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

Cost of Attrition

benjiweber.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: Cost of Attrition

#81

Post by ghaff »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #71
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget or discount the destruction of the social contract between employer and employee. Massive layoffs, insolvent pensions, etc were just the start. Employees used to get pensions, have reasonable work hours, a reliable schedule and could afford to have a parent stay home in their 3-4 bedroom house on an acre. When all that goes away and I have to work harder for less than my parents got then what is the poin…

> Employees used to get pensions, have reasonable work hours, a reliable schedule and could afford to have a parent stay home in their 3-4 bedroom house on an acre. Pensions are not relevant anymore. I see no reason to pay a defined benefit pension fund’s employees and expenses when I can simply buy VOO or a target date fund at one of many brokerages for basically free. And I get to avoid the risk of a corrupt employ…

The problem is that many people aren't replacing their defined benefit pension with savings. They're replacing it with nothing.

That said, defined benefit pensions were always designed around the idea that you'd be staying in the same place for maybe decades. Federal government pensions are perhaps the most obvious example but it applied to many companies as well. And that just doesn't represent typical behavior--especially among professional workers--these days.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#82

Post by beaconstudios »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #78
beaconstudios wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a post hoc argument - you're presenting a possibility to explain why not minimising attrition was actually rational all along. Its quite well established by now that human decision making is not very rational. Even people who aim for rationality are generally biased towards variables with high measurablility.

The reasoning is that if preventing attrition was so valuable, then it would have shown up via better profits for various businesses over the many previous decades, especially publicly listed ones since their financials are public. I am sure some businesses got it wrong, and some businesses got it right. And it probably even varies within businesses based on specific roles. For example, it very well may be rational f…

That's the perfect market fallacy, which is also a post hoc justification.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#83

Post by bagacrap »

dgb23 wrote: post #59
jeffrallen wrote: post #29

Nice. But remember: the cost of non attrition can be keeping idiot coworkers around. Who actively destroy work with their anti-work, and waste time with idiotic discussions.

Define idiot coworker and idiotic discussions. I have only worked in small teams so I'm not sure I've met such a person.

I recently had to give up trying to convince a coworker that the observer pattern was useful, because he refused to budge from the position that it made code harder to read as it was not "all in one place". Naturally as a stubbornly helpful person it took several hours over a couple weeks before I reached the point of surrender. Meanwhile there are a number of related decisions he's inflicting on the codebase that no one else would make, but find it easier to accept than resist, and which are ultimately unsustainable/ungeneralizable. If he left the team tomorrow the rest of the team would slowly revert these decisions. In the meantime, he's kind of just randomizing the code.

Not really a definition, but there's an example for you.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#84

Post by MattGaiser »

rr808 wrote: post #48

The other part of why people leave is they end up doing lots of support. Often when things go seriously wrong or even just regular problems the main people called on to fix it are the people that have been there a while and know the system best. They end up missing out on the interesting new projects. Its a good incentive to move.

My first full time boss quit over this. He was there 10 years and his life revolved around support as nobody else stayed more than a year, so nobody ever learned many of the systems.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#85

Post by alexashka »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #23

The author's points are absolutely correct. However, I don't think that it makes any difference. The entire industry has now shaped itself into a transient, mercenary, loyalty-free community. It will take a long time to change that. A lot of the trouble is the "You go first." mentality. Who will be the one to stay at a company for many years, getting only 3% raises; regardless of their performance, as their company's…

Ah yes, 'the good old days' talk. It has now shaped itself, but back in my good old days...

This is my dad's favorite past-time, to talk about the good old days of the USSR when he had free education, free guaranteed housing, free health care and a guaranteed job. Combined with those other people who made USSR fall apart or are all about money or whatever.

Nevermind all the other thousand broken things in that system, let's narrow it down to a few elements that align with your pre-conceived idea and cherry-pick, to create the good old days and conversely, kids nowadays.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#86

Post by bagacrap »

MattGaiser wrote: post #84
rr808 wrote: post #48

The other part of why people leave is they end up doing lots of support. Often when things go seriously wrong or even just regular problems the main people called on to fix it are the people that have been there a while and know the system best. They end up missing out on the interesting new projects. Its a good incentive to move.

My first full time boss quit over this. He was there 10 years and his life revolved around support as nobody else stayed more than a year, so nobody ever learned many of the systems.

some people like to be in this position, although I find those people have a way of stretching out every support or maintenance task that should take hours into weeks

Re: Cost of Attrition

#87

Post by lotsofpulp »

ghaff wrote: post #81
lotsofpulp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Employees used to get pensions, have reasonable work hours, a reliable schedule and could afford to have a parent stay home in their 3-4 bedroom house on an acre. Pensions are not relevant anymore. I see no reason to pay a defined benefit pension fund’s employees and expenses when I can simply buy VOO or a target date fund at one of many brokerages for basically free. And I get to avoid the risk of a corrupt employ…

The problem is that many people aren't replacing their defined benefit pension with savings. They're replacing it with nothing. That said, defined benefit pensions were always designed around the idea that you'd be staying in the same place for maybe decades. Federal government pensions are perhaps the most obvious example but it applied to many companies as well. And that just doesn't represent typical behavior--esp…

The solution to that problem should not involve an employer. It might look something like legally mandated defined benefit pensions, aka Social Security in the US.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#88

Post by ghaff »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #87
ghaff wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that many people aren't replacing their defined benefit pension with savings. They're replacing it with nothing. That said, defined benefit pensions were always designed around the idea that you'd be staying in the same place for maybe decades. Federal government pensions are perhaps the most obvious example but it applied to many companies as well. And that just doesn't represent typical behavior--esp…

The solution to that problem should not involve an employer. It might look something like legally mandated defined benefit pensions, aka Social Security in the US.

So you're just reinventing Social Security in the US.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#89

Post by rr808 »

bagacrap wrote: post #86
MattGaiser wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first full time boss quit over this. He was there 10 years and his life revolved around support as nobody else stayed more than a year, so nobody ever learned many of the systems.

some people like to be in this position, although I find those people have a way of stretching out every support or maintenance task that should take hours into weeks

That is more like after the long haulers have left and the new people have to figure it out. The guy who wrote it can probably fix in 5 minutes, the next guy is paid more but takes 5 days.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#90

Post by lotsofpulp »

ghaff wrote: post #88
lotsofpulp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to that problem should not involve an employer. It might look something like legally mandated defined benefit pensions, aka Social Security in the US.

So you're just reinventing Social Security in the US.

I am saying that is the name of the fix for people not choosing to save enough money in the US. No employer is needed in the picture.
Post reply on HN