Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The quitting economy

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 196 posts

Re: The quitting economy

#11

Post by TomSawyer »

usgroup wrote: post #2

This is very noticeable in London. It's a relative rarity to find a dev that's worked anywhere longer than a couple years. The simple economics of it is that until a certain salary, there is no easier way to ratchet up the pay scale then to use the negotiating leverage of having a job to get the next one on better terms. Meanwhile, the supply situation for devs is such that employers have to accept the situation. I'm…

I'm reminded of the Netflix slide deck that was making the rounds, last year. Adjusting pay, yearly, based on the market value of the employee seems like an ideal solution to this problem. If you stay at a typical company for a year you might get a 5% raise and have some seniority and relationships under your belt. This model tends to undervalue the true costs of replacing you and the likelihood that there's another company willing to pay 10%+ over your current pay.

Re: The quitting economy

#12

Post by wonderwonder »

spoonie wrote: post #5
usgroup wrote: post #2

This is very noticeable in London. It's a relative rarity to find a dev that's worked anywhere longer than a couple years. The simple economics of it is that until a certain salary, there is no easier way to ratchet up the pay scale then to use the negotiating leverage of having a job to get the next one on better terms. Meanwhile, the supply situation for devs is such that employers have to accept the situation. I'm…

But how is it that there is always another company willing to pay more? Do companies hire devs with X years of experience without planning to pay more for X+1 years of experience?

They will pay you the range you ask for. If Joe is offered a job at 50k but he does not know the position range is 50 - 70k, he might accept it. Joe now has a job making 50k a year with the potential to earn 3% raises annually. Bob might be offered the same position, but right from the beginning he has indicated he expects to earn 67k or more, they will offer him 67k.

The company will hire you for as little as they can. Which is logical for the company. Often there is a range but the employee will not know it unless they insist on asking for what they perceive they are worth.

Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it. You should provide your salary expectations prior to reaching the interview stage otherwise you are potentially wasting your time.

Re: The quitting economy

#13

Post by haburka »

treyfitty wrote: post #3

tl;dr: Our capitalistic economy, which incentivized the notion of "maximizing shareholder returns," created an environment in which Companies who are efficient in hiring the right amount of disposable assets. Because of this, employees better be ready to quit when they sense better pastures elsewhere. It was a good read, and a reminder that we are all subservient to the Shareholders (directly or indirectly). The comp…

The issue with abandoning the maximizing the shareholders profit mentality is that it has to be replaced with something else, and unless we change the way investment works, then it will still be serving the shareholders. The shareholders should be the one with power to make decisions, as they own the company. Additionally, not all companies serve greedy shareholders. Believe it or not, shareholders are people too who have multi faceted interests besides making money.

Re: The quitting economy

#14

Post by maxsilver »

wonderwonder wrote: post #12
spoonie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is it that there is always another company willing to pay more? Do companies hire devs with X years of experience without planning to pay more for X+1 years of experience?

They will pay you the range you ask for. If Joe is offered a job at 50k but he does not know the position range is 50 - 70k, he might accept it. Joe now has a job making 50k a year with the potential to earn 3% raises annually. Bob might be offered the same position, but right from the beginning he has indicated he expects to earn 67k or more, they will offer him 67k. The company will hire you for as little as they c…

> Lately I have seen a trend where people wont even ask the salary until they have interviewed because they don't want to appear rude. I just don't get it.

This cuts both ways too. If a candidate asks the salary before the interview, many companies will perceive the candidate as not caring about the work, and being "only in it for the money".

And if a candidate doesn't wait until the interview to discuss money, they have very little to justify the average market-rate wage they're trying to convince the company to pay them.

Re: The quitting economy

#15

Post by spoonie »

usgroup wrote: post #8
spoonie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is it that there is always another company willing to pay more? Do companies hire devs with X years of experience without planning to pay more for X+1 years of experience?

Not sure X years of experience matters all that much. For example, Java dev goes to employer and adds Hadoop to her experience, then applies for other jobs for 10k more ambiently for a few months. Eventually nails one and packs her bags, and so on recursively. Sometimes dev don't add anything at all and just go for more money because of change in condition. JS or mobile app dev is a great example. Nothing changed; th…

Right, so does the employer not realize that the Hadoop experi nice they require is valuable? Or are they hoping the dev doesn't know it's more valuable? It seems to me hat in cases like these thare employers are hiring and training but then not compensating employees for the new skills. Thus there is always another employer willing to value that training.

Re: The quitting economy

#16

Post by diego_moita »

Again, here's HN with a Silicon Valley bias.

This is not an unavoidable trend and is not global. Japan's work market isn't exactly like this. Germany's Mittelstands are eating the world precisely by buckling this trend. Northern Italy (around Milan) has an artisan industry that thrives on skilled artisans working for small cottage industries, etc.

If you want workers skilled in a very niche and crucial technology then you desperately need to invent strategies to avoid this. This is particularly true to technologies that rely in manual work or manipulating precision machines such as mechanics, clothing, specialty food (e.g: fine cheeses and wines), etc.

A better discussion are the side effects of becoming an economy that lost manufacturing skills, such as Silicon Valley and Great Britain.

Re: The quitting economy

#17

Post by notfromhere »

haburka wrote: post #13
treyfitty wrote: post #3

tl;dr: Our capitalistic economy, which incentivized the notion of "maximizing shareholder returns," created an environment in which Companies who are efficient in hiring the right amount of disposable assets. Because of this, employees better be ready to quit when they sense better pastures elsewhere. It was a good read, and a reminder that we are all subservient to the Shareholders (directly or indirectly). The comp…

The issue with abandoning the maximizing the shareholders profit mentality is that it has to be replaced with something else, and unless we change the way investment works, then it will still be serving the shareholders. The shareholders should be the one with power to make decisions, as they own the company. Additionally, not all companies serve greedy shareholders. Believe it or not, shareholders are people too who…

Companies used to also focus on their local communities, rather than a pure bottom-line focus.

Re: The quitting economy

#18

Post by wyc »

The most recent resource I've read on this was The Alliance by Reid Hoffman. In it, he postulates that both employees and employers are lying through their teeth: employers tell employees about the benefits, investment in its people, and family-feel. Employees say they want to be lifers. This never happens.

Instead, 2 years is a pretty common stretch before turnover in white collar jobs, especially for younger folk. Employees become better off from firm-hopping, and employers have no reason to offer long-ROI incentives such as paid masters' programs.

To make everyone better off, Hoffman suggests that we should introduce timeboxed contracts called "tours of duty" that explicitly state the true benefits for either party and the duration of the contract. I really am not a fan of misappropriation of military terms, but I guess it gets the point across.

For example, maybe a marketer wants to start a company, but an existing company needs a senior marketer to strategize and execute the plan for its next segment. The company could give the marketer opportunities to meet funding sources and receive education about company building, while the marketer can whole-heartedly deliver on agreed objectives for the time period of two years.

It's an idea that seems to straddle between W2 and 1099, as many of the "gig economy" jobs seem to do. Some further definition here may be welcome.

Re: The quitting economy

#19

Post by zeveb »

I think it's important to note the negatives of the previous way of working. In the old days, pay was less (because the company was responsible for one's pension, and often for many benefits — e.g. corporate vacations were once a thing), and if the company did fail then one was left with nothing. Advancement could be very slow. One was working according to the whims of a slow-to-change set of central managers, who were no better at allocating resources than was the Politburo. Since one's colleagues were much the same for one's career, one youthful slip-up could have lasting consequences. One didn't have as much flexibility to live & work where one would have wished.

There were benefits to this way of working, of course: one could more-or-less just turn up, do one's job and life would go on. But it didn't give one as many opportunities to excel.

Our modern way is more dynamic and can be just as or even more secure, provided one has the discipline to save, invest & insure.

Re: The quitting economy

#20

Post by briffle »

treyfitty wrote: post #3

tl;dr: Our capitalistic economy, which incentivized the notion of "maximizing shareholder returns," created an environment in which Companies who are efficient in hiring the right amount of disposable assets. Because of this, employees better be ready to quit when they sense better pastures elsewhere. It was a good read, and a reminder that we are all subservient to the Shareholders (directly or indirectly). The comp…

Perhaps we can move on from only caring about the stock price, if we stop providing bonuses/compensation to executives in stock, and also stop making the stock price a benchmark to getting many of those bonuses.
Post reply on HN