how often should you move jobs? (it depends on age)
I spent twenty-two years at the same employer. Not because the pay was exceptional — mostly because of inertia. I liked the people, I knew the organisation, I was rising through the ranks, and every time I considered leaving, it felt simpler to commit to just one more year. Before I knew it, two decades had passed.
I'm not alone in this. The "one more year" trap is one of the most common — and most costly — career mistakes people make. It's not laziness. It's a deeply human preference for the familiar over the uncertain.
But the data is unambiguous: unthinking tenure is expensive. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago confirms a strong relationship between job switching and wage growth. Workers who change jobs see salary increases of 11–20% per move, against typical annual raises of around 3%. But optimal switching frequency depends on your age — and understanding that pattern matters as much for employers building automation and robotics teams as it does for candidates managing their own careers.
Your twenties: Target tenure 1–3 years. You don't yet know which industry, function, or culture suits you best. In industrial automation and robotics, moving every one to three years — across systems integrators, OEMs, or engineering consultancies — accelerates that learning and resets your market rate with each move. If you're already thinking "just one more year" — pay attention to that thought.
For employers: Retaining twenty-somethings through inertia is a losing battle. The better investment is structured development that makes your organisation the most valuable platform for their growth.
Your thirties: Target tenure 3–5 years. This is when switching delivers its highest financial returns — every move captures a 10–15% wage premium. Research by Harvard economist David Deming found that workers who switch aggressively early, then stabilise into roles with strong tenure returns, achieve the best long-term outcomes. For automation engineers and robotics specialists in Sydney and Melbourne, this is the window where market demand is strongest and leverage is highest. The "one more year" trap is most dangerous here — three to five years can quietly become ten before you've noticed.
For employers: Thirty-something automation professionals are your highest flight-risk cohort and the most expensive to lose. Retention at this stage isn't about perks — it's about trajectory, recognition, and compensation that tracks the market. If you're not having those conversations, someone else will be.
Your forties: Target tenure 5–7 years. You've built institutional knowledge, technical networks, and credibility that carry real value — and reset to zero each time you move. For experienced professionals in industrial automation, robotics, and control systems, five to seven years makes sense if you have genuine upward trajectory and visible recognition. The question worth asking: are you staying because this is genuinely the right place, or because you're comfortable?
For employers: Forty-something engineers are often your most productive and least celebrated people. They won't get aggressively poached, but they will disengage quietly if overlooked. Regular honest conversations about contribution and compensation cost very little and return a great deal.
Your fifties and beyond: Target tenure 7+ years — and reconsider who you're hiring. The external market becomes genuinely difficult. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that workers 55 and older are effectively barred from half of all jobs. One in six workers over 45 report being rejected due to age. If you're in a good role, the case for staying is strong.
But here's what many automation and robotics employers miss. The instinct to pursue younger candidates is frequently wrong. Over-50 hires bring proven judgment, deep technical expertise, established industry networks across ANZ, and the one thing younger candidates cannot offer by definition: stability. A well-placed over-50 hire will likely stay seven-plus years, contribute immediately, and require a fraction of the development investment an early-career hire demands. The organisations chasing thirty-five-year-olds for every senior automation role are competing in the most crowded part of the market for the candidates with the highest flight risk. Those willing to think differently are accessing a cohort that is undervalued, motivated, and genuinely committed to staying.
The trap is invisible until it isn't. Looking back, I can see exactly where the "one more year" logic took hold. What I couldn't see was the compounding cost of that inertia — the salary resets I never captured, the market rate I never tested.
For employers in industrial automation and robotics — whether you're hiring in Melbourne, Sydney, or across ANZ — the equivalent question is equally important: are we hiring and retaining on evidence, or on instinct that the data no longer supports?
