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

Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

mcsweeneys.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 414 posts

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#271

Post by MisterBastahrd »

winstonprivacy wrote: post #126

Pretty ironic seeing as just a few months ago, everyone was ghosting employers, taking counteroffers after accepting, and "quiet quitting". So let's quit pretending employees are holier than employers.

I think it's funny that people believe that folks have stopped quiet quitting.

They haven't. They won't. This is the world the wealthy have created for themselves. People who aren't allowed to have skin in the game shouldn't pretend like they do for the rich who build wealth off of their labor.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#272

Post by kneebonian »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #237
htrp wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I saved the company $800M, I should get 10% of that" Only at the executive tier.

At your level, you get a plaque. A cheap one. Plastic, maybe some aluminum.

Relevant Dilbert: https://dilbert.com/strip/1993-09-16

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#274

Post by jujugoboom »

overrun11 wrote: post #259
SturgeonsLaw wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do a little root cause analysis. Why do companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon, with massive income streams combined with substantial cash holdings, need investor money? Maybe Toyota's "Five Why's" can shed some light on it. We need to fire thousands of people. Why? Because it will make us more attractive for investors. Why? So they put their money in our company. Why? Because that will buoy our stock pric…

The median shareholder in Microsoft, Google and Amazon is likely a lower economic class than the median employee at these corporations if I had to guess. The framing of ordinary workers getting the boot so fat cats can buy bigger yachts is seductive but I can just as easily frame it as: Fixed income, middle America boomers entrusted these companies to be good stewards of their capital but it was instead spent on payi…

This is such a poor faith argument that completely ignores any reality. These companies have had a massive last decade or so, and if what you're saying is really the case, then we would see booming levels of wealth in middle america among the elderly. Instead, we see most wealth going to the richest of Americans, with the lions share of wealth created during the last 2 years of resurgent economic boom going to the top 1% of Americans, not the fixed income middle america boomers who are currently dying because they can't afford to keep living on social security.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#276

Post by sangnoir »

pas wrote: post #81
ikiris wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a huge part of their compensation both to themselves and their employees is floated stock.

That doesn't explain it. It might be a factor, but it's not a big factor. FAANG jobs pay extremely well and then there's the stock on top. Is the vast majority working at these companies (with years of vesting, no?) so shortsighted? Especially the higher ups? Is it a requirement at these companies that you have to be 10000% in debt and living paycheck-to-paycheck to be a SVP/VP/director/whatever so you have to be hyp…

> FAANG jobs pay extremely well and then there's the stock on top.

When excluding RSUs, FAANG jobs are not extreme in any way. RSUs are not a cherry on top but an important component of remuneration. Often for mid-level and above (roughly TL/staff engineer and Manager-II), the value of RSUs is more than 50% of total compensation.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#277

Post by sbarre »

Phlarp wrote: post #238
l1silver wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't the inbetween contract jobs a tenuous time?

Compared to what? Either you're on contract and they could simply not renew it when the 1/3/6 month timeline is up, or you're an employee and they could simply lay you off without warning on a completely unpredictable and arbitrary timeline. Everything is tenuous compared to living off the safe withdrawal rate of a $10 million diversified investment portfolio.

I think the idea here is that when you're on contract, you are much more aware that your employment is time-limited and transactional.

So you live your life, financially and otherwise, with this in mind.

I have no doubt that this sounds (and would be) more stressful for some people, when compared to full-time employment, particularly in the US where your job is typically tied to health care and other benefits.

But most folks I know who have been laid off from long-term employment were shocked by (and ill-prepared for) the event.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#278

Post by overrun11 »

wmeredith wrote: post #209
chewz wrote: post #159

You might be a proud and valuable person in your personal life. But for a company, you are just an asset - low yielding asset with high depreciation. So it is rational decision for an enterprise to let you go and free some liquidity that could be deployed elsewhere. Even buying Treasury bill yields more then an employee and is more liquid option. Liquidity is important when times get tough and recession is coming.. J…

Google's average salary is $124k/ year and its revenue per employee is $1.365 million. Show me a t-bill with that 1100% annual return.

Google's average total compensation per employee is much higher than that, around $300k IIRC. You also need to back out cost of revenue to get a more accurate picture of return.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#279

Post by s1artibartfast »

Phlarp wrote: post #238
l1silver wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't the inbetween contract jobs a tenuous time?

Compared to what? Either you're on contract and they could simply not renew it when the 1/3/6 month timeline is up, or you're an employee and they could simply lay you off without warning on a completely unpredictable and arbitrary timeline. Everything is tenuous compared to living off the safe withdrawal rate of a $10 million diversified investment portfolio.

Of course they both have risk categorically, but they differ greatly in magnitude and scheduling.

With Contracting you know that there is say a 50% chance the contract will expire on a given date and can plan accordingly. As a direct employee there is say a one percent chance you'll be laid off and it could come at random times.

Re: Macroeconomic changes have made it impossible for me to want to pay you

#280

Post by jsimzeroone »

Phlarp wrote: post #238
l1silver wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't the inbetween contract jobs a tenuous time?

Compared to what? Either you're on contract and they could simply not renew it when the 1/3/6 month timeline is up, or you're an employee and they could simply lay you off without warning on a completely unpredictable and arbitrary timeline. Everything is tenuous compared to living off the safe withdrawal rate of a $10 million diversified investment portfolio.

There's an old cliche that when you go from being an employee to being a contractor you trade the illusion of security for the illusion of freedom.
Post reply on HN