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

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: The quitting economy

#121

Post by dsparkman »

sidlls wrote: post #34
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 off…

I learned in the late 90s that the best fit for myself was to hop and hop often. I tended to stay with a company for about 12-18 months and would use each hop to increase my salary. Among my friends, the basic catch phrase was "want a 10k pay raise, get another job". This worked well on 2 fronts, your pay kept going up, and you tended to stay at the firm long enough to extract any real value to yourself in terms of interesting projects, learning a new industry etc. That just made you more attractive to the next company.

Re: The quitting economy

#122

Post by dv_dt »

spinlock wrote: post #112
s73ver wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't many of the big tech companies have this with their stock options? And I've heard that, with the Wall Street approach, your bonus is the lion's share of your income for the year. If true, I don't know if I'd like to go to that, given the propensity for letting people go in this field.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Wall Street bonuses are cash. Your options are restricted and the value is very unknowable.

A stock option is a lottery ticket (some are better odds than others). Notice how the wall street guys that deal with probabilities in financial instruments all day long in a professional capacity expect bonuses in cash.

Re: The quitting economy

#123

Post by jazzyk »

pm90 wrote: post #54
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…

London seems like a place that could easily attract amazing developers simply by raising salaries. The money is there...it is the fucking financial capital of the world (well maybe 2nd after NYC). If the executives at UK financial companies wouldn't artificially hold down salaries, there could probably be a lot more innovation and a much better marketplace for tech workers.

Has it occurred to you that they hold down salaries, because they can? Apparently there are many people willing to work for that money.

The word "market" assumes that each party can walk away from the deal.

But if you are the sole bread-winner and jobless, you are not in a position to walk away.

Re: The quitting economy

#124

Post by gncb »

le-mark wrote: post #21
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…

I used to share the view that in a negotiation, never make the first offer. The fear is coming in way below as your example indicates. Over time, my attitude changed. I found that by constantly interviewing, I could get a feel for the local market, and have a much better idea of where the ceilings are. For example over a few years and 3 jobs, I found that $120k was about the max for senior devs in my city and tech st…

That's just not how London works. It may be a cultural difference but a non-contractor candidate asking for salary during an interview is considered a big red flag.

Re: The quitting economy

#125

Post by RickS »

spinlock wrote: post #111
mcguire wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like there's a market for independent contract sales. I would love to pay 15% of a contract to someone who could source and close contracts for me. Unfortunately, I think there's no way to escape the need to network. But, it's a learnable skill so you just have to put in the time and effort.

>I would love to pay 15% of a contract to someone who could source and close contracts for me.

Couldn't agree more. The product design space is crowded with low end parties on both sides, and I've fruitlessly offered a percentage a few times for people to source mature, ready-to-pay clients.

There are solutions like upwork, and solutions like hired, but there doesn't seem to be an intermediate solution. Would be interested in what keeps more people from pursuing deals like this. 10% of a 50k contract is nothing to shake a stick at.

Re: The quitting economy

#126

Post by ben_w »

s73ver wrote: post #86
0x4f3759df wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One idea I've heard is that Wall Street has solved this problem in the form of bonuses. If companies want their talent to stick around, a bonus structure would go along way, especially since a quick job move can get a person $10k bump.

Don't many of the big tech companies have this with their stock options? And I've heard that, with the Wall Street approach, your bonus is the lion's share of your income for the year. If true, I don't know if I'd like to go to that, given the propensity for letting people go in this field.

After three zero-value share options schemes in a row (two ran out of money, the third is still going but doesn't look like it'll ever be publicly traded), I now regard share options as worth less than the time it takes to sign the paperwork.

Re: The quitting economy

#127

Post by bradlys »

spinlock wrote: post #112
s73ver wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't many of the big tech companies have this with their stock options? And I've heard that, with the Wall Street approach, your bonus is the lion's share of your income for the year. If true, I don't know if I'd like to go to that, given the propensity for letting people go in this field.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Wall Street bonuses are cash. Your options are restricted and the value is very unknowable.

I think at the big tech companies, it's comparable to cash but favored even more so because (if you hold them for a year) you can take capital gains (15-20%) on them instead of paying 40%+ tax. I don't think s73ver wasn't talking about startups that are pre-IPO.

I think this only applies at companies not using RSUs. Since I think you get taxed immediately (no capital gains) with RSUs.

Re: The quitting economy

#128

Post by DonbunEf7 »

ttoinou wrote: post #39
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 ?

Go to your whiteboard and draw supply-and-demand curves for a couple derpy markets of widgets and other goods. Then, draw one for labor. Note how the curves are reversed; if you draw it "backwards", then it goes back to behaving like a normal market. Now, try adding employment policies, like minimum wages, to the market; what happens to the curves?

Re: The quitting economy

#129

Post by gncb »

currymj wrote: post #9
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…

What do devs get paid in London on average? I always had the impression, perhaps wrong, that software engineers seem underpaid in England relative to the US, even accounting for currency and cost of living and such (which, probably London is as bad as SF on that front). (i've also gotten the impression that there's not the same level of cultural esteem for engineers and scientists and such in England, and that this m…

The average is not a very useful metric since the gap between IB/hedge fund pay and the rest is huge. It's not unheard of for developers with 4-5 years of experience to make close to £100k.

Re: The quitting economy

#130

Post by pm90 »

jazzyk wrote: post #123
pm90 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London seems like a place that could easily attract amazing developers simply by raising salaries. The money is there...it is the fucking financial capital of the world (well maybe 2nd after NYC). If the executives at UK financial companies wouldn't artificially hold down salaries, there could probably be a lot more innovation and a much better marketplace for tech workers.

Has it occurred to you that they hold down salaries, because they can ? Apparently there are many people willing to work for that money. The word "market" assumes that each party can walk away from the deal. But if you are the sole bread-winner and jobless, you are not in a position to walk away.

> Has it occurred to you that they hold down salaries, because they can?

Can we please have a conversation without the snark? Thank you.

> Apparently there are many people willing to work for that money.

I understand that they probably do find workers willing to work that wage. But what I'm stating is: they can have much more, a thriving hub of tech innovation much like SV, if they were to pay more, and attract talent from around the world, like SV does today. That talent and ecosystem would probably help them a lot more overall.

Post reply on HN