Americans Are Growing Wary of Jumping Jobs 52
"Job hopping as a way to boost your earnings may not be as profitable as it was in 2022," writes Slashdot reader NoWayNoShapeNoForm. "Data from ADP, based on payroll data of almost 10 million employees, suggests the salary gain between 'stay' and 'jump' has definitely narrowed across all age groups, gender classes, industries, and company sizes." Yahoo Finance reports: New data from ADP released Wednesday showed that the median year-over-year pay increase for job switchers fell to 6.6% in September, down from 7.3% in August and the lowest growth rate since April 2021. The gap between pay gains for job changers and those of job stayers, which grew at a 4.7% pace in August, is at its narrowest since January and a far cry from 2022-2023 levels during the "Great Resignation." ADP chief economist Nela Richardson said that the narrowing gap in pay gains is a sign the labor market is "less tight ... less dynamic."
"The payoff for job changing is not quite as complex as it was earlier this year," Richardson added. "That points to some stability in this labor market."
"The payoff for job changing is not quite as complex as it was earlier this year," Richardson added. "That points to some stability in this labor market."
Intersting title (Score:4, Interesting)
That doesnt exclude toxic workplace, bad company, or location change. Just wages are settling. Why is it all these titles are job seeker oriented and nothing is put on the companies who compensate poorly?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read my comment instead of jumping on a keyboard rant.
Re:Intersting title (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago if I wanted to re-architect a system like I am doing right now I could've easily argued for a couple extra headcount and released them after a couple years of work. Right now I'm being told to make do with what I have.
My employer also seems to be doing better at trying to retain talent. I can't speak for everyone but my last raise was substantially higher than previous years and I was awarded RSU's. Both of which were definitely to try and keep me where I am. I suspect the money that previously might've been used to bring in new headcounts is instead being used to retain the talent we have.
Two years ago I could be guaranteed to get multiple recruiter emails from fortune 100 companies on a weekly basis. Now I see a few smaller recruiters trying to fish for contract work at a range of smaller local companies.
Re: Intersting title (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> "It took my current manager 6-8 months to find a management position after he completed an internal program intended to train managers"
It sounds like you honestly think this is excessive?
As a European that has been working in the US for well over 20 years, I remain amazed at the attitude of entitlement around promotions that many US employees appear to have. Many (especially millennials) seem to truly believe that they are automatically owed a regular promotion, and fail to understand that promoti
Re: (Score:2)
"growing wary of jumping jobs" = businesses are coming in line with what they should be paying, and less and less are looking for another job, using that as a factor. That doesnt exclude toxic workplace, bad company, or location change. Just wages are settling. Why is it all these titles are job seeker oriented and nothing is put on the companies who compensate poorly?
That's, true. One can either cast this as disloyal greedy employees unfairly abandoning their long suffering employer as this headline insinuates, or one can see it as employers obeying market forces and paying more for resources in a market where those resources (i.e. labour) are becoming increasingly scarce leading to less job-jumping, which is nothing more than free market capitalism at work. I suppose it will always remain a mystery why corporate media always chooses the former bias when discussing the
Re: (Score:2)
The stats are misleading too. The average salary bump from switching includes people who switched due to toxicity, office mandates, or because they could see the company was going to fail. They may not have been looking for significant raises, or may even have taken a lower paying job in exchange for better conditions. People do that all the time, e.g. going to 4 day weeks as they come up to retirement.
Two sides (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: Two sides (Score:3, Interesting)
It hints at a faltering economy. 4 years ago, jumping jobs had no risk, even if you failed you could just get another one and survive on your savings for a few months as most Americans had at least 1-2 months worth of wages in savings.
Per the latest data, that buffer has all but evaporated, the majority of Americans currently has less than 2 months in wages saved, because inflation, the majority of businesses are in a hiring freeze because inflation, despite having jobs âoeopenâ they are not filli
Re: Two sides (Score:4, Interesting)
From 1959 to 2024, the average savings rate for Americans has been about 8.4%, or about a month of savings. Every couple of years, there's a burst of articles about the horror that most Americans would have trouble coming up with $600 in cash for an emergency. With the exception of a spike during COVID due to being unable to spend stimulus money, Americans in that time have never averaged two months of savings by having about 18% of their annual income in the bank.
Re: Two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
From 1959 to 2024, the average savings rate for Americans has been about 8.4%, or about a month of savings. Every couple of years, there's a burst of articles about the horror that most Americans would have trouble coming up with $600 in cash for an emergency. With the exception of a spike during COVID due to being unable to spend stimulus money, Americans in that time have never averaged two months of savings by having about 18% of their annual income in the bank.
This is because of easy credit, not any political party. As you mentioned the data goes back to 1959. Americans have generally become richer, more assets, better pay, more discretionary income (money you have after all taxes, rents, bills and living expenses) but this is outweighed by the fact that Americans have more debt than ever. Cars, bigger houses, all owned by the bank, put everything on the card (gotta get them worthless points) no-one saves for anything any more and all that credit has to be paid off. People putting money away are looked at as if they are odd. So when an unexpected bill or cost comes around, they're forced to put that on credit too, which leads to a vicious cycle of having to borrow just to pay off your debts.
Worse is debt for consumption, buying holidays and what not on credit.
The real question isn't how many months savings the average person has... rather it's how much debt they have that needs to be serviced within 30 or 60 days. On that metric you'll find many Americans are not living paycheque to paycheque but are actually one paycheque behind that. One month's disruption to their pay cycle will land them in an enormous amount of debt especially as Americans don't get a severance payout if they're terminated due to no fault of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
... but this is outweighed by the fact that Americans have more debt than ever. Cars, bigger houses, all owned by the bank...
don't forgot college education, and yes that includes "real" degrees, not just "whatever SJW made up degree I want to say".
Re: (Score:3)
Average medical student debt upon graduation is now up to $265,000, and that doesn't include non-educational debt. That's most of a house, and they won't earn "doctor" wages until between 5 and 8 years later, because residency pay is far below what we usually think of as doctor wages. Residents typically get $50,000 to $80,000 for often 80+ hours a week. In the meantime, if they're lucky, they're paying off interest, and many of them can't even completely do that. By the time they're out of residency, they'
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ. You claimed that four years ago, "most Americans had at least 1-2 months worth of wages in savings." You went on to lament that "the majority of Americans currently has less than 2 months in wages saved." You blamed it on inflation, but the average American has, with the exception of a few months in the middle of the lockdown, never had even two months in wages saved up.
The question was about how many months of savings th
Re: (Score:1)
During the Trump years, there were peaks of up to 30% (when the tax credits kicked in, the COVID stimulus a few years later admittedly punted it to ~20%). The Obama years had steadily improved those rates from 8% to 12%, but during Trump it never went below 15% after the tax breaks. Since Biden came into office it has gone straight down and is currently BELOW 4%.
Re: (Score:2)
It hints at a faltering economy. 4 years ago....
4 years ago we were in the middle of a Global Pandemic without a vaccine. I don't think that's a good time period to use for a metric.
Re: (Score:1)
Take the 4 years before then. Even during the pandemic, the economy was pretty good, it was set to recover from the artificial (global) stop. Note the stop was GLOBAL, everyone at the same time was affected, so recovery is just 'leave it alone and open your business', which in the US was not done, even after we knew the mechanics of the virus, the Biden admin continued lockdowns.
Re: (Score:2)
" last 3 years of jobs numbers was fake" Sounds like a Fox talking point. The jobs numbers are always adjusted after the fact due to more data. Sometime they go up, sometimes they go down.
Re: (Score:1)
" last 3 years of jobs numbers was fake" Sounds like a Fox talking point. The jobs numbers are always adjusted after the fact due to more data. Sometime they go up, sometimes they go down.
The economy is going to fail really soon now - What Fox and the crypto-conservatives bawl about whenever their mortal enemy is in office.
I saw my first SHTF any day now the day after old sleepy Joe was elected. I mean - they could be right - Any day includes when th eUniverse experiences heat death and proton decay trillions of years from now.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, have you looked at your savings, your investments, the price of eggs. If you are not affected by the current economy, you must be a really rich Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about Americans typically having savings in the bank that they don't have today? But that, IMO, is irrelevant here. This study confirms what I've suspected for a while now. The job market is a lot more competitive and it's tougher to find a "good job" than it was a couple years ago.
Regular job hopping for a big pay increase was just a "rule of thumb" for careers like I.T. because any given employer tends to only hand out raises to keep up with a rising cost of living. But as you gain years
Re: (Score:2)
Since employers always want younger and cheaper and experienced, there must be some level of churn, whatever "stable" means.
That is the norm. When there's equilibrium, employers demand the government pay for more training (triggering wage-stagnation). When there's an under-supply, wages increase as businesses compete against one another.
Less to do with employees (Score:4, Informative)
Most people respond to incentives.
Re:Less to do with employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Often there are other benefits to remaining with an employer too, like increases in PTO accruals. Some public sector employers even allow one to remain on employer medical plans after retirement, if having provided a sufficient number of years of service with the employer first. That last benefit tends to be on the order of something like fifteen or twenty years.
If employees see room for career growth within one employer and if that employer doesn't treat them like a liability due to having to pay salaries, then it can be rewarding to remain within one employer for quite some time. It's when employers don't provide opportunity for growth and treat employees like liabilities to be shed as absolutely as soon as possible that the employee has every incentive to chase salary and position growth wherever it may be found.
Re: (Score:2)
Often there are other benefits to remaining with an employer too, like increases in PTO accruals. Some public sector employers even allow one to remain on employer medical plans after retirement, if having provided a sufficient number of years of service with the employer first. That last benefit tends to be on the order of something like fifteen or twenty years.
If employees see room for career growth within one employer and if that employer doesn't treat them like a liability due to having to pay salaries, then it can be rewarding to remain within one employer for quite some time. It's when employers don't provide opportunity for growth and treat employees like liabilities to be shed as absolutely as soon as possible that the employee has every incentive to chase salary and position growth wherever it may be found.
I have always recommended that when first entering the job force, that young people job hop. I doubled my Salary in the mid 70's to early 80's, at which point I settled into my planned career with my planned employer.
Yes, carrying insurance after retirement, then using that insurance as a "Part D" secondary provider after going on Medicare is a great feature. Much less a pain in the ass. One less thing to deal with.
And that's the strange thing about this article. If you aren't in danger of a layoff, o
Re:Less to do with employees (Score:4, Insightful)
Retiree here.
That whole PTO accrual thing is crap. With employment-at-will, the accrual rates can be changed at any time. For example, if the company gets into a rough patch, or the CEO and board decide that they can still attract applicants with reduced vacation accruals.
The whole point of increasing accrual rates over time is to incentivize you from leaving and going to another employer. However, the only way to get ahead when the job market is in the employees favor is to job hop. Employers are hoping that the extra vacation time will stop the attrition due to better offers elsewhere, and for the most part it works in the employers favor.
Most first world countries have statutory mandates which state a minimum amount of vacation time. For example, the UK has 28 days per year for all wage earning employees.
Will this change in the US? Probably not. The business lobby (think : US Chamber of Commerce) will fight tooth and nail to prevent statutory vacation time from becoming law.
Re: (Score:2)
Really it depends on who is employing you. If you have good employers you don't really have to worry about your negatives.
At the current company I work for I feel like I do pretty well both for pay relative to what I do and vacation time and I find it very doubtful conditions will change any time soon. I might be able to do a bit better in terms of money if I moved but I also genuinely like the people I work for and well, if I have to be at some place for 40 hours of my week most weeks of the year it's rath
Re: Less to do with employees (Score:1)
Wages have dropped over the last 3.5 years, not risen.
There could be another reason... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Job hunting is not like it was just 4 years ago.
Yes, a lot of things are not like they were 4 years ago, thank goodness. Do you know what 4 years ago was?
Re: (Score:2)
4 years ago was the biggest quarterly drop [eyeonhousing.org] in the US GDP going back to at least the 1960's. Demand had plummeted due to Covid, but the economic consequences were not yet felt as the government fired up the printing presses to keep paychecks coming, whether or not people were working. But the resulting inflation had not yet kicked in.
What a great economy that was! It really was exactly like the moment after Wyle Coyote runs off the cliff but hasn't started to fall just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
OOh, I know...
4 years ago was the biggest quarterly drop [eyeonhousing.org] in the US GDP going back to at least the 1960's. Demand had plummeted due to Covid, but the economic consequences were not yet felt as the government fired up the printing presses to keep paychecks coming, whether or not people were working. But the resulting inflation had not yet kicked in.
Bingo! While trying to use the Democrats as the proximate cause of the recent inflationary trends:
1. It was going to happen, just like the Post Vietnam war inflation.
2. Those checks were paid out under who's watch?
3. Shit happens, and stimulus checks had a function, so whichever party is in power that is the path forward.
Re:There could be another reason... (Score:4, Interesting)
Job hunting is war. You have to do recon on the company making the offer. You have to evaluate the level of job, the unit that is hiring and how much juice/need does the "principal" have, and get as much intel beforehand. That's why most real jobs come from your "network" of people you know.
No kidding (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like interest rates were raised a few points and kept that way until the job market tightened up. Color me shocked.
This.
This is exactly what standard macroeconomic theory predicts -- well, except that standard theory predicts that to halt inflation you probably need to keep the rates high until you trigger a recession. Instead, we're suffering a slight slowdown in the rate of expansion, enough to soften the labor market just a bit, though the 4.2% unemployment rate is still extremely good, especially given that we're maintaining it while labor force participation reaches near record highs. And now the Fed is beginnin
The bigger issue that most seem to have missed (Score:3)
Over the past 30-40 years, there has been an obvious issue where those who change jobs see their pay and skills go up faster than those who stay at the same job. Now, even for the same position, in many cases, the new hires will actually get paid higher than those who have been with the company for years. This shows that those in management/HR know that they need to pay better to get new employees, but then, they don't properly adjust current employees so they get paid better than the new hires(who often won't even have the skills to do the job well).
So, that's the problem, when people feel they need to switch jobs just to get paid a competitive level of pay for what the job actually is.
time to go UNION! (Score:3)
time to go UNION!
Re: (Score:2)
time to go UNION!
Don't think I want a union, a layer who takes some of my pay for something that I think isn't worth what they take.
However, I do think a "professional group" (think of something like the AMA for doctors) would be a good thing. I'd be happy to join that and throw $25 a year at them to help promote laws and changes to laws and policies that would benefit the IT professions. My first attempt at a name would be "Professional Information Technology Association", but I'm sure we can come up with a better name. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Right... Unionization only guarantees more money for the heads of the union. The benefits of it for "rank and file" employees really depends on the situation.
I knew people, many years ago, who were union workers for grocery stores. They'd get into situations sometimes where they actually had a negative paycheck, owing the union dues even though they didn't work (out sick or what-not). Meanwhile, their pay was minimal enough as a bagger or checkout clerk so there was no real proof the union did them any good
We are seeing an increase in layoffs (Score:2)
And when that happens, folks are less likely to jump ship, and be burned.
Corporations are also colluding to keep labor costs down. So that large employers are not offering incentives to draw employees because many are contemplating layoffs and down sizing.
Redefining Stability. (Score:2)
Tens of thousands laid off in the tech industry. CEOs taking this time to retire rather than try again. And now we’re going to sell a lack of job hopping opportunity as “stability” in the job market. By the time we get around to dropping the partisan political bullshit, that not-a-recession leaders keep bragging ain’t happening, will be a full blown Depression.
So sick and tired of the ignorant lies. Any lack of opportunity in the job market, is NOT a sign of stability.
This is just the effect of high interest rates (Score:2)
It's basically balancing the books on the backs of the working Americans. Austerity. You work harder for less and that's supposed to somehow make
work longer hours for less pay? Time to start an u (Score:2)
work longer hours for less pay? Time to start an union to get paid OT for that added time!
Re: (Score:1)
Makes sense (Score:2)
I think it's all those listings that require a college degree and ten years experience for a fifteen dollar an hour job. Yeah, I'll just stay here, thanks.
In a way I see this as a positive thing. Perhaps companies are slowly learning to keep the tribal knowledge they currently have in house, rather than continuously pulling in kids who have never had a real job.