Latest / Job Hopping with Fexingo: Tenure, Loyalty, and the Modern Career Resume / How Job Hoppers Avoid Salary Plateaus
Transcript
- Lucas: You know that feeling around year four where your paycheck just stops moving? The numbers look the same as year three, even though you're doing more and the cost of everything has gone up. Luna: Yeah, and it's not just inflation eating away at it. It's like the system itself stops giving you raises unless you force its hand. Lucas: Exactly. And the data backs that up in a really specific way. There's a 2025 study from Payscale that looked at over 500,000 salary profiles. They found that job changers see a median increase of about 7.8 percent per move. People who stay put get roughly 3.1 percent annually. That gap compounds fast. Luna: So over five years, the hopper could be earning 30 to 40 percent more, just by moving twice. Lucas: Right. And the thing is, those internal raises aren't just lower because companies are stingy. There's a structural reason. When you take a new job externally, you're negotiating against the current market rate for your role. Internally, your manager usually has a budget band that was set maybe three years ago, and it hasn't kept up. Luna: So the company itself might be anchoring your raise to obsolete data. Lucas: Exactly. Economists call it a 'sticky salary.' Your pay gets glued to the year you entered the role. And unless you bring a competing offer to the table, which most people are uncomfortable doing, you stay glued. Luna: I've seen that play out in marketing. A friend at a midsize agency stayed five years as a senior account manager. She was making seventy-two thousand when she left. She joined a competitor for ninety-five. That's a 32 percent jump. Her old agency would never have matched that. Lucas: That's a classic example. And notice she didn't even change roles — same title, same responsibilities. She just changed buildings. The market rate for her job had moved up, and only an external hire forced the reset. Luna: So the plateau isn't about performance. It's about timing and leverage. Lucas: Exactly. And the Payscale data shows the plateau hits hardest between year three and year seven. That's the window where your salary curve flattens if you stay. Before year three, you're still getting cost of living bumps and maybe a promotion. After seven, you're either a director or you're stuck. Luna: It reminds me of something called the 'golden handcuffs' trap. Where you stay because of stock grants or a bonus that vests over four years. But the longer you stay, the more you're leaving on the table. Lucas: That's a huge part of it. I was reading a compensation analysis for tech roles. For a typical software engineer at a large company, the annual equity grant might be worth thirty thousand a year, but it vests quarterly. If you leave after year two, you forfeit unvested shares. So you stay for the vesting schedule, but your base salary hasn't moved. Meanwhile, a new hire in the same role might be getting a base that's fifteen percent higher from day one. Luna: So you're effectively subsidizing your own loyalty with lower base pay. Lucas: Right. And that's the trade-off that people don't always calculate. The unvested equity feels like a loss if you leave, but the forgone salary increase from staying is invisible. Behavioral economists call it 'loss aversion' — you feel the certain loss of the unvested stock more acutely than you feel the uncertain gain of a higher salary elsewhere. Luna: So how do you break out of a plateau if you're not ready to job hop? Lucas: The first step is gathering market data. Not just Glassdoor, but talking to recruiters, looking at published salary bands in your industry. There's a site called Levels.fyi that compiles this for tech roles. For marketing, the ANA does a compensation survey. The goal is to know what your role is worth right now, not what it was worth when you got hired. Luna: And then you take that data to your manager as a business case, not a complaint. Lucas: Exactly. Frame it around market alignment. Say, 'I've been performing at X level, and the market rate for this role in our region is now Y percent higher. I'd like us to discuss adjusting my compensation to stay competitive.' That's a conversation about fairness and retention, not about you being unhappy. Luna: But what if they say no? Or give a small bump that still leaves you below market? Lucas: Then you have a signal. You know the organization isn't going to solve the plateau for you. And that's when you decide whether the non-monetary benefits — the team, the flexibility, the role itself — are worth the gap. If they are, great, you've made an informed choice. If not, you start looking. Luna: And the Payscale data suggests that even one move can reset your trajectory for another three to five years. Lucas: Right. And that reset isn't just about the immediate number. It also changes your base for every future raise. If you jump from seventy to ninety, then a three percent raise next year is two point seven dollars instead of two point one. The math ripples forward. Luna: It's like compound interest for your career. Lucas: Exactly. And look, I'm not saying everyone should job hop every two years. There's real value in depth, in relationships, in institutional knowledge. But if you're staying primarily because you think loyalty is rewarded, the data says it isn't. At least not financially. Luna: So the takeaway is: be intentional. Know your market value, and make a conscious decision about whether to stay or go, rather than drifting into a plateau. Lucas: Exactly. And if today's episode gave you a framework to think about that, you know, this show stays ad-free because listeners like you support it directly. If you found this useful, you can buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a small way to keep these conversations going without ads. Luna: Yeah, and we always appreciate it. It really does help us keep digging into the data and bringing you stories that matter. Lucas: So, back to that plateau. One thing I haven't mentioned is that the plateau risk isn't spread evenly. It hits harder in certain industries. In technology, because of rapid skill obsolescence, staying three years without a title change can actually make your skills look stale on a resume. Luna: Interesting. So the plateau isn't just about pay — it's about perceived value in the market too. Lucas: Yes. Recruiters see a four-year stint with no promotion as a red flag. They assume you've stopped growing. That perception itself can lock you into a lower salary band for your next role, because you're now competing against people with more recent achievements on their resume. Luna: So the cost of staying goes beyond the dollars. It's the opportunity cost of a weaker narrative. Lucas: Exactly. Which is why I think a lot of people who feel stuck at year five aren't just underpaid — they're under-positioned. And that's fixable, but it takes a move. Whether it's a new job or a big internal shift, you have to create a new story. Luna: Alright, Lucas. So final advice for someone who just realized they're in a plateau? Lucas: First, don't panic. You're not alone. Second, spend two hours this week doing the market research. Third, have the conversation. If that doesn't move the needle, start looking. The plateau is a signal, not a sentence. You can always reset.