5 ms·

I knew someone who works for a major tobacco company. Nothing fancy, his job is basically just to ensure convenience stores and shops in his sales region stay s

I knew someone who works for a major tobacco company. Nothing fancy, his job is basically just to ensure convenience stores and shops in his sales region stay stocked with his firm's brands. I don't know anyone who is more loyal to their employer than he is. My uncle was also a corporate pilot for a major defense contractor. He worked there for 30 years. His wife had a advanced breast cancer but they kept him on payroll for two years while he took care of her until she passed. He was able to back to work and stayed there until he retired. Perhaps these companies have to show more loyalty to their employees to stay competitive while cleaner industries can afford churn. This can cause employees to show the same loyalty in return.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Churn makes for more efficient companies and stronger employees. When you have 20 year veterans who stayed in a single place for 20 years, you have no exposure as a company to new practices developed in other companies. You have no exposure to what performance level your employees could be achieving. And as an employee, your own skills are not well developed by being stuck at a single place for 20 years. Churn makes salaries adapt more quickly to market conditions too. That's an advantage when the Fed is dumping capital into the market with QE. The disadvantage is yeah, there's chaos sometimes and loyalty doesn't exist. But you need some exploration AND exploitation too, else you get stuck at a local minima.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- superchroma 4y ago
  It also eliminates chances of a singular long term vision being executed. I'm sure the success statistics of long term visions aren't great, but when it hits, it hits, I think.
  - ceeplusplus 4y ago
    I think that comes down to having strong leadership (which you would want to minimize churn in, because the timescales of executing projects as an IC are an order magnitude different from executing on strategic goals). E.g. Amazon, Costco, Patagonia, etc. If executives could finish meaningful goals in a few weeks like ICs can, I'm sure they'd be switching every 2 years too.
    - superchroma 4y ago
      As engineer on an architectural track, I have long term visions for the codebase too :)
- gibolt 4y ago
  It depends on the industry. In any industry not undergoing disruption, having the long-time employees probably is a good thing. They know how to execute processes well, and know the detailed ins and outs when any random thing goes wrong. They also know the 10 or 50 other people to call when help is needed. When any of those individuals leave, you have to hope they have a successor who's been handed the core knowledge.
- CPLX 4y ago
  Is there any actual evidence of this? My experience has been the opposite, that successful companies have staggering amounts of momentum and institutional knowledge.
deepdriver 4y ago
Are defense contractors still vilified? Americans (and Ukrainians) all seem to love Raytheon now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Javelin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Javelin I expect this goodwill to vanish once the current war ends, and reappear the instant China invades Taiwan.
- katmannthree 4y ago
  As it turns out, there's no shortage of goodwill towards the military industrial complex when people feel they're actually making the world a safer and better place.
  - deepdriver 4y ago
    As it turns out, that's what they were doing this whole time, at least with the Javelin program. Not something you can design and ship overnight. The military-industrial complex exists for sure, but it's good to have high-tech arms when you need them.
    - cbanek 4y ago
      Yeah, it certainly exists, and always did. In greater numbers than people know due to classified defense programs and their budgets. The real problem is we spend TOO much money on defense compared to other needs. Do we really need so many aircraft carriers? Is that really what is required these days? Or submarines? Or even just soldiers. Defense is expensive. With drones becoming the main way of warfare, I wonder if aircraft carriers are on their way out, the same way that WW2 was the last gasp for the battleship. Drones are cheaper, smaller, less vulnerable, less risk, less human loss of life, etc. Fun fact, did you know the Gatling gun was invented to reduce the amount of people killed in war? Oops.
      - vbezhenar 4y ago
        Big ships are obsolete. One missed rocket and it sunk. Russian Moscow ship proved it hard way. Rockets are too powerful and too precise and you can’t count on 100% rockets being intercepted. Modern war machines should be cheap and autonomous. We need some kind of sci-fi power field before big machines would become viable again. If US would engage in war with some big army, like Chinese, Russian or European their carriers will sunk every day.
threatripper 4y ago
Could it be that these companies know about their image and heavily engage in countermeasures internally to keep employees happy? Similar to chemical companies where safety becomes number 1 priority and many have a very low accident rate.
- bathtub365 4y ago
  I would hope that any company with hazardous environments would have a heavy focus on safety, green or not. It shouldn’t be seen as a benefit.

ceeplusplus 4y ago

Churn makes for more efficient companies and stronger employees. When you have 20 year veterans who stayed in a single place for 20 years, you have no exposure as a company to new practices developed in other companies. You have no exposure to what performance level your employees could be achieving. And as an employee, your own skills are not well developed by being stuck at a single place for 20 years. Churn makes salaries adapt more quickly to market conditions too. That's an advantage when the Fed is dumping capital into the market with QE. The disadvantage is yeah, there's chaos sometimes and loyalty doesn't exist. But you need some exploration AND exploitation too, else you get stuck at a local minima.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
superchroma 4y ago
It also eliminates chances of a singular long term vision being executed. I'm sure the success statistics of long term visions aren't great, but when it hits, it hits, I think.
- ceeplusplus 4y ago
  I think that comes down to having strong leadership (which you would want to minimize churn in, because the timescales of executing projects as an IC are an order magnitude different from executing on strategic goals). E.g. Amazon, Costco, Patagonia, etc. If executives could finish meaningful goals in a few weeks like ICs can, I'm sure they'd be switching every 2 years too.
  - superchroma 4y ago
    As engineer on an architectural track, I have long term visions for the codebase too :)
gibolt 4y ago
It depends on the industry. In any industry not undergoing disruption, having the long-time employees probably is a good thing. They know how to execute processes well, and know the detailed ins and outs when any random thing goes wrong. They also know the 10 or 50 other people to call when help is needed. When any of those individuals leave, you have to hope they have a successor who's been handed the core knowledge.
CPLX 4y ago
Is there any actual evidence of this? My experience has been the opposite, that successful companies have staggering amounts of momentum and institutional knowledge.

deepdriver 4y ago

Are defense contractors still vilified? Americans (and Ukrainians) all seem to love Raytheon now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Javelin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Javelin I expect this goodwill to vanish once the current war ends, and reappear the instant China invades Taiwan.

katmannthree 4y ago
As it turns out, there's no shortage of goodwill towards the military industrial complex when people feel they're actually making the world a safer and better place.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  As it turns out, that's what they were doing this whole time, at least with the Javelin program. Not something you can design and ship overnight. The military-industrial complex exists for sure, but it's good to have high-tech arms when you need them.
  - cbanek 4y ago
    Yeah, it certainly exists, and always did. In greater numbers than people know due to classified defense programs and their budgets. The real problem is we spend TOO much money on defense compared to other needs. Do we really need so many aircraft carriers? Is that really what is required these days? Or submarines? Or even just soldiers. Defense is expensive. With drones becoming the main way of warfare, I wonder if aircraft carriers are on their way out, the same way that WW2 was the last gasp for the battleship. Drones are cheaper, smaller, less vulnerable, less risk, less human loss of life, etc. Fun fact, did you know the Gatling gun was invented to reduce the amount of people killed in war? Oops.
    - vbezhenar 4y ago
      Big ships are obsolete. One missed rocket and it sunk. Russian Moscow ship proved it hard way. Rockets are too powerful and too precise and you can’t count on 100% rockets being intercepted. Modern war machines should be cheap and autonomous. We need some kind of sci-fi power field before big machines would become viable again. If US would engage in war with some big army, like Chinese, Russian or European their carriers will sunk every day.

threatripper 4y ago

Could it be that these companies know about their image and heavily engage in countermeasures internally to keep employees happy? Similar to chemical companies where safety becomes number 1 priority and many have a very low accident rate.

bathtub365 4y ago
I would hope that any company with hazardous environments would have a heavy focus on safety, green or not. It shouldn’t be seen as a benefit.