February 14, 2026
Promises age like milk
The Three Year Myth
“Wait 3 years” is the new “trust me” — commenters call it a trap
TLDR: An ex-employee says “wait 2–3 years” promotions are a trap and describes being laid off after playing along. Commenters clash: some say employers only owe a paycheck, others blame slow orgs or weak soft skills, while many warn that multi‑year promises in fast‑moving tech are red flags you shouldn’t trust.
A laid‑off worker blasts the “Three Year Myth” — the promise that if you just wait a couple years, your promotion or raise will magically appear — and the comments section absolutely exploded. The OP says he played nice, waited, showed progress, then got the boot while someone else later cashed in on his idea. He links his own layoff story here, and the crowd split fast.
On one side, the hard‑nosed realists: “Your reward is your paycheck,” snapped one top comment, arguing that companies owe nothing beyond Friday’s balance. Another camp says this isn’t a conspiracy, it’s bureaucracy: orgs are slow, headcount is tight, and timing is chaos — don’t take every delay as a lie. Then the “soft skills” chorus chimed in: OP sounds sharp technically, but didn’t build the relationships to turn a “wait” into a “yes.”
Counter‑punchers fired back: three‑year promises in tech are fantasy — one user said they waited and actually got it, but only after months, not years. Meanwhile, the hustle crowd dropped a grenade: “there r companies that scale 100x in 3 years,” so if you’re not leveling up just as fast, you’re “moving too slow.” Jokes flew that “three years in tech is like dog years,” and that a “promo in 3 years” is code for “see you after three more reorgs.” The only consensus? Don’t bank your future on a someday.
Key Points
- •The author reports being laid off and introduces the “Three Year Myth,” a pattern of being told that promotions or changes will occur in two to three years.
- •The article describes how adhering to such timelines can lead to unrecognized work and surprise layoffs while others receive credit later.
- •It argues that organizations often delay change to maintain stability and the status quo.
- •Cited reasons for delaying change include existing commitments, stakeholder or donor interests, and interpersonal power dynamics.
- •The author provides an example where a proposed FinOps initiative was rejected due to a “don’t worry about the money” attitude.