Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

gallup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 264 posts

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#101

Post by mrguyorama »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #16
MattGaiser wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if it were accurate, wouldn't companies spend more effort on retention and engagement over hiring? This is a data point that I have seen claimed for years and years and yet companies don't act on it. Companies are either making a near universal error that has been well publicized at this point or the number is wrong and hiring is nowhere near that expensive. Amazon is a very data driven company. But they have no…

But those numbers are averages, my case is special because of X, Y, and Z. I’m sure every manager can rationalize this away.

Indeed, plenty of employees also tend to make this error. They'll fight against unions because "I can bargain better than a conglomerate of employees could"

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#102

Post by [deleted] »

newfriend wrote: post #91
claudiulodro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? Yes? > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. > No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. > Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organizati…

None of these things indicate that I should be forced to pay for someone who doesn't want to work.

[deleted]

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#103

Post by agent327 »

claudiulodro wrote: post #58
newfriend wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but what's the alternative exactly? Force people who do actually work, produce, create, etc to pay for people who think working is beneath them? Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? If you don't want to work for someone else, then start a business. If you don't want to work at all, then figure out how you're going to live. No one is forcing you to do anything.

> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? Yes? > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. > No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. > Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organizati…

>> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist?

>Yes?

Surely you understand the logistical problem this brings: if you get given free shit, there must also be a party who is giving free shit. Let's say you live on an island with just one other person. You are both entitled to free shit, but somebody has to put in the work to get the shit. Should the other person work to get his own shit and your shit, or should you work to get your shit and also his shit?

Where is the shit going to come from, in a way that doesn't require slavery for others?

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#104

Post by quaffapint »

iammisc wrote: post #94
irrational wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting how different people are. All those things you list are reasons I would want to quit a job. I don’t ever want to work in an office ever again.

You must understand that this attitude is the minority. Most people like their workplace because they like the people there. My dad worked in pharma sales for 30 years. Do you think he cared to sell the drugs? I mean... in that the drugs were helping people, he was happy. But his reason for going to work everyday was talking to his colleagues. To this day, he and his old colleagues still visit each other, still party…

I used to be this way in my first job when I was surrounded by people in the same life stages (recently married started having kids/etc). I still hang out with those same people outside the office.

Now that I'm an older person and surrounded by younger people who are doing their own thing I don't socialize much at the office outside the basic daily banter. I left to be able to go remote. Then I can just socialize outside the office which I enjoy more.

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#105

Post by claudiulodro »

agent327 wrote: post #103
claudiulodro wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? Yes? > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. > No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. > Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organizati…

>> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? >Yes? Surely you understand the logistical problem this brings: if you get given free shit, there must also be a party who is giving free shit. Let's say you live on an island with just one other person. You are both entitled to free shit, but somebody has to put in the work to get the shit. Should the other person work to get his own shit and your shit, or s…

I believe the "through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State" line covers that situation.

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#106

Post by planet-and-halo »

flavius29663 wrote: post #90
planet-and-halo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I finally figured part of this out. Like you said, employers treat workers as commodities. This worked out great for them in the short term, as they saved money by not giving raises etc. In the long term, though, workers started realizing they often had to go back to the market to get meaningful pay raises. Now you have a situation where workers are switching as often as every 12-24 months, and the thing not…

> If you're the only firm providing stability, your investments in that in the short term might make you less competitive on pay You're contradicting yourself here. Above you were saying that the way to keep employees is to give them proper raises, and thus enhance stability. How come greater stability equals less competitive pay?

Yeah sorry, I was writing it on the fly right before a meeting and just dumped my thoughts out. I think I was thinking something like this:

If you spend money internally on promotes, you'll have less money to compete in the market for new hires. Therefore you might get some indicators that things aren't working, for example you might lose out on desirable candidates in the short term. Also retention might be a lagging indicator, because maybe some of your people already have their foot out the door, so it may look like people are continuing to leave in response to the old incentives before they realize things have changed.

Ideally you exist in an organization where everyone is on the same page about your strategy and anticipates those kind of negative indicators, but maybe understanding is fragmented and a bunch of stakeholders push back when they see those negative signals.

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#107

Post by tommiegannert »

setr wrote: post #80
srswtf123 wrote: post #24

I can’t imagine why people might be discontent… All that’s really being asked of us is to give up all our productive years in service to people with no ethics, to make them richer. People who are more than happy to use you up and toss your corpse on the pile when you die. Is that really too much? How dare you think you deserve something for your toils. Your masters have worked you incredibly hard — harder than you th…

>All that’s really being asked of us is to give up all our productive years in service to people with no ethics, to make them richer. People who are more than happy to use you up and toss your corpse on the pile when you die. Is that really too much? It's been that way for thousands of years -- what's new now?

Echo chambers used to be the local pub. Now it's an entire subreddit.

Thousands of years ago, the upper class could kill you if you disobeyed. The stakes aren't as high nowadays. Yay for separating courts from employers.

An insane amount of capital looking for ROI probably also helps put people in a spot where they can afford to take a chance.

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#108

Post by xyzzy21 »

The "engagement level" actually agrees with Price's Law:

"The square root of the number of people in a domain do 50% of the work."

Since SMEs have been declining since 2000 onward, Price's Law would say that as larger corporations take more of GDP, engagement rates will plummet compared to 2000 when the majority of GDP came from SMEs.

I vaguely remember the cross-over happening in the mid-2000s. Everybody shrugged. But it was a major change.

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#109

Post by JJMcJ »

iammisc wrote: post #19
rektide wrote: post #2

i find myself quite sympathetic to this perspective. to revitalize, some serious change is needed, that opens a wide number of people a sense of agency & possibility & opportunity. with the titanization of industry, there's less & less compelling ways to employ oneself, & re-enabling upstarts & small scale competitors (who are not simply bought out & plucked up as soon as they show promise). it is the difference betw…

Why are you being downvoted? You're absolutely right. There's fewer and fewer ways to be self-employed these days. Even traditional avenues of wealth creation (real estate rentals, for example) have been closed to everyone except those with the most capital. Whereas you used to commonly see apartments rented by some older widow who had acquired a few properties or inherited them. Today, more and more seem to be owned…

The days when a house might cost one year or at most two years income are long gone.

Back then a common scenario was buy a house, fix it up a bit, save, use first house's equity and the savings as down payments on a second house. Next thing you know (if nothing goes wrong) you own a bunch of houses and have a semi-passive income stream to live on.

There are very few places in the USA where that is even remotely possible any more.

And real estate has been the most common path to wealth for a century or more.

Re: The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'

#110

Post by mgh2 »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #76
mgh2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean wow, I get that boredom can slowly kill a white-collar worker, but...think of the millions trying to cross the border just for a slim chance of a better future. To me this sounds like a typical American/tech worker entitlement problem. Do you even know how privileged you are by the simple fact that you are American? Most jobs are only eligible for Americans, while millions who are qualified are not allowed to…

Thinking about suffering in a comparative / absolute sense is often pointless and doesn't do anything to alleviate the suffering. Asking someone "Do you know how privileged you are" reeks of condescension and lacks empathy. What you're doing is not helpful. I'd be surprised if you were actually trying to make the OP feel better.

Everybody is looking for empathy. The intention of the comment was to create empathy for the less fortunate, and maybe change the OP's perspective to find a solution.

It is not about feelings, but rather truth - which can hurt sometimes.

Post reply on HN