IT jobs - why must all large raises come with changing companies?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LuckyTaxi

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,044
23
81
i know what you mean. my first real IT gig paid me $28k and 3 yrs later when i left i was at $34k. I left for a job paying $51k and then left that gig to land at my current job making $65k.
The first job wouldnt match since they said they needed two IT ppl when the job really requires 1 decent person. Between me and the other guy, they were paying $65k for both ppl.
Sucks i loved that job but oh well.
 

SunnyD

Belgian Waffler
Jan 2, 2001
32,674
145
106
www.neftastic.com
Originally posted by: Pothead
Originally posted by: kt
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Last raise I got was on the order of about 18% if I recall correctly, and that was me simply because I was shopping for a new job and presented an competing offer to my boss who sent it up the chain with my intention of staying if they would match the offer. I ended up leaving 7 months later for another job anyway (along with 20% more in pay).

All three of my raises at my previous job were double-digit percentage raises. You do NOT have to change jobs to get a decent hike in pay.

That may backfire at some point in your career. Your future employers will look at your job history and question whether you are worth their time. Your history of leaving a company will have a direct reflect on you. Sure you can come up with a great lie, but your job history will still be a tell tell sign (ie: employment length at each company and salary history).

Some of us in IT actually do get double digit raises without getting promitions. It's a combination of a company and a person's work ethics.

Indeed - I stayed with my last employer for 3 years. The first two raises were completely performance based, while the last one was competitive as mentioned. Not to mention I still stay in touch with my former manager as well as several co-workers regularly. I left on good terms, and would more than likely be rehired if I had the desire to return.

Now if I were in it simply for the money, then I would completely agree with you. 3 years in IT is a lifetime, it was time to leave and grow as an employee, person and career.
 

Joemonkey

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2001
8,862
2
0
well, i talked to my manager about, asking him what they had in store for me over the course of the next year or so, and he mentioned maybe an 8% increase this april and perhaps a promotion in october or next april for an extra 10% increase...

meh, i gotta think this over
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Originally posted by: kt
Originally posted by: SunnyD
Last raise I got was on the order of about 18% if I recall correctly, and that was me simply because I was shopping for a new job and presented an competing offer to my boss who sent it up the chain with my intention of staying if they would match the offer. I ended up leaving 7 months later for another job anyway (along with 20% more in pay).

All three of my raises at my previous job were double-digit percentage raises. You do NOT have to change jobs to get a decent hike in pay.

That may backfire at some point in your career. Your future employers will look at your job history and question whether you are worth their time. Your history of leaving a company will have a direct reflect on you. Sure you can come up with a great lie, but your job history will still be a tell tell sign (ie: employment length at each company and salary history).

Why would they know your salary history? That's not the type of thing you put on a resume or disclose in an interview.
 

steppinthrax

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2006
3,990
6
81
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

Companies that need to stay ahead of the game will eventually replace their staff. No one lives forever, and companies know if they want to bring in vibrant young staff with new ideas, new ways of doing things and more updated set of skills you will higher from the young group. These staff members likely don't have family so they are very expendable. They made absolutley notthing while in college so if you start them out at around 40 to 50 they are happy.
 

steppinthrax

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2006
3,990
6
81
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

I work in IT, and I'm sure that my boss could easily hire someone out of college or from India for half of that they pay me. Who knows... with time they might be able to train that guy to do some of my more mundane job tasks almost as well as I do.

The real question is what they're going to do when that new guy screws up (as almost all new hires do), loses a few hundred thousand dollars worth of customer data, and doesn't know how to restore it. Hell... I wouldn't even be surprised if the new guy didn't even know that he needed to back it up in the first place.

All of a sudden, that new guy doesn't seem like such a bargain after all :)

So it's your thought that the new young guy will always screw up. I would say the young new employees probably screw up just as much as the old. Just that the old have been there a while and less likely to be put to blame about it.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
Originally posted by: Joemonkey
Originally posted by: Anubis
you coudl always tell your current employer that company X will give you 33% more then what you currently make and see what they do to keep you

I'd love to do that come review time which is March 2008, but not sure how long this offer will be good for

Only those on the slow boat wait for annual reviews.

Bring it up now. 33% more is not a small chunk of change if the benefits are equal or better.

See what your current employer can do for you.

However, if they don't meet it you are pretty much forced to jump ship or they will know they can keep you for nothing.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

Companies that need to stay ahead of the game will eventually replace their staff. No one lives forever, and companies know if they want to bring in vibrant young staff with new ideas, new ways of doing things and more updated set of skills you will higher from the young group. These staff members likely don't have family so they are very expendable. They made absolutley notthing while in college so if you start them out at around 40 to 50 they are happy.

Do you really think that the years of experience the older person has are worth nothing? You seem to talk as if once someone enters a company, they bring in whatever they learned in school, and that is the extent of their usefulness - i.e., you act like they don't gain any valuable experience while they work there.

From that perspective, it seems that someone becomes less valuable the longer they work, not more. After all, everyone knows that all of the "new ideas" and "updated skills" you learn in college translate directly to the workplace, right? <sarcasm>

I guess if that is your perspective, then yes, it would make sense to recycle everyone periodically.
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,135
2,445
126
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

I work in IT, and I'm sure that my boss could easily hire someone out of college or from India for half of that they pay me. Who knows... with time they might be able to train that guy to do some of my more mundane job tasks almost as well as I do.

The real question is what they're going to do when that new guy screws up (as almost all new hires do), loses a few hundred thousand dollars worth of customer data, and doesn't know how to restore it. Hell... I wouldn't even be surprised if the new guy didn't even know that he needed to back it up in the first place.

All of a sudden, that new guy doesn't seem like such a bargain after all :)

So it's your thought that the new young guy will always screw up. I would say the young new employees probably screw up just as much as the old. Just that the old have been there a while and less likely to be put to blame about it.

It's called experience, man. Most new folks won't learn how important things like proper documentation, throughly tested backups, and security patches really are until they get burned by them. The old guys might still screw up, but they're going to know how to fix things a hell of a lot faster than the new guys will.

In my experience, it's usually the newer employees who lose data and allow their systems to get infected by computer viruses. No matter much training you give someone, the necessity of preventative measures to stuff like that really doesn't sink in until you screw something up and finally realize why it's truly important. Trust me... us IT pros were once newbies as well, and we learned the hard way by cleaning up the mistakes of both ourselves and others.
 

Joemonkey

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2001
8,862
2
0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: Joemonkey
Originally posted by: Anubis
you coudl always tell your current employer that company X will give you 33% more then what you currently make and see what they do to keep you

I'd love to do that come review time which is March 2008, but not sure how long this offer will be good for

Only those on the slow boat wait for annual reviews.

Bring it up now. 33% more is not a small chunk of change if the benefits are equal or better.

See what your current employer can do for you.

However, if they don't meet it you are pretty much forced to jump ship or they will know they can keep you for nothing.

Look up about 4 posts before yours
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

I work in IT, and I'm sure that my boss could easily hire someone out of college or from India for half of that they pay me. Who knows... with time they might be able to train that guy to do some of my more mundane job tasks almost as well as I do.

The real question is what they're going to do when that new guy screws up (as almost all new hires do), loses a few hundred thousand dollars worth of customer data, and doesn't know how to restore it. Hell... I wouldn't even be surprised if the new guy didn't even know that he needed to back it up in the first place.

All of a sudden, that new guy doesn't seem like such a bargain after all :)

So it's your thought that the new young guy will always screw up. I would say the young new employees probably screw up just as much as the old. Just that the old have been there a while and less likely to be put to blame about it.

Spoken like a true college student.
 

DBL

Platinum Member
Mar 23, 2001
2,637
0
0
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

I work in IT, and I'm sure that my boss could easily hire someone out of college or from India for half of that they pay me. Who knows... with time they might be able to train that guy to do some of my more mundane job tasks almost as well as I do.

The real question is what they're going to do when that new guy screws up (as almost all new hires do), loses a few hundred thousand dollars worth of customer data, and doesn't know how to restore it. Hell... I wouldn't even be surprised if the new guy didn't even know that he needed to back it up in the first place.

All of a sudden, that new guy doesn't seem like such a bargain after all :)

i work in IT as well as business systems analyst...in our industry, it is still cheaper to the company to pay someone in India to code it the first time, and then fix it twice then it is to pay someone in the States to do it right first time...if the company cares more about the bottom line than customer service, they have no problem making that decision.


Would that not depend on whether all issues are uncovered before the code goes live? That's pretty much a crapshoot I would not want to lose. I'm not sure about your business but bad code could potentially cost a company millions. Seems a bit short-sighted to me.


 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

Fact: someone just entering IT can double their salary within two years by turning mercenary. Probably take at least two job hops.

Fact: as already stated, most companies fail at keeping good people. But it's a balance, you can't keep asking for raises every time your skills get hot. That's just not how it is working for the man. If you want that kind of reward (which there's nothing wrong with) you have to go merc.

Myth: People that go mercenary are disloyal and not to be trusted. Loyalty is often a one way street nowadays. As in you're loyal and they don't give a shit about you.


The "myth" JasonCoder mentions is what is haunting me lately - I've been at my new job for 3 months and my old job is offering to hire me back with a position 3 slots higher and with substantially better pay. I'm very tempted as I really liked the old company, but the concern is what that kind of move will do to my resume long-term.

Here are two facts of my own:
1) You will *typically* get much larger raises by switching companies.
2) Your old company will *typically* pay substantially more salary in hiring your replacement
 

Joemonkey

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2001
8,862
2
0
My manager's manager called me yesterday, asked me how aggressively I was pursuing this offer, told him I wasn't pursuing it aggressively at all, they are pursuing me. He said he'd have info for me after the first of the year, and if that info isn't great, I may take the other offer. I really don't want to leave, but I also don't want to be here in 6 months thinking "damn I shoulda taken that job"
 

Poulsonator

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2002
1,597
0
76
I, personally, could not do that commute. A tremendous waste of time that you'll quickly learn is nowhere near worth the salary increase.

Time spent your family is priceless. Treat it that way.
 

Joemonkey

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2001
8,862
2
0
I used to do an hourish commute (1 way) for 2 years for a little less than $28k a year and ahd no real problems with it. this is quite a bit more $$$ than that
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
That's with most jobs. It's a job market and it gets "played" like any other market.
 

Poulsonator

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2002
1,597
0
76
Originally posted by: Joemonkey
I used to do an hourish commute (1 way) for 2 years for a little less than $28k a year and ahd no real problems with it. this is quite a bit more $$$ than that

Did you have a 2 year old daughter at the time?

As I get older, I realize how valuable time really is. Money's nice, don't get me wrong, but I have to have balance. Spending almost 3 hours a day commuting, to me, is unthinkable, especially when you do the math and see how big your salary increase really is after taxes, gas, car maint., etc.

Even if I were offered a job to double (or more) my salary, I wouldn't commute 3 hours a day. No way in hell. I'd simply move.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
Originally posted by: Joemonkey
My manager's manager called me yesterday, asked me how aggressively I was pursuing this offer, told him I wasn't pursuing it aggressively at all, they are pursuing me. He said he'd have info for me after the first of the year, and if that info isn't great, I may take the other offer. I really don't want to leave, but I also don't want to be here in 6 months thinking "damn I shoulda taken that job"

They just probably bought enough time to stop that offer and lowball you.

'After the first of the year' is a stalling comment. If they stated, on January 2nd we will give you our offer that is different.
 

Joemonkey

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2001
8,862
2
0
Originally posted by: Poulsonator
Originally posted by: Joemonkey
I used to do an hourish commute (1 way) for 2 years for a little less than $28k a year and ahd no real problems with it. this is quite a bit more $$$ than that

Did you have a 2 year old daughter at the time?

As I get older, I realize how valuable time really is. Money's nice, don't get me wrong, but I have to have balance. Spending almost 3 hours a day commuting, to me, is unthinkable, especially when you do the math and see how big your salary increase really is after taxes, gas, car maint., etc.

Even if I were offered a job to double (or more) my salary, I wouldn't commute 3 hours a day. No way in hell. I'd simply move.

no, but i had a 0, 0.5, and 1.5 yo daughter at the time

1:15 one way is what google maps says, I've never done that exact drive, but I have a feeling it won't be quite that long. Time is VERY valuable, but like I said, this comes down to quality of life due to the extra $ vs. time spent with family. Horrible decision to make, but it has to be made. I mean, if I could retire 5 years earlier with this job than I could with current, couldn't that matter time wise?

and alkemyst, these guys aren't corporate hard asses, they're regular IT guys i go out and have dinner and beers with. The fact that my manager 2 tiers up called and said "man if i had a better offer i'd have to consider it hard too, can't fault you for looking" says a lot
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Consider how much extra gas you'll have to pay for that commute. Will you really make more money with a 33% raise and steadily increasing gas costs? An hour and a half is a lot of gas.

its about 8 bucks of gas a day if you have a reasonably efficient car.

thats 2k a year if you assumed he didn't drive at all originally which is bs of course so its even less of a difference really. if 2k is 33% more than your current salary..well ur screwed;) in the long term gas costs are nothing really which is why people are willing to buy houses in far off suburbs instead of living in a cramped apartment nearer the city in most cases. housing costs are the main factor.

Originally posted by: jamesave
supply and demand.

when the company need a worker, they'd pay more..

yup companies always whining over shortage.... mostly they just want to keep salaries down.
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?

Everybody can be replaced in an instant. Nobody is THAT special that somebody else couldn't be brought in to immediately do their job.

Ever been through "reorgs"? Many times they'll lop multiple vice presidents off and half a department and a handful of middle managers, then replace them later.

Everybody can be replaced, rather quickly in fact.

There is a difference between a "reorg" and replacing you with some "kid off the street for half the pay"

tell that to the circuit guys that were making $12-15 and hour and were replaced by the guys making $8 an hour earlier this year...or they could get their old job back at the lower pay rate...

I've been reading your posts for many years and this is one of the biggest "swing and a miss" moments I've seen from you.

The circuit city example is bogus because you're comparing (effectively) unskilled labor with the semi-skilled labor of an IT jockey. It's fairly clear from the context of this thread that this is not an unskilled position. Like it or not, the economy sucks for unskilled people lately, primarily for examples like you've cited above. But for the semi-skilled or highly advanced skilled market, this doesn't resonate with nearly the same intensity.

But then again I'm in the completely unrealistic world of silicon valley, so what do I know? If most of our senior develoment staff left, huge chunks of our codebase would be impenetrable for months. There just aren't a lot of people out there, who, say, can implement IEEE protocols with ease. Or implement beam-forming algorithms.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: steppinthrax
Your employer can higher a kid and pay him half of what you make and he will probably do the job just as well (but require training).

Although I am not in IT, I just started my first real job and this statement really bothers me. It must be a very risky position to be in that a company could simply hire someone at half the cost who could do the job just as well.

I would hope that someone with several years experience in any professional field would have acquired enough experience that they could not be so easily replaced. Sure, your employer could always hire someone new, but would a kid really be able to do the job as effectively? Could you not develop experience that can't simply be taught to a new kid during a training session?
Everybody can be replaced in an instant. Nobody is THAT special that somebody else couldn't be brought in to immediately do their job.

Ever been through "reorgs"? Many times they'll lop multiple vice presidents off and half a department and a handful of middle managers, then replace them later.

Everybody can be replaced, rather quickly in fact.

Very true

Which makes it more infuriating on how execs at the top take millions upon millions with them in "packages, bonuses and incentives" when they've destroyed a company.
 

Poulsonator

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2002
1,597
0
76
Originally posted by: Joemonkey
Time is VERY valuable, but like I said, this comes down to quality of life due to the extra $ vs. time spent with family. Horrible decision to make, but it has to be made. I mean, if I could retire 5 years earlier with this job than I could with current, couldn't that matter time wise?

Absolutely retiring 5 years early matters. However, that 5 years is a LONG time from now. You'd sacrifice time now, when you, your wife and your kids are young, for time much, much later, when obviously every one is much, much older. Who's to say time will be kind to you and yours over this time period as well? The future isn't very predictable in short-term periods...trying to plan something like this over 25-30 years? Anything can and usually does happen.

Now, I am in no way shape or form trying to talk you in or out of taking a job. I cannot begin to even try to understand your situation. I'm just letting you know how I've seen this aspect of my life over my 33 years. I know if I were offered a job, right now, that paid me 33% percent more that was over an hour away, I'd have to consider it very hard. As life goes, though, my wife and I have plans to move to OR sometime in 2010. We've been in "Save for OR" mode for a while now, so a job that paid that much more would go a long way towards reaching our financial goals. Besides, that's what satellite radio is for, no?

I wish you all the luck in the world, man. It sounds like life is kicking ass for you right now.

 

Lifted

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2004
5,752
2
0
Joe, before telling this employer you would need $x to take the position, why didn't you actually THINK first about what you would need in order to take it?

At this point, you might want to tell them you discussed the job, and longer commute, with your wife, and you both felt that you would need $y to take the job. Tell them you are VERY excited about the opportunity, blah, blah, blah... but you have a young child at home and you and your wife have decided the current salary offer doesn't justify the change in time spent helping your wife raise your child, and the extra money spent on the longer commute. In other words, BE HONEST! BUT, you had better be serious about it and tell them you are ready to accept their offer NOW if you do this, no thinking about it for days or weeks or they will tell you to shove it as you will start to looking like a potential problem if you need to dwell on it any longer... indecisiveness is not what employers are looking for in a sys admin.

Let this be a lesson to others as people doing hiring do not like being jerked around and having their time wasted because people come at you with numbers that are too low, then can't make up their minds. For the few positions I've had to interview people for, it was a real PITA as the many people just want the offer letter in hand to milk their current employer. People doing the hiring know this happens, so make it clear to them that for $X you WILL ACCPET the job offer immediately once sent an offer letter.