
Understanding the experiences and needs of a multigenerational workforce - indeed30
https://heartbeat.peakon.com/reports/working-better-together/
======
tacosx
We built an entire industry around increasing engagement stats and trying to
convince the permanent servant underclass to buy more stuff.

You'd have to be utterly insane to find meaning in that.

~~~
blatantlies
It is insane that there is a company like Peakon that its only product is
related to employee engagement but their own people seems to not be happy (see
glassdoor reviews).

What a time to be alive.

------
rayiner
The article rests on a fundamental logical error. They claim to be measuring
“millennials” versus “generation x” versus “baby boomers,” but actually
they’re measuring 18-35 year olds, etc. Those are different groups.
(Millennials will continue to be millennials even when they’re retired, for
example.) Obviously, younger people will have less belief in the organizations
mission, for example, since largely they’re still not the ones setting that
mission. That doesn’t mean that millennials as a group find work less
meaningful than their parents did at the same age.

Indeed, there is reason to believe the opposite. Millennials are generally
more conservative than the baby boomers were at the same age:
[https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/health/millennials-
conservati...](https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/health/millennials-conservative-
generations/index.html). That may carry over to attitudes towards things like
work.

------
CivilianZero
This is what happens when management still thinks they can just instill
"loyalty" in their employees and we'll happily putt along without raises as
they slowly cut more and more benefits and throw more "pizza parties" to
compensate.

------
motohagiography
The chart that showed which generations work most in which fields showed that
gen-X and boomers work in areas that are less precarious than those populated
by millennials.

I use the triad of "money, stability, and prestige," to weigh the value of a
role. Young people are naturally attracted to the money-prestige roles, where
older workers want stability-money roles. People who value prestige-stability
roles tend to be in academia, where prestige-money roles are in the
arts/media/politics/non-profit sectors. I am sure there is a gender/sex axis
for these preferences as well.

In terms of what you need in a role, admit you need prestige to increase your
profile that gets access to greater opportunity. Commit to valuing stability
if the things that are important to you are not in the marketplace, and if
money is truly your goal, recognize it's almost always made by forgoing
prestige and stability - those things come after, if at all.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Money and prestige converge as the income gap grows. Also with more
consolidation, the concept of stability changes since businesses themselves
aren’t as stable as before.

~~~
motohagiography
Arguably, prestige is a euphemism for "not worth it," in that it's what people
offer you when they don't want to pay market rate. See: title inflation,
exposure, opportunity, etc.

When you are making a decision about whether to take a role, stay with your
current one, or be content with it, the problem tends to reduce to a balance
of these factors. Mistaking one of these for another is the recipe for being
unsatisfied.

------
blatantlies
Peakon glassdoor reviews on the other hand are the worst. How a company in HR
industry can have such review and still offer such weak explanations for
employee engagement across different industries, at the same time be compliant
to GDPR (i.e.: not have any insight from the data but highly aggregated
stats?)

------
bruxis
I couldn't gleam this information easily from the article, but I presume these
surveys were given to each age group at the same time.

If that's correct, couldn't age (specifically life experience) play a large
factor in the results? Certainly as I get older, my perspective on work -- and
everything, really -- has been changing.

~~~
supergeek133
It also changes with experiences. I used to be SUPER gung ho about work.
Dedicated, etc. Then I was laid off.

Changed my whole perspective. Company DOES NOT love you back. If possible,
love what you do, and get paid enough to be comfortable.

For instance, my commute matters to me more than just about anything now. I'm
10 minutes from the office and can work from home if I want, and it's actually
one of my first thoughts when talking to a recruiter.

Environment matters to some people too more than anything, but for me I want
to get along with my boss, like my job most days, not be in the car for an
hour a day and get paid enough to pay my bills and have a little extra.

For context I'm 36.

------
ForHackernews
"Using our cutting edge analysis, we've empirically determined that highly-
paid employees looking forward to their fat pensions are more satisfied with
their working environment than low-paid employees with no benefits. That'll be
$2MM for consulting on intergenerational workplaces, thanks."

------
cafard
The youngest boomer, on these calculations, is 54 going on 55. With some luck
he or she has established a career.

At the mid-millenial age of 31, I wasn't happy about my pay, cause it wasn't
much, or for part of the time about my work, because it was tedious and needed
a change.

------
caseymarquis
The article seems to imply direct causation of the results from membership in
a 'generation', but it seems much more likely to be the result of length of
time spent in the labor market.

------
chaosbutters
what pay? we get paid?

~~~
rayiner
Adjusted for household size, millennials households are higher income than for
previous generations at the same age: [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2018/12/11/young-adult...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2018/12/11/young-adult-households-are-earning-more-than-most-older-
americans-did-at-the-same-age).

Millennial households headed by college graduates have an income over
$100,000: [https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-
yo...](https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-
adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-
generations/psdt_02-14-19_generations-00-04). For the silent generation in
1968, that was under $70,000 (in inflation adjusted dollars).

~~~
eirini1
which is an utterly useless metric unless it also takes how the world
surrounding us has changed. Just from numbers in the article, housing has
become 10 times as expensive, and the millenial generation has a significantly
higher debt. I didn't know college graduates made 70k in the 60s, it sounds
like an absurdly high number and if I were to guess what kind of salary you'd
need to have today to have the same lifestyle and financial security I'd say
its at least 250k.

~~~
rayiner
You’re mixing inflation adjusted versus non inflation adjusted numbers.
$70,000 is adjusted for inflation. Housing costs have increased faster than
inflation in some places, but not by a factor of 10. Indeed, nationally, the
price per square foot for housing has stayed pretty stable for the last 40
years: [https://www.supermoney.com/2019/01/inflation-adjusted-
home-p...](https://www.supermoney.com/2019/01/inflation-adjusted-home-prices/)

There are two aspects to that trend:

1) People are buying bigger houses. That is consistent with the fact that
they’re making more money. Instead of just having extra money, they’re buying
bigger houses.

2) People are buying new houses in the south, where they’re cheap. That makes
sense too. A house in Palo Alto is a lot more than it was in 1970. But Palo
Alto wasn’t Palo Alto in 1970. Today it’s East Egg. Your $2.5 million is
buying you into a haven for the elite. But back then, it was Round Rock. You
were buying into a nice, but otherwise ordinary suburb. You can still buy a
nice family house in a good school district for $250,000 in Round Rock.

