4 ms·

> I don't need to have a confidence in a counterparty in a trade - on the contrary, I'd prefer them to be a gullible fool. Gullible fools may pay you over the

> I don't need to have a confidence in a counterparty in a trade - on the contrary, I'd prefer them to be a gullible fool. Gullible fools may pay you over the odds once or twice, but won’t survive in a competitive market. They’ll go bust, because too many other savvy players are rinsing them.

throwawaysleep 3y ago
Does it matter? Employment is an increasingly short term relationship too. I don't care if my employer survives other than they survive long enough to get into a lifeboat.
- spacemadness 3y ago
  I can see this point of view from someone who is young and single with no anchor anywhere. Not everyone wants to be a digital nomad and/or be constantly on edge and mercenary with their career.
  - throwawaysleep 3y ago
    You can do that, but it comes at the cost of no wage increases. If you can’t leave, you have no leverage.
    - owenmarshall 3y ago
      I could go into consulting or start my own business – the highs would be way higher, but the risk of lower lows even worse. On the other end of the spectrum, I could accept a 50%+ wage cut in exchange for an exceptionally stable job & a defined benefit pension. Even in the private sector my risk can vary: hyper aggressive startup that pays in equity, long-tenured industrial that has an OK salary and 401k. I'm a shade closer to the startup risk profile, but that's just me. Plenty of employees are entirely willing to stay on the conservative end of the scale & give up chances for big returns - heck, some even give up anything beyond marginal cost of living adjustments! - in exchange for working at a stable company that is slow to hire, slow to fire. But that's an exchange ... if company leadership isn't trusted, good employees won't take that deal because bad leadership = an unstable employer.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  Yet I work in a company where the average tenure on my team is over a decade.... This extreme turn over is bad for both employers and employees, not sure how to fix it as it seems both employers and employee have terrible attitudes as to the cause, and neither actually want to fix it in general
  - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
    The cause is simple: Extreme turnovers are a consequence of inequality. Wage growth has not kept up with workers' productivity and employees aren't stupid enough not to notice this. If the employee feels like he's being taken for a fool, he'll try his luck somewhere else. If they see the CEO announcing record profits but his salary is stagnating you can bet your ass he'll try to leave. If the CEO and execs are getting a platinum trim on their yachts but you can't afford a new car, you bet it'll ruffle some feathers. The fix is simple: have workers' pay track increases in profits and productivity but companies don't want to do it, they want the increases in productivity to go to investors instead of workers
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      While that for sure is part of it, Wage Compression has been an issue for as long as there has been employment. You may want to relabel that as "inequality" but it does not change the fact that internal raises have always been less than market increases. I think there are other factors at play, like companies being very quick to pull the layoff lever these days, quick the lower headcount in bad times, and VERY VERY slow to increase headcount when it is needed. This instability i believe it a huge factor Also reductions in other compensation not just wages (Time Off, Health Care) and often inflexibility with the employers over all. Just to name a few.
      - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
        >and VERY VERY slow to increase headcount when it is needed Meta doubled its headcount in under 2 years. Same with other big tech companies. How is that "very very slow"?

throwawaysleep 3y ago

Does it matter? Employment is an increasingly short term relationship too. I don't care if my employer survives other than they survive long enough to get into a lifeboat.

spacemadness 3y ago
I can see this point of view from someone who is young and single with no anchor anywhere. Not everyone wants to be a digital nomad and/or be constantly on edge and mercenary with their career.
- throwawaysleep 3y ago
  You can do that, but it comes at the cost of no wage increases. If you can’t leave, you have no leverage.
  - owenmarshall 3y ago
    I could go into consulting or start my own business – the highs would be way higher, but the risk of lower lows even worse. On the other end of the spectrum, I could accept a 50%+ wage cut in exchange for an exceptionally stable job & a defined benefit pension. Even in the private sector my risk can vary: hyper aggressive startup that pays in equity, long-tenured industrial that has an OK salary and 401k. I'm a shade closer to the startup risk profile, but that's just me. Plenty of employees are entirely willing to stay on the conservative end of the scale & give up chances for big returns - heck, some even give up anything beyond marginal cost of living adjustments! - in exchange for working at a stable company that is slow to hire, slow to fire. But that's an exchange ... if company leadership isn't trusted, good employees won't take that deal because bad leadership = an unstable employer.
phpisthebest 3y ago
Yet I work in a company where the average tenure on my team is over a decade.... This extreme turn over is bad for both employers and employees, not sure how to fix it as it seems both employers and employee have terrible attitudes as to the cause, and neither actually want to fix it in general
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  The cause is simple: Extreme turnovers are a consequence of inequality. Wage growth has not kept up with workers' productivity and employees aren't stupid enough not to notice this. If the employee feels like he's being taken for a fool, he'll try his luck somewhere else. If they see the CEO announcing record profits but his salary is stagnating you can bet your ass he'll try to leave. If the CEO and execs are getting a platinum trim on their yachts but you can't afford a new car, you bet it'll ruffle some feathers. The fix is simple: have workers' pay track increases in profits and productivity but companies don't want to do it, they want the increases in productivity to go to investors instead of workers
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    While that for sure is part of it, Wage Compression has been an issue for as long as there has been employment. You may want to relabel that as "inequality" but it does not change the fact that internal raises have always been less than market increases. I think there are other factors at play, like companies being very quick to pull the layoff lever these days, quick the lower headcount in bad times, and VERY VERY slow to increase headcount when it is needed. This instability i believe it a huge factor Also reductions in other compensation not just wages (Time Off, Health Care) and often inflexibility with the employers over all. Just to name a few.
    - ChuckNorris89 3y ago
      >and VERY VERY slow to increase headcount when it is needed Meta doubled its headcount in under 2 years. Same with other big tech companies. How is that "very very slow"?