Slashdot Mirror


Seattle Tech Engineers Are More Loyal Than Those in San Francisco, Data Shows (geekwire.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Software engineers in Seattle stay at companies an average of six months longer than do their counterparts in San Francisco, according to data from online job search giant Indeed. That may seem like a small difference, but it's actually quite significant when compared to the total time engineers tend to stay with a company. In Seattle, they average 29 months while San Francisco devs stick around for about 23 months. Doug Gray, Indeed's senior vice president of engineering, shared that finding along with other statistics during an event on attracting tech talent, hosted by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce on Thursday morning. "That is another thing that we should be promoting here in Seattle, is that greater loyalty, which leads to the ability for someone to have an impact in their company, for them to actually have greater career development within that company," said Gray.Also see: Scraping By On Six Figures? Tech Workers Feel Poor in Silicon Valley's Wealth Bubble

89 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. So? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And if you live in a small village you'll probably stay int he same job for life. Doesn't mean you're more loyal, it just means you've got fewer choices.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:So? by fostandy · · Score: 1

      yeah I thought this was hilarious spin. this just in: slaves, most loyal employees (and immigrants) of all

    2. Re:So? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Plenty of choices in Seattle

      Not compared to the SF Bay Area. I can drive from south San Jose to Redwood City on US-101 and see a constant stream of tech companies, one after another, for 30 miles. There are hundreds more in SF itself, and even more in the East Bay, Marin County, Santa Cruz, etc. Seattle isn't even close.

    3. Re:So? by plopez · · Score: 1

      How depressingly dreary

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  2. 23 months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Damn, I've been in this job for 23 YEARS. Guess I'm just not the job-hopping type. Interviewing sucks.

    1. Re:23 months? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Good for you... I have an average of about 7 years per job myself, but I had some really short stints at a couple of places that went belly up unexpectedly.

      I think a lot of companies count on short term employment, which is unfortunate because what ends up happening is talent keeps shuffling in and out and nobody cares because "that's the way it is". But it actually is better for a company to recognize the good talent and pay them more than average and do what it takes to retain them if you can, otherwise the revolving door ends up stacking up the lower end talent like cord wood and makes them hard to get rid of.

      However the issue with this is it requires you come up with a system to recognize the good talent and reward it... When you throw money into the mix, it quickly becomes a political game that's hard to do right and it's legally dangerous to actually recognize talent because it means you are also saying somebody isn't as good.

      Smart companies lean how to do this, mediocre companies just muddle though hoping the revolving door provides them enough talent and not another log for the wood pile....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:23 months? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I switched jobs every 1-2 years for over 10 years before I found a place that I liked. Now I've been at the same place for almost 8 years, and have turned down written, official offers. (I got offers because I like interviewing)

      Sometimes I've worked out good raises by switching jobs. Rarely have I had to take a pay cut.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  3. Loyalty is for suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Companies have no loyalty to the employees. Why should employees give them any loyalty?

    1. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Every once in a great while I run into a hiring manager who demands loyalty and wants reassurances that I will stick around for x number of months. I can make no promises. Especially when another company is willing to pay 40% more for the same kind of work.

    2. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Dude, make the promises. Don't necessarily keep them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Try pulling that shit when you're 50 and watch them laugh you out the door.

      I've been doing IT support for 20+ years and I'm 47.

    4. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Dude, make the promises. Don't necessarily keep them.

      And ruin my reputation for being a straight shooter?

    5. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, make the promises, but make them contingent on promises from the hiring manager to "be loyal to the employee" (you).

      Then when you leave and the manager complains, point out that you only promised loyalty if the company was loyal in turn. And by not keeping your salary at market-rate, they broke that promise, so you're not actually breaking yours.

    6. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by bobbied · · Score: 1

      If the promise isn't on paper, what are they going to say? It's not like the can say much to future prospective employers who call to confirm your employment claims beyond confirming your employment dates and saying "Yes, they could be hired back here in the future" or "No, we would never hire them back". (If they do say anything more, they are taking legal risks..)

      It is a small world at times and you would be burring a bridge, but if somebody is willing to pay me 40% more, I think I would have to seriously consider the option. For me, tough, it seems that such a raise would unlikely to be legit anyway, I'm pretty well maxed out right now for what I do.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by lgw · · Score: 1

      You also complain about being paid bottom dollar while living in the Valley, so either he's right or you were paid starvation wages before.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Use his/her language against him. Remember last time a project schedule shifted under you like an 8.0 earthquake? The words shithead used to tell you, use them to tell him you're not going to be able to keep your promise.

      There is some bridge burning going on. But as long as you already have something better lined up, fuck em.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      But as long as you already have something better lined up, fuck em.

      I'm always careful about burning bridges. Silicon Valley is a very small village. I sometimes work for the same company on two or three different contracts. One time I worked round robin between three different contracting agencies.

    10. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You also complain about being paid bottom dollar while living in the Valley, so either he's right or you were paid starvation wages before.

      With my current contract in government IT, I got three job titles: I'm a computer engineer doing system admin tasks at a desktop tech pay rate.

      Yes, I'm getting paid bottom dollar. No, I'm not starving at $50K+ per year.

    11. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      As you get closer to career endgame, future prospects are worth less. But on the other hand personal network is more important. On the gripping hand, taking current, good opportunities becomes more important. You don't have decades left to make up for lost time. Stack money now.

      Whatever you do, don't screw over your competent coworkers. That is where good prospects almost always come from.

      PHBs with insane asymmetrical expectations about loyalty? Fuck em right in the ear.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not starving at $50K+ per year.

      In the Bay Area you are...unless you live with your mom.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    13. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      In the Bay Area you are...unless you live with your mom.

      Nope. My parents have been dead for years. I live in a rent-controlled studio apartment in Silicon Valley for nearly 12 years. I save about 20% of my paycheck each month.

    14. Re: Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Serious question: why? Why not leave?

      Born and raised here. If everything falls into place, I'll be moving to Sacramento this summer. For what I rent a studio apartment for in Silicon Valley, I can rent a three-bedroom house in Sacramento.

    15. Re: Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Seriously. 5 years experience you get at the very least 130,000/yr full time or the very least 65/hr on w2 contract for programming.

      Not everyone is a programmer.

      How can you calll yourself a man making50k?

      Probably because I don't equate my manhood with a paycheck.

      This is not an adult wage.

      $50K is perfectly adequate if you live a modest lifestyle.

      I was 170k at 35.

      I was making $30K per year as a lead video game tester when I was 35.

      Please ask for more!

      Unfortunately, in government IT, $50K is the national average. After I get my InfoSec certifications, I can get a $100K job.

    16. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You also complain about being paid bottom dollar while living in the Valley, so either he's right or you were paid starvation wages before.

      With my current contract in government IT, I got three job titles: I'm a computer engineer doing system admin tasks at a desktop tech pay rate.

      Yes, I'm getting paid bottom dollar. No, I'm not starving at $50K+ per year.

      I've got news for you - if you're getting paid desktop tech pay, you're doing desktop tech work.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    17. Re:Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I've got news for you - if you're getting paid desktop tech pay, you're doing desktop tech work.

      I don't think so. I have my own office, I fix 1,000+ workstations at a time, I have no users, ticket queue or SLA rate, and I got an extra month of pay as a Christmas bonus last year. My official job title I'm allowed to use on my resume is Senior System Administrator.

    18. Re: Loyalty is for suckers by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Unless you are on the lower end of the intelligence pool, well you probably are.

      I spent eight years in Special Ed because I was misdiagnosed as mentally retarded due to an undiagnosed hearing loss. Skipped high school. Got A.A. degree in General Education in 1994, got kicked out of the university in 1995, and I later got an A.S. degree in computer programming and made the college president's list for maintaining a 4.0GPA in my major in 2007.

      Then we have to pay for them later with our taxes.

      My second associate degree was paid for by a $3,000 tax credit that George W. signed into law after 9/11.

      50k leaves zero left.

      I save 20% of my paycheck.

      You should be worried. You are screwed.

      Funny. I hear that a lot from people who are worried and screwed far worse than I am.

      You can't have a family and take care of them well.

      Not all of us are capable of having children.

      And your retirement will still be renting a room somewhere eating Raman.

      I'm planning to save up for a down payment on a house in the Sacramento Valley for five years and then pay off the mortgage in 15 years. I'll be 67 then but I probably won't retire and keep on working until I'm dead at 120.

  4. Well... yeah by chispito · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suspect this says more about San Francisco than about Seattle. Throw some other cities in there.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Well... yeah by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      This.
      As a percentage, not many IT folks actually live & work on the Left coast. Might be more interesting if surveyed nationally and reported state-by-state.

    2. Re:Well... yeah by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      I suspect this says more about San Francisco than about Seattle. Throw some other cities in there.

      There are .... other cities?

    3. Re:Well... yeah by chispito · · Score: 1

      This. As a percentage, not many IT folks actually live & work on the Left coast. Might be more interesting if surveyed nationally and reported state-by-state.

      True, we even had an article some months back about how Silicon Valley only accounts for 10% of the programmers and IT types in the entire country.

      And San Francisco is not Silicon Valley. That said, 10% of all of the people filling a role that exists at most medium-large businesses (and a fair number of small businesses) is pretty staggering, coming from an area with approximately 1% of the population of the country.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  5. The price of loyalty... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    A few years ago I ran into a former coworker during a job interview and turned down the job offer. I would be making more money as a contractor than my former coworker did from collecting 2% raises for nine years. The last thing I need is a bitter coworker.

    1. Re:The price of loyalty... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      It's an ongoing joke that the way you get raises in some places is to leave and come back. I've seen it happen multiple times where the end result was more than %30 markup to do the same job. Coming back as a contractor can net you even more, at the expense of a bit of job security. Fortunately I don't work in a place like that now.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Greater impact? Yeah right. by geekmux · · Score: 5, Informative

    "...stay at companies an average of six months longer...greater loyalty, which leads to the ability for someone to have an impact in their company, for them to actually have greater career development within that company..."

    Greater impact my ass. 6 additional months isn't going to define career development or impact the company in some grandiose way.

    People used to stay at companies for far longer than the 29 months being celebrated here. The turnover rate today is a joke. Then again, so is the fact that employees are no longer treated like people, but instead like commodity resources that can be exchanged as the wind blows.

  7. Changing jobs increases wealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know your job title, but as a technical person, if I didn't change jobs, I would never get a raise. (2% is not a raise, it's not even COLA, and that's the raise a programmer gets if he stays.) Aren't you curious how people at other companies do things?

    1. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Aren't you curious how people at other companies do things?

      I find most people who have grown long in the tooth and accepted 2% raises as normal aren't curious about anything.

    2. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sometimes people are satisfied with their job and money isn't their main driver.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Nutria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aren't you curious how people at other companies do things?

      Not enough to give up my 6 weeks of vacation, institutional memory and senior status as "He Who Knows".

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes people are satisfied with their job and money isn't their main driver.

      But that shouldn't diminished curiosity. A coworker of mine went bat shit crazy over a new laptop because it didn't have 2.5" hard drive bay, got angry when everyone pointed out the SSD card, and let the laptop sat unused for six months before someone shipped it off to Dell for warranty repair. For the 13+ years he worked in the department, laptop technology has remained the same. The newer laptops are completely different but he doesn't have the curiosity to learn about them..

    5. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe one doesn't live for the job.

      If your job is technical, you should be curious about your work and new developments in your field. I've known too many technical people who sat back in their jobs, do the same thing day in and day out, and are shocked to get laid off because they're unwilling to change.

    6. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by irrational_design · · Score: 2

      What does that mean? I accept a 2% annual raise, but I already make a hefty six figure salary that I already feel is too high. And I have been at my company for 15 years, which I assume would make me long in the tooth. What does that have to do with my curiosity? My problem isn't curiosity, but time. I have a backlog of reading on technical topics that is a mile long, but I'm so busy I barely have time to post on Slashdot ;-)

    7. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by lgw · · Score: 1

      The problem is, when you eventually do get laid off (no employer survives forever), you've got nothing. It is possible to gain breadth* and keep your skills current at one employers, but it means changing jobs anyhow, just without changing employers.

      *Depth multiple times is the useful kind of breadth for an engineer.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More accurately, if your job is technical, you best keep up to date with new developments in your field to minimize your chances of getting laid off.

      I have no genuine curiosity to keep learning new programming languages that all just offer a different way to do the same thing, but I realize it's in my best interest to learn them anyway. So tedious. It's much easier if you actually are curious, but after 20 years doing this kind of work my curiosity is focused on other things in life.

    9. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by slew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aren't you curious how people at other companies do things?

      I find most people who have grown long in the tooth and accepted 2% raises as normal aren't curious about anything.

      Curious. I find many people that hop jobs every couple years to be not curious enough to deeply learn about anything, and are mostly just greener-grass folks looking to trade some sweat for money.

      Sometimes staying put for a while correlates with a desire to learn something a bit more than superficially. Although trade skills often be practiced anywhere, learning a business and industry enough (to understand how to create value in a business) often takes more than one project cycle and 23 (or 29) months perspective is a pretty short time to see what generates value for customers and what is unimportant... Generally, if you aren't spending VC money, it's better value to companies to have employees know what is important and what is unimportant over the long term. You can only be twice as good as another ditch digger, but good ideas can be 100x better than bad ideas...

      Of course there are companies where little can be learned and there's little reason to stay there at all, and maybe you simply stay there 23 months to make it look like you aren't a job hopper. But that's probably 22 months too long IMHO, as there are generally other fish in the sea...

    10. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I accept a 2% annual raise, but I already make a hefty six figure salary that I already feel is too high.

      I once had a boss who made a big deal over the fact that I got a 2% raise. He got mad when I told him that my first raise was 50% and I've been making more money than him for five years. He had this funny idea that since he got promoted to manager that he was the best in the department. Paycheck wise, he wasn't.

      My problem isn't curiosity, but time.

      Seems like most people I've know stopped learning once they got out of school. The longer they're in one position, the less curious about things they become. It's a real big shock when they get laid off after 7+ years, go on a six-month vacation while drawing unemployment benefits, and find out that their job skills are obsolete. Reading a boot, taking a class, going to boot camp or getting certified? Forget about it. I know two software engineers who stopped learning and are still working as drug store clerks since the dot com bust.

      [...] but I'm so busy I barely have time to post on Slashdot ;-)

      You're multitasking wrong. :P

    11. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The problem is, when you eventually do get laid off (no employer survives forever), you've got nothing.

      Like those guys who worked for UCal-SF who thought their jobs were secure until replaced by Indians. I do understand.

      For now, though, with my medical condition and ability to telecommute, I'm more than satisfied to still be working for the same company since 1994.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    12. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      ... Reading a boot ...

      Wait, they're Canadian? And what should they be reading about?

    13. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2

      Or maybe the people that stay realize that they have a vesting period before getting additional IRA benefits.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    14. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I find many people that hop jobs every couple years to be not curious enough to deeply learn about anything, and are mostly just greener-grass folks looking to trade some sweat for money.

      As an IT support contractor, I specialized in Fortune 500 corporate IT environments. That makes me an interchangeable cog (or virtual ditch digger, as I like to refer to myself). The work is all the same. When I got into government IT, I went from 3,000+ systems on one campus to 80,000+ systems in three time zones. The scale of the work changed but the work itself was the same. (Getting the security clearance was a PITA.) What I need to learn is not for the current job but the next job that I'm planning to get.

    15. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      After a certain point it's hard to switch jobs and still get a raise. Most places won't hire someone as principal software engineer without them having had the title at the previous job. And to move from senior software engineer to principal usually takes some time in the same company. Not that most people go that route, a lot of folks sit with the same title for the last 20 years of their career. (and I think that fits your statement that they aren't curious about anything)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    16. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      "He Who Knows" only about some legacy project that has been round for decades and is full of antiquated technology that most people wouldn't be interested in.
      "He Who Knows" about antiquated technologies that no one is learning any more.

      The prime motivation for many who move on is that they like to work on green field projects, using the latest and greatest of whats available.

      On average I would say 29 months is about the time it takes to get a big green field project off the ground, released and developed to maturity.

      As a developer when asked what my goal will be in the company my answer is "to make myself redundant", for many interviewers it takes a moment for them to get it. I would say most of the time I achieve my goal well within 29 months at which point the project is ready to be handed to over to people who would have difficulty putting it together, but have enough skills to ride a mature project through the rest of its life time.

    17. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Nutria · · Score: 1

      "He Who Knows" only about some legacy project

      I never said -- or even implied -- "only about some legacy project". After all, the legacy projects are going away.

      As a developer

      I'm a DBA.

      most of the time I achieve my goal well within 29 months at which point the project is ready to be handed to over

      I've dealt with so many projects like that, with crappy documentation and pre-beta software, I hate you with every fiber of my being.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    18. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      I would say most of the time I achieve my goal well within 29 months at which point the project is ready to be handed to over to people who would have difficulty putting it together, but have enough skills to ride a mature project through the rest of its life time.

      Maybe it works differently in development. I can say with a great deal of certainty that if you're talking about development then you're talking nonsense. It is orders of magnitude easier to develop something new than to maintain someone else's mess.

      All (experienced) devs have seen the following movie:

      Hotshot devs create something new as per management's instructions. They take every shortcut in the book to produce a product in record time - spaghetti code, no documents, no comments, 12k line functions, no local variables (all globals), multiple buffer overruns ... and almost fully untested. They sing their own praises to management emphasising how quickly they work, because "we're that good".

      Of course it's a fucking mess that crashes anytime a user does something out of the ordinary, so it has to be maintained. A maintenance team is assigned (usually just a lone developer without the spine to refuse) and get told to "add this small feature". It takes them a few days just to figure out which globals in a 17-level deep nested if-then-else construct may impact on the behaviour, so it takes them more than a few days to implement the feature, no matter how small.

      Of course, the original asshole devs use this metric to make themselves look good to management: "Look, we created the the thing and we only took so long - these other devs that maintain it are so poorly skilled that it takes a week just to ADD to it. We're obviously much more skilled." This false metric gets used by these asshole devs to justify why *they* should be creating the next new product requested from management.

      And thus the cycle repeats.

      Make no mistake - if you do the "create new product" bits and not the "maintain existing product" bits, you are doing the easy bits!.

      The creator of bugs is less-skilled than the fixer of bugs. We understand that it makes you look good to management to say "see how quickly I can create", but it takes less skill than "I've got to read and understand this mess, and only then will I be able to fix it."

      Trust me, you are the less-skilled, not the more-skilled. Don't talk down about people who are cleaning up your mess - they're essentially wiping your ass after you've taken a dump. If you were any good at all, you'd wipe your own ass.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    19. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      "institutional memory"

      Massively underrated IME. Luckily we have a few lifers here but i've lost count of the number of times we have had no idea why something is the way it is or some subtle wrinkle that's non obvious in how something gets processed. People that have years and years of experience often fill in gaps that would otherwise cause big problems.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    20. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > A coworker of mine went bat shit crazy over a new laptop because it didn't have 2.5" hard drive bay.

      That bay could also hold a spare battery, or a _much_ larger drive than a built-in SSD drive can manage. Many modern laptops also have significantly smaller keyboards, or the durability that some working engineers and sales personnel demand. I'm afraid that often, the feature that you personally may consider a profound advantage is not a benefit to other people's workflow and is not an effective replacement for what they need. I've used such bays myself to support critical backup supplies for offsite visits, both for power and for spare disk with spare disk images or virtualized hosts to use on my laptop, and to protect sensitive corporate data by keeping it on my person rather than leaving it in a hotel room.

      I'd not automatically tie rejection of a new feature with a lack of curiosity, nor with a lack of professional competence.

    21. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Altus · · Score: 1

      Why on earth are you still working at a company that has had you in death march mode for a decade? Work life balance has value, I doubt you are making so much more at this company that its worth while to stay.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    22. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Two factors here: 1) Fewer (yet enough) tech employers in the Seattle region but more importantly 2) Employers in the Silly Valley seem to be allergic to any raise at all, even at the COLA level, and one can easily be stuck at the same compensation for 10 years. One [admittedly a jackass who elects to live in Oakland] said "Job hopping is the only way to get ahead in computers".

    23. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Doing the same thing at different companies every few years for more money really isn't "curiosity" in my opinion. In my 13 years with my company, I've worked in 3 different departments and about to move on to a 4th.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    24. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That bay could also hold a spare battery, or a _much_ larger drive than a built-in SSD drive can manage.

      There was no drive bay. Not for a hard drive, spare battery or coffee cup holder. The guy took the laptop apart expecting to replace a 2.5" hard drive and he couldn't find the hard drive because there was physically no bay. The SSD was a mini PCI Express card that looked very much like the wireless card without the antenna connections.

      I'd not automatically tie rejection of a new feature with a lack of curiosity, nor with a lack of professional competence.

      Losing your shit in front of the entire department was neither curious nor professional.

    25. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      That is a rather different situation than you originally described. To quote you: "A coworker of mine went bat shit crazy over a new laptop because it didn't have 2.5" hard drive bay". What you seem to be describing is not a "drive bay", which would normally be a detachable bay. It's the primary system drive. Please don't be surprised if people do not understand your outrage over your colleague's outrage when the situation you've described seems to be a very different situation than you experience.

      What you describe actually makes me wonder if the colleague decided the SSD drive was undersized and expected to be able to upgrade it to a larger spinning drive for very real needs. I've myself noticed that SSD is wonderful for fast booting and virtualization, but the smaller drive size can be a very real limitation.

    26. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      What you seem to be describing is not a "drive bay", which would normally be a detachable bay.

      "A drive bay is a standard-sized area for adding hardware to a computer. Most drive bays are fixed to the inside of a case, but some can be removed."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_bay

      What you describe actually makes me wonder if the colleague decided the SSD drive was undersized and expected to be able to upgrade it to a larger spinning drive for very real needs.

      Most people wouldn't humiliate themselves in front of the entire department for an undersized SSD.

    27. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > "A drive bay is a standard-sized area for adding hardware to a computer. Most drive bays are fixed to the inside of a case, but some can be removed."

      When the words "drive bay" are used in a laptop description, it has typically referred to a detachable physical bay. Wikipedia can be confusing when used to refer to a more or less general description than the specific instance. In this case, Wikipedia referred to the more general usage for desktops and servers as well.

      > Most people wouldn't humiliate themselves in front of the entire department for an undersized SSD.

      Many, perhaps not most, would find some way to express their frustrations.. But attempting to do a hardware upgrade to an assigned laptop is not that unusual in groups where developers and admins have modest hardware knowledge. I've certainly done so, though I did more research before taking apart working hardware.

      Perhaps I'm more tolerant of people making fools of themselves? I try to teach such moments as teaching opportunities, and it helps encourage me to educate and share experience. Since I've been at my technical work for longer than some of my senior level staff have been alive, I see profound foolishness quite frequently. If they refuse to learn, _that_ becomes frustrating and is grounds to help them find a different career path.

    28. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia can be confusing when used to refer to a more or less general description than the specific instance.

      The Wikipedia definition is the same definition I've been using since the 1980's.

      But attempting to do a hardware upgrade to an assigned laptop is not that unusual in groups where developers and admins have modest hardware knowledge.

      My coworker is the IT supervisor for laptops and wireless devices. His extensive hardware knowledge was lacking on a very new laptop that was quite different than all the laptops he dealt with in the past decade.

      If they refuse to learn, _that_ becomes frustrating and is grounds to help them find a different career path.

      This incident took place a year ago. He's still sulking in his cubicle, no longer talking to anyone. All his assistants do the work. Since this is government IT, no one is going to push him out as long as he meet his metrics. Recruiters in the private sector would tell him that his job skills are obsolete and he's unemployable.

    29. Re:Changing jobs increases wealth by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

      Creating an undocumented system, full of bugs wouldn't qualify as making myself redundant, that would be quite the opposite.

  8. Insane by geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where I work the average IT person stays 5 to 8 years. Most of my co-workers are 15 year vets. I can't imagine how crappy these places must be if the average is only two years. Hell it can take a year just to get someone comfortable int he environment.

    1. Re:Insane by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I've been on contracts to handle a special project that last a year or two while working with IT people who been around for 8+ years.

    2. Re:Insane by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I bet these people are well under age 35.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Insane by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I bet these people are well under age 35.

      I've done short-term IT support contracts that lasted four hours to three years for the last 20+ years. I'm currently 47.

    4. Re:Insane by Nutria · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between "short-term contractor" and "job-hopping employee".

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:Insane by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Oh, really?

      Sure.

      Please elaborate.

      You must know the difference between "guy who gets a 1099, has a fixed-length contract because he's not an employee of the company, and thus can be fired on a whim" and "guy who gets a W-2 because he's actually an employee, and thus requires lots of HR paperwork to be fired".

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Insane by Nutria · · Score: 1

      I either work directly for the company

      You know that's not contracting.

      or through a contracting agency.

      Why are you arguing about your situation, when I wrote about San Francisco start-ups?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:Insane by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The main problem is that if you want a decent raise, you either need to quit, or threaten to quit. Otherwise your raise will be a token 3-5%. I have quit jobs that I otherwise would have stayed at because of that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  9. Just Exodus? (cost of living) by michael.karl.coleman · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this entire difference could be explained by the rate of workers leaving these cities, which is in turn mostly caused by cost of living issues? San Francisco, and the Bay Area generally, is ferociously expensive. And that effect is magnified once one reaches the age of having children.

  10. Simple math by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Plenty of choices does not equate to the number of companies in Silicon Valley. So it's simple mathematics. Good people are constantly being courted by other companies. It is not just the big companies here, it's many tens of thousands of small companies covering San Jose to San Francisco and Oakland..

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  11. Re:Companies are to blame by bobbied · · Score: 2

    I think only a fool doesn't meter out raises that match inflation at a minimum... Unless you are looking to reduce your labor force through attrition.

    Further, companies that don't dish out more than average salaries for their best employees, are NOT watching their bottom line in the long term but are making the often repeated mistake I call "Manage to quarter". This is where the share price at the end of THIS quarter is all that matters, nobody is thinking about next quarter or the one after. This is common among struggling companies with cash flow issues.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  12. Obviously California has no Non-Compete Clauses by hashish16 · · Score: 1

    Duh

  13. That's nice, but how loyal are by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the tech companies to the employees? Do they kick you to the curb when the stock drops $2? When you hit your 35th or 40th birthday? Do they collude with other companies to limit your pay and benefits? Will they hire you if your skin is brown? If you are female?

    We keep seeing reports on things like worker loyalty but why don't we see the same on company to employee loyalty?

    1. Re:That's nice, but how loyal are by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      So much this...

      When my career started the VP knew *every* employee in the building. We had 5 discretionary holidays a year, on top of the 10 Federal holidays. Vacation accrual started at ~2 weeks a year and maxed somewhere around 6 weeks. There was a 401k plan AND a pension plan, the former you were fully vested in from day 1.
        By the time I left that job, no discretionary holidays, vacation accrual started at ~1.5 weeks, and maxed out around 4 weeks. Those gray-beards that had been around for 15+ years saw their vacation accrual slashed. The pension plan was removed entirely. Not only did I not know who the VP was, my direct supervisor was two states away and I never met the guy in the ~6 months or so I reported to him.

      We've entered a vicious cycle of employees saying "This company doesn't care about employees, I'm gonna keep looking for greener grass" and employers saying "They aren't sticking around anyway, why should we invest in them?"

    2. Re:That's nice, but how loyal are by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      One reason is that they want to hire contractors instead, so that they can abuse and fire them at will, not pay benefits, and skirt employment laws.

  14. Wowzers by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "Software engineers in Seattle stay at companies an average of six months longer than do their counterparts in San Francisco"

    Six whole months, well I'll be gobsmacked. I've spent longer than that fucking up a single document.

    Good lord, do they swear an oath of fealty to display such unwavering allegiance and faithfulness?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  15. That ain't livin by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Decent women sounds like a boring way to live. I prefer indecent.

    But seriously, most technical types such as engineers, scientists, etc are quite satisfied with a quiet evening with their SO or watching their favorite TV show or seeing a movie.

    The hiking around both Silicon Valley and Seattle is quite good. You can be in a big city, but a short drive to hills and mountains and nature. So for me there is plenty to do that I enjoy. If you like staying out all night clubbing (is that a "social life" ?), then it's not for you, It feels like SF and SJ both go dark at 10pm. (I can't comment on Seattle, I've never checked out the nightlife there)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  16. The other moral of the story by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    a PHB always looks for an excuse to pay you less.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:The other moral of the story by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      the DMG is always looking for creative ways to TPK.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  17. 29 months by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Even 29 months seems quite short. How much is the median project time to market?

    1. Re:29 months by Shados · · Score: 1

      Data I had from HR department at various companies I looked into as part of recruitment initiatives looked more like 12-18 months in SF, 20-24 elsewhere, so that actually looks long to me. Part of it is all of the tiny VC based startups and ycombinator things messing with the average as people keep jumping around hoping to make it big.

      That said, in the current world of MVPs where the V is borderline at best, 29 months is enough time to push several products to market, heh.

  18. Not all SF Engineers! by MinusOne · · Score: 1

    I'm a San Francisco Engineer who is just about to celebrate 15 years at my current job with a major tech company. Prior to this I was at a small tech company for nine years. On the other hand, I'm OLD and would hate to look for work right now, regardless of my resume or contacts.

  19. Re:Greater impact? Yeah right. by kanwisch · · Score: 1

    People used to stay at companies for far longer than the 29 months being celebrated here. The turnover rate today is a joke. Then again, so is the fact that employees are no longer treated like people, but instead like commodity resources that can be exchanged as the wind blows.

    After decades of work at a fair number of places I've discovered there are companies who offer jobs (employee=commodity), and some who offer careers (employee=person). Interestingly I landed at one of those Top 50 To Work For companies and never really want to leave as long as the culture remains high on value of the employee. Previously I'd never considered looking at lists like that for where to go but if I ever left here that's where I'd start.

  20. But WHY? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

    They left out a critical detail: is this by the employee's choice or the company's? Are they less likely to choose to leave, or less likely to get laid off? If it's the employee's choice, is it because people like their jobs better, or because they have fewer other options?

    Without knowing that, I can't tell if this makes Seattle a better or worse place to work. Not getting laid off is good. Liking your job is good. Having few options is bad. In any case, I doubt it has much to do with loyalty.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  21. Re:Greater impact? Yeah right. by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Part of the turnover rate is that -- at least in the Silly Valley -- longevity is viewed as a FLAW. I had been at a non-SV company for >15 years, via two acquisitions, and when looking for a new job EVERYONE harassed me about that. When I recast my rez to make it look like 3 jobs, that stopped and I got hired.

  22. Posting this again by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Amazon: Worse than Wal-Mart: Amazon's sick brutality and secret history of ruthlessly intimidating workers (February 23, 2014)

    Amazon: Inside Amazon: Wrestling Big Ideas in a Bruising Workplace (August 15, 2015) Quote: "The company is conducting an experiment in how far it can push white-collar workers..."

    Amazon: Amazon Under Fire Over Alleged Worker Abuse in Germany (February 19, 2013)

    Microsoft: Microsoft Is Filled With Abusive Managers And Overworked Employees, Says Tell-All Book (May 23, 2012)

    Seattle: Together with Microsoft and bad city management, Seattle is a miserable place:

    Traffic: Seattle one of the worst U.S. cities for traffic congestion, tied with NYC (March 31, 2015) Quote: "An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic may not sound like much, but when it adds up over a year it becomes 89 hours." (Whoever wrote that must be accustomed to Seattle misery. An additional 23 minutes a day spent in traffic sounds HORRIBLE.)

    Slow internet: Many areas of Seattle have poor internet connections. See the article, These places have the slowest Internet in the country. (June 25, 2015) Quote: "... Seattle ... CenturyLink (CTL) customers trying to access particular sites from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. will have unbearably slow speeds."