14 ms·

I have no opinion on the MBA bit, but I think you're spot on about people starting to treat companies the way the companies are treating them. ~10 years ago, w

I have no opinion on the MBA bit, but I think you're spot on about people starting to treat companies the way the companies are treating them. ~10 years ago, when I got my first job, I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource", how important is the company "culture" and all of that corporate kumbaya. And, at that point, the vast majority of people around me cared and wanted to do a good job, going up and beyond. Fast forward to now, and pretty much everyone has the attitude of "f**k these guys", doesn't want to be there and will do the bare minimum to get by. And that's exactly what companies have demonstrated that they deserve. People are tired of job hopping to get market pay, dealing with bulls**t, and being thrown under the bus at the slightest hint of an economic downturn.

thfuran 4y ago
>I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource" You tread in strange circles. I'd think a cursory look at history ought to be enough to put the lie to such claims.
- peruvian 4y ago
  It's crazy to think but people do drink the kool-aid, despite history.
  - shigawire 4y ago
    Some companies operate differently too. Obviously they still watch the bottom line, but some aren't as reactionary and are willing to take more pain to keep employees because they understand the value of that goodwill. More commonly private companies with a strong-willed founder/leader.
    - 542458 4y ago
      Agreed. I work for a privately held company and am a bit less jaded about it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the company is my friend or anything… but I know how much the owner hates layoffs on an emotional level and have seen the company do things like shifting everybody to 4.5 day weeks temporarily to avoid the need for layoffs. So I respect that.
    - rob74 4y ago
      I don't even think "pain to keep employees" is the right word here - Amazon for instance is still highly profitable, it's just that the profits went down a bit (which is to be expected if the economy is worse). But they're still laying off people just to make the bottom line look even better...
      - capitalsigma 4y ago
        Believe it or not, Amazon is not a charity. I don't know why you expect them to hold on to employees who are evidently a loss to their bottom line.
        Doxin 4y ago
        That's assuming the downturn is 100% explained by employees underperforming. It's more likely that market forces outside of these employees control caused the downturn.
        illiac786 4y ago
        The correct wording is “Amazon will do anything they deem necessary to make their shareholders happy, no matter if it’s profitable or not.” I am convinced they have zero data indicating firing these people will be profitable on the long run, only that short term it is, and that’s all that shareholders are interested in. I’m a big fan of any measure making stock exchange less volatile, like some form of tax on every transaction, to slow down the machine, make short term investments (speculation) less rewarding. This may help in reducing the appetite of shareholders for such short sighted measures.
        htkibar 4y ago
        Your argument is flawed. Reactionary firing tends to be inefficient, but makes shareholders happy on the short term. Should a company prioritise shareholder happiness over efficiency is the real question here. Their losses don’t originate from these employees nor initiatives; it originates from market conditions.
    - esperent 4y ago
      > Some companies operate differently too. Can you give some examples? Of big companies with more than a few thousand employees I mean. Personally I'm doubtful that they exist.
- r00fus 4y ago
  I think it has more to do with the fact that @i_have_an_idea's blinders fell off. Also, at the same time, due to COVID and consequently mandatory WFM, many other people had the same epiphany, leading to so-called quiet-quitting. Honestly I also feel there's another factor of a lot of depression as people look around and see that cynical view was the truth all along.
  - benjaminwootton 4y ago
    I see this too. The Covid restrictions led to people seeing through a lot of the false or thinly veiled assumptions that we live under. After that you are left with a more cynical and apathetic view of the world.
xmcqdpt2 4y ago
Could be also an age thing. I don't know how old you are but maybe ten years ago most of your colleagues were twenty somethings and now they are in their thirties or forties?
robofanatic 4y ago
well salaries also went up significantly in the last decade as per levels.fyi Senior Principal SDE at Amazon makes about a million $$$. Entry level salary is $168K https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-engineer https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-en...
- htkibar 4y ago
  Inflation is a thing you know?
Adraghast 4y ago
> ~10 years ago, when I got my first job, I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource" Tell that to Johnny Paycheck.
- ogre_battle 4y ago
  Difference here is that Johnny Paycheck was signing about the common man being screwed. White collar STEM jobs have historically been very lucrative and most Dev / IT types have had a good incentive to shut up and play ball.
spicyramen_ 4y ago
[dead]
ookblah 4y ago
eh what? even 15 years ago it was common knowledge to just jump around every few years to advance your career. maybe it wasn't all out "f* these guys" but we definitely had no illusions about employer "loyalty" lol.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Likely depends on your age and/or experience.
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    Indeed. Similar discussions were held when the dotcom bubble burst. I doubt it was the first time.
andsoitis 4y ago
> People are tired of job hopping to get market pay If nobody moved from job to job, there would be no market.
- GenerocUsername 4y ago
  There would be a lot fewer recruiters, and more experienced engineers. Also a less monolithic tech culture. Right now every employee is more or less compatible across every company because we all seek to be transferable
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    It would be bad for the industry and would mean greater concentration of talent in one or two corporations.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    An interesting thing that I have experienced is that a lot of recruiters and companies don’t care about your experience. All they care about is the exact experience they are looking for. In a world where most people stay in a position for a while, it’s only natural to gain a lot of experience and responsibility but not necessarily broad experience. So in that case, it would be very hard to switch jobs, industries, etc. So what I am curious about is, did companies used to hire in less myopic ways?
    - ncphil 4y ago
      Definitely yes. Over 25 years ago I started a second career, in tech. After 6 months in a Microsoft academic program I got hired by a Big Six accounting firm to do desktop support. My previous education was completely nontechnical (a BA and MA in history, and a JD), as was my experience (10 years as a trial lawyer). No way was I the most qualified on paper for that job, but the people who hired me saw something and acted. A year later I was able to move into a new job with better pay at a Fortune 200 company, originally hired to do applications analysis but shortly after found myself a lead desktop engineer and later a Unix sysadmin. At every turn I was fortunate to have hiring managers that looked beyond my resume to see the potential there. Sure, in 1997 an HR person told me they needed someone with at least 5 years experience in Windows NT, but in general most interviews I had in the late 90s and early 00s were way less myopic. I'm not sure I'd have the same experience if starting out today.
SoftTalker 4y ago
> People are tired of job hopping to get market pay, dealing with bulls*t, and being thrown under the bus at the slightest hint of an economic downturn. So it's cool for employees to quit and job hop to get better pay, leaving their former employers with the effort and expense of replacing them, but not cool for companies to lay off employees to save money when markets contract?
- alexandre_m 4y ago
  The main motivation for job hopping is that it's usually easier to get a raise or promotion than staying around for too long at your company. A lot of employers have the unfortunate tendency to see their most loyal employees as furniture.
- gls2ro 4y ago
  yes, it is cool for employees to do so because of balance of power. Companies have more power than employees when thinking about the size of the event: they can fire you unexpectedly (with/without severance) so for your life (and probably your family) this is the main event happening. But if you leave for a company that is usually a minor event that will probably not have any effect (or very limited) on their "life" (income/profit/culture ...)
silisili 4y ago
Nearly 20 years ago, when I was trying to find HR for my first day, there was an older man talking with them already. He said, and I quote, 'Fuck you all, I got your exit interview right here' while grabbing his crotch. He turned to walk away, smirked at me, and said 'what? I'm retired now.' Point being, I don't think you were the only one who didn't love the company 10 years ago.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ogre_battle 4y ago
  Plenty of folks didn't, but even in the 90s and 2000s there was still a good reason to play ball, esp. if you were in a white collar STEM field. Dude might have grabbed his crotch on the way out, but he probably made $$$$$ for 20-30 years. Modern hires deal with just as much BS but often for lower pay and less long-term stability.
  - jesuscript 4y ago
    What, your company doesn’t give a pension?
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Modern hires deal with just as much BS but often for lower pay and less long-term stability. New hires in tech these days make much much higher wages, inflation adjusted, than ever in the past. Stability is down, granted, though it was never great.
- 778hbff 4y ago
  No matter what happened, this is not a mature way to talk to people. Even in the face of disagreements, why can't people be decent?
778hbff 4y ago
> Fast forward to now, and pretty much everyone has the attitude of "f*k these guys", doesn't want to be there and will do the bare minimum to get by. And anybody with that attitude should rightfully be let go. It's mutual. (I don't want co-workers who act like that.)

thfuran 4y ago

>I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource" You tread in strange circles. I'd think a cursory look at history ought to be enough to put the lie to such claims.

peruvian 4y ago
It's crazy to think but people do drink the kool-aid, despite history.
- shigawire 4y ago
  Some companies operate differently too. Obviously they still watch the bottom line, but some aren't as reactionary and are willing to take more pain to keep employees because they understand the value of that goodwill. More commonly private companies with a strong-willed founder/leader.
  - 542458 4y ago
    Agreed. I work for a privately held company and am a bit less jaded about it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the company is my friend or anything… but I know how much the owner hates layoffs on an emotional level and have seen the company do things like shifting everybody to 4.5 day weeks temporarily to avoid the need for layoffs. So I respect that.
  - rob74 4y ago
    I don't even think "pain to keep employees" is the right word here - Amazon for instance is still highly profitable, it's just that the profits went down a bit (which is to be expected if the economy is worse). But they're still laying off people just to make the bottom line look even better...
    - capitalsigma 4y ago
      Believe it or not, Amazon is not a charity. I don't know why you expect them to hold on to employees who are evidently a loss to their bottom line.
      - Doxin 4y ago
        That's assuming the downturn is 100% explained by employees underperforming. It's more likely that market forces outside of these employees control caused the downturn.
      - illiac786 4y ago
        The correct wording is “Amazon will do anything they deem necessary to make their shareholders happy, no matter if it’s profitable or not.” I am convinced they have zero data indicating firing these people will be profitable on the long run, only that short term it is, and that’s all that shareholders are interested in. I’m a big fan of any measure making stock exchange less volatile, like some form of tax on every transaction, to slow down the machine, make short term investments (speculation) less rewarding. This may help in reducing the appetite of shareholders for such short sighted measures.
      - htkibar 4y ago
        Your argument is flawed. Reactionary firing tends to be inefficient, but makes shareholders happy on the short term. Should a company prioritise shareholder happiness over efficiency is the real question here. Their losses don’t originate from these employees nor initiatives; it originates from market conditions.
  - esperent 4y ago
    > Some companies operate differently too. Can you give some examples? Of big companies with more than a few thousand employees I mean. Personally I'm doubtful that they exist.
r00fus 4y ago
I think it has more to do with the fact that @i_have_an_idea's blinders fell off. Also, at the same time, due to COVID and consequently mandatory WFM, many other people had the same epiphany, leading to so-called quiet-quitting. Honestly I also feel there's another factor of a lot of depression as people look around and see that cynical view was the truth all along.
- benjaminwootton 4y ago
  I see this too. The Covid restrictions led to people seeing through a lot of the false or thinly veiled assumptions that we live under. After that you are left with a more cynical and apathetic view of the world.

xmcqdpt2 4y ago

Could be also an age thing. I don't know how old you are but maybe ten years ago most of your colleagues were twenty somethings and now they are in their thirties or forties?

robofanatic 4y ago

well salaries also went up significantly in the last decade as per levels.fyi Senior Principal SDE at Amazon makes about a million $$$. Entry level salary is $168K https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-engineer https://www.levels.fyi/companies/amazon/salaries/software-en...

htkibar 4y ago
Inflation is a thing you know?

Adraghast 4y ago

> ~10 years ago, when I got my first job, I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource" Tell that to Johnny Paycheck.

ogre_battle 4y ago
Difference here is that Johnny Paycheck was signing about the common man being screwed. White collar STEM jobs have historically been very lucrative and most Dev / IT types have had a good incentive to shut up and play ball.

spicyramen_ 4y ago

[dead]

ookblah 4y ago

eh what? even 15 years ago it was common knowledge to just jump around every few years to advance your career. maybe it wasn't all out "f* these guys" but we definitely had no illusions about employer "loyalty" lol.

mixmastamyk 4y ago
Likely depends on your age and/or experience.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  Indeed. Similar discussions were held when the dotcom bubble burst. I doubt it was the first time.

andsoitis 4y ago

> People are tired of job hopping to get market pay If nobody moved from job to job, there would be no market.

GenerocUsername 4y ago
There would be a lot fewer recruiters, and more experienced engineers. Also a less monolithic tech culture. Right now every employee is more or less compatible across every company because we all seek to be transferable
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  It would be bad for the industry and would mean greater concentration of talent in one or two corporations.
- bmitc 4y ago
  An interesting thing that I have experienced is that a lot of recruiters and companies don’t care about your experience. All they care about is the exact experience they are looking for. In a world where most people stay in a position for a while, it’s only natural to gain a lot of experience and responsibility but not necessarily broad experience. So in that case, it would be very hard to switch jobs, industries, etc. So what I am curious about is, did companies used to hire in less myopic ways?
  - ncphil 4y ago
    Definitely yes. Over 25 years ago I started a second career, in tech. After 6 months in a Microsoft academic program I got hired by a Big Six accounting firm to do desktop support. My previous education was completely nontechnical (a BA and MA in history, and a JD), as was my experience (10 years as a trial lawyer). No way was I the most qualified on paper for that job, but the people who hired me saw something and acted. A year later I was able to move into a new job with better pay at a Fortune 200 company, originally hired to do applications analysis but shortly after found myself a lead desktop engineer and later a Unix sysadmin. At every turn I was fortunate to have hiring managers that looked beyond my resume to see the potential there. Sure, in 1997 an HR person told me they needed someone with at least 5 years experience in Windows NT, but in general most interviews I had in the late 90s and early 00s were way less myopic. I'm not sure I'd have the same experience if starting out today.

SoftTalker 4y ago

> People are tired of job hopping to get market pay, dealing with bulls*t, and being thrown under the bus at the slightest hint of an economic downturn. So it's cool for employees to quit and job hop to get better pay, leaving their former employers with the effort and expense of replacing them, but not cool for companies to lay off employees to save money when markets contract?

alexandre_m 4y ago
The main motivation for job hopping is that it's usually easier to get a raise or promotion than staying around for too long at your company. A lot of employers have the unfortunate tendency to see their most loyal employees as furniture.
gls2ro 4y ago
yes, it is cool for employees to do so because of balance of power. Companies have more power than employees when thinking about the size of the event: they can fire you unexpectedly (with/without severance) so for your life (and probably your family) this is the main event happening. But if you leave for a company that is usually a minor event that will probably not have any effect (or very limited) on their "life" (income/profit/culture ...)

silisili 4y ago

Nearly 20 years ago, when I was trying to find HR for my first day, there was an older man talking with them already. He said, and I quote, 'Fuck you all, I got your exit interview right here' while grabbing his crotch. He turned to walk away, smirked at me, and said 'what? I'm retired now.' Point being, I don't think you were the only one who didn't love the company 10 years ago.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ogre_battle 4y ago
Plenty of folks didn't, but even in the 90s and 2000s there was still a good reason to play ball, esp. if you were in a white collar STEM field. Dude might have grabbed his crotch on the way out, but he probably made $$$$$ for 20-30 years. Modern hires deal with just as much BS but often for lower pay and less long-term stability.
- jesuscript 4y ago
  What, your company doesn’t give a pension?
- jjav 4y ago
  > Modern hires deal with just as much BS but often for lower pay and less long-term stability. New hires in tech these days make much much higher wages, inflation adjusted, than ever in the past. Stability is down, granted, though it was never great.
778hbff 4y ago
No matter what happened, this is not a mature way to talk to people. Even in the face of disagreements, why can't people be decent?

778hbff 4y ago

> Fast forward to now, and pretty much everyone has the attitude of "f*k these guys", doesn't want to be there and will do the bare minimum to get by. And anybody with that attitude should rightfully be let go. It's mutual. (I don't want co-workers who act like that.)