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

101–110 of 169 posts

Re: Cost of Attrition

#101

Post by spaetzleesser »

Jensson wrote: post #2

Doesn't mention the benefits of attrition. A network can be robust since none of the pieces leaves, but what is even more robust is a network that constantly renews itself and gracefully handles the process of swapping out parts. Constant attrition means that your company never starts relying on individuals, instead the process survives and thrives on its own, hiring new people who then hire new people before they le…

That’s a management pipe dream. The software verification teams at my company have very high attrition rates and it’s getting really tiring to deal with newbies who don’t understand the product or why things are the way they are. You can’t really replace experience with process. It works well only in very simple and well understood cases.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#103

Post by pdimitar »

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…

Well said and I agree. Let me only rant about this a little:

> The entire industry has now shaped itself into a transient, mercenary, loyalty-free community.

This is sadly inevitable and it's a classic example of a race to the bottom and EXACTLY the thing you said: "you go first". As a contractor myself, I was effectively forced into being a contractor and not a loyal employee by the virtue of being screwed over many times. I learned to always shop around for the next gig while the current one is still going -- not because I love that, I hate it with all my soul, but because I have to protect myself and my family.

I was loyal throughout most of my 20-year career. I ignored my family, I ignored my own health even, I saved companies on the brink and only ever felt a pat on the back on the company's Christmas party, and a single 500 EUR bonus (if even that). And something similar happened several times, not just one.

One day you get seriously sick and you need a safety net which you of course don't have. It changes your perspective DRAMATICALLY.

---

WORK FOR YOURSELF regardless of where you are or what is written in your contract. You are your own top priority. Invest in contacts. Talk to people and don't assume that a conversation is useless. Just enjoy talking with people. You'll both have fun and will have the nebulous possibility of somebody calling you 5 years down the line.

I don't leech off of companies. They leech off of me. I am giving them only as much as they give me in terms of money and work-life balance and stress(-free) environment. I don't go an inch over that anymore.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#104

Post by spaetzleesser »

sokoloff wrote: post #32
enord wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, for assembly-line production this might ring true (I wouldn't know, never did it). But for what one might reasonably categorize as "knowledge work", my experience is that knowledge reigns supreme. Some of that knowledge is shared by a whole community of practitioners, other parts of it is local and contextualized. This part probably makes up a sizable proportion of an organizations competitive advantage. To m…

> To make workers replaceable is to rely mostly on the knowledge you can reasonably expect to regain on rehire. Fortunately, we developed systems of writing, so that the limit to this relearning is higher now than a few millennia ago. (Society does the ultimate “rehiring” continually.) I think that far too many companies (including my own) rely much too heavily on “things that are in people’s heads” and don’t spend e…

“I think that far too many companies (including my own) rely much too heavily on “things that are in people’s heads” and don’t spend enough time and money on making the company knowledge effectively outlast any individual employee”

Totally agree but I have never seen a company implement this consistently. They seem to expect that while you are under constant deadlines you also have time to document your stuff thoroughly. We also need systems to organize the documentation so you need to hire tech writers who do that. If you put this on engineers they most likely won’t do it because they don’t have time.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#105

Post by hwbehrens »

tombert wrote: post #97
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…

My perspective is (and always has been) that I am working for a for-profit entity. There's nothing wrong with this, most people do it, and that's pretty much how society is built. 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,…

The parent's loyalty isn't to the company, it's to their direct reports (I assume). After you've been shielding people from the shitstorm for long enough, it can feel very difficult to fold up your umbrella and leave. Even if it's strictly better for you, it might violate your utilitarian instincts or personal ethics.

Of course, companies know this and use it as one of the many tools to suppress wages.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#106

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

alexashka wrote: post #85
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 syste…

Interesting tangent, there.

I’m not pining for “the good old days,” at all, and it’s … interesting … that this was what you read.

I’m enthusiastic about tech, the future, learning new stuff, and making the world a better place.

I feel that it is a shame that the concept of Personal Integrity (or corporate Integrity) is considered an anachronism.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#107

Post by tombert »

hwbehrens wrote: post #105
tombert wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perspective is (and always has been) that I am working for a for-profit entity. There's nothing wrong with this, most people do it, and that's pretty much how society is built. 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,…

The parent's loyalty isn't to the company, it's to their direct reports (I assume). After you've been shielding people from the shitstorm for long enough, it can feel very difficult to fold up your umbrella and leave. Even if it's strictly better for you , it might violate your utilitarian instincts or personal ethics. Of course, companies know this and use it as one of the many tools to suppress wages.

That's totally fair; if you think your replacement is going to make people under you's life worse, it might be hard to leave. I've never been a manager or had anyone reporting to me, so I can't speak to that point.

But I agree, I think this is kind of weaponized by corporations to avoid employee churn.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#108

Post by grayfaced »

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.

Attrition usually loses the top-performers because they can get much better offers. The poor-performers don't have any good options to leave.

Proactive management would reward the top performers and reprimand/fire the poor performers. That's the opposite of attrition.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#109

Post by ghaff »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #96
rileymat2 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Taxpayer funded defined benefit pensions, aka Social Security in the US, is the solution for people not earning enough money to save. 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 employe…

>not to mention the longevity risk of a single employer surviving for 50 more years

There are various protections in place. I'll be collecting a pension from a long gone employer.

I'm not really going to argue for defined benefit pensions. There's a certain paternalistic attitude to them that your employer is at least partly responsible for looking after your retirement savings. And you're on the hook for being a loyal long-term employee to get that benefit.

Still, it will be nice to collect a decent payout from a benefit I probably didn't ever really think about at the time. I even know people who completely forgot that they even had a pension.

Re: Cost of Attrition

#110

Post by georgewsinger »

Counter-point: Tesla/SpaceX have extremely high attrition rates, but are so successful they'll likely be remembered in 100 years for their achievements.

(To be fair the article just points out that attrition has a higher cost than we realize, not that attrition is never worth it).

Post reply on HN