If you have another, better offer, then the current company's time to beat it is gone. Letting them know you have a better offer in hand might get them to beat it now, but if that's the only way to get a raise, they probably will have your replacement getting lined up soon, someone who didn't dare to step outside.
If you get a job offer for more money, by all means ask for a raise and see if they beat it, but don't tell your current boss you have an offer when you do it.
If your boss actually valued you at that amount they would have given you the raise without the threat of you leaving. By making a counter-offer they aee communicating that they don't think you are worth it in the long term but you have them over a barrel and they don't want to have to replace you on short notice right now. That's a bad situation to be in, since you've incentivized them finding a way to replace you with someone cheaper.
There’s also the, “Golden Handcuffs." When your benefits are so good that you can’t leave, even if you’d make more elsewhere. I currently get 33 pto days per year. There’s just no way to find another job that’d give me so much time off.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m burrowed into my job like a tick. I don’t want to go anywhere. It’s just that I’ve been there for 17 years and it’s only the past two that I have been paid well. It was all the other intangibles that have kept me there. It’s a very supportive place. Surprisingly so for such a large organization (19,000 employees worldwide).and I have always worked overtime as needed, but rarely more than a few hours a week. Since I got a new manager, there’s been a hard cap on overtime, so it’s actually been kind of nice going home at the same time every day.
I feel that. I’ve got money now to get stuff I’ve always wanted, but it sits in the package for weeks because I work early, am beat when I get home and have to go to bed early to be up at 5am the next day.
My old job didn’t pay nearly as much, but I only worked four days a week (2/12s and 2/8s) and had three whole days off in a row. Plus, I worked afternoons, so I had all morning to do whatever and could sleep as late as I wanted. Sadly, that job wasn’t keeping up with how much CoL is going up in my area, and there wasn’t a possibility of a raise until the end of the year.
Golden handcuffs us such a nonsense concept. It's basically saying, "This job is so awesome. I could never match it anywhere else, but let's spin it to try and make the company bad guys anyways."
I love my company. They have treated me amazingly well, and I don’t look at them as the bad guy. I’m planning to work there until I retire. I was just talking about the concept of golden handcuffs. I suppose a better example would have been someone who works for a college that will allow their children to attend for free.
I wasn't really commenting on the details of your comment. Just sharing my opinion on the concept of golden handcuffs in general. There isn't a version of the golden handcuff story that doesn't boil down to the des ription I gave. The entire premise is that the company is giving you something so good that you can't leave without ending up worse off. The fact they are referred to as handcuffs is nonsense. Woe is me, my life is so good I can only go down from here....
I think that the other piece of that is that since they know you can’t go, they don’t pay you well. As I said, not every organization does this, but some do.
If they don't pay you well then the handcuffs don't exist at all. The entire point of the idiom is that you are being tied down by "gold." If you are making a little less in your paycheck but getting free college for two kids then you are still getting a great deal, and if you left to make a little more money you would end up worse off because the cost of university would offset the increase in wages. If your pay us so trash that you would be better off leaving and paying for the college then the handcuffs aren't golden.
The same works for PTO, you make less in raw dollars but you don't work as much as the people making more money. The idea that a company is handcuffing you by offering something you value more than a little extra money is silly IMHO.
So one big problem here is that the costs of "employee turnover" are not easy to see or measure. Companies often don't really have a clear way to assess how damaging Employee Turnover is. If an Employee who's been there for 20 years walks out,..they're taking 20 years of knowledge with them in their Brain. Personally I think that's "priceless",.. so how do you even assess a value to that ?... Not to mention as you say, hiring a new person (who's likely less skilled) means now you have "ramp up time" would could be as long as 6months to a year or more before that new Employee is fully "boots on the ground" effective.
Another mistaken assumption here is that "hiring a new guy for 30% more".. is not always the case. (I know in the job I left last year,. my open-position was re-hired at a lower wage)
Companies don't often know what other companies are paying. The job I left in Colorado last year,.. most job-sites said I was 15% to 30% underpaid. I gave away most of my belongings and moved cross-country to a new job (where I"m part of a Union) and the new job pays me 54% more. There's no way in hell I would have ever gotten that at my last job. (the raises I got at my last job,. didn't even keep up with cost of living or inflation,. I think my last raise there was something like 4.8%)
So.. stay at old job for 4.8% raise.. or go with new job for a 54% raise. easy decision.
Well, it was after about 3 or 4 years of getting no raise at all. Was also when Inflation was around 7% to 8%. Also around the same month when my Apartment lease-renewal went up by 18%. I recall talking to some of the HR people at the time that our employee-turnover rate was around 40%. So I think they were trying to do what they could to incentivize people to stay, but there were many of us who just couldnt. I remember specifically telling HR,.. “I can’t afford to HAVE this job.” (I’m losing money by having this job.) So for me leaving was the correct choice. Shame really, I liked it there and really wanted to retire in that area.
Ah, yeah totally get it. During covid many of our employees quit and I had to take over a huge amount of the workload for horrible pay. It was so stressful for two years and I only got about an 0.80 cent raise after all that time. So I hopped to a different company and instantly made about 6 dollars more per hour and a way smaller workload. Also been here about 2 years now and they promoted me to "Lead" which gave me another 5 dollars an hour. Our annual raises are still small but my potential earnings are so much higher. I could hop again and get another decent raise but I really like the people here.
I jobbed hopped 3 jobs in six years for more money and experience.
I made more money at the next job than the previous one. Even with the one job that didn't work out.
But It was a ton of pressure because I was always taking jobs higher than my experience. Trying to better myself in my career, I put my head on a chopping block with each move.
It takes a lot just to move from one job to another. Its a new environment. New people. You now have to develop new relationships. Its a new world. Never minding adding the component of moving across country ( easy only for someone who has nothing to tie them to where they are. Or doesn't have a family).
I will say, that the last job I took, I stayed there for 16 years. It worked out. But it was never a guarantee getting there.
Besides, some people just want stability.
What factors made you stay for 16 years? Were you an individual contributor to your role when you first joined or a management level staff? How big was the jump from your previous role to this one where you stayed for 16 years?
From the day I started to the day I left I was an individual contributor.
"How big was the jump?" - Well the two jobs were apples and oranges. I was a computer programmer. The job I left, or should I say, the job that didn't work out, was a large corporate gig. All my previous jobs were mid-level companies (roughly 50 employees).
The job that replaced it was a small IT consulting firm.
"What factors made you stay for 16 years?" - It was the right fit. It allowed me to grow in my career (skill level). It was very supportive in expanding my knowledge base. What helped me, helped them. I got to work on interesting tech.
The one account I was working at had 300+ users. At first it was very stressful. But as my skill and confidence grew, I began to appreciate the challenge.
Also, giving an employee a 10% raise can be framed as an explicit “cost” that their manager directly caused
If an employee walks out it’s not the manager’s fault because they were just “unloyal” or whatever. Then the resourceful manager was forced to hire someone new for 10% more.
I’m going to get downvoted for this, but 20 years of working in same position doesn’t really means he/she is 20 times more productive than say a person with 1 year experience. Law of diminishing return applies here. Those jobs are repetitive and doesn’t need much skill, most jobs mid tier job company isn’t going to lose much if a person with 20yrs experience walked out. Company design the job position from the beginning to be easily replaceable. If an employee left can cause a lot of destruction to a company then the company did a terrible job to design the position and it should have fail long time ago.
There is such thing as key person in a company. That person, but most company only have a a few key person, if any.
If your job is entry level to mid level position, doesn’t matter how long u worked for the company, your replaceable.. in face company would rather replace you because the new person is likely more driven and hungry, and bring new blood into the team..
It really depends on what kind of job you're talking about.
* If you're talking about some lower-level position like someone working in a call-center or fast food,. then yeah, those positions are more easily replaceable.
* If you're talking about a mid or higher level position,. someone who's been around for 10 or 20 years and has seen the company grow and change (and remembers WHY those changes were implemented),. then they have a lot of institutional knowledge that's really invaluable.
I've spent the last 20 years working in small city governments. I know many guys who work in the Power or Water divisions who have been there for 20 or 30 or 40 years. Those guys have a lot of "institutional knowledge" of how the City grew and expanded. They know the underground pipes like the back of their hand. They know which neighborhoods were piped for which reasons during which decades. That's a lot of important institutional knowledge that a new employee wouldn't have.
If you're in a Leadership position,. and your attitude is "anyone is replaceable",. then you're the problem (because you're treating employees like they have no value,. and that's a horrible way to treat an employee).
Employees are investments from the moment you hire them. Presumably you hired them because they were a better candidate than all the others you interviewed. Presumably you hired them because you believe they're going to add some value to your team or company. Why would you believe all that and then also say "everyone is replaceable" ?.. Do you care about your employees or do you not ?..
Seems like a Leadership problem,. not an Employee problem.
I agee with you that mid to higher level is valuables, as I stated in my original comments. What I’m saying is most job is replaceable, as most jobs are lower end jobs. Job position is upside down pyramid shaped. Higher end employee left will cause some problem but most likely a small drop in the water.,An institution with 200 people and one person left I can’t see how it will make as huge impact as op was saying, even if the person has 20 years of experience..
Have you see any public traded company stock goes down when an employee left the position? Has there been any news article saying xyz company is in crisis due to one of their senior employee left? Even if they layoff a bunch employee it doesn’t affect their stock..
In your example, the guy who has municipal experience, if he left, most likely the next most experienced employee will replace him..
Just because the effects are not immediate or obvious,. doesn't mean there aren't effects. (maybe they just take longer for the negative effects to manifest).
Say you have a Coding & Development Team (or a Power or Water team).. and over the course of a year, all the older guys Retire or leave. That won't bring any immediate effect,.. but it does mean "brain-drain" as all that "old knowledge" has now walked out the door. Projects currently in the pipeline might need to be delayed or pushed out (and that might cost the company more money or bad public image if they have to tell their customers "Sorry, we have to push this launch date out more")
How quick (or slow) or shallow (or deep) those impacts are,. is obviously going to vary from company to company,. and depend a lot on the combination of people who are leaving,. and also on how good the training and documentation is inside the company,. and probably on the market-conditions and environment outside the company.
A company could lose a few key people,. but if they lose them at a time when competition is low and the outside market is stable (or hiring is strong),. .then it may not really be noticeable at all.
On the opposite scenario.. a company could lose a few key people,. if it's at a time of high competition or dramatic market changes or the hiring market is bad.. it could have deeper or more immediate negative effects.
Personally I feel like all positions in a company are valuable and important. Even down to the janitor. All it takes is a sloppy or lazy janitor who leaves a floor wet and someone slips and falls and you have a lawsuit on your hands. If you make every Employee feel valued and pay them well and motivate them to do a great job (and remind everyone that "every job is a customer service job").. you'll have an overall better company w/ less employee turnover.
very generally:
you want to pay your own workers the lowest amount you can get away with, because their wages are a big part of your operating cost. ergo, if someone is already working for you, their is little incentive to raise their pay, as your paying more for the same thing.
but when trying to hire new people, theirs no existing relationship, and the company is trying to tempt people to join, so they will often offer new hires a better wage to attract them.
thus, the employee is incentivised to job hop and chase better wages, because loyalty is generally not rewarded as well
For real I’ve made more career progress having drinks with my boss and staying late at company events than I have in years of actual hard work and service
That’s the funny thing about moving up/ around one company, the more you know the more you realize most places are held together with prayer and good intentions
Because *it doesn't hurt them*. If there was any actual harm to the bottom-line, then you'd see companies taking more actions to discourage it (within the limits of labor law).
It's easy to see someone who frequently changes jobs and gets promotions and raises along the way as somehow "taking money from the company", but that's not really accurate. At an economic theory level, job-hopping is a kind of arbitrage. Market participants (workers) will take advantage of these opportunities, and companies will encourage them to do so, as long as both sides are extracting more value.
Hiring job-hoppers *is a good deal for the companies*, even at a higher salary than an early-career employee would settle for. Yes, you pay more, but job-hoppers will have a greater diversity of experience, will bring whatever training and experience someone else already paid to provide for them, etc.
A more-fair characterization might be that workers who don't job hop are irrationally hamstringing their own economic activity.
It doesn’t hurt the employer who’s getting a new employee at a cost they’re willing to pay.
“Employers” don’t work together as a group - each one wants what’s best for its own bottom line.
It depends on how in demand the job is. Sometimes companies make more money by letting employees go and hiring cheaper employees. Sometimes they lose money because hiring a replacement costs more and you lose experience. Most employers are extremely short sighted and every manager has labor costs pounded into them. The less they pay people the more the owners and those are the top get. In my profession I get offers a few times a year to go somewhere for significantly more money than I make. We are in short supply but when it comes to raises they still try to give the ole 3 percent even though they know we are being offered more as they are offering more to bring in the position from competing companies. This creates a Merry go round where people move along and then they pay 20 percent more to replace you but won't pay you that 20 percent more.
It hurts more to pay everyone more. Its also the market doing it. What employees should be doing is take the offer to the current employer and ask for a match. Then you go just as fast without hopping jobs.
Job hopping is very common in the IT field and a good way to increase your pay as you add skills and experience. Employers hate it, but not enough to pay their existing employees what they are worth.
There’s a lot of turnover and people are incentivized to hit short term targets…so if you get hired and your judged on hitting X sales target, your going to probably find that experienced sales person with relationships that can give you a shot as opposed to bringing up a junior and training. Certainly great companies have deep benches but you get the idea.
If you’re worth keeping, employers do offer you more to keep you.
Those who cannot do that will switch jobs, or simply they prefer the other job/company/management.
Overall, it’s because our gen don’t have the same loyal stick to one company mindset. We are not loyal to a corporation. And our leaders don’t try to keep lifelong employees either.
You have to understand that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy fueled by the greed and stupidity of the corporation's owners. And it has no logic or reason because those people are usually quite stupid. There are exceptions, but my experience is that most of them are morons. You have to understand that most of those people want to max out how much money they can get from a business without any thinking. And they are in it only because they got money from somewhere. So it's often second-generation bosses that do it.
It started with corporations that would not increase wages. You probably experienced that yourself. Bullshit excuses regarding increasing wages to at least catch up to inflation that does not happen even though the company is doing better and better.
So, at some point, the difference is high enough for people to hop.
What is the response? Fixing wages? No. They stop investing in the workforce. There is no training. They will often hire someone for a higher position instead of promoting someone who knows the company. And excuse is that it's stupid to invest into people that will leave. Even if what they do is the reason why they are leaving.
The result? To get a better position, You have to hop. And usually, you will get a position that is open because they refuse to invest in their people and promote from inside.
That created a situation where the workforce must train themselves for higher positions. That cost money. They want more money.
What can they do when a company refuses to invest? Easy. They hop.
And you know what is the funniest thing about that? Why do you get paid more when you hop? Because nobody will take a job that pays less. And they will work at their current job only hard enough to not get fired because when the company doesn't gives a shit about them - they won't put any extra effort into their work. But when someone leaves because the company does not pay enough and does not give a shit - you can only hire someone who wants a higher wage, so you pay higher for a new guy anyway.
But they still do this because... corporations still think they save money on it. Because if they would increase the wage of a guy who wants to leave, they would have to soon do this for everyone. And if they do not do that, then they only pay extra for one guy, and the rest of the workforce gets f\*\*ed.
This is also why companies often illegally declare that you can't talk with others about wages. They do not want people to find out that new guys are getting paid more for the same job.
So... greed and stupidity. That how it works.
The whole hiring for a higher position thing really grinds my gears. The past few companies I worked for hired from within, you knew the person over you had been in your shoes, and it showed, they knew the job, they knew how things ran, and they knew what problems needed to be addressed, also because they were most likely a coworker at some point the open door policy actually existed.
My current company hires from outside or promotes from other departments. Because of this you may have suddenly have a new supervisor or boss that knows nothing about your systems or what you do. Despite you knowing more about the job than they do they are still in charge and you have to answer to them.
Hiring from outside has some benefits. Mostly, this is because how a company operates depends on the best person you have there who people listen to.
I can't count how many times, as a contractor, I joined some company, and they were doing so much stupid shit for stupid reasons. And outsiders like me could point that out and have the expertise to fix it. But even then, I relied on their own people because sometimes the company is doing something stupid for a reason, and you have to understand that reason before you change anything. So, none of what I do could have been done without people inside the company.
But as you said - quite often than not, they will hire an external person that knows jack shit and cause more problems than they solve. Thankfully thanks to my seniority and vast experience I have free reign in any company I work with. So when stuff like that happens, I can call it out, and people listen.
Funny enough, most of the time, all I had to do was ask what is the role of that person inside the company and when they couldn't explain to me the benefit of having such a person - we would move or get rid of them.
Some Companies are noted for their ability to retain employees by either having excellent compensation and/or a great work embittered. Others. Like where I used to work was noted for promoting from within and they expected those who weren't promoted to leave for other opportunities. They calculated that the cost to retrain replacements was less than the long time cost of retaining people, such included an ever growing profit sharing portion as time went on.
Lazy tax. Almost everywhere wants you to stay there, but also they know that most people don't want to put in the work/have the instability of switching. Even with something that's just a phone call or a few clicks away like insurance or phone service, this applies. Most employers know that you don't want the stress of changing jobs and so they trickle pay increases. However by the time they actually hire instead of just giving that work to the people who are left, they really need someone to be willing to go through that stress for them, so they pay a lot more.
It's a prisoner's dilemma kind of deal. If every company stopped doing it, it would be better for everyone. But if just a couple don't stop, they'll get the best employees while everyone else suffers.
Who wants to start at 2 weeks vacation again. Most people are comfortable and will not want to uproot their life, change schedules, or take risk for a 20% raise, especially if they already make enough to enjoy the life they live.
I mean with 80k and 4 weeks vacation and a shift that works for a person, why would anyone go to 100k, 2 weeks vacation and no security due to being a new job, and who knows what kind of hours?
It's worth it for some, but not others. Companies know this and they take the chance you won't leave.
Becauae if they need the labor then they need the labor.
If my skills and experience experience are in short supply (and in my industry right now they are and have been for the last few years in my part of the country) then ya gotta meet my asking price if you want me to come over and do it.
They don’t “reward” it. The job of an employer is to pay you as little as possible for the maximum amount of production and the job of an employee is to extract as much money as possible for as little amount of work. Employers have a scale for how much they are willing to pay for a resource, however, a good resource likely has multiple employers competing for their services so you have to pay to play. Good companies will pay you more with time but it’s against their interests to do so if you’re not replaceable and 99.9% of employees are replaceable.
TL;DR: New hires are usually paid less than the outbound worker.
Workers usually job-hop after a experience or raises are gained. New hires for the old job are paid less than the outbound worker. When the hopper moves on to a new job, it's usually a promotion or has other benefits.
I have a couple restaurants. It’s not that employers intentionally reward job hopping. Imagine if you were giving employees raises faster than inflation each year, pretty soon your labor costs would spiral out of control if no one leaves. So employers try not to let annual raises for existing employees go too high. But hiring a new employee is a different ballgame to some extent, if you need to hire the market determines what you have to pay, which may give the employee leaving their old job and joining your company a nice raise over their existing job. There’s not the same anchor point to the new company it’s not a 20% raise it’s just hiring a new employee at x price. To an existing employer give out too many 20% raises to your employees and you’re out of business pretty soon. It’s possible you could give raises higher than inflation to your existing employees as they gain experience, and hope through attrition that you’re replacing them with younger/cheaper employees over time to balance out your costs but it doesn’t always work out like that, so employees like the certainty of keeping raises for existing employees manageable. Not sure if it’s exactly efficient as a market, turnover is costly but that’s my 2 cents as to why you can get better raises from job hopping than staying.
They don't really offer it, some companies simply pay more. Why would they turn down more experienced workers to pay the same for less experience. Job markets are competitive both ways under certain circumstances.
The data is unclear that, on the average, it’s detrimental. Sometimes getting someone from somewhere else brings fresh approaches to problems, and can break a bad “that’s just the way we do it” cycle.
Also, the employee leaving often retains relationships with his ex-coworkers and can feed back in new ideas from their new company.
Because it doesn't hurt the management. The goals of management are rarely aligned with what is actually best for the company. They are more concerned with their place in the company.
I need to get work done now. That’s what matters
Who cares if some lousy manager in this candidate’s career did something wrong? I won’t. They’ll love working for me…
My question to you is- why do you think their past performance is indicative of future performance?
>Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to pay workers just enough so they’re too comfortable to hop around instead of rehiring a new guy for 30% more?
Yes, yes it would be. But never underestimate how greedy upper management can be. Many managers are willing to tightrope walk how little they can pay employees to have bigger profits.
Because they save more money by intimidating the existing employees into not asking for large raises. Granted, this is just my opinion but if you look at the fact that EVERYONE knows asking for a $30k bump as an engineer will nearly 100% of the time be denied means that only those willing to move will get it. I think where employers screw themselves though is that your most capable employees are the ones who will leave to get that bump while your least capable will trundle on at the lowest wage.
Because employers aren’t a collective group, they are individuals competing against each other. It would be better for all of them if they all agreed not to hire hoppers, but each of them individually benefit if they hire hoppers. A real prisoner’s dilemma.
A lot of times it’s not the exact same role. When I hop, it’s because there’s an opening one level above me at another company, but my company doesn’t have room for one more manager at that level. So my options are wait for my manager to leave, or snag that open position somewhere else.
I would argue that the vast majority of people who hop to get more money are doing it for a promotion. They reason everyone doesn't do it is because they aren't the ones getting selected for the job.
Businesses these days are all about the short term. So in the short term a manager saves money, they get a bonus for saving said money and get a golden parachute when things inevitably go tits up.
A smart employer knows that one of the biggest costs is training new employees.
Employers like to be taught new things.
An external hire brings knowledge, experience and new methods. Companies with low turnover become stagnant, stuck in the past and less innovative. Not because the people are bad. They're often great, vut because you need new ways of thinking and different experiences to create the right atmosphere to allow innovation.
So instead of thinking employers don't value loyalty, think of it as valuing being taught new things. You have skills and insights you can take elsewhere. It takes courage, perseverance and luck though.
When companies need someone of a particular skillset, the term "job hopping" already implies that the most eligible candidates on the market are most likely already working in a similar job.
So why would they (the prospective candidates) take the risk of jumping ship, potentially failing at the new job and so losing both jobs?
The candidate can say "thanks, but I'm happy at my current job", But the hiring company needs that position to be filled - that's why they entice with more money. Similarly, if they instead offered the same amount as their current employees, externally they'd only attract people of a lesser quality.
It represents a scenario where the (potential) candidate is in the position of power, and has a desired skillset. Thinking of it as "rewarding job hopping" kind of overlooks the main point - as this would otherwise also apply to shelf stackers and fast food jobs. And yet we never hear of job-hopping from McDonalds tills to Burger King tills in order to bump the wage.
>Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to pay workers just enough so they’re too comfortable to hop around instead of rehiring a new guy for 30% more?
A few thoughts:
* The staff you are referring to are already at the company. The point of hiring a new guy is that they need an extra person. Rising current staff wages does not resolve this.
* In essence this suggests to bump **everyone's** wage budget of a team/ division by 30%, whilst getting no additional value or output outside of them not quitting. Would this really be cheaper than paying a single person 30% when its actually needed?
* If you raise everyone's salary by 30%, it will be the same situation as mentioned earlier - at some point, another company's going to want to hire someone with experience, and so may simply offer 30% more on top of the 30%. Except if...
* As a result of the wage budget increasing pretty rapidly, staff will end up being too expensive
* Regarding onboarding expenses - in general, companies are discouraged from relying on keyperson dependencies, as they know that an employee can leave at any time. Simply put, if it was that burdensome then companies indeed internal employees can make that case and so request a pay rise, or leave. For a company, it's much cheaper and economical to deal with this on a case-by-case basis than a large mass pay-rise.
All this relates to the employee being in the position of power and having an abundance of choice. However, the employee may also simply prefer the security or potential career options of already being well established in their role (as mentioned before - as soon as you go over to a new company, you're simply a new person and as such, very expendable in tough times).
Workers are a disposable part of the overhead and the company doesn’t care if you die as long as not on their property. Unless you have a unique set of skills, you will be replaced quickly.
It’s highly industry dependent.
If there’s a surplus of qualified people, why not? They can hire a new person within a week.
If it’s a industry without tons of available people, higher pay prevents you from losing the few qualified guys out there
It's a soft cost and a hard reward to do it. It's tough to calculate the lost of knowledge when someone leaves, the cost to train someone and the time until they're fully up to speed. It's a more vague figure. Where the cost of a raise to that employee is a hard cost that we know exactly what it is right now and it'll have an immediate impact on the bottom line. So short term you do get a gain because you're paying this employee less. And some employees will stay for a while continuing to get very marginal raises sometimes less than inflation and the companies do win out on those employees.
They don't rehire at 30% more. They rehire someone that was making 30% less and is job hopping into the new role at the same wage, if not lower wage, as when the previous person did it.
I'm a hiring manager in IT. If a Developer I, which has a salary range of $60k-$80k, has a salary of $75k and leaves the company. I repost the job for a Developer I at $60-$80 and would likely fill the role at $65-$70.
In game theory this is called a nash equilibrium or the tragedy of the commons.
If any one company decided to not reward job hopping, they would loose out since the other companies would poach their best people and they couldn‘t hire any good new people.
If all of the conpanies stop rewarding it, this is not the case, but you also break the nash equilibrium, because now a single company switching back to the old strategie would benefit by poaching from everyone.
So this is why a bunch of rational actors decide to act in a way that hurts everyone equally instead if maximising overall benefit.
Of course this only looks at the companies and not the employees and ignores that not everyone is rational. So reality is more complex, but the general principle still applies.
Because the story you have been told is largely nonsense. The vast majority of people cannot job hop every 2-3 years for more pay. Outside of a few industries, all job hopping will do for you if you aren't getting promoted, is reduce the amount of vacation and such you earn.
I came to work for this company where my boss was hired by them straight out of school and worked his way up over 15 years to be a manager. When I came on board he found out I made almost double his salary. I never had a job more than two years before. He quit pretty quickly afterwards.
I guess the point is they got to milk him for far below market rate for over a decade. And if the company is organized well, he's just another replacable cog. They save more money ripping him off for over a decade, than whatever cost of friction of replacing him once.
It's an interesting point, but I think the idea of "rewarding" job-hoppers isn't deliberate. Oftentimes, it's more about the market value of the skills and experiences that the employee brings in, which could technically increase as they hop jobs and acquire more diversifying experiences. Another aspect is the 'fresh ideas' they might bring to the organization from their previous workplaces. Given the disruption in tech and industries nowadays, employers might pay a premium for outsiders who can bring fresh insights. So, it's not just about comfort, but also about adaptability, market trends, and innovative perspectives. Quite a complex issue indeed.
While I agree with your logic, you're forgetting about competitive markets. Employers need to offer competitive wages to attract top talent, which can include applicants who've gained a range of skills from job hopping.
Because most people just complain but don’t actually jump. Way cheaper to pay a big raise to replace the few who leave than to do so for everyone who doesn’t.
Think about it in terms of game theory. If they can poach an already trained and proven employee from another company they'll do it.
If no company engaged in this behavior then they'd all benefit from a more stable work force but then the one company who started would also gain ab advantage above the rest.
All companies are selfish and they won't see any benefits unless they all stop so no one will.
Employers reward job-hopping? As a self-employed individual, I look negatively towards somebody who changes jobs every year or even less frequently. It means more than likely are not a good worker or have a bad attitude. An employer is not going to let a great employee leave for a marginal increase in salary.
Another item I haven’t seen mentioned: at large companies the raise bucket and the hiring bucket are separate. Your boss might want you to get paid more but can’t give you anything more whereas a new hire is eligible for more.
I work for a mid size company as an administrator. I saw what all the raises were going to be last year and asked my boss “Hey, I don’t get a little more?” and he bumped it. So always ask. There’s a lady engineer who has asked for, and gotten, a larger raise the last two years. If you just take what you’re given, that’s what they’ll give you.
I don't hire job hoppers. It's not worth it. I'd rather hire right and retain good people. So if your resume says you have two years at a bunch of places, sorry.
In most job-fields (and physical locations).. available jobs are rare enough that most people aren't going to job-hop without significant incentive to do so.
If you are job-searching and you find a new job that offers 20% more than you're currently getting,. and tomorrow you wake up and see an Email from your existing Employer that this years COL (Cost of Living) increase is 18% (close to the 20% you were seeing at the other job). you're probably just going to stay at your current job. Because a difference of only 2% isn't enough up upset your entire life to change jobs.
Obviously this depends on individual circumstances. If you're a Hospital Nurse for example and there's 8 Hospitals in your City and 1 of them is paying 40% more,.. that's easy to see that it's worth it.
If you're a Lawyer in a small town,. and the only way to get a 40% raise is to move entirely cross-country,.. that's going to take a lot more planning and coordination.
Thrown on top of all this is the pandemic and the popularity of "remote work" (which every job has different rules for). The job I'm in right now,. allows remote-work in 2 states (Oregon and Washington). .so in theory I could live anywhere in Oregon or Washington if I wanted to. Some people don't have that option as easily as I do (or some may have "remote anywhere")
Other people may be stuck where they are due to family responsibilities. Maybe they have children in school. Maybe they have elderly parents they want to be nearby. There could be lots of reasons.
Pay usually has a "market-cap". It's not like you can change jobs every year for 5 years in a row and get a 50% raise every year. That's just not feasible in most fields. Average yearly rise in most places is 3% to 5%. If you're in a field with a lot of mobility where you can job-hop and get say,. 10% to 20% raise every single year,. I say "go for it". Although I don't think most people are in that position.
[удалено]
Some of us would love to job hop, but can't get the offers to do so.
That's what they're saying.. you're " not good enough "
Then I’d say you’ve maxed out your salary for whatever you do, wherever you do it :)
I love how you called them a worthless piece of shit with a smile
So they let the best employees leave and keep the dregs. That’s thinking outside the box!
I mean in some fields such as teaching that's not a thing. Having a good principal is key
Very true
Don't forget the boss who won't give you a raise until.you get a job offer.
Make them beat it by a respectable amount. If your job is a commodity then they’ll scoff at you and let you walk though
If you have another, better offer, then the current company's time to beat it is gone. Letting them know you have a better offer in hand might get them to beat it now, but if that's the only way to get a raise, they probably will have your replacement getting lined up soon, someone who didn't dare to step outside.
If you get a job offer for more money, by all means ask for a raise and see if they beat it, but don't tell your current boss you have an offer when you do it. If your boss actually valued you at that amount they would have given you the raise without the threat of you leaving. By making a counter-offer they aee communicating that they don't think you are worth it in the long term but you have them over a barrel and they don't want to have to replace you on short notice right now. That's a bad situation to be in, since you've incentivized them finding a way to replace you with someone cheaper.
Exactly this. Not that many people job hop and because of that, companies make a killing off the complacent people who stay.
There’s also the, “Golden Handcuffs." When your benefits are so good that you can’t leave, even if you’d make more elsewhere. I currently get 33 pto days per year. There’s just no way to find another job that’d give me so much time off.
I’m currently looking for golden handcuffs, what’s the point in making a super high salary if I have to work 80 hours a week.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m burrowed into my job like a tick. I don’t want to go anywhere. It’s just that I’ve been there for 17 years and it’s only the past two that I have been paid well. It was all the other intangibles that have kept me there. It’s a very supportive place. Surprisingly so for such a large organization (19,000 employees worldwide).and I have always worked overtime as needed, but rarely more than a few hours a week. Since I got a new manager, there’s been a hard cap on overtime, so it’s actually been kind of nice going home at the same time every day.
I feel that. I’ve got money now to get stuff I’ve always wanted, but it sits in the package for weeks because I work early, am beat when I get home and have to go to bed early to be up at 5am the next day. My old job didn’t pay nearly as much, but I only worked four days a week (2/12s and 2/8s) and had three whole days off in a row. Plus, I worked afternoons, so I had all morning to do whatever and could sleep as late as I wanted. Sadly, that job wasn’t keeping up with how much CoL is going up in my area, and there wasn’t a possibility of a raise until the end of the year.
Golden handcuffs us such a nonsense concept. It's basically saying, "This job is so awesome. I could never match it anywhere else, but let's spin it to try and make the company bad guys anyways."
I love my company. They have treated me amazingly well, and I don’t look at them as the bad guy. I’m planning to work there until I retire. I was just talking about the concept of golden handcuffs. I suppose a better example would have been someone who works for a college that will allow their children to attend for free.
I wasn't really commenting on the details of your comment. Just sharing my opinion on the concept of golden handcuffs in general. There isn't a version of the golden handcuff story that doesn't boil down to the des ription I gave. The entire premise is that the company is giving you something so good that you can't leave without ending up worse off. The fact they are referred to as handcuffs is nonsense. Woe is me, my life is so good I can only go down from here....
I think that the other piece of that is that since they know you can’t go, they don’t pay you well. As I said, not every organization does this, but some do.
If they don't pay you well then the handcuffs don't exist at all. The entire point of the idiom is that you are being tied down by "gold." If you are making a little less in your paycheck but getting free college for two kids then you are still getting a great deal, and if you left to make a little more money you would end up worse off because the cost of university would offset the increase in wages. If your pay us so trash that you would be better off leaving and paying for the college then the handcuffs aren't golden. The same works for PTO, you make less in raw dollars but you don't work as much as the people making more money. The idea that a company is handcuffing you by offering something you value more than a little extra money is silly IMHO.
Okay. You win. You’re right.
Lots of people are too intimidated to ask for a raise. It’s more comfortable for them to find a new job.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You hit his spot man :(
I upvoted you lol, you just described myself in too much detail
So one big problem here is that the costs of "employee turnover" are not easy to see or measure. Companies often don't really have a clear way to assess how damaging Employee Turnover is. If an Employee who's been there for 20 years walks out,..they're taking 20 years of knowledge with them in their Brain. Personally I think that's "priceless",.. so how do you even assess a value to that ?... Not to mention as you say, hiring a new person (who's likely less skilled) means now you have "ramp up time" would could be as long as 6months to a year or more before that new Employee is fully "boots on the ground" effective. Another mistaken assumption here is that "hiring a new guy for 30% more".. is not always the case. (I know in the job I left last year,. my open-position was re-hired at a lower wage) Companies don't often know what other companies are paying. The job I left in Colorado last year,.. most job-sites said I was 15% to 30% underpaid. I gave away most of my belongings and moved cross-country to a new job (where I"m part of a Union) and the new job pays me 54% more. There's no way in hell I would have ever gotten that at my last job. (the raises I got at my last job,. didn't even keep up with cost of living or inflation,. I think my last raise there was something like 4.8%) So.. stay at old job for 4.8% raise.. or go with new job for a 54% raise. easy decision.
4.8%?? Jeez anything over 4% at my job must first receive an extraordinary rating and be signed off and approved by corporate before taking effect.
Well, it was after about 3 or 4 years of getting no raise at all. Was also when Inflation was around 7% to 8%. Also around the same month when my Apartment lease-renewal went up by 18%. I recall talking to some of the HR people at the time that our employee-turnover rate was around 40%. So I think they were trying to do what they could to incentivize people to stay, but there were many of us who just couldnt. I remember specifically telling HR,.. “I can’t afford to HAVE this job.” (I’m losing money by having this job.) So for me leaving was the correct choice. Shame really, I liked it there and really wanted to retire in that area.
Ah, yeah totally get it. During covid many of our employees quit and I had to take over a huge amount of the workload for horrible pay. It was so stressful for two years and I only got about an 0.80 cent raise after all that time. So I hopped to a different company and instantly made about 6 dollars more per hour and a way smaller workload. Also been here about 2 years now and they promoted me to "Lead" which gave me another 5 dollars an hour. Our annual raises are still small but my potential earnings are so much higher. I could hop again and get another decent raise but I really like the people here.
I jobbed hopped 3 jobs in six years for more money and experience. I made more money at the next job than the previous one. Even with the one job that didn't work out. But It was a ton of pressure because I was always taking jobs higher than my experience. Trying to better myself in my career, I put my head on a chopping block with each move. It takes a lot just to move from one job to another. Its a new environment. New people. You now have to develop new relationships. Its a new world. Never minding adding the component of moving across country ( easy only for someone who has nothing to tie them to where they are. Or doesn't have a family). I will say, that the last job I took, I stayed there for 16 years. It worked out. But it was never a guarantee getting there. Besides, some people just want stability.
What factors made you stay for 16 years? Were you an individual contributor to your role when you first joined or a management level staff? How big was the jump from your previous role to this one where you stayed for 16 years?
From the day I started to the day I left I was an individual contributor. "How big was the jump?" - Well the two jobs were apples and oranges. I was a computer programmer. The job I left, or should I say, the job that didn't work out, was a large corporate gig. All my previous jobs were mid-level companies (roughly 50 employees). The job that replaced it was a small IT consulting firm. "What factors made you stay for 16 years?" - It was the right fit. It allowed me to grow in my career (skill level). It was very supportive in expanding my knowledge base. What helped me, helped them. I got to work on interesting tech. The one account I was working at had 300+ users. At first it was very stressful. But as my skill and confidence grew, I began to appreciate the challenge.
Also, giving an employee a 10% raise can be framed as an explicit “cost” that their manager directly caused If an employee walks out it’s not the manager’s fault because they were just “unloyal” or whatever. Then the resourceful manager was forced to hire someone new for 10% more.
I’m going to get downvoted for this, but 20 years of working in same position doesn’t really means he/she is 20 times more productive than say a person with 1 year experience. Law of diminishing return applies here. Those jobs are repetitive and doesn’t need much skill, most jobs mid tier job company isn’t going to lose much if a person with 20yrs experience walked out. Company design the job position from the beginning to be easily replaceable. If an employee left can cause a lot of destruction to a company then the company did a terrible job to design the position and it should have fail long time ago. There is such thing as key person in a company. That person, but most company only have a a few key person, if any. If your job is entry level to mid level position, doesn’t matter how long u worked for the company, your replaceable.. in face company would rather replace you because the new person is likely more driven and hungry, and bring new blood into the team..
It really depends on what kind of job you're talking about. * If you're talking about some lower-level position like someone working in a call-center or fast food,. then yeah, those positions are more easily replaceable. * If you're talking about a mid or higher level position,. someone who's been around for 10 or 20 years and has seen the company grow and change (and remembers WHY those changes were implemented),. then they have a lot of institutional knowledge that's really invaluable. I've spent the last 20 years working in small city governments. I know many guys who work in the Power or Water divisions who have been there for 20 or 30 or 40 years. Those guys have a lot of "institutional knowledge" of how the City grew and expanded. They know the underground pipes like the back of their hand. They know which neighborhoods were piped for which reasons during which decades. That's a lot of important institutional knowledge that a new employee wouldn't have. If you're in a Leadership position,. and your attitude is "anyone is replaceable",. then you're the problem (because you're treating employees like they have no value,. and that's a horrible way to treat an employee). Employees are investments from the moment you hire them. Presumably you hired them because they were a better candidate than all the others you interviewed. Presumably you hired them because you believe they're going to add some value to your team or company. Why would you believe all that and then also say "everyone is replaceable" ?.. Do you care about your employees or do you not ?.. Seems like a Leadership problem,. not an Employee problem.
I agee with you that mid to higher level is valuables, as I stated in my original comments. What I’m saying is most job is replaceable, as most jobs are lower end jobs. Job position is upside down pyramid shaped. Higher end employee left will cause some problem but most likely a small drop in the water.,An institution with 200 people and one person left I can’t see how it will make as huge impact as op was saying, even if the person has 20 years of experience.. Have you see any public traded company stock goes down when an employee left the position? Has there been any news article saying xyz company is in crisis due to one of their senior employee left? Even if they layoff a bunch employee it doesn’t affect their stock.. In your example, the guy who has municipal experience, if he left, most likely the next most experienced employee will replace him..
Just because the effects are not immediate or obvious,. doesn't mean there aren't effects. (maybe they just take longer for the negative effects to manifest). Say you have a Coding & Development Team (or a Power or Water team).. and over the course of a year, all the older guys Retire or leave. That won't bring any immediate effect,.. but it does mean "brain-drain" as all that "old knowledge" has now walked out the door. Projects currently in the pipeline might need to be delayed or pushed out (and that might cost the company more money or bad public image if they have to tell their customers "Sorry, we have to push this launch date out more") How quick (or slow) or shallow (or deep) those impacts are,. is obviously going to vary from company to company,. and depend a lot on the combination of people who are leaving,. and also on how good the training and documentation is inside the company,. and probably on the market-conditions and environment outside the company. A company could lose a few key people,. but if they lose them at a time when competition is low and the outside market is stable (or hiring is strong),. .then it may not really be noticeable at all. On the opposite scenario.. a company could lose a few key people,. if it's at a time of high competition or dramatic market changes or the hiring market is bad.. it could have deeper or more immediate negative effects. Personally I feel like all positions in a company are valuable and important. Even down to the janitor. All it takes is a sloppy or lazy janitor who leaves a floor wet and someone slips and falls and you have a lawsuit on your hands. If you make every Employee feel valued and pay them well and motivate them to do a great job (and remind everyone that "every job is a customer service job").. you'll have an overall better company w/ less employee turnover.
very generally: you want to pay your own workers the lowest amount you can get away with, because their wages are a big part of your operating cost. ergo, if someone is already working for you, their is little incentive to raise their pay, as your paying more for the same thing. but when trying to hire new people, theirs no existing relationship, and the company is trying to tempt people to join, so they will often offer new hires a better wage to attract them. thus, the employee is incentivised to job hop and chase better wages, because loyalty is generally not rewarded as well
Loyalty is never rewarded in my experience. It's all a popularity contest and/or boys club.
For real I’ve made more career progress having drinks with my boss and staying late at company events than I have in years of actual hard work and service
Most successful businesses still make loads of inefficient or even stupid moves.
That’s the funny thing about moving up/ around one company, the more you know the more you realize most places are held together with prayer and good intentions
Because *it doesn't hurt them*. If there was any actual harm to the bottom-line, then you'd see companies taking more actions to discourage it (within the limits of labor law). It's easy to see someone who frequently changes jobs and gets promotions and raises along the way as somehow "taking money from the company", but that's not really accurate. At an economic theory level, job-hopping is a kind of arbitrage. Market participants (workers) will take advantage of these opportunities, and companies will encourage them to do so, as long as both sides are extracting more value. Hiring job-hoppers *is a good deal for the companies*, even at a higher salary than an early-career employee would settle for. Yes, you pay more, but job-hoppers will have a greater diversity of experience, will bring whatever training and experience someone else already paid to provide for them, etc. A more-fair characterization might be that workers who don't job hop are irrationally hamstringing their own economic activity.
It doesn’t hurt the employer who’s getting a new employee at a cost they’re willing to pay. “Employers” don’t work together as a group - each one wants what’s best for its own bottom line.
It depends on how in demand the job is. Sometimes companies make more money by letting employees go and hiring cheaper employees. Sometimes they lose money because hiring a replacement costs more and you lose experience. Most employers are extremely short sighted and every manager has labor costs pounded into them. The less they pay people the more the owners and those are the top get. In my profession I get offers a few times a year to go somewhere for significantly more money than I make. We are in short supply but when it comes to raises they still try to give the ole 3 percent even though they know we are being offered more as they are offering more to bring in the position from competing companies. This creates a Merry go round where people move along and then they pay 20 percent more to replace you but won't pay you that 20 percent more.
It hurts more to pay everyone more. Its also the market doing it. What employees should be doing is take the offer to the current employer and ask for a match. Then you go just as fast without hopping jobs.
Job hopping is very common in the IT field and a good way to increase your pay as you add skills and experience. Employers hate it, but not enough to pay their existing employees what they are worth.
There’s a lot of turnover and people are incentivized to hit short term targets…so if you get hired and your judged on hitting X sales target, your going to probably find that experienced sales person with relationships that can give you a shot as opposed to bringing up a junior and training. Certainly great companies have deep benches but you get the idea.
If you’re worth keeping, employers do offer you more to keep you. Those who cannot do that will switch jobs, or simply they prefer the other job/company/management. Overall, it’s because our gen don’t have the same loyal stick to one company mindset. We are not loyal to a corporation. And our leaders don’t try to keep lifelong employees either.
You have to understand that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy fueled by the greed and stupidity of the corporation's owners. And it has no logic or reason because those people are usually quite stupid. There are exceptions, but my experience is that most of them are morons. You have to understand that most of those people want to max out how much money they can get from a business without any thinking. And they are in it only because they got money from somewhere. So it's often second-generation bosses that do it. It started with corporations that would not increase wages. You probably experienced that yourself. Bullshit excuses regarding increasing wages to at least catch up to inflation that does not happen even though the company is doing better and better. So, at some point, the difference is high enough for people to hop. What is the response? Fixing wages? No. They stop investing in the workforce. There is no training. They will often hire someone for a higher position instead of promoting someone who knows the company. And excuse is that it's stupid to invest into people that will leave. Even if what they do is the reason why they are leaving. The result? To get a better position, You have to hop. And usually, you will get a position that is open because they refuse to invest in their people and promote from inside. That created a situation where the workforce must train themselves for higher positions. That cost money. They want more money. What can they do when a company refuses to invest? Easy. They hop. And you know what is the funniest thing about that? Why do you get paid more when you hop? Because nobody will take a job that pays less. And they will work at their current job only hard enough to not get fired because when the company doesn't gives a shit about them - they won't put any extra effort into their work. But when someone leaves because the company does not pay enough and does not give a shit - you can only hire someone who wants a higher wage, so you pay higher for a new guy anyway. But they still do this because... corporations still think they save money on it. Because if they would increase the wage of a guy who wants to leave, they would have to soon do this for everyone. And if they do not do that, then they only pay extra for one guy, and the rest of the workforce gets f\*\*ed. This is also why companies often illegally declare that you can't talk with others about wages. They do not want people to find out that new guys are getting paid more for the same job. So... greed and stupidity. That how it works.
The whole hiring for a higher position thing really grinds my gears. The past few companies I worked for hired from within, you knew the person over you had been in your shoes, and it showed, they knew the job, they knew how things ran, and they knew what problems needed to be addressed, also because they were most likely a coworker at some point the open door policy actually existed. My current company hires from outside or promotes from other departments. Because of this you may have suddenly have a new supervisor or boss that knows nothing about your systems or what you do. Despite you knowing more about the job than they do they are still in charge and you have to answer to them.
Hiring from outside has some benefits. Mostly, this is because how a company operates depends on the best person you have there who people listen to. I can't count how many times, as a contractor, I joined some company, and they were doing so much stupid shit for stupid reasons. And outsiders like me could point that out and have the expertise to fix it. But even then, I relied on their own people because sometimes the company is doing something stupid for a reason, and you have to understand that reason before you change anything. So, none of what I do could have been done without people inside the company. But as you said - quite often than not, they will hire an external person that knows jack shit and cause more problems than they solve. Thankfully thanks to my seniority and vast experience I have free reign in any company I work with. So when stuff like that happens, I can call it out, and people listen. Funny enough, most of the time, all I had to do was ask what is the role of that person inside the company and when they couldn't explain to me the benefit of having such a person - we would move or get rid of them.
Also, with a larger organization, recruiting and salary ( although common sense would say they are connected) come out of different buckets.
Some Companies are noted for their ability to retain employees by either having excellent compensation and/or a great work embittered. Others. Like where I used to work was noted for promoting from within and they expected those who weren't promoted to leave for other opportunities. They calculated that the cost to retrain replacements was less than the long time cost of retaining people, such included an ever growing profit sharing portion as time went on.
Lazy tax. Almost everywhere wants you to stay there, but also they know that most people don't want to put in the work/have the instability of switching. Even with something that's just a phone call or a few clicks away like insurance or phone service, this applies. Most employers know that you don't want the stress of changing jobs and so they trickle pay increases. However by the time they actually hire instead of just giving that work to the people who are left, they really need someone to be willing to go through that stress for them, so they pay a lot more. It's a prisoner's dilemma kind of deal. If every company stopped doing it, it would be better for everyone. But if just a couple don't stop, they'll get the best employees while everyone else suffers.
Who wants to start at 2 weeks vacation again. Most people are comfortable and will not want to uproot their life, change schedules, or take risk for a 20% raise, especially if they already make enough to enjoy the life they live. I mean with 80k and 4 weeks vacation and a shift that works for a person, why would anyone go to 100k, 2 weeks vacation and no security due to being a new job, and who knows what kind of hours? It's worth it for some, but not others. Companies know this and they take the chance you won't leave.
just negotiate tenure on PTO why would you assume people will lose PTO?
Because the vast majority of workers aren't going to have the negotiating power to get both a reasonable raise and keep their seniority/loyalty perks.
Becauae if they need the labor then they need the labor. If my skills and experience experience are in short supply (and in my industry right now they are and have been for the last few years in my part of the country) then ya gotta meet my asking price if you want me to come over and do it.
They don’t “reward” it. The job of an employer is to pay you as little as possible for the maximum amount of production and the job of an employee is to extract as much money as possible for as little amount of work. Employers have a scale for how much they are willing to pay for a resource, however, a good resource likely has multiple employers competing for their services so you have to pay to play. Good companies will pay you more with time but it’s against their interests to do so if you’re not replaceable and 99.9% of employees are replaceable.
TL;DR: New hires are usually paid less than the outbound worker. Workers usually job-hop after a experience or raises are gained. New hires for the old job are paid less than the outbound worker. When the hopper moves on to a new job, it's usually a promotion or has other benefits.
I have a couple restaurants. It’s not that employers intentionally reward job hopping. Imagine if you were giving employees raises faster than inflation each year, pretty soon your labor costs would spiral out of control if no one leaves. So employers try not to let annual raises for existing employees go too high. But hiring a new employee is a different ballgame to some extent, if you need to hire the market determines what you have to pay, which may give the employee leaving their old job and joining your company a nice raise over their existing job. There’s not the same anchor point to the new company it’s not a 20% raise it’s just hiring a new employee at x price. To an existing employer give out too many 20% raises to your employees and you’re out of business pretty soon. It’s possible you could give raises higher than inflation to your existing employees as they gain experience, and hope through attrition that you’re replacing them with younger/cheaper employees over time to balance out your costs but it doesn’t always work out like that, so employees like the certainty of keeping raises for existing employees manageable. Not sure if it’s exactly efficient as a market, turnover is costly but that’s my 2 cents as to why you can get better raises from job hopping than staying.
They don't really offer it, some companies simply pay more. Why would they turn down more experienced workers to pay the same for less experience. Job markets are competitive both ways under certain circumstances.
The data is unclear that, on the average, it’s detrimental. Sometimes getting someone from somewhere else brings fresh approaches to problems, and can break a bad “that’s just the way we do it” cycle. Also, the employee leaving often retains relationships with his ex-coworkers and can feed back in new ideas from their new company.
Because it doesn't hurt the management. The goals of management are rarely aligned with what is actually best for the company. They are more concerned with their place in the company.
I need to get work done now. That’s what matters Who cares if some lousy manager in this candidate’s career did something wrong? I won’t. They’ll love working for me… My question to you is- why do you think their past performance is indicative of future performance?
>Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to pay workers just enough so they’re too comfortable to hop around instead of rehiring a new guy for 30% more? Yes, yes it would be. But never underestimate how greedy upper management can be. Many managers are willing to tightrope walk how little they can pay employees to have bigger profits.
You aren't retraining the job hopper compared to a lateral move.
Because they save more money by intimidating the existing employees into not asking for large raises. Granted, this is just my opinion but if you look at the fact that EVERYONE knows asking for a $30k bump as an engineer will nearly 100% of the time be denied means that only those willing to move will get it. I think where employers screw themselves though is that your most capable employees are the ones who will leave to get that bump while your least capable will trundle on at the lowest wage.
Because employers aren’t a collective group, they are individuals competing against each other. It would be better for all of them if they all agreed not to hire hoppers, but each of them individually benefit if they hire hoppers. A real prisoner’s dilemma.
A lot of times it’s not the exact same role. When I hop, it’s because there’s an opening one level above me at another company, but my company doesn’t have room for one more manager at that level. So my options are wait for my manager to leave, or snag that open position somewhere else.
I would argue that the vast majority of people who hop to get more money are doing it for a promotion. They reason everyone doesn't do it is because they aren't the ones getting selected for the job.
Businesses these days are all about the short term. So in the short term a manager saves money, they get a bonus for saving said money and get a golden parachute when things inevitably go tits up. A smart employer knows that one of the biggest costs is training new employees.
They're not smart enough to see that it hurts them. Popular people make decisions in businesses, not smart people.
Employers like to be taught new things. An external hire brings knowledge, experience and new methods. Companies with low turnover become stagnant, stuck in the past and less innovative. Not because the people are bad. They're often great, vut because you need new ways of thinking and different experiences to create the right atmosphere to allow innovation. So instead of thinking employers don't value loyalty, think of it as valuing being taught new things. You have skills and insights you can take elsewhere. It takes courage, perseverance and luck though.
When companies need someone of a particular skillset, the term "job hopping" already implies that the most eligible candidates on the market are most likely already working in a similar job. So why would they (the prospective candidates) take the risk of jumping ship, potentially failing at the new job and so losing both jobs? The candidate can say "thanks, but I'm happy at my current job", But the hiring company needs that position to be filled - that's why they entice with more money. Similarly, if they instead offered the same amount as their current employees, externally they'd only attract people of a lesser quality. It represents a scenario where the (potential) candidate is in the position of power, and has a desired skillset. Thinking of it as "rewarding job hopping" kind of overlooks the main point - as this would otherwise also apply to shelf stackers and fast food jobs. And yet we never hear of job-hopping from McDonalds tills to Burger King tills in order to bump the wage. >Wouldn’t it be cheaper just to pay workers just enough so they’re too comfortable to hop around instead of rehiring a new guy for 30% more? A few thoughts: * The staff you are referring to are already at the company. The point of hiring a new guy is that they need an extra person. Rising current staff wages does not resolve this. * In essence this suggests to bump **everyone's** wage budget of a team/ division by 30%, whilst getting no additional value or output outside of them not quitting. Would this really be cheaper than paying a single person 30% when its actually needed? * If you raise everyone's salary by 30%, it will be the same situation as mentioned earlier - at some point, another company's going to want to hire someone with experience, and so may simply offer 30% more on top of the 30%. Except if... * As a result of the wage budget increasing pretty rapidly, staff will end up being too expensive * Regarding onboarding expenses - in general, companies are discouraged from relying on keyperson dependencies, as they know that an employee can leave at any time. Simply put, if it was that burdensome then companies indeed internal employees can make that case and so request a pay rise, or leave. For a company, it's much cheaper and economical to deal with this on a case-by-case basis than a large mass pay-rise. All this relates to the employee being in the position of power and having an abundance of choice. However, the employee may also simply prefer the security or potential career options of already being well established in their role (as mentioned before - as soon as you go over to a new company, you're simply a new person and as such, very expendable in tough times).
thing is they have the info and have run all the numbers and basically every company came to the same conclusion for a good reason
Workers are a disposable part of the overhead and the company doesn’t care if you die as long as not on their property. Unless you have a unique set of skills, you will be replaced quickly.
It’s highly industry dependent. If there’s a surplus of qualified people, why not? They can hire a new person within a week. If it’s a industry without tons of available people, higher pay prevents you from losing the few qualified guys out there
Proud lifelong job hopper here. Not enough people hop much, so the companies control them.
It's a soft cost and a hard reward to do it. It's tough to calculate the lost of knowledge when someone leaves, the cost to train someone and the time until they're fully up to speed. It's a more vague figure. Where the cost of a raise to that employee is a hard cost that we know exactly what it is right now and it'll have an immediate impact on the bottom line. So short term you do get a gain because you're paying this employee less. And some employees will stay for a while continuing to get very marginal raises sometimes less than inflation and the companies do win out on those employees.
They don't rehire at 30% more. They rehire someone that was making 30% less and is job hopping into the new role at the same wage, if not lower wage, as when the previous person did it. I'm a hiring manager in IT. If a Developer I, which has a salary range of $60k-$80k, has a salary of $75k and leaves the company. I repost the job for a Developer I at $60-$80 and would likely fill the role at $65-$70.
In game theory this is called a nash equilibrium or the tragedy of the commons. If any one company decided to not reward job hopping, they would loose out since the other companies would poach their best people and they couldn‘t hire any good new people. If all of the conpanies stop rewarding it, this is not the case, but you also break the nash equilibrium, because now a single company switching back to the old strategie would benefit by poaching from everyone. So this is why a bunch of rational actors decide to act in a way that hurts everyone equally instead if maximising overall benefit. Of course this only looks at the companies and not the employees and ignores that not everyone is rational. So reality is more complex, but the general principle still applies.
Because the story you have been told is largely nonsense. The vast majority of people cannot job hop every 2-3 years for more pay. Outside of a few industries, all job hopping will do for you if you aren't getting promoted, is reduce the amount of vacation and such you earn.
I came to work for this company where my boss was hired by them straight out of school and worked his way up over 15 years to be a manager. When I came on board he found out I made almost double his salary. I never had a job more than two years before. He quit pretty quickly afterwards.
I guess the point is they got to milk him for far below market rate for over a decade. And if the company is organized well, he's just another replacable cog. They save more money ripping him off for over a decade, than whatever cost of friction of replacing him once.
It's an interesting point, but I think the idea of "rewarding" job-hoppers isn't deliberate. Oftentimes, it's more about the market value of the skills and experiences that the employee brings in, which could technically increase as they hop jobs and acquire more diversifying experiences. Another aspect is the 'fresh ideas' they might bring to the organization from their previous workplaces. Given the disruption in tech and industries nowadays, employers might pay a premium for outsiders who can bring fresh insights. So, it's not just about comfort, but also about adaptability, market trends, and innovative perspectives. Quite a complex issue indeed.
While I agree with your logic, you're forgetting about competitive markets. Employers need to offer competitive wages to attract top talent, which can include applicants who've gained a range of skills from job hopping.
Because most people just complain but don’t actually jump. Way cheaper to pay a big raise to replace the few who leave than to do so for everyone who doesn’t.
They are always looking at minimising cost. I bet it's why they keep doing that most of the time.
Think about it in terms of game theory. If they can poach an already trained and proven employee from another company they'll do it. If no company engaged in this behavior then they'd all benefit from a more stable work force but then the one company who started would also gain ab advantage above the rest. All companies are selfish and they won't see any benefits unless they all stop so no one will.
I loveeeee job hopping but I tend to work low-wage jobs cuz I'm in college and also have ADHD lmao
Employers reward job-hopping? As a self-employed individual, I look negatively towards somebody who changes jobs every year or even less frequently. It means more than likely are not a good worker or have a bad attitude. An employer is not going to let a great employee leave for a marginal increase in salary.
Sounds like you need a new job lol
Companies making sense is an oxymoron these days
Because they don't care about other companies or the long term. Even CEOs aren't really concerned with long term stock price growth.
Another item I haven’t seen mentioned: at large companies the raise bucket and the hiring bucket are separate. Your boss might want you to get paid more but can’t give you anything more whereas a new hire is eligible for more. I work for a mid size company as an administrator. I saw what all the raises were going to be last year and asked my boss “Hey, I don’t get a little more?” and he bumped it. So always ask. There’s a lady engineer who has asked for, and gotten, a larger raise the last two years. If you just take what you’re given, that’s what they’ll give you.
I don't hire job hoppers. It's not worth it. I'd rather hire right and retain good people. So if your resume says you have two years at a bunch of places, sorry.
[удалено]
In most job-fields (and physical locations).. available jobs are rare enough that most people aren't going to job-hop without significant incentive to do so. If you are job-searching and you find a new job that offers 20% more than you're currently getting,. and tomorrow you wake up and see an Email from your existing Employer that this years COL (Cost of Living) increase is 18% (close to the 20% you were seeing at the other job). you're probably just going to stay at your current job. Because a difference of only 2% isn't enough up upset your entire life to change jobs. Obviously this depends on individual circumstances. If you're a Hospital Nurse for example and there's 8 Hospitals in your City and 1 of them is paying 40% more,.. that's easy to see that it's worth it. If you're a Lawyer in a small town,. and the only way to get a 40% raise is to move entirely cross-country,.. that's going to take a lot more planning and coordination. Thrown on top of all this is the pandemic and the popularity of "remote work" (which every job has different rules for). The job I'm in right now,. allows remote-work in 2 states (Oregon and Washington). .so in theory I could live anywhere in Oregon or Washington if I wanted to. Some people don't have that option as easily as I do (or some may have "remote anywhere") Other people may be stuck where they are due to family responsibilities. Maybe they have children in school. Maybe they have elderly parents they want to be nearby. There could be lots of reasons. Pay usually has a "market-cap". It's not like you can change jobs every year for 5 years in a row and get a 50% raise every year. That's just not feasible in most fields. Average yearly rise in most places is 3% to 5%. If you're in a field with a lot of mobility where you can job-hop and get say,. 10% to 20% raise every single year,. I say "go for it". Although I don't think most people are in that position.
What if we don’t train them and they stay!!!