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

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: The quitting economy

#31

Post by gumby »

diego_moita wrote: post #16

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 the…

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

It's explicitly an article about the microeconomic impact of neoliberalism, so discusses places where that holds particular sway such as, as you mention, USA and U.K.

You are correct that it is less appropriate to a place such as Germany where Ordoliberalismus is a more popular model. But the article doesn't pretend to discuss this.

Re: The quitting economy

#32

Post by Jdam »

wyc wrote: post #18

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.…

I'm a "young folk" who worked at a company that implemented his Tour of Duty. However, my "tour supervision" was so incredibly bad, I was way better off jumping ship after not even 11 months.

Re: The quitting economy

#33

Post by FLUX-YOU »

maxsilver wrote: post #14
wonderwonder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a company believes I'm only in it for the money, I'm likely to think that company is using "caring about the work" as a way to reduce my salary. Salary translates to investment. Caring about the work won't grant me another 100k at retirement.

The only reason to show that I care about the work and take potentially less salary is if I think the economy is going to take a turn for the worse and I need a job for 3-10 years to ride out the storm. In which case I have to take a lower salary, but at least I have a job. Remember, I can't know how much the company is able/willing to afford.

And just to clarify, not caring about the work doesn't mean doing a terrible job. It means giving them what I'm paid for, but I'm not going to go the extra mile for them (overtime) because there's no incentive to do so.

Re: The quitting economy

#34

Post by sidlls »

wyc wrote: post #18

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.…

> 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.

I'd have gladly stayed at my third job for much longer than the ~21 months I did had there been training, retirement, reasonable pay increases, and career development offered. The same for my forth job. Some number of jobs later and my current one is also my longest tenure to date. Not coincidentally I have had and continue to have a clear path of career development, non-trivial pay increases and bonuses that aren't tiny. I've given up on employer-provided proper retirement plans and education/training.

"Firm hopping" exists, in my opinion, precisely because companies tend to either not recognize the role they must play in supporting long term tenures or else simply don't value them enough to allocate resources to the support.

Re: The quitting economy

#35

Post by gumby »

BjoernKW wrote: post #24

"[...] thinking of themselves as the CEO of Me, Inc; and to survive in the neoliberal world of work, the CEO of Me, Inc must be a quitter." I fail to see how that's a bad thing. I've never quite understood this notion of tying your fate, your welfare and your livelihood to a single company. By not thinking of yourself as the CEO of Me Inc. you ultimately become a commodity for employers to do with as they please. At…

The article doesn't condem this per se, simply discusses the negative consequences for companies and people working in them (look at the Java/C++ case).

I don't think it's safe to assume that the big company will take care of you forever but it's equally disastrous that the metrics of value have become so one sided.

Re: The quitting economy

#36

Post by mr_spothawk »

diego_moita wrote: post #16

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 the…

> manual work or manipulating precision machines such as mechanics, clothing, specialty food (e.g: fine cheeses and wines), etc.

computers count in your list of precision machines, right?

Re: The quitting economy

#37

Post by icebraining »

notfromhere wrote: post #17
haburka wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When?

Re: The quitting economy

#38

Post by tradesmanhelix »

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…

The problem with the "shareholder value only" model is its focus on generating short-term returns vs. creating long-term value. How is this sustainable?

I don't think we should abandon shareholder profit completely (after all, companies do need to make money in order to stay in business). However, I do think the philosophy needs to be balanced with other aims like investment in employees, giving back to the community, environmental stewardship, and thinking about the long-term future of the company.

Importantly, these things shouldn't be after-thoughts - they should be cornerstones of the corporate philosophy.

Re: The quitting economy

#39

Post by ttoinou »

dalbasal wrote: post #30

I really think trying to reason about labour markets using pure theory in a Hayek-Friedman-esque way is a dead end. It's the 2nd time in two days I made the recommendation, but throwing Ronald Coase into the Neoliberal canon would help a lot. He was a "chicago school" academic from the same intellectual family, so it shouldn't be too much of a culture shock. He wan't like "progressives" in the "evidence based" sense…

   Anyway, the pure theory approach leads to a general conclusion/assumption that markets are the same. The market for labour, barbie dolls, whatever.
Proof needed. Have you ever read Hayek or Friedman you're talking about ?

Re: The quitting economy

#40

Post by FLUX-YOU »

spoonie wrote: post #15
usgroup wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The business of course wants it for as little as possible, but pricing individual skills can be tricky unless they've done something with it you're specifically looking for. In that case, you know they can do what you want. It's difficult to know if "6 months of Hadoop XP" means more than tutorials and basic usage and if they'll be able to solve your business's problems.

10 years of experience vs. 1 year 10 times is still an issue and should affect the price of an employee, but it can be difficult to asses.

Post reply on HN