay the best are also usually the best places to be passionate about your craft, so there's no real conflict. The places that pretend to pay you in learning and passion instead of money generally don't deliver on the learning and passion either.

[regularfry]

It does not. It requires the team to be stable. It says nothing about the composition of that team.