Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Tade0 1123 days ago
People often have to uproot their lives to get into a new role. It's only ultimately worth it if it's a long-term commitment on both sides.

Also later in life having to suddenly switch jobs is neither easy nor desirable.

3 comments

This is more true in non-tech fields pre-pandemic. These days remote positions are more prevalent than ones that require relocation in tech and some other fields.
Cry me a river, the same people who demand a long-term commitment from their employer will jump ship in an instant for 10k more after 6 months of employment. Companies are full of them.
When a person moves to another company, the company doesn't have to move to another state and restart its social life from scratch. The person with more power, needs to take more responsibility. Holy batman, sometimes I feel like people don't even have a heart anymore.
Isn’t it your responsibility to weigh the pros and cons and risk for uprooting your family for more compensation?

It’s business. It’s purely transactional. Why would you expect a company to “have a heart”?

Because I thought in America businesses were people. And I have been fortunate enough to work with businesses which seem like they have a heart. Consequently, I've rejected several offers to come work in America for extra pay. I think a system which is purely transactional is inferior, boring and at times immoral due to power imbalance. Society is not a computer program, businesses exist in society and they should behave like that.
And for that tradeoff, tech companies pay a lot more in America.

A returning intern I mentored at $BigTech got an offer coming straight out of college that was twice the median wage in America and it’s a remote job.

They save a crap ton of money every month in case things go wrong.

Cry me a river. Will the company have to uproot its family to find a new worker?
I don't understand how the convenience of the worker makes it fairer to demand loyalty but not reciprocate. Sounds entitled and self-serving.
I don't understand how you don't understand that. It's a power differential that frustrates people. You can be fired from an employer without it affecting their bottom line, but having it drastically affect your bottom line.

Also, what the hell are you talking about about them "not demanding loyalty"? Big companies demand loyalty all the time. When I worked at an Apple, I had to sign a whole bunch of non-compete forms. Talk about "demanding loyalty"; I technically wasn't even allowed to open a Github issue on an open source project without permission. The only leverage you have as an employee is quitting.

The same way a company can find another employee, the employee can find another job. Also claiming that leaving a company doesn't affect a company's bottom line reflects more about the quality of the work the employee does, rather than the economic reality of the company. If your work doesn't affect the bottom line maybe you shouldn't have the job, that's why you are getting paid to have an impact on the bottom line, not to drink latte, have yoga sessions and raising your children while you are 'working' from home.

Where did I actually say that companies do not ask for loyalty?

I think your first paragraph is sort of self-evidently silly so there's not much to say there. Good employees leave, or die, and most of the time it doesn't kill the company.

> Where did I actually say that companies do not ask for loyalty?

You didn't explicitly, but you did say "worker makes it fairer to demand loyalty but not reciprocate". I'm claiming that the non-competes already demand a lot of loyalty, but the companies do not reciprocate it.

The reason no one shows loyalty is exactly because it is not reciprocated. Why should the employee have to be loyal when they are just a number to an HR department and the CEO will strike off their job without a second thought? You have things backwards. People used to be loyal, back when you could work at a place, grow your career, and retire with a pension. It wasn't the laborers who broke the loyalty deal.
The first part of your response is just equivocation. The latter is just an assertion lacking substantial evidence.
I don't know how I can provide evidence without access to JSTOR. I don't feel like spending $30/paper to come up with statistics and studies for you.
You're delusional.
If you want loyalty, hire contractors. You can't expect people (especially individuals) to act like they're in a contract without the upsides.
The same goes for the employee. It’s a two-way street.
Are you serious right now? You can talk to your therapist about it, noone on this earth cares about some corpos losing money or workers.
This started after the Welch acolytes in corporate America broke the employee/employer contract.
Anyone who thought that any job was long term was naive. Did they not read the whole “at will” work thing that I have signed before accepting any job.

I have never in my 25+ years in tech thought that any job was going to be “long term”.

I also sacrificed more compensation for the stability of my family until my youngest graduated and then I took a job at BigTech.

It didn’t require me to relocate. But it could have required extensive travel.