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

Please Jobhop as much as Possible

angryasian.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#71

Post by JoachimSchipper »

roc wrote: post #51
gaius wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Calcanis had this weird turn of phrase in his original blog entry "set his career back 5 years to get his salary ahead by 3 years". WTF does that even mean?

It means Calcanis is thinking in terms of seniority and "years of service" being the keys to career advancement and compensation. The decade's-old management mindset that gives us things like SLOC and butt-in-seat quotas.

That's one way to interpret it, but consider a company that pays you to sit in a broom closet, doing nothing, all day and forbids you working on your own code at home. Even if you draw a great salary, your skills after three years on this job may be equal to your skills five year earlier (i.e. you didn't learn anything but forgot stuff/your skills became outdated).

Clearly, some jobs teach you more than others...

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#72

Post by btilly »

Mc_Big_G wrote: post #67
billybob wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's your kid, but I'd temper the advice with this: 1)There's no such thing as the perfect mate. Looking for perfection will make you dissatisfied with everyone you date. 2) A lot of what makes a relationship work or fail is how you treat each other, not who you're with. 3) "Playing the field" too much desensitizes you. Your memories with your mate are mingled and confused with memories of lots of others. You keep do…

Thanks for the suggestions. I did say "part of my advice", so our talk didn't consist of only that aspect. There's no end to the amount of advice in the world when it comes to love and marriage. Some counterpoints: Looking for perfection will make you dissatisfied with everyone you date. Or, you will gain enough experience to realize when you've found the best one. A lot of what makes a relationship work or fail is h…

There are two basic theories on relationships.

The first says that the right pair of people fit together, so if you aren't fitting, then you must not have found the right pair of people.

The second says that relationships are constructed. What you get out has more to do with what you put in than with who you are.

While there is an element of truth to both, everyone I know who is happily married subscribes more to the second theory than the first.

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#73

Post by danudey »

roc wrote: post #51
gaius wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Calcanis had this weird turn of phrase in his original blog entry "set his career back 5 years to get his salary ahead by 3 years". WTF does that even mean?

It means Calcanis is thinking in terms of seniority and "years of service" being the keys to career advancement and compensation. The decade's-old management mindset that gives us things like SLOC and butt-in-seat quotas.

It also seems to mean that Calcanis would have waited until 2013 years before paying him what his skills could earn him in 2010. Presumably by then, the employee could have earned even more with new skills and experiences.

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#74

Post by kierank »

davidw wrote: post #4
driekken wrote: post #2

The whole concept of loyalty towards a corporation is off. You can have loyalty to family, to friends, to a country but never to an economic entity whose only purpose (on paper) is profit. I think that professionalism and well-defined internal rules should be the only things expected by employers.

In this day and age, yes, you are largely correct, but I don't think it was always so. I get the impression that at one time, "loyalty" between employer and employee actually meant something in both directions; the company might take some losses to hang on to people and/or help them out. Perhaps more so than would happen today. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, yet I wouldn't say that what we have today is bad ei…

In this day and age, yes, you are largely correct, but I don't think it was always so. I get the impression that at one time, "loyalty" between employer and employee actually meant something in both directions; the company might take some losses to hang on to people and/or help them out. Perhaps more so than would happen today.

The chocolate maker Cadbury would be a good example of this.

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#75

Post by [deleted] »

davidw wrote: post #4
driekken wrote: post #2

The whole concept of loyalty towards a corporation is off. You can have loyalty to family, to friends, to a country but never to an economic entity whose only purpose (on paper) is profit. I think that professionalism and well-defined internal rules should be the only things expected by employers.

In this day and age, yes, you are largely correct, but I don't think it was always so. I get the impression that at one time, "loyalty" between employer and employee actually meant something in both directions; the company might take some losses to hang on to people and/or help them out. Perhaps more so than would happen today. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, yet I wouldn't say that what we have today is bad ei…

[deleted]

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#76

Post by devinj »

DrJokepu wrote: post #7
exit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what makes it possible to be loyal to a country? a country is just a bureaucratic + economic entity you randomly get assigned to.

Many people (including me) see their country as a collective of shared history, culture and tradition they can associate themselves with. If you see your country as a 'bureaucratic + economic entity' then probably you've never lived in a foreign country. Believe me, that would completely change your perspective.

I lived in countries other than that of my birth for most of my life. Understandably, I think, this has given me a very different appreciation.

I mean, what's a "foreign" country, anyway? Is it one different than the one you're raised in? Your parents were raised in? One that doesn't harbor the same culture as you? Where am I from? Is it the country I was born in? The country I grew up in? The country I formed my political beliefs in? That's three different answers, and there are more to choose from.

So, I don't buy this "loyalty" thing. Who am I supposed to be loyal to? Why? Why can't I be loyal to an altogether different country that I like more, but have never spent much time in?

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#77

Post by davidmurphy »

davidw wrote: post #4
driekken wrote: post #2

The whole concept of loyalty towards a corporation is off. You can have loyalty to family, to friends, to a country but never to an economic entity whose only purpose (on paper) is profit. I think that professionalism and well-defined internal rules should be the only things expected by employers.

In this day and age, yes, you are largely correct, but I don't think it was always so. I get the impression that at one time, "loyalty" between employer and employee actually meant something in both directions; the company might take some losses to hang on to people and/or help them out. Perhaps more so than would happen today. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, yet I wouldn't say that what we have today is bad ei…

This is what it comes down to. Most companies treat workers with absolutely no loyalty these days. (Downsizing, anyone?) So it is absolutely wholly unfair to expect employees to treat companies with excessive loyalty in a one-sided manner, beyond the sort of basic professionalism you talk about.

/nostalgic for an earlier era I am to young to have known

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#78

Post by billswift »

DrJokepu wrote: post #7
exit wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what makes it possible to be loyal to a country? a country is just a bureaucratic + economic entity you randomly get assigned to.

Many people (including me) see their country as a collective of shared history, culture and tradition they can associate themselves with. If you see your country as a 'bureaucratic + economic entity' then probably you've never lived in a foreign country. Believe me, that would completely change your perspective.

I think you and exit are confusing two different things that are both frequently called "your country". exit is pretty obviously using the "state" as synonym for country, where you seem to mean more "society". As expanded, I can actually agree with both of you.

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#79

Post by DuncanIdaho »

Alex63 wrote: post #65
JanezStupar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well its the boomers that "didn't reproduce enough" (I'm not serious about this one). However the boomers are the ones that deregulated the shit out of the world, bankrupted the pension funds, built houses and luxuries on credit (they didn't invest much into infrastructure). They are also underqualified and sitting on many positions from which they are screwing their children (that's at least how it works in my count…

I like the idea that Boomers haven't been reproducing enough (although with 3 children I feel like I've done my part). As a tail-end Boomer, I don't see current 20-somethings as "lazy and incompetent", but I know that my peers and I discuss the fact that Gen-Y seems to be motivated by different things than we were. In the context of the original discussion about job-hopping, I don't have any problem accepting that me…

As my peer said...

I know that myself and most of my peers would love to be loyal to something, we are eager to learn... We love to work hard and play hard. We're willing to learn the ropes - but we have no intention of working for the same company for all our adult lives - because we have seen many cases on our own eyes how that kind of attitude is less then beneficial.

But as mentioned elsewhere our bullshit tolerance levels are low.

I agree with you that costs of loosing productive people who understand context of their work is expensive. I don't agree with you that businesses care (at least not the ones I saw myself). Well maybe they care - but not enough to actually invest anything or seriously commit to solving the issue for themselves.

It's all just talk - yes they'd like if people would stay longer, but they "can't afford" to actually improve living and working conditions for their workers.

Just mgmt business as usual - improving sales and market position is hard, cutting expenses is easy, leave a trail of broken businesses behind on your path to glory.

Re: Please Jobhop as much as Possible

#80

Post by billswift »

gaius wrote: post #47
Alex63 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I may be missing your point, but how do you blame the Boomers (of which I'm at the tail end) for this situation? Shouldn't you be blaming the "Greatest Generation" (parents of the Boomers) for setting up a system that depended on maintaining a high ratio of workers to retirees?

The Boomers are the ones that ate the seedcorn.

Or in the analogy I prefer , "Social security is eating your own young."
Post reply on HN