One problem with sticking around is that the number of things you had a hand in, and will therefore be consulted about, grows unbounded. Being peripherally involved in a wide range of initiatives can give you a kind of global view and influence that dovetails nicely with certain visions of a "senior" or "staff" role. But it does come at the expense of being able to go deep on something new.

I've been with my employer for much longer than average. They're taking care of me well financially. Even the variety of projects and domains is pretty good. If I leave, it will be to declare bankruptcy on being an advisor/carrier of institutional memory.

This is my exact problem right now!

I'd argue the same goes for technical leadership that were hired in originally as senior/staff/principal. The bar for breaking into a technical leadership position at every company I've worked for seems impossibly high, while they've been more than willing to hire that from the outside. That doesn't just go for myself, but the colleagues I've seen leave as a result of not being able to break that barrier.

> if you have senior devs who were juniors at the same company just a few years ago, you'll probably be more likely to stick around.

I've had some bad experiences with this one. The devs in the senior positions had only ever worked at this one company, and they'd learnt a lot of bad habits that they then proceeded to enforce on the devs in junior positions, who despite having fewer years of experience were in many cases a lot more competent than the supposedly senior developers.

Speaking from experience in a more positive direction, there's also a lot to be gained from learning a second company's culture and tech stack. I spent several years at a FAANG, and my technical skills improved considerably when having to apply my existing experience to a new set of tools and environment. I'm not sure a third company would have quite a stark difference, but I'm sure I'm a better developer after 5+4 years than I would have been after just a straight 9.

I don't think it's necessary to move every year or two, but I'm not sure it's ideal to go too far in the other direction either.

I think this goes to the importance of promoting on talent, not years of experience.

Good developers look at what they've done, and critically analyze what is good; what can be improved; and what needs to be replaced. It's these people that you want to promote and provide with enough autonomy to do what needs to be done.

> Most devs, if HN is any indication, believe that jumping ship every 1-2 years is the best way to move up.

It's not just developers. The old model of companies rewarding loyalty and actively investing in furthering their employees' skills has declined across the board, and it's no coincidence that the timeline correlates with the timeline of the demise of unions and collective wage/employment condition agreements.

Lots of other things are happening too- people are educating themselves more, people have more jobs available from their locations (remote + commute distance increases + increases in population density), etc.