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

251–260 of 264 posts

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

#251

Post by irrational »

iovian wrote: post #234
irrational wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe you are right. Literally everyone I've talked to the past year and a half has said how much they enjoy working remotely and that they never want to go back to an office. Both of our experiences are anecdotal, but from my perspective, those wanting to go back to the office are in the tiny minority, so much so that you are the first one I've heard express that view.

I work for a very big tech company that was not remote before covid. We did a huge survey recently and it showed that there is a small percentage that want only remote, and the rest is half and half split between "back to office" and "1-2 days in the office". We do have great office perks though

Yeah, I do not work for a big tech company, nor are there any big tech companies in my region. So nobody gets free food or other big tech company perks. That is surely coloring the reasons why nobody I know wants to work in the office.

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

#252

Post by myWindoonn »

agent327 wrote: post #162
myWindoonn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Let's ask for something easier, then; let's only have free stuff which is already in abundance. We aren't living on a remote island; we are living in a society which already has lots of extra stuff which could be given away for free. For example, how can an all-you-can-eat restaurant stay in business if they let everybody eat as much as they (rationally-economically) want to eat, and labor has to be paid? If fo…

On my hypothetical island, pretty much the only thing in abundance is sand. Everything else you have to work for. Who is going to do that work? Your problem is that you don't see that all that "abundance" of food was grown by people, transported by people, prepared by people, and served by people, and none of them are your slaves. If they had the chance to get their own free shit without having to do all that labour,…

Your position has been examined to death already: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/234

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

#253

Post by thatswrong0 »

mgh2 wrote: post #110
thatswrong0 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, this isn't about spreading the truth. This is pretty clearly all about you thinking you have such a useful, considerate perspective of the world, when in reality you don't even have a basic understanding of human psychology.

Telling someone who's miserable, "Oh, you think you're miserable? Well look at how much worse it could be!" is idiotic. Almost everyone knows their suffering could be worse. But knowing that doesn't do anything to stop the suffering.

You're not helping anyone but yourself.

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

#255

Post by agent327 »

myWindoonn wrote: post #252
agent327 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On my hypothetical island, pretty much the only thing in abundance is sand. Everything else you have to work for. Who is going to do that work? Your problem is that you don't see that all that "abundance" of food was grown by people, transported by people, prepared by people, and served by people, and none of them are your slaves. If they had the chance to get their own free shit without having to do all that labour,…

Your position has been examined to death already: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/234

Whereas yours hasn't been challenged nearly enough.

Your position is only tenable if you are part of an upper class that has others in a lower class working for them, and involuntarily donating the fruits of their labor. In another word, you wish to reintroduce slavery.

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

#257

Post by wolverine876 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #250
wolverine876 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given M amount of money, if that money goes to shareholders or the company coffers or managers or workers, it can be spent or saved. Why is it more likely to be spent by workers? I gotta say, the notion that it's somehow a negative that workers get a larger share is a bit convenient for the shareholders, managers, and companies.

The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying that increasing wages across the entire economy will cause increased prices unless something offsets it (e.g. increased productivity…

> The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with.

Money is conserved: the profits go somewhere, even if to retained earnings that the corporation spends; some amount could be given to the workers to spend. Again, how is that more inflationary?

Also, spending is inflationary only in certain conditions, such as when demand is constrained. Not all spending is inflationary.

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

#258

Post by colsandurz »

clomond wrote: post #190
jjtheblunt wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

simple solution == flat-as-possible org structure?

But once you make a formal structure flat enough, informal structures can start to solidify and dominate (think High School). I always try to keep this in mind, Valve which famously has a completely flat structure, ended up turning into an environment where things like popularity and ability to dispense resources defined the practiced org structure. Be careful what you wish for.

I work at a place with a flat structure and I can’t emphasize enough how true this is.

It’s especially noticeable when you’re not one of the in-crowd.

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

#259

Post by nevermindiguess »

wolverine876 wrote: post #26
mumblemumble wrote: post #10

46% -> 48% That's not exactly a huge surge. Perhaps we're not seeing a big shift in worker attitudes, so much as we're seeing a big shift in what people are talking about right now.

When you are dealing with over a 100 million people (as a very conservative estimate of the US working population), that's a meaningful shift.

It’s not. It’s still 2%. That’s what percentage are for.

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

#260

Post by jeffreyrogers »

wolverine876 wrote: post #257
jeffreyrogers wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm just saying that increasing wages across the entire economy will cause increased prices unless something offsets it (e.g. increased productivity…

> The money going to shareholders isn't really coming from the workers though, it's coming from stock price appreciation. They could cut their dividends and give that to employees instead, but they don't have large dividends to begin with. Money is conserved: the profits go somewhere, even if to retained earnings that the corporation spends; some amount could be given to the workers to spend. Again, how is that more…

> Money is conserved

I agree with this. You should run the numbers and look at how much companies could improve workers wages by. I did this a few years ago with Walmart, I was surprised by how small the amount was. I think these companies are more constrained than you think, and the huge difference in earnings (which I'm not defending) between the executives and the average worker is more due to their scale and the fact that they can skim a bit off every worker than due to pure exploitation. E.g. Walmart has ~2m employees. $100 from each is $200m more for the executives, but it's not really going to make much a difference to an employee to get an extra $100 per year.

Post reply on HN