221–230 of 773 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's an exception for every rule. As a manager I've fought HR to get pay rises during pay freezes. And won. Bad managers roll over when presented with obstacles, great ones fight for their team.
The great ones also realize that there are other things employees value and build upon those, along with compensation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming a salary of $100k, and 0.5% daily fluctuation, that's a portfolio of $20 million, which is a sizable amount.
It's not uncommon for the stock market to fluctuate by 2% in a day (like today actually), which means he'd only need a portfolio of $5 million.
Sure, everyone wants to work in a good working environment, but I think the idea that "nobody left because of the money" is finally being put to bed.
The fact is that corporations and VCs have always realized that business is primarily just about the money, and their ability to get people to work for their "passion" has resulted in people getting underpaid. I'm always especially amused when people are expected to have "passion" when they're working at like a bank or an insurance company.
You work to make money. There are plenty of opportunities for hobbies and volunteering for passions. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy what you do at work, but don't lose sight of why someone is paying you to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. It's a different game right now. As an employer it's very hard to take everyone's salary up 20% because that's what they might get elsewhere. So you don't. So people leave. But this won't last forever.
> But this won't last forever. I feel like this quote is relevant, if slightly off topic: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent." i.e. You may run out of good candidates long before your competitors stop offering 20% more than you.
I had a job that I enjoyed and excelled at. I did great, got good bonuses so I didn't move for 10 years. Then I got laid off. It was really really hard to find work again as my background wasn't full of hot technology, and I had no experience of modern interviewing (like leetcode). I dont want to be in that position again, so I'm interviewing again after a few years already.
In the tech industry, I'd generally recommend looking around every 3-4 years, unless you have golden handcuffs and you don't think that can be beat elsewhere. Any longer than that and you risk settling into a box of which you may become unable to think outside. Any shorter than that, and you probably aren't maximizing your potential, in terms of promotions and learning those fresh perspectives and new tech that will…
Starting all over again kinda sucks. The older I get the less I look forward to doing the hustle to gain cred in new orgs.
[1] It'll probably end up being 8-9 months
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Negotiating courses often refer to this as the BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Considering what that scenario is and having it as your bottom line is the best piece of advice they impart.
Having a BATNA that you're perfectly fine doing takes a huge amount of pressure off in a negotiation.
Someone should make a thread asking the opposite question: Why are people staying at their jobs?
-> Leaving because of not learning stuff, Staying because of learning new stuff -> Bad compensation, good/sufficient compensation ..
Although I imagine there could be less positive reasons:
* Few job opportunities / ..