> the job market favors engineers hopping around instead of staying at one place
Does it? That's a fair description of the consulting space, but I don't think it's an accurate representation of the job market as a whole. When product companies hire software engineers, they tend to aim for the long haul.
I don't think it's necessary to stay with the same company a very long time to develop "deep knowledge". on my last team there were two engineers with about 20 years of experience. one had spent all of it at that company, and the other had worked at five different companies in the same space. the former knew more about the company's code and was an invaluable resource for "why are things the way they are?" type questions. but the latter often proposed more novel (to us) solutions, drawing on his experience from previous roles. both were extremely effective engineers.
Being unable to get a pay raise from your current employer often boils down to one of two reasons:
1. You're not negotiating effectively -- a skill you can improve upon
2. You're not worth as much as you think you are (e.g. low margin industry, company doing poorly, part of a low impact team etc, or maybe you're just not very good at $whatever skill the company needs).
Only #2 is a good reason to jump ship and try your luck elsewhere. Over the years I've learnt how to negotiate a fair remuneration. It's not easy, and it can definitely be uncomfortable at first. But in the end, it's totally worth it.
3. Salaries for those already on the payroll are not subject to competing offers, and employees likely have outdated information on market salaries, and almost always "anchor" on their current income. Employers have a some competition when hiring, and are subject to some market forces on compensation (including "price transparency" on offer letters).
In the current environment, you're almost always able to get a better offer compared to any raise offered. In most organizations, a manager expends less political capital justifying a salary band for an open position vs. advocating for a raise.
I've played the "salary band" game too many times to believe this. Let's tie your salary to your title so that we have to promote you before we can pay you more. Rather than, say, having salaries reflect the actual market and having titles reflect people's actual roles in the company.
The only blame for being underpaid that falls on an employee is staying somewhere they aren't valued longer than they should. We owe it to our families to get paid what we can [sustainably] earn.
I think this is specific to certain areas of the software market. I'm in embedded systems and the engineers I've worked with generally stay much longer than 3-4 years. There's a former co-worker on my LinkedIn who's my age and she's been with the same company for over 20 years.
I quit my last job after 5 years and over my 30 year career, that's the shortest stint I've had.
A buddy of mine just joined Palo Alto networks and they gave him a 30% pay increase, as well as a $100,000 signing bonus, and then put him on a team who sold well and he got a $40,000 bonus a couple months after joining.
Does it? That's a fair description of the consulting space, but I don't think it's an accurate representation of the job market as a whole. When product companies hire software engineers, they tend to aim for the long haul.