4 ms·

>I firmly believe that anybody can grow at any job. It's nice when the company can help you do that, but your own growth is your responsibility, and nobody else

>I firmly believe that anybody can grow at any job. It's nice when the company can help you do that, but your own growth is your responsibility, and nobody else's. I'm not talking about personal growth. I'm talking about growth in benefits, like salary or working environment. People leave companies or learn new skills to get more benefits. The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee leaves. Simply buying a ping pong table or giving an employee "engaging work" isn't enough.

vinceguidry 11y ago
> The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee leaves. This smacks of entitlement. The employee won't necessarily leave, there are many reasons why they wouldn't. There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder. Even in tech, I don't see anything wrong with the decision to keep the same compensation, and turn over staff every few years. This only contributes to a thriving job market, and means more opportunity for people at the bottom to make their way into the field. More people coming in at the bottom means more demand for services, meaning more opportunity at the top for organizing and directing. It would be wonderful to have the benefits of industry growth along with the security of one job for life, but we don't live in that world.
- afterburner 11y ago
  "keep the same compensation" Not even inflation? Sounds like you're driving the benefits down. Or at least want to.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    That's the nature of a growth-fueled economy. Everybody has to keep up, or they fall behind. The same work, the same roles, get less valuable over time.
    - afterburner 11y ago
      Certainly no need to care about your concerns...
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >This smacks of entitlement. Employees should feel entitled. They generate 99% of our GDP while 50% of that GDP goes to the top 1% of the population. The capitalist employer / employee relationship is designed to screw over the employee. The word "entitlement" is a classic guilt tripping technique used by either employee or employer. Ignore it, because as an employee you will never get a high enough salary that can tip the scales. With 50% of the worlds wealth in the hands of the 1% (aka the employers), the metrics say one thing and one thing only: you are always entitled to more. >The employee won't necessarily leave, there are many reasons why they wouldn't. There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder. If the employee isn't leaving and their isn't any growth, than the employee stays out of desperation or fear. The employee is essentially too afraid to take the risk to create growth. This is not the definition of employee satisfaction. Many employees are in this situation and many employees aren't satisfied because of it. It is very rare for a man to feel 100% satisfied without any continuous growth. Additionally, I am not talking about whether this situation is wrong or right, I am talking about what an employer needs to do to satisfy an employee. Whether the employer wants to do that is a different issue. >It would be wonderful to have the benefits of industry growth along with the security of one job for life, but we don't live in that world. Sure. I never said anything to the contrary. We don't live in an ideal world. But the context for my comment is "How to satisfy an employee" and I answer the question with what is required. The conversation is sidetracking from my initial comment about the true nature of employment satisfaction into a technical argument on why such an idealist endeavor isn't executed. So what? Do you agree with me on what makes an employee satisfied or do you have evidence/logic to falsify my reasoning?
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    You know what keeps real employees satisfied at their jobs, not just the entitled ones that expect the good life to just come to them? A sense of purpose. The feeling that what you do matters. The feeling that at the end of the day, you've accomplished something. Something worth giving 1/3 of your life towards. You're hiding your greed behind classist nonsense. You don't want a sense of purpose, you just want that paycheck to keep getting bigger. You are very probably already in the 1% of top income earners in the world. Being that that cutoff is $34,000/year, it's not hard. You should be focused less on fighting those with more than you, and more on working with them to do things that matter.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  >> The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee leaves. >This smacks of entitlement. No, it doesn't. To say so is to ignore reality. Business is constantly demanding more growth, more revenue, more profit. Is it honestly that surprising that those who are making that happen be expected to share in that when it does happen? And is it honestly a problem that the employee goes and finds someone who is willing to give them those things if their current employer won't? >There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder. Good for them. I'm in tech, and I do have that, so I will take advantage of it. To not do so would be foolish. >Even in tech, I don't see anything wrong with the decision to keep the same compensation, and turn over staff every few years. Now who's the one who sounds entitled?

vinceguidry 11y ago

> The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee leaves. This smacks of entitlement. The employee won't necessarily leave, there are many reasons why they wouldn't. There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder. Even in tech, I don't see anything wrong with the decision to keep the same compensation, and turn over staff every few years. This only contributes to a thriving job market, and means more opportunity for people at the bottom to make their way into the field. More people coming in at the bottom means more demand for services, meaning more opportunity at the top for organizing and directing. It would be wonderful to have the benefits of industry growth along with the security of one job for life, but we don't live in that world.

afterburner 11y ago
"keep the same compensation" Not even inflation? Sounds like you're driving the benefits down. Or at least want to.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  That's the nature of a growth-fueled economy. Everybody has to keep up, or they fall behind. The same work, the same roles, get less valuable over time.
  - afterburner 11y ago
    Certainly no need to care about your concerns...
crimsonalucard 11y ago
>This smacks of entitlement. Employees should feel entitled. They generate 99% of our GDP while 50% of that GDP goes to the top 1% of the population. The capitalist employer / employee relationship is designed to screw over the employee. The word "entitlement" is a classic guilt tripping technique used by either employee or employer. Ignore it, because as an employee you will never get a high enough salary that can tip the scales. With 50% of the worlds wealth in the hands of the 1% (aka the employers), the metrics say one thing and one thing only: you are always entitled to more. >The employee won't necessarily leave, there are many reasons why they wouldn't. There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder. If the employee isn't leaving and their isn't any growth, than the employee stays out of desperation or fear. The employee is essentially too afraid to take the risk to create growth. This is not the definition of employee satisfaction. Many employees are in this situation and many employees aren't satisfied because of it. It is very rare for a man to feel 100% satisfied without any continuous growth. Additionally, I am not talking about whether this situation is wrong or right, I am talking about what an employer needs to do to satisfy an employee. Whether the employer wants to do that is a different issue. >It would be wonderful to have the benefits of industry growth along with the security of one job for life, but we don't live in that world. Sure. I never said anything to the contrary. We don't live in an ideal world. But the context for my comment is "How to satisfy an employee" and I answer the question with what is required. The conversation is sidetracking from my initial comment about the true nature of employment satisfaction into a technical argument on why such an idealist endeavor isn't executed. So what? Do you agree with me on what makes an employee satisfied or do you have evidence/logic to falsify my reasoning?
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  You know what keeps real employees satisfied at their jobs, not just the entitled ones that expect the good life to just come to them? A sense of purpose. The feeling that what you do matters. The feeling that at the end of the day, you've accomplished something. Something worth giving 1/3 of your life towards. You're hiding your greed behind classist nonsense. You don't want a sense of purpose, you just want that paycheck to keep getting bigger. You are very probably already in the 1% of top income earners in the world. Being that that cutoff is $34,000/year, it's not hard. You should be focused less on fighting those with more than you, and more on working with them to do things that matter.
st3v3r 11y ago
>> The company needs to provide better benefits, continuously, or the employee leaves. >This smacks of entitlement. No, it doesn't. To say so is to ignore reality. Business is constantly demanding more growth, more revenue, more profit. Is it honestly that surprising that those who are making that happen be expected to share in that when it does happen? And is it honestly a problem that the employee goes and finds someone who is willing to give them those things if their current employer won't? >There's a whole world of jobs out there that aren't tech, these fields don't have the luxury of an expanding industry propping up salaries, providing a social ladder. Good for them. I'm in tech, and I do have that, so I will take advantage of it. To not do so would be foolish. >Even in tech, I don't see anything wrong with the decision to keep the same compensation, and turn over staff every few years. Now who's the one who sounds entitled?