Finding the right Career Path/Job Prospects in EE

[lolozguz]

Once you have been working for a while you will come to see 2 or 3 years as a blink of an eye.

And once you're in a position to train/mentor younger employees, you may have a different perspective on those that flit from job to job.

Of course, I have seen people who get "stuck" working for a manager/supervisor who holds their people back. In that case sure, moving on might be a really good idea. But I wouldn't make that my plan until it happens.

I guess I won't know until I try then, is what you are saying, and basically everyone else here.

 

[Jody]

That is not good advice, IMO. Where did you "hear" that?

When I look over resumes of candidates for positions in R&D or Operations, if I see that they've been changing jobs that often, it's a bit of a red flag for me. Switching every 5 years or so is okay, but changing jobs every 2 years (even here in high-tech Silicon Valley) indicates to me that they are not doing a very good job at those positions.

If you get a promotion to a new position within the company, it's okay to list that as 2 jobs with their respective durations, just be sure to make it clear that it's for the same company.

I've also heard the 2 years advice. It looks like a very common recommendation among my peers at least in my inner circle. I too "hear" it often. Whether or not it's a good recommendation, or what it is limited by... that is hard for me to comment on that. I wont claim it's a reliable news article and I just randomly googled this one, but I've seen something along the lines of this article in my feeds a few times: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-bein...r-wont-pay-off-for-you-or-them-050047011.html

 

[f95toli]

The 2 year "recommendation" is something you hear quite a lot about here in London. However, as far as I am aware this is only applies to careers where there any many potential employers operating in very similar fields in a given location. My wife works for a high-street bank, and her employer is one of many competing banks with very similar business models with offices London. Moreover, they all also have to follow the same regulatory framework. Hence, if someone changes switches jobs from one bank to another their new job is often essentially identical to the previous job (even the titles tend to stay the same) and it possible to be fully up and running in a very short amount time. It is not at all unusual for people to change jobs every 2-3 years and then after say 10 years and up back at the original bank, but now in a more senior position. This applies not only to managers but also to IT, Comms etc.

Engineering- or science type jobs tend to be different. If a new member joins my team I typically expect that it will take at least one year for that person to learn all the new skills they need to be "100% productive".
That said, turnover is still quite high even in my sector in London, but often that is not because of career plans. Factors such as cost-of-living, childcare costs means that people often have to move and change jobs for reasons not directly related to any career plans.

 

[lolozguz]

The 2 year "recommendation" is something you hear quite a lot about here in London. However, as far as I am aware this is only applies to careers where there any many potential employers operating in very similar fields in a given location. My wife works for a high-street bank, and her employer is one of many competing banks with very similar business models with offices London. Moreover, they all also have to follow the same regulatory framework. Hence, if someone changes switches jobs from one bank to another their new job is often essentially identical to the previous job (even the titles tend to stay the same) and it possible to be fully up and running in a very short amount time. It is not at all unusual for people to change jobs every 2-3 years and then after say 10 years and up back at the original bank, but now in a more senior position. This applies not only to managers but also to IT, Comms etc.

Engineering- or science type jobs tend to be different. If a new member joins my team I typically expect that it will take at least one year for that person to learn all the new skills they need to be "100% productive".
That said, turnover is still quite high even in my sector in London, but often that is not because of career plans. Factors such as cost-of-living, childcare costs means that people often have to move and change jobs for reasons not directly related to any career plans.

Thank you for clarifying the matter. However, I still believe this would apply for Engineering, mostly because by following this logic, an Engineer at one distribution company can work a different one after 2-3 years with a bump in salary.

This would also apply in automotive as well, with some limitations of course. A controls engineer at car company A would need to learn the specifics of company B, but the general job would be identical.

 

[f95toli]

Thank you for clarifying the matter. However, I still believe this would apply for Engineering, mostly because by following this logic, an Engineer at one distribution company can work a different one after 2-3 years with a bump in salary.

Sure, for certain roles that might work. However, if you join to e.g., work on an ongoing multi-year project with lots of proprietary IP it might be take more time to get up to speed.
Another factor is of course location, there are lots of banks in London but I don't think there are very many distribution companies and I assume this is true in most places. This means that changing jobs in many cases also means moving. Doing so every 2-3 years is fine when you don't have a family and are renting, but it is not always so easy later in life.
Don't make the mistake of planning your career by assuming that you will always be able to easily move. For the vast majority of people this is not the case, your private life will always be a factor.

 

[gmax137]

@lolozguz I suggest you print out this thread, then fold it up and put it in an envelope marked, "do not open until Christmas 2032." Put it in your sock drawer and keep it there everytime you move.

I hope this doesn't come across as snarky, I really think this would be an interesting experience.

 

[Jody]

I'm sure the 10 year thing would be a bit difficult to keep up this charade, but is this recommendation any good for the first 5-6 years? That doesn't seem like such a stretch for an early-career employee. I'm curious. I played around a little bit with the mathematics, and it does look like the job hopper gets a little bit of a competitive edge with pay except in the case of a totally stellar employee who squeezes in a fast promotion early into their career and the stellar employee job hops at least once. I tried many scenarios, but I'll post a two prominent cases that I tried.

I do admittedly make some assumptions based on what I've seen in my past job the typical raise ea. year is about 3% (most people I talk to refer to it as cost of living COL), and promotion is about 11%. I assume the person wont hop unless they are getting a 15% raise. I understand this isn't always the case... I'm just making an approximation to get some rough numbers.

Here's the case where the stellar employee squeezes in an early promotion and job hops at least once. This is where the job hopper loses a little bit. It doesn't matter too much that the job hopper gets stuck in the 3rd job and takes a long while to get promoted because they are already behind the loyal employee.

Now if I take away that early promotion. It loos like... hmm... it might be possible this 2 year thing... very interesting result, and the job hopper still wins even if they don't get any more promotions within 5 years of their last hop, but it does look like the loyal employee is getting paid more and could eventually catch up assuming that the job hopper gets no more promotions or doesn't hop again after 5 years.

I think if the job hopper gets at least one promotion, then they are in really good shape.

Interesting discussion. I personally wouldn't encourage anyone to purposefully hop, but I can kind of see why this 2 year things looks attractive at least from zeroth order approximations. I think if a person can hop every 2 years with a 15% raise, though, then they are probably... admittedly... they probably are pretty talented or can at least convince people they are talented, and I'd be really surprised if they never got any promotions.

 

[gwnorth]

The problem with job hopping frequently, while it may result in quick salary gains in the beginning, eventually if you do it too often prospective employers may be reluctant to hire someone who they see not willing to make a longer term commitment. Why go through all the time, effort, and cost to hire and train someone who is just going to leave their job in 2 years leaving the employer back at square one? Better would be to land at an employer that provides the opportunity to grow in the job, acquire new skills, and move up in seniority for a longer term before needing to make the next career jump. Also many benefits employers provide increase with time (health, pension, stock options, vacation) and frequent jumping, unless you can negotiate it as part of your new package, is going to have you starting at the bottom of seniority every single time. The other thing to consider is that the ability to make frequent employment shifts also depends on the economy. Easier to do when there is a worker shortage. Much harder to do during a recession.

 

[gmax137]

@Joshy that's an interesting analysis. Two points:

(1) I don't think the 15% hop raise is realistic. Maybe once in a while but not consistently.

(2) Personally, the nature of the work is more important to me than the pay (within reason). Hopping to a more interesting job makes more sense than simply optimizing pay rate over ten years.

and (3) if one is really willing to hop around so much, you might do even better as a contract worker - "hired" in at a higher rate for short or indefinite duration. Subject to termination "whenever." I know people who have done that in the electric power industry. If they're good at it, they gain a thing the "loyal employee" may lack - namely they see how different companies approach the same problems, and can say "we tried that over at Brand X, and it didn't work because..."

 

[lolozguz]

@lolozguz I suggest you print out this thread, then fold it up and put it in an envelope marked, "do not open until Christmas 2032." Put it in your sock drawer and keep it there everytime you move.

I hope this doesn't come across as snarky, I really think this would be an interesting experience.

That would be interesting, I'll give it a shot.

The problem with job hopping frequently, while it may result in quick salary gains in the beginning, eventually if you do it too often prospective employers may be reluctant to hire someone who they see not willing to make a longer term commitment. Why go through all the time, effort, and cost to hire and train someone who is just going to leave their job in 2 years leaving the employer back at square one? Better would be to land at an employer that provides the opportunity to grow in the job, acquire new skills, and move up in seniority for a longer term before needing to make the next career jump. Also many benefits employers provide increase with time (health, pension, stock options, vacation) and frequent jumping, unless you can negotiate it as part of your new package, is going to have you starting at the bottom of seniority every single time. The other thing to consider is that the ability to make frequent employment shifts also depends on the economy. Easier to do when there is a worker shortage. Much harder to do during a recession.

You're assuming that the employer cares about that worker; I've known lots of people who stayed loyal to their job and still got the boot, even when they were producing and giving it their all.