The quitting economy • Hacker News Board

Re: The quitting economy

#91

Post by ell0ell0 » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

fierarul wrote: post #82

I've quit only once, from the mega-corp, in order to start freelancing. I've never quit from a customer project. And oddly, I've worked for very few customer for years and years. Controlling and understanding the entire cash-flow really helped. My other IT friends did job-hop while young but as they settled down, they started staying longer. After 30 it's basically smooth sailing. So, I don't see a quitting economy.…

I dunno i'm 35, own a home and have a kid and the longest I've ever worked anywhere is my current job at 2.5 years. I'm only sticking it out here to get a bit more vested and then I'm taking my shares and going on to the next thing as always. Especially because each time I change jobs I end up with a close to a 20% raise on average...

Re: The quitting economy

#92

Post by deedubaya » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

401k, bonus, sabbatical, profit sharing, "sitting the bench", annual raise, stipends. These are words and phrases most younger workers don't even know the meaning of.

Employers have been extracting maximum value out of employees with little investment in those employees in return. It's no wonder high turn over is so common place.

Re: The quitting economy

#93

Post by ssharp » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

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.…

> 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.

That seems like it would be incredibly difficult to match up needs, considering how hard employers say it is to fill jobs and how hard many people find it to land a job. There's already serious matching issues with a relatively simple system for hiring.

Re: The quitting economy

#94

Post by sgt101 » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:51 PM UTC

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.…

Fine if the employer pays upfront or into a trust. If you sign on exclusively then you need to know the other side is committed, we know the military is committed... tech company x, not so much.

Re: The quitting economy

#95

Post by bretchet » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:52 PM UTC

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #65

One of the serendipitious consequences for the "quitting economy" in my experience is that I have gained experience working in a number of diverse industries such as finance, insurance, biotech, entertainment and gaming, hospitality, etc. giving me first hand insight into how such sectors work. This has not only increased my ability to apply novel solutions when new problems approached, it has informed and broadened…

I kind of feel that this doesn't happen as much for engineering positions, unless you're moving to a consultancy. However, consultancies are a different beast.

I've worked in a few different industries myself, and I feel it gives me a broader view of things. Regardless, most of the engineering orgs I've been in have a heavy NIH mentality. They don't really care what you did at other companies. I've often been met with resistance when I suggest techniques or particular stacks that I've used successfully at other companies. So your experience is often dismissed and it can create a good deal of frustration.

I do have friends outside of engineering that have used this to their benefit. One friend had a good amount of experience with merging multinational orgs from an HR (benefits, compliance, etc) perspective. He was hired by Facebook for this exact reason and got a handsome raise and more substantial benefits.

A broad experience might be good for soft skills/procedures, but I have yet to experience that in engineering.

Re: The quitting economy

#96

Post by ZenoArrow » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:53 PM UTC

wastedhours wrote: post #87

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #65

One of the serendipitious consequences for the "quitting economy" in my experience is that I have gained experience working in a number of diverse industries such as finance, insurance, biotech, entertainment and gaming, hospitality, etc. giving me first hand insight into how such sectors work. This has not only increased my ability to apply novel solutions when new problems approached, it has informed and broadened…

Yep - one of the things I recommend people to do when mentoring them is to read a sh*t load about other industries (I still maintain that buying random magazines is a fantastic way for people to learn) - those novel approaches will work wonders when creating solutions. If you can sell an employer on the benefits of diverse experience, it can reap wonders.

Learning from magazines is definitely a great way to ease yourself into learning about a new subject. It's worked out very well for me. The only other approach I find that works as well as a starting point is subject-focused online forums. For example, if I want to learn about creating an electric car, no magazines that I know of, but there is a forum covering this subject:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/

Just reading through the content gives a good feel for common issues and solutions.

Re: The quitting economy

#97

Post by aidenn0 » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

mathattack wrote: post #6

It can be difficult to hire in this environment. I've had 3 employees quit less than 3 months into new full-time positions. My first inclination is to ask, "What are we doing wrong?" but the more I look around it seems like a common industry problem. Perhaps it's rational behavior - as the article highlights, companies now view people as disposable. There's loyalty to a manager, but not a company. (You always want a…

1-2 years is business as usual; multiple employees quitting in less than 3 months means you're doing something wrong.

Re: The quitting economy

#98

Post by jdauriemma » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:54 PM UTC

I am hoping that studies emerge that positively correlate a firm's mean employee satisfaction / tenure with long-term financial health. This was conventional wisdom for a while but as far as I can tell, data models just aren't sophisticated enough to prove it out. Yet.

Re: The quitting economy

#99

Post by tpeo » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:55 PM UTC

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…

Would you mind if I told you that you're not even wrong?

First, neither Hayek nor Friedman were well known for contributions to labor market research. Hayek was well known for his critiques of central planning while Friedman was famous for his contributions to monetary theory. But my point is that these guys aren't "labor market economists", so taking an issue with them over labor market issues would be barking up the wrong tree.

Plus, I don't see why "pure theory" should push anyone anywhere: constraints on model-building are actually quite weak. On the other hand, labor market models haven't become more like consumer goods market models over the years. If anything, the opposite has happened: labor markets are unique among other markets because of stuff like human capital, efficiency wages, signalling, gift exchange, searching costs, internal labor markets, non-cognitive abilities, poaching externalities, hedonic benefits of work, etc. This list isn't exhaustive.

There are very fair and well-documented economic reasons why present day firms might want to put more money into their employees than a 19th century landowner hiring day-laborers during harvest would. Firms benefit from having (and keeping!) a skilled and well-motivated labor force, and so they act accordingly. Trying to look "beyond" economics if you haven't heard of any of those is just looking past it.

Re: The quitting economy

#100

Post by bretchet » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

Qub3d wrote: post #75

zeveb wrote: post #19

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 we…

> In the old days, pay was less How can you suggest this? When adjusted for inflation, wages have remained constant or decreased in purchasing power, unless you happen to be in the top 5% of earners[0]. >Advancement could be very slow As opposed to today's "non-existent"? The article we're discussing is all about how people hop jobs precisely because internal advancement is becoming a rare thing. [0]: https://www.adv…

I'm about to hop after being at my current company for almost 3 years. I feel I've shown my ability to be a lead engineer, but there's no room in my department for a new lead. I've also expressed the desire to manage, but talks with my manager about this have dead-ended. We are getting a new manager in my team's chain, but I was told they would be coming from outside the company.

The sad part is our current lead is bad, really bad. He won't be moved or dismissed either. So despite leading several successful projects, I'll be stuck at senior. So, fuck it, I'm moving on.