OP, I get it. I would have loved to stay at the same employer for 18 years, but that’s hard today. You often have to go out to go up. I’m a lawyer and I went from $200k in house in 2019 to $350k for 2026. Some dumb luck along the way, but it worked out financially. I also have young kids.

What sucks is that I am starting all over. Rebuilding reputation, learning systems etc, while having a young family. Not being available for an 8a call reads as not committed, when the real issue is that you’re dropping your kids off at school.

The risk you run with that sort of long tenure is that people think you’re not ambitious or not that good. It’s well known that low performers and toxic personalities (not saying you’re either) tend to have long tenures because once they find a place that tolerates their BS, they hold on tight. Strong performers tend to leave bad employers. So prepared to address that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you truly are being paid a competitive salary, then stay put.

But I find that shocking if you’ve been at the same company for 18 years. Everyone knows that you get the big jump in salary if you were able to willingly leave on your own terms.

Or maybe look at jumping with the market is better. Again, I would be shocked if your salary is competitive.

Really hard to say more without knowing your role, the type of company for which you work, and in the industry.

Her salary has basically doubled over 20 years — im guessing she avoided becoming director or business development. Her $50k salary would be $90k now, making $200k is a nice progression but my spouse made nearly the same progression on the GS scale over that same time.

So for new employers the will see someone resting on their laurels, probably tagging long with one or two contracts and doing her job well, but thats it. Probably could get another contracting job, but you give up stability most likely without a big pay raise.

What exactly is toxic about your job? Anyway to mitigate?

If she “job hopped” she’d be at 300k + by now. The posters who advocate for loyalty do not sound like they make hiring decisions.

Agreed, but she would likely have had less flexibility in some of those hops for picking up her kids etc, which it sounds like is her priority.

I assume her DH is pulling in $500k or more, judging from how complacent she is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you truly are being paid a competitive salary, then stay put.

But I find that shocking if you’ve been at the same company for 18 years. Everyone knows that you get the big jump in salary if you were able to willingly leave on your own terms.

Or maybe look at jumping with the market is better. Again, I would be shocked if your salary is competitive.

Really hard to say more without knowing your role, the type of company for which you work, and in the industry.

Her salary has basically doubled over 20 years — im guessing she avoided becoming director or business development. Her $50k salary would be $90k now, making $200k is a nice progression but my spouse made nearly the same progression on the GS scale over that same time.

So for new employers the will see someone resting on their laurels, probably tagging long with one or two contracts and doing her job well, but thats it. Probably could get another contracting job, but you give up stability most likely without a big pay raise.

What exactly is toxic about your job? Anyway to mitigate?

If she “job hopped” she’d be at 300k + by now. The posters who advocate for loyalty do not sound like they make hiring decisions.

Anonymous wrote:If you truly are being paid a competitive salary, then stay put.

But I find that shocking if you’ve been at the same company for 18 years. Everyone knows that you get the big jump in salary if you were able to willingly leave on your own terms.

Or maybe look at jumping with the market is better. Again, I would be shocked if your salary is competitive.

Really hard to say more without knowing your role, the type of company for which you work, and in the industry.

Her salary has basically doubled over 20 years — im guessing she avoided becoming director or business development. Her $50k salary would be $90k now, making $200k is a nice progression but my spouse made nearly the same progression on the GS scale over that same time.

So for new employers the will see someone resting on their laurels, probably tagging long with one or two contracts and doing her job well, but thats it. Probably could get another contracting job, but you give up stability most likely without a big pay raise.

What exactly is toxic about your job? Anyway to mitigate?

Anonymous wrote:I had 5 jobs last 18 years and not a job hopper

But is it Goldman, Apple, Google 18 is great. If it is a crap company not so much

Working as a government contractor for 18 years may not be ideal, as it could suggest a lack of initiative.

It also raises the possibility that you may have coasted through your role for the sake of your kids, as you mentioned in your original post

If you truly are being paid a competitive salary, then stay put.

But I find that shocking if you’ve been at the same company for 18 years. Everyone knows that you get the big jump in salary if you were able to willingly leave on your own terms.

Or maybe look at jumping with the market is better. Again, I would be shocked if your salary is competitive.

Really hard to say more without knowing your role, the type of company for which you work, and in the industry.

“I have young kids, it is flexible, the commute is very short, and looking around made me realize I was not going to get more money“


Not worth leaving! This is what most people are looking for especially if they have young kids.

I think ony downside of staying a long time one place is you only bring knowledge of that one company with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see absolutely no liability for staying that long. Normal people will see that long tenure as an asset.

Somehow the internet has convinced millennials and younger that jumping jobs every 18 months is not only okay but is a career asset. They're delusional, and once they hit their power years in early 40s-late 50s, alot of them are going to find out how dispensable they are.

I've had a lot of different jobs and the career asset isn't moving a lot, it's the skill and career growth that unfortunately can be very difficult to get in some fields if you stay in the same place. If you can get that growth without moving, great. But the issue with staying someplace for 18 years isn't that you stayed there for so long, it's that you may or may be employable more broadly--you've never had to figure this out. A lot of senior employees lose their good jobs and struggle to find something new because much of their value was organization-specific, they don't have great networks, and they don't know how to job search. And there's not a way to test this other than by actually looking for a job.

The problem is that for any job with a challenging skill set, you're not going to develop that skill set in less than 3-4 years. So if you're job hunting every 2 years, you're not getting the skill and career growth that you say is important. Or if you think you are becoming an expert in a job in less than 2 years, then the job must not be very difficult.... which means you'll be disposable in your 40s when you're expensive. I don't think you need to stay 18 years, but i'd want to hire the person with 18 years tenure before the person with 6 jobs at 3 years at a time. ALso, i get that some companies don't provide opportunities to grow and develop, but if you're two decades into your career and been at six different employers and never once landed somewhere where they gave you upward opportunities, then i think that speaks volumes too.

It’s not uncommon to see many ppl in the 6-8 year experience range outperform people with 20 years of experience.

Unless you are a brain surgeon, most corp jobs can be learned within 2-4 years.

Sure 6-8 years is good, that’s not job hopping. But if your job can be mastered in two years, then it can be done by a bot or 22 year old.

In the same logic, there is no need to stay in a bot job that's getting outsourced either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see absolutely no liability for staying that long. Normal people will see that long tenure as an asset.

Somehow the internet has convinced millennials and younger that jumping jobs every 18 months is not only okay but is a career asset. They're delusional, and once they hit their power years in early 40s-late 50s, alot of them are going to find out how dispensable they are.

I've had a lot of different jobs and the career asset isn't moving a lot, it's the skill and career growth that unfortunately can be very difficult to get in some fields if you stay in the same place. If you can get that growth without moving, great. But the issue with staying someplace for 18 years isn't that you stayed there for so long, it's that you may or may be employable more broadly--you've never had to figure this out. A lot of senior employees lose their good jobs and struggle to find something new because much of their value was organization-specific, they don't have great networks, and they don't know how to job search. And there's not a way to test this other than by actually looking for a job.

The problem is that for any job with a challenging skill set, you're not going to develop that skill set in less than 3-4 years. So if you're job hunting every 2 years, you're not getting the skill and career growth that you say is important. Or if you think you are becoming an expert in a job in less than 2 years, then the job must not be very difficult.... which means you'll be disposable in your 40s when you're expensive. I don't think you need to stay 18 years, but i'd want to hire the person with 18 years tenure before the person with 6 jobs at 3 years at a time. ALso, i get that some companies don't provide opportunities to grow and develop, but if you're two decades into your career and been at six different employers and never once landed somewhere where they gave you upward opportunities, then i think that speaks volumes too.

It’s not uncommon to see many ppl in the 6-8 year experience range outperform people with 20 years of experience.

Unless you are a brain surgeon, most corp jobs can be learned within 2-4 years.

Yes “learned” in 2-4 years. So if you leave at three years, you’ve just completed the learning stage and are leaving before you apply yourself in the job as a fully experienced person. In other words, you’re always leaving before or essentially just as you become an expert at your job. You’re never actually at your job when you’re truly the expert.

If someone can learn a job, hopefully they aren't seeking a flat pay lateral move as next job.

You can stay with an org, but when you get promoted, you "technically" left your earlier role.

It depends on the individual goal and business needs. No hard feelings if these aren't in alignment. Managers don't want unmotivated, board employees either.

Anonymous wrote:You're insane if you leave. The grass is NOT greener. Stay put.

+2

It is SUCH a gamble to change companies. I left my company two years ago because I was stagnant there (the reality is that a competitor moved more quickly than the internal roles I was interviewing for). Worked in a toxic snake pit for a year, jumped ship to an even worse snake pit, was laid off five months later, now starting again at previous company.

Stay put. There is so much instability generally right now this is a good time just to bolster your current position. You have a good salary and other pros. Focus on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see absolutely no liability for staying that long. Normal people will see that long tenure as an asset.

Somehow the internet has convinced millennials and younger that jumping jobs every 18 months is not only okay but is a career asset. They're delusional, and once they hit their power years in early 40s-late 50s, alot of them are going to find out how dispensable they are.

I've had a lot of different jobs and the career asset isn't moving a lot, it's the skill and career growth that unfortunately can be very difficult to get in some fields if you stay in the same place. If you can get that growth without moving, great. But the issue with staying someplace for 18 years isn't that you stayed there for so long, it's that you may or may be employable more broadly--you've never had to figure this out. A lot of senior employees lose their good jobs and struggle to find something new because much of their value was organization-specific, they don't have great networks, and they don't know how to job search. And there's not a way to test this other than by actually looking for a job.

The problem is that for any job with a challenging skill set, you're not going to develop that skill set in less than 3-4 years. So if you're job hunting every 2 years, you're not getting the skill and career growth that you say is important. Or if you think you are becoming an expert in a job in less than 2 years, then the job must not be very difficult.... which means you'll be disposable in your 40s when you're expensive. I don't think you need to stay 18 years, but i'd want to hire the person with 18 years tenure before the person with 6 jobs at 3 years at a time. ALso, i get that some companies don't provide opportunities to grow and develop, but if you're two decades into your career and been at six different employers and never once landed somewhere where they gave you upward opportunities, then i think that speaks volumes too.

It’s not uncommon to see many ppl in the 6-8 year experience range outperform people with 20 years of experience.

Unless you are a brain surgeon, most corp jobs can be learned within 2-4 years.

Sure 6-8 years is good, that’s not job hopping. But if your job can be mastered in two years, then it can be done by a bot or 22 year old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see absolutely no liability for staying that long. Normal people will see that long tenure as an asset.

Somehow the internet has convinced millennials and younger that jumping jobs every 18 months is not only okay but is a career asset. They're delusional, and once they hit their power years in early 40s-late 50s, alot of them are going to find out how dispensable they are.

I've had a lot of different jobs and the career asset isn't moving a lot, it's the skill and career growth that unfortunately can be very difficult to get in some fields if you stay in the same place. If you can get that growth without moving, great. But the issue with staying someplace for 18 years isn't that you stayed there for so long, it's that you may or may be employable more broadly--you've never had to figure this out. A lot of senior employees lose their good jobs and struggle to find something new because much of their value was organization-specific, they don't have great networks, and they don't know how to job search. And there's not a way to test this other than by actually looking for a job.

The problem is that for any job with a challenging skill set, you're not going to develop that skill set in less than 3-4 years. So if you're job hunting every 2 years, you're not getting the skill and career growth that you say is important. Or if you think you are becoming an expert in a job in less than 2 years, then the job must not be very difficult.... which means you'll be disposable in your 40s when you're expensive. I don't think you need to stay 18 years, but i'd want to hire the person with 18 years tenure before the person with 6 jobs at 3 years at a time. ALso, i get that some companies don't provide opportunities to grow and develop, but if you're two decades into your career and been at six different employers and never once landed somewhere where they gave you upward opportunities, then i think that speaks volumes too.

It’s not uncommon to see many ppl in the 6-8 year experience range outperform people with 20 years of experience.

Unless you are a brain surgeon, most corp jobs can be learned within 2-4 years.

Yes “learned” in 2-4 years. So if you leave at three years, you’ve just completed the learning stage and are leaving before you apply yourself in the job as a fully experienced person. In other words, you’re always leaving before or essentially just as you become an expert at your job. You’re never actually at your job when you’re truly the expert.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see absolutely no liability for staying that long. Normal people will see that long tenure as an asset.

Somehow the internet has convinced millennials and younger that jumping jobs every 18 months is not only okay but is a career asset. They're delusional, and once they hit their power years in early 40s-late 50s, alot of them are going to find out how dispensable they are.

I've had a lot of different jobs and the career asset isn't moving a lot, it's the skill and career growth that unfortunately can be very difficult to get in some fields if you stay in the same place. If you can get that growth without moving, great. But the issue with staying someplace for 18 years isn't that you stayed there for so long, it's that you may or may be employable more broadly--you've never had to figure this out. A lot of senior employees lose their good jobs and struggle to find something new because much of their value was organization-specific, they don't have great networks, and they don't know how to job search. And there's not a way to test this other than by actually looking for a job.

The problem is that for any job with a challenging skill set, you're not going to develop that skill set in less than 3-4 years. So if you're job hunting every 2 years, you're not getting the skill and career growth that you say is important. Or if you think you are becoming an expert in a job in less than 2 years, then the job must not be very difficult.... which means you'll be disposable in your 40s when you're expensive. I don't think you need to stay 18 years, but i'd want to hire the person with 18 years tenure before the person with 6 jobs at 3 years at a time. ALso, i get that some companies don't provide opportunities to grow and develop, but if you're two decades into your career and been at six different employers and never once landed somewhere where they gave you upward opportunities, then i think that speaks volumes too.

It’s not uncommon to see many ppl in the 6-8 year experience range outperform people with 20 years of experience.

Unless you are a brain surgeon, most corp jobs can be learned within 2-4 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see absolutely no liability for staying that long. Normal people will see that long tenure as an asset.

Somehow the internet has convinced millennials and younger that jumping jobs every 18 months is not only okay but is a career asset. They're delusional, and once they hit their power years in early 40s-late 50s, alot of them are going to find out how dispensable they are.

I've had a lot of different jobs and the career asset isn't moving a lot, it's the skill and career growth that unfortunately can be very difficult to get in some fields if you stay in the same place. If you can get that growth without moving, great. But the issue with staying someplace for 18 years isn't that you stayed there for so long, it's that you may or may be employable more broadly--you've never had to figure this out. A lot of senior employees lose their good jobs and struggle to find something new because much of their value was organization-specific, they don't have great networks, and they don't know how to job search. And there's not a way to test this other than by actually looking for a job.

The problem is that for any job with a challenging skill set, you're not going to develop that skill set in less than 3-4 years. So if you're job hunting every 2 years, you're not getting the skill and career growth that you say is important. Or if you think you are becoming an expert in a job in less than 2 years, then the job must not be very difficult.... which means you'll be disposable in your 40s when you're expensive. I don't think you need to stay 18 years, but i'd want to hire the person with 18 years tenure before the person with 6 jobs at 3 years at a time. ALso, i get that some companies don't provide opportunities to grow and develop, but if you're two decades into your career and been at six different employers and never once landed somewhere where they gave you upward opportunities, then i think that speaks volumes too.

This isn't true in my technical field. And there are so many people in the government and adjacent to it who think they have all this valuable experience that's impossible to replicate when really they just have bad practices around documentation.