The headline sounds like it's stating a fact, but if you read the article it wasn't supported anywhere other than the author stating it. There is no data presented or study that was done. The author seems to believe that the salary jumps that accompany 2-year job changes can be sustained over time.
From my experience, I don't think this is the case. In your twenties it's definitely true, but when I look at the highest paid people (in their later career) it is not true that they did this.
I think the reason is that as you progress up a leadership structure, stability becomes increasingly important and candidates who have exhibited short tenures in roles are passed over because it is assumed this behavior will continue. It's highly damaging to have a VP leave an org leave after only 2 years in the role.
Even if there were observational data to this effect, the obvious confound is that more skilled people are more in demand -> more likely to hear from recruiters -> more likely to move
From my experience, I don't think this is the case. In your twenties it's definitely true, but when I look at the highest paid people (in their later career) it is not true that they did this.
I think the reason is that as you progress up a leadership structure, stability becomes increasingly important and candidates who have exhibited short tenures in roles are passed over because it is assumed this behavior will continue. It's highly damaging to have a VP leave an org leave after only 2 years in the role.