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

161–170 of 196 posts

Re: The quitting economy

#161

Post by jacobush »

noobhacker wrote: post #149
jacobush wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Backing your manager and/or attacking other princes in the org. Finding dirt on incumbents... playing along and don't making a fuzz when stupid rules are put into effect.

Ostracise, or at least selectively ignore certain coworkers when called for to keep the "team spirit" alive. And so on and so forth. For being a loyal page, there might be some great reward. Funny thing is, I'm not even sure the incumbents would count it against you if the tables are turned. They know and respect a mercenary when they see one and will be happy to take you under their wing. But not if you jump faction too early, then you are just a traitor. Nobody loves a traitor.

Re: The quitting economy

#162

Post by gozur88 »

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.

https://www.cnet.com/news/zynga-to-employees-give-back-our-s...

If I stayed at a place a few extra years in anticipation of an IPO, this would have me seeing red.

Re: The quitting economy

#163

Post by qub1t »

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.

The problem with stock options is that the majority of their value is not directly tied with your individual performance. You can be a stellar employee but your options could turn out to be worthless. Likewise, you could be extremely mediocre but end up winning the lottery and your options become very valuable.

With wall street bonuses, as long as you perform well, you get rewarded for it. Its a much more "meritocratic" system, there are cases when a hedge fund will lose money overall but individuals within the fund still get large bonuses because the areas they were responsible for did well.

Re: The quitting economy

#164

Post by jacobush »

sidlls wrote: post #159
noobhacker wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my experience delivering results that the manager can leverage to demonstrate his or her value is more important than either working hard or delivering results in the strict sense that, e.g. you write solid code to produce a feature. Often the talent on a team is not nearly as important as the talent's relationship to the strategic direction of the company.

This too, I agree with, when my cynicism is not cranked to 11.

Re: The quitting economy

#165

Post by ryandrake »

pm90 wrote: post #48
sidlls wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

I firmly believe part of this conversation needs to be clear, measurable goals. At most places I've worked it's "Your performance is good, but you're not getting a raise/bonus. In order to get a raise, you need to do subjectively better in some vaguely described area or in some other nebulous way that I cannot articulate. Good luck--you won't know if you've done it until next review time!"

A better conversation would be: "In order to get raise X% you need to do A, B, and C. In order to get raise Y% you also need to do D and E. We will checkpoint 4 times per year on progress, and you'll know well in advance if you've made it." Where A-E are things the employee has direct control over, i.e. not dependent on things like overall team success or company stock price.

Re: The quitting economy

#166

Post by adventured »

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.…

It's worth noting that people are staying at their jobs for longer periods of time, not shorter. [1][2]

"As of January 2016, the typical U.S. worker had been in their current job for 4.2 years, up from 3.5 years in 1983, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

There has been a significant slowdown in the speed at which people are changing jobs.

Younger people today are also not showing any indication of switching jobs more frequently than in the past:

"Millennial workers are as likely to stay with their current employers as members of Generation X were when they were young adults back in 2000, according to a report released this week by the Pew Research Center, a nonprofit think-tank based in Washington, D.C. Roughly 63% of millennial had been with their employer 13 months or more as of last years, versus 60% of Generation-Xers in 2000. Additionally, a fifth of millennials have been with their company for five years or longer, again in line with Generation X."

[1] https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2012/12/27/how-l...

[2] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/young-americans-stay-in-job...

Re: The quitting economy

#167

Post by sidlls »

ryandrake wrote: post #158
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…

The plateau is real. It's not unheard of for your first job hop, early in your career, to get you 10-50%. Next move might be 5-15%. Over time, as you approach the ceiling, your reward for job hopping will diminish. I've got close to 20 years under my belt, and my last few hops were less than +1%. Short of going into management or doing a complete career change, it seems you can get stuck later in life.

Yep. At my company, the Engineering Manager position starts at about 10% above the equivalent tech track position's upper limit in the band, has larger RSU grants and a bigger bonus pool.

Re: The quitting economy

#168

Post by aianus »

jazzyk wrote: post #135
_delirium wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salaries overall in the UK are comparable to the US (similar median), but programming falls at a different place on the salary curve. In the US, programmer is among the highest-paid professions, often earning 2-3x what would be a typical salary in other white-collar, professional jobs. In the UK that's not the case, and programmers earn just a typical white-collar salary that you'd earn in any job that requires unive…

There is no shortage of programmers in the US, either (except, temporarily, in SF/SV). There is this myth, which uses an example of a handful of lucky "tech" people like Jobs or Gates or Zuckerberg who got rich and famous. In fact, none of them were/are programmers (though Zuckerberg _can_ hack around a bit) A few numbers to refute your point about programmers being among the highest paid professions: - doctors $400K…

> In fact, none of them were/are programmers

Bill Gates wrote a BASIC interpreter in assembly, he was more of a programmer than the majority of professional programmers today.

Re: The quitting economy

#169

Post by switch007 »

wonderwonder wrote: post #146
gncb wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 responsibilitie…

You're agreeing, but not really. gncb was correctly stating that the red flag is asking too soon (the first interview) rather than the first interview being too late.

Re: The quitting economy

#170

Post by lordnacho »

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 lot of that may be deferred, depends on the firm.

I knew a guy at a fund who told me he hated the place, but he was locked in for the next 5 years due to several million being deferred. No motivation at all, the guy sounded very jaded.

Post reply on HN