10 ms·

> In a recent job listing for a property-and-casualty insurance agent, TGS laid out those expectations: “If you’re just OK with getting by, or are a ‘quiet quit

• mfuzzey 4y ago
  >The company wouldn't employ you if you weren't providing them more than you cost them. Yes that's true of course. >It's never been easier to create enough value on your own terms to sustain yourself and not let someone else siphon out your value on their terms Not so sure about that part. Maybe it's easier today but if you mean things like freelancing the problem is that you then have to do lots of stuff that isn't interesting to a lot of technical oriented people (like finding clients, negotiating contracts etc). The advantage of working for a company is that you can concentrate on the things that interest you and leave the rest to others. Sure you'll end up earning less but, in my book at least, its worth it. But nothing says you have to "sarifice yourself" you can work for a company but still have a decent balance to have time for other things.
  • kodah 4y ago
    Speaking for myself, I disagree with OP. I have a price for nights, weekends, and overtime. That price, however, went up beyond the average salary. Second to that, even if they do want to pay that money it needs to be in writing. No amount of lip flapping will get that out of me. I have goals and those goals require money. They either pay, or I do what I'm paid to do. What I'm paid to do is still a good and needed job. From my perspective, workers learned their value.
  • briHass 4y ago
    I feel like the 'capture all the value you provide' type comments come from those who have never run a business or worked independently, or maybe they did and got extremely lucky. For most, it's way more work handling all those tasks you mentioned, in addition to the work you 'are getting paid for'. The stress alone is killer. In our industry, it's hardly serfdom: I have reasonable autonomy, get paid vacation time, and can largely code (my preference) the bulk of the day.
  • tbrownaw 4y ago
    > Sure you'll end up earning less but, in my book at least, its worth it. Will you? I thought going independent had a higher variance but similar or slightly lower median than working for an employer.
  • smeej 4y ago
    There's a big difference still between "easy" and "easier than it ever has been." Rather than having a company with gazillions of layers of management tell me what my options are for everything outside of the work that is my direct responsibility, I can choose which things I care about and how much and pull those levers myself, either doing them or hiring them done.
• lupire 4y ago
  This is standard 419 tactic: tell smart people to stay away, so only gullible rubes show up
  • blaser-waffle 4y ago
    Esp for a "property-and-casualty insurance agent" role, which presumably is high volume, high stress, and is about screwing people out of insurance payments.
• marcinzm 4y ago
  >I'm glad to see people recognizing the emperor has no clothes. Sacrificing yourself for a company you don't own--at all, never mind completely--won't make you wealthy. The company wouldn't employ you if you weren't providing them more than you cost them. It's never been easier to create enough value on your own terms to sustain yourself and not let someone else siphon out your value on their terms. I want maximum money for myself not making less money so I can make some philosophical point about other people not siphoning value from me. If a company pays me that money then I don't really care how much money they make (aside from when I'm negotiating for more money from them). If something else pays better, without additional cost such as shitty healthcare or a lot of tasks I hate doing, then that's the way to go but not due to caring if someone else also makes money or not.
  • smeej 4y ago
    Sure. The whole point is that people are, en masse, concluding that they do not derive more value from being employed by a large corporation than they do working independently or on a smaller scale. Many people factor other values into their consideration than raw dollars, but since value is subjective, it's their prerogative to do so and yours to value only money if you wish. It's not about some self-righteous desire not to produce value for anybody else. It's about a realization that you can derive maximum value without the corporate employer.
    • marcinzm 4y ago
      >The whole point is that people are, en masse, concluding that they do not derive more value from being employed by a large corporation than they do working independently or on a smaller scale. Are they? According to the BLS the percentage of people who are self-employed is lower than it was 2004-2006. It increased during the start of covid but hasn't gone up since then. Going from "we don't want to put as much effort into corporate jobs that won't reward us for it" to "we want to be self-employed" is a big stretch that numbers don't justify.
• sokoloff 4y ago
  > The company wouldn't employ you if you weren't providing them more than you cost them. This is a stabilizing (therefore desirable) feature in the system, not a bug. I want that (and work hard to ensure that) my company receives more value from me than I cost them. That makes them want to retain me in a stable relationship that benefits both of us. I don't want their surplus to be too great, but I want there to be a definite, undeniable surplus on their end. The alternative is far worse: if you are costing the company ore than the value you're providing, a rational company should fire you to improve their company. That they haven't means you're working for incompetent leaders in the best case (and leaders who are about to fire you in a worse case).
  • Terretta 4y ago
    Not just stable, "I very evidently more than pay for myself" is how you get raises above inflation. In general, show you more than pay for yourself in a month, you can write your own raise.
    • Balgair 4y ago
      Gosh I wish that was true.
    • lumost 4y ago
      This assumes the company knows how to value your work. I started my career in operations working at companies that pioneered working in public clouds. What this meant was long weeks, missed sleep, and thankless work. I saved the companies millions per year through improved resource allocation, high uptime, and fast deployment cycles. Invariably, company management viewed the above as an expense to incur only as long as infra was percieved as a problem. In my third year of experience I had a banger of a year at a startup and could rightfully claim 3 million per year in savings. In uncertain terms it was implied to me that I wasn’t expected to stick around for the second year but I was given a 2% raise out of kindness :shrug: Management generally views themselves as valuable, and finds people like themselves as valuable. I got wise to this and transitioned fields.
      • 4y ago
• compiler-guy 4y ago
  > The company wouldn't employ you if you weren't providing them more than you cost them. This is basic micro economics: both parties are better off after the exchange. It’s not zero sum. Or at least doesn’t have to be. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-microeconomics/chapter/comparative-advantage-and-the-gains-from-trade/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-microeconomics/chapter/...
  • BurningFrog 4y ago
    Also, this is how wealth is created!
  • smeej 4y ago
    I think the mass exodus of employees is proving that they were not ending up better off, or at least not nearly to the extent their employers were. That's precisely the point. IF both parties were actually better off, people wouldn't leave and stay gone. They might strike out, thinking the grass was greener, but they'd be back in short order. That they're leaving and staying gone shows that the reality wasn't living up to the theory.
    • Jensson 4y ago
      Them staying home is showing that it is a reality. If they went to work even when it was a shit deal then that would show the theory didn't hold, but the fact that as the job gets worse fewer want to do it shows the theory works.
      • smeej 4y ago
        Oh I do think the theory is valid. It's currently cobfirming that the pre-covid reality of work wasn't living up to the balance in the theory where everybody ends up better off.
    • cutenewt 4y ago
      That's overreading the situation. Employees are exhausted and their employers were only one part of the equation. COVID and other personal issues are the others. Thanks to healthy savings accounts, many people could afford to quit their jobs. Quitting wasn't 100% the employer's fault.
• Mistletoe 4y ago
  Do you have any reference showing Gen Z wouldn’t think a Mercedes is a status symbol? The Zoomers I know are the most materialistic human birthed yet, they just don’t have a way to get a Mercedes. But if they did…fr fr bussin’ on their friends immediately with it. One thing I love about their ad is it reminds me of this classic speech by Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross. Same tactic, different decade. > The bad news is - you've got, all of you got, just one week to regain your jobs, starting with tonight. Starting with tonight's sit. Oh, have I got your attention now? Good. 'Cause we're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize's a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. You get the picture? You laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money. Get their names to sell them! You can't close the leads you're given, you can't close shit, you are shit.
  • publius_ 4y ago
    It’s difficult to articulate but something as pure symbol of status as Mercedes is actually low status. Tesla, which is also an environmentalist symbol, is high status. This is an example of a pattern.
    • stephencanon 4y ago
      No one cares what car you have.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • rayiner 4y ago
        Try marrying into a nice desi family driving a shit car.
        • quesera 4y ago
          I think that view might be some of the same generational (and cultural) mindset misunderstanding. Fixations about cars (literally, or as a proxy for income), or about "our people", or "good families", are largely disappearing in the cohort of people who are starting careers and families today. This trend started 60 years ago in the US, and is finally fully mainstream today, even if some parents are still holding on to the past (and if some communities are slower than others). But thank goodness for the progress, at least! ... But the super-out of touch part of "new Mercedes" is that, even among the status/materially-motivated members of younger generations, a new car, and certainly a new Mercedes, ain't it. "We want people who want a new Chevy! .. I mean, a new Lincoln! Cadillac? Camaro? Lotus? Mercedes? BMW TT? Prius?! Tesla?? Rivian??? Oh Jeez stop making it so difficult for me to sign up you kids to make me richer already!"
• dqpb 4y ago
  > We’re looking for people that want a new Mercedes Meanwhile, it's only the owners actually getting the Mercedes.
• werber 4y ago
  I think the new version is just being the person who owns no car and just Uber blacks everywhere.
• moonchrome 4y ago
  > The company wouldn't employ you if you weren't providing them more than you cost them. That's not really true - figuring out contribution value is really hard in a lot of cases, they could be overstaffing for expected growth, keeping you off the market for competitors, could be for political reasons etc. Millions of reasons why you could be on the payroll but not pulling your own weight.
• ElFitz 4y ago
  Why should I want a new Mercedes? Do they truly want people that will happily just throw money down the drain for appearances’ sake? I’m interested in many ridiculously expensive things. But a car sure ain’t one.
  • Slava_Propanei 4y ago
    [dead]
  • SergeAx 4y ago
    Why shouldn't you? It's a comfortable car with lots of bells and whistles. From personal experience, it is much more pleasure to ride inside one, compared to cheaper cars. I think it is also much more pleasure to drive one (I don't drive, so I can't tell for sure)
    • smeej 4y ago
      I'm sure there are some people for whom driving is "an experience" and worth spending lots of money on. For most of us, it's just how we get places, and there's not a big enough difference between how comfortable I am with a carful of screaming kids in traffic in a Toyota vs. a carful of screaming kids in traffic in a Mercedes. Driving isn't an "experience" for Gen Z. Being a passenger certainly isn't. They barely look up between getting in the car and back out. They're not even going to notice the features of a Mercedes.
      • SergeAx 4y ago
        Well, one of the feature of the Mercedes is a very smooth suspension. It is much more convenient to type on the mobile keyboard while onboard of such a car. I think Gen X really should notice that.
        • smeej 4y ago
          They don't need smoothness to type. Those kids can type on rollercoasters and not even notice the ride.
• onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Status for Gen Z is defined by not being treated like crap, I think. It's interesting to me that it's defined by owning things in other generations. I don't think there was ever a time you could take for granted being treated decently. So it does really seem like different priorities.
  • watwut 4y ago
    You could not take it as granted, but how likely it is to happen changes over time. It is not the same between generations.
    • DangitBobby 4y ago
      My perception (though I was not alive for this first part) is that there was a shift from giving a shit about your employees and wanting them to have good lives to not giving a fuck about employees if it meant saving a buck. And it took a long time for the culture to catch up.
  • yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    I think, it’s the surplus of supply that has changed the nature of status symbols. It was a status symbol to own a Mercedes, now I can easily rent the newest nicest of any car for a few Instagram shots a year. So this is what many millennials did/do. Chose their status symbol for the current occasion then use something practical the rest of the time. GenZ was brought up with this mental model and didn’t see any of these rentables as real status symbols.
• sangnoir 4y ago
  > I'm glad to see people recognizing the emperor has no clothes. The COVID shutdowns exposed the lack of loyalty (possibly humanity too) on the side of employers. Additionally, most employees have internalized that it's sometimes better to be unemployed while up-skilling than to maximize raw employment time. This is blowback for companies treating employees as disposable, but acting surprised when employees catch on and start to see such jobs as disposable too.
  • merpnderp 4y ago
    There were a lot of companies that did everything they could to keep people employed. My company lost a lot of money keeping us on.
    • cudgy 4y ago
      Perhaps your employer received money from the pandemic “corporate giveaway” bills that were passed? Or perhaps they are a rare breed that choose to willingly lose money? Either way I see no evidence that there are “a lot of companies that did everything they could to keep people employed” when it meant them losing money or not benefiting from corporate government welfare to keep people employed.
      • rvba 4y ago
        Recruitment also costs a lot. There is the visible fee when you use headhunters or even ads. Bur there is the not visible cost of internal effort (that could be used elsehwere) and lower efficiency before everyone gets onboarded.
    • pc86 4y ago
      And mine (at the time) cut everyone's pay by nearly 30% with almost no notice, then acted like they were doing us all a solid by putting everyone back to where they were almost a year later without making us all do performance reviews first. In my experience there are more employers like mine than yours in the world.
• puffoflogic 4y ago
  > The company wouldn't employ you if you weren't providing them more than you cost them. Well yes, but actually no. "The company" has no idea how much value you provide, and even if it did, the value you provide to "the company" and the value you provide to your immediate management chain (who is likely to make hiring/firing decisions almost autonomously at the IC level) are entirely different. Empire building is the first thing that springs to mind.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• PeterStuer 4y ago
  "The company wouldn't employ you if you weren't providing them more than you cost them." Ah sweet summer child. Even if your 1st lvl logic would hold they would ditch you if your replacement + replacement cost was less than yours. But never mind. Companies have limited and wildly inaccurate information regarding your value and contributions. But even worse, "companies" do not make hiring/firing decisions, people do. And people have not only extreme irrational behaviors, but even when they act rational they act in their own interest, not "the company's", and the larger the company, the less causally aligned these interests are.
  • smeej 4y ago
    All you've said is the same thing I already said, but you spelled out the "opportunity cost" part of the equation separately, while I assumed everybody knew that was part of the consideration and didn't need to be spelled out. Obviously the entire thing has a big "in their assessment" caveat around it too. This is also* part of the problem, not anything that negates what I already said.
• SergeAx 4y ago
  Mercedes is not a status symbol for Gen Z only because Gen Z generally just can't afford a Mercedes. Therefore for Gen Z a pair of sneakers is a status symbol.
  • smeej 4y ago
    Even the obnoxious ultra rich kids aren't flaunting their Mercedes. It just isn't the status symbol if was for previous generations.