181–190 of 191 posts
I've been told to wait for a pay increase/promotion twice. And I got it both times (luckily). The time periods were only a few months or a year each time. I think it's a judgement call but making such a long-out promise like 3 years in the tech industry is a huge red flag. Even at one year you should be skeptical and asking how/why as the author suggests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being told you have to wait until the next pay review cycle, is normal. It’s how a business with healthy and defined processes should operate. But you should only be waiting at most a year. If you get told “wait 2+ years” then that’s usually a sign that they’ve already decided you’re not eligible (for whatever reasons they decide) but don’t want to be candid with you. If you get told to wait for any duration beyond t…
Can I get an exception of it was a terrible fiscal year? Take the startup situation: We were unprofitable year 1, we were break even year 2. Year 3 we look to repay investors and begin fun times. Year 4, fun times. I suppose I can think of enough exceptions that I reject the theory the original OP posted.
If your co-workers are getting promotions and raises and you are not, its a you problem. If someone else is getting credit for your work, its a you problem. Given your claims of impeccable work, we are only left to assume its a personality issue. Its not to say its fair or right, but life is a popularity contest, whether we like it or not. More likeable people get more things, sometimes undeservingly so.
Congratulations on composing the platonic ideal of useless advice.
If you ask for a raise and they say “maybe in two to three years” thats simply a polite no. > “you know the world outside is hostile to job seekers and a steady paycheck beats the unemployment line” You can search for a new job while employed. Unless you are stuck on an underwater submarine playing hide-and-seek you can always fire off a few inquiries.
That's not a polite no. That's more a passive-aggressive no. ("Passive aggressive" may not be quite right, but it's something in the neighborhood, and I'm not coming up with better words.) It's "no, but we don't have the honesty to just tell you no".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. It’s not a stable situation, and there is no social aspect in reality. It’s an accounting decision. Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation. Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situa…
I challenge you to think about the implications of if you were right. If employment is violence, we should end it. But then almost everybody would die. If paying for labor is violence, paying for a product is violence. Nobody should be allowed to buy or sell (or trade). But then everybody would die. In a good economic transaction, whether purchase of product or labor, both parties end up happy with what they got out…
You need to try out for the jumping to conclusions olympics team, that was an impressive leap there!
Jokes aside, we can absolutely reject the basis of our current economic system on the basis that it is cruel and violent and replace it with something better, and it would be far from the first time we did that. By your logic, the end of feudalism or the abolishment of slavery should have killed entire countries...
And I doubt you are about to explain to us that slavery is not violence (that's one of those ultra-libertarian thoughts of yours you probably shouldn't randomly blurt out).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are saying you should look at the employment relationship more generally and see that this holds across the board. It’s more like a woman breaking up with a man and someone else says “realize that all men are pigs”.
That's an interesting parallel. I suspect the point is that entering all relationships with the expectation that all men are pigs carries certain benefits, but then it also likely has costs, such as an inability to form truly deep connections.
Still there might be private spaces to speak frankly about such a state of affairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called "strawman fallacy", you replacing the thesis and add things that wasn't there to draw plausible conclusions instead of trying to get more information if there's not enough. Calling it "hypothesis" isn't charging anything.
I think you just heard that word and use it because it makes you sound like a logical person. It’s not fitting at all here. After all, a straw man would be me taking a general claim and creating the weakest version of that argument. If anything, you should argue that it’s overgeneralization, over-extrapolation, or an argument from authority. Hell, if you involved the concept of non sequitur, it would be better. It’s…
You literally imagine something that isn't in this text and start theroritizing based on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. It’s not a stable situation, and there is no social aspect in reality. It’s an accounting decision. Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation. Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situa…
> If losing your job is traumatic, I’d suggest reviewing your relationship with employers and employment in general. This is a rather clueless and ignorant opinion to have. Your job is what pays your mortgage/rent and your bills, and it's a key factor in where you chose to live. Your job has a fundamental impact in your personal life and your family's experience. Once you are fired, odds are your life will change rad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, he's right. One should not pin their happiness to things outside their control. If losing your job is traumatic to you, that is a sign you need to work on improving your detachment from outside factors. Obviously we all have bills to pay and would like to keep a roof over our heads, but being traumatized by losing a job is an extremely unhealthy (and abnormal) response.
Well I suppose then no one should be traumatized by getting cancer or from permanent injuries from an unprovoked violent attack. After all, those are things we have no control over. No sense in being traumatized by them.
I like the other employment 3 year problem. In this the company fills jobs with keen but cheap young people to save money. These people work hard, get experience and take qualifications. Three years later you have a cohort of young people with excellent CVs and qualifications above their peers... that the company can't afford to pay the market rate for! Then it loses a whole cohort of great staff.
I suspect many companies factor in that young people are the most likely to churn, so don't expend much effort retaining them