7 ms·

> There is no upward mobility at the company, unless you have been in some org 5+ years Sometimes I try to talk to my 83 year old dad, who was a Teamster at th

> There is no upward mobility at the company, unless you have been in some org 5+ years Sometimes I try to talk to my 83 year old dad, who was a Teamster at the same company for his entire 35 year career, about the software industry. He's so surprised how often people like me change jobs, how we switch companies as a way to get a raise, and just generally how different expectations are. When I told him about how I'd left a company partly because they didn't promote me after 18 months, he didn't say anything, but I knew what he was thinking. In his world, 18 months just isn't long enough to feel entitled to a promotion. Promotion is primarily seniority-based, and the company rewarded loyalty as much as, err, value creation. It's a different world we're in, but I'm not sure exactly what makes it different: is it the 21st century, something fundamental about the industry, or the fact that software people feel they have more mobility, and thus less loyalty and patience? One thing I'm fairly certain about is that companies don't treat us worse than they treated blue collar workers in the 70s. I think we'd all be surprised by the poor selection of candy in the catered employee cafeteria they had over at the shipping depot.

downrightmike 2y ago
You trained yourself, you paid for your schooling, you continue to learn on your own dollar for the company. The company doesn't pay for any of that anymore like back in the day, so yes, you must do what you can to keep your career flowing, jobs are just stepping stones, they aren't entitled to loyalty, because they stopped being loyal first.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  Every company I've worked at has given me a yearly budget for education, or has just had a rubber stamp policy of paying for classes. I know a few older people whose companies paid for them to take night classes, but I didn't know it was as common as all that.
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    Consider yourself lucky. I haven’t had that in multiple decades, and no benefits at all for one. Then California came for my contracting job.
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
>is it the 21st century, something fundamental about the industry, or the fact that software people feel they have more mobility, and thus less loyalty and patience? Well unions are pretty well known for prioritizing seniority above all else. It's one of the biggest negatives that come up against them.
ThrowawayR2 2y ago
The thing that is different is the ridiculously high demand for developers since the 1990s, minus downturns like the dot com bust. Developers can job hop and get perks because software is still in the process of eating the world. But no boom lasts forever. In other creative fields or games development, where supply far exceeds demand, the situation is much less favorable for workers and that's eventually where the software industry is going to be as well.
- necovek 2y ago
  I am not so sure that's true. Almost anything that gets created today involves some software, and infrequently some new software, in the pipeline. Do remember that there is a whole bunch of software that needs to be created for our household appliances, any electronic device (those tiny little SoCs that control a sensor or voltage or whatever), or tools used to make anything else. We are also in the midst of a push to get everything "digitized", including our entire homes, cars, buses, libraries, movie catalogs, music libraries, battery charging, communication infrastructure etc. And everyone keeps a computer or two or three (phone, smartwatch, tablet, fitness trackers) on them at almost all times — all these need software to do something useful. Basically, I think software developers are going to remain in need as long as we rely on computers. And just like farming has never gotten obsoleted because we continue to need food (though increasing the brute force of the tools we have has allowed us to rely on fewer farmers), we'll continue to need new software (it's still an open question if there are tools like Copilot that will enable us to achieve similar efficiency improvement and rely on fewer software developers, but my guess is no).
layer8 2y ago
Incidentally, this job-hopping is bad for software, because too much institutional knowledge is getting lost, and the job-hoppers don’t get to experience the long-term consequences of their design and implementation decisions.
- pc86 2y ago
  Good companies will allow time for documentation and testing[0], and great developers will make time for it whether it's officially there or not. [0] Mediocre unit tests are as good or better than pristine API docs that are slightly out of date.
  - layer8 2y ago
    Having good documentation is great, but there is nevertheless a substantive cost in high turnover even if you have good documentation. Documentation doesn’t replace experience with the product or project, nor is it ever complete.
    - hosh 2y ago
      Looking back at my own career, I do not jump ship every 18 months, and I have been able to accumulate deep knowledge that are broadly applicable, that has enabled a lot of options when it is time to go to a new company. So in addition to having better continuity of institutional knowledge, there is a benefit to staying on longer (at least for me).
      - tacocataco 2y ago
        A financial benefit?
        hosh 2y ago
        Versatility. That gives me options as the technology and business landscape changes.
- 2y ago
darth_avocado 2y ago
> company rewarded loyalty as much as, err, value creation Companies reward loyalty because they can keep you behind the market rates. Hiring a new person costs you market rates. Keeping you around with 2-3% increases every year with occasional promotions of 5% will ensure you stay behind the market.
pc86 2y ago
Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile.
- chipdart 2y ago
  > Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile. Let's see if you still hold that opinion in a few years when you reach your 40s/50s, can't find a job because ageism, and you have to compete with people who work 16h/day surviving on cold pizza and Red Bull.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Well, I'm 62, and I still hold that same opinion.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Already well into that age range and have no trouble finding jobs because I'm productive and continue to upgrade my skills. Those habits are rewarded, as opposed to rewarding you for simply existing longer/having gotten hired earlier.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      > Already well into that age range and have no trouble finding jobs because I'm productive and continue to upgrade my skills > I "It's not happening to me, so it's not happening" says the programmer type, who isn't carrying 25kg loads up stairs 10+ times a day
      - pc86 2y ago
        I may be a "programmer type" but I do know 25kg isn't a lot of weight to carry around. The article is specifically about tech workers in Amazon, so I think it's pretty clear from that and the rest of the context that I was discussing unions in relation to tech workers. I was disputing the claim that you a) it's hard to get a job in your 40s or 50s, and b) if it is hard, it's because of ageism and not something you did (or didn't do). And as others have pointed out, there is certainly a class of employee who is going to be chugging energy drinks and working 16h a day but if you're 40+ you're not competing with them.
rurp 2y ago
There are a lot of factors for the change in loyalty but I think the single biggest one is from when the managerial class went all-in on outsourcing. Those execs didn't care that they had a factory full of workers that had been loyal for decades, they happily sent those job oversees for a bump in that year's profit (and the resulting bonus). The people making those decisions didn't care that so many families, towns and cities were ruined by these actions, through no fault of the workers. Given that betrayal of the old social contract, why on earth would anyone choose to be loyal to such companies? Work loyalty still exists with individual managers or owners of small businesses that actually interact with their workers, but these days most workers correctly assume that most corporations are being run with little regard to anything aside from profit; and those workers act accordingly.
michaelmrose 2y ago
That loyalty makes zero sense when one will be downsized in 0.1 seconds if it would make the CEO 1% richer and staying in the same role means getting paid less than market rate including new folks in the same org. As a uniom fellow he might well be overpaid if he at 30 years in makes a lot more than the 10 year guys while doing the same exact job as them. Basically people like your dad were getting tithed by management for loyalty while wondering why you don't tithe your company for security in a market where the most important goods require 2-5x as much. Many blue collar workers in the 70s could afford a house, a car and a wife who didn't work to take care of the home and kids.
dakiol 2y ago
> is it the 21st century, something fundamental about the industry, or the fact that software people feel they have more mobility, and thus less loyalty and patience? I would rather phrase the question as: why should any employee have loyalty towards a given company? The main goal of companies is to make money (if they could make money without employees, well imagine that). The main goal of an employee is also to make money. People don't usually work for free (there are exceptions, of course, I'm talking here about the vast majority of works and employees). Given these statements, it's natural that: a) companies get rid of employees that don't make money (unproductive employees). Layoffs happen every single day b) employees switch to other companies for more money. Obviously, this is easier to do in some industries than others, but the essence is the same in all of them
- creshal 2y ago
  > Layoffs happen every single day It didn't use to be that way, which is what OP was trying to get at. Companies used to reward loyalty with bonuses that scaled by tenure, and tried to retain workforces that they spent considerable resources on training, even through lean times.
  - makestuff 2y ago
    Yeah the main issue I see now is that the only way to get more money is to be promoted into usually management. That causes everyone wanting to be mangers even though a lot of engineers should not be. However, they refuse to pay a senior engineer who runs circles around everyone more because they are at the top of the pay band. I would be perfectly fine staying at the same job with no promotion if it meant I got yearly raises/refreshers that outpaced inflation. In reality you have to job hop or get promoted to get a meaningful raise.
- 9dev 2y ago
  Things used to be more local, and less cynical. You're of course correct in your assessment, logically speaking. But with a shred of empathy—on both sides—it is also clear that loyalty to your employer is beneficial to them, since they can rely on their workforce even if they face a rough year, and loyalty to your employees is beneficial to them, since they can rely on a stable job, even if live gives them a hard time. Both situations do occur all the time, and are just part of human existence. So I wonder if this is either the end-stage capitalism everyone is talking about, or the community aspect got thrown under the bus somewhere.
maeglin 2y ago
> 35 year career look what they took from us. I've been working for 24 years and I expect I'll be working 25-30 years more.
- tacocataco 2y ago
  Just prestige and start your career over. Not everyone wants what you want.
defen 2y ago
> Promotion is primarily seniority-based, and the company rewarded loyalty as much as, err, value creation. Because truckers don't "create value" the same way that software engineers do. If you had a company of 100 of the "top 0.1%" truck drivers, maybe you could charge a bit more because your insurance would be lower and you'd have fewer accidents and late deliveries. If you had a company with 100 of the "top 0.1%" software engineers there's a good chance you're on your way to having a company worth billions of dollars.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  Truckers with solid driving records and good ability get specialized jobs. If you have the top percentile of drivers chances are you’re making heaps of money moving oversized loads, nuclear materials or running time sensitive contracts.
hintymad 2y ago
I think the key is consistency, and it is consistency that is hard for a company to guarantee. If a company does not promote often, like Apple, employees will be content to stay where they are. But once the company starts to promote some people in a short time frame and especially some think the promoted do not deserve the promotion, the employees will start to envy, to demand a speedy promotion, and the company will slowly, sometimes even quickly, turn into a promotion-oriented culture. Case in point, working in Google was such a prestige 15 years ago, and few people would even think about reaching E6. What about now?
sensanaty 2y ago
Loyalty died because the C-suite are comically greedy idiots and don't care to keep the good workers by recognizing their worth. Mind you, they never really did, but people just realize it a bit more now, plus things have gotten worse in that regard. I can't tell you the amount of good colleagues I've seen leave because management was too stubborn to give them a 7% raise. The most baffling thing is that they'll have no qualms (or perhaps no choice) to subsequently replace them with someone else for at minimum double of whatever 7% would've cost them. This causes a cascading issue where people are annoyed that new hires get such a big boost while the current staff have to fight for every measly percentage increase, so the older employees slowly trickle out. I've had it happen myself too. A place I really enjoyed working at, I found the work great and had a great relationship... But the CTO stubbornly refused to give me a 9% raise. I referred my friend and started looking elsewhere. I got a roughly 30% paybump, and my friend got hired to replace me for roughly 20% more than what I asked for. So why on earth would I be loyal? The people running the show are hilariously short-sighted and can only see the beacon emanating from their VC buddies shoveling money their way, so whatever, I don't care ultimately if something I worked on dies or not.
- jsyang00 2y ago
  Some of it is greedy incompetence but a lot of it is just incentives structures. It is easier to make the justification in a lot of orgs that you need to go out and hire someone to replace someone who left at "market rate", than that you need to pay someone x% more, based on work that is probably nebulous to whoever you need to make the case to. I don't think there has ever been a time where this has not been the case outside of very small companies or niche operations. The same sort of incentives are endemic in a business of any scale, because ultimately org structures end up as pyramids and people will intrinsically compete to be at the top
  - scrubs 2y ago
    That's no kind of answer! The system made me do it is not an answer! Recall the incentive structures are made by management. So who in hell is in charge here? Management or the paperwork? People or the small 'c' culture of the company? There's no way to double talk or tap dance you're way out: management blew it. 9% is less than the new guy's pay. The old guy is pissed which is why he wrote post. And the rest of us have recorded one more reason "vaunted" American management is stuck on stupid. (Note I am American and work for American companies. I've had good experiences and terrible in the ol' USA. We have the fundamentals here but damn it too many management people just don't listen to it.)

downrightmike 2y ago

You trained yourself, you paid for your schooling, you continue to learn on your own dollar for the company. The company doesn't pay for any of that anymore like back in the day, so yes, you must do what you can to keep your career flowing, jobs are just stepping stones, they aren't entitled to loyalty, because they stopped being loyal first.

karaterobot 2y ago
Every company I've worked at has given me a yearly budget for education, or has just had a rubber stamp policy of paying for classes. I know a few older people whose companies paid for them to take night classes, but I didn't know it was as common as all that.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Consider yourself lucky. I haven’t had that in multiple decades, and no benefits at all for one. Then California came for my contracting job.

ApolloFortyNine 2y ago

>is it the 21st century, something fundamental about the industry, or the fact that software people feel they have more mobility, and thus less loyalty and patience? Well unions are pretty well known for prioritizing seniority above all else. It's one of the biggest negatives that come up against them.

ThrowawayR2 2y ago

The thing that is different is the ridiculously high demand for developers since the 1990s, minus downturns like the dot com bust. Developers can job hop and get perks because software is still in the process of eating the world. But no boom lasts forever. In other creative fields or games development, where supply far exceeds demand, the situation is much less favorable for workers and that's eventually where the software industry is going to be as well.

necovek 2y ago
I am not so sure that's true. Almost anything that gets created today involves some software, and infrequently some new software, in the pipeline. Do remember that there is a whole bunch of software that needs to be created for our household appliances, any electronic device (those tiny little SoCs that control a sensor or voltage or whatever), or tools used to make anything else. We are also in the midst of a push to get everything "digitized", including our entire homes, cars, buses, libraries, movie catalogs, music libraries, battery charging, communication infrastructure etc. And everyone keeps a computer or two or three (phone, smartwatch, tablet, fitness trackers) on them at almost all times — all these need software to do something useful. Basically, I think software developers are going to remain in need as long as we rely on computers. And just like farming has never gotten obsoleted because we continue to need food (though increasing the brute force of the tools we have has allowed us to rely on fewer farmers), we'll continue to need new software (it's still an open question if there are tools like Copilot that will enable us to achieve similar efficiency improvement and rely on fewer software developers, but my guess is no).

layer8 2y ago

Incidentally, this job-hopping is bad for software, because too much institutional knowledge is getting lost, and the job-hoppers don’t get to experience the long-term consequences of their design and implementation decisions.

pc86 2y ago
Good companies will allow time for documentation and testing[0], and great developers will make time for it whether it's officially there or not. [0] Mediocre unit tests are as good or better than pristine API docs that are slightly out of date.
- layer8 2y ago
  Having good documentation is great, but there is nevertheless a substantive cost in high turnover even if you have good documentation. Documentation doesn’t replace experience with the product or project, nor is it ever complete.
  - hosh 2y ago
    Looking back at my own career, I do not jump ship every 18 months, and I have been able to accumulate deep knowledge that are broadly applicable, that has enabled a lot of options when it is time to go to a new company. So in addition to having better continuity of institutional knowledge, there is a benefit to staying on longer (at least for me).
    - tacocataco 2y ago
      A financial benefit?
      - hosh 2y ago
        Versatility. That gives me options as the technology and business landscape changes.
2y ago

darth_avocado 2y ago

> company rewarded loyalty as much as, err, value creation Companies reward loyalty because they can keep you behind the market rates. Hiring a new person costs you market rates. Keeping you around with 2-3% increases every year with occasional promotions of 5% will ensure you stay behind the market.

pc86 2y ago

Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile.

chipdart 2y ago
> Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile. Let's see if you still hold that opinion in a few years when you reach your 40s/50s, can't find a job because ageism, and you have to compete with people who work 16h/day surviving on cold pizza and Red Bull.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Well, I'm 62, and I still hold that same opinion.
- pc86 2y ago
  Already well into that age range and have no trouble finding jobs because I'm productive and continue to upgrade my skills. Those habits are rewarded, as opposed to rewarding you for simply existing longer/having gotten hired earlier.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    > Already well into that age range and have no trouble finding jobs because I'm productive and continue to upgrade my skills > I "It's not happening to me, so it's not happening" says the programmer type, who isn't carrying 25kg loads up stairs 10+ times a day
    - pc86 2y ago
      I may be a "programmer type" but I do know 25kg isn't a lot of weight to carry around. The article is specifically about tech workers in Amazon, so I think it's pretty clear from that and the rest of the context that I was discussing unions in relation to tech workers. I was disputing the claim that you a) it's hard to get a job in your 40s or 50s, and b) if it is hard, it's because of ageism and not something you did (or didn't do). And as others have pointed out, there is certainly a class of employee who is going to be chugging energy drinks and working 16h a day but if you're 40+ you're not competing with them.

rurp 2y ago

There are a lot of factors for the change in loyalty but I think the single biggest one is from when the managerial class went all-in on outsourcing. Those execs didn't care that they had a factory full of workers that had been loyal for decades, they happily sent those job oversees for a bump in that year's profit (and the resulting bonus). The people making those decisions didn't care that so many families, towns and cities were ruined by these actions, through no fault of the workers. Given that betrayal of the old social contract, why on earth would anyone choose to be loyal to such companies? Work loyalty still exists with individual managers or owners of small businesses that actually interact with their workers, but these days most workers correctly assume that most corporations are being run with little regard to anything aside from profit; and those workers act accordingly.

michaelmrose 2y ago

That loyalty makes zero sense when one will be downsized in 0.1 seconds if it would make the CEO 1% richer and staying in the same role means getting paid less than market rate including new folks in the same org. As a uniom fellow he might well be overpaid if he at 30 years in makes a lot more than the 10 year guys while doing the same exact job as them. Basically people like your dad were getting tithed by management for loyalty while wondering why you don't tithe your company for security in a market where the most important goods require 2-5x as much. Many blue collar workers in the 70s could afford a house, a car and a wife who didn't work to take care of the home and kids.

dakiol 2y ago

> is it the 21st century, something fundamental about the industry, or the fact that software people feel they have more mobility, and thus less loyalty and patience? I would rather phrase the question as: why should any employee have loyalty towards a given company? The main goal of companies is to make money (if they could make money without employees, well imagine that). The main goal of an employee is also to make money. People don't usually work for free (there are exceptions, of course, I'm talking here about the vast majority of works and employees). Given these statements, it's natural that: a) companies get rid of employees that don't make money (unproductive employees). Layoffs happen every single day b) employees switch to other companies for more money. Obviously, this is easier to do in some industries than others, but the essence is the same in all of them

creshal 2y ago
> Layoffs happen every single day It didn't use to be that way, which is what OP was trying to get at. Companies used to reward loyalty with bonuses that scaled by tenure, and tried to retain workforces that they spent considerable resources on training, even through lean times.
- makestuff 2y ago
  Yeah the main issue I see now is that the only way to get more money is to be promoted into usually management. That causes everyone wanting to be mangers even though a lot of engineers should not be. However, they refuse to pay a senior engineer who runs circles around everyone more because they are at the top of the pay band. I would be perfectly fine staying at the same job with no promotion if it meant I got yearly raises/refreshers that outpaced inflation. In reality you have to job hop or get promoted to get a meaningful raise.
9dev 2y ago
Things used to be more local, and less cynical. You're of course correct in your assessment, logically speaking. But with a shred of empathy—on both sides—it is also clear that loyalty to your employer is beneficial to them, since they can rely on their workforce even if they face a rough year, and loyalty to your employees is beneficial to them, since they can rely on a stable job, even if live gives them a hard time. Both situations do occur all the time, and are just part of human existence. So I wonder if this is either the end-stage capitalism everyone is talking about, or the community aspect got thrown under the bus somewhere.

maeglin 2y ago

> 35 year career look what they took from us. I've been working for 24 years and I expect I'll be working 25-30 years more.

tacocataco 2y ago
Just prestige and start your career over. Not everyone wants what you want.

defen 2y ago

> Promotion is primarily seniority-based, and the company rewarded loyalty as much as, err, value creation. Because truckers don't "create value" the same way that software engineers do. If you had a company of 100 of the "top 0.1%" truck drivers, maybe you could charge a bit more because your insurance would be lower and you'd have fewer accidents and late deliveries. If you had a company with 100 of the "top 0.1%" software engineers there's a good chance you're on your way to having a company worth billions of dollars.

dghlsakjg 2y ago
Truckers with solid driving records and good ability get specialized jobs. If you have the top percentile of drivers chances are you’re making heaps of money moving oversized loads, nuclear materials or running time sensitive contracts.

hintymad 2y ago

I think the key is consistency, and it is consistency that is hard for a company to guarantee. If a company does not promote often, like Apple, employees will be content to stay where they are. But once the company starts to promote some people in a short time frame and especially some think the promoted do not deserve the promotion, the employees will start to envy, to demand a speedy promotion, and the company will slowly, sometimes even quickly, turn into a promotion-oriented culture. Case in point, working in Google was such a prestige 15 years ago, and few people would even think about reaching E6. What about now?

sensanaty 2y ago

Loyalty died because the C-suite are comically greedy idiots and don't care to keep the good workers by recognizing their worth. Mind you, they never really did, but people just realize it a bit more now, plus things have gotten worse in that regard. I can't tell you the amount of good colleagues I've seen leave because management was too stubborn to give them a 7% raise. The most baffling thing is that they'll have no qualms (or perhaps no choice) to subsequently replace them with someone else for at minimum double of whatever 7% would've cost them. This causes a cascading issue where people are annoyed that new hires get such a big boost while the current staff have to fight for every measly percentage increase, so the older employees slowly trickle out. I've had it happen myself too. A place I really enjoyed working at, I found the work great and had a great relationship... But the CTO stubbornly refused to give me a 9% raise. I referred my friend and started looking elsewhere. I got a roughly 30% paybump, and my friend got hired to replace me for roughly 20% more than what I asked for. So why on earth would I be loyal? The people running the show are hilariously short-sighted and can only see the beacon emanating from their VC buddies shoveling money their way, so whatever, I don't care ultimately if something I worked on dies or not.

jsyang00 2y ago
Some of it is greedy incompetence but a lot of it is just incentives structures. It is easier to make the justification in a lot of orgs that you need to go out and hire someone to replace someone who left at "market rate", than that you need to pay someone x% more, based on work that is probably nebulous to whoever you need to make the case to. I don't think there has ever been a time where this has not been the case outside of very small companies or niche operations. The same sort of incentives are endemic in a business of any scale, because ultimately org structures end up as pyramids and people will intrinsically compete to be at the top
- scrubs 2y ago
  That's no kind of answer! The system made me do it is not an answer! Recall the incentive structures are made by management. So who in hell is in charge here? Management or the paperwork? People or the small 'c' culture of the company? There's no way to double talk or tap dance you're way out: management blew it. 9% is less than the new guy's pay. The old guy is pissed which is why he wrote post. And the rest of us have recorded one more reason "vaunted" American management is stuck on stupid. (Note I am American and work for American companies. I've had good experiences and terrible in the ol' USA. We have the fundamentals here but damn it too many management people just don't listen to it.)