Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrduncan | Hacker News Reader

Ok, I'll bite. Why is staying at a company for 30 years so admirable?

If you enjoy your job and continue to for that long, great. There are plenty of people who don't want to be doing the same thing day after day for the next 30 years. I think the same can be applied to living in a city, sure plenty of people enjoy living in one place all their lives but I'd argue that they're missing out on opportunities to expand their horizons by staying put all that time.

That said, Lee Clow is in a league of his own - what he has done is simply awesome.

View on HN

He didn't say it was admirable.

It's notable that our culture is changing. I think, on the whole, it's a good change. But one nice thing about 30 years is you have the opportunity to get really good at the job. Many people don't do that, but here is someone who, it sounds like, did.

> But one nice thing about 30 years is you have the opportunity to get really good at the job.

As someone who is early on in ther career, this is good food for thought. I am still employed at the first company I worked for after graduating from college 2 years ago. I was always told that the way you get a raise is to "job hop" every couple years.

I never really understood that. Why are other companies more willing to give you a raise? Is it just irrationality by your boss?

The way I see it, you're worth more to your current company. You already know their stuff, and don't have to get up to speed. And you know the stuff you made for them well. And to them you're not an untested new hire who could flop. So in a rational economy, on average and when you're a good fit where you are, you ought to get the best offer from your current company.

Why would your company want to pay you more than they are right now? What is their incentive? Retention?

Other companies are willing to pay you more because they need your expertise and you are offering a higher level of skill/experience than you offered the company you are with now.

Retention is a very good reason to do so; replacing someone good is always hard (and expensive) in terms of hiring and ramp-up times. If you don't adjust your employees' salaries to reduce the incentive to job-hop in order to get a raise, you're basically asking your best employees to leave.

Your current company's budget doesn't automatically go up just because you've become more skilled and experienced. People and organizations change, and their value to each other does too.

> Why are other companies more willing to give you a raise?

Because they don't know what you're currently earning, if you don't tell them.

This really has worked for me, but maybe things are different in Europe.

Definitely different here in Norway, as a persons income is made public and distributed to the press.

If you know any Norwegians, you can search them up on http://nrk.no/skattelister2008/, for instance.

This is still true - but the stigma of "hopping" can be lessened if you work within the structure of a large company. I think being "really good" at the job could be a disadvantage to a lot of hackers - essentially being "stuck" within a role at a company due to necessity.

But one nice thing about 30 years is you have the opportunity to get really good at the job.

Or more likely, you get really comfortable and stagnate. Innovation requires a steady flow of ideas from outside the company, and often hiring outsiders is a good way to accomplish that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com