41–50 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we should all start our own business, right?
That's the dream, isn't it? Like a network of microservices. And we must realize that a few hundred years ago that was the default (well, if you were not a slave of some description).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Companies are becoming increasingly aware that they can get away with de facto 50+ hour weeks while offering the bare minimum in benefits If job hopping is a viable strategy (which it certainly is in some sectors), then that is literally proof that they can’t get away with this. That’s not to say that every company out there is actually going to figure out the source of their staff retention problems, but the fact…
The existence of job hopping does not negate existence of abuse. Because the baseline is, and in my understanding, will remain low. You will get some extra money but that 50 hour will turn to 55. People are so crushed by their loans that they will just see the dollar amount because at some point sadness over amount of work saturates. I am just as depressed at 50 hours a week as I am at 55 hours a week. Of course even…
It (at least to some extent) negates your assertion that employers can get away with it. Employee churn is literally employers failing to get away with it. If a bad employer cares about employee churn, then it’s something they’ll have to address eventually by solving the problems they’ve created that led to employee churn in the first place.
That doesn’t necessarily mean they will though. Having contracted/consulted for a lot of companies, I’ve come to the conclusion that most companies are bad at most things, and that a company really only needs to be good at a select few things to be viable in the market. But if there’s competition for labor (which there is in a lot of software engineering sectors), then failing at employee retention will put them at a competitive disadvantage, and companies that succeed at it at a competitive advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The employer almost always makes more money than the employee and is the one profiting from the worker. It is not an equal comparison and the worker will always make less than the money they bring in to the company.
Then we should all start our own business, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like when you're outside of let's say a Fortune 500-ish type of company, there are no 'levels' and a manager will always attempt to minimise pay/budget and absolutely will not bring up promotion. The structure of the company isn't there unless there is decent turnover and there is rarely the growth needed to create new positions. Promotion / pay is most likely initiated on the employee end. It's easier just to…
Yeah, this. It's simply not worth it for a manager a company with less structure to entertain the idea of giving you a raise, even if you're underpaid, certainly not if you don't demand it. Even then they won't give you much. I got a <10% raise after much haggling at one company and a 50% raise by switching companies into a lower-stress position. Maybe it's better at companies with a defined career ladder, but it's n…
Then something similar happened again a couple of years ago.. The top local software companies in Japan were offended when I told them I'd been making 180k USD/year but would be willing to settle for ~140k USD to work for them. Anything over 120k was just unthinkable, and even that was a stretch in their minds. I didn't have much luck explaining that Silicon Valley firms are just going to roll in and eat their lunch if they don't hire people like me. It was better for my long-term savings to work 1-2 years in Silicon Valley, then hang around and be a jobless bum in Tokyo for 1-2 years than to work full time in Tokyo for 2-4 years.
Moral of the story: Go where the money is
> Millennials are labeled lazy, self-entitled, and, therefore, responsible for high turnover rates in the labor market. Who are they supposed to be loyal to? Certainly not their employer, who is squeezing every cent of labor value from their work. I'd understand this attitude if companies took care of their people or if the person was part of a worker's coop. Also, anecdotally, job hopping has been incredibly lucrati…
Anecdotally among my fellow millennials across different fields who've jobbed hopped, few did it for the promotion, most did it because they were being exploited and depressed. Companies are becoming increasingly aware that they can get away with de facto 50+ hour weeks while offering the bare minimum in benefits because people are just that desperate to get a job that whittles down ye olde student loan and has a hea…
I would also add "free Red Bull, breakfast buffets, Friday Beer Time" and other "Freebies" DO NOT count to me as benefits. So many of the startups I've interviewed for try and lure you in with all these additional "benefits". No, ten cases of free Red Bull will not pay my rent.
These companies routinely low ball really good developers with these freebies thinking it makes up for paying them slave wages; expecting them to work 50-60 hour work weeks and burn out like clockwork every 18 months.
It's sad so many people I know just grab that carrot and don't realize they could be at a Fortune 500 company making triple what they're making at a startup who claims its harder to get hired at their company than to get accepted at Harvard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The existence of job hopping does not negate existence of abuse. Because the baseline is, and in my understanding, will remain low. You will get some extra money but that 50 hour will turn to 55. People are so crushed by their loans that they will just see the dollar amount because at some point sadness over amount of work saturates. I am just as depressed at 50 hours a week as I am at 55 hours a week. Of course even…
> The existence of job hopping does not negate existence of abuse It (at least to some extent) negates your assertion that employers can get away with it. Employee churn is literally employers failing to get away with it. If a bad employer cares about employee churn, then it’s something they’ll have to address eventually by solving the problems they’ve created that led to employee churn in the first place. That doesn…
> Millennials are labeled lazy, self-entitled, and, therefore, responsible for high turnover rates in the labor market. Who are they supposed to be loyal to? Certainly not their employer, who is squeezing every cent of labor value from their work. I'd understand this attitude if companies took care of their people or if the person was part of a worker's coop. Also, anecdotally, job hopping has been incredibly lucrati…
To themselves. The best advice I ever received was from my dad. And it was 6 months into my first job. I wanted to hop and there came the advice 'investments matter more than income, and you need stability to borrow money for the big ticket ones'. I hopped anyway because like your case I was looking at doubling my income.
But the next two ones I've gone slow and with stability built up good investment assets.
The advice is true. Inflation can eat whatever you earn, so investments are where the magic is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the dream, isn't it? Like a network of microservices. And we must realize that a few hundred years ago that was the default (well, if you were not a slave of some description).
A few hundred years ago, indentured servitude and slavery were the norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The existence of job hopping does not negate existence of abuse. Because the baseline is, and in my understanding, will remain low. You will get some extra money but that 50 hour will turn to 55. People are so crushed by their loans that they will just see the dollar amount because at some point sadness over amount of work saturates. I am just as depressed at 50 hours a week as I am at 55 hours a week. Of course even…
> The existence of job hopping does not negate existence of abuse It (at least to some extent) negates your assertion that employers can get away with it. Employee churn is literally employers failing to get away with it. If a bad employer cares about employee churn, then it’s something they’ll have to address eventually by solving the problems they’ve created that led to employee churn in the first place. That doesn…
Nah, they are ok with big turnover. Typically, they believe that everyone who left was bad employee in some way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The employer almost always makes more money than the employee and is the one profiting from the worker. It is not an equal comparison and the worker will always make less than the money they bring in to the company.
Then we should all start our own business, right?