Motivators actively cause job satisfaction. Things like finding personal fulfillment, meaningful work, and other top-of-Maslow's-hierarchy stuff.
Hygiene factors cause dissatisfaction in their absence, but aren't standalone motivators. Salary probably fits in this bucket - if you learn that you're underpaid, you're likely to feel demotivated and look for work elsewhere. If you learn that you're overpaid, that can cause dissatisfaction too (feeling like you have to serve out the rest of a prison sentence until your shares/options vest is pretty common in our industry).
Compensation isn't everything, but if it seems unfair, it's absolutely enough to motivate people to make changes. I think we're seeing a reevaluation of labor market expectations with the whole Great Resignation thing, where those who are in demand are realizing just how demanded their skills are (and getting pissed off that they're undercompensated in their $current_job), and the old generation you speak of is trotting forward with their fingers in their ears, blinded by normalcy bias to the fundamental shift happening in front of them - a big labor market awakening.
A large amount of assets yielding healthy levels of passive income will.
I can think of the following, and there are probably others:
1. To know your market value so that you know what to ask for during your compensation review at your current company.
2. To practice interviewing skills when you don't need them, so that it's easier when you do
3. To network and learn about companies that might be relevant for you in the future (as in, you wouldn't accept an offer now, but if it looks nice you might apply again later, and if it doesn't you might consider it only as a last resort).
2. especially makes sense for coding interviews, and I've been advising the following to a few friends: ideally, one year before you actually want to apply, apply everywhere you can with such interviews. Your results won't matter anyway, you'll be able to apply again one year after, but you'll get a lot of real-world practice and an idea of what you might want to work on.
I was not actively looking and the thought of leaving hadn't crossed my mind.
It is not because of loyalty it is because we are risk averse, a new job is a lot of risk. Many things can go wrong you may not like that new job, or even purely financially it can be risky as a new company may not pay as promised, shutdown, you get fired pretty quick and may not find a job at same compensation , or variable/ equity compensation wasn't as good as promised/imagined. All of these scenarios have substantial financial risk.
To take that risk(even if only financial) there has to strong motivation.
You don't have to look around to know that you're underpaid, just talk to people from industry and they'll tell ya
Otherwise I have quite high job satisfaction.
This is a leading question to expand on why compensation matters. Personally, I fall into the group where I could probably make more but really like my group. So, there is risk with leaving (bad boss, toxic culture, too much work, etc) vs making more.
But I'm hesitant to describe my salary needs in terms of my household costs. I want to get paid by the value I bring first and foremost. And, similarly, what the market clearing rate for an engineer with my capabilities is. Not "market rate" unless I'm truly a median engineer, especially since companies tend to be underinformed about market rates.
I'm sort of in the same position as the parent. I've crossed the threshold, a little more money or a little less money makes no difference to me. I don't buy stuff I don't need. The amount of money that'll completely change my life is like x10 so likely won't happen (so moving from the "have enough" to the "mildly rich" category) and really I'm not sure that would mean anything to me anyways...
I want work that I can enjoy, with good people, that challenges me, and pretty much all the pay in the world won't make me go work for some sucky place (ofcourse everyone has their price, but my price would be higher than what they'd be willing to pay).
Retirement savings (and to a lesser extent because the numbers are way smaller, college savings) drive the need to accumulate 25x your annual expenses.
I have a sign "The Goal is to not have to work" right above my monitor in my home office. Every career/learning/spending/saving decision I make is in furtherance of this goal.
Related is the sustainability of work: I don't want to need high earnings past 40. I want to retire into a second career I'll find more fulfilling but which might pay dramatically less. Higher pay now is the only way I can achieve this.
I asked someone that in my mid 20's. He said "It's nice knowing I can support my family working at McDonalds if I have to." That stuck with me. Something fundamental changes in your life when you become debt-free.
Being able to pay off a debt at anytime is equally freeing, for me at least. Paying off a loan with an interest rate significantly below inflation is not a great use of money[1] (and an opportunity loss). Putting that lumpsum into bonds (any bond with interest higher than the loan) is better, or even investing in stocks with a stop-loss. If I lose my job and have to flip burgers, that's when I'll pay off the loan and get a little extra from the investment/bond, thanks to the power of compounding interest.
1. Its the equivalent of someone offering you a 6- or 7-figure loan payable in 20/30 years at 2-3% when inflation is 6%, and you decline.
Let me remind you that in 2008 things were so screwed up, some lenders lost track of who owed what. Having a hard copy document that shows a debt was close out is not the same as having assets that could pay off the loan. Keep in mind too that it was also not a good time to trade investments for cash.
There are risks in every approach. I can't imagine taking out a loan on a property today and investing the money thinking it will beat the interest payments over the next couple years. At other times, it's less risky but the rates will probably also be higher at those times.
How is a bunch of money tied up in debt, and an equal amount invested to hedge that not a huge opportunity sink?
This to me is the only legitimate criticism, and it really boils down to risk-reward.
If you're holding cash for say a backup fund, great! That's good security and everyone should aspire to that. But also acknowledge that with 6% inflation, you're actually losing 6% on that backup fund.
Inflation is insipid. You _must_ take risk with your funds just to not lose the value of it.
At least monetary wealth can be diversely invested; so you have some control over it. Most of the risks that come from owning a house are completely out of your hands.
This certainly seems to be the case, but it's fustrating. I can think of no fundamental reason why it should be so. Other than speculators and govt policies backfiring to destroy the safety of alternative places to keep your money besides cash.
Then add to that the fact that you're taxed on `gains` for investment.
So buy an ounce of gold. 1 year later sell it for 6% more than you paid. Cool, beat inflation right?
Well, no because now you pay capital gains on something that isn't really worth more than when you bought it.
Inflation _is_ a tax...
> govt policies backfiring
Yeah sure, they're `backfiring`...
The stated goal of govt seems to be low (but positive) levels of inflation and high growth. The current situation with high inflation and low interest rates makes even tax-free govt bonds undesirable. And they will need to raise rates. So I'd say policies are backfiring, yes.
> The stated goal of govt seems to be low (but positive) levels of inflation and high growth.
Yes, and I disagree with that position too, but people are taught Keynesian economics, so even beginning to unfurl that mess is asking for a downvote storm.
The same people that will argue inflation is beneficial for growth tend to believe they are also open minded, free thinking, and well `educated`. It makes for a difficult argument often resulting in a lot of pointing to `authorities` on the matter.
You can save up so that you have enough money invested to cover all the remaining loan payments and consider that having paid off the house. But don't send the money to the mortgage company, invest it into something stable that pays more than the mortgage interest and you're better off.
(Not historically always possible, but with today's interest rates pretty easy.)
One is guaranteed, one is not. Markets are volatile. I lived through 2001 and 2008 as a working stiff, that shit can drop on a dime.
Right now, I have no debts. House and vehicle are paid off and I have an "oh shit" account that's pretty good. I can sit here as a hermit for at least a year or two, three if I really hunkered down and pinched pennies. It's a good feeling; one less thing to worry about.
Now if I put all that money into the market and shit hit the fan, not only would I not be willing to sell stocks due to their price plummeting, I would still have a mortgage and car payment. I'd be in this situation for 6 months to a year. Not a great situation.
Ensure your freedom / ability to live first, then invest heavily, IMO.
That 3 years of cash on hand would be better off in some kind of investment and if you're worried, supported by a volatility buffer.
Source: https://www.straight.com/news/canadian-home-prices-have-rise...
Go buy a house that will increase by >5%/year, but then don't pay it off any sooner than you have to.
Make the minimum payments, and invest in something that will return a stable 5%+ with your remaining income.
Just because the house itself increases in value, doesn't mean you should pay down the ~3% interest rate loan any faster than you have to.
And really, once you've built enough via this strategy, you should either invest in a more expensive house or buy a house to rent afterward.
This is all the consequence of inflation and easy money/loans, but the smart money move is to never pay off low interest rate loans. This is particularly true when inflation (acknowledged anyway) is 6%.
Using the 6% number, you're actually gaining (on average) 3% on a 3% loan just by using the cash.
Make 3 columns, "mortgage paid," "investment", "no-mortgage". Pretend the house is $100k. With the mortgage you get to keep that money and invest it, so first row in "investment:" should be $100k. Put $0 in the "no-mortgage" column, put $-421 * 12 in the "mortgage paid" column. I got that number from a mortgage calculator, assuming $100k loan and 3% interest over 30 years.
Then in row 2, "mortgage paid" cell should be previous cell - $421 * 12. You will keep paying this for 30 years.
"investment cell" should be previous cell * 1.05. We assume the investment return is 5% over long term.
The no-mortgage column stays 0. You spent the $100k to pay for the house, so it's gone right off the bat.
Repeat this for 30 rows (years). Then at the end look at the difference between investment vs. mortgage paid columns.
And then get back to me and tell me if you still think that is a "smaller total return" :-)
I'm just old enough to remember what the financial crisis did to people's pensions. I'm happier to take risks with the rest of my money if my home isn't exposed to them.
During a crash I'd expect to lose on both earnings and investments. Losing my home as well would suck.
You never know when they're going to pull the rug from the infinite growth market. Maybe Crypto will do that? Maybe a few more years of lockdown? Who knows?
I agree that it's an unlikely scenario, but I'd rather be poorer and own my house than be dependant on a bank - even if that means compromising on its size or location.
The worst ever 20-year return for S&P 500 was +6.4% per year for the 240 month period ending in May 1979.
FIRE. Money buys a lot beyond your monthly food and rent.
> I fall into the group where I could probably make more
If you don't know for sure it's also hard to judge if you're making the right decision. I also wouldn't risk a nice and stable situation for a +5%, but recent threads on HN have been mentioning way higher bumps lately, hence compensation #1 (again on HN, SV-centered etc.).
> there is risk with leaving (bad boss, toxic culture, too much work, etc)
The chance goes both ways though, there's also a chance you might end up at a better place on top of a better compensation. If you're risk-averse that might not be for you, but there's probably a compensation bump at which it makes sense even if you're risk-averse.
When $PREV_EMPLOYER closed the office in early 2020 and everyone shifted to remote work, I learned how much I depended on coworkers for daily social interaction. My friends live far away, so the last two years has been extremely isolating and lonely.
That lack of socialization meant work rapidly deteriorated into "just a paycheck" territory, and once that happens, there's no going back.
In other words, I think the results can only show motivating factors, but can't satisfy it as a sufficient condition for departure.
> There is a threshold where you have enough money.
You've answered your own question.
US companies pay 2-3x as much at the top end (if you relocate, probably less for remote). With that kind of gap it's pretty hard for pay not to be a major factor.
I'm not making $150 an hour though.
I also don't live in Toronto, Vancouver, or Victoria.
A publicly traded company I left some years ago had dozens of different little "things" they offered instead of better salary and/or better hours for the salary paid. They're now worth a tenth of what they were when I departed.
> $150/hour as a dev
That's about $25k/mo gross. Minus ~50% for taxes and vacation (hourly pay means you buy your vacation). So call it $13k net.
> housing costs $1m+
If you live in a top 10 major metro in the US, this is your city. So call housing ~$4k if you have a family. Now you're at $9k. Buy health insurance for $1500, tally at $7500. Did you mean to save 15% of your gross income, as is the guidance? Minus another $3,750. Tally at $3,750. You haven't bought food or paid for transportation, vacations, clothing, etc. yet. You're not an intense saver, so you need to be confident you can earn at this level for decades to come. You probably are in the process of eating the inflation of '21 & '22 as your contract is not going to re-price automatically, so your earning power is being eroded.
This is why people are pushing to earn more. If you are fortunate enough to have a spouse who is also a high earner, great.
$150 an hour is a charge out rate for a professional engineer not in programming or IT, and trades are closer to $100. $150/hr on salary you probably are in business consulting with a phd and charge out at $400/hr.
$9k usd/mo after paying taxes and for housing is not something that’s readily available here, I don’t think even in IT.
Money will always be a concern for the majority.
That said, I agree that once you've bought a house, you can cover your expenses and holidays, who cares about making more money. It's just not a very common position.
If you view this multi-answer poll from the opposite perspective, the question is, when would someone leave for a lower compensation job? I suspect that would be an extremely low number. Higher on HN because of the demographic, but still low.
Even a 10% pay raise was meh with that in mind.
How many engineering companies are prepared to give 15-20% pay raises to keep up with these kinds of conditions? How many are handing out 7% adjustments proudly?
Is this a serious question?
Look at the poll and think on this statement:
"The majority of people leave a company because they are unsatisfied, not because of compensation."
The poll statistically verifies the above statement as true. Its just divided in a way that makes you think compensation is the main reason.
Still what the poll does show is that compensation is a significant factor, more than ever before.
(Added in case you were being mis-interpreted, e.g. the downvotes. I think its an important and insightful point)
I've never changed jobs over money. In fact several times I've taken new jobs that pay less on the promise of it being more fun.
Which is not to say I'll work for unreasonably low pay, I talk comp ranges with recruiters first to know if it is worth continuing the discussion.
But beyond a reasonable point, more pay doesn't make any difference (well, unless it's like 20x more, but nobody is offering that). A pleasant working environment, interesting projects, ownership, sane management, being respected, work/life balance and vacations; all of these are to me a lot more important than +/- 100K of pay.
I'm willing to bet that if ~90% of posters on HN would take a ~200k pay cut they'd have to pay their employer money.
You're most likely living in an entirely different world to regular folks.
When HN has comp discussions, everyone points out that approximately everyone with any experience is making way more than 500K with levels.fyi offered as the evidence. I've sometimes expressed some doubt about those numbers but I'm always labeled as uninformed. Ok so I guess everyone truly is making more than 500K.
Startups don't pay very well, so if > 500K is the norm for FAANG-level, then certainly 100K or 200K or 300K++ pay cut is the norm as well for going into a startup?
Even FAANGs don't pay that well except for maybe 10-20 select locations.
My point is that most devs worldwide, even with experience, make less than $200k in total. More like less than $100k.
Even in tech there are a plenty of people paid less than 80 or 90k. On top of that these hefty student loans and high rent , steep mortgages that today's emerging work force is burdened with, it is not easy to ignore even small financial incentives when they are always trying to make ends meet and have to make basic quality of life sacrifices.
---
Basic needs is somewhat commonly used term [1], while what is basic in one location or country is not same everywhere and there are degrees of subjectivity to it. It is quite politicized and US Census threshold of $25,000 /year for family of four is ludicrously low as defined today. [2]
While there can be arguments on what the number should be and even what constitutes basic needs, the idea of basic needs itself shouldn't be controversial
IMHO that in locations where traditionally you get a tech job it is higher than even 80-90k factoring in mortgages and student loans, things that are not included in U.S. Census Bureau methodology.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_needs
[2] The reasons for such low bar is political, the methods used reflect that, one example is using a single number nationally is an insidious choice. Cost of Living in NY or the Bay Area,CA does not compare to say rural Montana . A sizable portion of the population lives in high density high cost of living parts of the country (jobs are there) and the number does not reflect that or is weighted by where the population actually live. There are plenty of other criticisms, on what is being included with what weight etc.
Some people will leave a low stress/low-moderate wage job for a high stress, high wage job, but end up with a drug habit/in a mental ward/jail and then wonder for years what the cause of the trouble was. I've seen it happen a number of times.
The poll makes it pretty obvious that compensation is the biggest reason folks leave, and it's the thinking of the old generation who doesn't know how to retain talent (they do, but they keep throwing pizza parties / sending out merch instead). It's a real "it can't be helped" mentality around retention.