Hacker News Reader

Comment by foofie | Hacker News Reader

> Really exemplifies the generational gap!

To me it reads like a desperate attempt to get some attention by trying to take the author down a peg or two, for absolutely no reason.

The author was hired by Amazon, Microsoft, and Google in a span of 3 years. The vast majority of the tech sector dreams of landing a job with each of those employers, let alone go through multiple of them. The author is obviously good hiring material, and none of the world-class employers saw that as a problem.

But the LinkedIn rando is oh so far better than everyone in the world, and has a far superior hiring bar.

I bet he also posts comments on news pieces on supermodels getting married on how he doesn't consider them appealing.

View on HN

Many short employments are a red flag for some sort of really bad issue with the person in question. It could be something as banal as an awful personality, which won't always come across when you check references.

For me it's simple. I don't accept working through pay cuts and raises aren't enough to overcome inflation thus I get pay cuts. You bet your ass I'm jumping ship.

> Many short employments are a red flag for some sort of really bad issue with the person in question.

I think you're jumping to conclusions with a pror belief it's a bad sign to accept better job offers when one is presented to you. You are not a bad employee if a recruiter reaches out to you with a better job. You are not a bad employee if you make the mistake of accepting an offer to work for an abusive employer, and you don't put up with the abuse. You are not a bad employee if your employer starts massive layoffs and you don't stick around to wait for the downfall.

Where exactly does this victim mentality come from, where the only conceivable scenario where an employee is a good boy is if it sticks around when he's being screwed over by his employer?

> for absolutely no reason

There’s an overhead of the cost of the hiring process, plus a months-long ramp up. So if you hire people that move around a lot, you end up paying more of that overhead, with less productive work being done.

> So if you hire people that move around a lot (...)

That's not what the author is saying.

His point was about company loyalty, not randomly hopping between jobs.

If your employer fails to value you, does not provide good working conditions and is unable or unwilling to review your salary to match your market value, only an idiot would not accept a better job offer when one presents itself. You might bend over backwards for your job, but your employer will drop you at a moment's notice.

If you are a HR minion and after reading this article your position is that you would pass on this candidate for absolutely no reason at all other than he might accept a better offer, that tells more about your incompetence and your employer's inability to compete in the job market than it tells about any candidate.

It's ok if this sort of HR type that grandstands in LinkedIn does indeed pass on candidates based on this nonsense. This just means they are personally the reason why their company fails to retain workers and thus is forced to waste more resources replacing those who are not good enough to be extended an offer from competitors. But that tells more about the value they destroy in their company than it does about any candidate.

So no, this is not the flex they believe it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com