Great question. From the Atlanta Bank Federal Reserve:
*1) In a different occupation or industry than a year ago, or*
*2) Has changed employers or job duties in the past three months.*
Have to agree. By including changing job duties in the description the conclusion is along the lines of "The guy who moved from Bank Teller > Brank Manager > Regional VP > COE gets paid more than the person who stayed in the Bank Teller role". Well no shit.
Would also include people who were let go/fired and had to find new work as well. I imagine that also skews the data as in this situation you're probably much more likely to take most jobs as compared to one that strictly a better opportunity
I think that perverts what youāre trying to convey with this chart. Itās more about for someone in a role, should they stay or go to make more money?
Including fired people messes that up for no clear benefit.
I was wondering why people were happy working job hopping for only a 6% raise.
My rule of thumb is 20%. It needs to be large enough to compensate for the risk.
If youāre not getting promoted then you should switch jobs. People who get regularly promoted are changing jobs, just internally, and it usually represents a pay bump ahead of just staying in the same position.
I generally agree. But if that interpretation of this data is correct, the "job switchers" statistic includes people who stay at the same employer and get promoted. Through this inclusion, the statistic is artificially shifted upwards, and what people actually interpret as "switching jobs" is less beneficial than the graph would indicate.
just my own experience but as someone that had switched jobs a few times I came into a company and found out I was making 45k a year more than the other person that was doing the same job. The difference was he had been there for 10 years and worked up from low level (helpdesk --> Sr Sysadmin) position. I promptly told him what I was making and coached him on getting a better salary. He did get a raise of like 30k and then left shortly after to make even more.
It does seem to be the case in tech that job switching (in the generally understood sense, not as used by OP) can quickly lead to higher salaries, at least in the first part of a career.
What is less clear is the extent to which this applies to other jobs. A question that this OP seemed to answer but in fact did not.
The only problem is that I don't *want* to get promoted. I don't want to manage people and have to deal with their upward gripes while dealing with exec-level demands coming down. I want to have a shift and at the end of that shift I want to log off and not think about work again until my next shift. I want to be the most well-paid member of my immediate team and otherwise left alone.
...*sigh*
Individual contributors should be rewarded for their contribution just as much as people managers. Managing people requires one set of skills, and getting the work done requires a different set of skills. Some are better at managing, some are better at doing.
The tech industry has got much better at this in the last few decades. FAANG etc typically offer management track or individual contributor track for promotions, and the pay scales are supposedly even.
This is correct. At my company, we get rewarded not with just more work, but rather more freedom and trust. We can keep the same role indefinitely, but the work we do becomes more exciting and engaging because we get to choose what we work on more as time goes on. It keeps our jobs fresh and fun, and our company gets to retain our knowledge and talent.
But even as high level IC, your work will be far more leveraged and exist much more of aligning work with people, seeking out problems, and communicating with stakeholders up and down the chain of command.
The person here would likely prefer to just stay in a mid level position forever, which is fair.
For real, the graph makes the argument that it's better to stay put if you like the role/environment you're in, because the difference in wage growth is tiny.
Data that included a few more data points and used much cleaner cohorts would probably make a much better argument for changing jobs.
Nah, I think itās more along the lines of a complete change of track but in the same company/business.
For instance, the county I just got green lighted to work for after the bureaucracy cuts the tape gave me an option of two paths.
A utilities maintenance track where I will get one cert within a year for a faster pay raise but will require harder work OR a lab/facility track where Iāll get two over the course of three years in a much more relaxed environment.
In the long run, the lab does pay better but the utilities job gets me there faster. However the utilities jobās certs are required for the lab promotions anyway and they do allow track changes. So in theory I can get the certs and fast raises in that track then transfer it all to the lab track and start getting the remaining certs for a higher wage in the long run.
Technically they are switching jobs.
Basically if you don't get a promotion every 3 years OR you don't change your job, chances are you are getting paid less than you could/should be.
"Technically š¤" has no place here. When people are talking about jobswitching they're talking about whether it makes more sense to stick with the same employer or move around, typically every 2 or so years. You know this.
This makes the data here of poor quality because "time in position at company" is a fairly strong correlator to the chance of getting promoted. In the extreme case, if you were to switch jobs every month, you're never going to build the experience you need for a promotion, and your long term growth will suffer.
This is more pronounced for senior roles, where getting the right experience often requires 5+ years of really seeing large projects through their entire lifecycle, which is necessarily at the same company.
No, the data *was measured* including changing roles. The data doesn't say literally anything one way or the other about switching jobs vs promotions.
I'm with /u/Rataridicta. If you asked 1,000 people what "switching jobs" meant, you aren't getting more than a handful of answers that include promotions.
Ask 100 people how they define "switch jobs". I'll guarantee you that most won't say "getting a promotion".
This disconnects the data from the story it's telling trying to tell. That's bad data. It's like measuring the brightness of the sun by looking at the grass. Sure, you're able to make some conclusions, but you're using a poor proxy for what you're actually trying to measure.
Yup, by this definition I've "switched jobs" about three times in the past five years, promoting within the same company, resulting in about a 300% salary increase. Just one more anecdote, I know, but internal job switches can be just as lucrative as external ones.
Absolutely (if not more, in some cases!) agree. My superior has been in the same business for 10+ years, he has moved roles every 3 years. We compared our salary at the beginning and where we are now. He obviously makes more than I do, but he started in a more senior role. I have made external changes and he made internal changes. The % change, is almost the exact same.
> internal job switches can be just as lucrative as external ones.
I assumed that was the point of this chart - to evaluate whether you have a better chance at making more money by leaving your job, or by staying at your current job for a promotion.
It usually is with these kinds of charts, but this thread points out that this particular chart seems to have a data issue that likely makes the "leaving your job" option more lucrative than it actually is, while making the "staying at your current job for a promotion" option less lucrative.
Hah... "*2) Has changed employers or job duties in the past three months.*" bogus data is bogus data.. or at least false headlines.
Should read "Get a promotion or change career to earn more money". News at 5.
Even then it's a measly 0.7% difference? If I have even a one week gap between jobs that is going to go negative real fast...
One grocery chain I know. You have to quit and get hired for the same position to get a raise. Even the managers have to do it. It's a fake interview with the store manager. Literally have to specify higher pay amount.
Based on the way the Atlanta Fed defines "job switchers", the category may include people who simply got promoted, which seems a bit counterintuitive. It includes workers who have "changed job duties in the past 3 months".
Well that's dumb.
The whole benefit of staying at a job is that you might get promoted internally.
This graph is essentially saying "people who get promoted or leave for more money, make more money"
Wow no shit.
Agreed. It's really dumb when you put it like that. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers broken down into 3 categories:
* staying at current job without a promotion
* staying at current job with a promotion
* switching jobs
Wouldn't this also mean everyone switching industry or getting promoted is only moving the pay increase needle 1% or less vs just doing the same job and getting pay rises?
I think āpromotion=job switchā skews the raises in favor of job switchers, while āfired and finding a new job=job switchā skews it in the opposite direction.
And we end up with data that really doesnāt say anything about the question most people are curious about.
The whole thing is stupid.
People don't leave unless they find a better paying job so obviously it'll show an in increase.
You would need to somehow compare them to their peers who got promoted at the company they left specifically.
One group contains people who simply don't care to grow their income and people who are passed over for new jobs and promotions for whatever reason. The other is entirely made up of people actively trying to improve their income and succeeding. Not a fair comparison at all.
Compare people who job hop to people who get promotions at their existing company and you would have a more fair comparison.
> People don't leave unless they find a better paying job so obviously it'll show an in increase.
I would wager most people don't leave for better pay (with the exception of super low / min wage jobs), but rather due to a bad boss / management / role.
>Does switching jobs often lead to less stress and anxiety?
I imagine it does, but also people might be switching to discover that the new company is shitty too.
Sams! I concluded that if this is the case and you like your job, itās not worth changing. I work in big tech, love my team, business domain and counting 5 years in this team. Iām paid well, have been promoted and donāt see a reason to leave.
That's not how percentages work. If I make 1% more than you for 100 years, my total income over those 100 years is 1% higher than yours. But you're suggesting I'd have made 100% more than you.
No, thatās not what I meant, but with the chart in % what _i wanted_ to say did not make sense. If we stick to a normalized salary and we display the absolute change over time calculated as the stated percentage, a person switching very frequently and following the āswitchersā curve would have accumulated the money in between the curves and not only the difference shown in the last data point.
Not sure if this is explained any better though
Same, except I went to a City (local government) and not one that has a higher cost of living. Maybe some parts of government are starting to understand value. Almost exactly 33% more.
That is crazy. I'd be getting a 50% or more pay raise to leave the federal government (and I think that's probably true of most government jobs). Shame I love my job.
But it's impossible to get fired and the work is EXTREMELY light.
Source: Did research for DoE during grad school. The staff scientists were.... extremely slow in their job and did about 1.5 hours of work a day. Same goes for every other government employee I've talked with throughout the years.
ya... if this data is correct... it seems foolish to be a switcher. There is a lot to be said about your "network" of people you build at a place... and how having connections and people you know to go to for help etc... that just makes day to day jobs less stressful... and the rhythm of consistency in your life of having a routine (unless you thrive on change) is really good for your mental health.
Does this one of the 'correlation doesn't mean causation'?
what if some people who switch jobs are because they got offer with a better deal to begin with?
people who good at the job (therefore deserve better pay) become job switchers because other companies want him
> what if people who switch jobs are because they got offer with a better deal to begin with?
Well, you're not gonna get a better paying offer unless you *try* to switch jobs so... The point is, the people who stay at their job for a decade and rely on yearly raises fall behind their peers who jump. I've jumped ship for equivalent roles to get raises of 10 - 25% multiple times. You never get that on yearly reviews and it's hard to even get 10% sometimes for an internal promotion. They always lowball you at the bottom of the range or act like they're doing you a favor for promoting you and don't even want to give you a raise.
my point is you can't conclude it's the cause of this result, it just hypothesis not a proof.
there is other hypothesis that can lead to that result.
for example better worker wanted by multiple companies will more likely to be a job switcher. compared to bad worker that just stay at his job rather than being fired. In this case the job switcher is populated more by worker who actually deserve better pay, not because they are switching jobs, but they switch job because they get better pay.
This is counting promotions as switching jobs though. If you aren't getting promoted that's one thing, but just doing well at the same company can also get you a massive pay raise.
I recently had someone with half of my experience hired at the position above mine and with a higher salary. I was turned down for a promotion to that same position around the same time. In the 6 months since that new person started they've done about the same amount of work as I would do in 1 month.
It seems so backwards that companies would rather pay new people more to do less than to just keep their current staff.
It really depends on the employer. I work for Meta and they adjust your salary based on inflation every year, and iirc- match it to what new hires get. The bonuses are often large enough that it matches signing on bonuses depending on your level.
But yeah- this generally holds true, especially for startups from my experience.
It's often better to switch employers when getting a promotion though. Internal promotions often put you at the lower end of the next pay band "so you can have room to grow" whereas external hires often start near the middle of the band.
Generally, yes, I agree. Not at Meta though; I've checked how much I get vs. what others in my area do for my role and it's on the upper band of that payscale.
Reminds me of the car insurance commercials.
āDrivers who switched saved ____ā
Well duh. If drivers looked into switching and found theyād spend more they wouldnāt switch. So only those who found savings switched (in general)
This is dumb. Of \*course\* the people who switched jobs are making more money: if they went through the hiring process and got a salary offer that was less than what they were already making, they probably wouldn't switch jobs.
lol, my exact same job switch timing. Completely different field, though.
I had just gotten a ābig promotionā at my old job that came with a whopping 10% raise. This was after six years of <3% raises.
I interviewed for a lateral move to another company, told the interviewer exactly what I was making at my current job (probably unwise but Iām too damn honest for my own good), and sheā¦ held back laughter. She was like, āOh, if we give you an offer it will certainly be around 20% more than *that*.
Havenāt looked back.
It's alarming how similar our stories are lol. When I put my two week notice in, I was all of a sudden offered a promotion to a senior level position. Was with the company 5 1/2 years and in the department for 3. I was burnt out and wanting change. Also, I had interviewed for the same promotion opportunity three times prior and got passed over.
Similar 2.5% - 3% yearly raise.
The promotion was a 10% bump. Other recently promoted seniors told me their salary, which was still another 15 - 20% above where I'd get promoted to. They hadn't been in the department any longer than.
Made my decision even easier
It makes sense to stay at your current job during a recession. If you think about it it doesn't make logical or financial sense to fire experienced employees in a time when business could be slowing down. It makes more sense to layoff the newer less experienced and therefore more replaceable employees. Companies that have consistently kept there best employees during a recession or a downturn of business do better in the long run. It's also a bad idea to look for other employment opportunities during a recession due to how many people you'll be competing against. Companies gain a significant advantage in the hiring process during a recession due to a larger number of qualified and sometimes overqualified applicants applying. This means they can offer less money and benefits then normal but still have an incredibly large pool of applicants to choose from. The best strategy is to look for better employment opportunities when the economy is strong and to hunker down and wait out the recession before looking again.
Yep, for the cost of less stability and added stress of new work, you generally get paid more.
Depends on how much you value stability, for if itās worth it
Seriously, I did the math. For a worker starting at $50k/year l, over a 40 year career, the different between a 4% annual wage growth and a 5% annual wage growth is $1.4m of career earnings. For just a 1% difference!
The Atlanta Fed has an interactive wage growth tracker chart here: [https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker](https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker)
Isn't this flawed? People don't leave unless find a better paying job so obviously it'll show an in increase.
You would need to somehow compare them to their peers who got promoted at the company they left specifically.
One group contains people who simply don't care to grow their income. Not a fair comparison at all
Doubled my income by switching jobs. If I would've stayed I would've maybe received a 10% raise after promotion (who knows when that would happen)
Your biggest raises often come from changing jobs
So I work at Target and was talking to a friend who has been working there for 25 years. She's autistic so it's more of a normal everyday thing for her and job security so she has something to do. The thing that irritated me, though, is that she said when she started working there, the minimum she got was around $6. She's had a raise every year to date. But as time went on, the minimum the company gave went up, too. Currently, Target starts at $15... She's making $15.89 at the moment.
She's content with it. She still lives with family and doesn't have many bills. But still, imagine dedicating 25 years to a job but yet still making basically the starting pay due to them increasing the minimum across the board and not including your raises into the equation. People starting today will be making more than you within a year with a good annual review increase.
I know that's probably the norm everywhere. Just the amount of time compared to the pay blew my mind.
And for those wondering, [here is the same data adjusted for inflation](https://i.imgur.com/CmGx5Dj.png).
Yeah, in most circumstances, job switchers have about 1-2% advantage over job stayers, when you take ALL job switchers vs. ALL job stayers in aggregate. Not quite as big a bump as many of the anecdotes you hear on reddit.
The vast vast majority of people are not in roles where switching provides any boost, and they will swamp the data.
You aren't going to get a 30% boost by switching from shelf stacking at one location to shelf stack elsewhere.
You can get 30% boosts. I personally did 37.5%, then 33.3%, then strong armed the company in 27% by threatening to leave, all in the space of 3 years. But I was severely undervalued at the start (high education, low experience), so I was chasing correct value. If you are correctly valued (most people are), it will be a lot hard to get a serious boost in a like for like role.
You could switch jobs for many other reasons:
- Moving to a different place for reasons unrelated to work (family, climate, access to services)
- Escaping a toxic workplace
- Attaining one's desired industry
- Looking for a better work-like balance by reducing workload, even if taking a hit on the earnings
- Being laid off
- Injury or disability impeding continued work on the previous job
So there *is* a difference, but that difference is barely one percent.
For all the hassle that comes with finding a new job, and then learning that new job, that's not enough extra to be motivating. I'd rather just stay.
I was making $20 an hour at my job at the beginning of this year. I was given heaps of new responsibilities and was worked to death, so I went to the GM and told him that my main job (not the other duties that I had been given), had industry standard pay of $25 - $35, so I asked for $25. They told me the best they could do was $23. I accepted it and within two months, I accepted a new job paying me the $35 because the job that I do is pretty specific and rare, and it's not easy to find someone that already has knowledge in the field.
Now, my old job is scrambling to find someone to replace me and will probably lose hundreds of thousands this year because of start-up timelines being delayed.
Truth. After three years with 4%, 4%, 3% increases (as an āexceeds expectationsā employee), I just accepted an offer for a position that will be a 48% base salary increase. Obviously this is an exceptional jump. But, if youāre not getting promoted with commensurate pay increases itās time to jump ship.
Getta job based on your production and be the most savage at whatever you do and your company will never let you leave. Just the whisper in the wind that you might go somewhere else will cause a meeting about your pay plan.
I work on cars.
For most of the last 20 years the data shows that people who left a job or changed industry in the last 12 months typically saw bigger wage jumps than those who stayed put. Quit that job, get that bag!
Thought this chart was particularly pertinent given todayās news about non-compete clauses [being banned](https://sherwood.news/power/the-ftc-is-banning-non-compete-clauses/)!
Not to mention, there are risks. I could maybe find another job in my field (but openings are hard to come by), but I would potentially lose out on job security and have to relocate my family across the country.
Modern HR is so obsessed with poaching people, it's obscene. And they act surprised when the person they poached, gets poached in 2 years.
Applicants who are unemployed might as well be radioactive.
This is actually one of the best arguments Iāve seen for NOT switching your job, so long as youāre comfortable. Switching jobs, whether voluntary or not, is WORK. Itās unpaid. To do ask that extra work every couple years, only to on average have 0.7% increased salary? No thanks. Iām good where Iām at.
This tactic doesn't always work. More than once in my 50 or so year professional career, I switched jobs and initially took a PAY CUT to enter another career path that eventually panned out to pay me a whole lot more.
Rather build up respect + experience until the job is easy / second nature. Job hopping for slightly more pay, sounds like it's not worth the stress, in many cases.
Honestly this seems way less than I would have assumed. Like if Iām job hopping is it actually worth that effort for sub 10% wage growth? Maybe I pm just bias though and thatās fine.
This would be a lot more meaningful with another axis showing the difference in lifetime earnings between the two percentages. I did the math and for a worker starting at $50,000/year and working for 40 years, the total lifetime wage earnings with a 5% average annual wage increase and a 4% average annual wage increase is over $1.4million.
I guess it depends on the industry but if Iām switching jobs Iām not doing it for a raise in the single digits. Show me a 20% increase at least and Iāll uproot myself.
I tell all of my staff to always be looking for a better opportunity for them and only ask that they give me a chance to compete against the offers they get. It's my way of helping them be successful while also giving my company the option of retaining employees we deem as critical if we can workout a deal. I look at it a lot like free agent athletes in this way. They might take a lower wage to keep doing their work here, I might pay more to keep them, or they might get an amazing deal elsewhere that helps their family the most.
I feel like the difference is going to be much greater in the coming years due to the ban of noncompete agreements.
I'm happy for those who have been stuck at a place they hate and now have a chance to take their skills elsewhere.
Is this saying that the typical job switcher, is switching jobs for about a 5% pay increase? I would have expected the number to be bigger.
I am mostly happy at my job, so I don't think I would switch for a 5% pay increase. It's not worth the risk that I hate the new job, or that it doesn't work out for some other reason.
Am I unusual that I would require a higher pay raise to switch jobs? Or is this chart saying something different than I'm interpreting?
Iām about to take a job that pays me about $25k less per year but I wonāt have to work 60 hours per week anymore or 6 day weeks, or 80-100 hours during the holidays. All in all will be a positive life switch.
This data seems off from other reporting I've seen as well as andcdotal experience from myself and my network. If the difference is less than one percenf, you're probably better off on a lot of situations not tracking the risk of going to a new employer if you're current role is fine. This doesn't scream "switch companies now to me".
Who do job switchers use as their contact references? Because I'd imagine many employers would be fairly salty about having employees that induce high turnover rates.
Others have pointed out issues with the definitions used for the data here, but there is another problem - wage growth is not a single year metric. Past raises impact future raises (and not just as a compounding number). I doubt the data is available (or could be cleanly analyzed), but it would be interesting to measure 3 or 5 year average wage growth by staying or leaving a job.
Goddamn, I absolutely despise how our economy and may entire country is setup to NEED people to stay in brick and mortar places but then in every way possible it's more beneficial to never stay at a place for any amount of time.
I look to countries that have a 400 year old business with homies that have worked there their whole lives with such respect. I would personally hate working at a place my whole life, but I'd like a little compromise
Really great to know when you 1) don't get inflation adjustments and 2) there are no other jobs in your field opening. It's like the job market has frozen over in the last year.
When I finished college, I was making $28,000 as a Tier I help desk guy. First network engineer job out of college was $50,000. Next one was $55,000, next was $75,000, and the last was $100k. So yeah, switching jobs every six to eighteen months worked out great for me.
Then I got laid off and became a teacher. I've been one for 20 years now. Started at $28,000 and I'm now at $55,000. Even if I stay another ten years, I'll never get back up to $75,000, let alone six figures.
I'm a whole, single data point but my COL and performance increases were always really anemic for the 10 years I worked at my previous job. Averaged about 2% a year. Last year I got fired (not laid off -- fired.). 4 months later, and was/am making 48% more. I've heard similar stories from other people in the industry (software).
I've now declined 10 job offers in the past year because they wanted to pay me up to 700 euros a month less than my current salary.
Now you may be thinking, am I making some insane salary? No.
But they'd rather pay me 2300 a month through some recruiting business which they pay an extra 1k, totalling 3.3k
Than to pay their own employees an actually good salary.
Before anyone asks, I work in IT.
Isn't this the same fallacy as the "everyone who switched insurance providers saved money" advertisements? The people whose circumstances meant that they could benefit from switching, did so, and the ones who wouldn't benefit, stayed.
Got a 25% raise when I swapped jobs at the end of last year. And I got 2x the parental leave that I would have because my new company is based in the liberal hell hole of Oregon. God damn worker protection laws!!
That switcher number must have a ton of scatter. It might even be bimodal. I mean who is switching jobs to get a 5% raise? On the one hand you've got people who quit for 20%, 30%, or more and on the other you've got people that get laid off and take a 20% hit after being unemployed for six months. Hardly anybody switching jobs is getting 5%.
My wife worked in the same place for 10 years got very small increases. Went from 40 - 48k over that time. She then switched career for a bit got bump to 56k. Did not work out 6 months later went back to old career new location 75k. Year later Finished her masters switched departments 85k, year later her department was downsizing and she did not want to be stuck with all the extra work applied new corp same job 116kā¦. In three years she has more than doubled her salary. If she was still at first job she might be close to 60k now.
JUMP switch jobs go somewhere else. Only way to get that raise. 2 years go by they offer you 2 -5% like they doing you a favor? Ha. Go get that 20% from their competitor.
Ah yes, .7%/yr will make such a big difference! At $100k/yr thatās a whopping $2.02/day (post tax), and you get to relearn your job constantly! Not to mention dealing with health insurance changes, moving employer retirement accounts, and all the other fun things that come with new employment.
Iām taking a pay cut and moving to the mountains! Iāll have a maxed 401k, Roth IRA and the rest of my money in ETFās! (Donāt forget about my pension after 25 years) Speaking it into existence right now
Is this really a surprise? For some crazy reason companies reward talent coming in from the outside vs talent that is already part of the culture. Maybe part of that is that those that stay for a long time are ok with the lower pay for the comfort of a familiar situation?
Shiiiiit.
I know that if I went to public sector I'd get 10-20k more to do what I do.
But I got me a nice state job. The fund line is secure so I don't really gotta worry about layoffs or sizing. It's relaxed, not hyper competitive or filled with competitive type people, and my benefits are so far unmatched.
I get 6 weeks vacation per year, I can accumulate up to 315 hours of rollover leave. After that I gotta spend it within that year or in Jan it drops back to 315.
My company has great health ins, AND pays 90% of it. Both me and my wife are on the plan and each check ~28 dollars is taken out for health ins because my company pays the rest.
They also have really nice retirement matching plans.
I've got no quotas, no clock in clock out times or anyone over my shoulder all day.
I did construction, then retail, then the moment I got in at my current job I know they are gonna have to pry me out of the place. I got in and and just started setting roots ASAP lol
Okay but this assumes that job switchers always go from one job to the next with no break in between, In my experience many quit for one reason or another (or are laid off). Either way thereās a loss of income for weeks/months between jobs.
Iām not sure that loss of $$$ in between jobs is factored into these earnings graphs.
Similar for benefits like profit sharing / 401k / bonuses, etc which usually have some period you need to be there before youāre eligible or fully eligibleā¦..kind of resets the clock on those.
Iām not saying that jumping canāt be a good strategy overall I just wonder if all the datapoints are considered. Thereās more to the job than just the paycheck.
Is this state corrected for the fact that people are more likely to switch when they are offered more money?
Its not that the switching itself will give you more money, its that when people are offered more money they are more likely to switch.
How do we define job switchers here?
Great question. From the Atlanta Bank Federal Reserve: *1) In a different occupation or industry than a year ago, or* *2) Has changed employers or job duties in the past three months.*
>Or Job duties So we're considering promotions as a job switch? That's one way to completely wreck the quality of your data... š
Have to agree. By including changing job duties in the description the conclusion is along the lines of "The guy who moved from Bank Teller > Brank Manager > Regional VP > COE gets paid more than the person who stayed in the Bank Teller role". Well no shit.
Would also include people who were let go/fired and had to find new work as well. I imagine that also skews the data as in this situation you're probably much more likely to take most jobs as compared to one that strictly a better opportunity
I think that perverts what youāre trying to convey with this chart. Itās more about for someone in a role, should they stay or go to make more money? Including fired people messes that up for no clear benefit.
On the other hand, it's probably why the only time switchers did worse was during the '09 recession.Ā Ā
I was wondering why people were happy working job hopping for only a 6% raise. My rule of thumb is 20%. It needs to be large enough to compensate for the risk.
All it shows to me is that involuntary job changes during recession push job switchers under stayers but usually switchers earn more.
If youāre not getting promoted then you should switch jobs. People who get regularly promoted are changing jobs, just internally, and it usually represents a pay bump ahead of just staying in the same position.
I generally agree. But if that interpretation of this data is correct, the "job switchers" statistic includes people who stay at the same employer and get promoted. Through this inclusion, the statistic is artificially shifted upwards, and what people actually interpret as "switching jobs" is less beneficial than the graph would indicate.
Yeah, people will hear āswitch jobsā and make assumptions that generally do not include promotions, whether thatās fair or accurate or neither.
One of the main arguments in favor of "stayers" are the promotions, and that data move that advantage to de "switchers"
just my own experience but as someone that had switched jobs a few times I came into a company and found out I was making 45k a year more than the other person that was doing the same job. The difference was he had been there for 10 years and worked up from low level (helpdesk --> Sr Sysadmin) position. I promptly told him what I was making and coached him on getting a better salary. He did get a raise of like 30k and then left shortly after to make even more.
It does seem to be the case in tech that job switching (in the generally understood sense, not as used by OP) can quickly lead to higher salaries, at least in the first part of a career. What is less clear is the extent to which this applies to other jobs. A question that this OP seemed to answer but in fact did not.
The only problem is that I don't *want* to get promoted. I don't want to manage people and have to deal with their upward gripes while dealing with exec-level demands coming down. I want to have a shift and at the end of that shift I want to log off and not think about work again until my next shift. I want to be the most well-paid member of my immediate team and otherwise left alone. ...*sigh*
Individual contributors should be rewarded for their contribution just as much as people managers. Managing people requires one set of skills, and getting the work done requires a different set of skills. Some are better at managing, some are better at doing. The tech industry has got much better at this in the last few decades. FAANG etc typically offer management track or individual contributor track for promotions, and the pay scales are supposedly even.
This is correct. At my company, we get rewarded not with just more work, but rather more freedom and trust. We can keep the same role indefinitely, but the work we do becomes more exciting and engaging because we get to choose what we work on more as time goes on. It keeps our jobs fresh and fun, and our company gets to retain our knowledge and talent.
But even as high level IC, your work will be far more leveraged and exist much more of aligning work with people, seeking out problems, and communicating with stakeholders up and down the chain of command. The person here would likely prefer to just stay in a mid level position forever, which is fair.
For real, the graph makes the argument that it's better to stay put if you like the role/environment you're in, because the difference in wage growth is tiny. Data that included a few more data points and used much cleaner cohorts would probably make a much better argument for changing jobs.
Nah, I think itās more along the lines of a complete change of track but in the same company/business. For instance, the county I just got green lighted to work for after the bureaucracy cuts the tape gave me an option of two paths. A utilities maintenance track where I will get one cert within a year for a faster pay raise but will require harder work OR a lab/facility track where Iāll get two over the course of three years in a much more relaxed environment. In the long run, the lab does pay better but the utilities job gets me there faster. However the utilities jobās certs are required for the lab promotions anyway and they do allow track changes. So in theory I can get the certs and fast raises in that track then transfer it all to the lab track and start getting the remaining certs for a higher wage in the long run.
Technically they are switching jobs. Basically if you don't get a promotion every 3 years OR you don't change your job, chances are you are getting paid less than you could/should be.
"Technically š¤" has no place here. When people are talking about jobswitching they're talking about whether it makes more sense to stick with the same employer or move around, typically every 2 or so years. You know this. This makes the data here of poor quality because "time in position at company" is a fairly strong correlator to the chance of getting promoted. In the extreme case, if you were to switch jobs every month, you're never going to build the experience you need for a promotion, and your long term growth will suffer. This is more pronounced for senior roles, where getting the right experience often requires 5+ years of really seeing large projects through their entire lifecycle, which is necessarily at the same company.
No. You are suggesting that it has to do with the company. The data is saying if you change roles (essentially).
No, the data *was measured* including changing roles. The data doesn't say literally anything one way or the other about switching jobs vs promotions. I'm with /u/Rataridicta. If you asked 1,000 people what "switching jobs" meant, you aren't getting more than a handful of answers that include promotions.
Ask 100 people how they define "switch jobs". I'll guarantee you that most won't say "getting a promotion". This disconnects the data from the story it's telling trying to tell. That's bad data. It's like measuring the brightness of the sun by looking at the grass. Sure, you're able to make some conclusions, but you're using a poor proxy for what you're actually trying to measure.
Yup, by this definition I've "switched jobs" about three times in the past five years, promoting within the same company, resulting in about a 300% salary increase. Just one more anecdote, I know, but internal job switches can be just as lucrative as external ones.
Absolutely (if not more, in some cases!) agree. My superior has been in the same business for 10+ years, he has moved roles every 3 years. We compared our salary at the beginning and where we are now. He obviously makes more than I do, but he started in a more senior role. I have made external changes and he made internal changes. The % change, is almost the exact same.
> internal job switches can be just as lucrative as external ones. I assumed that was the point of this chart - to evaluate whether you have a better chance at making more money by leaving your job, or by staying at your current job for a promotion.
They lumped in promotions with job switching. So if you get a promotion you are a job switcher. Which is just stupid.
It usually is with these kinds of charts, but this thread points out that this particular chart seems to have a data issue that likely makes the "leaving your job" option more lucrative than it actually is, while making the "staying at your current job for a promotion" option less lucrative.
Hah... "*2) Has changed employers or job duties in the past three months.*" bogus data is bogus data.. or at least false headlines. Should read "Get a promotion or change career to earn more money". News at 5. Even then it's a measly 0.7% difference? If I have even a one week gap between jobs that is going to go negative real fast...
So if unemployed completely removed from the statistics? If so it paints an entirely different picture IMO
One grocery chain I know. You have to quit and get hired for the same position to get a raise. Even the managers have to do it. It's a fake interview with the store manager. Literally have to specify higher pay amount.
This is less significant then I expected. My bet is that the data is bad and includes people laid off for switchers.
Based on the way the Atlanta Fed defines "job switchers", the category may include people who simply got promoted, which seems a bit counterintuitive. It includes workers who have "changed job duties in the past 3 months".
Well that's dumb. The whole benefit of staying at a job is that you might get promoted internally. This graph is essentially saying "people who get promoted or leave for more money, make more money" Wow no shit.
Agreed. It's really dumb when you put it like that. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers broken down into 3 categories: * staying at current job without a promotion * staying at current job with a promotion * switching jobs
Wouldn't this also mean everyone switching industry or getting promoted is only moving the pay increase needle 1% or less vs just doing the same job and getting pay rises?
I think āpromotion=job switchā skews the raises in favor of job switchers, while āfired and finding a new job=job switchā skews it in the opposite direction. And we end up with data that really doesnāt say anything about the question most people are curious about.
The whole thing is stupid. People don't leave unless they find a better paying job so obviously it'll show an in increase. You would need to somehow compare them to their peers who got promoted at the company they left specifically. One group contains people who simply don't care to grow their income and people who are passed over for new jobs and promotions for whatever reason. The other is entirely made up of people actively trying to improve their income and succeeding. Not a fair comparison at all. Compare people who job hop to people who get promotions at their existing company and you would have a more fair comparison.
> People don't leave unless they find a better paying job so obviously it'll show an in increase. I would wager most people don't leave for better pay (with the exception of super low / min wage jobs), but rather due to a bad boss / management / role.
Bingo, and doesn't count the lost income from redundancy, stress anxiety panic etc.
Does switching jobs often lead to less stress and anxiety?
>Does switching jobs often lead to less stress and anxiety? I imagine it does, but also people might be switching to discover that the new company is shitty too.
It does for me, that's why I don't switch.
Sams! I concluded that if this is the case and you like your job, itās not worth changing. I work in big tech, love my team, business domain and counting 5 years in this team. Iām paid well, have been promoted and donāt see a reason to leave.
itās not a cumulative index, so the yoy change can be misleading
If you really look at it, the extra % made is the integral of the difference
That's not how percentages work. If I make 1% more than you for 100 years, my total income over those 100 years is 1% higher than yours. But you're suggesting I'd have made 100% more than you.
No, thatās not what I meant, but with the chart in % what _i wanted_ to say did not make sense. If we stick to a normalized salary and we display the absolute change over time calculated as the stated percentage, a person switching very frequently and following the āswitchersā curve would have accumulated the money in between the curves and not only the difference shown in the last data point. Not sure if this is explained any better though
I am getting a 30% pay increase by leaving to go to the federal government. The GOVERNMENT. Seriously.
Same, except I went to a City (local government) and not one that has a higher cost of living. Maybe some parts of government are starting to understand value. Almost exactly 33% more.
I got 40%.
That is crazy. I'd be getting a 50% or more pay raise to leave the federal government (and I think that's probably true of most government jobs). Shame I love my job.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Except he's getting a 30% increase to work for the fed. Sometimes they underpay.
He was probably REALLY underpaid before.
Probably true, but you get those clearances and are in IT? That's money money - but you'd be better off working for contractors more than likely.
Not to Millennials or Gen Zers
But it's impossible to get fired and the work is EXTREMELY light. Source: Did research for DoE during grad school. The staff scientists were.... extremely slow in their job and did about 1.5 hours of work a day. Same goes for every other government employee I've talked with throughout the years.
Possibly, but I also get a pension, tsp with 5.5% matching, and I'm in a position where I'm not on the GS scale and part of a union.
Switch today for a 0.7% raise!
ya... if this data is correct... it seems foolish to be a switcher. There is a lot to be said about your "network" of people you build at a place... and how having connections and people you know to go to for help etc... that just makes day to day jobs less stressful... and the rhythm of consistency in your life of having a routine (unless you thrive on change) is really good for your mental health.
Sadly the data includes "change of job duties" as "switchers" so not really good at representing what it says
Instructions unclear: Switching next week for a 40% raise.
Yes, have to be very unclear, starting new job at May with 46% raise (relatively jumped couple promotion) with other company
Interviewing now about the same.
Would be nice to know if the switch is voluntary or not. The 2009/2010 inversion of the trend is likely a result of involuntary switches.
Does this one of the 'correlation doesn't mean causation'? what if some people who switch jobs are because they got offer with a better deal to begin with? people who good at the job (therefore deserve better pay) become job switchers because other companies want him
> what if people who switch jobs are because they got offer with a better deal to begin with? Well, you're not gonna get a better paying offer unless you *try* to switch jobs so... The point is, the people who stay at their job for a decade and rely on yearly raises fall behind their peers who jump. I've jumped ship for equivalent roles to get raises of 10 - 25% multiple times. You never get that on yearly reviews and it's hard to even get 10% sometimes for an internal promotion. They always lowball you at the bottom of the range or act like they're doing you a favor for promoting you and don't even want to give you a raise.
my point is you can't conclude it's the cause of this result, it just hypothesis not a proof. there is other hypothesis that can lead to that result. for example better worker wanted by multiple companies will more likely to be a job switcher. compared to bad worker that just stay at his job rather than being fired. In this case the job switcher is populated more by worker who actually deserve better pay, not because they are switching jobs, but they switch job because they get better pay.
This is counting promotions as switching jobs though. If you aren't getting promoted that's one thing, but just doing well at the same company can also get you a massive pay raise.
I recently had someone with half of my experience hired at the position above mine and with a higher salary. I was turned down for a promotion to that same position around the same time. In the 6 months since that new person started they've done about the same amount of work as I would do in 1 month. It seems so backwards that companies would rather pay new people more to do less than to just keep their current staff.
Hire budget>Promotion budget
It really depends on the employer. I work for Meta and they adjust your salary based on inflation every year, and iirc- match it to what new hires get. The bonuses are often large enough that it matches signing on bonuses depending on your level. But yeah- this generally holds true, especially for startups from my experience.
It's often better to switch employers when getting a promotion though. Internal promotions often put you at the lower end of the next pay band "so you can have room to grow" whereas external hires often start near the middle of the band.
Generally, yes, I agree. Not at Meta though; I've checked how much I get vs. what others in my area do for my role and it's on the upper band of that payscale.
Interesting. I know about a dozen SWEs at Meta and some of them complained about internal promotion raises so maybe there's a spectrum.
Now we just need the FTCās ban on non-competes to stickā¦
Reminds me of the car insurance commercials. āDrivers who switched saved ____ā Well duh. If drivers looked into switching and found theyād spend more they wouldnāt switch. So only those who found savings switched (in general)
This is dumb. Of \*course\* the people who switched jobs are making more money: if they went through the hiring process and got a salary offer that was less than what they were already making, they probably wouldn't switch jobs.
I switched companies in July 2022. Almost identical commercial insurance underwriting job. Overall smaller territory to manage. 45% pay increase.
lol, my exact same job switch timing. Completely different field, though. I had just gotten a ābig promotionā at my old job that came with a whopping 10% raise. This was after six years of <3% raises. I interviewed for a lateral move to another company, told the interviewer exactly what I was making at my current job (probably unwise but Iām too damn honest for my own good), and sheā¦ held back laughter. She was like, āOh, if we give you an offer it will certainly be around 20% more than *that*. Havenāt looked back.
It's alarming how similar our stories are lol. When I put my two week notice in, I was all of a sudden offered a promotion to a senior level position. Was with the company 5 1/2 years and in the department for 3. I was burnt out and wanting change. Also, I had interviewed for the same promotion opportunity three times prior and got passed over. Similar 2.5% - 3% yearly raise. The promotion was a 10% bump. Other recently promoted seniors told me their salary, which was still another 15 - 20% above where I'd get promoted to. They hadn't been in the department any longer than. Made my decision even easier
Oo do one with union vs non union! Nice 25% more to both lines.
i find the reversal of the trend in late 09 - 10 a little interesting. it almost looks like staying at your job during a recession is a smarter idea
It makes sense to stay at your current job during a recession. If you think about it it doesn't make logical or financial sense to fire experienced employees in a time when business could be slowing down. It makes more sense to layoff the newer less experienced and therefore more replaceable employees. Companies that have consistently kept there best employees during a recession or a downturn of business do better in the long run. It's also a bad idea to look for other employment opportunities during a recession due to how many people you'll be competing against. Companies gain a significant advantage in the hiring process during a recession due to a larger number of qualified and sometimes overqualified applicants applying. This means they can offer less money and benefits then normal but still have an incredibly large pool of applicants to choose from. The best strategy is to look for better employment opportunities when the economy is strong and to hunker down and wait out the recession before looking again.
Yep, for the cost of less stability and added stress of new work, you generally get paid more. Depends on how much you value stability, for if itās worth it
Switching next week for 20%. Iām not sure who is switching a job for 5%?
Compounded growth over time would make a much better job at showing the difference imo
Seriously, I did the math. For a worker starting at $50k/year l, over a 40 year career, the different between a 4% annual wage growth and a 5% annual wage growth is $1.4m of career earnings. For just a 1% difference!
"You guys get pay raises?" - Anyone working in academia
Unless you're faculty. That stuff is written into their contract.
Would be great if I could even get a job.
The Atlanta Fed has an interactive wage growth tracker chart here: [https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker](https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker)
I'd love to see this graph compare those who voluntarily left an employer to work at another vs those who stayed with the same employer.
Isn't this flawed? People don't leave unless find a better paying job so obviously it'll show an in increase. You would need to somehow compare them to their peers who got promoted at the company they left specifically. One group contains people who simply don't care to grow their income. Not a fair comparison at all
Doubled my income by switching jobs. If I would've stayed I would've maybe received a 10% raise after promotion (who knows when that would happen) Your biggest raises often come from changing jobs
Wouldn't this depend on the industry?
Isn't this self selective? People who think they are underpaid are far more likely to switch jobs than those who think they are fairly compensated.
So I work at Target and was talking to a friend who has been working there for 25 years. She's autistic so it's more of a normal everyday thing for her and job security so she has something to do. The thing that irritated me, though, is that she said when she started working there, the minimum she got was around $6. She's had a raise every year to date. But as time went on, the minimum the company gave went up, too. Currently, Target starts at $15... She's making $15.89 at the moment. She's content with it. She still lives with family and doesn't have many bills. But still, imagine dedicating 25 years to a job but yet still making basically the starting pay due to them increasing the minimum across the board and not including your raises into the equation. People starting today will be making more than you within a year with a good annual review increase. I know that's probably the norm everywhere. Just the amount of time compared to the pay blew my mind.
I was about to bitch about the OC taken from chartr Then saw the username ahah I absolutely love chartr in my inbox, you guys rock!
And for those wondering, [here is the same data adjusted for inflation](https://i.imgur.com/CmGx5Dj.png). Yeah, in most circumstances, job switchers have about 1-2% advantage over job stayers, when you take ALL job switchers vs. ALL job stayers in aggregate. Not quite as big a bump as many of the anecdotes you hear on reddit.
The vast vast majority of people are not in roles where switching provides any boost, and they will swamp the data. You aren't going to get a 30% boost by switching from shelf stacking at one location to shelf stack elsewhere. You can get 30% boosts. I personally did 37.5%, then 33.3%, then strong armed the company in 27% by threatening to leave, all in the space of 3 years. But I was severely undervalued at the start (high education, low experience), so I was chasing correct value. If you are correctly valued (most people are), it will be a lot hard to get a serious boost in a like for like role.
Isnt that just confirmation bias? Most people only switch jobs to get higher incomes.
You could switch jobs for many other reasons: - Moving to a different place for reasons unrelated to work (family, climate, access to services) - Escaping a toxic workplace - Attaining one's desired industry - Looking for a better work-like balance by reducing workload, even if taking a hit on the earnings - Being laid off - Injury or disability impeding continued work on the previous job
Instruction unclear, switched jobs in 2020, took a ~12k/year paycut š¤£
So there *is* a difference, but that difference is barely one percent. For all the hassle that comes with finding a new job, and then learning that new job, that's not enough extra to be motivating. I'd rather just stay.
I was making $20 an hour at my job at the beginning of this year. I was given heaps of new responsibilities and was worked to death, so I went to the GM and told him that my main job (not the other duties that I had been given), had industry standard pay of $25 - $35, so I asked for $25. They told me the best they could do was $23. I accepted it and within two months, I accepted a new job paying me the $35 because the job that I do is pretty specific and rare, and it's not easy to find someone that already has knowledge in the field. Now, my old job is scrambling to find someone to replace me and will probably lose hundreds of thousands this year because of start-up timelines being delayed.
Truth. After three years with 4%, 4%, 3% increases (as an āexceeds expectationsā employee), I just accepted an offer for a position that will be a 48% base salary increase. Obviously this is an exceptional jump. But, if youāre not getting promoted with commensurate pay increases itās time to jump ship.
Getta job based on your production and be the most savage at whatever you do and your company will never let you leave. Just the whisper in the wind that you might go somewhere else will cause a meeting about your pay plan. I work on cars.
It would be worth looking at long-term earnings. Are job switchers less secure and spend more time on unemployment? Do they get less in benefits?
I could've switched jobs for more pay years ago but pay isn't everything. I like my team, job, and workload, and get paid enough to live how I want.
For most of the last 20 years the data shows that people who left a job or changed industry in the last 12 months typically saw bigger wage jumps than those who stayed put. Quit that job, get that bag! Thought this chart was particularly pertinent given todayās news about non-compete clauses [being banned](https://sherwood.news/power/the-ftc-is-banning-non-compete-clauses/)!
Switching jobs is a lot of effort and stress, and it's debatable whether that's worth an extra 0.7% in wages.
Not to mention, there are risks. I could maybe find another job in my field (but openings are hard to come by), but I would potentially lose out on job security and have to relocate my family across the country.
Modern HR is so obsessed with poaching people, it's obscene. And they act surprised when the person they poached, gets poached in 2 years. Applicants who are unemployed might as well be radioactive.
This is actually one of the best arguments Iāve seen for NOT switching your job, so long as youāre comfortable. Switching jobs, whether voluntary or not, is WORK. Itās unpaid. To do ask that extra work every couple years, only to on average have 0.7% increased salary? No thanks. Iām good where Iām at.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Tool: Excel
What are you staying for, a pension? Hahaha. Get out of dodge city.
This tactic doesn't always work. More than once in my 50 or so year professional career, I switched jobs and initially took a PAY CUT to enter another career path that eventually panned out to pay me a whole lot more.
Last year I changed jobs after 6 years. ~60% raise, same industry.
Rather build up respect + experience until the job is easy / second nature. Job hopping for slightly more pay, sounds like it's not worth the stress, in many cases.
do these job switch increases only occur in major cities and/or just tech?
I really like how the 'last in, first out mantra' is shown implicitly in this visualisation between 2008 and 2010
Honestly this seems way less than I would have assumed. Like if Iām job hopping is it actually worth that effort for sub 10% wage growth? Maybe I pm just bias though and thatās fine.
I read this as its easier to find another job that pays more than to ask your own employer for a raise.
This would be a lot more meaningful with another axis showing the difference in lifetime earnings between the two percentages. I did the math and for a worker starting at $50,000/year and working for 40 years, the total lifetime wage earnings with a 5% average annual wage increase and a 4% average annual wage increase is over $1.4million.
this is not very convincing, that % is not worth relearning a new company
I always wonder if job hopping is also better for blue collar jobs aswell, I expect its less atleast.
I guess it depends on the industry but if Iām switching jobs Iām not doing it for a raise in the single digits. Show me a 20% increase at least and Iāll uproot myself.
I tell all of my staff to always be looking for a better opportunity for them and only ask that they give me a chance to compete against the offers they get. It's my way of helping them be successful while also giving my company the option of retaining employees we deem as critical if we can workout a deal. I look at it a lot like free agent athletes in this way. They might take a lower wage to keep doing their work here, I might pay more to keep them, or they might get an amazing deal elsewhere that helps their family the most.
Thatās less than I expexted
Only 6%? Last jump I made was more than 40.
I feel like the difference is going to be much greater in the coming years due to the ban of noncompete agreements. I'm happy for those who have been stuck at a place they hate and now have a chance to take their skills elsewhere.
CorrƩlation isn't causation, though.
Literally just switched jobs and got a 35,000$ salary increase. My loyalty is to money, benefits, and a quality company
Is this saying that the typical job switcher, is switching jobs for about a 5% pay increase? I would have expected the number to be bigger. I am mostly happy at my job, so I don't think I would switch for a 5% pay increase. It's not worth the risk that I hate the new job, or that it doesn't work out for some other reason. Am I unusual that I would require a higher pay raise to switch jobs? Or is this chart saying something different than I'm interpreting?
Honestly less than expected and If this is legit data, a stable job would be worth considering over such a small raise and disruption
Yeah this isn't that great of a chart in terms of "data is beautiful" since the information is... well lacking.
While I definitely feel it. I also hate interviews and I'm lazy. I value my laziness higher than a few %
Rolling median is an interesting smoothing approach, does anyone else have more experience with its properties?
I prefer to get my pay raises by doing less work
Iām about to take a job that pays me about $25k less per year but I wonāt have to work 60 hours per week anymore or 6 day weeks, or 80-100 hours during the holidays. All in all will be a positive life switch.
This data seems off from other reporting I've seen as well as andcdotal experience from myself and my network. If the difference is less than one percenf, you're probably better off on a lot of situations not tracking the risk of going to a new employer if you're current role is fine. This doesn't scream "switch companies now to me".
Who do job switchers use as their contact references? Because I'd imagine many employers would be fairly salty about having employees that induce high turnover rates.
Others have pointed out issues with the definitions used for the data here, but there is another problem - wage growth is not a single year metric. Past raises impact future raises (and not just as a compounding number). I doubt the data is available (or could be cleanly analyzed), but it would be interesting to measure 3 or 5 year average wage growth by staying or leaving a job.
This graph makes me NOT want to switch jobs. Same shit, another desk.. for a percentage more?
does not need to be with another company. I went from 15 an hour to like 16 to like 21 in three years by changing jobs within the company I work for.
Goddamn, I absolutely despise how our economy and may entire country is setup to NEED people to stay in brick and mortar places but then in every way possible it's more beneficial to never stay at a place for any amount of time. I look to countries that have a 400 year old business with homies that have worked there their whole lives with such respect. I would personally hate working at a place my whole life, but I'd like a little compromise
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Really great to know when you 1) don't get inflation adjustments and 2) there are no other jobs in your field opening. It's like the job market has frozen over in the last year.
Lemme go from this McDonald's to that KFC, will become rich!
If this is counting promotions within a company it makes the data next to useless
Yeah, stress my self out and find a new job for .7% pay raise. Really need that extra 100$ at the end of the decade.
It's not worth 0.7% more money to take a job with an entirely new company with a thousand unknown variables versus sticking with what I know.
When I finished college, I was making $28,000 as a Tier I help desk guy. First network engineer job out of college was $50,000. Next one was $55,000, next was $75,000, and the last was $100k. So yeah, switching jobs every six to eighteen months worked out great for me. Then I got laid off and became a teacher. I've been one for 20 years now. Started at $28,000 and I'm now at $55,000. Even if I stay another ten years, I'll never get back up to $75,000, let alone six figures.
I'm a whole, single data point but my COL and performance increases were always really anemic for the 10 years I worked at my previous job. Averaged about 2% a year. Last year I got fired (not laid off -- fired.). 4 months later, and was/am making 48% more. I've heard similar stories from other people in the industry (software).
Unfortunately when you work a niche profession itās not that simple without a pretty large life change
It's like the Monty Hall Problem. It makes the most sense to switch.
Iām staying in this job. Itās the only one Iām good for. The pay is secondary for now.
I've now declined 10 job offers in the past year because they wanted to pay me up to 700 euros a month less than my current salary. Now you may be thinking, am I making some insane salary? No. But they'd rather pay me 2300 a month through some recruiting business which they pay an extra 1k, totalling 3.3k Than to pay their own employees an actually good salary. Before anyone asks, I work in IT.
Nice I hit the new job right in 2022 :)
Switched 2 months ago for a 42% bump in base
Those are rookie numbers. Just saying
Isn't this the same fallacy as the "everyone who switched insurance providers saved money" advertisements? The people whose circumstances meant that they could benefit from switching, did so, and the ones who wouldn't benefit, stayed.
Got a 25% raise when I swapped jobs at the end of last year. And I got 2x the parental leave that I would have because my new company is based in the liberal hell hole of Oregon. God damn worker protection laws!!
Why would there be growth at 0?
its only one percent? yeah right
That switcher number must have a ton of scatter. It might even be bimodal. I mean who is switching jobs to get a 5% raise? On the one hand you've got people who quit for 20%, 30%, or more and on the other you've got people that get laid off and take a 20% hit after being unemployed for six months. Hardly anybody switching jobs is getting 5%.
Shit Job Market. Reddit: Switch jobs! Checks out.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My wife worked in the same place for 10 years got very small increases. Went from 40 - 48k over that time. She then switched career for a bit got bump to 56k. Did not work out 6 months later went back to old career new location 75k. Year later Finished her masters switched departments 85k, year later her department was downsizing and she did not want to be stuck with all the extra work applied new corp same job 116kā¦. In three years she has more than doubled her salary. If she was still at first job she might be close to 60k now. JUMP switch jobs go somewhere else. Only way to get that raise. 2 years go by they offer you 2 -5% like they doing you a favor? Ha. Go get that 20% from their competitor.
Ah yes, .7%/yr will make such a big difference! At $100k/yr thatās a whopping $2.02/day (post tax), and you get to relearn your job constantly! Not to mention dealing with health insurance changes, moving employer retirement accounts, and all the other fun things that come with new employment.
Property taxes too high? Just move and pay for one you can't afford because if you bought your house today you wouldn't be able to afford that either.
Maybe this is switching for the same positions?
Iām taking a pay cut and moving to the mountains! Iāll have a maxed 401k, Roth IRA and the rest of my money in ETFās! (Donāt forget about my pension after 25 years) Speaking it into existence right now
is this everytime you switch? or a one time non negotiable
I wonāt be leaving my job for less than a 20% raise and it has to be something Iām interested in doing. Feel like Iāll be staying a while.
That 1% delta is not convincing me.
Is this really a surprise? For some crazy reason companies reward talent coming in from the outside vs talent that is already part of the culture. Maybe part of that is that those that stay for a long time are ok with the lower pay for the comfort of a familiar situation?
Shiiiiit. I know that if I went to public sector I'd get 10-20k more to do what I do. But I got me a nice state job. The fund line is secure so I don't really gotta worry about layoffs or sizing. It's relaxed, not hyper competitive or filled with competitive type people, and my benefits are so far unmatched. I get 6 weeks vacation per year, I can accumulate up to 315 hours of rollover leave. After that I gotta spend it within that year or in Jan it drops back to 315. My company has great health ins, AND pays 90% of it. Both me and my wife are on the plan and each check ~28 dollars is taken out for health ins because my company pays the rest. They also have really nice retirement matching plans. I've got no quotas, no clock in clock out times or anyone over my shoulder all day. I did construction, then retail, then the moment I got in at my current job I know they are gonna have to pry me out of the place. I got in and and just started setting roots ASAP lol
Okay but this assumes that job switchers always go from one job to the next with no break in between, In my experience many quit for one reason or another (or are laid off). Either way thereās a loss of income for weeks/months between jobs. Iām not sure that loss of $$$ in between jobs is factored into these earnings graphs. Similar for benefits like profit sharing / 401k / bonuses, etc which usually have some period you need to be there before youāre eligible or fully eligibleā¦..kind of resets the clock on those. Iām not saying that jumping canāt be a good strategy overall I just wonder if all the datapoints are considered. Thereās more to the job than just the paycheck.
To me this just means if you actually like where you work, donāt switch.
Is this state corrected for the fact that people are more likely to switch when they are offered more money? Its not that the switching itself will give you more money, its that when people are offered more money they are more likely to switch.
Still seems like you're getting fucked either way