It seems like such a crazy dynamic at the moment, there must be some sage economic/social/network theory that helps explain what's going on.
Perhaps it's just a case of 'social collusion' in finance; I'm sure it has a better name. Excuse my memory, but I recall with the dot-com bubble a particular financial analyst, I can't remember her name, called out the emperor's lack of clothes, and very shortly after the market crashed. This time, again forgive the memory lapse, a financier targeted Google and tech wages, even though I'm not sure wages can ever really be in a bubble, and seems, along with or just signalling, the fed's machinations, to have triggered this wave of layoffs, etc.
Wouldn’t the ‘sage theory’ simply be that: this is a recession. Perhaps it’s just been too long since the last one (17ish years?) for people to recall recessions. Last time I got stuck in a very boring job too, for 4 painful years. Probably a good time to study, they say.
I'd rather be in a boring job than a stressful job.
I'm on a team that's talking about PIPing me and I have no opportunities to move to internal teams because there are so few open positions at my level. External job posting seem terrible right now in my area.
"Late stage capitalism" implies that capitalism is doomed to fail. In reality it is a system of constant change. Wealth inequality has always existed. Some problems like housing are newer problems that require solutions but don't point to an inevitable collapse. Are we also in "late stage democracy" and "late stage big government"? We won't know until after the collapse.
Late stage capitalism refers to the stage where the field has become dominated by a relatively few big players and the focus shifts from providing value (which was required in the early stages with lots of smaller competing players) to extracting value. That's where we are now in many of the big economic areas - a few big players squeezing everyone by providing less and charging more for it because they can. It's the enshitification stage. It sucks for everyone but the owners of those companies.
That could be viewed as a piece of "late stage capitalism" but that's only one part, right? The problem with the term is it's a catch-all for any perceived problem with capitalism. Maybe that issue is just a capitalism speed bump. As I said, we won't know we're in late stage until after the collapse.
It's 'late' as in a stage that comes after the earlier stages. A collapse isn't guaranteed nor inevitable. There could just be a continual freezing out of competition until all that's left are entrenched classes of 'capital owners / rent extractors' living large, and everyone else struggling to get by. With modern computer-aided surveillance and monitoring and compliance capabilities, the capital owners could maintain the system pretty effectively. No collapse, just a a slow slide into well managed misery.
There will always be "haves" and "have nots". That's been the case since forever. Standard Oil ruled the world. AT&T did, too. I agree that monopolies are bad. We should pressure our government to break them up. Will that help with people trying to find jobs in an inferior job market? That's where this conversation started. We need a strong job market. Competition can help that. We will always have bad job markets, though. It's part of the cycle. Nothing lasts forever.
One thing that we have, these days, is the luxury of believing that we have a right to be happy in our jobs. Tech people have this in spades. I love working in tech. It inspires and motivates me. I like it so much, I kept doing it, long after I no longer needed to.
I think that's actually a fairly recent thing (like leisure time, which was really something only rich people had, once upon a time). There's still plenty of jobs that people have to do, that they don't look forward to, and are waiting for retirement. Some, pay quite well, but they aren't fun.
It's great to make a good living, and have a vocation that energizes and motivates us. We spend the majority of our time at our gig, so it makes sense that we should be happy, there. Employers want us to be happy, so we'll spend more time with them.
But there's a price to be paid for being relaxed and happy. I find that I need pressure, to get stuff shipped. These days, I do it for free (retired), and have to provide my own pressure. It works. The trick for most managers, is to be able to keep the pressure up, without making life miserable for their employees, because miserable employees are not productive ones.
I knew a very well-paid Derivatives Analyst (so you know this was a while ago). She used to work for a major bank, and told me how they would bring catered meals to her desk, and provide complimentary limousine drives home, if she stayed past train time. They also had world-class daycare.
She was pretty happy with her job, and stayed, until the bottom fell out of the market. I didn't have much contact with her, at that time, but I know she bounced around a bit. Not sure what she's up to, nowadays. I'm sure that she was under a tremendous amount of pressure, but some folks thrive on it. I know that she made a shitload of money, for a while.
This is a fine attitude to have if employers only want their employees to do the bare minimum.
Happy employees need not be the pampered and coddled college style employees Google made famous. They just need to be appreciated. And managers need to create environments that are not safe spaces where no strife happens but that can be a place where people feel appreciated and capable of making changes.
I feel none of this at my current role just golden handcuffs that keep me here.
I feel that a lot of today's tech culture seems to be a continuation of college culture, but that's only conjecture, on my part. I never went to college (high school dropout, with a GED, and a couple of years of tech school). I learned, very early on, that I needed to sing for my supper, and I feel that established a fairly good work ethic. Without a fancy sheepskin, absolutely no one ever cut me slack, or gave me much of a break because I had the right school tie. I've had to prove myself, on a continuous basis, for my entire adult life. It can get fairly exhausting.
My experience comes from working for highly structured corporations. The pay wasn't abysmal, but wasn't that great, either. The pressure could be pretty intense; especially at the last corporation (a famous Japanese optical company). I stayed there, for almost 27 years. The reasons I stayed, are many, but money sure wasn't one.
I saved enough to be able to retire, when the tech industry let me know that I was too old for them (at 55). I'm not rich, but happier than I ever thought I had a right to be. Also, I do more work, and am much more productive, than I ever was, as a wage slave.
I am trying to do that. I am
Happiest when I am on holidays away from my job. I just need to get to that number and I’ll never go back to selling my body, soul, and time and talents for a wage.
I would argue it's a mix, some need pressure from their boss while others require a sense of purpose to what they're doing. Both feed into to each other but depending on a persons internal drive one factor or another will be best in helping keep someone productive and on task.
Equally I'm finding that at the upper leadership level (c level) a lot of companies are directionless which feeds down the whole chain and makes it difficult for middle managers to convey the importance of the work to be done. I'm sure this differs for blue collar work though since the tasks are more set in stone by design documents and safety codes.
I'm personally still trying to figure out if the lack of direction from above comes from a mixture of lack of personal interest and leadership training. Or if overall leadership training has fallen to the wayside and many lack the ability to properly communicate and plan for the future.
To be fair though I haven't had any experience as a manager or c level so I very much could just be lacking perspective.
> leisure time, which was really something only rich people had, once upon a time)
Disagree, its been shown that hunter gatherer tribes in various locations generally only need to work for about 4h a day on average.
I believe the “there is only time for work” stuff turned up as power structures developed. A pair of busy hands has less time to plot to overthrow the overlords, after all.
Let employees earn the ability to take a low-pay sabbatical once they get an itch to leave and/or burnout. Companies make extended absences work for parental leave, so just do that for more people more often
There is an available option for this: FMLA. It can be difficult to find a doctor to sign off, if you haven't already been in therapy though, which is unfortunate. When you realize you're burned out, it's usually past the point where you need a hand. FMLA doesn't guarantee salary but it does require that medical coverage is maintained and that your job is safe. SDI can help with income, which is why you need a doctor involved.
Neat program of internal try before you buy job rotation program. Even internally, employees have feel like they can leave or they never will. It helps both the employee and company grow.
Never a fan of constant job hopping myself - I think you need time to grow and that doesn’t mean chasing salary for your entire life. It’s important to settle somewhere for a while and learn/grow.
So it’s good if a company is big enough to find creative ways to keep employees engaged
But the biggest benefit to an employee job hopping are the pay increases.
I hopped teams a few times internally and my pay has been abysmal. Many companies aren't big enough to have enough open roles at the same level and next level in the right languages for a solid career track. At least for me, every move ended up being different languages/stacks from the previous team. There was no continuity and now my career has turned into a lower paying job and I've been identified as a low performer. The unstable environment and lack of past rewards from when i was a high performer has made me unengaged.
I feel like the main reason I'm stuck is both directly and indirectly due to my disability. I believed the company about how great they are and specialized in work that needed to be done but didn't have external opportunities. And of course interviewing and changing jobs isn't easy, but is especially hard for someone like me.
> I think you need time to grow and that doesn’t mean chasing salary for your entire life. It’s important to settle somewhere for a while and learn/grow.
While it is indeed important to find a place where one can settle and grow, it’s crucial to recognise that the concept of personal and professional development has evolved significantly, particularly among younger generations. The meaning of "settle" has changed a lot.
Today many professionals view career growth through a different lens. For them, personal development often involves seeking new challenges, acquiring diverse skills, and gaining varied experiences, which sometimes necessitates moving between jobs. While salary is a factor in these decisions, it’s not always the most influential one.
A significant concern for many young talents is the lack of meritocratic promotion structures in many organizations. They often find themselves in environments where hierarchical seniority is valued over actual competence and performance. This can be particularly frustrating when they have to report to or work with less competent senior team members, which can stifle their growth and innovation.
Furthermore, the workplace culture plays a crucial role. Toxic environments, where outdated practices and rigid hierarchies prevail, are unappealing to young professionals who value collaboration, transparency, and inclusivity. This disparity in expectations and experiences is driving many talented individuals to seek better opportunities elsewhere.
The result of an outdated work concept, which is still encountered too frequently, is that one often ends up dealing with superiors who have grown within the company’s hierarchy (they are “settled”), possessing authority but not corresponding technical skills or respect in the eyes of their subordinates.
In the future, as the younger generation enters the workforce, this will become increasingly less acceptable.
While settling down to grow is a valuable approach, it’s equally important to understand that growth, for many professionals today, involves finding environments that foster learning, respect competence, and provide clear, merit-based paths for advancement.
Formal job hopper here - but never for salary reasons more for learning and finding a good boss.
But totally agree that staying somewhere and learning and grow is what keeps employees. I unfortunately went through 2 payoffs and twice I has boss that shielded me off.
My advice is keep employees engaged with constant learning and new challenges.
PS: Job hopping has such a negative connotation - I hate when people say it’s moneywise. I learned way more than staying in a endless repetitive job with a boss that shielded me off.
I switched jobs several times over COVID, and it was always culture-related. One where I joined a FE dev and was immediately told they had a churn problem. I quickly learned why.
Sometimes job hopping is about keeping the goals you have for yourself and your career intact at the cost of some short-term 'reputation'.
HR says so often that we're 'people first' and then raises an eyebrow when you give a real accounting of the quick moves. It's so frustrating and backwards.
Any advice? I really keep getting rejected by HR while when I get in via friends I normally make it to the final rounds / or it’s a startup in tech where hops don’t matter as they will check performance.
Here we have "fruity" Wednesdays/Thursdays/Fridays... At least it's not the proverbial carrot on a stick - it would be too hard to catch and bite it. /s
I work in education. More specifically, primary education. I chose the field because I was passionate about wanting the change the landscape and modernize teaching practices. But, it was also very in-demand in my area and easy to get a job in the field. I live in a former large manufacturing hub for the auto industry. Working in publicly funded education, we have strong union protections, pensions, healthcare and life insurance. In large part because of the past gains from the manufacturing sector. The job comes with security and a set salary on a defined grid.
This past year marked my tenth full-time year in teaching. I've been reflecting often on my career thus far. When I started out, I wasn't sure that I would continue teaching primary school. I promised myself that I would do it for five years and keep savings high to allow myself to return to studying if I wanted to change fields. Most of my fellow graduates work now in government or education. Ten years in, I have a competitive salary that allows me a good standard of living. I didn't return to school. Although, I did upgrade courses to allow me to change roles. And, I'm now on the edge of starting a family. The career that I was fortunate and lucky enough to start is actually a perfect fit for having children.
The thing is I do feel stuck. There aren't many other career paths that would give me the same salary and job-security. I'm decent at the job. But, I'm not enjoying it. It's ridiculously stressful. Doesn't feel as fulfilling as it did. And, there is a culture of working on your off-hours to do the tasks that we aren't actually remunerated to do. Being a government employee, you often feel that your working environment is changing at the whims of politicians.
Because I'm passionate about technology. That's why I read hn. But, my only experience in tech was seeing entry-level help-desk workers and area tech support consultants. It seemed like miserable work. I was told my many respected adults, that technology could continue to be my passion and major hobby. It's true, my standard of living does allow me every tech toy I could have ever wanted and new computers I could only dream about. I'm weighing the positives and negatives.
If you like technology you could always slowly transition into teaching technology. Highschool programming courses, student robotics teams, etc might be fun?
Where Im from those programs and activity are usually ran by multiple teachers and need a lot more than hard science knowledge to run well. For you they could provide a on ramp into more and more tech without losing too much of what you have know
> The challenge for companies, executives say, is how to find ways to create growth opportunities even if that doesn’t mean a substantial pay raise or a title change.
I do not think this is new. In the company I am working for this happens at least since the early 00s. For most employees it only works for some years, though.
