Hacker News Reader

Comment by gargarplex | Hacker News Reader

Let's say you take 6 months to find the competitive, ideal option. And you get an extra $20K in salary, going from say $100K to $120K (remote). So you sacrificed $50K in opportunity cost.

End of year 1: job A $100k, job B $60K

End of year 2: job A $200k, job B $180K

End of year 3: job A $300k, job B $300K

Of course if it's a startup, the odds are high that it would fold within three years. So unless it's a BigCo job that you are planning on sticking with... it's tough for me to make the argument that it's worth it to walk away from a decent but non-ideal offer. Employers know this and use this as leverage against you.

View on HN

6 months looking could mean someone is employed during this time period as well.

Wouldn't the ideal be to keep working at the existing job, rather than quiting and looking for 6 months?

I agree with your point that it is wise for job seekers to consider these costs and that companies will take advantage of this. I also think it's a long-term mistake when companies do this.

It's a problem because you end up with an employee who is now being paid below market rate. This is most effective against those who are not employed, but once they are employed they will be hearing from recruiters or start looking for the next job while still on the payroll. Because this company is unlikely to provide aggressive enough raises, their employees will be receptive to new offers. A year or two out, this employee gives 2 weeks notice. Was the win of saving the company a couple $10k worth it? Most likely not.

If employers have trouble both finding and retaining talent, then this is a mistake to leverage this against unemployed candidates. If you don't have this problem you soon will once recruiters discover a company full of underpaid but qualified candidates. People leaving is also a signal to current employees that better deals exist somewhere else.

You have a good point, but keep in mind that unemployment benefits help to cut back on the opportunity cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com