• eldavi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    moving every 2 years or so is clearly the best strategy for career advancement.

    it’s a double edged sword in my experience from to talking to recruiters who seem to have an irrational hatred of “job hoppers” and they’re, anecdotally, a majority.

    however it is still true that you’ll get higher pay as i did; but be sure to spend a LOT of time keeping your connections alive because most recruiters (still anecdotally) will red flag 2 & 3 year tenure-ships; effectively gate keeping you away from many jobs.

    if it weren’t for being in a relatively lucrative and in demand field (software development); i would be screwed because of those recruiters.

    • Thrashy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      I’ve averaged about a 4 year tenure at my previous employers – some a bit more, some a bit less – but usually with a competing offer or two in that time period that I’ve used as a lever for a pay raise. Nobody’s complained about me being a job-hopper or short-timer.

      I have noticed that my two last employers, both large national firms, have moved towards a model of career-tracking with a defined pay structure, similar to government work where different positions and experience levels have a pay range attached to them and you’re not able to negotiate out of that range. This has been framed as a protective move against wage inequality suits, but I suspect it’s more about preventing employees from negotiating especially high compensation packages. I haven’t had it cut against me yet – in both cases I got a very minor pay bump when my employers actually went out and compared their pay scales to what the market was demanding – but if enough employers start benchmarking against each other and using that to cap pay, it will functionally become like a wage-fixing cartel similar to what’s happened to rent in the last 5-10 years.