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

141–150 of 196 posts

Re: The quitting economy

#141

Post by CWuestefeld »

DonbunEf7 wrote: post #128
ttoinou wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To be fair, the labor market does have some gotchas. In particular, there's the phenomenon of "price stickiness", which is a big deal in labor (i.e., wage stickiness), but doesn't have nearly so much effect with other goods.

Re: The quitting economy

#142

Post by vadym909 »

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.

That's what consulting companies do, although they'd take a bit more than 15%. More like 40%, but then they have a higher rate too.

Re: The quitting economy

#143

Post by soulnothing »

s73ver wrote: post #139
soulnothing wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I view it more akin to a military contract. You will serve X years then get stock.

What's to stop them from terminating the contract a month shy, because of "performance reasons"? Unfortunately this setup would require quite a lot of trust in the industry, which, quite frankly, it has not earned.

No I'm completely in agreement with this. There are two types the Restricted units. Which vest slowly over several years. So if you're terminated early. You may get a percentage of the promised stock.

Then there is the startup model. Where you're given stock of varying grades.

Stock always felt like a gamble. Give me enough for bills + saving, then treat the stock as a bonus. Not core compensation.

Re: The quitting economy

#144

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

VLM wrote: post #58
pm90 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of this can be mitigated by managers having genuine conversations with their employees. The ideal manager I would work with (I've seen some managers come close but never hit all the right notes) would first and foremost be genuinely interested in my career progress as an employee. Different employees have different ambitions and expectations and there is just no way for a manager to know all of this just by obs…

That would imply the hiring process didn't select a perfect match 100% of the time, which is a slap in the face of a large budget item, that's not going to happen. The fiction must be maintained at all costs that the employee was the perfect fit at hiring time; neither overqualified aka too expensive or underqualified aka the manager screwed up.

Not at all.

People change, companies change, the business changes. The person you needed when you hired him might not be the exact person you'll need in a year, but a good manager will first see if that person can grow into a new role instead of firing him and hiring someone else.

Re: The quitting economy

#145

Post by Anatidae »

There is a reality that lots of companies look at their employees as the same as when they hired them. Meaning, a junior person has a hard time shaking that "junior" title, but can move to a new company and start fresh.

In addition, it is shocking how often companies don't promote from within, but offer higher level jobs to outsiders "experts".

Then you have the situation where your company just isn't growing. They can't afford to give you raises or have positions you can move into. Again, for growth you have to move on.

Like many others said, the biggest reason employees don't stick around is that the current corporate culture views employees as expendable resources they would rather not have to have. Shareholders come first, at all costs - even to the internal health of the company.

Re: The quitting economy

#146

Post by wonderwonder »

gncb wrote: post #124
le-mark wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, salary should not be discussed during the interview, it should occur prior to the interview. It should take place with the hr rep. during the interview setup or initial contact conversation that way salary does not have to be discussed in the interview.

It does not have to be a detailed initial conversation, something as simple as "what is the salary range for this position, due to my current responsibilities and level I am looking for something in the range of x to y. Is that realistic?" HR will give you a yes or no, you say thank you and decide where to go from there.

Re: The quitting economy

#147

Post by ThomPete »

mertd wrote: post #74
ThomPete wrote: post #50

Firm hopping happens because hierarchy hopping within an organization get's obstructed. Sooner or later you can't get further up because someone has the position you want and you start looking for opportunities that allow you to move up.

That reminds me of frequent lane switching in traffic congestion. Unless the lane next to you is moving faster because of a fundamental reason (early stage unicorn), you'll get stuck again 100 feet down the road.

Exactly

Re: The quitting economy

#148

Post by sgt101 »

TomSawyer wrote: post #11
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…

In fact you can pay under the market, a bit, if you treat your people like humans, develop them, stretch them and insist on a positive working environment (no rudeness, fair dos for everyone even if they look, talk or smell different). People will not switch away for minimal reward and considerable risk of being landed in a dead end with a bunch of sociopaths. Also many people realise that their current track has 5/10 years of seniority to build - and then that's your lot. The option of switching to management or to tracks like architecture or even non-functional work like finance or intellectual property is attractive to many people.

Re: The quitting economy

#149

Post by noobhacker »

jacobush wrote: post #113
joshuahutt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Except, "strategic value to the manager "

What is strategic value to the manager that is not hard work and delivering result? I'm asking sincerely, since I do hear a lot about the lack of correlation between hard work and promotion. I want to understand.

Re: The quitting economy

#150

Post by deong »

yourapostasy wrote: post #51
maxsilver wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> ...many companies will perceive the candidate as not caring about the work, and being "only in it for the money". The owners, the shareholders, are "only in it for the money". It makes sense therefore that all other participants interacting with the company are also. Promulgating a behavior standard under the guise of propriety that doesn't align with the owners' position is shipping out an externality to everyone…

I don't worry so much about that. I'd hope in the modern world that everyone understands that no one really means everything they say when dancing around the "where do you see yourself in five years" kind of interview question.

My reason for not leading with salary is basically that I'm going to be asking them for the high end of what I hope I've accurately ascertained to be their range, and I'd rather the first impression I leave them with be "we have to get that guy" rather than "is he really worth what he's asking"?

Yes, it costs some time I suppose, but I find there are very few activities one can engage in that are more lucrative per hour than correctly doing a job hunt. I can eat the time if need be.

Post reply on HN