What's better for my career long term? >10 years experience

>>1696412
5 companies, 2 years each.

You'll get ~35% raise each time you switch compared to ~2-6% raise/year.

>>1697044
In general, this.

It's more like 10-20% per switch vs 5-10% raise per year.
If your company gives you less than a 3% raise per year, you should quit immediately, as you aren't keeping up with inflation.

However, life isn't just about money, so if you love your job (very rare), you shouldn't feel like cuck for taking a slightly lower salary.

Also, work remote if possible.

Currently working a job I love remotely. It's basically like being paid NEET.

>>1696412
When someone says they have 10 years of experience in something, then it really means they have 1 year of experience 10x times. They just repeat the same thing in their pathetic wagecuck life

>>1697562
Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?
I mean, I feel like I learn new things and mature as a person each year but maybe I'm just a "wagecuck".
Either way, my experience must mean something because I'm paid more now then five years ago.

>>1697576
>>1697562
It is all about them seeing that you are putting up with shit, even more so that you work long in one company and not cause any problems since why would they hire a guy that is constantly changing places. Why invest in a person that most likely will leave soon anyways.

>>1698807
>why would they hire a guy that is constantly changing places. Why invest in a person that most likely will leave soon anyways.

We don't really think that. I do hiring for a fairly large startup in SF and I can tell you that we don't actually think about that much. The only places that think about that are places where the people who work there know that it's shit. Also, we look down on people that argue "I've worked at X for 10 years so I'm really loyal". Loyal is a code word for stupid in today's business market.

What we like the best is somebody who walks in and says "I've probably already done what you want me to do before, and I have two separate workplaces I did it at". That sounds much better than "I did thing for 10 years and they never had the gall to promote or fire me".

Look for experiences, not workplaces. Narrate every job that you've ever worked with the quest for knowledge. Disregard location, change cities if it means a better job. If you're interesting enough, people will just hire you because they want to work with you.

Here is an example of a guy I hired recently:
>High school dropout, worked in a retirement home instead of going to high school
>Used saved up money to move to Indonesia for a year
>Moved back to US because money dried up, went to community college
>Took 2 year break from CC, moved to east coast and worked at a ballistic helmet factory
>rapid promotions, got bored, moved back to California
>got into a good university, studied abroad in Japan for a year and a half, graduated
>fluent in Japanese and Indonesian, great at math, mid twenties

We hired him because he is cool and nothing phases him. In the interview, he said that he works for experience. This puts pressure on my manager to keep providing him with new lines of work.

File: 1471125501396.png (103KB, 217x320px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 217x320px

>>1698921
>If you're interesting enough, people will just hire you because they want to work with you.

It seems to me like that is the most important part, even tho in the end you work alone 90% of the time and don't have much contact with anyone.
No matter what you do when you aren't interesting they twist and turn stuff to excuse not taking you.

>>1698921
...

You don't realize how much this changed my entire perspective around my life. I'm sure you've changed some part of me that'll warp my future.

Thank you, I'm sure I would've become a tool without your comment.

>>1699239
>>1698925
Glad to be of help.

When training me up to hire people, my boss told me that you can never tell how hard or well somebody works until you actually work with them. Interviews are all about judging personality and experience/perspective. Would I want to work with this guy? Does this guy bring any interesting perspective/experience to the team? Those are the things I want to figure out by spending an interview with you.

Whether or not that guy works well at all or even applies said perspective is completely unjudgable until you spend a few weeks working with him. This is why a lot of great companies use the hire and fire method. Long, friendly, chatty interviews followed by trial hiring periods work best for securing long term, self motivated talent.

>>1699819
QTDDTOT
If I left a previous employer because most levels of managers cared more about playing nice than being productive, to the point of it leading the location to several consecutive negative quarters, how would that best be explained in an interview?

File: 1462809708352.jpg (1MB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1367px

>>1698921
Different guy.

What if I'm already working in an institution that is considered the best in the country for that field? Would it be more beneficial for me to stay within the corporation and move around or still jump between different companies?

>>1700213
>how would that best be explained in an interview?
"I felt like there wasn't much growth and challenge."
"I was very results-driven, and I felt like I wasn't a good fit for their company culture"
"I accidentally ended up managing the place for a bit because it was the only way I could challenge myself"
The trick is to sound humble without blaming others.

>>1700240
Honestly, I don't have a good answer to this. If you're already at the best company for your field, you have two options:
>Attain a higher position at a slightly worse company
>Make your own company

Personally - and this comes down to preference, mind you - I'd rather be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond. I'd say change to a smaller company, and use your "Name Brand" company background to leverage yourself into a higher position. In the end, you'll have higher wages, better experience, and more room for growth.

Large, powerful companies have infinite hiring resources, you're not that likely to be promoted to a powerful position. They often bring in the higher ups from weaker companies to work lesser jobs. This accomplishes two things: it weakens their competition by sniping their talent and it fills their positions with (over)qualified people. If these people quit later, the company is still at no loss because the hiree effectively sacrificed their career. It's about doing damage more than acquiring talent, because they can acquire talent anytime. Everybody wants to work at a successful company.

>>1700360
Addendum: If you receive a counter offer from your big company, don't take it. Never take a counter offer.

If you receive a counter offer, consider this: Will they have the work to justify your new wages and position? Most often, the answer is no. You will find yourself a few months down the line being laid off and the other company you tried to move to doesn't want you anymore because you wasted their time.