Hacker News Reader

Comment by _dczq | Hacker News Reader

Is the average tenure truly due to "employee choice" or simply a result of the system we created?

Its employee choice. People get bored, they get tired of processes, and there are plenty of companies willing to hire them that will allow them to try something new, do something different, and deal with different processes.

Unions could help in each of these case, so you haven't answered the question or provided any evidence.

Please don't move the goalpost. My comment was responding to your comment about average tenure, not unions specifically. You didn't raise any questions on how unions played into average tenure or provide any example of how they could help.

No goalposts were moved. I questioned the premise of OP's comment on whether unions can exist in a world where employees choose to switch jobs every 2-3 years.

You responded with an authoritative answer backed up with zero evidence or supporting data. That it was about unions is an embedded assumption based on that fact that the entire discussion is about unions.

There is no help needed. People are perfectly happy switching employers, and companies are perfectly happy paying to get or retain talent. This ecosystem has made Silicon Valley what it is today.

==This ecosystem has made Silicon Valley what it is today.==

I assume this is referring to the technological innovation and corporate profits of Silicon Valley. I would ask you to consider, from a broader perspective, what Silicon Valley is today. Specifically, in relation to elevated levels of depression [1], suicide [2] and inequality [3].

Isn't it worth exploring whether the same working conditions that benefit the top 10-20% are having a negative effect on the other 80-90%?

[1] https://money.cnn.com/mostly-human/silicon-valleys-secret/

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-sil...

[3] https://fortune.com/2018/10/16/silicon-valleys-income-inequa...

I believe it's the result of the system we've created. Frogs leap from boiling water, and there's no sense in calling that "frog choice": obviously, the water is too hot.

That workplaces are universally intolerable after 2-3--as is accepted industry common knowledge--is not a matter of individual preference, but systemic inadequacy of workplace conditions.

Burnout is not a personal problem, it is an institutional pandemic.

> One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

-- Carol Hanisch, "The Personal Is Political", in Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation

Good point. Employees are often promised very interesting projects, career growth and salary increases. Very often it turns out to be a bunch of lies and people move on and the cycle continues.

Despite all the claims on HN on how good life is for software engineers, our field has very high burnout rates and it's very ageist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com