Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 250 posts

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#221

Post by bilvar »

tombert wrote: post #217
bilvar wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way a company can find another employee, the employee can find another job. Also claiming that leaving a company doesn't affect a company's bottom line reflects more about the quality of the work the employee does, rather than the economic reality of the company. If your work doesn't affect the bottom line maybe you shouldn't have the job, that's why you are getting paid to have an impact on the bottom line,…

I think your first paragraph is sort of self-evidently silly so there's not much to say there. Good employees leave, or die, and most of the time it doesn't kill the company. > Where did I actually say that companies do not ask for loyalty? You didn't explicitly, but you did say "worker makes it fairer to demand loyalty but not reciprocate". I'm claiming that the non-competes already demand a lot of loyalty, but the…

> I think your first paragraph is sort of self-evidently silly so there's not much to say there. Good employees leave, or die, and most of the time it doesn't kill the company.

Yes it's so self-evident that even you argument for it is moving the goalposts. Just to remind you, we are talking about an employee leaving affecting the bottom line of the company, not the company shutting down.

> You didn't explicitly, but you did say "worker makes it fairer to demand loyalty but not reciprocate". I'm claiming that the non-competes already demand a lot of loyalty, but the companies do not reciprocate it.

Loyalty is implicit, not some terms you sign on a contract. Duh, you have to follow those for legal reasons, not because of 'loyalty'. But let's indulge you.

If your contract has a non-compete and you want to see reciprocation of the loyalty, ask to add in your contract the terms that would made you feel it's a fair exchange of loyalty. Otherwise don't sign the contract. But of course you will sign it because you like that fat paycheck high-tech/finance is giving you - won't accept to work for those pesky companies that can't afford non-competes for a lower salary. You make it sound like non-competes are a common thing except for the ridiculously well-paid white-collar jobs.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#223

Post by tombert »

bilvar wrote: post #221
tombert wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your first paragraph is sort of self-evidently silly so there's not much to say there. Good employees leave, or die, and most of the time it doesn't kill the company. > Where did I actually say that companies do not ask for loyalty? You didn't explicitly, but you did say "worker makes it fairer to demand loyalty but not reciprocate". I'm claiming that the non-competes already demand a lot of loyalty, but the…

> I think your first paragraph is sort of self-evidently silly so there's not much to say there. Good employees leave, or die, and most of the time it doesn't kill the company. Yes it's so self-evident that even you argument for it is moving the goalposts. Just to remind you, we are talking about an employee leaving affecting the bottom line of the company, not the company shutting down. > You didn't explicitly, but…

> You make it sound like non-competes are a common thing except for the ridiculously well-paid white-collar jobs.

At least in the United States, they're reasonably common even in startups. I don't know what to tell you.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#224

Post by iepathos »

gtirloni wrote: post #131
iepathos wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, also doesn't mention the super low 3.4% unemployment rate the US still has. Most of the people being laid off are being re-hired within a very short timeframe. The Fed has wanted unemployment back up to ~6% for over a year and can't get it.

> The Fed has wanted unemployment back up to ~6% for over a year and can't get i Why is the Fed interested in that and why does it want that number to be higher?

The Fed believes higher unemployment will bring down inflation. Also, higher unemployment increases labor market flexibility so that companies can easily adjust their labor force based on fluctuations in the market. Low unemployment makes it hard for companies looking to hire and expand.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#225

Post by newswasboring »

scarface74 wrote: post #182
newswasboring wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a person moves to another company, the company doesn't have to move to another state and restart its social life from scratch. The person with more power, needs to take more responsibility. Holy batman, sometimes I feel like people don't even have a heart anymore.

Isn’t it your responsibility to weigh the pros and cons and risk for uprooting your family for more compensation? It’s business. It’s purely transactional. Why would you expect a company to “have a heart”?

Because I thought in America businesses were people. And I have been fortunate enough to work with businesses which seem like they have a heart. Consequently, I've rejected several offers to come work in America for extra pay. I think a system which is purely transactional is inferior, boring and at times immoral due to power imbalance. Society is not a computer program, businesses exist in society and they should behave like that.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#226

Post by cbsmith »

cbsmith wrote: post #220
lazyasciiart wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep in mind, at the time of hiring, there is real demand, That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence.

> That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence. Umm... the entire basis for the article was that there was a belief that market conditions at the time would remain true "forever". That's a very different delusion from thinking there isn't something there. ...and there's plenty of evidence that there was real demand. Real revenue grew significantly during that time. Streaming services saw signific…

Sorry, that should read "That's a very different delusion from thinking there is something there that isn't."

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#227

Post by Eisenstein »

bilvar wrote: post #214
Eisenstein wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how I can provide evidence without access to JSTOR. I don't feel like spending $30/paper to come up with statistics and studies for you.

Yes because we all know self-reported data from employees on how loyal they are and how bad corporations are is a reliable method to come up with studies that are worth the paper they're written on. Get a grip.

Are you preemptively dismissing data you haven't seen? Talk about a closed mind and an argument in bad faith.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#228

Post by lazyasciiart »

cbsmith wrote: post #220
lazyasciiart wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Keep in mind, at the time of hiring, there is real demand, That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence.

> That seems like a big claim for which I haven't seen any evidence. Umm... the entire basis for the article was that there was a belief that market conditions at the time would remain true "forever". That's a very different delusion from thinking there isn't something there. ...and there's plenty of evidence that there was real demand. Real revenue grew significantly during that time. Streaming services saw signific…

Sounds like you're equating 'demand for more engineers' with 'available cash' for any given company. I think you're mistaking demand for ability to purchase.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#229

Post by scarface74 »

newswasboring wrote: post #225
scarface74 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it your responsibility to weigh the pros and cons and risk for uprooting your family for more compensation? It’s business. It’s purely transactional. Why would you expect a company to “have a heart”?

Because I thought in America businesses were people. And I have been fortunate enough to work with businesses which seem like they have a heart. Consequently, I've rejected several offers to come work in America for extra pay. I think a system which is purely transactional is inferior, boring and at times immoral due to power imbalance. Society is not a computer program, businesses exist in society and they should be…

And for that tradeoff, tech companies pay a lot more in America.

A returning intern I mentored at $BigTech got an offer coming straight out of college that was twice the median wage in America and it’s a remote job.

They save a crap ton of money every month in case things go wrong.

Re: Tech companies keep falling for the forever fallacy

#230

Post by scarface74 »

pdimitar wrote: post #218
scarface74 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the financial incentives of people taking a job at Google? They wanted to get paid top of market compensation for their labor and they did while they were working there. What did the employees do with their additional compensation? Did they save it? Are they trying to use the fact they worked for Google to increase their network? At what point is it the employee’s responsibility to assume that no job is per…

You are kind of talking past me and @tombert btw. And you seem to have come here to claim some badassery on your part, and that we shouldn't expend energy on "being frustrated". > At what point is it the employee’s responsibility to assume that no job is permanent? Nobody claimed jobs are permanent and that everyone must be protected. Don't fight straw men, tearing them down isn't impressive in any discussion. If you…

> Reading deep into your replies it seems you basically got in here to say "don't complain you spoiled youngsters, work hard like I did instead".

I think no such thing. I was excited when an intern I mentored got a return offer at 22 making as much as I made when I was 44 before getting into BigTech.

I didn’t exactly struggle making what I was making over the years. During that time I had two big houses built in the burbs and I had a comfortable life. My lifestyle didn’t change any after going from corp dev -> BigTech. The extra money just went toward increasing my financial stability.

When new computer grads ask me for advice, I tell them to “grind leetcode and work for a FAANG” (tm r/cscareerquestions) - even though I never did that to get my $BigTech job - and make all the money they can.

I tell them how to play the promotion game and focus on politics, work toward “scope” and “impact” to get ahead - again even though that’s not a game I’m playing.

> No. We're adults with a lot of battle scars who are jaded by the fact that CEOs are 100% immune to any consequences from firing people.

I’m also jaded. But to the point where any job is merely transactional and I don’t take it personally when the transaction of “trading labor for money” is not seen as mutually beneficial to both parties.

> They should be liable, criminally liable even

Who was “inconvenienced” by making $250K+ for a few years and getting laid off with a severance?

You are a contractor, I consider every job a short term contract that could disappear. I wasn’t inconvenienced at all by making a lot more money at BigTech than I did at the 60 person startup I left even if I had gotten laid off.

If you are contractor making “half as much as I am” - which by the way I’m on the lowish end of BigTech compensation - would you not take a contract for two years that paid you a total of $100K+ more than your average compensation?

> Hope this clears it up a bit for you, though reading your deep replies makes me think you came here with an agenda

As someone whose career has a longer arc than most people on HN and have been on both sides of the “average software engineer compensation” and “BigTech compensation” divide, and has had 6 jobs since 2012 (the other two I kept for 3 and 9 years respectively before 2012), I can’t really muster any outrage at a CEO. I don’t expect any better.

It’s more like the tale of the snake and the old lady.

Post reply on HN