I really like the phrase "elite quitters".

I wonder if, as a stereotype, it's unique to the software industry.

No, it also happens in professional sports. Star players leave the teams that drafted them to look for better opportunities. It seems to be an inevitability that small market teams draft and develop star players who then quit on the fans for a big contract or a chance to play with other stars in the big city.

That's true but the difference of course with a star player is that the hiring team can examine in detail the past performances of the player. They usually only hire if the player is competent.

The problem is that the elite quitter is usually incompetent. They are capable of learning some new things. But they are incompetent in the sense that they are incapable of seeing that the new thing is often the same as or worse than the old thing. They are incompetent in the sense that they have a low attention span and do not follow up on the things they do so they never learn from their mistakes. They often love complexity etc etc

So the hiring team cannot see these details directly. It's up to them to have competent interviewers to flush this out. But of course they are often in awe of the latest fad themselves and so on it goes.

Sports players have a limited amount of time to exploit their bodies.

Developers have a much longer lifetime of continuous learning, opportunities to get better, and focus on being the best they can be.

But at the end of the day, when a developer or player no longer offers their organization value, they will be cut loose. This is hugely destructive to that person's ability to care for themselves and their families. Is it any wonder that they want to do whatever they can to secure a stable future for themselves?

Don't forget the key ingredient in this recipe: they show a small burst of greatness or give a couple shining glimmers of hope and then capitalize on that small sample size.

I mean the incentives are the cause.

If you could rewarded with an incredible salary for sticking at the same company for 10 years and making a great, reliable platform using "boring technologies" then more people would probably do it.

Instead to raise your salary you gotta jump jobs every 2 years

> If you could rewarded with an incredible salary for sticking at the same company for 10 years and making a great, reliable platform using "boring technologies" then more people would probably do it.

> Instead to raise your salary you gotta jump jobs every 2 years

I believe the majority of America stays at their employers. It just seems to be the en vogue style for this group. I've made careers at my past two employers. I like to think I've made out very well by sticking to the same company for 4 years, going on 5, much better off than if i joined a startup working slave labor for much less total compensation only to have my shares diluted once an exit happens.

I've done it all at this point in my career, and sticking to a stable, cash-positive business is the best option at this point, IMO of course. Everyone likes to think they'll be the special 1% to make that big exit but then again our generation (millennials) were raised to believe we were special so it makes sense why people go chasing the dollar.

Your employer takes a little more time to adjust, but in the end, people end up where they should be over time.

Out of curiosity, how many times did you get raised in 5ish years ?

3 times, 2 of them were significant (> 20%)