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

The three year myth

green.spacedino.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: The three year myth

#91

Post by hnlmorg »

PlatoIsADisease wrote: post #81
hnlmorg wrote: post #26

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.

There are obviously going to be exceptions. Every rules has that. Hear why I said “usually a sign” rather than “it’s a guarantee with out any exceptions”.

But to take your startup example, they generally short on base salary with the hope that you score big when the company sells / floats. Which is a very different scenario to saying “we aren’t going to pay you more because we are unprofitable”.

Also, if a regular (ie non-startup) business isn’t profitable and are then freezing wages as a result, then that’s another good indicator to update your CV. You might be lucky to get a decent severance package, but even if you do, you’ll still want that CV updated.

So my advice stands.

Re: The three year myth

#92

Post by jtrn »

cardanome wrote: post #68
jtrn wrote: post #54

For anybody that is interested in a clinical psychologist's take, here is mine… This article triggers an overwhelming feeling that something is missing in the story. Of course, being fired is genuinely painful, and the author's emotional state is understandable. But I think there is a much better way to understand this situation that would be beneficial to the author. Please note that this is just a guess, and in rea…

> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues. Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people. As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead…

I find that there is a big difference between how people that use the fact that they are "A perfectionist OCD person".

Some wield it at a weapon. Some use it as an excuse. Some start with the assumption that it can be harness into something good. And some beat them self up over it uses it to degrade them self.

I think its most helpful to view it as a "know thy self" data point, and not make it someone else problem, but use it as information as to what is ones own challenges that must be kept in check. And if one is relay good, use it for something productive.

Re: The three year myth

#93

Post by hnlmorg »

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #60
hnlmorg wrote: post #26

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…

> It’s how a business with healthy and defined processes should operate. That sounds like bullshit. Why?

Because it shows the company has processes in place for economic planning, with budget allocation, and all the other systems and checks that are meant to ensure stability and profitability.

That’s not to say that businesses with these processes defined can’t still be total shitshows. But the ones that don’t have those processes are more likely to be shitshows.

Re: The three year myth

#94

Post by massysett »

matsemann wrote: post #77
massysett wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a mentality like that no, you’re not going to get another job. Job seeking while you’re employed means you have to subjugate the needs of your current employer. When an opportunity calls? You pick up the phone! You’re the kind of person who is so dedicated to your job that you will have to lose it and then be unemployed before you get a new one. That is absolutely ok. Job seeking while employed takes a ton of en…

I don't think signaling that you're disloyal to where you work is a good way of landing a new job.

You don’t think answering the phone when a prospective employer calls is a good way of landing a new job?

Re: The three year myth

#95

Post by zelda420 »

bko wrote: post #79
krisoft wrote: post #31

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.

Exactly. A lot of this reads as a coping story about losing a job. If you were laid off, chances are you weren't valuable enough. Pure layoffs happen. But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go. Doesnt mean theyre bad, just they weren't productive in the organization. Another thing I will note is that most startups start w very little formal process. If someone wants a promotion you can just do i…

> If you were laid off, chances are you weren't valuable enough. Pure layoffs happen. But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go.

I completely disagree, I’ve been on teams where the best players were let go because organizational changes.

As a matter of fact, I’m currently on a team where one of our best performing, well loved, cross team contributors was let go during Christmas for what I can only classify as politics. It was a company wide RiF and our manager protested, but he was in the target region. I honestly would have put myself or others on the chopping block first, as I don’t contribute half as much and get pad substantially more.

Re: The three year myth

#96

Post by jtrn »

cardanome wrote: post #68
jtrn wrote: post #54

For anybody that is interested in a clinical psychologist's take, here is mine… This article triggers an overwhelming feeling that something is missing in the story. Of course, being fired is genuinely painful, and the author's emotional state is understandable. But I think there is a much better way to understand this situation that would be beneficial to the author. Please note that this is just a guess, and in rea…

> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues. Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people. As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead…

I'd push back gently on 'just shut up' as the solution. In my experience, people like you are usually CORRECT about the problem, and the anger and annoyance is well funded. It can be annoyance with the bad architecture, the wasteful meetings, the dysfunctional team dynamics. But you are falling into the same pattern as the author... Where it breaks down is treating 'being right' as the end of the job. Figuring out how to get others to see what you see, that's the actual unsolved problem, and it is more often than not solvable. Giving up on it means real problems stay unfixed, which helps nobody. If you channel the energy into solving what annoys you, in a productive way, you make both your life and your team better.

Re: The three year myth

#97

Post by mistrial9 »

krisoft wrote: post #31

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.

in some fields, you must look for your next job while you are employed.. because the competition is so harsh that others only consider those currently employed in that field.. low level executives, some specialized Master's degrees..

source: California

Re: The three year myth

#98

Post by ebiester »

bko wrote: post #79
krisoft wrote: post #31

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.

Exactly. A lot of this reads as a coping story about losing a job. If you were laid off, chances are you weren't valuable enough. Pure layoffs happen. But from my experience useful employees almost never get let go. Doesnt mean theyre bad, just they weren't productive in the organization. Another thing I will note is that most startups start w very little formal process. If someone wants a promotion you can just do i…

Not true at all, having seen the other side. In a large enough organization, entire divisions will be cut if a product is missing. Sometimes productive people are on the wrong product that gets slashed to maintenance mode, or they have the wrong manager. Sometimes deep cuts are necessary because the product is failing and a productive person on a growth initiative is cut for subject matter expertise in the core product that will allow maintenance mode to continue. Sometimes tenure is rewarded. Sometimes directors don't see the full story because the managers can't be told of the layoff.

Re: The three year myth

#99

Post by matwood »

cardanome wrote: post #68
jtrn wrote: post #54

For anybody that is interested in a clinical psychologist's take, here is mine… This article triggers an overwhelming feeling that something is missing in the story. Of course, being fired is genuinely painful, and the author's emotional state is understandable. But I think there is a much better way to understand this situation that would be beneficial to the author. Please note that this is just a guess, and in rea…

> The OCD mention functions similarly and it explains the overanalysis as a feature, not something that might be creating friction with colleagues. Because it is both and this is a very classic problem for neurodivergent people. As a ADHD person I could very much relate. My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead…

> My pattern recognition allows me to see connections and structure where neurotypical people only see chaos. I am often three, four, five steps ahead and can see potential problems and solutions so much earlier.

A little humility would probably help a lot. Your post is already blaming everyone else for not listening to you. This isn't really about you thinking differently.

Re: The three year myth

#100

Post by jaybrendansmith »

JackFr wrote: post #40

Losing your job sucks. Typically, there is no silver lining. I’ve been laid off 2x and those were both among the worst experiences of my life. > rawness is an excellent time to reflect on what went right and what I could've done better, before the brain starts coping with the trauma of the event in question. But that isn’t what he’s done in the essay. I don’t think he’s doing an honest assessment of what he could hav…

Disagree. I lost my job once from a toxic workplace. I did not realize at the time, but it really was, because of poor leadership. I immediately got a job at an excellent place that set up my future career. Had I not been laid off, I would have missed this opportunity. Every change is an opportunity, whether instigated by you or not. My advice now to my young self: Don't stay anywhere if you don't get promoted within 2-3 years UNLESS the place has an excellent culture.
Post reply on HN