Ahh, flexibility definitely compensates for a good bit of opportunity cost. Know people who stay in easier remote jobs to avoid the responsibilities and demands that come with moving to certain higher-paid positions.
There’s also freedom from corporate culture, which I have had enough of in the past. Overall I think I’m happier keeping my perfectly tolerable job in its place and earning less, though I can see how others make a different choice and would negatively judge what I do.
I fail to see how we are responsible for the emotional well being of our management. Did I do my job? Yep! Did I do it well? Yep! Stand and deliver thy raise O manager, or face the wrath of my competing job offer.
I am not placing blame, just observing that News Companies still have staff and could be on the side of the Capitalists when it comes to worker rights.
Edit: I think I understand. I agree, not all staff writers (or any?) could be in a position to refuse the editor when they say “write me a piece on quiet quitting”.
How is taking a pay cut when there’s massive inflation even remotely understandable? Inflation means that they need to pay you more, not less; your costs are rising.
Businesses don’t care about your costs. They care about paying as little as possible for as good a quality as they can.
Same way you don’t care if your grocery store mega chain got hacked and lost $300 million, that’s not your problem, if they raise the price of bread you’ll go somewhere else.
I’ve got my feelers out there but I’m gonna stick it out here for another year - currently working on a certification to switch to a higher-paid position and the company is paying for it
I can’t wait until AI hits these middle managers that were just enough good at their jobs to earn a promotion and now spend their days sending angry emails to the people that actually do the work, while collecting more income than the workers… 🖕
“Quiet quitting” is a bullshit term meaning to do your job but nothing above or beyond that. Joshua Fluke has done multiple videos on this BS, and at this point there are plenty of other idiotic terms thrown around to try and make workers look bad.
It was always a stupid fucking term that equates doing a job with quitting.
Not increasing pay isn’t quit firing, because there is no firing. It is just businesses being stingy.
Edit: Guess I wasn’t clear enough that I am responding to the general statement that not giving raises is constructive dismissal, and didn’t add a footnote that not giving raises to specific people could be part of constructive dismissal. Nuance is hard.
I feel like meeting that to a legal level is a stretch. Minor cost of living raises that don’t meet inflation doesn’t rise to that level in my uneducated understanding
Not increasing pay with inflation is a pay cut because your pay is literally worth less without it.
In a sane world, if the fed is dictating the money supply, with their actions directly impacting inflation, every workers pay should be indexed to inflation. Same goes for taxation, welfare payments, etc. Companies raise their prices regardless.
Quiet quitting is the practice of meeting minimum expectations with low moral or engagement. Underperforming could lead to termination for not meeting minimum expectations.
More like inexperienced middle-management. Discussing the team member’s reasons for disengagement could lead to a solution for them, or even multiple team members. Saying “I have nothing to complain about” proves ineffective leadership looking for cause to terminate.
The only solution I would accept involves guillotines for the rich and the immediate end to the exploitation of the proletariat globally, so I don’t think that’s going to work for most middle managers.
Engagement and morale are measured independently from performance. The blurb states that the employees are meeting minimum expectations of performance, so the manager has “nothing to complain about.” I’m saying that’s bullshit leadership. If your employees are unhappy, you should ask them why and address any work-related dissatisfaction.
Engagement and disengagement are effectively separate forms of labor expected of an employee, though, and they’re virtually never formally codified. If I’m a coder and my job is to write code, don’t expect me to be enthused about writing terrible medical billing software. Enthusiasm and engagement are emotional labor, which I’m not compensated for, and which, to some extent, you can’t realistically expect me to demonstrate. I’m not able to “be engaged” beyond performing my tasks and whatever technical or administrative duties I’ve been assigned. Expecting me to contribute in a way orthogonal to that requires my job to be fundamentally different from what it actually is.
That’s fine if that’s how you like to work. All I’m saying is if an employee is silently quitting by doing the same work but shows less engagement/low morale, the solution isn’t for the manager isn’t to shrug their shoulders because you can’t fire them. That implies the manager’s goal is to terminate due to low performance, which is really shitty leadership.
I said this in another thread, but I’m not criticizing quiet quitting. I’m criticizing the managers’ response to it. If your employees are meeting expectations but unhappy, you should try to improve their work life, not shrug your shoulders because you don’t have a reason to fire them.
Normal working: doing what you’re paid for but also asking managers for more work when you’re done -> that’s what’s expected from management and also takes some load off their shoulders, they love that
Over achievement: doing what you’re paid for and more without asking management -> management will promise you a seat at the table of you continue doing that long enough!
If there’s advancement opportunities try to do the second one until you reach a point where you’re happy and then do the first one :)
I’m a skeptic when it comes to lots of things where the common man is getting fucked.
May I ask y’all how highly-paid individuals in high positions came to be that way?
Are they ALL the results of nepotistic practices, ALL inheritors of wealth? Or 80% got there that way?
(In the SF Bay Area, certainly seems I know high performers who work their asses off, make shit tons of money, get promotions before jumping ship to other companies, work at startups that get acquired…)
Disclaimer: not endorsing neglecting your family or personal life for a pipe dream of prosperity, just sharing one perspective
Edit: I forgot, the argument could easily be “the vast majority of high earners got there by job hopping”!
A good point on the luck aspect, and you reminded me of the fact that people who already have money have “better luck” in the respect that they have more opportunities to try new things.
It’s like one of those carnival games where you throw darts at balloons. Middle-class kids might get one or two darts while wealthy kids get 10. And the poor kids are the ones working at the carnival.
Something like 20% of businesses fail in their first year, and 80% are gone by year 5. If you can afford to start 5 different businesses, your odds of one surviving long enough to get bought up by Google or something are much better than somebody who put their life savings into their company.
We built some proof for the darts phenomenon in an economics class. Professor gave everyone a certain number of pieces of candy. Everyone was allowed to trade for a while, then we counted candy at the end. (Might’ve been stipulations on how trades worked, can’t recall). As you’d imagine, any kid who started with 10 pieces of candy ended with more candy than any kid who started with 3 pieces. Powerful example 🍭
In the current climate, internal promotions are a rarity. They say that you should be changing companies roughly every 3 years to ensure you’re getting paid what you’re worth, as pay raises don’t keep up with experience. New responsibilities come quickly while promotions and pay raises come slowly. The number of times I’ve heard somebody say that they left a job for an immediate 10-30% (or even 50%!) pay raise and reduced responsibilities for even the same job has gotten to the point where I just expect it now.
Like everything else, it varies, but company loyalty is long dead.
Yeah, and there’s the old saying, “It’s not what you know, but who you know.” Even ignoring the nepotism that that can obviously be applied to, there’s something major to be said about social networking and finding a good job (whether that’s a new job or a promotion within a company or even changing fields entirely).
When I was in college over a decade ago, our school had a program set up with GDC (the Game Devlopers’ Convention) to send 3rd year students and put them up in a hotel for the duration of the convention so that they could meet industry professionals and see what was new in the industry. And right from the first day, our professors expressed how important going to the convention and getting to know the people in your major were because they could potentially lead to you getting your next job, whether your first year out of school or decades later. And that was years before the current climate of the job sector had really taken off. Some of those guys had been making games since the 80s or 90s.
Make a good impression on someone, and they might call you about a new job opening before it’s publicly posted.
Makes some sense, eh? The social creature thinks to those with whom it has relationships when deciding who to nominate for an employment relationship.
Certainly downsides, like missing better candidates you’ve never met and a bias against introverted or socially anxious candidates. That said, not a phenomenon I imagine changing much. So many applicants for every post - an IRL filter is effective at, if nothing else, shrinking the pool significantly.
I work a job that requires a highschool diploma and that offers advancement opportunities and people at my level and higher are younger than me.
In fact, my manager two levels above me is quite a bit younger than me and he started at the most basic level years before me, so I guess these opportunities are open to people younger than me… Huh…
Also, very funny that you’re taking to a millennial like they were a boomer…
Not a manager, just someone who did exactly what I said, worked a bit harder for a year and a half, moved two steps up the ladder and now sitting cozy doing exactly what I’m paid for and nothing more as I don’t want to move any higher because it would mean being in a position of authority.
Do you really think I would tell you to aim to reach a point where you’re happy and then start to work your wage if I was a manager?
He said to the guy telling others to reach the point where they’re happy with what they’re doing and to then work their wage and nothing more.
If I was on my knees in front of management I would be telling everyone to just keep working harder forever, not to stop doing it once they don’t have or want advancement opportunities.
Then work your fucking wage and that’s it then, don’t bitch when others decide to put a bit more effort in order to move ahead if you’re expecting to be offered the same opportunity without showing that you’re actually able to do more than what is asked of you.
If I see someone eating the same meal every day I will come to the conclusion that they’re either unable or unwilling to cook something else so I won’t ask them to cook me something else.
So… Doing your job well is “quiet quitting” now? I don’t want my boss to think I’m quiet quitting, I Guess I’ll have to underperform instead.
Quiet firing on the other hand is giving raises that are under inflation. Companies should stop this quiet firing shit.
Giving raises? My employer quiet quit that more than a decade ago. Meanwhile inflation and price gouging march on.
What proportion of people have jumped ship in the last ~8 years as a result? (Understand you could have good reason for sticking around.)
It’s a very small company. About 1/3 have moved on. The attraction is that it’s relatively accommodating for other things in your life.
Ahh, flexibility definitely compensates for a good bit of opportunity cost. Know people who stay in easier remote jobs to avoid the responsibilities and demands that come with moving to certain higher-paid positions.
There’s also freedom from corporate culture, which I have had enough of in the past. Overall I think I’m happier keeping my perfectly tolerable job in its place and earning less, though I can see how others make a different choice and would negatively judge what I do.
deleted by creator
I fail to see how we are responsible for the emotional well being of our management. Did I do my job? Yep! Did I do it well? Yep! Stand and deliver thy raise O manager, or face the wrath of my competing job offer.
News organizations have employees as well. It doesn’t surprise me that they are in on the gaslighting.
If they don’t play ball, you think they’ll keep their job?
I am not placing blame, just observing that News Companies still have staff and could be on the side of the Capitalists when it comes to worker rights.
Edit: I think I understand. I agree, not all staff writers (or any?) could be in a position to refuse the editor when they say “write me a piece on quiet quitting”.
I think they mean the orgs, not the employees.
this. every so often someone posts an article on how wages are beating inflation and im like. where? who? this is not my experience.
If you want an inflation beating raise, you need to get a new job. Companies have long since stopped caring about employee retention.
Probably if you take an average and include the multimillionaires getting bigger raises.
I’ve taken a pay cut two years in a row for that reason. Last year was somewhat understandable with the insane inflation but this year kind of stung
How is taking a pay cut when there’s massive inflation even remotely understandable? Inflation means that they need to pay you more, not less; your costs are rising.
Businesses don’t care about your costs. They care about paying as little as possible for as good a quality as they can.
Same way you don’t care if your grocery store mega chain got hacked and lost $300 million, that’s not your problem, if they raise the price of bread you’ll go somewhere else.
I mean it’s understandable that they didn’t give everyone 6.5% raises. That’s a pretty huge raise
Find another job. You’ll quickly find out if you are worth the raise you wanted. My bet is you are.
I’ve got my feelers out there but I’m gonna stick it out here for another year - currently working on a certification to switch to a higher-paid position and the company is paying for it
I can’t wait until AI hits these middle managers that were just enough good at their jobs to earn a promotion and now spend their days sending angry emails to the people that actually do the work, while collecting more income than the workers… 🖕
AI’s can do their job right now. Haven’t you ever seen an AI not work right?
(Most managers suck, I like mine right now, and it’s odd. He’s stuck in meetings all day so I’m not. )
Bosses everywhere: taking notes “no… more… raises.” sets down the notepad “see, now they are speaking my language!”
“Quiet quitting” is a bullshit term meaning to do your job but nothing above or beyond that. Joshua Fluke has done multiple videos on this BS, and at this point there are plenty of other idiotic terms thrown around to try and make workers look bad.
Doing your job poorly shows you’re management material.
It was always a stupid fucking term that equates doing a job with quitting.
Not increasing pay isn’t quit firing, because there is no firing. It is just businesses being stingy.
Edit: Guess I wasn’t clear enough that I am responding to the general statement that not giving raises is constructive dismissal, and didn’t add a footnote that not giving raises to specific people could be part of constructive dismissal. Nuance is hard.
it’s constructive dismissal.
I feel like meeting that to a legal level is a stretch. Minor cost of living raises that don’t meet inflation doesn’t rise to that level in my uneducated understanding
Yeah it wasn’t entirely serious.
Only if it targets specific employees with the goal of getting them to quit. If the business doesn’t give raises in general they are just being cheap.
Not increasing pay with inflation is a pay cut because your pay is literally worth less without it.
In a sane world, if the fed is dictating the money supply, with their actions directly impacting inflation, every workers pay should be indexed to inflation. Same goes for taxation, welfare payments, etc. Companies raise their prices regardless.
I agree it’s a dumb term, so I made up my own dumb term. (At least I think I made it up)
Employees are allowed to be just as stingy as businesses.
Quiet quitting is the practice of meeting minimum expectations with low moral or engagement. Underperforming could lead to termination for not meeting minimum expectations.
Woosh.
Also quiet quitting isn’t anything except a bullshit term dreamed up by capitalist crybabies.
More like inexperienced middle-management. Discussing the team member’s reasons for disengagement could lead to a solution for them, or even multiple team members. Saying “I have nothing to complain about” proves ineffective leadership looking for cause to terminate.
The only solution I would accept involves guillotines for the rich and the immediate end to the exploitation of the proletariat globally, so I don’t think that’s going to work for most middle managers.
That’s fine. I’m just saying the managers in that headline are the problem, not the employees.
You are saying it in a way that sounds like someone doing their job is disengagement.
Engagement and morale are measured independently from performance. The blurb states that the employees are meeting minimum expectations of performance, so the manager has “nothing to complain about.” I’m saying that’s bullshit leadership. If your employees are unhappy, you should ask them why and address any work-related dissatisfaction.
Someone doing their job without going above and beyond is a work related concern?
That is what we are talking about.
Engagement and disengagement are effectively separate forms of labor expected of an employee, though, and they’re virtually never formally codified. If I’m a coder and my job is to write code, don’t expect me to be enthused about writing terrible medical billing software. Enthusiasm and engagement are emotional labor, which I’m not compensated for, and which, to some extent, you can’t realistically expect me to demonstrate. I’m not able to “be engaged” beyond performing my tasks and whatever technical or administrative duties I’ve been assigned. Expecting me to contribute in a way orthogonal to that requires my job to be fundamentally different from what it actually is.
That’s fine if that’s how you like to work. All I’m saying is if an employee is silently quitting by doing the same work but shows less engagement/low morale, the solution isn’t for the manager isn’t to shrug their shoulders because you can’t fire them. That implies the manager’s goal is to terminate due to low performance, which is really shitty leadership.
The issue many people have is how some bosses redefine underperforming as “not doing enough unpaid overtime”.
Well that’s completely fucked. I don’t work for free. That’s also illegal.
Exactly. But a little illegal activity never stopped a corp. Wage theft is rampant, estimated at $50 billion a year.
And that’s called quiet quitting in OP’s post.
I said this in another thread, but I’m not criticizing quiet quitting. I’m criticizing the managers’ response to it. If your employees are meeting expectations but unhappy, you should try to improve their work life, not shrug your shoulders because you don’t have a reason to fire them.
Then just make the minimum 30 pieces of flair 🙄
Quiet quitting: doing what you’re paid for
Normal working: doing what you’re paid for but also asking managers for more work when you’re done -> that’s what’s expected from management and also takes some load off their shoulders, they love that
Over achievement: doing what you’re paid for and more without asking management -> management will promise you a seat at the table of you continue doing that long enough!
If there’s advancement opportunities try to do the second one until you reach a point where you’re happy and then do the first one :)
Hahaha someone’s living in fairy land.
If they deep throat the boot hard enough, maybe they’ll get to wear it someday!
I’m a skeptic when it comes to lots of things where the common man is getting fucked.
May I ask y’all how highly-paid individuals in high positions came to be that way?
Are they ALL the results of nepotistic practices, ALL inheritors of wealth? Or 80% got there that way?
(In the SF Bay Area, certainly seems I know high performers who work their asses off, make shit tons of money, get promotions before jumping ship to other companies, work at startups that get acquired…)
Disclaimer: not endorsing neglecting your family or personal life for a pipe dream of prosperity, just sharing one perspective
Edit: I forgot, the argument could easily be “the vast majority of high earners got there by job hopping”!
The Bay Area is a well known warp in reality. Don’t expect your experiences there to map to experiences elsewhere.
And even so, it’s usually who you know, how well you can sell to VC, and luck that determine success out there.
:) good point. Can be a nice reality warp, for the non-super commuters who can enjoy the weather by the Bay/Pacific.
Edited in an obvious miss:
Luck really helps too. Pretty much a necessity.
A good point on the luck aspect, and you reminded me of the fact that people who already have money have “better luck” in the respect that they have more opportunities to try new things.
It’s like one of those carnival games where you throw darts at balloons. Middle-class kids might get one or two darts while wealthy kids get 10. And the poor kids are the ones working at the carnival.
Something like 20% of businesses fail in their first year, and 80% are gone by year 5. If you can afford to start 5 different businesses, your odds of one surviving long enough to get bought up by Google or something are much better than somebody who put their life savings into their company.
Absolutely!
We built some proof for the darts phenomenon in an economics class. Professor gave everyone a certain number of pieces of candy. Everyone was allowed to trade for a while, then we counted candy at the end. (Might’ve been stipulations on how trades worked, can’t recall). As you’d imagine, any kid who started with 10 pieces of candy ended with more candy than any kid who started with 3 pieces. Powerful example 🍭
In the current climate, internal promotions are a rarity. They say that you should be changing companies roughly every 3 years to ensure you’re getting paid what you’re worth, as pay raises don’t keep up with experience. New responsibilities come quickly while promotions and pay raises come slowly. The number of times I’ve heard somebody say that they left a job for an immediate 10-30% (or even 50%!) pay raise and reduced responsibilities for even the same job has gotten to the point where I just expect it now.
Like everything else, it varies, but company loyalty is long dead.
Ah yes! Had to add:
Yeah, and there’s the old saying, “It’s not what you know, but who you know.” Even ignoring the nepotism that that can obviously be applied to, there’s something major to be said about social networking and finding a good job (whether that’s a new job or a promotion within a company or even changing fields entirely).
When I was in college over a decade ago, our school had a program set up with GDC (the Game Devlopers’ Convention) to send 3rd year students and put them up in a hotel for the duration of the convention so that they could meet industry professionals and see what was new in the industry. And right from the first day, our professors expressed how important going to the convention and getting to know the people in your major were because they could potentially lead to you getting your next job, whether your first year out of school or decades later. And that was years before the current climate of the job sector had really taken off. Some of those guys had been making games since the 80s or 90s.
Make a good impression on someone, and they might call you about a new job opening before it’s publicly posted.
Makes some sense, eh? The social creature thinks to those with whom it has relationships when deciding who to nominate for an employment relationship.
Certainly downsides, like missing better candidates you’ve never met and a bias against introverted or socially anxious candidates. That said, not a phenomenon I imagine changing much. So many applicants for every post - an IRL filter is effective at, if nothing else, shrinking the pool significantly.
If you don’t have any advancement opportunities where you’re working change job or work your wage. Same if you don’t want to move up, work your wage.
I don’t know why you guys don’t get it…
Can’t work your wage if it doesn’t keep up with inflation, you’d just earn less every year.
Then change job or try to get promoted, living on the street won’t help you solve this shit.
Tell me you’re 14 and have never worked a day in your life without telling me you’re 14 and have never worked a day in your life.
Gonna have to add a couple of decades to that number buddy.
Ah, just never had to work a day in your life then.
I work a job that requires a highschool diploma and that offers advancement opportunities and people at my level and higher are younger than me.
In fact, my manager two levels above me is quite a bit younger than me and he started at the most basic level years before me, so I guess these opportunities are open to people younger than me… Huh…
Also, very funny that you’re taking to a millennial like they were a boomer…
OK boomer.
This person is a manager
Not a manager, just someone who did exactly what I said, worked a bit harder for a year and a half, moved two steps up the ladder and now sitting cozy doing exactly what I’m paid for and nothing more as I don’t want to move any higher because it would mean being in a position of authority.
Do you really think I would tell you to aim to reach a point where you’re happy and then start to work your wage if I was a manager?
Or crawl so far up management’s ass while throwing all your coworkers under the bus. THAT is how you get ahead. Stepping on your coworkers.
I actually got promoted because I was the guy helping everyone do their job…
I actually thought you were joking until the last sentence
Get off your knees, you slave
“you slave”
He said to the guy telling others to reach the point where they’re happy with what they’re doing and to then work their wage and nothing more.
If I was on my knees in front of management I would be telling everyone to just keep working harder forever, not to stop doing it once they don’t have or want advancement opportunities.
I’ll simper to no one for “advancement”
Then work your fucking wage and that’s it then, don’t bitch when others decide to put a bit more effort in order to move ahead if you’re expecting to be offered the same opportunity without showing that you’re actually able to do more than what is asked of you.
If I see someone eating the same meal every day I will come to the conclusion that they’re either unable or unwilling to cook something else so I won’t ask them to cook me something else.
See? There’s that slave mentality again
“Master won’t like you unless you work harder!”
If you don’t have any initiative don’t be surprised if you never achieve anything in life.
That mentality only works if you believe your job is the only way you can achieve anything in life.
I have initiative, I just don’t waste it on wannabe kings