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

“Great resignation” wave coming for companies

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#861

Post by jart »

gumby wrote: post #730
screye wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filter bubbles are incredibly dangerous. Every time I hang out my with most ambitious friends, I am reminded of how MSFT is 'low balling' company. That I could be making 2x if only I kept up with interviewing. On one hand, I can't avoid the objective truth of the statement. But, on the other hand, the hedonic treadmill is infinite. I'm glad I am not in the bay area. I would've been paralyzed by the persistent reminde…

If it makes you feel better: there was, and remains, a tech subculture more focused on the tech than the money, but it’s been drowned out over the past 25 years because a gold rush makes for better press. Unfortunately that press attracts people who like that sort of thing. So if you like what you are doing and can live comfortably you are at the top of your game. The rest is merely froth.

Says the Cygnus Solutions cofounder. Wow. Where are people like you working today?

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#862

Post by xyzelement »

rubicon33 wrote: post #650
xyzelement wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am running the company, I would MUCH rather operate short-handed than "fix" my recruiting problems by lowering the bar. You don't have to agree with the bar the companies are using, but that is the bar they have converged on, and one that plenty of people are capable of passing. Would much rather compete for those people.

This always strikes me as the answer that a computer science reclusive would take. You would rather throw cryptic riddles and math puzzles at your lesser man, than pick up the phone and call their previous employer and ask how they performed, what projects they worked on, etc. I would bet money that the latter is far more predictive of quality candidates than any leetcode problem you randomly pluck from the ether and…

// This always strikes me as the answer that a computer science reclusive would take

Just to be clear, you made an assumption in your first sentence and then ran with it for 3 paragraphs.

// I would bet money

If I had to bet who can better assess what proper recruiting for a company looks like, I'd bet MY money on the company, not on random complaints on the internet that basically amount to "it must be the interview structure that prevents me from working at a FAANG"

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#863

Post by BingoAhoy »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #793
nightski wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is too simplistic view of the economy. You can't allocate all revenue to payroll. That's not how business or the economy works.

> That is too simplistic view of the economy. You can't allocate all revenue to payroll. You may be right about this. In fact I'd wager that you are. But the problem isn't that part of what you said; it's this: > That's not how business or the economy works. You're probably right about this too! The problem is that, in these conversations, we usually just stop here. Whereas more and more, I'm finding myself asking "c…

I think he may actually be wrong, maybe... All costs are payroll costs in an abstraction interpretive sort of way. The non-pay roll-costs such as materials goes to pay other people to make and supply the materials. The cost of steel really is the cost to pay another group to mine, refine, and distribute the steel. Every accountant item I believe can be conceived this way.

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#864

Post by nomel »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #590
xyzzyz wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s the same reason that it’s virtually unheard of to cut salary, even when revenue is collapsing in a deflationary recession Yes, that’s why companies prefer lay offs rather than broad base salary cuts. Lay offs are a temporary hit to morale, while pay cuts are more permanent. Moreover, in lay offs, you can fire least productive workers, while after pay cut, it’s the most productive that will leave first.

I've seen more jobs offer like 10% yearly bonuses for the reason that I assume is the ability to cut back on costs in a pinch without touching the salary itself per se.

> I assume is the ability to cut back on costs in a pinch without touching the salary itself per se.

A pay increase is a > 10 year commitment, in the eyes of the accounting department. Where I am, it's usually around 60% base cash bonus, %30 base RSU bonus, for "above average" performance (which isn't difficult). I, unlike most of my colleagues, budget my life around my base pay. I experienced the 2007 recession, so in my mind, this is all unsustainable and will crash someday.

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#865

Post by kelnos »

philipov wrote: post #855
maybelsyrup wrote: post #849

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you're right, no one person made it this way - that was a rhetorical efficiecy on my part. I meant some broader human "we" made it this way. People, us.

It's not just a rhetorical efficiency though. Phrasing it that way makes it feel like it's a lot easier to change, cause we can imagine personally overcoming a single person. That broader human "we" is the deterministic historical process that is insurmountable for any one person. It can only be contested with a countervailing historical process when people organize and cooperate, and that's a lot harder to get rolli…

I would venture to guess, though, that a very small, single-digit percentage (possibly even sub-one-percent) of all-people-ever made things this way. A vanishingly small number of people have the influence to shape "what work means" to this degree. Yes, people going along with things, or even supporting things (because someone in power told them to) plays a big part; the puppetmasters do need some amount of consent and compliance from the masses. But the drivers of change are few.

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#866

Post by nomel »

lanstin wrote: post #599
xyzzyz wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s the same reason that it’s virtually unheard of to cut salary, even when revenue is collapsing in a deflationary recession Yes, that’s why companies prefer lay offs rather than broad base salary cuts. Lay offs are a temporary hit to morale, while pay cuts are more permanent. Moreover, in lay offs, you can fire least productive workers, while after pay cut, it’s the most productive that will leave first.

After a few demoralizing layoffs you have a tendency for talented folks to leave once the picture is clear. Does management think software is an investment or a cost? If you can work where it is an investment, do so.

> After a few demoralizing layoffs you have a tendency for talented folks to leave once the picture is clear

From what I've experienced, there's a double whammy here. Only the talented folks remain, but they all know better than to stick around, so the company dies shortly after.

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#867

Post by brailsafe »

askafriend wrote: post #755
screye wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Filter bubbles are incredibly dangerous. Every time I hang out my with most ambitious friends, I am reminded of how MSFT is 'low balling' company. That I could be making 2x if only I kept up with interviewing. On one hand, I can't avoid the objective truth of the statement. But, on the other hand, the hedonic treadmill is infinite. I'm glad I am not in the bay area. I would've been paralyzed by the persistent reminde…

> I am reminded of how MSFT is 'low balling' company. That I could be making 2x if only I kept up with interviewing. It doesn't take much to interview and double your comp. You don't have to interview at Google or Facebook to double your comp - many pre-IPO startups are paying up and their interview processes are often less rigorous. If you're happy with your situation then more power to you. But something tells me d…

Maybe if you're already in a famous company, but I've been itnerviewing/applying for a while and it's absolutely draining, especially with a lot of companies just trying to mimick the hiring practices of FAANG. Many are going to require a 1-2 hr coding test just to apply (not that I've been bothering with those). After that, a series of 3-6 interviews, and it just scales like shit. So I really have you read your comment as "If you've already got a famous company on your resume, are extremely lucky, or very well-known for some other reason or have great contacts in hiring positions at other companies, then you can double your comp easy!"

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#868

Post by yellowfish »

mech422 wrote: post #652
mcguire wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, those companies seem to be more successful than others with "more relevant" bars.

Google actually admitted their 'elite' leet code interview process didn't actually help the outcomes... This is the first link I dug up about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/06/google-...

Google's opinions on anything are overrated

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#869

Post by brailsafe »

I see a lot of people talking about a hot market, and heres hoping it's true, because fuck I've been out of work a long time. With companies trying to adopt the same hiring practices of FAANG, applying is a crapshoot. It's either a 2 hr coding test (before a phone call) followed by 6 interviews or the company just has no clue at all and gets their sales person to determine how much you're down for their startup's 'mission'.

Re: “Great resignation” wave coming for companies

#870

Post by kelnos »

maybelsyrup wrote: post #743
nonotreally6 wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the Fed printed a ton of money and sent it to everyone making less than a certain amount, and the government guaranteed wages for those who no longer wish to work, and caused a labor shortage and inflation. Soon those benefits will be insufficient, due to inflation, if the government continues to print money, and the real wages of the existing wage earners who actually produce value for the good of society b…

> for those who no longer wish to work > to those who don't wish to work > those who choose not to work at all > the same for working and for doing nothing, that people choose the latter You're making my point for me with the arbeit macht frei dog-whistles here. So let me be clear: if "work" is defined as "millions of white and blue collar professional lives before Covid, lives replete with Kafka-esque meaninglessnes…

Thank you for articulating what I often have a lot of trouble figuring out how to say.

Work, in general, is stupid. The entire concept of it is inane. My fantasy version of utopia is a peaceful, post-scarcity society where no one ever needs to work, and automatically gets a life of luxury simply because it's available and costs nothing. Many people will choose to fill their time with things that look a bit like what we now call work (if you tilt your head and squint just the right way). Many will devote their lives to the pursuit of furthering humankind's knowledge. Many will choose creative endeavors that in today's economy would be judged worthless. Many will focus on their families and enjoy their time with them. And yes, some will choose to sit around and do nothing all day but eat junk food and watch the utopian equivalent of TV all day.

And all that is not only ok, it's awesome! Obviously this is a fantasy world, and we can't live in it. But we should think more about that as a goal, and shape things as best we can. Let's stop creating bullshit jobs just for the sake of full employment, and figure out what really needs to be done, and what doesn't. There's so much wealth in the world that we could certainly find an alternative that could keep people housed, clothed, fed, and then some, if there isn't a job available for them.

Our current system is just based on personal greed and cynicism. If we don't evolve beyond it, I fear we won't last as a civilization (or possibly even as a species) for many more centuries.

Post reply on HN