9 ms·

People are less ambitious because they, generally speaking, aren't getting compensated for being more ambitious. Not only that, they aren't even getting compens

• oxfordmale 4y ago
  People are less ambitious, as hard work is rarely the path to promotion. Promotions are highly political and also rely on a good amount of luck.
  • marssaxman 4y ago
    Why is promotion a goal?
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • Rury 4y ago
      People like when things go their way, and it's easier to get things to go your way, when you're in a position of power. Promotions can help put you in such positions.
    • nirvdrum 4y ago
      It's the only way to get a raise at many places. At least, the only way to escape your current salary band. It's also generally accepted as a primary mechanism for determining how a company values your work, unless you hit one of those "career levels." If you're a junior person stuck at a low level for a few years, something is probably askew. It'd be fantastic if positions had a wider salary band and you could earn raises for productivity without having to constantly climb the corporate ladder. I've not really seen that outside of union jobs and even then, you don't have a band so much as a guaranteed raise every few years. This is all based on US companies I've seen in the tech (salaried) and construction (union, hourly) sectors.
    • ngc248 4y ago
      Because hard workers/the ones who actually know how shit works stay in the trenches, while the ones who know jackall get promoted. Then these people get have veto and power over the ones who actually deliver value. That is why promotion must be a goal for everyone, so that people who actually have a clue get to make the decisions.
      • wonderwonder 4y ago
        The thing is though that people/ project management and development are very different skills. I've had an interesting experience recently where a team keeps asking me for things that are relatively dumb and I say no but I said yes this last time because I don't want to be the place where everything they ask for goes to die. Saying yes on this thing, while not a small ask, helps them stay motivated and feel appreciated even though there is truly no value to it. Learning these things has changed my opinion on leadership. There are of course still bad leaders but the people that get things done and those that manage large groups are often not the same person as they are very different problem sets.
    • watwut 4y ago
      Better salary and better treatment and more autonomy ...
  • wonderwonder 4y ago
    I'm a tech lead, middle management. Only been here 7 months. Very very big company. Hierarchy wise, I report to a director, who reports to an svp who reports to the CTO. I can't see any path to promotion no matter how good a job I do. You are right in that knowing this is highly demotivational. I do get a variable end of year bonus though. Will wait to see how much that is before deciding if I'll stay or go.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• scarface74 4y ago
  You can’t compensate me enough to put in more than 40-45 hours a week. I get paid because of my expertise. Not because I’m willing to work for 70 hours a week.
  • kmlx 4y ago
    > You can’t compensate me enough to put in more than 40-45 hours a week. some IT companies I worked for in a past life paid for overtime. it was a lot more than what you would get regularly and lots of coworkers did it. is this not a general experience? are companies not paying for overtime?
    • saurik 4y ago
      They are saying that their life is more important to them than a pittance of extra money and there is no amount of overtime (within reason, assuredly: if I were willing to pay a billion dollars an hour that would likely work for at least the 46th hour ;P) that would convince them to stay and work longer than a reasonable amount of time.
    • hansel_der 4y ago
      > are companies not paying for overtime? ime for most white collar contracts: no maybe because time tracking (esp. with remote work) is trust based and hence essentially just a formality where noone expects the employee to report under-time.
    • efficax 4y ago
      in salaried positions in the us, you will never get overtime pay.
      • jrs235 4y ago
        This is a misunderstanding. Whether one is entitled to overtime or not depends on whether they are exempt or non exempt, not if they are hourly or salary. However, generally salaried positions won't be paid overtime because everyone thinks they [all] are exempt or should be, even though they may be incorrectly classified as such. A side note: there is one situation where you can have hourly exempt (meaning you are paid for how worked but not at 1.5 times hourly rate) which is "computer professionals" classification. Very few folks, even in HR, know this. Partly because just about 100% "computer professional" jobs are paid salary instead of hourly.
• ls15 4y ago
  Or they figured out that the work that they put in isn't doing anything for themselves, regardless of how much money they get. > For Marx, the possibility that one may give up ownership of one's own labour – one's capacity to transform the world – is tantamount to being alienated from one's own nature and it is a spiritual loss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
• bmitc 4y ago
  This is a major part of it. I’ve left a couple jobs because there was little to no recognition for anything. I wasn't looking to be patted on the back constantly or get some award, but just any recognition would have been nice. One job backfilled the projects I was working on with like three or so internal people, as I was working on three or so unrelated projects, each "full-time". Just even awareness of the work I was doing would have been appreciated. And that's probably the sad thing. I don't think anyone was really even aware of the amount of effort and craft going into each project, although they were explicitly aware of me working on another projects.
  • awesomegoat_com 4y ago
    This! When I was in my mid 20ties I was writing code in C almost non-stop, they replaced me with 7 people and a scrum master. Apparently, cheaper than giving me 12% raise I demanded (around 2015).
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • peteradio 4y ago
      Can't let the devs get uppity. That's a fact. Look at it from business point of view, they are the only ones who see the money and if they don't feed you requirements you are blind. If they give you a 12% raise today then who's to say you won't just come back tomorrow and request another and another and another, there's really no end. Newsflash, asking for a raise everyday is an exponential growth (did you even know that your incessant raises would lead to your cost ballooning 30x within a month?), while 7-8 highly skilled consultants is a one time 7-8x bargain relative to your exponential growth demands wherein you will consume all the earths resources within the year. How selfish can one person be? MY GOD!
      • awesomegoat_com 4y ago
        I was based in east europe reporting to Nasdaq 100 company. Earning about $58k that year.
• yobbo 4y ago
  How would you determine if increased productivity is due to "labour or capital"? Are people themselves more productive, or are the machines just better? Everywhere I have seen, machines are doing almost all work.
  • therouwboat 4y ago
    I think its both, machines are better, but workers need to have a lot more knowledge, when you need to operate cnc-machines and robots.
    • yobbo 4y ago
      Try using, and servicing, an old industrial lathe or anything else in a mechanical workshop and see how quickly you can get up to speed. Repeatedly achieving meaningful results, and keeping the workshop functional and clean, was someone's career. It is not "easy" and ideally requires a degree to understand materials and forces, and so on.
  • djbebs 4y ago
    Bingo! All these complaints that productivity growth has been matched by salary growth always seems to ignore that most of the productivity gains have been the result of capital expenditure, not of workers being better at their jobs.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • danaris 4y ago
      And why, exactly, should that matter? The execs of each company didn't personally invent every machine and write every piece of software their employees are now using to be productive. Hell, a lot of it they didn't even particularly choose—so much of the productivity gains comes from basic stuff like "personal computers" and "Microsoft Office". They are benefiting from the labour and expertise of others, and saying that means they deserve to get more money. Why? Why should those gains not be shared equally with the people who are actually doing the work?
• onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  It's not clear to me there was ever a time people were properly compensated for the amount of work they do. However, it is clear that the cat is out of the bag now - and people look at those working their asses off like they're suckers, not like they're role models. I wonder if compensation & promotion is going to change, or if the future is just going to be a race to the bottom for worker productivity.
  • DoctorOW 4y ago
    My guess on this is it's yet another consequence of being privately interconnected. A few decades ago, you could motivate someone by claiming there are people somewhere in the company being much more productive and cover your tracks by saying it's rude to ask your other coworkers. Now, you have other people to ask besides your coworkers and ways to easily organize your coworkers outside of work. It's no coincidence that the groups that are unionizing are generally more tech-savvy (young workers in retail, Apple, Amazon)
  • MarkPNeyer 4y ago
    What about people who own and operate their own small business?
    • lupire 4y ago
      The likes of Amazon and Walmart and McDonald's crush them.
      • seneca 4y ago
        Over 99% of businesses in the US are "small businesses". Just under half of working Americans work for small businesses.
        • onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
          IIUC, an individually owned franchise of McDonald's or Subway is considered a "small business". Many small businesses are completely family owned and operated and only employ 1 or 2 people (the family). So this statistic that everyone spouts out that most people "work for" small businesses - I'm curious how accurate that statement actually is to what people think it means.
• stevehiehn 4y ago
  Lately I feel like celebrity CEO & VCs (namely Elon Musk) are actively trolling workers. Emphasising that workers are inherently dead weight. I believe publicly stunt layoffs like Twitter have a far reaching negative impact on worker morale. Maybe in the short term you can use fear to squeeze out some overtime but ultimately I believe its creating dangerous worker/employer resentment.
  • fxtentacle 4y ago
    I think the resentment was already there before. Plus, in my opinion, they did an excellent job framing the old Twitter team as lazy entitled social justice warriors, so I expect Trumps & Musks core target demographics to absolutely love those firings. e.g. https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-workers-mocked-open-letter-saying-musks-twitter-plans-threaten-our-livelihoods-so-entitled https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-workers-mocked-open-le... and the replies to https://twitter.com/TheCriticalDri2/status/1592173535937855491 https://twitter.com/TheCriticalDri2/status/15921735359378554...
    • stevehiehn 4y ago
      A big question is going to be: Does the `Trumps & Musks core target demographics` who enjoy this narrative actually contain the talent pool to pull from? I don't know.
      • jen20 4y ago
        It seems like Musk’s more immediate problem is that it barely contains anyone interested in electric cars.
      • John23832 4y ago
        Lol, of course not.Most people/workers just don't want the headache. They just want to be able to do a job and be compensated well so that they can have a life to enjoy. VERY VERY few people want to work 80 hours a week at Twitter for a reduced salary and stock options that sit behind all other investors and the billion dollar albatross Musk put around the company's neck. The skeleton crew at Twitter today are H1B's that literally can't leave because the tech world is burning around them... and that's sad.
• ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  From my experience, I can suggest that simple Respect pays huge dividends. Treating employees like humans; getting to know each one as an individual, and sincerely working to help each of them to achieve their personal goals. Treating their work with Respect is also really important. I was a manager at a company that paid "competitive" (i.e. "low") salaries, and had to motivate with "softer" rewards. I've always been a "carrot" person, as opposed to a "stick" person. I find that it's better (but not easier) to lead folks with rewards, than it is to drive them with threats. I also found that money is a fickle motivator. It works well, if you want transient, highly-capable people that will not stick around, and will not be there, when the fecal matter hits the air circulation device. But I have also found that I'm an outlier, and that my style of management is not only ignored, but attacked and despised. I'm pretty happy to be out of the Rotten Management Rat Race.
  • kogepathic 4y ago
    > I also found that money is a fickle motivator. You say this, but money is also part of respect. Many employers do not index raises to inflation, so you're literally working for less each year you stay with that employer. Yes, you absolutely need to treat employees like humans and not numbers, but compensation is part of the respect you show employees. Ignore it at your peril. > It works well, if you want transient, highly-capable people that will not stick around, and will not be there, when the fecal matter hits the air circulation device. Anecdotally, the most capable people I have worked with are there to solve problems, and if they run into a problem that can't be solved (mostly because of organisation politics/culture) then they recognise the futility of trying and move on. Not being there when the excrement hits the fan is just a byproduct of not sticking around in a dysfunctional environment.
    • ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
      > money is also part of respect. Agreed. Many companies push non-monetary HR stuff, in an effort to keep salaries low. That's usually pretty transparent, though. In the end, there's absolutely nothing that can fix broken management; especially the first- and second-line managers. I found management to be a very difficult and humbling experience. The variable was usually me; not the employee. I had to be constantly reviewing my own motivations and whatnot. > Anecdotally, the most capable people I have worked with are there to solve problems, and if they run into a problem that can't be solved (mostly because of organisation politics/culture) then they recognise the futility of trying and move on. One of my jobs, as a first-line manager, was to shield my employees from the corporate culture. I managed highly experienced C++ engineers, working on pretty advanced image processing pipeline stuff. Not exactly your "bootcamp leetcode master" type. When they finally rolled up our department, the engineer with the least tenure, had ten years, and we were never really paid that well. But I have had many folks, on this very forum, tell me what a terrible manager I must have been.
• epolanski 4y ago
  This. The difference for my SO for crossing her arms for the entire year and doing nothing vs dying stressed with overtime and selling millions is an 8% bonus.
  • tw98521358 4y ago
    Ha where I work it’s like 2% even the top performers get less than inflation
• roenxi 4y ago
  The article is paywalled, but I get the feeling that we're gotten a case of corporate-speak somewhere in it. Ambition is its own reward; people are ambitious to secure themselves better positions in society so it is probably about as prevalent as ever. There is likely a notable shortage of people donating free time to a company which should technically be described as "sensible". Wasting time was never a sensible thing to do for an ambitious person.
• onos 4y ago
  Definitely agree, but want to highlight one good reason to work hard for young’ns: If you can make a good impression with your colleagues they may be able to help you land a good job down the road.
• aapl88889 4y ago
  This is wrong. Is farming productivity due to machines or labor? Take a wild guess.
  • defrost 4y ago
    Good weather and smart farmers .. I live in a productive rural district with high exports; dumb people and million dollar machines don't produce anything of note. People that know the ground, know the past variations, know their seed stock, etc. produce good returns over decadal periods, as yet machiness and AI alone don't match that. Now, give it a few years...
    • aapl88889 4y ago
      Well you are wrong. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/03/05/look-agricultural-productivity-growth-united-states-1948-2017 https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/03/05/look-agricultural...
  • jxf 4y ago
    I hope you're not suggesting that farming is easy and that you just need the right machines. Otherwise, your argument is that a 15th-century peasant possesses all the necessary skills, education, and training to operate a modern farm, and they just need the right equipment.
    • aapl88889 4y ago
      I hope you know that farmers who transitioned to these machines after employing labor decades ago
• Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  Are people really 2.5x more productive? Or are machines more productive, making average value generated by labor increase?
  • jxf 4y ago
    Those are the same thing, because operating the machines means you need new skills, and therefore should expect labor wages to rise. For example, 15th-century peasant can't use a computer at the level of a teenager playing Minecraft. So clearly it's not just the machines; it's the people. And as the chart shows, the people are getting a raw deal.
  • dbg31415 4y ago
    People are more productive... Look at what people had to do in the 70s and 80s... You'd spend all your time doing math to fill out a spreadsheet, cutting and gluing construction paper to make a presentation, or re-typing a document to change a sentence. That's not the machine doing the work, it's just the machines making it easier for us to do the work. But the end result is an expectation to produce more better quality work faster than our parents or grandparents had to. My grandparents had a summer house, they took 7-kid family vacations, and they disconnected from co-workers when they left the building... And that's what "upper middle class" in America used to look like 40 years ago. And they had unions, and pension plans. When my grandfather retired, his pension was 80% of his pay for life. Plus what he had saved up for retirement. Anyway yes, I think we're a lot more productive.
    • PenguinCoder 4y ago
      A lot more productive and a lot less to show for it.
  • adrr 4y ago
    Technology has made us more productive. Here’s an example. We only have two people in AP because we have software that monitors our AP email address and ingests invoices and sends it to the appropriate people for approval. Back in the day, people would open physical mail, and send it through corporate “mail” system for physical signatures.
• walkhour 4y ago
  This graph [0] is way more relevant for the people in HN, and shows that for the top 10% growth hasn't stagnated, who I imagine overlap significantly with the people posting here. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/productivity_class.PNG https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/productivity_class.PN...
  • jxf 4y ago
    Two things: 1. Just because we're in the top 1% doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the bottom 99%. 2. That graph shows that (real) wages are basically flat for each group the last ten years of the graph while productivity has almost inexorably climbed, so I'm not sure I'd agree that it "hasn't stagnated".
    • gruez 4y ago
      >2. That graph shows that (real) wages are basically flat for each group the last ten years of the graph while productivity has almost inexorably climbed Are we looking at the same graphs here? In the last 10 years of the graph, I see that both productivity gains and wages were leveling out.
      • jxf 4y ago
        It's a terrible graph (no gridlines!) but if you're willing to open it in an image editor and draw some lines, it becomes pretty clear that wage growth for the 90th percentile is up 5 percentage points over the 10-year period, while productivity growth looks to be more than twice that number. Also, it's the long-term trend that matters. Is the gap between each blue line and the yellow line narrowing or widening since the start of the graph? It's the latter, so things are getting worse and not better.
      • bjornsing 4y ago
        That’s because your eyes aren’t socialist enough. Squint them and feel the hate. ;)
    • newaccount2021 4y ago