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

101–110 of 196 posts

Re: The quitting economy

#101

Post by joshuahutt »

xxSparkleSxx wrote: post #85
mcguire wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

! I've seen 6 to 7 percent about twice in my entire career. 3% is the usual max, and 1-2% more common.

First job out of college Inhad something to prove and worked my ass off. What I did was extremely measurable and I was easily doing 2x the work compared to the department average. Every single day. 1.5% raise the first year, made a huge fuss the second year and asked for a large raise (because my numbers of were insane) and only managed a 4% raise (promotion included). I've been at a new job for about a year and have…

I discovered early on that, at least in larger companies, advancement in a role is based on your strategic value to the company, and not even remotely related to your work ethic. If your manager is willing to go to bat for you, you stand a chance of getting a meaningful raise. And that depends on whether you can demonstrably make their job easier.

Working "hard" only serves to let you feel good about yourself.

Re: The quitting economy

#102

Post by mcguire »

tmat wrote: post #68
sidlls wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point in my career I've reached a salary plateau for the technical track. Short of landing a high-profile project at one of the major tech firms the ~6%-7% raises I've had the last couple of years are about the max of what I might expect from a "hop." Instead I'm looking to both exit this industry completely and, while I build the cushion necessary to do so, switch to management (which has ample support, curr…

This happened to me as well, the only way I was able to get above that plateau was to go freelance and start my own thing. Charging a fair market value for my time. Best decision I ever made.

That's about what I've decided, but all the freelance work I've seen available has been web development---the kind of thing I'm trying to escape. Freelancing for a systems programmer has a "I can't get there from here" problem, particularly since I'm crap-tastic at networking.

Re: The quitting economy

#103

Post by mxuribe »

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…

Oh yeah, i feel this way!

In fact, during job interviews - if i feel questions are hinting at having/not having enough experience in a specific vertical/industry - i start bringing up the fact that before I jumped into induxtry X i had little experience, but then learned fast and became an expert...so hopping into your industry Z - sir or madam - is a straightforward process for me to learn it, and then succeed at it for you. 9 out of 10 times, there is a subtle visible body language that they like that perspective; and of course agree with that rationale. Of course 1 out of 10 times, that hiring manager doesn't see that, and of course my ability to adapt to a totally new industry matters little, they usually assume you should have been born into the industry...but in that case, i likely wouldn't want to work for someone like that (who might lack vision) anyway. ;-)

Re: The quitting economy

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

mcguire wrote: post #69

I have a question about the term 'neolibral'. I seem to have missed when it became common. Further, it seems identical to what we called neoconservative back in the 1990s: free market economics, very limited government, Hayak, etc. Is William F. Buckley a neolibral? Ronald Reagan?

> Further, it seems identical to what we called neoconservative back in the 1990s: free market economics, very limited government, Hayao, etc.

Neoconservatism is foreign policy school which embodies a particular attitude toward the use of US military and diplomatic power. It incorporates and aims to spread basically neoliberal economic principles and systems, but it's not the same thing as neoliberalism in the same way that support for Soviet-style Communism as an economic system and support for the Soviet Union vigorously using its military and diplomatic power to spread Soviet-style Communism globally are distinct views.

Re: The quitting economy

#105

Post by g9yuayon »

Changing jobs every two years is not necessarily a good strategy for techies who want to gain deep experience. When joining a new company, it will take time for one to become productive by learning the dynamics of the company as well as the unique business and technical challenges. And then it will take time for the person to learn something deep by building a truly great product.

Re: The quitting economy

#106

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

sokoloff wrote: post #28
briffle wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As an [outside] investor in the company, I'm more than happy to vote for compensation packages that are driven by stock price (management wins iff shareholders win). I'm unlikely to vote for a compensation system where management can win big without shareholders gaining. It's not accidental that the tie between share price and executive comp came into being.

Of course. It's only natural that this behavior emerges. It's causing major structural issues within our country, though. Our economy depends on consumers, but with corporations worrying more about stockholders than employees, it lowers worker income, amplifies income and wealth inequality, and lowers the velocity of money.

Re: The quitting economy

#107

Post by sidlls »

TomSawyer wrote: post #27
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…

Yes, and being passionate about your work — such as wanting to work with new developments in your chosen field or changing jobs for an opportunity where you'll be better able to apply your talents to your field of interest — is just a capitalist ploy.

It's not a capitalist ploy. Capitalists do exploit the passionate (to the detriment of us all) by giving them what they ask for: lower compensation in return for providing a job they're "passionate" about. It's not really any different from them exploiting youth.

Re: The quitting economy

#108

Post by s73ver »

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…

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

Do that all you like, but the second you get a debilitating illness, that goes out the window.

Re: The quitting economy

#109

Post by [deleted] »

pmontra wrote: post #4

I've been self employed since 2006. In a way, consultants are the greatest job quitters around and the most flexible. I had so many customers/jobs in these 11 years. I didn't even have to quit and they didn't have to fire me. About one of the points of the post, companies often chose the fashionable tools of the year because of buzzwording, ease of recruiting and because they build the CVs of managers too. Would you…

[deleted]

Re: The quitting economy

#110

Post by FLUX-YOU »

spoonie wrote: post #45
FLUX-YOU wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed! But who is the greater fool in this case? The job-hopping employee looking for money, or the new employer willing to pay more for the job-hopper?

It's difficult to say by predicting. You'd need to know what every business would pay for your skills at any given time, plus what everyone else was paid for their skills, and the rate of false positive hires or hires that ultimately hurt the employer's bottom line (false positive hires, negative productivity devs, bullshit artists, etc.). That kind of price information just isn't available. Otherwise the market would be closer to efficiently pricing developers, matching devs with jobs, and would be more accurate with what individual skills are worth.
Post reply on HN