191–200 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree completely. Everyone who worked in the big tech hubs knows you typically get the best raises by job-hopping. Still, 5-10% raises are at least trying to prevent that. I cannot fathom a company doing zero, as implied by the "no-raise mentality" comment.
A 2-3% is VERY common. Unacceptable even in the days of 2% inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you have any interest to take on the business from your dad? Would you encourage your children to go into the business if you had?
That's the thing, my grandfather started it and my dad and uncle took it over. My uncle passed years ago due to cancer. So it was just my dad. My whole life growing up he told me he was making me do all the dirty work for his friends who were in the trades and to drive loader for him so I would go to college and get an office job. He didn't want me to take it over. My grandfather on the other hand wanted to give me 7…
But for all I hear about people doing well as contractors, I haven't really seen it for myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hahahahahahahahaha 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."
How do they expect to fucking keep talent when we can just jump house and make that much more to companies that have adjusted to inflation?
And while you keep skilled resources, you replace cogs.
Plus, there’s always those who have drunk the koolaide and, despite being seen and treated like cogs, can’t imagine ever leaving the company; can’t imagine their leaders as anything but benevolent.
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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty well-understood that a company does not function if everyone performs only the duties written on paper. There's even a counterproductive strategy that uses that as the hallmark: "malicious compliance." People aren't robots (if they were, they'd have been automated by now so owners could keep all the wealth by owning all the capital) and the challenges businesses face are too dynamic to survive a script-on…
What the... No. If your company has to rely on people working extra hours and doing extra work, to actually function... then screw that company. Imagine if you demanded your carpenter do your plumbing as well, because "as house can't operate without proper plumbing".
That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
There has been an erosion and change in the nature of the employee-employer relationship. Back in the day that the author initially started working, the nature of the relationship was probably much more balanced: the employee got a decent wage, was trusted to fulfil their duties with reasonable concessions and freedom (sometimes possibly doing overtime if necessary, but also being able to leave early on days when the…
I think the problem is when you start trying to get away with doing less than what you're paid for. For example, taking short cuts, hiding issues, or neglecting other responsibilities. In many roles, this would probably work for quite a long time but create massive long-term issues for the company.
It's the company's job to create a long term culture. If anything people who can hide bad stuff for 18 months then get a 30% pay raise are simply optimizing for the reward mechanisms in front of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Hahahahahahahahaha 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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Up until a few years ago IC was a rare thing to effectively advance your income. ICs were seen ad just ants that are useless without a manager. As for "cesspool that is California" - SV provides the highest income opportunities, even if you include low raise opportunities.
From what I see, that would be about 80-140% higher than most non-Senior SV Jobs our there. Meaning my standard of living would drastically decrease even though my income would likely go up by 100%.
Example, I own a 3 bedroom home, on 3/4 acre lot with a 15 year mortgage, my payment is less than $900/mo... I would not even rent a Closet in San Fransisco for that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it though? The whole trend is because people don't feel like it's there. You haven't actually respond to them, all you have done is dismiss their thoughts as "stupid" or "nonsense"
The whole trend is manufactured outrage from places like reddit, twitter, and the dull corporate "journalists" that for some reason act as a megaphone for these "ideas". Its anything but organic. Ending work, doing the bare minimum at your job until you get fired? Very strange to me. Its participants are chronically online, angry, and very jealous. Of course they're opposed to meritocracy.
If you can't empathise with the exploited, perhaps is it because you are in the position to exploit?