4 ms·

It has nothing to do with reality it is just something new to write about, before it was everyone is quitting now it is everyone is not quitting.

incahoots 3y ago
I swear majority of these "economic" stories are hyper generated by some LLM they have access to, with very little or zero basis in reality.
- nbar1 3y ago
  Okay but your comment is just your opinion with very little or zero basis in reality.
  - incahoots 3y ago
    My "basis" is that reporting on the labor market in it's current form is flawed as the Fed themselves have stated that it's a lagging indicator on numerous occasions. So is the fed wrong, or is this another sensationalized article in an attempt to garner clicks?
lukas099 3y ago
Do you mean that WSJ is lying about the statistics of people quitting less?
- _8j50 3y ago
  Quiet quitting is when people don't actually quit, so no stats.
  - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
    If my employer wants me to work 40 hours a week (5 8 hours a day) but they have analytics that prove I"m working 2 hours a day... why don't they fire me?
    - maerF0x0 3y ago
      If you're delivering more value than they pay you, why would they? They're literally profiting by keeping you, and losing by not. Sure they could marginally employ another person for even more profit, but save for network effects like cost of communication or layers of management there's little reason to remove a net highly productive person.
      - adventured 3y ago
        Companies - managers - very often suffer from the sunk cost fallacy. They're very concerned they won't necessarily do any better with the next person, than the two hours of work per day they're getting. They've invested into integrating, training the existing employee. Managers almost always consider it a high burden to have to go through the process again with a new person. If they find a considerably superior new candidate first, maybe they'll get rid of the existing person or rotate them into a worse position. The difference between the two persons, in terms of output, has to more than make up for the headache.
      - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
        > They're literally profiting by keeping you, and losing by not I find it very hard to believe that at a hypothetical $200k/yr, my company benefits to the tune of $201k/yr+ at me working ~10 hours a week (5 2 hour days).
        satokema 3y ago
        it's a probability thing, esp. if you interact with anything sensitive. Even if you don't actively work, having the keys to the kingdom and being latently trustworthy enough to not immediately defect is worth a lot compared to trying to find an equivalent (and transferring knowledge to them). also the knowledge is invaluable in the one-off scenario where you're actually needed. leave the hustling to the juniors
    - _8j50 3y ago
      Replacement cost.
  - woobar 3y ago
    The article is not talking about quiet quitting. They discuss actual quitting which we do have stats for.

incahoots 3y ago

I swear majority of these "economic" stories are hyper generated by some LLM they have access to, with very little or zero basis in reality.

nbar1 3y ago
Okay but your comment is just your opinion with very little or zero basis in reality.
- incahoots 3y ago
  My "basis" is that reporting on the labor market in it's current form is flawed as the Fed themselves have stated that it's a lagging indicator on numerous occasions. So is the fed wrong, or is this another sensationalized article in an attempt to garner clicks?

lukas099 3y ago

Do you mean that WSJ is lying about the statistics of people quitting less?

_8j50 3y ago
Quiet quitting is when people don't actually quit, so no stats.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  If my employer wants me to work 40 hours a week (5 8 hours a day) but they have analytics that prove I"m working 2 hours a day... why don't they fire me?
  - maerF0x0 3y ago
    If you're delivering more value than they pay you, why would they? They're literally profiting by keeping you, and losing by not. Sure they could marginally employ another person for even more profit, but save for network effects like cost of communication or layers of management there's little reason to remove a net highly productive person.
    - adventured 3y ago
      Companies - managers - very often suffer from the sunk cost fallacy. They're very concerned they won't necessarily do any better with the next person, than the two hours of work per day they're getting. They've invested into integrating, training the existing employee. Managers almost always consider it a high burden to have to go through the process again with a new person. If they find a considerably superior new candidate first, maybe they'll get rid of the existing person or rotate them into a worse position. The difference between the two persons, in terms of output, has to more than make up for the headache.
    - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
      > They're literally profiting by keeping you, and losing by not I find it very hard to believe that at a hypothetical $200k/yr, my company benefits to the tune of $201k/yr+ at me working ~10 hours a week (5 2 hour days).
      - satokema 3y ago
        it's a probability thing, esp. if you interact with anything sensitive. Even if you don't actively work, having the keys to the kingdom and being latently trustworthy enough to not immediately defect is worth a lot compared to trying to find an equivalent (and transferring knowledge to them). also the knowledge is invaluable in the one-off scenario where you're actually needed. leave the hustling to the juniors
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Replacement cost.
- woobar 3y ago
  The article is not talking about quiet quitting. They discuss actual quitting which we do have stats for.