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

Loyalty and Layoffs

heartmindcode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 139 posts

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#121

Post by yummyfajitas »

antihero wrote: post #118
yummyfajitas wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not apply in our era. It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal privileges by doing so. Parliament and congress tend to be bought and paid for by unions. Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most workmen can subsist for long periods without work. (Most workers don't value stability, and ch…

In the UK, unions have been utterly castrated by the Thatcher government. > Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most workmen can subsist for long periods without work. Nope, most workers here are living paycheck to paycheck. > (Most workers don't value stability, and choose consumption over savings. But this doesn't mean they lack the ability, they merely don't value it.) Savings? You must be j…

In the US, we have a GDP/capita of $50k/year. In the UK, it's just under $36k/year. In Poland it's $21k/year.

If it's impossible for a Brit to save, since they must consume everything they earn to survive with a minimal level of enjoyment, then how do the Polish avoid death? Do the Polish simply not enjoy life at all? And surely you'd agree that Americans should be able to save, simply by reducing their consumption to British levels.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#122

Post by michaelt »

coldtea wrote: post #83
chasing wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exactly missing my point. Your comment is written from the perspective of someone who feels like the inferior party in the relationship. You're not. You always have the ability to say 'no' and walk away from a situation. Are you confused by your compensation? Request full explanation until you're no longer confused and understand your risks. (Understanding risk and reward and making judgments in the face of un…

> Your comment is written from the perspective of someone who feels like the inferior party in the relationship. You're not. You always have the ability to say 'no' and walk away from a situation. Yes, except if you need food and shelter, and have been searching for a job for like 4-5 months (or longer) without much luck... Lots of Americans tend to think like they all are millionaires (or are soon to be) when discus…

A vocal portion of the HN community seem to be SV developers whose biggest problem is "How do I get these recruiters to stop calling me?"

Needless to say, these people are in a much more powerful negotiating position than, say, the 9.5% of Nevada residents who are unemployed [1]. And even the Nevada residents are better off than the 20% of people worldwide living on less than the PPP equivalent of $1.25 per day [2].

I think the posters in this thread should state which of those audiences they're writing for.

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100974182 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17312819

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#123

Post by squozzer »

I would extend the author's arguments to include loyalty to an entity whose interests aren't exactly aligned with one's own -- for example, a nation-state.

Not saying that loyalty in itself is bad, but blind loyalty is -- a symptom of which is accepting a leader's words at face value.

Even nice doggies get put to sleep eventually.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#124

Post by antimagic »

001sky wrote: post #76
chasing wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're exactly missing my point. Your comment is written from the perspective of someone who feels like the inferior party in the relationship. You're not. You always have the ability to say 'no' and walk away from a situation. Are you confused by your compensation? Request full explanation until you're no longer confused and understand your risks. (Understanding risk and reward and making judgments in the face of un…

I think you are glossing over if not the asymetry in information, than the assymetry in the opportunity cost. 'Walking away', as you put it. Testing the market in this way is stigmatized by future employers (collusively, perhaps) on the one hand. On the other hand, companie have deeper pockets to cushion lumpy productivity/profits. The issues and dynamics are a lot different for a higher level position, where an exec…

Walking away is easy provided you already have a job. This is why it is a bad idea to wait until you don't have a job before looking for the next one. If you ever do have that problem, take what you can get and then start looking for something better straight away.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#125

Post by beat »

nigelsampson wrote: post #38
chasing wrote: post #20

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. You both need to provide the other with value, and you both need to be frank about your relationship when these values are lop-sided. And you need to be clear about what the value of the things being offered are. Your employer is not your family, your mom, or your significant other. It's a peer with which you trade value. Ever…

Realising this was one of the best things in my career, it helped me increase my confidence in job interviews. They now weren't just me desperately selling myself to the company, but also them trying to sell me on why I should work there.

When I'm interviewing candidates, I'm very conscious of the fact that I'm selling the job to them, at the same time they're selling themselves to me. If they can't make the sale to me, I'm not going to put much effort into making the sale to them.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#126

Post by ahh »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #121
antihero wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, unions have been utterly castrated by the Thatcher government. > Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most workmen can subsist for long periods without work. Nope, most workers here are living paycheck to paycheck. > (Most workers don't value stability, and choose consumption over savings. But this doesn't mean they lack the ability, they merely don't value it.) Savings? You must be j…

In the US, we have a GDP/capita of $50k/year. In the UK, it's just under $36k/year. In Poland it's $21k/year. If it's impossible for a Brit to save, since they must consume everything they earn to survive with a minimal level of enjoyment, then how do the Polish avoid death? Do the Polish simply not enjoy life at all? And surely you'd agree that Americans should be able to save, simply by reducing their consumption t…

Well, first, GDP/capita isn't a great measure for how the average (low quartile?) worker is doing. I'd think you'd have to look at actual wage levels.

Second, cost of living is different in the UK, US, and Poland. If we ignore wage levels and just look at GDP/c, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#OECD_co... tells us that after adjusting for costs, the effective numbers as compared to a US citizen's purchasing power are $50K US, $32K UK, $35K Poland.

Mind you, I don't know I buy antihero's argument that the British are struggling to stay alive, but your argument isn't a particularly strong counter.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#127

Post by jes »

Xylakant wrote: post #103
tokenizer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get me wrong, you're right. It is even legally, but not in nominal terms of value. If I do front end web development for 15$ an hour, but am sold to a customer for 150$ an hour, there's no question in terms of value that the arrangement is unfair. As for your point regarding business success, that's not really my call nor do I have a say. How can I accept losses on behalf of another employee's decision? Surely…

See, as an ex-freelance and now employer, I can tell that a company does a lot more than provide a portfolio. The tradeoff is on multiple levels: - I pay my employees far less than what I can bill my clients. - However, if there is no client, I still pay my employees their full rate. - I pay all associated costs: Workplace and equipment, health insurance, paid holidays, accounting, lawyers where needed, ... - I pay f…

Thank you for understanding this and stating it.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#128

Post by dredmorbius »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #113
dredmorbius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. That's a false statement whose falseness has been observed by economists since Adam Smith: What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. Th…

Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not apply in our era. It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal privileges by doing so. Parliament and congress tend to be bought and paid for by unions. Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most workmen can subsist for long periods without work. (Most workers don't value stability, and ch…

Adam Smith might have been right about his era, but his reasoning does not apply in our era.

I disagree profoundly. Much of the world still operates under conditions Smith would recognize quite readily. Even industrialized nations still have a fundamental set of circumstances as described by Smith which benefits employers.

It is illegal for employers to collude to lower wages, while unions gain legal privileges by doing so.

It isn't illegal to collude everywhere, and even where it is, this doesn't stop the practice. To put this in terms HN readers might appreciate, most of the major employers in Silicon Valley have been convicted or strongly implicated in anti-poaching hiring practices (another reason recruiting is as big a mess as it is):

http://www.siliconvalley.com/companies/ci_22962030/apple-goo...

As I've noted: IT is a very largely non-unionized industry sector. For recent unionization rates by industry sector, this BLS 2007 report notes that even in the government rates are below 50%: 35% public sector, http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/feb/wk2/art01.htm

Parliament and congress tend to be bought and paid for by unions.

Campaign donations from corporations ($25.2m), trade associations ($15m), and individuals and organizations ($16m) all dwarf labor ($7.6m):

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=28

While the largest _single_ donor sources are frequently labor organizations, these represent a large number of individuals across a large number of employers. Single corporate and PAC donors aren't far behind. Looking at recipients of contributions, the top Democrat and Republican in the US House of Representatives, it's individual contributions which make the lion's share of contributions in both cases:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/edward-j-ma...

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/john_a_boeh...

The remainder of your assertions without any backing data I simply dismiss as non-credible in light of reports that half of Americans have less than $800 in savings (less than a month's expenses in most cases), and less than $25k in retirement funds.

http://blog.credit.com/2013/06/half-of-americans-have-less-t...

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0319/Most-Americans-r...

Nice counter-factual troll.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#129

Post by dredmorbius »

rwallace wrote: post #116
dredmorbius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers. That's a false statement whose falseness has been observed by economists since Adam Smith: What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. Th…

Bear in mind, however, that a 21st-century programmer is in a much stronger bargaining position than an 18th-century workman. I've seen people in the former category let their lives get screwed up by following subservience instincts more appropriate for the latter, and as a way to avoid that, regarding yourself as the peer of your employer is a decent first approximation.

True, the programmer of today is more equivalent to a skilled craftsman of Smith's time than of unskilled labour (dumb muscle). However the craftsman also has a relatively difficult time to create a reserve of capital. Especially in jurisdictions in which your primary store of capital (your own inventions) are by law or contract assigned to your employer.

Re: Loyalty and Layoffs

#130

Post by antihero »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #121
antihero wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, unions have been utterly castrated by the Thatcher government. > Similarly, due to a combination of high wages and welfare, most workmen can subsist for long periods without work. Nope, most workers here are living paycheck to paycheck. > (Most workers don't value stability, and choose consumption over savings. But this doesn't mean they lack the ability, they merely don't value it.) Savings? You must be j…

In the US, we have a GDP/capita of $50k/year. In the UK, it's just under $36k/year. In Poland it's $21k/year. If it's impossible for a Brit to save, since they must consume everything they earn to survive with a minimal level of enjoyment, then how do the Polish avoid death? Do the Polish simply not enjoy life at all? And surely you'd agree that Americans should be able to save, simply by reducing their consumption t…

Have you heard of cost of living?
Post reply on HN