Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers • Hacker News Board

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#151

Post by nly » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #90

unethical_ban wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 years ago and prior for a generation or two. Employees had pensions instead of 401ks where tenure built up a guaranteed fixed income payment at retirement. Now we're all tied to the stock market. Oh, and back then a single income could support a working-class family to buy a decent house, two cars and maybe send a kid or two to college.

401k became a thing in part because of deep structural problems with employee pensions. Pensions don't "guarantee" anything in practice and many people lost them or had steep cuts. It is a promise, not a law of physics. 401k/IRA wasn't created for no reason. Pensions are exposed to much more idiosyncratic risk than a 401k and companies are poorly positioned to manage those risks. Some people might not want to take re…

Defined benefit pensions schemes ultimately need heavy regulation and a government backstop otherwise failure is inevitable.

That said, they can work great in tandem with the stock market.

The Kensington & Chelsea local government pension scheme in London, here in the UK, is an example.

The local authority (not central government) ultimately has the responsibility on paying out these liabilities, but it's one of the few councils that just dumped their pot in to global equities, and as a result they are 200% funded relative to their commitments and have stopped making further contributions.

The money that was flowing into the pension scheme can now flow in to local services.

Asset allocations:

https://www.ft.com/content/87c321ab-e5ac-4a1d-a637-c1f7befcc...

Cutting contributions:

https://www.ft.com/content/67254bff-0e6c-407a-a24a-c34ee217d...

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#152

Post by Der_Einzige » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #13

Interestingly, I've heard that job hopping no longer pays better than staying in place. I can't say if this is true (and no matter what's true, I'm sure that people have anecdotal exceptions!) but it would be quite discouraging if so.

Job hopping makes sense if you are skilled in AI.

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#153

Post by nradov » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

yladiz wrote: post #139

nradov wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers don't care about whether you're getting the same real money over time. Why should they?

Because I do, and if they only care about me as an economic output machine then why should I care about them? Put another way, if they aren’t matching inflation, should I reduce the work I do correspondingly?

No one is forcing you to care or to produce any particular level of work. If your job has no growth opportunities and stagnant compensation then you might want to look for other opportunities.

I think the issue here is that you're trying to frame the issue in terms of some sort of concept of fairness. But in reality that has nothing to do with it.

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#154

Post by ashleyn » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:38 PM UTC

jandrewrogers wrote: post #64

Stalling out on promotion has always happened. It can be explained almost entirely by two factors: As you become more senior, the success metrics for your role change significantly. Mentoring only goes so far because there is a large element of self-awareness and a willingness to change. Some people never recognize this and many never successfully adapt to what seniority entails. It is the career equivalent of trying…

Past a certain point there's also a diminishing return on the effort put in to get a raise/promotion and it mostly becomes about managing "up or out" expectations.

I'm about maxed out for development roles compensation wise. By saving most of this compensation and investing it in the S&P 500 and similar indices, I get way more of a return for far less effort. There are days - not months, days - where I'll earn about $7,500 in stock appreciation. The long term trend has me about matching my monthly salary in earnings.

Raises are inflation adjusted so there's no erosion of the underlying capital going into investments.

Why try harder when I'm paid enough to just invest it in the stock market? The biggest problem I have right now isn't how to get a promotion or raise, it's coming up with increasingly contrived excuses to avoid up-or-out and being pushed into more responsibilities.

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#155

Post by ryandrake » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #110

AlexB138 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most companies use the term "discretionary PTO". That means that there is no set limit on PTO. The positive take on it is that this means employees can take time off within reason so long as they're getting their work done. The negative take is that it means you have no guaranteed days you can take, and cultural or managerial pressure will prevent you from taking even a normal amount of vacation. It also means that e…

The shift from the tem "Unlimited PTO" to "Discretionary PTO" has happened because early proponents realized it wasn't really unlimited, and they didn't want workers to think that way. But the "unlimited" term is still used to sell it, and still often appears in informal recruiting conversations. It's just so slimy.

Reminds me of "Unlimited data" plans from ISPs, which are actually limited, but they just don't want to tell you about them.

Anytime something is marketed as unlimited, it's not.

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#156

Post by compiler-guy » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

DanielHB wrote: post #126

compiler-guy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Unlimited PTO" is a fiction created by accountants that sounds good on paper. When you need or want time off, you work it out with your manager. No debate about how many days you have left this year, or how many you have accumulated. It's undefined and technically you are supposed to work together and away you go. Accountants like it because guaranteed time-off is a liability that appears on the company's books as a…

Is it really a financial liability part really pushing companies for these policies? I never heard this argument before and compared to salaries PTO is minuscule liability... Seems much more likely companies just trying to squeeze employees into taking less PTO.

Pretty much every article on a naive Google search lists "reduced financial liability" as one of the corporate benefits. Even the ones that talk about more complicated financial scenarios deal with "unexpectedly short-staffed" rather than, "We have a big financial liability on our books."

A somewhat random example:

https://www.higginbotham.com/blog/unlimited-pto-pros-cons/

"Cost efficiency. Traditional PTO policies can result in financial liabilities due to unused vacation payouts when employees leave the company. With unlimited PTO, these liabilities are eliminated. This can be particularly advantageous for companies looking to manage their finances more effectively."

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#157

Post by yladiz » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #153

yladiz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I do, and if they only care about me as an economic output machine then why should I care about them? Put another way, if they aren’t matching inflation, should I reduce the work I do correspondingly?

No one is forcing you to care or to produce any particular level of work. If your job has no growth opportunities and stagnant compensation then you might want to look for other opportunities. I think the issue here is that you're trying to frame the issue in terms of some sort of concept of fairness. But in reality that has nothing to do with it.

That’s a bit misleading, no? If you don’t produce a certain level of work you’re going to be fired.

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#158

Post by mrguyorama » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

AlexB138 wrote: post #80

The youngest baby boomers are in their early 60s. I doubt it will make a difference in tech, but traditional industries, or what is left of them, should see a lot of senior roles open up as baby boomers begin to retire. Then, as they begin to pass away, a lot of their accumulated wealth will pass to their heirs as well. The baby boomers have been a serious "clog" in the system at a lot of levels. It will be interesti…

~$0 of baby boomer wealth will pass down.

It's all going to be taken by end of life care companies who charge $20k a month (yes really) to put you in a small room and have a teen with barely a highschool diploma check in on you every now and again, for minimum wage.

Every dime of wealth the boomers collected will be captured by a few private capital orgs who prepared for this. It will never flow down.

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#159

Post by nradov » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #73

jandrewrogers wrote: post #64

Stalling out on promotion has always happened. It can be explained almost entirely by two factors: As you become more senior, the success metrics for your role change significantly. Mentoring only goes so far because there is a large element of self-awareness and a willingness to change. Some people never recognize this and many never successfully adapt to what seniority entails. It is the career equivalent of trying…

Another aspect of being promoted: many of us see what the next level has to do/is doing and isn’t interested in doing that. I’ve seen people get promoted and then immediately implode because N+1 started involving lots of politics that they couldn’t or didn’t want to handle. Even senior IC roles get more and more exposed to non-technical and organizational issues.

The usual solution to "The Peter Principle" is to give the promotable employee the additional responsibilities first without the job title (or salary) and see if they rise to the occasion. If not then it's easy to dial back assignments without going through a demotion or termination.

Re: Roughly a quarter of American professionals hit a wall in their careers

#160

Post by jandrewrogers » Mon, Jun 01, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #105

tavavex wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. What is 'unlimited' PTO? And if it's so unlimited, why can't you use any of it? I've only had jobs with very specifically defined PTO that had no ambiguity in whether I could ever use it.

"Unlimited PTO" is a fiction created by accountants that sounds good on paper. When you need or want time off, you work it out with your manager. No debate about how many days you have left this year, or how many you have accumulated. It's undefined and technically you are supposed to work together and away you go. Accountants like it because guaranteed time-off is a liability that appears on the company's books as a…

You have to manage discretionary PTO. The problem has almost never been people taking too much but taking too little.

At some companies, the directive from the top to management was to make sure people took at least 3-5 weeks of PTO every year. For legal reasons you can't keep official track of this (it will be imputed as accrual) but managers would actively nudge people to take more PTO.

If you proactively manage it, it works pretty well.