Hacker News Reader

Comment by saraid216 | Hacker News Reader

> I still don't get why people are attached to the concept of company loyalty in the first place. Maybe it made sense back in the era where you'd work for a company for 2+ decades and retire on a pension, but we don't live in that world anymore.

Why not? What changed?

It's not enough reason to dismiss a concept by saying, "Times changed." You have to examine why they changed and whether or not the things lost are worth preserving or reinventing for the new era.

View on HN

Good question. I keep answering this one and I hope it becomes a more common question.

Let's start with at-will employment. Basically, when I'm hired, I sign a document that says that the company may fire me whenever it feels like it, no questions asked, with 2 weeks notice. During my parents' generation, you'd get hired provisionally for a short term contract, and then if they like you you'd be hired in the longer term (year to 5-year).

If this is the kind of loyalty we get from companies these days, then what kind of loyalty do they deserve? At will employment goes both ways, of course. I can quit whenever I want.

It's also up to an employer to keep their offer competitive. If I have a potentially better deal somewhere else, why shouldn't I go there? The default reaction of employers to increasing market salaries is to ignore that fact unless you specifically go ask for a raise or comply with some set of arbitrary rules. How is that a demonstration of goodwill? If you want me to stay, you have to pay me what I'm worth. If you don't think I'm worth that, but I think I am, why is it surprising that I'd change jobs? If I succeeded in changing, clearly someone agreed with me.

If you want me to stay despite non-stellar salary / benefits, you'd better have some other benefit such as: a) your product is my baby and I get personal recognition b) good career development & learning opportunities c) a potential to be great.

Basically, if you want me to take a chance on you, you have to take a chance on me.

Exactly.

What changed?

The '80s happened. Greed is good.

The decades of corporatist funded libertarian populist propaganda finally started to work.

Supply side economics. Mergers and acquisitions. Corporate raiders. Looting pensions. Gaming investment vehicles, or outright fraud. Long-term sustained assault on labor. Offshoring, outsourcing, guest workers. Regressive taxation. Defaults. Bailouts. Deficit spending. Etc.

The inclusion of the word 'populist' in this post confuses me. Does populist not mean 'for the people', and thus not aligned with the rest of your list?

In the negative sense of the word, 'populist' is often used to suggest that 'the people' have been manipulated into promoting something that is actually not in their best interest.

Aaah, today I learned. I understand.

While the rest of your comment is arguably useful,

> The '80s happened.

is the exact kind of response I was complaining about. This one sentence says nothing.

He's not referring to a specific generation of people, but rather a decade that held capitalistic intentions high throughout the world, for good or worse.

It says something to me.

80's = Reaganomics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

"Greed is good." is a quote by the character Gordon Gecko from the movie Wall Street.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094291 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gekko

Was it honestly more difficult to say "Reaganomics happened" than it was to say "The '80s happened"?

Apologies. I won't repeat the mistake.

Well the most obvious way that things have changed is that pensions are largely a relic now with most companies now using 401Ks where they're not liable for the retirements of their workers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com