It's a weird thing to say but the longer you've been at a company the more you're "part of the furniture" and your shortcomings stop mattering as much to your co-workers because you're, well, part of the furniture. If you want to grow and push yourself you're going to need some new coworkers. It may be uncomfortable but it's worth it in the long run. That's not to say it's a guaranteed win. As all things, it's a risk.

The compilers group might be better, but when I was working in the IMG division at Apple 10 years ago, the yearly raises were barely enough to keep up with inflation.

People who had been there 10 years were only making a little more than I did fresh out of school. I also think a lot of people at Apple are part of the devoted, they used Macs their whole life and were living the dream by working at Apple, and HR took advantage of them.

Of course HR said "we pay the industry standard" but later on Apple was convicted of industry wide wage fixing.

So if anything, you should leave Apple just for the pay raise. When I moved to NYC, having Apple on my resume opened a lot of doors and the finance industry more than doubled my pay.

I have seen this at other companies too.

The last 10 years have seen substantial increases in big tech company wages. The tech companies have increased compensation for senior and established folks too, but sometimes the new grads and new hires are riding the biggest wave. Switching jobs can also produce a similar boost if you are caught in this scenario.

The HR term for this is "salary inversion".

> People who had been there 10 years were only making a little more than I did fresh out of school.

Please, please do not spread news like this. It can't be true at all. Do you think they had zero vested stock? I know a software engineer at Apple - he has made about 1 million dollars just from stocks - some were awarded and some were bought from his savings

What he is saying is true for many, many people at Apple that worked from the mid 2000's onward.

If you read his post, said he was there 10 years ago in 2009. If you recall, this was during peak recession and at that time Apple was seemingly driven by a culture of ruthlessness that was probably a result of events earlier in the decade (before Steve Jobs came back, when the company was nearly insolvent). Apple was _cheap_ (and still is, in probably terribly shortsighted ways) and would take advantage of anyone and anything they could to save money. Depending on your department, this could mean low wages, no stock, no investment in tooling and equipment, whatever they could get away with.

I started working there in 2012 and worked with a good number of folks that had to put up with absolute hell before iPhone launch (which totally changed the company, for the better). I was really there to do was clean up tech debt bought on by poor planning and shoestring budgets. It seemed like most of the "old timers" were barely making livable silicon valley money and many had tails of Apple managers doing totally shady things like making promises of equity, only to have it denied later (and nothing was on paper). They still stuck around for god knows what reason. I stayed around until my initial equity grant ran out and moved on to greener pastures.

> If you read his post, said he was there 10 years ago in 2009. If you recall, this was during peak recession and at that time Apple was seemingly driven by a culture of ruthlessness that was probably a result of events earlier in the decade (before Steve Jobs came back, when the company was nearly insolvent).

I think we should be fair and point out that unlike basically every other major tech company in the Bay Area, Apple didn't lay any one off in the 2008-2009 recession.

They were conservative, yes, and flush with cash they used to make a number of big strategy acquisitions in the period IIRC.

You missed a decade. Jobs returned in 1997. By 2004 AAPL started showing astronomical growth in profit and stock price that continued for a decade.

If you don't mind me asking... Apple was flush with cash from where and what in 08/09? Ipods?

iPods and OS Macs

How long has he been at Apple? Some folks are now clearing 1 million in 2-3 yrs at FANG

Stock grants only pay off big (beyond the grant itself) if the stock rises a lot. Once that rise is locked in, it isn’t exciting anymore (and indeed, can go negative).

I can't tell if you mean "part of the furniture" is good or bad.

I've been at several places, usually in the 3-5 year range. But at this exact moment, I'm a bit envious of people who have been at the same company for 8-10 years, and get to enjoy mastery over the system, organization, etc.

Trying new things is fun, but it can be a drag always playing catchup.

Having been at my current org for 8 years, I have to say that it's difficult to fully grasp the politics of a place if people only plan on staying for 1-3 years at a time.

I've also become more and more effective at quickly diagnosing problems and creating solutions taking into account the people, politics, tech, etc. involved. Tech is only one aspect of our jobs. A lot of time it's the easiest part.

Why would I stay this long at a job? I love the people in the dept I work in. The best team and job environment I've ever had. The drawback to staying a job this long is that, yes, you will probably be underpaid compared to market rate. Life is full of trade-offs and everyone will have to decide if it's worth it. For now, it is for me, but that might change in the future. If I get a new boss or the president of the org changes and he's terrible... /shrug maybe I'll move on. But life is short and if the position is good there's nothing wrong with staying IMHO.

The move I see a lot of people in my org pull is leaving, getting that pay bump, and then coming back to the same org with a lot of newly learned knowledge + those extra pay bumps.

There is totally something wrong with staying if you're underpaid.

There are nice people everywhere. Go meet them, and take the extra to the bank.

Per Collins: "If you describe someone or something as part of the furniture, you are suggesting that they have been somewhere such as their place of work for such a long time that it is hard to imagine that place without them."

It's neutral, really.

Try "cog in the machine"

Through the years I have noticed that (most) permanent employees build a bubble around them. They stop working for the end-customer but they end up working for themselves. Create a comfort zone and then build amoat with crocodiles around it. Some people (like the author) wake up from this slumber and change this. The £€¥$ may be good, but work stops being excited. I used to change companies every 4-5 years just because of that. After the 1st-2nd promotion you are part of the "political" landscape and need to join a clique or another.

(Imho) 7 years is a long time to be working on the same topic, in the same company, moving only vertically.

> If you want to grow and push yourself you're going to need some new coworkers.

I don't think it's necessarily that clear-cut. Some individuals are capable of pushing themselves. Those who can't, may have managers who are able to. Or, perhaps they rotate to work on a different project or problem space.

One dosen't necessarily need to leave a company to experience change or extraordinary growth. Granted, the extra push/pressure may assist a bit.

In larger companies, switching teams is a good way to get out of one’s comfort zone and avoid taking a bigger risk.

Also perfectly reasonable to grow and push yourself through hobbies and side hustles. I fine with my work, but it's primarily a way to pay the bills and give me the freedom to explore unrelated things.

You spend most of your waking hours at work...

Really depends on what you're after. It's possible to make career choices to optimize work-to-pay ratio vs. attempting to optimize pure pay or other items.

> your shortcomings stop mattering as much to your co-workers because you're, well, part of the furniture

Depends on the company culture. I've worked places where wins were quickly forgotten, but mistakes were held against people forever. The longer you worked there, the more you became known for your past mistakes. New employees arrived with a clean slate and therefore were more trusted than past employees.

Obviously, it's a toxic situation. The smart ones sit in the background and only surface when they can be the hero to fix other people's mistakes. Over time, the company loses the doers and risk takers.

So maybe becoming part of the furniture isn't such a bad thing.

>> shortcomings stop mattering as much

While that's true, your strengths stop mattering as much to your coworkers and managers as well, so eventually you run out of steam promo-wise. So unless I'm on a tear in the career department, I rarely stay more than 2 years on any given team anymore.

I agree with this approach particularly at the start of one's career but I will add that once you find a problem space that you really want to advance the state of the art in, then you better get ready to spend a decade or more studying it. Sure, it's possible to pursue this even by changing jobs, but it is MUCH harder in that case, advancing the state of the art in computer technology is something that very few places in the world have a business need for and the resources to pay people to do that so I think it's much more likely to spend a lot more years in a single place to pursue such a goal.

I usually stay for about 2 years, and move on if the work becomes boring.

In all of the hiring that I’ve been a part of, this would be considered an absolutely huge red flag if it couldn’t be well justified, on the very slim chance you were given a chance to justify it.

It suggests you were a poor fit for those positions. If your whole resume suggests this, then you’re most likely a poor fit for the position you’re being considered for, which is most likely related to your experience.

I think that proving you can grow in a position is the best way to get good compensation and projects. Demonstrating that you’ll just check out means you’ll never grow or be given anything long term.

>huge red flag if it couldn’t be well justified, on the very slim chance you were given a chance to justify it.

Good lord. Are you a "we're a family here at [business]" kind of guy? The justification is obvious: money. When businesses start giving > 60% pay raises at year 2, then you can give some weight to your "poor fit" theory. Until that magical world exists, anyone who doesn't hop while the hop is actively rewarded should be the red flag.

And when the job market for developers is no longer so hot (bound to happen eventually), guess whose resumes are going to the bottom of the pile?

Never forget that what goes around comes around.

It sounds like you hold a grudge against people who would rather switch companies after 2 years than sacrifice large amounts of money out of some misplaced sense of loyalty.

Loyalty? Thanks for the laugh, mate. Nope, it's just dollars and cents.

It sounds like you think employers should be happy to be somebody's stepping stone and eat the cost and man-hours of hiring a new employee to replace them before they've even contributed enough to break even on their own hiring expense. Funny how hiring managers somehow don't think being stepped on is a good deal; gosh, I wonder why?

> eat the cost and man-hours of hiring a new employee > it's just dollars and cents.

A monetary decision was made to terminate my business relation with you... a box will be provided for your tears.

Can't terminate a business relationship when they were never hired. No worries and no tears.

THIS.

You'd have to be stupid to stay longer than 2 years if someone is willing to throw a whole lot more money in your face.

I agree, but that's going to run out eventually, then you're in trouble with your list of 2 year stints.

I once hired a person despite the flag that he had been in something like 15 positions in 10 years. He treated us the same and bailed in about year.

I interviewed someone recently who actually said “I usually get bored after a year and leave” in the interview. I don’t necessarily mind that, in a contractor but in a complex environment where it takes 6 months for people to hit their stride, why would I bother investing any time in such a person?

> you were given a chance to justify it.

I was offered more money as my skills outgrew compensation at my previous position - Tagline on resume.

2 years seems too short. IMO you start looking less valuable at some point because anyone looking to hire you knows you're going to bail in 2 years, which may reduce their willingness to invest.

2 years is the millennial average [1]

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/millennials-jobs-ca...

Wow. That just seems weird to me -- but I've only had two jobs in the last 16 years.

Both my mother and her father worked at the same place (a General Electric appliance factory) for most of their lives. My grandfather was there on day one and remained until he retired. My mother started there ~20 years after he did and was there until the day they shut down. I know of one man who worked there for 44 years!

Switching jobs every two years seems so foreign -- and somewhat "suspicious" -- to me.

"According to the survey, millennials who work in large, private-sector organisations have lost faith in the ethics of these organisations over the last year."

The last year? I think the rot set in during the Thatcher/Reagan era. Corporations showed they had no loyalty to their employees so they shouldn't be surprised when their employees respond accordingly.

Don't we normally strive to be above average?

Staying at a company a long time isn't intrinsically and self-evidently better. For instance, switching jobs every 2-3 years will both maximize your salary and allow you to diversify your equity compensation (for more irons in the fire) [1].

Staying at a job for a while is a means, not an ends, and as such not necessarily something to optimize for.

Myself having 0 felonies makes me below average (as 8% of Americans have at least 1 felony), and I don't see myself striving to be above average in this category ;)

[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/3946085/switching-jobs-pay-boost/

I'd certainly hesitate applying an average across a broad demographic to presumably well-paid and well-educated professionals in a technical field. As others have noted, if someone has a resume of 2 year stints for no particular reason, I assume that pattern will continue. If they bring something special, that may be fine. But I'll factor the likelihood they'll be gone in 24 months into my decision making.

This is fine advice as long as you're under 35 or so, after that you become completely unhireable in many tech companies so you better hang on somewhere.

I've been seeing this "you can't find a job after 35/40/45" meme on HN pop up frequently. This literally can't be true: our economy would have collapsed by now if a large fraction of our population were forced into retirement at 40. If everyone became unemployable at 40, 1/3 of the population would be supporting the other 2/3. Yet instead we see low unemployment.

I don't doubt that age discrimination in tech is real, but I'm pretty sure comments like this are way overstating it.

What if there were other jobs than tech jobs and people were forced into those.

nah it’s real. The saying goes gotta change job verticals or job expectations at 40.

I think, like many things in life, there are advantages and disadvantages to this approach. The advantage, like you said, is to not get stuck doing the same thing for too long. Although I'll notice that when working in large companies you can move to different teams that work with completely different technologies so there's no strict requirement to change the company because of that.

One of the major drawbacks with changing jobs too often is that certain problems simply require very long time to obtain the expertise to make significant improvements to the state of the art of that problem space. To give an extreme example, if you look at the scientists winning Nobel prizes, they spent their entire lives dedicated to pursuing the answer to one question. Working in tech may not require an entire life dedicated to one problem, but it can easily require a decade or more to become an expert in a problem domain.

Not to mention, getting a comfortable hold on the internal tools, procedures, APIs, etc of some of the larger tech companies can take years, that's even before you start learning to become a domain expert.

And changing teams will make you better at your company since you will see problems from a new point of view. And also expand your network inside the company, always oiling the company gears.

I jumped around jobs A LOT when I was early in my career; 10 years into my career I hardly stayed at a job longer than 2 years.

There's something to be said for sticking with something long enough to see it through its lifecycle. In my case, I've been at my job for almost 9 years. You'd be surprised at the amount of novelty that comes with major refactors.

(That being said, it's finally time for me to change jobs.)

IMO: I think a good career has a healthy mix of both long and short stints.

I’ve made the same observation. It takes time for all of the implications of a choice (code or otherwise) to manifest themselves. And it’s these long term effects that make for valuable lessons.

I think the time it takes changes with the pace of development a company has.

What about moving around in the same company? For large corporations, this seems like an inside-sales recruiting angle you would not want to miss.

Microsoft I heard recommended workers career changes regularly (18m - 3y) within the org for this reason.

ex-Microsoft, this is not necessarily true. Managers I knew see changing <2yrs in as not great. Then again, switching orgs is essentially changing companies without a different Company name. Companies that hire >10k engineers cannot be a monoculture imo. In MS, different orgs might as well have been different companies - none of the orgs trusted the other org's hiring standards and made internal candidates go through full interview loops.

There are a few reasons to consider a more long-term orientation:

You want to develop architecture/design skills. The feedback cycles on these things are really slow. If you’ve never seen how your decisions fared years down the line, I’m not sure I trust you to make decisions today. Especially if I will be here to live with them and you won’t.

You want mastery. This depends on how much custom / NIH stuff your employers have. Mine has a lot. I feel I’m just starting to hit my stride on knowing what’s out there, when to use it, its undocumented quirks, what level of support to expect and how to make a bug report actionable, etc. It’s satisfying to operate at a level where this stuff doesn’t get in the way anymore. I don’t want to go back to it just because.

The employer does have to return the favor, though. Standard equity compensation is highest in the fourth year (all the refreshers stack), so there’s incentive to stay at least that long. And managers need to recognize your growing capability and reward you with harder problems. I definitely would not continue doing the kind of work I did in the first year over and over.

> one should go elsewhere on a regular basis

This may be hard to do if your healthcare is tied to your job. I worked at one firm for 7.5 years. Got the itch to leave and took 2.5 years sailing. Landed another job in another continent. I have the luxury of being healthy and working in an in-demand industry. I've asked colleagues why they don't leave and it's usually tied to family commitments, health, or limited prospects.

This can be summed up in two sentences that stuck with me:

"Stay and play. Or go and grow."