Is my advice too mercenary?

> There was a time in America a generation or two ago when you could give your all to a company.

The problem with these advice columns is that they aren't saying "don't give your all to a company".

They end up saying "your company is the enemy". The original article that this blog refers to was titled "Exit interviews are a trap", which many pointed out was a gross exaggeration. It assumes that every company performing an exit interview is doing something malicious, which is a ridiculous claim.

Yes, it's possible that some companies somewhere are using exit interviews as some sort of trap to get dirt or leverage over employees, and it's also true that you shouldn't rush in and use it as an opportunity to complain about everyone you hated at the company. However, it's unreasonable to assume that it's a trap and that the company is interested in nothing more than revenge.

That's the problem with these advice blogs. They cater to an idea that managers and HR are "the other", and once someone crosses the line to management or HR, they become evil and incapable of doing anything other than abusing you for no good reason.

We should warn young people about abusive employers, but it's not helpful to teach them that employers are universally malicious.

Small aside, reading all these conversations: I just think a lot of static gets injected into these discussions about wage/employers/comp on HN because a large majority of the commenters here are either currently business owners, or founders, or trying to be either of those. But there is also a huge contingent of people who do regular waged labor here, whether FAANG or freelance. Beyond any political differences, I think this is the main operating tension here, when there is one.

The very essence of this website is not amenable to workers coming together to discuss things like the propriety of employment-tied healthcare, or what we should expect from our managers, but mostly for aspiring and current startup leaders to, probably, discuss everything but that stuff. It is a forum attached to a startup incubator after all, and I can't imagine much VC money goes to those companies that are worried about their own labor related issues/externalities, at least those that they don't need to legally be worried about.

I don't think anything is lost here, there is no problem per se, discussions are of course not being diminished by this ultimately demographic point; but just... if you come to these threads and feel a little disappointed that there is not a more universal solidarity towards the basic decency of the worker, just remember it is because not everyone here is a worker!

I have worked with maybe a couple of managers like you in my career, and I have to say I was truly heartbroken when they moved one. It was the most enjoyable and productive years in my career.

It's sad that a manager saying to the employee "you have to look out for #1" has to be off the record.

> Benevolent companies are just a precursor to abusive ones

Which is exactly what happened in their situation! They "hoped" that the company would just remain nice out of the goodness of their hearts, and did not make sure that those benefits were built into the system. Surprise: when ownership changed hands, the gravy train was over and the people had no actual infrastructure to sustain themselves.

What does box 12 code DD on your W-2 say? Your employer is probably just paying a lot for your coverage.

When I got quotes for insuring my employees in NJ, they all matched up with the premiums on healthcare.gov, also seen here:

https://www.state.nj.us/dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcra...

ACA compliant health insurance pricing is pretty commodified since all the rating factors are codified in law (age, location, smoking status, and that is it I think).

Edit:

>These plans are garbage

The plans simply reflect the cost of healthcare. The companies that sell the healthcare have profit margins in the sub 5% range. Mechanisms to bring the cost down would be to have taxpayer funded medicine in the public domain so the medicine is sold without patent, increasing number of doctors by greatly expanding residency positions and reducing training requirements so that you can start practicing before age 28, reducing the need for "certificates of need" so more hospitals can open and compete, etc.