91–100 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Employers destroyed the loyalty and they need to fix it. I agree. I don't think that there's any incentive to do that, though.
Reducing attrition is a good incentive, especially these days. Whether it's enough is another question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well said! Companies destroyed employee loyalty - by letting people go while paying bonuses to executives, by giving 3% raises while offering way higher salaries to new hires, by saying "we are a family here" only when they need employees to make sacrifices. From the perspective of an engineering manager, attrition sucks. Whenever a season engineer leaves my team, I dread the next couple of weeks, because there's a c…
> Employers destroyed the loyalty and they need to fix it. I agree. I don't think that there's any incentive to do that, though.
Why give someone a 10% raise because the market has spoken when you might be able to retain them with a 5% raise? Even if you hire new employees at a premium, some contingent of older employees will stick around just because switching jobs is a hassle. This sort of thing drives down quarterly costs which ultimately makes you look good to shareholders who can't see the internal destruction.
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…
That sounds pretty ominous. What policy would you suggest? Why would you be confident the government would be at all competent?
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…
These are very different with respect to longevity risk. There are many people who can’t save enough individually for the longest lifespan. (Or the 80th percentile) But could save enough for the cohort.
Pensions are far superior in this scenario. That’s part of the reason why 401ks make sense for highly compensated, but not the majority.
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…
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…
> 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. These are very different with respect to longevity risk. There are many people who can’t save enough individually for the longest lifespan. (Or the 80th percentile) But could save enough for the cohort. Pension…
There is no reason to have a ton of employers get involved in the wealth transfer system. It adds so much unnecessary complexity, bureaucracy, agency risk, not to mention the longevity risk of a single employer surviving for 50 more years. And on top of that, the only thing the employer’s pension fund is doing is investing it in the same market that the beneficiaries can invest in themselves without having to pay overhead.
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…
But I feel that the for-profit aspect applies both ways: if the company is going to work to maximize profits, why shouldn't I do the same? If another company is offering me a substantially higher salary than I would get with a normal raise, then why shouldn't I at least consider it? The company wouldn't hesitate to fire me off if they felt I was underperforming.
The only argument I can see for loyalty (and only kind of) is if you work for a non-profit, or something run on a finite research grant or something. At that point, you could argue that loyalty isn't naive as the work itself is more the goal than the profit motive.
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…
You're right!
Competition between management teams for investment ensures that, absent some other force constraining competition, it isn't sustainable for most management teams to break out of this race to the bottom. The exceptions - firms that have a quasi-monopolistic market position - prove the rule.
"Letting employees unionize, etc."
Employees don't need permission from their employer to unionize in the United States or any other high income country. It is entirely the decision of the workers; if a majority want to form a union, the employer is obligated to bargain with them.
Historically, this is how the race to the bottom has been halted.
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.