I wonder if that job jumping statistics is "poisoned" by causality.

You could argue that head hunted employees that's a good match for the job they leave for probably get higher salary.

The current job of a dev is more likely to be the first job for the dev (after job jumping it's never the first job).

Since the dev age pyramid is quite base heavy, job jumping is a indirect measurement of more experience.

Just being able to job jump is a indirect measure that you are sought after and that brings higher wages.

The problem from zero to hero is more than that. Entry-level college graduate non-developer positions might net 50-60k even in the Bay Area. So if you hire a 22 year old with a degree at that base and then teach them how to be a react pro over the course of two years they will then be eligible for 100k+ salaries. That's a 200%+ increase that is very difficult for even modern businesses to take sitting down.

If Starbucks starts making coffee 3x as good will people happily start paying $12 for coffee?

>>That's a 200%+ increase that is very difficult for even modern businesses to take sitting down.

Because businesses would rather have a person leave and then hire someone at 1.5x or 2x their salary than just pay the first person 2x what they were making the year before.

This happens all the time. Employers want to have 2x people at 1x prices, and that doesn't work for long.

One place I worked "wasn't able" to give me a pay rise, yet they were able to hire 1 and a half people to replace me (one full time and one on split between projects).

I had the same thing happen: They co7uldn't take me from contract to permanent at the pay rate I was getting contract, but they could hire TWO younger men to replace me (both of whom left after six months of 10 hour days, 6 days a week at lowball salary.)

I am not business savvy so I am curious why businesses choose to do this.

It's very simple, really. If you only raise salaries on personnel rotation, you do not have to raise salaries of those employees that do not jump ship. You save a bundle if you have a large workforce.

This attitude introduces a skew where your workforce gets progressively filled with people who do not switch jobs. It's a dangerous outcome, to be managed with care. If you get stuck with those who do not switch jobs because they are too incompetent, you have a big problem. If you manage to get those who are competent but content, and not very concerned with higher earnings, you have the ideal result: stable, competent, performant team, with controlled costs.

If you can't pay the guy who has spend the last two years learning everything about your business and your tech stack the going rate for a programmer with two years experience, how are you going to afford new hires at that rate?

> If Starbucks starts making coffee 3x as good will people happily start paying $12 for coffee?

When Starbucks entered the market here, their $5 coffee was about 3x the price of the status quo cup.

Also, if businesses can't pay the market rate for labour (by definition, the money the employee can get in an open market is the market rate) then they don't have a sustainable business model.

Those positions are in exceedingly short supply. Also contact can follow whatever salary curve your local market has, so this whole point is moot