Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

161–170 of 240 posts

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

#161
post #141

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…

I worked at a small firm once where an 18 year old joined and took full advantage of the "unlimited PTO". He was taking roughly a third of his time off. Fired inside 6 months, and amazed it took this long.

It reminds me of the Dilbert joke about asking to be put on 4-10’s and the boss replies why would I do that when I already have you for 7-12’s? With unlimited PTO, if you can only take it when there’s no work to do.. well in my business the work is never done. Demand outstrips supply so completely and consistently, it would be an impossible hurdle. I’ve worked in jobs where even limited PTO was near impossible to take beyond the occasional one or two days. Banked PTO was basically considered your severance package. Seems hard to set expectations correctly with unlimited PTO plans.

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

#162

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…

There is also the fact that hiring outside can be preferred to promoting internally for some reason I have yet to figure out.

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

#163
post #50
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was it different? I never saw that in big corporations, only SMBs when the founders were still at the helm.

My theory is: when it started being a bad thing to have any cash reserve. With some reserve on the side, a company can survive bad times and not fire people. This is the kind of behavior employee will appreciate and make some diehard loyal. But this available money is money not making more. So that's a bad thing these days and so the only easy variable available to survive is to remove excess workforce. It took some…

Is there any data to support your theory? Because most of the companies at the top of the S&P 500 have enormous cash (and equivalent) reserves.

It makes sense to burn reserves and keep good employees around through a temporary cyclical economic downturn. But most of the large layoffs lately have been driven by secular changes that management expects to be permanent.

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

#164
post #157
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's nothing misleading about it. You can make your choices and accept the consequences of your actions.

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

#165
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another "America vs Europe" (well, UK): I have my notice periods written in my contracts, whether that's one month or three months, and it is always bi-directional.

Giving up to 3 months of notice to change jobs is wild. What are the consequences if you tell them you're leaving in 2 weeks instead of the notice period? Typically in US tech companies layoffs don't give employees a notice period, but they do give severance pay. So you stop working effective immediately but you either get a large check or continue to receive paychecks for a period. That period depends on the company…

For very senior staff they can get an injunction against you, stopping you from working elsewhere. For lower staff they can withold unpaid wages and charge you for the cost incurred of getting the temp cover up to the notice period. Given how high temp/contractor wages are compared to employee costs, this can be an insane number, especially in tech where an employee might be on £200 a day, but a contractor might charge £500-1000 or more.

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

#166
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.

Normal PTO is earned in increments of hours per pay period. Each person has an accrued PTO balance that they draw down from when they go on vacation. From the accounting perspective, the company is not paying them for work during this time, they are paying the employee out of their earned PTO balance. This creates some complications for the company where the accumulated PTO can be a liability on the books. It's a num…

How would you characterize the functional differences between the good and the bad companies that allowed for a great implementation of unlimited PTO? For instance, is it more overlap in job responsibility, less silo’d single points of failure? Better project management? I mean, it seems to me it’s never “a good time” since most of us could work 24/7 if just based on demand.

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

#167
post #164
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's nothing misleading about it. You can make your choices and accept the consequences of your actions.

[deleted]

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

#168
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's one specialized piece of automation in a long line of automation throughout history. I'm not sure why taking humans off of the assembly line is a larger deal than taking humans out of agriculture, textile production, or printing?

The only thing that is significant is that shift brought us to reaching peak human productivity. Prior to that, humans were not able to be as productive. Consider agriculture: You might be able to be maximally productive some times of the year, but usually you were waiting on Mother Nature to do her thing. This is why wages were able to grow alongside productivity as we started moving away from a pure agrarian world…

> You might be able to be maximally productive some times of the year, but usually you were waiting on Mother Nature to do her thing.

I don't know what that means. When did we have to stop waiting for crops to grow? The only thing that changed for the production side was requiring less humans as machines could do the work of many laborers.

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

#169
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in the US, but in countries with minimum holiday time you get the minimum in your contract (or a bit more) and the employee handbook says you have unlimited. Companies can’t shirk their responsibility here legally by saying they give unlimited vacation.

"Contracted minimum with more at manager's discretion" isn't what people usually mean when they talk about unlimited pto.

Sure, my point is that the way it works in the US does not work in many other places.

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

#170
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that is significant is that shift brought us to reaching peak human productivity. Prior to that, humans were not able to be as productive. Consider agriculture: You might be able to be maximally productive some times of the year, but usually you were waiting on Mother Nature to do her thing. This is why wages were able to grow alongside productivity as we started moving away from a pure agrarian world…

> You might be able to be maximally productive some times of the year, but usually you were waiting on Mother Nature to do her thing. I don't know what that means. When did we have to stop waiting for crops to grow? The only thing that changed for the production side was requiring less humans as machines could do the work of many laborers.

> When did we have to stop waiting for crops to grow?

When we started producing more than basic things like food that are heavily dependent on the environment. In the knowledge-based economy, the only thing that meaningfully stops you from producing continually is you collapsing from exhaustion. However, even if you never got tired, you can still only produce so much per second, if you will, which caps your total productivity. That is the human limit; probably a fundamental one.

Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the population have to wait on crops growing now in order to offer that line of productivity. And of them, like myself, we can now do other productive things while we're waiting. I, for one, work in the tech industry when I'm not farming. Today, 96% of farmers in the USA are productive off of the farm in at least some capacity. Whereas, historically, farmers were busy trying to survive when they weren't being productive on the farm. Many a day were spent in the bush chopping wood so that they didn't freeze in the winter, for example. Interestingly, idle farmers staring to produce salable things during that cold winter downtime is when we first started seeing early signs of human productivity gains over the stagnant agricultural baseline.

Productivity can keep increasing beyond the human limit, but we have achieved that by introducing more and more non-human workers. Humans are already at the very top of their game, at least as we know it. 17th century farmers probably thought they were also as productive as humanly possible, so who knows what the future holds, but for now we have no idea how to make humans even more productive than they already are. We don't have any more obvious "winter downtimes" to expand into. Hence why the measure of human productivity is no longer increasing.

This was recognized a long time ago. It was the basis of the "go to college to make more money" script you may be familiar with if you are old enough to remember. It was well understood way back then that relying on human productivity gains had reached a dead end. The thinking was that colleges would enable people to move away from labor and into leveraging automation, where productivity is effectively unbounded, with college research labs having played and still playing a pivotal role in that, but somehow along the way that got twisted into "go to college to get a job", so here we are... Now people spend god knows how much money to go to college to get the same job, at the same pay, that they would have gotten anyway. Which is pretty hilarious, but also sad.

Post reply on HN