3 ms·

OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire

OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. People should leave jobs as soon as they realize they aren't going to learn or grow where they are. This can happen after 8 years, or 3 months. Companies don't promise to employ people for 3 years regardless of whether they are any good, so why should an employee be expected to pay dues in a job that's obviously not going to lead anywhere? The "job hopper" stigma is perpetuated by people who only want the side of "at will" that benefits them. I will say that most 22-year-olds need to be better at figuring out when a job is worth leaving, because I've seen error on both sides. Everyone gets grunt work when they start out, but there are chef's apprentices (who still get grunt work, but are being primed for something better) and there are dishwashers, and it's important to figure out, in an entry-level job, which of these you are. That's a separate matter altogether. I've known a few job hoppers and they're not all people with bad judgment. That said, people should generally go into jobs with the intention and hope of being there for at least 2 years, but I think that goes without saying.

achompas 14y ago
Hey Mike! Hope you're doing well. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. I think you're misrepresenting OP's argument here. He's arguing that younger people with repeated job jumps may raise flags at prospective employers. I tend to agree with OP, too. Jumping between gigs can be a problem, especially for people with little experience, since shorter job stints mean you don't get a chance to work with multiple people in the company or work on increasingly complex projects. Both can be problematic from a career development point of view. I agree with your point about young 20-somethings, though: most probably don't know how to evaluate offers -- compensation, benefits, culture, and their bosses -- well enough when they graduate. I know I didn't.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Hey! How are you doing? I just sent you an email. Are you still at the same company? I know what the OP's saying, and I'm probably exaggerating my normal reaction. I just feel like this idea that "job hoppers" are the problem rather than a symptom is a bit ridiculous. I don't know anyone who goes into a job intending to bolt after 1 year. I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion) than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables based on the average. I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead attached.
  - vonmoltke 14y ago
    I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion) than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables based on the average. That was the driving reason I ultimately left my first company. I had success in the first several years either getting promoted or new internal positions, but hit a wall about 3 years ago in a position that slowly made me miserable. I got negative progress in my efforts to find another internal position.[1] I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead attached. I never did that, but I thought about it a couple times. [1] I was basically labelled "disloyal" for wanting to find a new position.
MartinCron 14y ago
OP is a wanker. Wah-wah The rest of your post was really good, you don't need to debase it with that kind of pointless drivel.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  On the contrary - I thought it was a pretty accurate description of the article, especially when you have statements like: Expect to spend 2 to 3 years learning how the company works, though it may be longer before opportunities arise. And people think millenials are entitled. Sheesh.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    I may be unusual, but it doesn't take me 2-3 years to get a sense of how a company works. I won't know all the details, because no one can, but I can generally figure out what the company values and who the players are (and whether I have a chance of joining them) pretty quickly. Taking 2 years to figure out whether an opportunity is worth pursuing isn't honorable; it's a way to get overinvested in what would otherwise be minuscule mistakes. If the game is worth playing, you have to execute and that takes time. That can take 2-5+ years. Whatever the vision is, it's going to take a lot of effort to put it together. But you can usually figure out when a game is not worth playing in a couple of months. I'm not saying that people should quit a job after a shitty week because even the best jobs have bad spells, but people shouldn't waste time because of a need to keep up a false appearance of loyalty. Again, it comes down to this: are you the chef's protege, or are you washing dishes?
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    I don't have a problem with the message. I have a problem with the tone.
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      But not a problem with the tone or content of the original article? Maybe it's because I'm Australian, but if the OP is a wanker, I don't see a problem with calling him on it.
lkbm 14y ago
> OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. Insults and straw men don't belong here.
SatvikBeri 14y ago
I've always viewed staying at the same company for a very long time (10+ years) as a potential red flag. Your fastest growth comes from a new company or new position. And anecdotally, most of the more successful people I know have had an average job tenure of 2-4 years.

achompas 14y ago

Hey Mike! Hope you're doing well. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. I think you're misrepresenting OP's argument here. He's arguing that younger people with repeated job jumps may raise flags at prospective employers. I tend to agree with OP, too. Jumping between gigs can be a problem, especially for people with little experience, since shorter job stints mean you don't get a chance to work with multiple people in the company or work on increasingly complex projects. Both can be problematic from a career development point of view. I agree with your point about young 20-somethings, though: most probably don't know how to evaluate offers -- compensation, benefits, culture, and their bosses -- well enough when they graduate. I know I didn't.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Hey! How are you doing? I just sent you an email. Are you still at the same company? I know what the OP's saying, and I'm probably exaggerating my normal reaction. I just feel like this idea that "job hoppers" are the problem rather than a symptom is a bit ridiculous. I don't know anyone who goes into a job intending to bolt after 1 year. I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion) than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables based on the average. I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead attached.
- vonmoltke 14y ago
  I think one of the most perverse things about the job market is that it's, in almost all companies, a lot harder to get a transfer (much less promotion) than to get a new job. Job hopping exists because companies impose timetables based on the average. That was the driving reason I ultimately left my first company. I had success in the first several years either getting promoted or new internal positions, but hit a wall about 3 years ago in a position that slowly made me miserable. I got negative progress in my efforts to find another internal position.[1] I've actually known people to look for jobs within their own companies using external recruiters because it's easier to do it that way than through the official transfer process, which often has bureaucracy and political overhead attached. I never did that, but I thought about it a couple times. [1] I was basically labelled "disloyal" for wanting to find a new position.

MartinCron 14y ago

OP is a wanker. Wah-wah The rest of your post was really good, you don't need to debase it with that kind of pointless drivel.

anthonyb 14y ago
On the contrary - I thought it was a pretty accurate description of the article, especially when you have statements like: Expect to spend 2 to 3 years learning how the company works, though it may be longer before opportunities arise. And people think millenials are entitled. Sheesh.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I may be unusual, but it doesn't take me 2-3 years to get a sense of how a company works. I won't know all the details, because no one can, but I can generally figure out what the company values and who the players are (and whether I have a chance of joining them) pretty quickly. Taking 2 years to figure out whether an opportunity is worth pursuing isn't honorable; it's a way to get overinvested in what would otherwise be minuscule mistakes. If the game is worth playing, you have to execute and that takes time. That can take 2-5+ years. Whatever the vision is, it's going to take a lot of effort to put it together. But you can usually figure out when a game is not worth playing in a couple of months. I'm not saying that people should quit a job after a shitty week because even the best jobs have bad spells, but people shouldn't waste time because of a need to keep up a false appearance of loyalty. Again, it comes down to this: are you the chef's protege, or are you washing dishes?
- MartinCron 14y ago
  I don't have a problem with the message. I have a problem with the tone.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    But not a problem with the tone or content of the original article? Maybe it's because I'm Australian, but if the OP is a wanker, I don't see a problem with calling him on it.

lkbm 14y ago

> OP is a wanker. Wah-wah, Millennials are entitled and don't want to do 70 hours per week of our grunt work, and they leave before they burn out and we can fire them. Insults and straw men don't belong here.

SatvikBeri 14y ago

I've always viewed staying at the same company for a very long time (10+ years) as a potential red flag. Your fastest growth comes from a new company or new position. And anecdotally, most of the more successful people I know have had an average job tenure of 2-4 years.