[jollybean]

I'm sympathetic to the later part, but first part not what they want.

They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive).

That means more risk and all the things that come along with it.

I think even 'remote work' will have a serious of consequences we're not ready to accept, which is that it will make workers even more fungible.

If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more easily replaced or changed around.

We need to fixing housing costs badly though.

[SQueeeeeL]

https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_...

This talk really changed my thought process on careers. Basically every corporation in America is fundamentally unstable to work for, where you COULD be laid off for essentially arbitrary fiscal goals. That instability makes it impossible to trust your leaders (i.e. the company) to actually support you. As long as the people who pay your salary don't think long term about organizational health, people will be forced to play games and constantly job hop.

[b3morales]

This coupled with the fact in tech at least that the easiest way to get a raise -- and usually a substantial one -- is to switch to a new company. If a person can either: spend a year genuflecting and begging their manager for a single-digit raise*, or spend three weeks interviewing and get 15%-plus more to do substantially the same work...all else being equal, which should we pick?

*Not to complain about 5%. For the vast majority of workers that's an unattainable dream -- but that just furthers the point that the worker is not treated as an asset.

[donkeyd]

> They want the dynamism of being able to change jobs and careers, they all want the opportunity for career progression which for the most part isn't there (it's always been competitive).

Why do people want this though? 50 years ago, you could be a mechanic, work 50 hours a week and own a house. The wife could be at home to take care of the kids. These days, both have to work 60 hours a week to afford a rental apartment.

in the 70's, a home cost about 4.5 times the median yearly household income. Right now it's about 7 times the yearly income. That doesn't seem like a massive increase (even though it's more than a 50% increase), but employment of married women also increased from 40% to 60%. So while we have, on average, more earners in a household, we pay more of our income on housing. It's a double whammy.

So people want careers in order to start earning a living wage in order to be able to actually raise kids and live a meaningful life in a nice home. People don't just want a career because they want a career, they want that because they don't want to be wage slaves who don't get to live a life. Also, they don't get to raise their kids, because they don't have time for that.

[b3morales]

Absolutely. Another HN commenter put it very nicely in a recent similar thread: people are working so they can make enough money to afford to be able to work.

If two adults have to work full time to have a house with kids, then they also have to be making enough for child care and various other things that they might be able to do more cheaply if only one of them was working.

[zaptheimpaler]

> If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more easily replaced or changed around.

Remote is the _only_ option for 90% of great jobs if you live anywhere outside a few big tech hubs.

[Kototama]

> If someone literally can't show up for work ... then they're generally going to be seen as more fungible.

It depends of the company culture.