HN Explorer

Ask HN: Would you leave your company for a raise of 20%?

32 points by wiggler00m ↗ HN
“In 1968, the year Intel opened shop, a psychology professor at the University of Maryland cast a theory that surely influenced Andy Grove. First, said Edwin Locke, “hard goals” drive performance more effectively than easy goals. Second, specific hard goals “produce a higher level of output” than vaguely worded ones.

In the intervening half century, more than a thousand studies have confirmed Locke’s discovery as “ one of the most tested, and proven, ideas in the whole of management theory.” Among experiments in the field, 90 percent confirm that productivity is enhanced by well-defined, challenging goals.

Year after year, Gallup surveys attest to a “worldwide employee engagement crisis.” Less than a third of U.S. workers are “ involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace.” Of those disengaged millions, more than half would leave their company for a raise of 20 percent or less. In the technology sector, two out of three employees think they could find a better job inside of two months.”

Excerpt From: Doerr, John. “Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs.” Apple Books.

41 comments

[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 83.1 ms ] thread
whateveracct
If I magically had an offer on the table right now of 20% more - duh?
matthewrudy
I finish my current role on Friday, and start a new one next Monday.

The difference is pretty much 20%.

On why I took it:

* The money is better

* It has more potential for fulfillment

* The money is enough to offset the risk that it won't suit me

vancityr
I recently switched jobs for a 40% raise.

The extra money feels good but I do miss the tech stack and my former team members. It is exhausting to work with people who do not share the same thought process and are very risk averse.

When I accepted the offer, I knew this could happen but felt the pay raise would neutralize this :) yes and no.

Next time— I will jump ship for more of a raise.

imhoguy
> It is exhausting to work with people who do not share the same thought process and are very risk averse.

> Next time— I will jump ship for more of a raise.

Money alone is not enough. From my observations sacrificing significant job ergonomics for money is a trap leading to burnout. I would continue to search for a better place with a bit more balance.

lowdest
Anyone who is surprised at this is either so wealthy they are out of touch or has not felt the creeping dread of an under-funded retirement account.
denkmoon
All things the same, why wouldn't you?

There are very few companies out there that wouldn't replace you in a heartbeat for someone taking 20% less, everything else the same.

muzani
Actually it doesn't work the other way around. If you're a developer, you've already got some understanding of where everything is. A new guy would take at least a few weeks training to catch up, and there's a risk that they might not transfer in so well from their current role. Even if you're a marketer or salesperson, someone who has been in the company a while knows the strengths and weaknesses right off the bat.
scarface74
It’s a headache and disruption to change jobs. You have to learn a new code base and you don’t have the reputation or the relationships to make things easier.
sigmonsays
i've always made decisions outside of money. While i'm not the most highly paid, i've grown over time consistently. The work, your team and your goals usually out weigh your compensation if you live within your means. Go with a role who is going to provide long term growth and interesting work. The money will follow.
mnm1
It's likely, however there are other considerations. Flexibility. Workload. Work-life balance. New management style. Etc. I wouldn't do it automatically, but for the right position, definitely. I haven't gotten a raise in half a decade and each year benefits are going down. But work life balance and flexibility are really nice. So it's a tough call.
mifreewil
Sounds like you should have started looking a quarter of a decade ago. I'm sure you could find something that compensates better with similar work life balance and flexibility.
muzani
I've interviewed people who straight up said they were looking for 10% over their current job, even providing evidence of their last pay slip.
leaveyou
and what was your reaction and why ?
muzani
Honestly, we had no issue with it. It's quite sad as we were already prepared to offer much more. One guy had quite a long resume. Twice my work experience but asking for half the salary. It hit me in the existential feels.

I don't think 10% jumps are effective. Part of the problem is some people are focused solely on that 10% incremental salary growth. They bounce around in bad companies willing to match that. They don't develop the skills needed to get a 30% or even a 100% leap. (they were being paid ~$15k annually, so a 100% leap is very plausible)

quickthrower2
There is no incentive for commitment at most places. And that’s no surprise: how can any company compete with the whole world minus that company for future career opportunities? Even Google cant do that.

And sure people would leave for a raise. It’d be interesting how the survey is worded. Would they take the raise for a more boring or stressful job, a longer commute or to work in something less ethical?

jasonkester
Restated: “would you accept an offer to shorten the time before you can retire by 20%?”

It would take a lot of free coffee and fooseball at your current gig to make that be worth turning down,

phamilton
It's probably more drastic than that.

Simple math: if you have a savings rate of 20% right now, you would double your savings rate with a 20% bump. This would halve your time to retirement.

Taxes/differences in savings rate/etc change the math, but the principle is the same: an increase in salary is a disproportionate increase in disposable income.

ghgr
Restated once more: "Would you trade free time in your youth for the same amount of free time at retirement age?"
jake-low
While both your question and the GP's are worth pondering, I'm not sure either is identical to the original question. The new job doesn't necessarily come with less free time (or less free coffee and foosball).
jasonkester
As noted elsewhere, that's not the trade-off being made (as we're assuming like-for-like work conditions, thus equal free time in both cases).

But it's a fun exercise in compound interest, so I'd recommend doing the math to discover how many years of extra retirement you get from working, say, a full year of 80 hour weeks, billed hourly at your current salary, at age 30.

Once you've gotten past the steep part of the salary curve, that starts to look like a really good tradeoff. Put an extra, un-looked-for, quarter million into the market early in life, and you can essentially not worry any further about saving for retirement.

That is, you can move forward spending every cent you earn (or only working as many months per year as necessary to cover expenses) and still retire as per usual at age 60.

scarface74
I want the optionality to retire, but I really don’t care about full not working retirement. I’m perfectly okay with working part of the year doing contracts/consulting until my health declines so much I couldn’t do it. My wife has guaranteed health coverage for the rest of our lives through her government job after 10 years.
anon12413
I wouldn't. I work for myself and I gave away 50% of my income to work by myself on my own product. I wouldn't go back to working for someone else for 20%, not 100 or even 300% more income.
dirktheman
I know I wouldn't. In fact, about 10 years ago I started working 4 days a week instead of 5, taking a 20% pay cut. I wanted the extra day to be with my family, help out with school, etc. By switching companies and going back to working full time I could easily make 2x the amount of money I'm making right now, but it still wouldn't be worth it. I can always work more and make more money, but I will never get another opportunity to see my kids grow up.

In my case, time is money but money does not equal time.

andrea_sdl
This. I wholeheartedly agree. I dunno if it was you but 4 years ago a similar comment on hacker news made me consider working less.

It was the best decision in my entire life. I came to the conclusion that our work will not linger in our memories the way family, love, friends, do.

It entirely changed my way of thinking and I can't see myself going back to a 5-days week.

If anyone is interested I also wrote what were the drawbacks for me on my blog ( https://givemethechills.com/why-did-i-start-working-part-tim... ) I don't want by no means hijack the thread, but if anyone wants a inside look I think the post might help, and in any case I'm open to question.

Back to the 20% raise topic: No, I wouldn't take it unless it'll improve my quality of life dramatically.

world32
Thats an answer to a completely different question though? The question wasn't "would you work more hours for more pay".
dirktheman
Yes, you're right. To answer the question: if you would ask me 'would you leave your company for a 20% raise with the same hours' than my answer would be 'probably not'. I've had numerous jobs before this one, this is the first job that I like going to, even after a couple of years in. I make a decent amount, have nice collegues, no office politics and every day is a new challenge (in a good way). Having the peace of mind of a fulfilling job is worth a lot more than 20% in my opinion.

Maybe I'll switch in a couple of years for a real C-level job, but right now I don't see myself going anywhere.

[dead] EvagohP5
Depends on the country.

In countries like Argentina, where inflation beats salary rises. The only way of surviving (those who have the chance, i.e. IT) is switching jobs for considerable raises

thedevindevops
Would depend on what the new company does, where I currently am I'm very happy with the ethics and morality of the business model, it would be hard to find somewhere that ticked all the boxes but if it did then sure.
rofo1
I'm working with really good people, as a remote worker and I have probably and objectively one of the best work conditions one can get without playing politics or being someone's "yes man" or something similar.

I am already paid extremely well and I am not a greedy person anyway.

So, 20% more means nothing to me unless I have the same conditions, which are so rare.. that I've never seen before.

If it means to wake up and deal with awful people, that's a definite no.

If somehow I can end up working with as good people as my current colleagues and bosses, I would only take the job if my current company doesn't suffer because of me. Yes, I am loyal person and it's probably looked down upon in this day and age, but it is what it is.

So, probably no.

piyushahuja
Could you tell which company is it? Its always nice to hear about companies which pull off remoteculture very well.
mokoro
I did the other way round. Intentionally went to a company which paid me 30% less, but I'm unionized and have a job security until pension (it's a gov organization). I'm in the early 40's with a record of senior developer and PM roles in FAANG companies, but started to feel the ageism issue. I believe I could survive 15 more years in the tech but it wouldn't be sufficient for me to retire. Overall on average I prefer to earn 30% less for the next 30 years than earning 30% more for 15-20 and having nothing for the rest.
alanfranz
I don't understand the connection between the text and the title question, btw:

If my current job gives me enough to live decently, and I feel it's satisfying, 20% is too little to jump ships into the unknown. Of course, if the destination company is good and I have insider information about the environment, this could change.

Otoh, if I make too little money to sustain myself, I'd jump ships at each +20% chance .

scarface74
It depends on whether I have “enough” to comfortable meet my short term commitments, long term goals, and have nice to haves on the level that I desire.

To keep things short, let’s just say that my career stagnated until 10 years ago and I was basically at the salary level and skillset of a junior software engineer, my side hustles evaporated and I met my now wife and (step)children she was taking care of by herself.

I was living in a nice neighborhood with a horrible school system. She was living in a condo in the best school district in the state. We were worked together and we were both laid off. I was able to get a comparable job literally the next week, but she had to take a job either with crazy inconsistent hours or one paying less...

2012 - we were barely getting by when we moved to an apartment on the better side of town and we were both recovering and paying back money because of $life. I stayed at the company just long enough to finish modernizing my tech stack and I jumped ship for $25K two years later.

2014 - now between the $25K I was making and the extra $10K she was making we had enough to comfortable live our lives, get a new car she desperately needed and get myself a new car so I could hand my old one down to my son who was now a senior to go back and forth to college with the next year - and car insurance for teenager.

We had enough to qualify for the house we wanted in the school district we wanted, but I knew it would be a stretch.

But by 2016, I knew I could call up my list of well curated recruiters and get a job making $25K more that would make buying a house much more comfortable. We started the process of getting a house built, as soon as we closed, I made a few calls and had a job making my target salary before the first mortgage payment was due.

Now, in 2019, things are different. The only job opportunities that I have in my local market that pay even 25K more that I am qualified for without going into management are consulting jobs. I just don’t want to do that now and I wouldn’t take the 25% raise that they have offered me.

Sure we could build our net worth faster, but it wouldn’t make any significant difference in our lifestyle.

Money was the major motivation for me leaving a job between 2008-2016, but now it would be based on whether I am working with technology that keeps me marketable and whether I like the environment.

Fradow
I wouldn't leave for any realistic amount. 20%, 50%, 100%. Even a x10 wouldn't be enough to make me leave (after that it starts to get really unrealistic, and I don't hypothesize on unrealistic situations).

The other dev in my company won't either, at least not until 100% (we both know he could get that by jumping ship to go to defense/banking jobs that pay at least double our salary).

Why is that? For me, I'm a founder (the other dev is not), and I'm emotionally invested in our company success. The biggest other factor is that we do social good. That's the main reason we are there and will stick there as long as the company runs. Salary is enough to live confortably, and way higher than the minimum wage, so we aren't complaining. The work is interesting as well, and we get to have a good dev culture, focused on making things better. All the people working their are nice.

Finding another company that satisfies all the non-monetary consideration is a crapshot, frankly. I would be very hesitant even if I was not a founder, a lot of things aren't apparent until you are several months in your new contract.

Art9681
It depends. 20% of 50K is a lot less than 20% of 100k. I would absolutely jump ship for a 20K raise.
_ah
Actually it's not.

$20k might seen like a lot to you at $50k, because your life and expenses are calibrated to that level. It means a little less at $100k, and much less at $200k. I'd argue that if you make it to $500k, a 20% raise is absolutely meaningless because you probably already have enough for your lifestyle needs.

Ever wonder why CEOs get SO MUCH MONEY to switch jobs? This is why. Lower amounts just don't move the needle and prove enough incentive.

Art9681
It depends what you intend to do with that money though. For example, if I can put an extra 100k into a retirement fund or investments over the next 5 years then that is an incentive to go for the 20% raise. I say this because I am currently in that situation. I am about to accept an offer for a substantial raise. I own a nice new car and have a big home. I could decrease those expenses and put more into retirement or I can continue with my current standard of living and put more money into retirement by accepting the offer. In the end, depending on what your financials are like, that 20% raise could mean the difference between retiring at 67 or retiring at 60...or before that. It's all relative right?
noxxten
I disagree in a way... If my cost of living and all other expenses don't change, and I just switch jobs and instantly got a 20% salary increase... Whether I'm making a $30k salary or a $200k salary, that's a lot of extra money to throw at savings, hobbies, retirement (retire earlier?), etc...
technofiend
In terms of hard value, you're right. In terms of actual value to yourself: maybe, maybe not. Without strict discipline spending can be like a gas and expand to fill available volume.
AnimalMuppet
In my current job, I have (mostly) sane management, co-workers I like and get along with, and do work that helps people. I've been around enough to realize that it's pretty sweet to have that. I'd have to think hard before leaving that, even for more money. (It might depend on how badly I needed the money.)
ishjoh
I left my full-time job to start my own business. I work more than I used to but I also make more than I used to. Part of the upside is that I do hope to retire earlier than most, but I do miss having a more 9-5 day.