5 ms·

Doesn't sound like you're advocating this, but anyway it always puzzles me why anybody would actually WANT "long-term employee care." I don't want that. I just

Doesn't sound like you're advocating this, but anyway it always puzzles me why anybody would actually WANT "long-term employee care." I don't want that. I just want money, and I'll take care of the rest. I don't want to get married to a job or a company. I want to quit and possible start a new job as and when I like, without losing out on long-term promises of "care."

themodelplumber 5y ago
Yes, I'm aware of the psychological perspective you are communicating. It's been behind the tech push. People who take this position will increasingly need to seek out direct market access during these volatile times; you may be well advised to steer clear of employee positions in large organizations. There is often a very fine line between "I don't want to be cared for" and "I don't want to care for others." It's hard to work in a place where you can't communicate A without also communicating B. The closer you are to pure-currency zones of employ, the less problematic this will be. Keep in mind it's a very strong subjective position you're communicating as well. If you want to anticipate markets, try to watch what others are actually doing & ask what they are thinking, vs. what you personally think and do. This will help you to avoid traps in mental efforts requiring prediction or speculation. Especially looking at the way your expressed position could overlap with e.g. privateer mentality. This is, and will continue to be, a rare position within organized employee ranks.
- creato 5y ago
  > If you want to anticipate markets, try to watch what others are actually doing & ask what they are thinking, vs. what you personally think and do. Aren't you asking people to try and anticipate how their employers will fare for decades? It seems like basically the same thing and just a matter of diversification. I'd rather not have all my eggs in one basket.
  - themodelplumber 5y ago
    To clarify, that comment was rather directed toward people who write like the commenter; a huge segment of them are seeking ways to more objectively predict outcomes (this is more beneficial toward the singular monetary goal expressed above, the closer they get to the currency markets).
briHass 5y ago
What do you think about it when compared to the oft repeated (though possibly overblown) claims of ageism in tech? The way it could work is that you work your young/middle years in a company, and they continue to employ you in your near-retirement years due to the massive amount of domain knowledge, relationships, and general mutual respect.
silisili 5y ago
On the other hand, I do want that. I've been at my company a long time. I realize at times I probably could have done better financially job hopping, so understand that aspect. But with that tenure comes friendships that border on brotherhood, and a lot of respect. I sure wouldn't be fired for lack of production if my wife was dying of brain cancer, like the article floating around earlier today.
- lazide 5y ago
  A lot of people have thought that over the years. I’ve seen several be severely disappointed. All of the ones I personally knew, unfortunately, died well before their time due to the stress. :(
  - silisili 5y ago
    Sorry to hear that. Out of curiosity, could you clarify what 'thought that' was, or what contributed to stress? Job hopping or staying?
    - lazide 5y ago
      They had full insurance through their employer, thought the employer would have their back if something happened, then..... For person 1, their wife got cancer. The wife was covered through their insurance plan, and the HR department saw that it was likely to be very, very expensive to cover them, so they started a program of systematic harassment against person 1 until they resigned. The wife died of cancer shortly afterwards, but not until racking several hundred thousand dollars worth of medical bills. Her death was partially due to lack of coverage and stress resulting in difficulty in effective treatment. Person 1 got a heart attack and died within 2 years of resigning, and roughly a year after his wife died. The employer was a small municipal government in California. For person 2, the employer was attempting to makeup a cash shortfall, and was pressuring a number of employees to accept early retirement (at greatly reduced payout for their plan) or quit, especially older employees. Management in a number of divisions started to go around and pressure employees over 55 (quite obviously) to take the buyout, and for those who wouldn't, they started to apply tougher and tougher (and obviously unfair) work standards to them so they could fire them or push them out, which they did to several people who I did not know successfully. Several friends ended up taking the offer and quitting because they saw the writing on the wall, one of them, who stayed on roughly 6 months past the others quitting, had a stroke on the job due to stress and died. He stayed because he felt he didn't have much choice as he was the bread earner in the family, and they had not hit the point he would get a meaningful payout on his retirement, but was too old to go somewhere else (he was in his late 50's). The second one, my mother was one of the ones who took the early payout, and I'm glad she did. She was having heart arrhythmias due to the stress. Magically they cleared up within a month of leaving, and she hasn't had a problem since. She lost somewhere on the order of 50k from her retirement benefits because of it, however. That said, one of my grandfathers worked for a union and a major shipyard in the 50-70's, and his pension and retirement medical coverage had his back faithfully and with good coverage until he died - at 96. So it isn't all bad. It is a lot of faith to place in an organization however.
adrianN 5y ago
You don't want long-term employee care because you probably have skills that are in high demand right now. But that can change. You will want long-term employee care when your company fires you during an economic downturn to save costs and it's hard to find a new job.
- mdavis6890 5y ago
  Implicit in the "care for you later" agreement is "by underpaying you now." Whatever a company is setting aside for you later - or just promising you will be there later - could instead just be paid to you now. You might think of it as "AND," but it's really always inherently "OR." And if a company is promising to continue paying everybody for a long time after they stop working for the company, the company can only do that by underpaying everyone by a lot all the rest of the time. Why complicate things that way. Instead of underpaying everyone and having the company decide everything, how about just pay us a lot more NOW and we can handle the rest for ourselves. Saving, investing, insurance, and govt programs (where available) can all help out with this.

themodelplumber 5y ago

Yes, I'm aware of the psychological perspective you are communicating. It's been behind the tech push. People who take this position will increasingly need to seek out direct market access during these volatile times; you may be well advised to steer clear of employee positions in large organizations. There is often a very fine line between "I don't want to be cared for" and "I don't want to care for others." It's hard to work in a place where you can't communicate A without also communicating B. The closer you are to pure-currency zones of employ, the less problematic this will be. Keep in mind it's a very strong subjective position you're communicating as well. If you want to anticipate markets, try to watch what others are actually doing & ask what they are thinking, vs. what you personally think and do. This will help you to avoid traps in mental efforts requiring prediction or speculation. Especially looking at the way your expressed position could overlap with e.g. privateer mentality. This is, and will continue to be, a rare position within organized employee ranks.

creato 5y ago
> If you want to anticipate markets, try to watch what others are actually doing & ask what they are thinking, vs. what you personally think and do. Aren't you asking people to try and anticipate how their employers will fare for decades? It seems like basically the same thing and just a matter of diversification. I'd rather not have all my eggs in one basket.
- themodelplumber 5y ago
  To clarify, that comment was rather directed toward people who write like the commenter; a huge segment of them are seeking ways to more objectively predict outcomes (this is more beneficial toward the singular monetary goal expressed above, the closer they get to the currency markets).

briHass 5y ago

What do you think about it when compared to the oft repeated (though possibly overblown) claims of ageism in tech? The way it could work is that you work your young/middle years in a company, and they continue to employ you in your near-retirement years due to the massive amount of domain knowledge, relationships, and general mutual respect.

silisili 5y ago

On the other hand, I do want that. I've been at my company a long time. I realize at times I probably could have done better financially job hopping, so understand that aspect. But with that tenure comes friendships that border on brotherhood, and a lot of respect. I sure wouldn't be fired for lack of production if my wife was dying of brain cancer, like the article floating around earlier today.

lazide 5y ago
A lot of people have thought that over the years. I’ve seen several be severely disappointed. All of the ones I personally knew, unfortunately, died well before their time due to the stress. :(
- silisili 5y ago
  Sorry to hear that. Out of curiosity, could you clarify what 'thought that' was, or what contributed to stress? Job hopping or staying?
  - lazide 5y ago
    They had full insurance through their employer, thought the employer would have their back if something happened, then..... For person 1, their wife got cancer. The wife was covered through their insurance plan, and the HR department saw that it was likely to be very, very expensive to cover them, so they started a program of systematic harassment against person 1 until they resigned. The wife died of cancer shortly afterwards, but not until racking several hundred thousand dollars worth of medical bills. Her death was partially due to lack of coverage and stress resulting in difficulty in effective treatment. Person 1 got a heart attack and died within 2 years of resigning, and roughly a year after his wife died. The employer was a small municipal government in California. For person 2, the employer was attempting to makeup a cash shortfall, and was pressuring a number of employees to accept early retirement (at greatly reduced payout for their plan) or quit, especially older employees. Management in a number of divisions started to go around and pressure employees over 55 (quite obviously) to take the buyout, and for those who wouldn't, they started to apply tougher and tougher (and obviously unfair) work standards to them so they could fire them or push them out, which they did to several people who I did not know successfully. Several friends ended up taking the offer and quitting because they saw the writing on the wall, one of them, who stayed on roughly 6 months past the others quitting, had a stroke on the job due to stress and died. He stayed because he felt he didn't have much choice as he was the bread earner in the family, and they had not hit the point he would get a meaningful payout on his retirement, but was too old to go somewhere else (he was in his late 50's). The second one, my mother was one of the ones who took the early payout, and I'm glad she did. She was having heart arrhythmias due to the stress. Magically they cleared up within a month of leaving, and she hasn't had a problem since. She lost somewhere on the order of 50k from her retirement benefits because of it, however. That said, one of my grandfathers worked for a union and a major shipyard in the 50-70's, and his pension and retirement medical coverage had his back faithfully and with good coverage until he died - at 96. So it isn't all bad. It is a lot of faith to place in an organization however.

adrianN 5y ago

You don't want long-term employee care because you probably have skills that are in high demand right now. But that can change. You will want long-term employee care when your company fires you during an economic downturn to save costs and it's hard to find a new job.

mdavis6890 5y ago
Implicit in the "care for you later" agreement is "by underpaying you now." Whatever a company is setting aside for you later - or just promising you will be there later - could instead just be paid to you now. You might think of it as "AND," but it's really always inherently "OR." And if a company is promising to continue paying everybody for a long time after they stop working for the company, the company can only do that by underpaying everyone by a lot all the rest of the time. Why complicate things that way. Instead of underpaying everyone and having the company decide everything, how about just pay us a lot more NOW and we can handle the rest for ourselves. Saving, investing, insurance, and govt programs (where available) can all help out with this.