171–180 of 224 posts
Alot of young people are being influenced by stupid trends on reddit (like /r/antiwork) or this 'quiet quitting' nonsense. Alot of young people also believe that meritocracy doesn't exist in the modern workplace, which is dangerous, because we all know it 100% exists.
> because we all know it 100% exists. I don't know that.
I'm gen X so sort of right in the middle. I consider my generation on of the last of the american dream is attainable for the average worker. I was able to buy a home in my early 20s and climb the wealth ladder. I busted my ass working a 40hr a week job and doing side hustles to make it happen. If you are looking for a home now outside a major city and don't want a 2hr commute things are so slim even if you work your…
Humans have been doing this forever, just working hard enough to not be fired. If anything it's idealistic youth who tend to buck that trend and subscribe to hustle culture en masse. From the 1999 movie Office Space: > Peter Gibbons: The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care. > Bob Porter: Don't... don't care? > Peter Gibbons: It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass…
Companies need to figure out how to convert illiquid equity into actual liquidity. I don't get how it is fair founders get to sell their shares but employees don't. It's probably why startups are majorly lacking in really senior talent: only newbies think startups will do right by them. That and focus on profitability to pay out employees with profit shares.
IMHO bonuses are generally worse for everyone involved. They tend to quickly become expected compensation so lose their incentive value. Also can end up doing the opposite. If someone doesn't get an expected bonus their morale can go down. They might end up working less. And then there's the whole "wait to quit until my bonus pays out" problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like these "take advantage of the system people" are partially the cause of stricter monitoring and leeway. But these people are so obviously detected it makes no sense. They are not even trying to hide. They could be the cause of stricter legislation, not monitoring. I think everyone has a good measure about the value of the people they are directly in contact: direct coworkers, bosses and subordinates. You…
> But these people are so obviously detected it makes no sense. They are not even trying to hide. Why would they try to hide? If their employment agreement or their company's benefits clearly spell out a way to get 6-24 months of leave, how is it wrong to simply choose to do what's spelled out? How did "making use of benefits that are clearly written out and allowed" turn into "taking advantage of the system"? I take…
It's not like you're scamming the system...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But these people are so obviously detected it makes no sense. They are not even trying to hide. Why would they try to hide? If their employment agreement or their company's benefits clearly spell out a way to get 6-24 months of leave, how is it wrong to simply choose to do what's spelled out? How did "making use of benefits that are clearly written out and allowed" turn into "taking advantage of the system"? I take…
If the entire company fully utilizes their unlimited PTO, then open ended policies will become less open ended... Unlimited PTO and sick days become tracked PTO and sick days. Which brings us to the original point of employers tracking their employees more.
As for sick days, a sane company should have insurance for those cases (to cover for people being sick).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every year, you'd have your performance review, and assuming it wasn't bad, you'd get some sort of a raise. Even when they do have this, those raises usually max out around 5%. Maybe 10% if you're utterly amazing. Problem is, you can get 20% just by moving, so unless the company is astonishingly employee friendly, you're always losing out.
And now, since the start of inflation, in the last year, the value of a dollar has eroded 13%. Have you gotten a 13% raise just to maintain your cost of living?
No.
Of course we haven't. Of course we never will. To paraphrase my current CEO: "Cost of living adjustments have never been a part of our pay raises."
And also, of course, as a public company they won't cut into their record profits and growth to take care of their employees. To quote Wall Street: "Grow or Die."
I worked 200% for over 15 years in Silicon Valley. You know how many raises I got without changing jobs? Zero. You know how many promotions I got? Zero. You know how many bonuses I got? Zero. You know how much more work I got assigned? A TON. Hard work only begets hard work these days and not further compensation. The old paths to higher compensation and career growth are dead, and employers killed them. There's no r…
I work 200% for over 20 years outside of Silicon Valley, You know how many raises I got... Lots, you know how many promotions I got, Lots Maybe it is time to get out of the cesspool that is California
As for "cesspool that is California" - SV provides the highest income opportunities, even if you include low raise opportunities.
It irks me that some people use this term to mean "doing your job, as expected." I would imagine it to mean "doing the absolute smallest amount you can get away with without getting noticed and subsequently fired." Fulfilling my duties but not doing overtime seems like "doing your job" rather than "quiet quitting."
Which results in people saying that "quietly quitting" is "doing the smallest", when it's actually just sticking strictly to your contract obligations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That attitude is childish at best. If you're not happy with the wage, quit and go get it somewhere else. Employers would feel the pressure of "lack of labor" and wages would rise. Accepting a job and then deciding the wage is not enough for the duties you have to perform after the fact just slows the process down for everyone and usually puts extra work load on your colleagues. I'm assuming of course that you mean wh…
> Accepting a job and then deciding the wage is not enough for the duties you have to perform after the fact just slows the process down for everyone and usually puts extra work load on your colleagues. Uh,no. It's usually getting more and more work coz someone left/got fired and employer goes "well, productivity looks the same" (coz everyone is working that bit more) "why hire more?". Or frankly you just learned mor…
This is like an employer failing to gauge the number of people needed to do a job, just tell you to do a little extra...
Never ever will you get the benefit of a cut from the cost of the missing people, but your employer WILL get the benefit of delivering something more valuable to the market.