24 ms·
The 'Great Resignation' is really the 'Great Discontent'
- rektide 5y agoi find myself quite sympathetic to this perspective. to revitalize, some serious change is needed, that opens a wide number of people a sense of agency & possibility & opportunity. with the titanization of industry, there's less & less compelling ways to employ oneself, & re-enabling upstarts & small scale competitors (who are not simply bought out & plucked up as soon as they show promise). it is the difference between vitality & perpetual decay (an upward, out-of-reaching, effervscing decay), as i see it.
- iammisc 5y agoWhy are you being downvoted? You're absolutely right. There's fewer and fewer ways to be self-employed these days. Even traditional avenues of wealth creation (real estate rentals, for example) have been closed to everyone except those with the most capital. Whereas you used to commonly see apartments rented by some older widow who had acquired a few properties or inherited them. Today, more and more seem to be owned by large landlord corporations. Public economic policy (lack of anti-trust enforcement) is not helping.
- wayoutthere 5y agoHN is very much against the whole anti-work movement and still likes to push a bootstraps narrative as a collective. It makes sense when you think of what Y Combinator is and the kinds of people it attracts.
- wolverine876 5y agoWhat are you suggesting as an alternative? Less economic opportunity?
- wayoutthere 5y agoJust that there is a future where those who don’t want to work a menial job aren’t forced to do so in order to survive. Which may mean accepting a lower level of productivity. But a lot of people get bored without work, and extra money to buy nice things will always motivate people, so there will still be a large labor pool and automation can take care of the rest.
- iammisc 5y agoThis technocratic vision of the future does not square away with human nature and reality. Much more likely is a Butlerian Jihad to destroy automation and return us to a more pastoral way of life, even with advanced technology. Only socially awkward engineers, business majors (most of whom are incredibly anti-social contrary to common perception), and finance types actually believe in this vision. Normal people are horrified, or will be once they actually experience what this entails. Humans are not meant to lack meaningful work.
- wayoutthere 5y agoIs it meaningful work if it can be easily automated by contemporary technology but we choose not to? And I agree that we do need meaningful work on a human level; it’s why I don’t say “nobody should work”. But meaningful work might only mean two hours a day. If that’s all you want to do, you’re prolly not gonna be able to afford a new iPhone any time soon but you shouldn’t go hungry, homeless or untreated.
- jnwatson 5y ago> Humans are not meant to lack meaningful work. Citation needed.
- iammisc 5y agoThe opposite claim 'humans are okay lackin meaningful work' also needs a citation, as its easily demonstrably false in history. Contrary to popular belief our civilization is not the only one that has come close to being able to provide basically all its needs. Many other civilizations have and eventually the class whose needs are provided for disintegrates due to their own decay. We will make claims that the 'barbarians' sacked rome, and while this is technically true, they are not the reason for the decline of the Roman Empire. The truth is, by the time the barbarians attacked, rome was a shell of its former self. In times past, the Roman army would have put an end to the barbarians. But the societal decay from the elites of the empire meant the systems that preserved them there slowly fell into disrepair. Broadly speaking we are witnessing the same thing now except at a grander scale because now even for the lower classes it's not obvious they need to work.
- iammisc 5y agoBut the comment I replied to was not 'anti-work'... far from it
- nanidin 5y ago> Why are you being downvoted? Lack of proper capitalization.
- JJMcJ 5y agoThe days when a house might cost one year or at most two years income are long gone. Back then a common scenario was buy a house, fix it up a bit, save, use first house's equity and the savings as down payments on a second house. Next thing you know (if nothing goes wrong) you own a bunch of houses and have a semi-passive income stream to live on. There are very few places in the USA where that is even remotely possible any more. And real estate has been the most common path to wealth for a century or more.
- JJMcJ 5y agoADDITION: Of course the houses were rented out for the income.
- iammisc 5y agoMedian home value in FL is $226.6k Median income in FL is 58k. That's 3-4 years of income. Not much different. the only places where housing prices have gone nuts are the coastal cities, which 'everyone'[1] wants to live in for cultural reasons. [1] everyone is in quotes because it's abundantly clear that there are two classes of people in the us, those that matter to the elite and those that don't, and only those that matter want to live in the coast cities.
- cblconfederate 5y ago> To engage workers, managers must fulfill the 12 essential elements of engagement Hm. There are few jobs that can become life goals, most are boring. And with a years long pandemic and uncertain future, to work or not to work? Work for what purpose? No level of engaging is enough if people can see through the ruse. If anything i d expect more people to go solo
- netr0ute 5y ago> There are few jobs that can become life goals, most are boring. That's because the big tech megacorps raised the bar in order to attract the best workers available so they could grow to have the "eliteness" that you see today. The problem is, there are only so many Apples or Netflixes with this kind of strategy so everything else looks boring in comparison.
- Ma8ee 5y agoI wouldn’t expect a job at Netflix or Apple to be much more exciting than most other jobs. I thought they were attractive workplaces because of pay, perks, and because it looks good on your CV.
- netr0ute 5y ago> because of pay, perks, and because it looks good on your CV. That's what makes them exciting.
- ShroudedNight 5y agoThe pay and the perks can definitely make it more pleasant, but the thing that stands out is all those companies are operating at global scale. Working there, you will likely be routinely confronted with the awe-inducing scale and impact your work has on the daily life of almost everybody. In my case, for the people I already knew and cared for, I felt a sense of stewardship, and for new acquaintances, because they had already interacted with my work, they already provided me with a baseline of appreciation / professional credibility.
- jeffreyrogers 5y agoPretty obviously can't have a real great resignation without significant wage increases, which would most likely increase inflation (or more accurately, be symptomatic of latent inflation that hadn't yet reached prices).
- wayoutthere 5y agoWhich is exactly what’s happening. Our starting offers are up 15% over pre-pandemic and we’re still having trouble closing the candidates we want.
- cratermoon 5y agoWhat does your interview process look like, if you don't mind my asking.
- wolverine876 5y ago> significant wage increases, which would most likely increase inflation Or it could decrease corporate profits, as more goes to their workers and less to their managers and shareholders. Hasn't it been at an historical extreme the other way? If so, the adjustment should be expected and shouldn't be inflationary.
- jeffreyrogers 5y agoIncreasing wages across the board should lead to increased inflation either way unless people start saving at higher rates. Edit: my reasoning is that increased wages leads to increased spending, which increases prices unless goods/services can be supplied cheaper, which is unlikely since productivity growth is low.
- wolverine876 5y agoGiven M amount of money, if that money goes to shareholders or the company coffers or managers or workers, it can be spent or saved. Why is it more likely to be spent by workers? I gotta say, the notion that it's somehow a negative that workers get a larger share is a bit convenient for the shareholders, managers, and companies.
- MattGaiser 5y ago> $9,000 a year to keep each disengaged worker and between $25,000 and $100,000 to replace them. Given how job tenure has plummeted over the years, I have a hard time believing this is accurate. Does anyone know a place where retention efforts come anywhere close to hiring efforts?
- cratermoon 5y ago> I have a hard time believing this is accurate How does that follow? It certainly seems that spending $9K/year or less compared to coughing up 3 to 10 times that to hire proves that attention to retention is nowhere near that given to hiring.
- MattGaiser 5y agoBut if it were accurate, wouldn't companies spend more effort on retention and engagement over hiring? This is a data point that I have seen claimed for years and years and yet companies don't act on it. Companies are either making a near universal error that has been well publicized at this point or the number is wrong and hiring is nowhere near that expensive. Amazon is a very data driven company. But they have no problem churning through people like crazy. They are a company with hire to fire, so if hiring an SDE cost $50,000, they are letting managers spend 50K to fiddle with attrition stats.
- amanaplanacanal 5y agoBut those numbers are averages, my case is special because of X, Y, and Z. I’m sure every manager can rationalize this away.
- mrguyorama 5y agoIndeed, plenty of employees also tend to make this error. They'll fight against unions because "I can bargain better than a conglomerate of employees could"
- lostcolony 5y ago
- mindvirus 5y agoI wonder how much it has to do with vacations. Rationally I know I need a vacation, but I don't know what I'd do - and so I've taken long weekends here and there but never two weeks disconnected.
- k4ch0w 5y agoI stayed home and unplugged all work devices. I would just focus on your hobbies and improving your living situation or see your friends (Depending on where you live I know this can be hard for covid reasons). I took two weeks and I feel a lot better. Sometimes you just need to step away from the grind.
- daxfohl 5y agoYeah, I basically just want my family to take a vacation while I stay home and chill for a few days.
- crftr 5y ago> Sometimes you just need to step away from the grind. Was your work routed to someone else during your time off? I would truly like to step away and relax. But the last time I tried to step away, I couldn't stop ruminating over all the unfinished work in my queue. My hunch is that it's not possible to truly relax unless someone else can temporarily step-in for the vacationer. Otherwise, on return, we're just greeted with an even-larger pile of work.
- k4ch0w 5y agoI made sure to wrap up my work before I left. I sympathize with you on that one but there is always more work to be done. You shouldn't need to work to catch up when you're back. You'll catch up as your time permits but don't sacrifice your personal health for a job.
- hudsonjr 5y agoI'm at a constant balance of 2 months of vacation because it's actually stressful to take more time off. Typically I stay up way too late before/after vacation trying to get everything done. I've also noticed unnecessary urgency/escalation when someone is not in the office to deal with things. Say it's a Friday and I am in the office, but I am in back to back meetings and then have time blocked off to meet a deadline. Someone asks me to help on something semi-urgent, but they see I am booked, and they are generally OK with waiting, even if it delays until Monday. However,if they see a Friday OOO/vacation message in e-mail/slack, urgency is automatically ratcheted up and they want it done now. I think there must be some psychological factors involved. It's OK if someone is technically "available" but does not have time. However if someone is takes a day off and is "unavailable" and there is wait..that is less acceptable.
- mumblemumble 5y ago46% -> 48% That's not exactly a huge surge. Perhaps we're not seeing a big shift in worker attitudes, so much as we're seeing a big shift in what people are talking about right now.
- wolverine876 5y agoWhen you are dealing with over a 100 million people (as a very conservative estimate of the US working population), that's a meaningful shift.
- nevermindiguess 5y agoIt’s not. It’s still 2%. That’s what percentage are for.
- itronitron 5y agoPresumably they are only surveying people that are still employed so maybe that is the threshold at which people opt out.
- bartread 5y ago> because the highest quit rate is among not engaged and actively disengaged workers. As opposed to what, exactly? What are you expecting to see? Highly engaged employees mass quitting? The situation described in this piece sounds fairly normal to me. People who aren't that fussed about their jobs, or actually dislike them, are always much more likely to quit. The real question is whether there has been an increase in the percentage of employees who are not engaged or actively disengaged. The article might answer that question but I'm afraid I'd disengaged before I got to that point.
- wayoutthere 5y agoI would argue that “not engaged” isn’t the worst thing in the world. The expectation that we devote our lives to work is one of the biggest things that dissolved during the pandemic. I am far less engaged at my job than I have been in years, which actually makes me better at it because I’m almost never stressed out anymore.
- ineptech 5y ago"Engaged" and "disengaged" are terms of art in management which refer to whether someone is totally checked out or not. Someone who spends most of the day on Facebook is "disengaged", even if they're very competent and get more done in an hour than their teammates do in eight. Someone who basically takes their job seriously and puts in a reasonable effort is "engaged", even if they're a total idiot with net negative productivity.
- blacksmith_tb 5y agoAnd they're apparently pretty approximate, if being 'disengaged' means that you're only 18% less productive than your 'engaged' coworkers. And then they provide the striking statistic that it will cost an employer up to 2X the annual salary of the 'disengaged' worker to replace them - that's equivalent to ten years of their not working hard, doesn't seem worth it, somehow.
- 5y ago
- nopcode 5y agoI resigned during the pandemic. The lockdown stripped my job to the essentials: No colleagues, no coffee corner, no nice fancy office, no treats (lunches, dinners, drinks), brainstorms, etc. I was left with something that was boring me to death. I felt perfectly happy in that job for 5 years before covid.
- irrational 5y agoIt’s interesting how different people are. All those things you list are reasons I would want to quit a job. I don’t ever want to work in an office ever again.
- MattGaiser 5y agoIndeed. Besides the free food, those are the less desirable parts of work to me.
- cratermoon 5y agoThe free food didn't really excite me much. It was mostly junk food, or something dressed up as natural and healthy but turned out, when you looked at the label, to be junk. The coffee was good, though. Junk like https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed-foods-and-are-they-bad-for-our-health-2020010918605 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed... and https://www.cookinglight.com/eating-smart/clean-eating/how-unhealthy-are-protein-bars https://www.cookinglight.com/eating-smart/clean-eating/how-u...
- iammisc 5y agoYou must understand that this attitude is the minority. Most people like their workplace because they like the people there. My dad worked in pharma sales for 30 years. Do you think he cared to sell the drugs? I mean... in that the drugs were helping people, he was happy. But his reason for going to work everyday was talking to his colleagues. To this day, he and his old colleagues still visit each other, still party together, and vacation together. When I tell my parents that I do things like work on programming projects outside of work, they think I'm crazy. Being genuinely interested in the content of your work so much so that you'd do it outside of a job is unique to engineering professions, IME.
- srswtf123 5y agoI can’t imagine why people might be discontent… All that’s really being asked of us is to give up all our productive years in service to people with no ethics, to make them richer. People who are more than happy to use you up and toss your corpse on the pile when you die. Is that really too much? How dare you think you deserve something for your toils. Your masters have worked you incredibly hard — harder than you thought possible! Why should you get the credit when their wrist is sore from cracking the whip? You didn’t even think yourself capable, and look what you can do with proper motivation! Now return to work, or you might find yourself without healthcare in a pandemic.
- cmrdporcupine 5y agoHonestly, this sentiment is valid for most of the working class. But in our industry, it's not the majority of cases. I feel well compensated and not overworked. Now, is my work fulfilling? No.
- kuraudo 5y agoHow can we determine what the percentage is? I'm also in your boat in feeling well compensated and not overworked, but I anecdotally feel like I'm very fortunate in this regard despite what I thought was the norm.
- bradly 5y agoI left work this year and while not overworked, I do feel like employers could increase my time off by 50% while reducing my time-in-seat by 20% but choose not to. I probably would have kept working with more time off, but 3-4 weeks off a year, just wasn't enough for the life my family and I wanted wanted to have. Compensation was the hardest thing to leave, but when looking at the life I wanted to live I realized I had what I needed to to full-fill that life now. Mentally it is very hard, though. I had a great engineering job at Apple and after over 4 years I had a sizable chunk of RSU's to walk away from. What helped me with the RSU's was realizing that eventually I would leave–whether now or in 20 years–so walking away from RSU's is non-avoidable so I tried to frame it as a sunk cost.
- onelastjob 5y agoMy opinion is that we need to move to four day work weeks and each day should have six working hours. Knowledge workers are wasting their lives at work when they could get the same amount done in fewer hours.
- kuraudo 5y agoI don't think it's an issue of getting the same amount done in fewer hours, I think that those hours are likely the actual productive hours anyway so we might as well adopt that schedule as you advocate.
- kylebyproxy 5y agoI'd love to see companies warm up to nontraditional employment arrangements. I've always wanted to be able to split my time between different jobs; e.g., half the year in an office environment, then half the year doing something outdoors. I feel like breaking up the monotony would help keep things fresh all around and generally improve my wellbeing.
- mikebowman 5y agoThis kind of thinking is what's always intrigued me about freelancing/consulting. If I get bored of coding, I can take 6 months off and work an outdoor summer job, or reduce my coding hours to 20 hours/week and get a part time job at a coffee shop or something like that.
- mark_l_watson 5y agoyes! For about 2 decades, I worked for normal companies with normal 40 hour weeks, but, I negotiated a 20% salary decrease, and I didn't work Mondays (so, 32 hour work weeks). This worked out really well for me. I was satisfied with my work accomplishments, I had plenty of extra time to write books and spend more time with family and friends. I don't miss that 20% loss of income.
- standardUser 5y agoWe (a smaller company) have had half day Fridays since early in the pandemic. This is great, but I wish I could convince the powers that be that those 4 hours on Friday are the least productive hours of the week, and that giving an entire day off would be vastly more beneficial than the half days. I'm on the verge of looking for a new job, but if we had every Friday off I would plan on sticking around a long, long time!
- oxymoran 5y agoInteresting tidbit regarding Gallup: the Fortune 500 company I work for manipulates our surveys by asking general questions about the company and then holding the supervisors accountable for the results even if all of the questions are way out of their control. So they leverage the the employee-supervisor relationship to make it seem like there is more happiness and less discontent. That being said, I find it hard to believe my company is the only one doing that, I even called Gallup about it and they did not seem to care. At all. Imagine what the real numbers look like.
- kodah 5y agoI've seen our internal surveys go like this as well. They'll be critical on themselves with easy-to-solve issues but if it's something substantive then the polling will be very obtuse.
- laurent92 5y agoIn my company (a famous company which builds trucks) they introduced those bullshit happiness surveys during Covid. So we coordinated so that the average of our marks were 1, 3, 4, 10, 5, 5, 10, 4, 3, 1, which is a Batman graph. Fortunately the “1” matches the first lockdown, but the managers are still wondering why the spikes at 10.
- slumdev 5y agoMy employer administered questions regarding how many days per week the employees wanted to spend in-office versus WFH. Zero days per week in the office was not presented as an option.
- logosmonkey 5y agoPay me well, provide good benefits, allow a flexible work schedule where I can work when I want to and still get day to day life stuff done and hire enough people so I can consistently work only the 40 hours you are actually paying me for. My current job does that and I love it. When something critical comes up I'm happy to work over a weekend to hit a deadline because I know my manager will comp me back time when I need it. The thing that's always burned me out at work is letting people on my team go through attrition or layoffs and expecting the rest of us to pick up all the slack like it didn't take 3 other people to do it. It's frankly a pretty simple formula.
- cratermoon 5y ago> When something critical comes up The problem: everything looks 'critical' to folks with a greedy and selfish streak who rise high in management and have their pay tied to the quarterly stock price. That's how we ended up with 24/7 support and "five nines" availability. I'm old enough to remember that banks opened late and closed early, didn't operate on weekends or holidays, and if you didn't get your paycheck cashed by 4pm Friday you were out of luck until Monday at 10am. Grocery stores, malls, and tons of other places opened in the morning and closed at night, and most places didn't open on Sunday at all. Those that did opened later "after church".
- pattyj 5y agoThe greed and selfishness of my managers are significant factors in determining who I want to work for/with. And why I'm so grateful I can work with people I am friends with outside of work. But I understand this is difficult, even impossible, to know during the interview process.
- cratermoon 5y ago> during the interview process I think assuming management is greedy and selfish until proven otherwise is a good way to approach interviewing. Negotiating compensation will give lots of clues. Ask for more money, or a different TC structure and see what happens. For comparison, ask for something that doesn't cost anything.
- ineptech 5y agoIsn't a lot of this probably just normal resignations that are not caused by covid so much as delayed by it? If X% of workers resign in a normal month for one reason or another, and we have a year where people can't do that or don't feel comfortable doing it, it would be expected to see a big spike once that year ends, right? Wouldn't the economical explanation be, "This system has been perturbed and has not found a new normal yet, so it's too early to extrapolate"? I guess that proving that would require lots more polling and statistical rigor and would produce no viral headlines, but it seems like a more economical explanation.
- kuraudo 5y ago> One Gallup client that focused on propelling organic growth through effective workplace culture found that engagement reduces turnover in critical high-turnover roles by 36 percentage points and reduces the 100-day attrition rate by nine points. I think fair pay and better working hours have a lot more to do with employee retention than so-called engagement. I manage a team that is well compensated and has excellent work life; we work on some really boring stuff, but this team hasn't lost a single employee to more interesting work over the years.
- Zababa 5y ago> Though pay is important, money alone isn't the solution. Some very well-paid people are among the most disengaged, and disengaged white-collar workers are slightly more likely than others to be looking for a job. Two things here: - Well-paid could still be under the market (happens a lot in software) - If you're well-off it's easier to not depend on your job If it's mostly the first problem, paying more will solve your problem.
- mywittyname 5y agoI was in the first camp. Basically, well paid in absolute terms, but shite pay relative to other people in technology. Once WFH opened up my options, it took me all of week to find a position paying 2x as much. Surprisingly, they company I left has no problem replacing me in about as much time. Though, I'm not sure if my replacement was paid more than I was. I did cite pay as my sole reason for leaving, so it is possible.
- itronitron 5y agoI recommend the following rules to organizations that are hoping to maintain or maximize employee engagement. I may have missed a few. 1. Do not lie to new hires during the hiring process. I know this is a hard one because you want to sell the company, but it is important to set expectations appropriately. Unmet expectations (created by the company) will ultimately be paid by the company in full. 2. Do not antagonize new hires during the sign on and orientation process. Choose the employees that manage or take part in the sign on/orientation process very carefully. 3. Do not move employees down the organizational hierarchy as a consequence of a re-organization. This is so common that I think most managers don't even register that it's happening. Breaking this rule is more likely to diminish the engagement and foster the exodus of long-term employees. While that may be the entire point of the reorg currently disengaged employees have less engagement to diminish so the reorg is more likely to have a negative impact on highly engaged employees. 4. Don't measure employee engagement by how often the employee comes and talks to you. If you're making decisions based on what you are hearing from the employees that are always at your door, then may God help you (especially if those employees are above you in the management chain, because in that case you are not actually making any decisions). 5. Equally enforce the professional standards of conduct set by the organization. Every company has fuck-ups. Stories of how the company deals with those fuck-ups will be passed down to future generations. In some cases those stories will literally define the company. An organization that is not equally enforcing professional standards of conduct is not meeting employee expectations.
- cratermoon 5y agoI'd argue that companies need to start with the hiring process itself. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210727-the-rise-of-never-ending-job-interviews https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210727-the-rise-of-ne... Companies are focused on getting the perfect person for the job who can come up to speed and be productive nearly immediately because they put no money or effort into actually developing employees (see: loyalty), Because employers are stuck on the treadmill of needing a person now to fill a need just in time, they are so averse to "false positives", hiring someone who doesn't work out, they have put in a gantlet to try to prevent that. Also, to your point 4, it's not just that, it's the whole culture of "looking busy" instead of being productive. See for example: https://gameworldobserver.com/2021/08/04/xsolla-fires-150-employees-using-big-data-and-ai-analysis-ceos-letter-causes-controversy https://gameworldobserver.com/2021/08/04/xsolla-fires-150-em...
- bwb 5y agoQuestion, how much of this is American culture of working people 50+ hours with no life balance? I wonder if everyone had 4 weeks paid vacation and strict 40 hour weeks how much of this would be occurring. That doesn't fix bad bosses or bad culture in an organization. But at least it means you are not in that environment 24/7.
- bawana 5y agoThis is just fake news. Corporate America has gotten rid of employees in favor of gig workers. Gig workers by definition are not engaged/vested in their job. Dont try and 'blame' this on the employees (you cant find good help anymore) since they really have not had an improvement in their lot since the 1970s. In the good old days, the disenfranchised would have joined a 'revolution'. Unfortunately, for all our free speech, disinformation is paralyzing everyone in their own information bubbles.
- xyzzy21 5y agoThe "engagement level" actually agrees with Price's Law: "The square root of the number of people in a domain do 50% of the work." Since SMEs have been declining since 2000 onward, Price's Law would say that as larger corporations take more of GDP, engagement rates will plummet compared to 2000 when the majority of GDP came from SMEs. I vaguely remember the cross-over happening in the mid-2000s. Everybody shrugged. But it was a major change.
- samirillian 5y agoFunny to think about this as a kind of passive revolt. COVID-19 response: failure, no exit, trapped; BLM: failure, no exit, trapped. Amazon unionization vote: failure, no exit, trapped. Going full remote, working from your castle instead of theirs, feeling the "great resignation," a large percentage of the population suddenly realize, perhaps because everyone is so very online, and very online people often care a lot about the proletariat, that their employers are so fucked without them. And then you realize this formula: > Replacing workers requires one-half to two times the employee's annual salary. So, it costs $9,000 a year to keep each disengaged worker and between $25,000 and $100,000 to replace them. Does the right-libertarian dream merge with the Marxist dream, and everyone "gets wise" to what this calculus means for wage and equity negotiation, if we just keep holding the line, that we know what we're worth, what our time is worth to place Facebook pixels on websites, and we won't work for less.
- rpmisms 5y ago> what our time is worth to place Facebook pixels on websites I felt this in my soul. I just left my old job (which I liked) to go fully remote for a weird little shop in Florida. They're actually embracing remote culture and keeping employees engaged. Makes the soulless toil a bit more bearable.
- g_sch 5y agoCan anyone make heads or tails of the chart with the survey numbers? I'm having a hard time understanding how "Engaged/Disengaged" maps to the question they ask ("To what extent are you currently looking for a different job than the one you have now?"), why "Not Engaged" (which would presumably be a superset of the "Actively Disengaged" group) has lower numbers than "Actively Disengaged", and why no combinations seem to sum to anywhere near 100%. Extremely confusing all around!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Rijek33 5y agoThe environment is collapsing the government is stealing my money through reckless printing and inflation. I am priced out of a home and a decent life. Corona is here to stay. Why should I still bother with working
- morpheos137 5y agoThe world has 8 billion people. I am pretty sure that there are enough to do the work that needs to be done.
- loopz 5y agoThis crisis may be of a more spiritual nature than is evident on the surface. How much is enough, when is enough enough, what is my purpose for existing, how can I be of service while not being taken advantaged of, and without unreasonable demands? There being an energy imbalance in the world comes from somewhere. It could not have come, at least not so fast, without an imbalance in the human psyche for the last couple of hundred years. There is a need for reckoning, though it needs to start from within.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]