At this company, we are family(pboyd.io)
pboyd.io
At this company, we are family
https://pboyd.io/posts/at-company-we-are-family/
342 comments
When I was young, I worked at a company that said things like "we are family" - and knew exactly how to manipulate with it.
I'd had a pretty rough year, my last year there - a recent breakup, a deteriorating domestic situation, and a death march at work. Management was aware of all three. In the end, I decided to leave the company. The attempt to retain me was not more money, or really anything around comp - it was something along the lines of (a rough quote): "You really shouldn't leave. We're your family. In times like yours, people can push the people closest to them away, to their own self detriment." And I was shared some links to psychology sites, talking about how folks in crisis can push close loved ones away from them.
Being young and naive, I gave some profuse thanks for enlightening me, promised to stay, reneged on the offer with the other employer... and a few days later, thought, "what on earth did they just do?!"
Needless to say, I put my notice back in, took the other job, and never looked back. The silver lining is that I now have a pretty good radar for management using the "family" argument in manipulative ways.
I'd had a pretty rough year, my last year there - a recent breakup, a deteriorating domestic situation, and a death march at work. Management was aware of all three. In the end, I decided to leave the company. The attempt to retain me was not more money, or really anything around comp - it was something along the lines of (a rough quote): "You really shouldn't leave. We're your family. In times like yours, people can push the people closest to them away, to their own self detriment." And I was shared some links to psychology sites, talking about how folks in crisis can push close loved ones away from them.
Being young and naive, I gave some profuse thanks for enlightening me, promised to stay, reneged on the offer with the other employer... and a few days later, thought, "what on earth did they just do?!"
Needless to say, I put my notice back in, took the other job, and never looked back. The silver lining is that I now have a pretty good radar for management using the "family" argument in manipulative ways.
I’ve left jobs under similar circumstances where later I thought “huh, I didn’t have a problem with the company… I was just emotionally spent and fragile at the time” and wished I didn’t quit when I did.
sounds like a cult
Take vulnerable people (insecure people who need jobs), add authoritarian influence, have them work for the good of the group, etc
Honestly, I wonder how many (normal?) companies align with cult techniques? Don't most companies create an us-vs-them culture? Didn't steve jobs want all the employees to wear the same uniform at one point? Doesn't Elon Musk talk about the mission to save mankind?
Maybe it is all just part of competing, cooperating and how we create prosperity, but I wonder sometimes.
Take vulnerable people (insecure people who need jobs), add authoritarian influence, have them work for the good of the group, etc
Honestly, I wonder how many (normal?) companies align with cult techniques? Don't most companies create an us-vs-them culture? Didn't steve jobs want all the employees to wear the same uniform at one point? Doesn't Elon Musk talk about the mission to save mankind?
Maybe it is all just part of competing, cooperating and how we create prosperity, but I wonder sometimes.
Wow, I'd consider sharing this on glassdoor or elsewhere just based on what you shared
I contracted at a company once which operated like a family.
Once you got hired, it was really difficult to get fired. So much so, most people there hadn't heard about anyone ever getting fired. Eventually, someone heard through the grapevine what a firing offense was: Getting caught having sex on the company campus with a coworker. But! The first time was a warning.
That company had soooo much money to burn. Lots of people did not like to work, they just kind of screwed around all day. Family members of the founders got to use the private jets (of which there was a fleet of a dozen) to do whatever they liked.
I won't name names, but the company name rhymed with "Spamway".
Once you got hired, it was really difficult to get fired. So much so, most people there hadn't heard about anyone ever getting fired. Eventually, someone heard through the grapevine what a firing offense was: Getting caught having sex on the company campus with a coworker. But! The first time was a warning.
That company had soooo much money to burn. Lots of people did not like to work, they just kind of screwed around all day. Family members of the founders got to use the private jets (of which there was a fleet of a dozen) to do whatever they liked.
I won't name names, but the company name rhymed with "Spamway".
> what a firing offense was: Getting caught having sex on the company campus with a coworker.
If both/all people are consenting, that might be slightly tacky, but surely shouldn't be a fireable offense.
If both/all people are consenting, that might be slightly tacky, but surely shouldn't be a fireable offense.
but sex with close familly members is illegal here :)
>> on the company campus
That part seems fireable IMO (or the getting caught part)
That part seems fireable IMO (or the getting caught part)
I never got the full story, but I wager there's more details to the story which would raise your eyebrows.
What business vertical were they in? Sounds like a huge moat ready for disruption
It depends on how you choose to cut headcount.
Cutting low performers is something we can all agree on, with exceptions to long-tenured employees who are in a temporary low-performance state (divorce, health issues, etc).
At many modern companies, headcount is cut often to increase the stock price for the next earnings report, so leadership can offload shares. Even if the company performance suffers in the long term, they were able to sell their bags at a high price.
An example of a 'family' style company is Kiewit and it isn't anything like the one you described. They are famously aggressive about low-performers. Every employee has ownership shares in the company. You are expected to pick up and move when the company tells you to move. They've never had a negative earnings quarter in the entire history the company... which is notable.
Cutting low performers is something we can all agree on, with exceptions to long-tenured employees who are in a temporary low-performance state (divorce, health issues, etc).
At many modern companies, headcount is cut often to increase the stock price for the next earnings report, so leadership can offload shares. Even if the company performance suffers in the long term, they were able to sell their bags at a high price.
An example of a 'family' style company is Kiewit and it isn't anything like the one you described. They are famously aggressive about low-performers. Every employee has ownership shares in the company. You are expected to pick up and move when the company tells you to move. They've never had a negative earnings quarter in the entire history the company... which is notable.
> "fast paced environment" that don't mean anything.
Oh, it means something; usually date-driven development, get stuff out without any care of quality beyond platitudes. Yell at the devs when they're late, then yell at them when they're not because the code is shite.
Oh, it means something; usually date-driven development, get stuff out without any care of quality beyond platitudes. Yell at the devs when they're late, then yell at them when they're not because the code is shite.
I have seen reports of how things go in "old money" families. It doesn't look at all like the idea we make of families.
They have access to vast amounts of resources, but family members don't have free access, far from it. There is council that decides how the funds are allocated, and when family members need some, they need to pitch how they are going to use it, and the expected returns. And if some family members are deemed unworthy, or don't follow some rules they can get expelled and lose access to the familial wealth.
So maybe that's what companies mean by "we are family". Or more likely, it is a combination of the perspectives of the modest families with the warmth of the wealthy ones.
They have access to vast amounts of resources, but family members don't have free access, far from it. There is council that decides how the funds are allocated, and when family members need some, they need to pitch how they are going to use it, and the expected returns. And if some family members are deemed unworthy, or don't follow some rules they can get expelled and lose access to the familial wealth.
So maybe that's what companies mean by "we are family". Or more likely, it is a combination of the perspectives of the modest families with the warmth of the wealthy ones.
> when family members need some, they need to pitch how they are going to use it, and the expected returns.
If we're talking about money for investment purposes (you mentioned expected returns) then this is what's know as a "family office"
It's not really an old money thing. It's common for ultra high net worth families to establish a Family Office as a privately held company to manage their assets.
The Family Office runs like a business with a goal of maintaining and growing the assets under management. They may have full-time employees who are not members of the family at all, such as a CFO.
This isn't really related to family dynamics, though. Family members would have ownership stakes in the company and, therefore, proportional ownership of the Family Office's assets. If they wanted money they could sell some of their ownership to another family member (within the various stipulations, of course), but family members can't bypass the business and treat the family office like a piggy bank where they can ignore ownership structures and extract wealth for themselves.
This isn't really related to the "we are family" concept that that companies talk about at all. It's just a business structure that happens to be used by families to manage their wealth like a business. Individual's wealth is still their own to deal with as they please.
If we're talking about money for investment purposes (you mentioned expected returns) then this is what's know as a "family office"
It's not really an old money thing. It's common for ultra high net worth families to establish a Family Office as a privately held company to manage their assets.
The Family Office runs like a business with a goal of maintaining and growing the assets under management. They may have full-time employees who are not members of the family at all, such as a CFO.
This isn't really related to family dynamics, though. Family members would have ownership stakes in the company and, therefore, proportional ownership of the Family Office's assets. If they wanted money they could sell some of their ownership to another family member (within the various stipulations, of course), but family members can't bypass the business and treat the family office like a piggy bank where they can ignore ownership structures and extract wealth for themselves.
This isn't really related to the "we are family" concept that that companies talk about at all. It's just a business structure that happens to be used by families to manage their wealth like a business. Individual's wealth is still their own to deal with as they please.
The OP might be talking about a family office, but they might also be talking about how the family decides how much each member gets. That's a separate issue from how the money is invested and grows
I'll vouch for similar experiences. My girlfriend was an executive assistant for multiple extremely wealthy people and saw these types of dynamics.
At that point I'd think the general opinion is that they're operating as a company _instead of_ a family. Pitching investment ideas and getting cut off from support doesn't sound like a family. I think this is just something you kinda need to do with that much wealth, but I don't think it's an example of how any average family operates
> They have access to vast amounts of resources, but family members don't have free access, far from it.
Well they're called "trust fund babies" for a reason. But the trust fund doesn't mean free money is flowing endlessly: it is set up so that they cannot blow it all up in a few years.
Well they're called "trust fund babies" for a reason. But the trust fund doesn't mean free money is flowing endlessly: it is set up so that they cannot blow it all up in a few years.
I think you may loose access to extreme wealth. Not to the family and, by extent, the good life it provides. People aren't expelled or disinherited when families are having profit issues.
That sounds fascinating, a whole world I know nothing about. Would you mind pointing me at where I could read more?
an heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune filmed a documentary full of weird dynamics like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc
This isn't a way to actually read and learn about it, but if you want to see these dynamics taken to hilarious absurds, then you should watch Righteous Gemstones from HBO (Max).
most old money is locked into investment and guarded by professional wealth managers. you can't just ask daddy for cash- unless they've set up trust funds to freely dispense your allocation, you're gonna have to pitch for it.
This is why I always liked Netflix's outlook (both stated and practiced):
We are a sports team, not a family. Perform well and you will be paid well, perform poorly and you will get a nice check to go elsewhere. And sometimes you might perform really well but we just don't need someone with your skills anymore, so we'll still give you nice check to go elsewhere, and that isn't a reflection on your abilities.
We are a sports team, not a family. Perform well and you will be paid well, perform poorly and you will get a nice check to go elsewhere. And sometimes you might perform really well but we just don't need someone with your skills anymore, so we'll still give you nice check to go elsewhere, and that isn't a reflection on your abilities.
I worked for someone who liked that, too, and after leaving Netflix, he carried it over into a new startup. It was not as great of an experience for any of us (including that founder) as it may sound. Years later, and we still talk amongst ourselves about how weird of an environment it created.
Basically, that outlook sounds great on paper, but is not so great to actually live.
Basically, that outlook sounds great on paper, but is not so great to actually live.
I lived it for four years and loved every second of it, but I will be the first to tell you that it's not for everyone.
I can also see how it would be hard to carry over into a startup, because the entire culture rests on the idea that you can pay people top of market to be there, that they don't have to worry a lot about budgets, and that you can afford to give people big checks when they leave.
I can also see how it would be hard to carry over into a startup, because the entire culture rests on the idea that you can pay people top of market to be there, that they don't have to worry a lot about budgets, and that you can afford to give people big checks when they leave.
Yeah, paying high performers big money to leave over skills mismatches makes sense for a FAANG but would be suicidal for a startup.
Did they actually pay Netflix level? Either with huge cash salaries or very very large equity packages?
I don't understand why people think that this philosophy only makes sense if you have gigantic compensation packages.
What's so off-putting about: "Do well and you stick around, do poorly and you go away"?
What's so off-putting about: "Do well and you stick around, do poorly and you go away"?
> What's so off-putting about: "Do well and you stick around, do poorly and you go away"?
Because I don't want to have that kind of instability if I don't get a lot of money to make up for it. It works because people know that if they get "cut" they'll be doing fine.
Also, the best people have lots of options. If there are multiple interesting options, all else being equal the extra cash will help a lot.
Because I don't want to have that kind of instability if I don't get a lot of money to make up for it. It works because people know that if they get "cut" they'll be doing fine.
Also, the best people have lots of options. If there are multiple interesting options, all else being equal the extra cash will help a lot.
> Because I don't want to have that kind of instability if I don't get a lot of money to make up for it
Sadly, I see way too many people in our industry who do get a lot of money, and still feel they're allowed to deliver little to show for it.
Sadly, I see way too many people in our industry who do get a lot of money, and still feel they're allowed to deliver little to show for it.
Take it easy on the executive team.
There's a certain risk any time you take a new job of "how well will my view of poor performance align with my manager's view?"
In a "regular" company there's usually a longer leash if you don't get that right on day 1, or if circumstances change and the specific skills you were brought in for aren't as relevant anymore.
In the Netflix model there's a by-design higher chance of it instead resulting in you losing your job.
So if you aren't compensating with $$$ for that increased risk, it's going to leave you with more of the folks without other good options and fewer of the folks who say "I can get the same money with less pressure if I take this other role instead."
In a "regular" company there's usually a longer leash if you don't get that right on day 1, or if circumstances change and the specific skills you were brought in for aren't as relevant anymore.
In the Netflix model there's a by-design higher chance of it instead resulting in you losing your job.
So if you aren't compensating with $$$ for that increased risk, it's going to leave you with more of the folks without other good options and fewer of the folks who say "I can get the same money with less pressure if I take this other role instead."
For a lot of people, psychological safety is paramount over even money, especially in the United States where your employment is tightly tied to healthcare, insurance, etc.
Secondly, more often than not, doing "well" or doing "poorly" can be highly subjective and politically motivated. Also, underneath it all we're human. A great performer for years may fall off the wagon for a few quarters due to various life circumstances like death of a loved one, divorce, health, etc. Is the solution to this is to just throw them to the curb the minute they aren't performing to their previous level? If so, then I expect to be paid until the Benjamin's are pouring out of my eyeballs. You get what you pay for.
Secondly, more often than not, doing "well" or doing "poorly" can be highly subjective and politically motivated. Also, underneath it all we're human. A great performer for years may fall off the wagon for a few quarters due to various life circumstances like death of a loved one, divorce, health, etc. Is the solution to this is to just throw them to the curb the minute they aren't performing to their previous level? If so, then I expect to be paid until the Benjamin's are pouring out of my eyeballs. You get what you pay for.
Because the philosophy revolves around the competitiveness of the position. Sports teams have limited roster, and make bales of cash (or are planning on doing so, with massive funding). The goal is for the position to have some cachet.
Why put up with "do well and stay or poorly and you go away" when other places pay the same for better culture and less drama?
One note: high turnover causes lots of workplace challenges - so you have to have a carrot along with your stick or you'll create a doom loop. Just "do well and stick around" is way to glengary glen ross for me.
Why put up with "do well and stay or poorly and you go away" when other places pay the same for better culture and less drama?
One note: high turnover causes lots of workplace challenges - so you have to have a carrot along with your stick or you'll create a doom loop. Just "do well and stick around" is way to glengary glen ross for me.
Danger pay is a thing for a reason. Contracting pay vs salaried pay is a thing for a reason.
Or mathematically, the long term expected return from a volatile employment situation should be equal to the long term expected return from a stable employment situation.
Or mathematically, the long term expected return from a volatile employment situation should be equal to the long term expected return from a stable employment situation.
A great culture is really hard to reproduce because it depends on the ability of the CEO. The CEO needs to properly evaluate the performance of his team, and reward or punish them fairly to demonstrate the culture. In the meantime, the CEO needs to find the likeminded people to uphold the culture. In the end, culture is not a plaque on the wall but how the company rewards and punishes employees at every level.
A simple example. Netflix promotes Freedom and Responsibility. Their engineers seemingly had freedom to choose their own systems to build with their own designs at their own pace. The company's guideline to their managers used to be "All that a manager does is to set context". But really? How can the leaders avoid catastrophic failures? How can the leaders keep their orgs' schedules and promises? How can the leaders draw the line between empowering and micro-management in such environment? It's not there is a runbook. And things do fail and sometimes someone do take the fall. Then who? How much? How do the leaders do it to avoid sink the culture?
A simple example. Netflix promotes Freedom and Responsibility. Their engineers seemingly had freedom to choose their own systems to build with their own designs at their own pace. The company's guideline to their managers used to be "All that a manager does is to set context". But really? How can the leaders avoid catastrophic failures? How can the leaders keep their orgs' schedules and promises? How can the leaders draw the line between empowering and micro-management in such environment? It's not there is a runbook. And things do fail and sometimes someone do take the fall. Then who? How much? How do the leaders do it to avoid sink the culture?
Netflix can do that because they pay as well as sports teams do.
If you offer me a typical tech job at 1/20th of what a netflix engineer makes, don't expect me to perform like Michael Jordan.
Sports team dedicate their entire life to performance. 80 hour weeks are nothing to them. Their diet, sleep, and personal lives are part of their jobs. I don't want a typical tech shop to have that sort of control over me unless they are paying me serious money.
------
All that aside, modern Netflix is not what Reed Hastings describes. There are tons of tenured benchwarmers lounging around.
It reminds me of Amazon's "bar raiser" requirement. That a new hire has to be better than 50% of the interviewers. The idea that Amazon engineers are the top is laughable to anyone in the space these days. Only the desperate work for Amazon.
If you offer me a typical tech job at 1/20th of what a netflix engineer makes, don't expect me to perform like Michael Jordan.
Sports team dedicate their entire life to performance. 80 hour weeks are nothing to them. Their diet, sleep, and personal lives are part of their jobs. I don't want a typical tech shop to have that sort of control over me unless they are paying me serious money.
------
All that aside, modern Netflix is not what Reed Hastings describes. There are tons of tenured benchwarmers lounging around.
It reminds me of Amazon's "bar raiser" requirement. That a new hire has to be better than 50% of the interviewers. The idea that Amazon engineers are the top is laughable to anyone in the space these days. Only the desperate work for Amazon.
Netflix is paying much closer to 2x on the cash side than 10x, let alone 20x.
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/netflix/salaries/software-e...
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/netflix/salaries/software-e...
Wow if these numbers are correct it has declined a lot. Then again the stock is not meteoric like it used to be. Netflix was minting multimillionaires all day long back their younger years.
Netflix has always been a predominantly cash compensation company. They never played the RSU-heavy compensation game the way Google, Meta, etc. did.
> That a new hire has to be better than 50% of the interviewers
Not sure if a typo, but if this is what you actually meant, this is a _gross_ misunderstanding of the situation. The benchmark is that a new hire should _have capability to_ outperform 50% of folks in the current role, not a) _currently_ be able to outperform b) 50% of _interviewers_ (who are potentially of higher level than the interviewee).
Anecdataly, I am ~6 months into my first post-Amazon role (after 10 years there) and have only met a single peer who would have been passable in my previous team.
Not sure if a typo, but if this is what you actually meant, this is a _gross_ misunderstanding of the situation. The benchmark is that a new hire should _have capability to_ outperform 50% of folks in the current role, not a) _currently_ be able to outperform b) 50% of _interviewers_ (who are potentially of higher level than the interviewee).
Anecdataly, I am ~6 months into my first post-Amazon role (after 10 years there) and have only met a single peer who would have been passable in my previous team.
I like the sports team concept in terms of being a sieve for performance. Similar to HS->College->NFL athletes, elite military SOF groups, etc. You get binned and sometimes that's hard to accept, but that's the point of the filter.
It's interesting that despite the high-performance culture though, Netflix is still slowly degrading. This past year I finally realized I could cancel Netflix and not feel like I lost anything, and I was an early subscriber to the DVD plan.
Any thoughts on Netflix's degradation over time? My take is that its transitioned from peak phase into cash-cow mode once everyone wanted a piece of the streaming pie.
It's interesting that despite the high-performance culture though, Netflix is still slowly degrading. This past year I finally realized I could cancel Netflix and not feel like I lost anything, and I was an early subscriber to the DVD plan.
Any thoughts on Netflix's degradation over time? My take is that its transitioned from peak phase into cash-cow mode once everyone wanted a piece of the streaming pie.
It depends on what metrics you are basing the degradation. Financially they are doing very well. After they cracked down on account sharing, they gained six million new subs, so they seem to be doing well on product as well.
They don't seem to have as much breakout content as before, but I think they have a lot of minor hits, especially in other countries. And honestly that is better for their business than huge breakout hits.
From what I've heard from friends who are still there, the nexus of the company shifted from the Bay Area to Hollywood a few years ago. At that point they became more of an entertainment company than a tech company. Some have said all the "hard" problems are solved, now they are just making small adjustments. Although I disagree with this: they quietly added live streaming which was a huge tech leap for Netflix, although it was so quiet no one seems to have noticed.
Also, with the economy the way it is and being an entertainment company now, they are starting to worry more about budgets. When I was there the only real budget guidance we got was "don't grow your headcount faster than our subscriber count" and "keep IT costs flat on a per stream basis". I hear now directors get budgets they have to stick to.
Also they added leveling which allowed them to hire more junior engineers. When I was there, there were no levels. We didn't really hire junior engineers. We hired senior engineers to solve problems that usually juniors would be given, and they would solve it with automation and robustness that maybe took a bit longer and would be considered "over-engineered" but that lasted for years and scaled with minimal effort.
But the freedom is still there for the most part. Managers still mostly just provide context and the leaf nodes come up with the implementations.
They don't seem to have as much breakout content as before, but I think they have a lot of minor hits, especially in other countries. And honestly that is better for their business than huge breakout hits.
From what I've heard from friends who are still there, the nexus of the company shifted from the Bay Area to Hollywood a few years ago. At that point they became more of an entertainment company than a tech company. Some have said all the "hard" problems are solved, now they are just making small adjustments. Although I disagree with this: they quietly added live streaming which was a huge tech leap for Netflix, although it was so quiet no one seems to have noticed.
Also, with the economy the way it is and being an entertainment company now, they are starting to worry more about budgets. When I was there the only real budget guidance we got was "don't grow your headcount faster than our subscriber count" and "keep IT costs flat on a per stream basis". I hear now directors get budgets they have to stick to.
Also they added leveling which allowed them to hire more junior engineers. When I was there, there were no levels. We didn't really hire junior engineers. We hired senior engineers to solve problems that usually juniors would be given, and they would solve it with automation and robustness that maybe took a bit longer and would be considered "over-engineered" but that lasted for years and scaled with minimal effort.
But the freedom is still there for the most part. Managers still mostly just provide context and the leaf nodes come up with the implementations.
> Any thoughts on Netflix's degradation over time?
Netflix both got better and worse at the same time.
With wider audiences and more content, there is both more content for you in absolute terms, and less in proportion to the total amount. So while there's more stuff you will like to see, it gets drowned out.
https://thecorrespondent.com/104/the-great-paradox-of-our-ti...
Netflix both got better and worse at the same time.
With wider audiences and more content, there is both more content for you in absolute terms, and less in proportion to the total amount. So while there's more stuff you will like to see, it gets drowned out.
https://thecorrespondent.com/104/the-great-paradox-of-our-ti...
Netflix was unlikely to ever be able to forever remain an aggregator of content from other distribution shops. They would've gotten squeezed to death from all sides.
So now they have tons of content and tons of viewership (and tons of profits the last several years) but they've changed from being "the biggest streaming hub for all your favorites" to "one of many producers and distributors." They might on the whole have more good stuff you'd like - but they have a lot less mindshare for that stuff than when it was stuff that had already done theater and TV rounds.
(What's really interesting to me is that the music industry evolved differently, with almost no exclusives, so you have many competing streaming services (but all that seem to be VERY squeezed profit-wise) all with the same content. My best guess is it's because people want to be able to flow music together in custom playlists, spanning a bunch of artists, vs binging a single series or such?)
So now they have tons of content and tons of viewership (and tons of profits the last several years) but they've changed from being "the biggest streaming hub for all your favorites" to "one of many producers and distributors." They might on the whole have more good stuff you'd like - but they have a lot less mindshare for that stuff than when it was stuff that had already done theater and TV rounds.
(What's really interesting to me is that the music industry evolved differently, with almost no exclusives, so you have many competing streaming services (but all that seem to be VERY squeezed profit-wise) all with the same content. My best guess is it's because people want to be able to flow music together in custom playlists, spanning a bunch of artists, vs binging a single series or such?)
The music industry set up a way for anyone who wanted their content to get it without their permission, as long as they paid for it, and they did that back in the 50s when radio was their main method of distribution. It was too hard to make deals with every radio station, especially since they were mostly independent.
So the music streamers were able to leverage that and extend the deal.
If movies had a similar licensing model, you'd see a ton of "Netflix"'s who were all licensing the same content and competing on user experience. Like the music streamers.
Although it should be noted that the music streamers are now moving towards the exclusivity model, where the big ones are making exclusive deals to keep that music off of any other platform.
So the music streamers were able to leverage that and extend the deal.
If movies had a similar licensing model, you'd see a ton of "Netflix"'s who were all licensing the same content and competing on user experience. Like the music streamers.
Although it should be noted that the music streamers are now moving towards the exclusivity model, where the big ones are making exclusive deals to keep that music off of any other platform.
THe low cost of a single song vs. an entire episode I suspect also plays a factor. A lot of artists are one or two song wonders, so once you take out a Taylor Swift, there's no incentive for artists to limit their songs to a single platform, no platform will pay enough for the exclusivity to make the artist think it is worth it.
> Any thoughts on Netflix's degradation over time?
I still have plenty of use for Netflix, but here are my thoughts:
From a creativity/artistic perspective: creativity is one of the things where simply throwing more money at it and/or "optimizing" it is not the solution. I mean, it can be the solution from a purely business perspective, but I'm assuming this isn't satisfying to you (or me), hence the "degradation" you speak of. Creativity, as in "good quality things you can enjoy but are not necessarily mass-produced for everyone to like" is not a "problem" to be "optimized" by whatever algorithms Netflix is using.
From a business perspective I've no idea how they are doing. Given their crackdown on account sharing, I'd say things are not as rosy as they used to be. Also, quite obviously, the competition became harder; Netflix is no longer the only player in town.
I still have plenty of use for Netflix, but here are my thoughts:
From a creativity/artistic perspective: creativity is one of the things where simply throwing more money at it and/or "optimizing" it is not the solution. I mean, it can be the solution from a purely business perspective, but I'm assuming this isn't satisfying to you (or me), hence the "degradation" you speak of. Creativity, as in "good quality things you can enjoy but are not necessarily mass-produced for everyone to like" is not a "problem" to be "optimized" by whatever algorithms Netflix is using.
From a business perspective I've no idea how they are doing. Given their crackdown on account sharing, I'd say things are not as rosy as they used to be. Also, quite obviously, the competition became harder; Netflix is no longer the only player in town.
My first job was with a "we are a family" company, they used stupid names for the employees internally but also in the job post, together with an emoji spam that couldn't say "how you do fellow kids?" any harder, ask to "see yourself like an entrepreneur" and "be the leader of your own ideas" obviously taking far less than the actual company owners.
After a while I had to resign due to mental health problem manifesting as depression and burnout to the point where I couldn't even enjoy my favorite video games. I started therapy which hasn't been going as well as I would like but that's another subject.
A month ago I talked to a colleague to see how they're doing. He informed me that another guy left 1 week after I did, but the best part is how he told me that "unlike you at least he gave a 2 week notice". To this day I still wonder if I was really the one unprofessional and that I should just force myself to "work". And I use quotes because I don't know how anyone would expect someone who literally have to force himself to get up from the bed and brush his teeth to be productive. I'm not the kind of person who sees himself as unprofessional and if I had no health problems interrupting my daily life I'd have no issues upholding the 2 week notice.
Turns out there is such a thing as a toxic family.
After a while I had to resign due to mental health problem manifesting as depression and burnout to the point where I couldn't even enjoy my favorite video games. I started therapy which hasn't been going as well as I would like but that's another subject.
A month ago I talked to a colleague to see how they're doing. He informed me that another guy left 1 week after I did, but the best part is how he told me that "unlike you at least he gave a 2 week notice". To this day I still wonder if I was really the one unprofessional and that I should just force myself to "work". And I use quotes because I don't know how anyone would expect someone who literally have to force himself to get up from the bed and brush his teeth to be productive. I'm not the kind of person who sees himself as unprofessional and if I had no health problems interrupting my daily life I'd have no issues upholding the 2 week notice.
Turns out there is such a thing as a toxic family.
> To this day I still wonder if I was really the one unprofessional
As someone who has been in a similar place, I wouldn't think this would be any less professional than if you got in an auto accident, had to be bed-bound for several months, the company couldn't let you work remotely and you had to leave.
Depression's a bitch, it makes you want to not seek out care and makes you more likely to interpret anything in the most negative way. Try to not be too hard on yourself for how you had to handle yourself, for all you know those two extra weeks could have caused you to need to be hospitalized or slowed down treatment.
As someone who has been in a similar place, I wouldn't think this would be any less professional than if you got in an auto accident, had to be bed-bound for several months, the company couldn't let you work remotely and you had to leave.
Depression's a bitch, it makes you want to not seek out care and makes you more likely to interpret anything in the most negative way. Try to not be too hard on yourself for how you had to handle yourself, for all you know those two extra weeks could have caused you to need to be hospitalized or slowed down treatment.
meh, does the company give people 2 weeks notice when they are laid off or fired? If the answer is no then why do they deserve better treatment? Companies expect all the good things from their employees but are not expected to reciprocate.
Here is my takeaway from this.
This was your first and only job. (Therapy is still on going and a month ago you asked what is happening and got some feedback about someone else quitting.) Which is why you don't understand the 2 weeks notice isn't just for you to be productive but to help hand things over.
Realistically, your former colleagues probably had to figure out what you had done and not done. This will leave a nasty after taste.
My understanding is that 2 weeks notice is more of a being nice and not actually required. Most companies won't give you any more notice than they're legally required to. Therefore, I have no problem with people giving them the legally minimum notice.
But overall, you'll find there are many times where you just need to force yourself to work. This is probably a skill you should learn if you need a job to survive.
This was your first and only job. (Therapy is still on going and a month ago you asked what is happening and got some feedback about someone else quitting.) Which is why you don't understand the 2 weeks notice isn't just for you to be productive but to help hand things over.
Realistically, your former colleagues probably had to figure out what you had done and not done. This will leave a nasty after taste.
My understanding is that 2 weeks notice is more of a being nice and not actually required. Most companies won't give you any more notice than they're legally required to. Therefore, I have no problem with people giving them the legally minimum notice.
But overall, you'll find there are many times where you just need to force yourself to work. This is probably a skill you should learn if you need a job to survive.
If he was so depressed even brushing his teeth in the morning was an insurmountable task -- that is, clinically depressed -- I think your "learn to force yourself to work" suggestion is seriously misguided.
Like someone else mentioned, if he had been hit by a car you wouldn't be suggesting he force himself to do anything. Clinical depression is your brain being hit by a car. If he had been hit by a car, who cares about whether his coworkers found their work harder as a consequence?
Like someone else mentioned, if he had been hit by a car you wouldn't be suggesting he force himself to do anything. Clinical depression is your brain being hit by a car. If he had been hit by a car, who cares about whether his coworkers found their work harder as a consequence?
> I think your "learn to force yourself to work" suggestion is seriously misguided.
I think it's misguided to think that there aren't many people force themselves to work in that and worse conditions. Why? They need the money.
It's seriously misguided, to think you can have any successful career without being able to force yourself to work. Quitting work everytime there is a hicup will not generally lead to a successful career. Not being able to work at all because the sun is out, your kid is long term sick, your wife had an affair, etc will generally not lead to having a successful career. There are many scenarios on a daily basis where people force themselves to work.
> if he had been hit by a car you wouldn't be suggesting he force himself to do anything
If cleared for work and needed to keep their job, yes I would. Many people do in fact force themselves to work after truamatic events such as being hit by a car or being in a car accident.
And remember, I didn't say in this scenario he should have forced himself to work. In fact, I said I had no problems with him not. But I said it is a skill that is needed for many in life.
I think it's misguided to think that there aren't many people force themselves to work in that and worse conditions. Why? They need the money.
It's seriously misguided, to think you can have any successful career without being able to force yourself to work. Quitting work everytime there is a hicup will not generally lead to a successful career. Not being able to work at all because the sun is out, your kid is long term sick, your wife had an affair, etc will generally not lead to having a successful career. There are many scenarios on a daily basis where people force themselves to work.
> if he had been hit by a car you wouldn't be suggesting he force himself to do anything
If cleared for work and needed to keep their job, yes I would. Many people do in fact force themselves to work after truamatic events such as being hit by a car or being in a car accident.
And remember, I didn't say in this scenario he should have forced himself to work. In fact, I said I had no problems with him not. But I said it is a skill that is needed for many in life.
> If cleared for work and needed to keep their job, yes I would. Many people do in fact force themselves to work after truamatic events such as being hit by a car or being in a car accident.
And some people end up committing suicide after severe depression, so? "Push yourself harder" isn't usually the answer.
And some people end up committing suicide after severe depression, so? "Push yourself harder" isn't usually the answer.
Actually, it normally is. In fact, mental hospitals will force you to get up get dressed, etc because being active is usually the answer.
Very few treatment plans haver "quit your job and do nothing" to solve depression. Being unemployed is normally more depressing than having a job. It's a downward spiral.
Very few treatment plans haver "quit your job and do nothing" to solve depression. Being unemployed is normally more depressing than having a job. It's a downward spiral.
> Very few treatment plans haver "quit your job and do nothing" to solve depression.
Since nobody is advocating "doing nothing", I think you have a nice strawman going on there.
In another post you also equate being depressed with "flaking out".
I'm going to guess you know nothing about clinical depression, so spare me the description of what you think the treatment plans are.
Since nobody is advocating "doing nothing", I think you have a nice strawman going on there.
In another post you also equate being depressed with "flaking out".
I'm going to guess you know nothing about clinical depression, so spare me the description of what you think the treatment plans are.
> I think it's misguided to think that there aren't many people force themselves to work in that and worse conditions. Why? They need the money.
This may be unintentional, or I may be misreading you, but this seems to represent a serious misunderstanding of clinical depression.
I did not observe a prior post claiming that there aren't many people who force themselves work, whether for money or any other perceived gain.
Lack of perceived gain is a typical part of clinical depression. A more likely motivator is aversion to perceived worsening; even this can fail to motivate because of tendency to evaluate the likelihood of success of an action as minimal or non-existant. With clinical depression, a frequent observation is that having completed something successfully, or being rewarded for a thing (even as simple as being given or biting into a food yow enjoy) may produce no improvement of mood.
> It's seriously misguided, to think you can have any successful career without being able to force yourself to work. Quitting work everytime there is a hicup will not generally lead to a successful career. Not being able to work at all because the sun is out, your kid is long term sick, your wife had an affair, etc will generally not lead to having a successful career. There are many scenarios on a daily basis where people force themselves to work.
Yes, clinical depression does tend to cause serious misguidance. The likelihood of a successful career, regardless of efforts may seem maximal. The condition does not seem occur in response to a hiccup of circumstance. It tends to result from prolonged exposure to a series of negative events, producing a situation in which the expectation of those events ending, or of those events being replaced by positive ones, does not exist.
Based on what you've written so far, I tentatively hypothesize that you have had a fortunate life[1]. This is generally good, though tends to lead people to conclude that depressed people just need to try more, or are just in a temporary phase, or just need decide to cheer up, do something useful, knuckle through it…
Getting out of clinical depression usually requires external changes. Some people are lucky enough to experience periods of partial remission sufficient to perceive the benefit of seeking help or changing their circumstances, which can lead to full remission.
[1] While acknowledging that getting through some manner of adversity does not automatic'ly require that one has had depression during that period.
This may be unintentional, or I may be misreading you, but this seems to represent a serious misunderstanding of clinical depression.
I did not observe a prior post claiming that there aren't many people who force themselves work, whether for money or any other perceived gain.
Lack of perceived gain is a typical part of clinical depression. A more likely motivator is aversion to perceived worsening; even this can fail to motivate because of tendency to evaluate the likelihood of success of an action as minimal or non-existant. With clinical depression, a frequent observation is that having completed something successfully, or being rewarded for a thing (even as simple as being given or biting into a food yow enjoy) may produce no improvement of mood.
> It's seriously misguided, to think you can have any successful career without being able to force yourself to work. Quitting work everytime there is a hicup will not generally lead to a successful career. Not being able to work at all because the sun is out, your kid is long term sick, your wife had an affair, etc will generally not lead to having a successful career. There are many scenarios on a daily basis where people force themselves to work.
Yes, clinical depression does tend to cause serious misguidance. The likelihood of a successful career, regardless of efforts may seem maximal. The condition does not seem occur in response to a hiccup of circumstance. It tends to result from prolonged exposure to a series of negative events, producing a situation in which the expectation of those events ending, or of those events being replaced by positive ones, does not exist.
Based on what you've written so far, I tentatively hypothesize that you have had a fortunate life[1]. This is generally good, though tends to lead people to conclude that depressed people just need to try more, or are just in a temporary phase, or just need decide to cheer up, do something useful, knuckle through it…
Getting out of clinical depression usually requires external changes. Some people are lucky enough to experience periods of partial remission sufficient to perceive the benefit of seeking help or changing their circumstances, which can lead to full remission.
[1] While acknowledging that getting through some manner of adversity does not automatic'ly require that one has had depression during that period.
[deleted]
Seriously? GP goes into a burnout at job #1 and your takeaway is “you should’ve worked harder”?
Where did I say they should work harder? In fact, I said I had no issue with them not providing notice.
But I did point out that sometimes in life we need to force ourselves to work. Why? Because we need an income. Some people live a life where they don't need to work but most of us don't. Plenty of us had to go to work in scenarios where we didn't want to. Other half is long-term sick, kid is on school holiday, it's sunny outside, etc.
But I did point out that sometimes in life we need to force ourselves to work. Why? Because we need an income. Some people live a life where they don't need to work but most of us don't. Plenty of us had to go to work in scenarios where we didn't want to. Other half is long-term sick, kid is on school holiday, it's sunny outside, etc.
I don’t think you appreciate how completely a proper burnout can stop you in your tracks.
It’s like telling a tennis player to keep playing a few more matches after breaking an arm in an accident. Tough up kid! It’s a hard world out there.
It’s like telling a tennis player to keep playing a few more matches after breaking an arm in an accident. Tough up kid! It’s a hard world out there.
People seem to be focusing on this case specifically when the skill to force yourself to work applies in many scenarios and is a required skill to be successful in any profession.
No pro tennis player hasn't played a game injured. No professional athlete has gone through their career without playing injured. Every off-season we hear the list of injuries players have been playing through.
To be successful you must force yourself to do things you don't want to do. And not telling someone who just flaked out of their first job that is a diservice.
No pro tennis player hasn't played a game injured. No professional athlete has gone through their career without playing injured. Every off-season we hear the list of injuries players have been playing through.
To be successful you must force yourself to do things you don't want to do. And not telling someone who just flaked out of their first job that is a diservice.
> People seem to be focusing on this case specifically
Well, you did reply to someone claiming severe depression and burnout, so the specifics matter.
If you meant to post about hard work and doing stuff that might not be enjoyable in pursue of a paycheck, that's fine, but do you think it's warranted in reply to this specific case?
It'd be like going into generalities about how one can push oneself harder to run a 100 meters sprint when talking to someone without legs or arms. I mean, yes, sure, but isn't it a touch insensitive?
Well, you did reply to someone claiming severe depression and burnout, so the specifics matter.
If you meant to post about hard work and doing stuff that might not be enjoyable in pursue of a paycheck, that's fine, but do you think it's warranted in reply to this specific case?
It'd be like going into generalities about how one can push oneself harder to run a 100 meters sprint when talking to someone without legs or arms. I mean, yes, sure, but isn't it a touch insensitive?
> Well, you did reply to someone claiming severe depression and burnout, so the specifics matter.
I did say that it's a skill they should learn not that they should have done it in this case. So if we're saying specifics matter, the entire context of specifics matter.
> If you meant to post about hard work and doing stuff that might not be enjoyable in pursue of a paycheck, that's fine, but do you think it's warranted in reply to this specific case?
Yes, the person flaked out of their first job after seemingly a few months and literally asked if they should have forced themselves to work their 2 week notice period.
Telling them everything is ok is not the nice thing to do. It's an easy thing to do. It seems compassionate. But it's not. It shows no feeling or concern for their future. As pointed out with multiple examples, there are plenty of times people need to force themselves to work. It is an important skill to have to succeed.
They flaked out of their first job and flaked out so hard they didn't even manage to give 2 weeks notice. That is the hard reality here. And they specifically asked if they should have given the notice. To not advise them that forcing yourself to work is an important skillset is in my opinion a disservice and uncaring action.
I did say that it's a skill they should learn not that they should have done it in this case. So if we're saying specifics matter, the entire context of specifics matter.
> If you meant to post about hard work and doing stuff that might not be enjoyable in pursue of a paycheck, that's fine, but do you think it's warranted in reply to this specific case?
Yes, the person flaked out of their first job after seemingly a few months and literally asked if they should have forced themselves to work their 2 week notice period.
Telling them everything is ok is not the nice thing to do. It's an easy thing to do. It seems compassionate. But it's not. It shows no feeling or concern for their future. As pointed out with multiple examples, there are plenty of times people need to force themselves to work. It is an important skill to have to succeed.
They flaked out of their first job and flaked out so hard they didn't even manage to give 2 weeks notice. That is the hard reality here. And they specifically asked if they should have given the notice. To not advise them that forcing yourself to work is an important skillset is in my opinion a disservice and uncaring action.
> I did say that it's a skill they should learn not that they should have done it in this case.
So you gave unrelated advice to someone telling you about a bout of depression? Hm.
> Telling them everything is ok is not the nice thing to do. It's an easy thing to do.
I think you'll find your "easy way" is not the way to treat severe depression. It's a long, hard road.
You think being depressed is "flaking out"? Shame on you.
At which point would you say it's ok to admit you were wrong and that you misread the post? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
So you gave unrelated advice to someone telling you about a bout of depression? Hm.
> Telling them everything is ok is not the nice thing to do. It's an easy thing to do.
I think you'll find your "easy way" is not the way to treat severe depression. It's a long, hard road.
You think being depressed is "flaking out"? Shame on you.
At which point would you say it's ok to admit you were wrong and that you misread the post? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
> So you gave unrelated advice to someone telling you about a bout of depression? Hm.
They literally asked if they were being unprofessional and if they should have forced themselves to work. Telling them that being able to force themselves to work is a useful skillset if they want to keep a job is not unrelated.
> You think being depressed is "flaking out"? Shame on you.
No, the fact you need to come up with just an absurd statement really shows what you're all about.
They didn't give the industry standard notice period, they as far as we can tell, just said "I'm not coming back". That is flaking out. If you did it because you were depressed or because it's sunny outside doesn't really change the fact it's flaking out.
> At which point would you say it's ok to admit you were wrong and that you misread the post? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
Misread what? You need to misrepresent my position.
In another comment you said I have no experience of depression.
I've been on sucide watches so extreme, they took away my clothes, gave me untearable clothes, only gave me fingerfood, left me in an empty room with just a mattress and an untearable blanket, and had someone sit there and watch me nonstop. The reason I know that mental hospitals will force you to be active is I was there and they annoyed the shit out of me with it. I was diganosed with depression at the age of 9. One professional said that I had been depressed for so long that I basically considered it normal. I almost certainly have more experience with it than many others.
You also implied a strawman argument because I think someone who says they struggled to brush their teeth because they were so depressed would have been sitting around doing nothing because well they couldn't even brush their teeth. That's just extrapolating. Very simple logic.
They literally asked if they were being unprofessional and if they should have forced themselves to work. Telling them that being able to force themselves to work is a useful skillset if they want to keep a job is not unrelated.
> You think being depressed is "flaking out"? Shame on you.
No, the fact you need to come up with just an absurd statement really shows what you're all about.
They didn't give the industry standard notice period, they as far as we can tell, just said "I'm not coming back". That is flaking out. If you did it because you were depressed or because it's sunny outside doesn't really change the fact it's flaking out.
> At which point would you say it's ok to admit you were wrong and that you misread the post? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
Misread what? You need to misrepresent my position.
In another comment you said I have no experience of depression.
I've been on sucide watches so extreme, they took away my clothes, gave me untearable clothes, only gave me fingerfood, left me in an empty room with just a mattress and an untearable blanket, and had someone sit there and watch me nonstop. The reason I know that mental hospitals will force you to be active is I was there and they annoyed the shit out of me with it. I was diganosed with depression at the age of 9. One professional said that I had been depressed for so long that I basically considered it normal. I almost certainly have more experience with it than many others.
You also implied a strawman argument because I think someone who says they struggled to brush their teeth because they were so depressed would have been sitting around doing nothing because well they couldn't even brush their teeth. That's just extrapolating. Very simple logic.
Based on this comment, I retract my tentative hypothesis that you have had a fortunate life. The comment I replied to seemed to contain wording or attitudes I've come to associate only with those who have neither been clinically depressed nor sufficiently studied it. I apologise for my assumption.
They should have put in the two weeks at least. Not because the company deserves it, but because the world is smaller that you think. A lot of companies won't even take you up on the notice, but it's best to give it, and give the two weeks if they do take you up on it.
> They should have put in the two weeks at least.
And work through two additional weeks without the strength to even brush their teeth? Doesn't seem realistic to me.
And work through two additional weeks without the strength to even brush their teeth? Doesn't seem realistic to me.
They should have never let themselves get to that place to begin with, but it's not the company's fault, so they shouldn't punish the company. They should own their mistake and push through. Or don't, and realize that it may come back to bite them. And if it does, they should realize that they are solely to blame.
And yes, I've been there. Burnt out, depressed, you name it. It's always possible to muster up the energy to do the right thing.
And yes, I've been there. Burnt out, depressed, you name it. It's always possible to muster up the energy to do the right thing.
> It's always possible to muster up the energy to do the right thing.
This not true. It is possible to have no more reserves. It is possible to argue that ideally you should be able to predict your imminent collapse, but not everybody is afforded this luxury.
This not true. It is possible to have no more reserves. It is possible to argue that ideally you should be able to predict your imminent collapse, but not everybody is afforded this luxury.
Wait, "punish the company"? Say what? The company is not a person, and they would get rid of you without any notice should the need arise.
Your comment reads like a form of victim-blaming, "they should have never gotten into a situation that left them severely depressed".
What!?!?
Your comment reads like a form of victim-blaming, "they should have never gotten into a situation that left them severely depressed".
What!?!?
Corporate shill. He doesn't owe the company anything more than they are contractually obligated.
Some employers like to "adopt" candidates and brainwash them to them bond to the organisation. Of course that's just smoke and as time goes it takes a toll on mental health, way before things have become clear that your only family is your kin.
Well, times have changed, and vampires have changed too.
Instead of ravenously draining the life from your body and swallowing your final screams like pez, we've taken a more egalitarian approach of slowly crushing the life out of thousands of people simultaneously, but also giving them time to recover so we can get as much delicious pain juice as possible.
Instead of ravenously draining the life from your body and swallowing your final screams like pez, we've taken a more egalitarian approach of slowly crushing the life out of thousands of people simultaneously, but also giving them time to recover so we can get as much delicious pain juice as possible.
> To this day I still wonder if I was really the one unprofessional and that I should just force myself to "work".
I've grown to interpret "unprofessional" in the scope of resignations as code-word for "it inconveniences your manager". Your higher-ups aren't fending accusations of being unprofessional for fostering hostile work environments that are hazardous to their employees' health. Why should you fend off similar accusations for avoiding the harm they are doing to their workforce?
Complaining how an employee dismisses himself is particularly hypocritical when it happens in jurisdictions where at-will employment is the norm.
I've grown to interpret "unprofessional" in the scope of resignations as code-word for "it inconveniences your manager". Your higher-ups aren't fending accusations of being unprofessional for fostering hostile work environments that are hazardous to their employees' health. Why should you fend off similar accusations for avoiding the harm they are doing to their workforce?
Complaining how an employee dismisses himself is particularly hypocritical when it happens in jurisdictions where at-will employment is the norm.
The only thing missing is a stupid name, like "as a Smithee" or "as a Smithonaut" or something.
Since you're fired, you ain't no Smithonaut no more
This is well written and I agree that family is a very imperfect analogy for a working relationship. At the same time, some work situations are more or less family-like and it still pays to look for the "more."
I've been lucky that 4 companies I've worked at in my life so far have been very "employee forward" - creating scenarios of employee growth and engagement (vs putting employees in the seat of powerless cogs). All 4 companies have had a layoff of some sort for various reasons (business line shutdown, covid business hit, interest rate hit, grew too fast - respectively) and I have been affected by one of the layoffs (the other one, I left right before employees were bought out) but I am still happy to have worked there vs anywhere else because of these factors.
"Family" doesn't mean employing you past the point it makes sense, it's more about how you're related to when you're here. Are you encouraged to grow, to make connections, are you paid well, does the company try to give you good benefits, etc. You want a place that does all of that. You don't have to call it "family" - but it's a totally different vibe from a sweatshop.
I've been lucky that 4 companies I've worked at in my life so far have been very "employee forward" - creating scenarios of employee growth and engagement (vs putting employees in the seat of powerless cogs). All 4 companies have had a layoff of some sort for various reasons (business line shutdown, covid business hit, interest rate hit, grew too fast - respectively) and I have been affected by one of the layoffs (the other one, I left right before employees were bought out) but I am still happy to have worked there vs anywhere else because of these factors.
"Family" doesn't mean employing you past the point it makes sense, it's more about how you're related to when you're here. Are you encouraged to grow, to make connections, are you paid well, does the company try to give you good benefits, etc. You want a place that does all of that. You don't have to call it "family" - but it's a totally different vibe from a sweatshop.
> "Family" doesn't mean employing you past the point it makes sense
Actually family does mean that, literally. It makes absolutely no sense to use this term in a business context.
Actually family does mean that, literally. It makes absolutely no sense to use this term in a business context.
I'm confused, if we take out the paycheck how many people have lost or broken off contact with parts or all of their family? The people are still your family but you might have not talked to them for decades, so you're maybe only part of it on paper but not in practice? So that's why I think the family term makes no sense, because there are a million possible constellations for family/immediate family/in contact/etc.
Apologies if I didn't make this super clear.
I agree that the "family" metaphor breaks down around termination of employment (whether initiated by employee or employer)
What I was trying to say in the line you quoted, that IN THE WORK CONTEXT nobody uses family to imply permanent employment - it's strictly about how you are with each other while there. Which is still a big deal.
I agree that the "family" metaphor breaks down around termination of employment (whether initiated by employee or employer)
What I was trying to say in the line you quoted, that IN THE WORK CONTEXT nobody uses family to imply permanent employment - it's strictly about how you are with each other while there. Which is still a big deal.
I'd agree that "family" implies you're going to put the relationship itself over most rational reasons, and businesses can't do that. If you want to say they're family then the business should also plan for a pension that all employees get or something similar - otherwise it's just a tactic to manipulate people
Of course you treat family members well when they "deliver" for you, the real part is when they can't deliver and you still support them.
Of course you treat family members well when they "deliver" for you, the real part is when they can't deliver and you still support them.
No one should use "family" at work, it's as the other commenter put, creepy. You can treat people with respect and trust without taking on a para-familial relationship with them, that's super inappropriate and exploitative (although sadly all too common).
>I agree that the "family" metaphor breaks down around termination
It breaks down the second you actually compare your family to your company. I think that basically every single person would do many, many things for members of his family that he wouldn't do for the members of his company.
It breaks down the second you actually compare your family to your company. I think that basically every single person would do many, many things for members of his family that he wouldn't do for the members of his company.
So creepy. It’s an employment contract, nothing more.
Sorry but you are really missing the point in my experience. I'll give you a non-tech example.
We had a great nanny for our son. She went above and beyond, treating him like a grandson. We went above and beyond for her (max flexibility, paying her days when she couldn't work, lots of bonuses and gifts, etc.)
Both of us exceeded the "employment contract" - gave more than we had to and we both came out ahead. That only worked because we were both willing to go beyond.
What's the point? We treated each other "like family" even though it was a work situation. When our son didn't need a nanny anymore, it didn't make sense for us to work together (so in a way, she was laid off although in reality we found her another gig) but that didn't take away from the quality of our relationship while it lasted.
This is directly analogous to employment dynamics I've had at work for 20 years now. You may find that "creepy" but I also suspect you are oblivious to what the upside can be like.
We had a great nanny for our son. She went above and beyond, treating him like a grandson. We went above and beyond for her (max flexibility, paying her days when she couldn't work, lots of bonuses and gifts, etc.)
Both of us exceeded the "employment contract" - gave more than we had to and we both came out ahead. That only worked because we were both willing to go beyond.
What's the point? We treated each other "like family" even though it was a work situation. When our son didn't need a nanny anymore, it didn't make sense for us to work together (so in a way, she was laid off although in reality we found her another gig) but that didn't take away from the quality of our relationship while it lasted.
This is directly analogous to employment dynamics I've had at work for 20 years now. You may find that "creepy" but I also suspect you are oblivious to what the upside can be like.
The thing that makes "family" different from another organization is what happens at the extremes, not day to day. When you're down on your luck, failed completely, and lost everything your family will still be there to help you and take care of you. Your company will not. Trying to create confusion around this concept is deceptive. A family is not just a bunch of people who are nice to each other when times are good.
I think that is treating each other "like friends" rather than "like family". Friendships begin and end, and friends will help each other, even if it means the effective end of a friendship (eg helping load a van for a cross country move).
Were it like family, you'd still invite each other to birthdays and the like.
Were it like family, you'd still invite each other to birthdays and the like.
>We had a great nanny for our son.
That's as close to actual 'family' as i feel im not, in the multinational i work for.
That's as close to actual 'family' as i feel im not, in the multinational i work for.
"family" is going to mean something different to everyone. It could be positive or negative.
The hackernews galaxy brains trying to define a company based on one word in a mission statement is every bit as foolish as the recruiter who describes their culture as 'family'.
The hackernews galaxy brains trying to define a company based on one word in a mission statement is every bit as foolish as the recruiter who describes their culture as 'family'.
There isn't anything on your comment about "family-like". This is just "is this company better for the employees or not"? All of those points have nothing to do with family.
Mildly amusing, and yes - the whole "this company is a family" schtick is overplayed by companies. I never say that at my company - instead the employees often say it back to me, which I feel is much more culturally "real" than me saying it.
At one company party, the employees were going around the room telling me how nice it was to work for me (which is very kind of them). The last guy sheepishly shrugged and said, "I don't want to be standoffish but I felt this way at my last company, and they let me go. This is just a job to me." I felt like this is overall the most healthy attitude to have when thinking about work, and frankly to hear it out loud was refreshing. I love that kind of honesty.
At one company party, the employees were going around the room telling me how nice it was to work for me (which is very kind of them). The last guy sheepishly shrugged and said, "I don't want to be standoffish but I felt this way at my last company, and they let me go. This is just a job to me." I felt like this is overall the most healthy attitude to have when thinking about work, and frankly to hear it out loud was refreshing. I love that kind of honesty.
> instead the employees often say it back to me, which I feel is much more culturally "real" than me saying it.
It is!
My problem is when companies feel the need to say it. If it's actually true, they wouldn't have to.
It is!
My problem is when companies feel the need to say it. If it's actually true, they wouldn't have to.
At least it's not the reverse: a much darker story would be one about a company where employment was tied to shared procreation.
Companies with these terms in job postings are usually a red flag, but don’t be too judgmental:
>We are family!
No boundaries, underpaid, nepotism, etc.
>Fast paced working environment!
Mostly toxic environment.
>Attention to details!
“Big boss” will scream at you for silly things.
>Will require working overtime if needed!
Self explanatory.
>Fun loving, company culture activities, etc.
Your typical kindergarten office activities, you can’t refuse either.
I will also add this but not always the case
>open office style
Yeah, nope!
>We are family!
No boundaries, underpaid, nepotism, etc.
>Fast paced working environment!
Mostly toxic environment.
>Attention to details!
“Big boss” will scream at you for silly things.
>Will require working overtime if needed!
Self explanatory.
>Fun loving, company culture activities, etc.
Your typical kindergarten office activities, you can’t refuse either.
I will also add this but not always the case
>open office style
Yeah, nope!
"Now kids, I know we made more money than we did last year, but we didn't make as much more money this year as we did more money over the previous year. And so, unfortunately, we had to kick Grandpa to the curb."
A different take on the same joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnWutAm4En4
The 'values' and 'we/us' scam is how we get the younguns to donate to the 'our' cause.
Gosh, I hate “we are a family” companies so much.
As someone who's autistic, these kinds of companies are very difficult for me. Usually the "we're family" companies are also the "let's have a social event constantly", or return to the office days are also just filled with socializing.
I get it.. some people really enjoy that, but that's not everyone. It feels like it's by design to exclude other kinds of people who don't enjoy a hyper social environment.
I get it.. some people really enjoy that, but that's not everyone. It feels like it's by design to exclude other kinds of people who don't enjoy a hyper social environment.
No, it's a way to distract them so they won't notice they're being screwed over financially and opportunity cost-wise. You are immune to this exploit, which makes you a black sheep in their eyes, but not that you should care. Look for places that don't do the bullshit and you'll end up better off than the sheep.
As someone who is also on the spectrum, the following common behavior in a company baffles me.
The company will exhibit the following behaviors at the same time:
- they will organize a bunch of social events, full of drinking and games, fly colleagues from all over the world to some exotic location
- will refuse to increase your salary to match inflation citing lack of funds (which were somehow available when flying 200 people to AUSTRALIA)
- will work on deadend projects to further the career of X-middle manager/whim of CEO due to something they read. Will overhire people for said projects. At same time, main parts of business can often be underfunded and understaffed
- will cut off full departments when said deadend projects reach their inevitable dead end
- will, at random holidays, give away branded bags, pens, socks, usbs and chocolates, but still have no budget for a salary increase
- will be having a great financial year with 15% growth and send emails of the type: "Good job Team!" but salary increases will not happen or be confined to the 1-2% range.
After some time the cognitive dissonance becomes too much and you simply stop caring.
The company will exhibit the following behaviors at the same time:
- they will organize a bunch of social events, full of drinking and games, fly colleagues from all over the world to some exotic location
- will refuse to increase your salary to match inflation citing lack of funds (which were somehow available when flying 200 people to AUSTRALIA)
- will work on deadend projects to further the career of X-middle manager/whim of CEO due to something they read. Will overhire people for said projects. At same time, main parts of business can often be underfunded and understaffed
- will cut off full departments when said deadend projects reach their inevitable dead end
- will, at random holidays, give away branded bags, pens, socks, usbs and chocolates, but still have no budget for a salary increase
- will be having a great financial year with 15% growth and send emails of the type: "Good job Team!" but salary increases will not happen or be confined to the 1-2% range.
After some time the cognitive dissonance becomes too much and you simply stop caring.
There's no dissonance. You just need to completely ignore what people say, and make your own high-quality model of what they do. Here's a hint: study different personality types, model how they set their personal goals and what makes them happy.
You'll end up with a very cynical model, where most people can't plan one and a half step ahead, and can be easily convinced to do very dumb things. But, like it or not, that's how society works. And every successful person has figured out, and is ruthlessly abusing this model.
You'll end up with a very cynical model, where most people can't plan one and a half step ahead, and can be easily convinced to do very dumb things. But, like it or not, that's how society works. And every successful person has figured out, and is ruthlessly abusing this model.
In your experience, "family office" means "hyper social," and autists struggle with "family office."
This seems too vague and broad for meaningful discussion.
I'm not picking a side, but for the sake of comparison, I've seen office environments with "we are family" messaging treat individuals with autism or disabilities more inclusively and with more grace than otherwise.
This seems too vague and broad for meaningful discussion.
I'm not picking a side, but for the sake of comparison, I've seen office environments with "we are family" messaging treat individuals with autism or disabilities more inclusively and with more grace than otherwise.
I don't think company-sponsored social events are designed to exclude non-social types, they're just for the benefit of social employees.
Of course, this is coming from someone who really enjoys drinking on the company dime
Of course, this is coming from someone who really enjoys drinking on the company dime
Typically not, but they absolutely feed into the higher-ups perception of you. I worked at a company an hour away from my home. So anytime we had our monthly post-work happy hour, I'd politely decline and go home. Especially as I know they'll be out until 10pm.
During one of my reviews it was mentioned that it's disappointing I don't attend the happy hours as that's when the team is able to connect and strengthen our bonds with each other.
Wasn't surprised I was let go just a few weeks later after I declined the next happy hour.
During one of my reviews it was mentioned that it's disappointing I don't attend the happy hours as that's when the team is able to connect and strengthen our bonds with each other.
Wasn't surprised I was let go just a few weeks later after I declined the next happy hour.
Look I'm not saying you need to stay out drinking until 10pm but team-building is important to any job, especially if you're a leader, and much of that team cohesiveness happens outside of work hours.
It's not too surprising if skipping all team-building events results in... not being a part of the team
It's not too surprising if skipping all team-building events results in... not being a part of the team
> much of that team cohesiveness happens outside of work hours
whaaaa?
is this a common view? doing team building on personal time seems... off. To me.
remember taking my small IT team out for lunches on the company dime, and even to the movies... we even went to an escape room once... but this was all during the work day...
whaaaa?
is this a common view? doing team building on personal time seems... off. To me.
remember taking my small IT team out for lunches on the company dime, and even to the movies... we even went to an escape room once... but this was all during the work day...
I think there's a large cultural component here. I've never worked at a place where any significant "team building" took place outside of work hours, but I know many devs (mostly outside the US) who told me that it does.
I've always had these events outside work hours. We get paid to work. After work, the company is buying us drinks but not paying us to drink them. Where's the problem?
Well I mean earlier in the thread they're describing issues on performance reviews due to not attending these, so I'd say that's a big problem.
I mean, I have a feeling there may have been other things at work there, but I guess I feel like you can team build without having to do it outside of work hours. If you are not being paid, I don't really see how that's legal to be required to do anything. It seems to me that if one could prove that, it could warrant some legal action as well.
I mean, I have a feeling there may have been other things at work there, but I guess I feel like you can team build without having to do it outside of work hours. If you are not being paid, I don't really see how that's legal to be required to do anything. It seems to me that if one could prove that, it could warrant some legal action as well.
The problem is socializing, costs some of us a lot of energy, and anxiety.
Alcohol only increases that anxiety, and what makes it worse, is knowing that I HAVE to go to a couple to seem like a "team player".
I'll let you know what it's like, for at least 2 days leading up to the event, I'm constantly practicing things to say, then trying to figure out all dialogue trees, and what my replies should be. I will practice and practice, and the amount of stress that causes, the lack of sleep, staying up late constantly trying to figure out what to say, worrying about what someone might say back.
Running past things they have said to me, trying to categorize and itemize all the things in their lives that they have so that I can seem like I am a normal person.. just to fit into their world.
Now, you're also saying that there's going to be alcohol, which means that I will most definitely say something dumb, or slip up.. people will look at me differently, and I will get the distinct feeling that people are talking about me behind my back, and I'm being excluded from things.
Then the event happens, and I try my best to say absolutely nothing, and stick to my script... someone says something totally random to me, and I have not prepared for this, I say something back... this one interaction, one of many, will be the thing that I am now constantly beating myself up about for days if not years later. I have no idea if people hated me because I didn't reply with the correct words in the right order, with the right facial expressions... all things that I do not understand.
And on top of this... I'm expected to do this every now and then because without doing it, I'm going to be silently punished by a group of managers who cannot fathom what this is like. Or colleagues like you who think "hey, it's cool, we're getting beers!"
Sorry, but no.
I NEED my downtime, I need my time to not have to deal with all of that. YOU don't need me there.
Where's the problem?
Alcohol only increases that anxiety, and what makes it worse, is knowing that I HAVE to go to a couple to seem like a "team player".
I'll let you know what it's like, for at least 2 days leading up to the event, I'm constantly practicing things to say, then trying to figure out all dialogue trees, and what my replies should be. I will practice and practice, and the amount of stress that causes, the lack of sleep, staying up late constantly trying to figure out what to say, worrying about what someone might say back.
Running past things they have said to me, trying to categorize and itemize all the things in their lives that they have so that I can seem like I am a normal person.. just to fit into their world.
Now, you're also saying that there's going to be alcohol, which means that I will most definitely say something dumb, or slip up.. people will look at me differently, and I will get the distinct feeling that people are talking about me behind my back, and I'm being excluded from things.
Then the event happens, and I try my best to say absolutely nothing, and stick to my script... someone says something totally random to me, and I have not prepared for this, I say something back... this one interaction, one of many, will be the thing that I am now constantly beating myself up about for days if not years later. I have no idea if people hated me because I didn't reply with the correct words in the right order, with the right facial expressions... all things that I do not understand.
And on top of this... I'm expected to do this every now and then because without doing it, I'm going to be silently punished by a group of managers who cannot fathom what this is like. Or colleagues like you who think "hey, it's cool, we're getting beers!"
Sorry, but no.
I NEED my downtime, I need my time to not have to deal with all of that. YOU don't need me there.
Where's the problem?
The issue is if the company is requiring me to spend time doing company things, then I'm working and should be paid for it. If it's actually optional, then there is no problem.
Buying drinks or not doesn't really enter into it, particularly for people who don't drink.
Buying drinks or not doesn't really enter into it, particularly for people who don't drink.
1: I attended every department team building meeting we hosted every weekday morning.
2: I hosted every company-wide team building meeting every Tuesday morning.
3: I attended every quarterly week-long retreat for department team building.
I have no reason, desire, or requirement to explain to management why a recovering alcoholic might not be the best person to attend what boils down to a 5-hour-long bar crawl.
2: I hosted every company-wide team building meeting every Tuesday morning.
3: I attended every quarterly week-long retreat for department team building.
I have no reason, desire, or requirement to explain to management why a recovering alcoholic might not be the best person to attend what boils down to a 5-hour-long bar crawl.
I'm just making a general point, I obviously know nothing about your specific situation
I know, no worries. Just pointing out how absurd their statement of "not meshing with the team" was their excuse for letting me go, lol. Just another tick in the box of why I steer away from any business that says "we're a family".
> much of that team cohesiveness happens outside of work hours.
How is that not unpaid labor?
How is that not unpaid labor?
Because it's voluntary and they're buying your food/drinks?
If it's voluntary then there is no problem.
"Voluntary" means that there will be no adverse effect on your employment if you decline to participate. Your characterization of the activity strongly implies that not participating will come with consequences to your job.
"Voluntary" means that there will be no adverse effect on your employment if you decline to participate. Your characterization of the activity strongly implies that not participating will come with consequences to your job.
The opposite. Participating benefits your career.
Curious what you think about this: Say there's no company sponsorship or involvement. You get invited to happy hour or a round of golf with the higher-ups completely on your own dime. Its obviously beneficial to pal around with your superiors. Is that a problem?
Curious what you think about this: Say there's no company sponsorship or involvement. You get invited to happy hour or a round of golf with the higher-ups completely on your own dime. Its obviously beneficial to pal around with your superiors. Is that a problem?
> Participating benefits your career.
That means NOT participating hurts your career, or at least doesn't further it, which is the same thing. Career outlook should be dependent only on your performance at work, and requiring to do extra unpaid stuff after work is simply a form of silent exploitation, favoring young people (mostly men, as women getting wasted with their superiors might be considered unprofessional) with no dependents (e.g children).
Push that to the extreme, and you have an extremely bro-hierarchical culture like Japan, where guys are expected to spend their (unpaid) time with their superiors at karaoke bars at late parts of the night, while not doing so puts their career prospects at risk.
All kinds of these silent expectations (but not demands) achieve is form a power imbalance where the ones not wanting to participate (in senseless drinking, or idiotic child games of team building) are pushed to the fringe and not considered "team players". This, naturally, creates a culture of fear that you might miss some of those unspoken rules of the workplace, and also a form of competition of who will simp more to their boss by letting them win at laser tag. Grown up people have families to be with, old parents to take care of, hobbies to do, errands to run, so in a culture of drinking/hanging out after office hours, they often have to choose between possible career prospects or family, and that's always a hard choice.
That means NOT participating hurts your career, or at least doesn't further it, which is the same thing. Career outlook should be dependent only on your performance at work, and requiring to do extra unpaid stuff after work is simply a form of silent exploitation, favoring young people (mostly men, as women getting wasted with their superiors might be considered unprofessional) with no dependents (e.g children).
Push that to the extreme, and you have an extremely bro-hierarchical culture like Japan, where guys are expected to spend their (unpaid) time with their superiors at karaoke bars at late parts of the night, while not doing so puts their career prospects at risk.
All kinds of these silent expectations (but not demands) achieve is form a power imbalance where the ones not wanting to participate (in senseless drinking, or idiotic child games of team building) are pushed to the fringe and not considered "team players". This, naturally, creates a culture of fear that you might miss some of those unspoken rules of the workplace, and also a form of competition of who will simp more to their boss by letting them win at laser tag. Grown up people have families to be with, old parents to take care of, hobbies to do, errands to run, so in a culture of drinking/hanging out after office hours, they often have to choose between possible career prospects or family, and that's always a hard choice.
I couldn't disagree with you more. That employees must work (yes, this is work by your own admission) outside working hours is at the very least ironic. It's an insidious form of exploitation.
Team building happens by relying on each other while doing your actual jobs. That is the extent of a relationship needed among colleagues in a professional context.
Team building happens by relying on each other while doing your actual jobs. That is the extent of a relationship needed among colleagues in a professional context.
>I don't think company-sponsored social events are designed to exclude non-social types
They are particularly designed without a single thought given to "non-social" types.
They are particularly designed without a single thought given to "non-social" types.
I consider company-sponsored social events to be work. If I'm not being paid to attend them, I won't. If they're both mandatory (either officially or unofficially) and I'm not being paid to attend them, I'm looking for another job.
Maybe not by design, but they must be worse for non-social types (or parents or people with other after work responsibilities.)
This is why the interview process should include 'culture fit' so that it can weed out people who would be good at getting the work done but not fun for the bros to hang out and drink beer with.
They usually do. Even if you don't realize it, you're being sized up in an interview and common feedback is "I can't see myself wanting to grab a beer with him". I actually had a conversation yesterday about it with someone I interviewed and the hiring manager that reports to me. I like the person, he said the comment about not sure about getting beers with the candidate. I told him to focus on the other 90 days a quarter when there are no beers.
> common feedback is "I can't see myself wanting to grab a beer with him".
Wow. I've been part of interviewing teams for tons of people, at a number of companies, over decades. I have never once heard anyone express anything like this about an applicant.
The discussions are more about whether or not they can do the job and whether or not they'd be a good fit on the team, not whether or not anyone wants to socialize with them.
Wow. I've been part of interviewing teams for tons of people, at a number of companies, over decades. I have never once heard anyone express anything like this about an applicant.
The discussions are more about whether or not they can do the job and whether or not they'd be a good fit on the team, not whether or not anyone wants to socialize with them.
I’ve experienced both. I’ve entered cultures that were pretty toxic about it. It’s usually the “we do 10 day team offsites in $PARTY_CITY” every couple months kind of places that are the worst. But also the benevolent mission type companies can be pretty weird about culture as well.
Many interviews do. I have missed out on jobs because of it, bur have also landed some great opportunities thanks to it.
Family, until an economic downturn. Then it turns into "who??".
I certainly understand the companies that say that and want to use it as a method to manipulate employees and so on. I want to set that aside, and say that even if it was a positive thing ... I DON'T WANT to join another family, certainly not one I don't know. Family is not an entirely positive experience.
To me family is a lot of responsibility, it's an emotional investment, it's a time investment. There are rewards, but also limits and boundaries even in families. At a company, that's an endless amount of just relationships to manage in the form of a family. I have that with my family, that's enough for me.
I worked at a place where after several moves and re-orgs we ended up sitting next to a very strange HR group. They all seemed like good friends in HR, friends outside of work, and yet at the same time they fought like children... a great deal. A lot like a family might.
It was HORRIBLE. I don't know the phrase but they had these constant "emotional impositions" (not sure if that's the right phrase) on each other and everyone around them.
I'd constantly run into one of them in the conference room I reserved ... crying. Now a few times, whatever, I'll happily shepherd everyone to another room. It happens, no big deal. But it wasn't once in a while. It was constant, and if it wasn't someone crying it was them arguing unprofessionally and so on.
They even went so far as to complain the people sitting next to them (overworked, ultra busy tech support team) "are not social" / was "always at their desks working" and complained that tech support didn't attend their events that always had the food and events they wanted (weird pizza, etc). They complained to management about it constantly, I don't know what they expected those people to do, force them to socialize?
As a family goes, I kinda expect all that, but I don't want that at work. It's unprofessional, unproductive, and IMO emotionally manipulative.
I've formed close relationships at work, I care about he people I work with, that's great, but it's a choice and I don't just embrace any given stranger as "family", nor is it appropriate to expect anyone to.
To me family is a lot of responsibility, it's an emotional investment, it's a time investment. There are rewards, but also limits and boundaries even in families. At a company, that's an endless amount of just relationships to manage in the form of a family. I have that with my family, that's enough for me.
I worked at a place where after several moves and re-orgs we ended up sitting next to a very strange HR group. They all seemed like good friends in HR, friends outside of work, and yet at the same time they fought like children... a great deal. A lot like a family might.
It was HORRIBLE. I don't know the phrase but they had these constant "emotional impositions" (not sure if that's the right phrase) on each other and everyone around them.
I'd constantly run into one of them in the conference room I reserved ... crying. Now a few times, whatever, I'll happily shepherd everyone to another room. It happens, no big deal. But it wasn't once in a while. It was constant, and if it wasn't someone crying it was them arguing unprofessionally and so on.
They even went so far as to complain the people sitting next to them (overworked, ultra busy tech support team) "are not social" / was "always at their desks working" and complained that tech support didn't attend their events that always had the food and events they wanted (weird pizza, etc). They complained to management about it constantly, I don't know what they expected those people to do, force them to socialize?
As a family goes, I kinda expect all that, but I don't want that at work. It's unprofessional, unproductive, and IMO emotionally manipulative.
I've formed close relationships at work, I care about he people I work with, that's great, but it's a choice and I don't just embrace any given stranger as "family", nor is it appropriate to expect anyone to.
I disagree, my father ran a small business (physical goods) and the people in his company were almost like a family. They felt as such, we treated them as such, it was amazing...brings a tear. I cannot emphasize this enough: It was far better relationship than resentful people on HN who are constantly complaining about work. They were happier as a whole.
Your father's business is an exception, not the norm. Also, complaining about work is as human of an experience as death itself. That's why it's called work...
That's not what I'm talking about. I mean companies that brand themselves as “was are a family” not where it comes from a genuine connection between the employees.
Yes, sadly HN does seem to have a high proportion of folks who don't seem to understand the value of human connection. Everything is about technology.
But not all mission statements are meaningless, and not all attempts by executives to create a family-like culture come from a bad place.
Much of it comes from a good place, and it often works. But people who experience this I think are less likely to write on HN.
But not all mission statements are meaningless, and not all attempts by executives to create a family-like culture come from a bad place.
Much of it comes from a good place, and it often works. But people who experience this I think are less likely to write on HN.
> But not all mission statements are meaningless, and not all attempts by executives to create a family-like culture come from a bad place.
Executives that make promises to their employees they can't deliver on should know better. You can't create a "family" out of your company because the realities of running a business make that impossible. It's fine to encourage mutual respect, etc as cultural values but it's important to make clear where the boundaries are or people will be hurt (either financially or emotionally) when you can't deliver. Saying the company is "like a family" is blurring these lines, not making them clear.
Edit: That's not even mentioning how "we're like a family" usually means "we're like a TV family". Many real families sometimes fight, swear at each other, say fucked up, sometimes racist/sexist/etc, things, talk about politics and religion, etc. Most larger companies would not tolerate any of this.
Executives that make promises to their employees they can't deliver on should know better. You can't create a "family" out of your company because the realities of running a business make that impossible. It's fine to encourage mutual respect, etc as cultural values but it's important to make clear where the boundaries are or people will be hurt (either financially or emotionally) when you can't deliver. Saying the company is "like a family" is blurring these lines, not making them clear.
Edit: That's not even mentioning how "we're like a family" usually means "we're like a TV family". Many real families sometimes fight, swear at each other, say fucked up, sometimes racist/sexist/etc, things, talk about politics and religion, etc. Most larger companies would not tolerate any of this.
The reason I consider an employer saying "we are a family here" problematic is because it's obviously untrue.
My family will support me no matter what. My family will never fire me. My family actually loves me.
None of those things are true with an employer.
My family will support me no matter what. My family will never fire me. My family actually loves me.
None of those things are true with an employer.
Well sure if you approach the situation with a dictionary definition of family you will be disappointed. And to be honest your definition of family is from a hallmark card. That isn’t most people’s experience.
> That isn’t most people’s experience.
I don't think that either of us know what "most people's" experience actually is. With the people I've gotten to know over the years, that is the most common experience. Apparently, it's not with the ones you have gotten to know.
Both of us have a selection bias going on.
I don't think that either of us know what "most people's" experience actually is. With the people I've gotten to know over the years, that is the most common experience. Apparently, it's not with the ones you have gotten to know.
Both of us have a selection bias going on.
In my experience the focus is on human connection and that why this criticism is here - this is a business which necessarily can't prioritize human connection over profit trying to motivate people to work more. I think it's all about the outcomes - if you say "we're a family - we give plenty of second chances and then help people find a new job" is very different from "we're a family, so you need to work late tonight to get this project done"
HN is also violently against social events at a company and the idea of social interaction.
Hate to break it to HN, but the most successful engineers I've met in the biz are also very empathetic and enjoyable to be around. This HN stereotype that you have to be an low-EQ, frustrated incel to work on software is incorrect in my reality. Just look at the top coders who are living (Linus, Guido, Hashimoto) and you will notice that they are very teamwork oriented people.
Hate to break it to HN, but the most successful engineers I've met in the biz are also very empathetic and enjoyable to be around. This HN stereotype that you have to be an low-EQ, frustrated incel to work on software is incorrect in my reality. Just look at the top coders who are living (Linus, Guido, Hashimoto) and you will notice that they are very teamwork oriented people.
Actions, not words.
From my experience, the more a company TALKS about being a family, the less it acts like one.
From my experience, the more a company TALKS about being a family, the less it acts like one.
Benevolent ownership works well, till the owner passes on. Then all of the unwritten promises no longer exist.
Actually, having integrity usually means being clear with people about budgetary decisions. The manipulative games just makes a firm look like its run by a cult of cons.
Talent cutbacks are a loss of invested resources, and signals a failure to predict market trends. Sure it can also bump a laggard stock short-term, but ultimately signals other internal structural issues.
Good luck, =)
Talent cutbacks are a loss of invested resources, and signals a failure to predict market trends. Sure it can also bump a laggard stock short-term, but ultimately signals other internal structural issues.
Good luck, =)
I'm sure the same-y ness of the language everyone uses is the result of years of academic study in to how to frame things in a way that minimizes the immediate anger in the aggrieved population to minimize things like Going Postal, or sabotage. Of course they don't care about your feelings. As soon as someone is laid off they become a tremendous liability until they are out the door.
Actually, administrative privileges, email redirection, and building access revocation is often done prior to termination notice on Fridays.
This is also why layoffs during vacation windows and on remote sites is more common in IT.
Giving people time to deal with the emotional aspect is important. As exposing a vulnerable backbone to those motivated with grievances is unwise. Recall, 93% of breaches are internal, and proprietary assets tend to leak with layoffs.
It is never an easy task, but it can be done respectfully. =)
This is also why layoffs during vacation windows and on remote sites is more common in IT.
Giving people time to deal with the emotional aspect is important. As exposing a vulnerable backbone to those motivated with grievances is unwise. Recall, 93% of breaches are internal, and proprietary assets tend to leak with layoffs.
It is never an easy task, but it can be done respectfully. =)
I thought after Netflix's culture deck and Reed Hoffman's book Alliance, it would be pretty clear that a company is not a family. It could an alliance, it could be a professional sports team, or it could be some business entity, but definitely not a family. I particularly like the concept of alliance, as it reflects the reality. Well, I guess the memo is not as well known as I thought.
I don't recall where I heard it, but Netflix's own wording were "we're not a family; we're a team".
Nothing more like a family than the conditional love of a company.
The problem with this and many companies trying to be family etc, is that they completely misunderstand what a family is.
Most think a family is a group where people love each other and care for each other. This is wrong, love and affections are symptoms of a healthy family, you can love and care for your friends, you don’t have a family with them. You can actually not really like spending time with many people in your family, but you are still a part of a functioning family (many such cases). In extreme dysfunction, individuals in a family face abuse but for all our intuition they still are a part of a family until the state intervenes.
To this one might say a family is then bonds that occur due to blood relations between its members. This again is a symptom, children in an adoptive family still constitute a family.
So what exactly is a family? A family is a binding contract where individuals agree to stay together regardless of the circumstances. In the past this contract was enforced to death out of necessity, now this contract is enforced out of necessity till the child becomes 18 generally. There may be hatred, sickness, or a litany of other disturbances but the individuals still stick by each other. This by definition is something a company cannot recreate (without coming awfully close to slavery), and thus it is hopeless for a company to try to aim to be your family. You can leave when you want and they can let you go when they want. That simply is not the same bond as a family.
Most think a family is a group where people love each other and care for each other. This is wrong, love and affections are symptoms of a healthy family, you can love and care for your friends, you don’t have a family with them. You can actually not really like spending time with many people in your family, but you are still a part of a functioning family (many such cases). In extreme dysfunction, individuals in a family face abuse but for all our intuition they still are a part of a family until the state intervenes.
To this one might say a family is then bonds that occur due to blood relations between its members. This again is a symptom, children in an adoptive family still constitute a family.
So what exactly is a family? A family is a binding contract where individuals agree to stay together regardless of the circumstances. In the past this contract was enforced to death out of necessity, now this contract is enforced out of necessity till the child becomes 18 generally. There may be hatred, sickness, or a litany of other disturbances but the individuals still stick by each other. This by definition is something a company cannot recreate (without coming awfully close to slavery), and thus it is hopeless for a company to try to aim to be your family. You can leave when you want and they can let you go when they want. That simply is not the same bond as a family.
Adult family relationships have historically been culturally mandatory and unseverable but that’s increasingly not the case in the US.
Cultural messages that use therapy-speak, if not necessarily promulgated by actual therapists, encourages more and more atomization. Anyone that is annoying, disagreeable, or who has the wrong ideology is labeled “toxic” and people are encouraged to cut them out of their lives. This includes parents, siblings, spouses—of course an uncle or cousin is entirely disposable.
Cultural messages that use therapy-speak, if not necessarily promulgated by actual therapists, encourages more and more atomization. Anyone that is annoying, disagreeable, or who has the wrong ideology is labeled “toxic” and people are encouraged to cut them out of their lives. This includes parents, siblings, spouses—of course an uncle or cousin is entirely disposable.
I have been intentionally toxic to my family for years, and only recently succeeded in having them cut me out of their lives.
The "unseverable" bonds of family have caused a litany of mental and physical problems for me my entire life. It's only since my "toxic" behavior finally exhausted their fidelity that I've begun to feel like myself.
The "unseverable" bonds of family have caused a litany of mental and physical problems for me my entire life. It's only since my "toxic" behavior finally exhausted their fidelity that I've begun to feel like myself.
I've begun to feel like myself.
How can you tell?
How can you tell?
> you can love and care for your friends, you don’t have a family with them.
I'm not so sure. My set of friends have been friends for over 35 years. We're as much family as our blood relations, in pretty much every way I can think of.
I'm not so sure. My set of friends have been friends for over 35 years. We're as much family as our blood relations, in pretty much every way I can think of.
It is a joke, and funny. But not entirely sure this is un-realistic in todays world.
or "As you know, Grandma has Long Covid. With her reduced efficiency, and diminishing ROI, tough choices have to be made"
> Edit. Not sure why the negative feedback. We all know this is satire and a joke right?
or "As you know, Grandma has Long Covid. With her reduced efficiency, and diminishing ROI, tough choices have to be made"
> Edit. Not sure why the negative feedback. We all know this is satire and a joke right?
I think that's generally the point of targeted satire. You've seen the real thing (from companies, in this case) so many times that it feels like it could be real.
It's the basis for sites like The Onion and Beaverton.
It's the basis for sites like The Onion and Beaverton.
Ye messages from some companies are best described as psychotic. I got this feeling that the inner circle on many companies are like sects, but I have never dwelt on those my self.
I know it is satire. I'm saying it might be even more dire, that in todays world, and limited access to health care, families might increasingly put kids up for adoptions. And of course, the cross link to corporate satire makes it more funny and sad.
I mean, there are a lot less far-fetched examples. I mean, I left home at 17 for economic reasons. And if you think of all of the people who have disowned or been disowned by their own family it's pretty common.
lol, to the detriment of employment discrimination laws banning you from firing an employee due to medical reasons… funny but there are some companies I know that operate this way.
This is beautiful.
Many years ago, I learned that "we are a family here" is a red-flag phrase that is indicative of that being a poor place to work.
Many years ago, I learned that "we are a family here" is a red-flag phrase that is indicative of that being a poor place to work.
Disregarding the biological aspects, I think the problem is "families" don't care about people, it's a group of individuals who, through deeply caring about each other, create this thing we've labelled a family. I've definitely had glimpses of this with some work relationships, but it had nothing to do with the company.
It's coming from a different topic, but I like a relevant quote from (the excellent) Dahlia Lithwick on her podcast Amicus (<https://overcast.fm/+Don0hUpKc>):
>Being in a family relationship at work never redounds to the benefit of the children
>Being in a family relationship at work never redounds to the benefit of the children
Don't go into business with family!
Author forgot 'I take full responsibility'
I love reading the bizarre screeds that companies put on their websites as a mission statement. Once I saw a company website shouting that they had a “relentless obsession with customer satisfaction.” I was like, take a deep breath Bob. You’re gonna burst a blood vessel.
several years ago I became an "ultra high net worth individual" (through unexpected events involving a car accident and an inept (but very large) insurance company, and with the help of my closest family members I/we decided (for legal reasons) what was to be done with my wealth in the event of my death. Deciding which family members (I have a pretty big family, if I count aunts, uncles, cousins, but only two grandparents left) to whom I would want to leave what amounts of that wealth was very surreal. Kind of felt like putting monetary values on family, which I guess in a sense it literally was.
Had someone try to recruit me last week with the phrase “it’s like a family.” Kids… if you hear this phrase, run away. Likewise, if anyone ever calls you a “company man” consider whether it’s a similar ploy to manipulate your emotions.
The whole premise of comparing a company to a family is not only flawed. It's just straight up incorrect/wrong. Very little about companies and the way they run and operate looks remotely like a family.
This reminded me of a sketch made by Studio C: https://youtu.be/EmY2b-i-NpE
I especially like the very American "I ask that you refrain from discussing your termination with any social contacts made through your membership in the family [...] Failure to comply may result in your severance being terminated early or withheld entirely."
In (most of ?) Europe, this severance is law and not debatable (as discovered by Musk recently), so this sentence would be outright illegal. You can talk about your salary with anyone you want, discuss it with your colleagues, that's even mandatory for mass-layoffs (through unions and/or elected representatives).
You should fight for some more rights, sometime <3
In (most of ?) Europe, this severance is law and not debatable (as discovered by Musk recently), so this sentence would be outright illegal. You can talk about your salary with anyone you want, discuss it with your colleagues, that's even mandatory for mass-layoffs (through unions and/or elected representatives).
You should fight for some more rights, sometime <3
As you so sarcastically point out, Americans give up many employment rights such as these.
But it's not a one-way street. Being easier to fire makes American employees easier to hire, which is at least in part responsible for much higher pay in the USA compared to employee havens such as Europe.
Furthermore, Americans tend to pay less tax. This isn't usually thought of as an employee rights issue, but in my mind, keeping more of your money = stronger property rights
But it's not a one-way street. Being easier to fire makes American employees easier to hire, which is at least in part responsible for much higher pay in the USA compared to employee havens such as Europe.
Furthermore, Americans tend to pay less tax. This isn't usually thought of as an employee rights issue, but in my mind, keeping more of your money = stronger property rights
I’m not convinced Americans pay less in taxes.
When you include state taxes, social security from the employee and employer, then it starts to look like much less of a difference.
When you include health insurance and college education, Americans get much less value.
I do agree with the first half of your comment. American labor laws make it easier to fire which allows employers to take more risk in hiring.
When you include state taxes, social security from the employee and employer, then it starts to look like much less of a difference.
When you include health insurance and college education, Americans get much less value.
I do agree with the first half of your comment. American labor laws make it easier to fire which allows employers to take more risk in hiring.
> American labor laws make it easier to fire which allows employers to take more risk in hiring.
You can have your cake and eat it too. It's called the Danish model, although Denmark itself has an imperfect implementation of the model.
In the Danish model, it's easy to fire people, but the social safety net ensures that the employee doesn't get screwed if it happens. They don't lose their health insurance, EI is generous enough that it has minimal impact on their lifestyle, etc.
You can have your cake and eat it too. It's called the Danish model, although Denmark itself has an imperfect implementation of the model.
In the Danish model, it's easy to fire people, but the social safety net ensures that the employee doesn't get screwed if it happens. They don't lose their health insurance, EI is generous enough that it has minimal impact on their lifestyle, etc.
It's exactly the same in Austria, you can always get fired without any reasons and without any severance, you just have to rely on unemployment. It still sucks though compared to other countries where you can't easily get fired, as the unemployment money might not always cover your expenses like mortgage, if you had a high paying job and got into a lot of debt for a house.
And this system of being easy to fire people hasn't exactly resulted in the well paying and plentiful jobs market the way it was promised, most likely due to the bureaucracy and high taxes on businesses, keeping investors away.
So having employees easy to fire is not the key to a good jobs market, but it's having the capital, bureaucracy and tax laws, coupled with the risk taking mentality to convince the rich to invest their wealth in starting new businesses knowing 95% of them will fail and only 5% will succeed, instead of hoarding their wealth away in multi-gernerational real estate thanks to zero inheritance taxes like the wealthy in Austria and Europe in general do.
And this system of being easy to fire people hasn't exactly resulted in the well paying and plentiful jobs market the way it was promised, most likely due to the bureaucracy and high taxes on businesses, keeping investors away.
So having employees easy to fire is not the key to a good jobs market, but it's having the capital, bureaucracy and tax laws, coupled with the risk taking mentality to convince the rich to invest their wealth in starting new businesses knowing 95% of them will fail and only 5% will succeed, instead of hoarding their wealth away in multi-gernerational real estate thanks to zero inheritance taxes like the wealthy in Austria and Europe in general do.
Correction: you cannot get fired ("Entlassung") without any reason in Austria, you need rather strong reasons to fire somebody[0], but your employment contract can be terminated with a notice period anytime* ("Kündigung")[1]. The notice period is 6 weeks at minimum by law (6-12 weeks is common in startups by employment contract) and includes "Postensuchtage"[2], which allow you to use 20% of your time during the notice period however you want.
*: every 1st or 15th of the month is common
[0]: https://www.usp.gv.at/en/mitarbeiter/beendigung-arbeitsverha...
[1]: https://www.usp.gv.at/en/mitarbeiter/beendigung-arbeitsverha...
[2]: https://www.wko.at/service/arbeitsrecht-sozialrecht/Anspruch...
*: every 1st or 15th of the month is common
[0]: https://www.usp.gv.at/en/mitarbeiter/beendigung-arbeitsverha...
[1]: https://www.usp.gv.at/en/mitarbeiter/beendigung-arbeitsverha...
[2]: https://www.wko.at/service/arbeitsrecht-sozialrecht/Anspruch...
>but your employment contract can be terminated with a notice period anytime ("Kündigung")
Yes, that's what I meant by being fired, with notice. You thought I meant being fired without notice which is uncommon anywhere in Europe unless the employee did something illegal.
The fact that in Austria your employer can terminate your employment contract anytime with a notice period, and for no reason, is very rare in Europe as it makes employees super vulnerable to loosing their jobs anytime.
In most EU countries, with better employee protections, employers need valid reason and proof to terminate your contract with notice, otherwise they can get sued for wrongful termination and have to pay penalties.
Also, in Austria you can even get fired (with notice) while you're on sick leave, which is pretty barbaric by EU standards.
Yes, that's what I meant by being fired, with notice. You thought I meant being fired without notice which is uncommon anywhere in Europe unless the employee did something illegal.
The fact that in Austria your employer can terminate your employment contract anytime with a notice period, and for no reason, is very rare in Europe as it makes employees super vulnerable to loosing their jobs anytime.
In most EU countries, with better employee protections, employers need valid reason and proof to terminate your contract with notice, otherwise they can get sued for wrongful termination and have to pay penalties.
Also, in Austria you can even get fired (with notice) while you're on sick leave, which is pretty barbaric by EU standards.
> When you include state taxes, social security from the employee and employer, then it starts to look like much less of a difference.
When you count just the taxes we definitely pay less, especially in places like Texas and Florida. Well, I suppose there's the budget deficit and national debt to consider, though yours aren't exactly great either.
Well, except that there's a middle income trap with social security taxes. Basically, you want to be earning either a fair bit more than the social security cut-off, or to be on welfare. This is a terrible feature of our system.
> When you include health insurance and college education, Americans get much less value.
Honestly I'm starting to believe that our tertiary education system is vastly overvalued and that we can do much better for much less cost. Also, we have state schools that are very good and very cheap (by comparison to private ones anyways). I know people who have done very well in tech without having gone to school or graduated.
As for medical, the only coverage I want is catastrophic, and if I could just just get that then health care would be way cheaper. Health care providers generally have much lower prices when you have no insurance and pay out of pocket.
> I do agree with the first half of your comment. American labor laws make it easier to fire which allows employers to take more risk in hiring.
This is, on the whole, a very very nice feature. We also have better political speech rights than you. And... well, the whole Bill of Rights is a big deal, and European countries mostly don't have anything like it.
When you count just the taxes we definitely pay less, especially in places like Texas and Florida. Well, I suppose there's the budget deficit and national debt to consider, though yours aren't exactly great either.
Well, except that there's a middle income trap with social security taxes. Basically, you want to be earning either a fair bit more than the social security cut-off, or to be on welfare. This is a terrible feature of our system.
> When you include health insurance and college education, Americans get much less value.
Honestly I'm starting to believe that our tertiary education system is vastly overvalued and that we can do much better for much less cost. Also, we have state schools that are very good and very cheap (by comparison to private ones anyways). I know people who have done very well in tech without having gone to school or graduated.
As for medical, the only coverage I want is catastrophic, and if I could just just get that then health care would be way cheaper. Health care providers generally have much lower prices when you have no insurance and pay out of pocket.
> I do agree with the first half of your comment. American labor laws make it easier to fire which allows employers to take more risk in hiring.
This is, on the whole, a very very nice feature. We also have better political speech rights than you. And... well, the whole Bill of Rights is a big deal, and European countries mostly don't have anything like it.
Texas has the highest property taxes in the country, so it is false to think that moving to Texas (or Florida, with their insurance nightmares) is some sort of free-money trick.
Eh, Texas has high property taxes (because they function as a backdoor income tax via the "Robin Hood" school district subsidy program), but they vary a fair bit, and there's no state income tax. Compare to NJ which has high income and high property taxes.
We definitely have something like the Bill of Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_R...
I think the US has more freedom of speech (although it's hard to tell without training in constitutional law over 24 official languages (25 if you want to count Welsh, is this EU, Europe, or Council of Europe? Might need to add more…) and a split between common and (multiple subtypes of) civil law), but also I think it's a difference in detail not in kind.
I think the US has more freedom of speech (although it's hard to tell without training in constitutional law over 24 official languages (25 if you want to count Welsh, is this EU, Europe, or Council of Europe? Might need to add more…) and a split between common and (multiple subtypes of) civil law), but also I think it's a difference in detail not in kind.
"As for medical, the only coverage I want is catastrophic, and if I could just just get that then health care would be way cheaper. Health care providers generally have much lower prices when you have no insurance and pay out of pocket."
I've had several chronic issues, including cancer surgery and the followon therapies, that I in no way wanted, that stretched out years, ensuring that we (the family) spent our ~$10K deductible for several years running. I've seen this with quite a few other people, as well. It is certain that we would have been bankrupted w/o middling quality corp health insurance. We have also had many $1000s in dental bills, in a year, quite a few times.
The idea that you could self finance these yearly cash flow (up to, what, $100K?) is absurd, unless you are really rich, but you seem to be somewhat price sensitive, so I dunno.
OTOH my sister-in-law makes > $500K/y as an anesthesiologist, and her spouse is a pathologist sadly making somewhat less, so on average the family must be doing great!
Yeah no, my Euro-fruends are aghast at the medical situation here in the US, and we all do view it as a massive effective tax on the unlucky that Europeans more or less don't have to worry about.
I've had several chronic issues, including cancer surgery and the followon therapies, that I in no way wanted, that stretched out years, ensuring that we (the family) spent our ~$10K deductible for several years running. I've seen this with quite a few other people, as well. It is certain that we would have been bankrupted w/o middling quality corp health insurance. We have also had many $1000s in dental bills, in a year, quite a few times.
The idea that you could self finance these yearly cash flow (up to, what, $100K?) is absurd, unless you are really rich, but you seem to be somewhat price sensitive, so I dunno.
OTOH my sister-in-law makes > $500K/y as an anesthesiologist, and her spouse is a pathologist sadly making somewhat less, so on average the family must be doing great!
Yeah no, my Euro-fruends are aghast at the medical situation here in the US, and we all do view it as a massive effective tax on the unlucky that Europeans more or less don't have to worry about.
All of this is due to a) ACA, b) the whole HMO craze in the 90s, and c) long before that, ERISA, oh and also: lack of pricing transparency, and lack of incentives to users to check pricing, and so on and on.
We don't have a free market in health care unless you have no coverage, then you can actually negotiate prices. What we have is a monster, and the monster we have today is way way worse than the monster we had in the early 90s.
Not that it helps to say these things. Most of you are either a) bigtech employees with nice healthcare plans and maybe don't care that much (until you're no longer bigtech), or b) fintech employees (same), or c) too young to remember what 80%/20% plans were like back in the day (or never had a non-$WORK plan) and therefore all too willing to demand and/or accept any purported solution that isn't. I hope it helps to say these things here.
Meanwhile we've had a lot of factors pushing up inflation in medical services, so when you add it all up it sucks, but it sucks for all sorts of artificial reasons.
We don't have a free market in health care unless you have no coverage, then you can actually negotiate prices. What we have is a monster, and the monster we have today is way way worse than the monster we had in the early 90s.
Not that it helps to say these things. Most of you are either a) bigtech employees with nice healthcare plans and maybe don't care that much (until you're no longer bigtech), or b) fintech employees (same), or c) too young to remember what 80%/20% plans were like back in the day (or never had a non-$WORK plan) and therefore all too willing to demand and/or accept any purported solution that isn't. I hope it helps to say these things here.
Meanwhile we've had a lot of factors pushing up inflation in medical services, so when you add it all up it sucks, but it sucks for all sorts of artificial reasons.
> "I do agree with the first half of your comment. American labor laws make it easier to fire which allows employers to take more risk in hiring. "
less risk, you used the wrong word. If they can fire easily, they take less risk by hiring. That's more risk for the employee though, you miss the fact that most of the people is not HN, and they don't get paid 6 or 7 figures and don't find a job in days if they really need to.
less risk, you used the wrong word. If they can fire easily, they take less risk by hiring. That's more risk for the employee though, you miss the fact that most of the people is not HN, and they don't get paid 6 or 7 figures and don't find a job in days if they really need to.
I think they take less risk in each hiring decision and because of that, can take on more risky / less proven candidates, ergo more risk acceptance in the hiring practices.
To rephrase, you're saying that US companies are able to more quickly divest from failed ideas so they are more willing to take on a venture that's not likely to succeed (risky) because failure will not hurt them as much (less risky).
This is a scoping issue, the action contains the risk because the system has mitigated it.
This is a scoping issue, the action contains the risk because the system has mitigated it.
You are right - but because each hire is less risky, a US company can afford to take the risk of hiring for an "experimental" role that may not work out. I think this additional risk is what they were referring to.
> I'm not convinced Americans pay less in taxes
They do. It's been quantified. There are many states with no income tax.
A 230k salary and corporate health insurance is going to put you ahead of almost every European software shop.
I love Germany and enjoyed my time there, but I choose to work in the states and have the financial security that can only be gained by saving money from a high salary.
Still, I would love to see some friction added to the layoff process in the US. Perhaps larger mandatory severance periods. Make layoffs possible, but not easy.
They do. It's been quantified. There are many states with no income tax.
A 230k salary and corporate health insurance is going to put you ahead of almost every European software shop.
I love Germany and enjoyed my time there, but I choose to work in the states and have the financial security that can only be gained by saving money from a high salary.
Still, I would love to see some friction added to the layoff process in the US. Perhaps larger mandatory severance periods. Make layoffs possible, but not easy.
If you live in the UK, income tax is 45%, and you still cannot rely on either of public education or public healthcare, at least if you want something of good quality.
It is 20% up to 37k, 40% after that through 125k, and 45% after that. The US federal income tax is graduated much more finely but hits 12% between 10k and 42k and 22% from there to 89k, and 24% until 140k.
This neglects any state income or sales tax as well.
This neglects any state income or sales tax as well.
The highest band is the only one that matters really, at least if we're talking about people that could freely choose to work in either country at top tech companies.
We are not concerned with people on high salaries. They can hopefully take care of themselves. Far more important to talk about low, average and median earners for I hope obvious reasons.
Not really concerned about the people for whom the top bracket represents most of their taxable income. Even well paid developers have most of their income taxed below that rate anyway.
US sales taxes are about half of most European countries, which have VAT.
Just stopping by to mention, for the non-Americans, that taxes as in the plural is important here: Sales taxes here in the US vary at the municipal, county, and state levels and any or all can apply towards your purchases at the same time.
From earlier HN threads, it seems that:
- When you contact government offices to ensure you're paying the right taxes on the right things, it's very difficult to get a real answer. Many of them just outright do not know, and rely on "a good-faith effort".
- The situation is so convoluted that their are specialist companies which sell you the idea that they can take care of it for you, yet want you sign a contract that says they're not liable for any problems.
- When you contact government offices to ensure you're paying the right taxes on the right things, it's very difficult to get a real answer. Many of them just outright do not know, and rely on "a good-faith effort".
- The situation is so convoluted that their are specialist companies which sell you the idea that they can take care of it for you, yet want you sign a contract that says they're not liable for any problems.
US income tax inclusive of state taxes rolls to something like 33%...but then you have health insurance that, for many is FAR greater than 12%. If you include the cost of what your taxes get you, it is far greater than in the US.
Keep in mind that even with health insurance people still get multi-hundred dollar medical bills. Broken bones? Min of $1500.
A private consultation is typically 200 GBP in London, any minor injury would easily cost you around the amount you say.
Or you can go to A&E and wait 8 hours, and have it be free.
Or you can go to A&E and wait 8 hours, and have it be free.
here you get the wait and you get to pay the private price, on top of your insurance.
At least for me, regular medical care needs scheduled out some months, doctors have poor availbility. I get one freebie a year via insurance, everything else is about $50.
For minor injuries, or medical stuff that needs same-day eyes, but not a full emergency department, there is urgent care. You wait as long as it takes, in my area, usually 30-90 minutes, pay $100 and they may or may not be able to help. Minor prescriptions and stitches they can usually do
For major stuff, such as broken bones, heart attack, psychosis, whatever, there is the ER. You wait as long as you wait, and it's about $300 for the initial visit, though this can climb rapidly if you need to stay.
That's about it for your insured options.
Your uninsured options are similar, but more expensive. If you are extremely poor, or old, or both you may have a semi-free option with medicare and medicaid, but that is more complicated than I care to type out.
At least for me, regular medical care needs scheduled out some months, doctors have poor availbility. I get one freebie a year via insurance, everything else is about $50.
For minor injuries, or medical stuff that needs same-day eyes, but not a full emergency department, there is urgent care. You wait as long as it takes, in my area, usually 30-90 minutes, pay $100 and they may or may not be able to help. Minor prescriptions and stitches they can usually do
For major stuff, such as broken bones, heart attack, psychosis, whatever, there is the ER. You wait as long as you wait, and it's about $300 for the initial visit, though this can climb rapidly if you need to stay.
That's about it for your insured options.
Your uninsured options are similar, but more expensive. If you are extremely poor, or old, or both you may have a semi-free option with medicare and medicaid, but that is more complicated than I care to type out.
Income tax in the UK is 45% only on the portion over £125,140 (~ $160,000) a year: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates
you should consider disposing of a significant swath of tea in the local harbor
> college education
College education can be had for super cheap in the US via community colleges. Going to an expensive college is a lifestyle choice and I know many people who spend first 2 years in local community colleges and then move to the state college system.
College education can be had for super cheap in the US via community colleges. Going to an expensive college is a lifestyle choice and I know many people who spend first 2 years in local community colleges and then move to the state college system.
College education at US community colleges can be had for sort of cheap: you still have tuition in the $1000-2000 range per semester, as well as living costs. Example: Austin Community College, where a local resident (but not all Texans!) would be on the hook for about $1800 for a 15-credit-hour semester. If you have the good fortune of living in an excellent community college district, it can be pretty good; if you don’t… sorry.
College education in Germany and most other EU members is truly cheap: you have semester fees well under 500 EUR (when they were raised to that in Germany, massive protests pushed them back), plus living costs, no matter where in the country you went to high school or your parents live, no matter whether you’re sticking around at Eastern Bavaria University of Applied Sciences (a relatively new institution serving a traditionally less-prosperous part of the state, with enrollment open to anyone who got an Abitur) or managed to win one of the competitive computer science spots at Technische Universität München: both have semester fees around 100 EUR.
College education in Germany and most other EU members is truly cheap: you have semester fees well under 500 EUR (when they were raised to that in Germany, massive protests pushed them back), plus living costs, no matter where in the country you went to high school or your parents live, no matter whether you’re sticking around at Eastern Bavaria University of Applied Sciences (a relatively new institution serving a traditionally less-prosperous part of the state, with enrollment open to anyone who got an Abitur) or managed to win one of the competitive computer science spots at Technische Universität München: both have semester fees around 100 EUR.
Not as cheap as it used to be. Here in NC, just those last 2 years at a state school, instate costs (NOT including lodging or other living expenses) are almost $40,000. Not nothing.
Do you have any sources? I looked at the closest community college for me (De Anza) and it's tuition is 19,950 including 11,796 for room and board. Without that, since most college kids can live with parents, it's less than 8000[1]. And this is in SV, one of the most expensive places in the US.
[1] https://www.deanza.edu/financialaid/apply/cost.html
[1] https://www.deanza.edu/financialaid/apply/cost.html
GP is talking about the last 2 years, not the first 2 years.
If Europeans had to pay to defend their own international shipping routes their taxes would be exorbinant.
In the real life (instead of the heads of famous youtubers), piracy is fought on each country, by the local country. That's agreed upon by almost every country on the world, and the ones that don't agree or don't hold their part are cut from the global economy.
Despite what a famous youtuber like to preach, the US participation is on the US and very few countries that explicitly call for help. And when countries need help, it's not usually the US that they ask first.
Despite what a famous youtuber like to preach, the US participation is on the US and very few countries that explicitly call for help. And when countries need help, it's not usually the US that they ask first.
It's not just piracy, right?
take a look at "property tax"
I moved from the UK to the US recently and I'm not sure it's worth my while.
Sure, I make more than 2x the salary, but the cost of living of a bit tech hub chips away most of it. Specially housing, which has increased dramatically since Covid. Even with my big fat tech salary, getting in the properly ladder seems to be years away.
Pay less taxes? sure, but then you have to pay for everything and then some, and everything is incredibly expensive. And we don't even have children yet. I can't imagine being able to afford childcare even with my current income.
I agree that I choose the worst time to move over. In the last year we experienced drop in stock prices combined with soaring inflation, which means that both my income went down, and my expenses went up. Also it's not like I can change employers and get a better deal. Even if the job market wasn't depressed, my visa (L1) doesn't allow me to change employers. Also the latest visa bulletin pushed the current date of my visa category back a couple of years, so Green Card seems like a somewhat distant dream.
All in, I'm not sure my quality of life in this country is better (and the UK itself is not doing great lately).
Sure, I make more than 2x the salary, but the cost of living of a bit tech hub chips away most of it. Specially housing, which has increased dramatically since Covid. Even with my big fat tech salary, getting in the properly ladder seems to be years away.
Pay less taxes? sure, but then you have to pay for everything and then some, and everything is incredibly expensive. And we don't even have children yet. I can't imagine being able to afford childcare even with my current income.
I agree that I choose the worst time to move over. In the last year we experienced drop in stock prices combined with soaring inflation, which means that both my income went down, and my expenses went up. Also it's not like I can change employers and get a better deal. Even if the job market wasn't depressed, my visa (L1) doesn't allow me to change employers. Also the latest visa bulletin pushed the current date of my visa category back a couple of years, so Green Card seems like a somewhat distant dream.
All in, I'm not sure my quality of life in this country is better (and the UK itself is not doing great lately).
The key is to not live in a tech hub or hcol area. You can make a great salary in the 200-300k range in lower cost of living areas and basically live like royalty.
Between the tech industry particularly leaning well towards remote work and the US being predominantly rural countryside geographically, more people should consider not living in the big cities where housing and costs of living are exponentially higher.
My employer forces me to go to the office, which is in a HCOL area.
Maybe after I get my green card I can get a pay cut and move to a LCOL area. But again, is it worth it? I can also get a fully remote job and move back to my hometown by the mediterranean.
Maybe after I get my green card I can get a pay cut and move to a LCOL area. But again, is it worth it? I can also get a fully remote job and move back to my hometown by the mediterranean.
Especially if you bought your house at least 3-4 years ago.
I'm an immigrant too. It took me many years to break even on my emigration.
You only get to the part where it's all worth it once you've settled into the new country, gotten a few jobs/promotions/started a business, bought a house, made lots of friends, learnt the new culture (not such a huge shock for UK->US), etc.
This takes years and sometimes a whole generation!
You only get to the part where it's all worth it once you've settled into the new country, gotten a few jobs/promotions/started a business, bought a house, made lots of friends, learnt the new culture (not such a huge shock for UK->US), etc.
This takes years and sometimes a whole generation!
This is an often repeated mantra: “sure you'll lose some rights, but it will be way easier to find higher paying jobs in a more dynamic market”.
I've lived in two countries that went through this transition in labor laws to follow the neoliberal playbook. Guess what happened.
See also “less regulation will mean more agile and competitive market which will auto regulate itself”, etc.
I've lived in two countries that went through this transition in labor laws to follow the neoliberal playbook. Guess what happened.
See also “less regulation will mean more agile and competitive market which will auto regulate itself”, etc.
Depends on which regulations you remove.
It's against the law to steal money. That's a regulation we need to keep.
It's also against the law to build a house if the existing homeowners vote that you can't. That's a regulation that makes the market less efficient, though I can see the reasoning behind it.
It's against the law to steal money. That's a regulation we need to keep.
It's also against the law to build a house if the existing homeowners vote that you can't. That's a regulation that makes the market less efficient, though I can see the reasoning behind it.
Did you know that the most common sort of theft in the US and Canada is wage theft? It doesn’t happen nearly as often in countries with stronger labour laws.
It doesn’t get prosecuted nearly as much as other types of theft.
https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo...
It doesn’t get prosecuted nearly as much as other types of theft.
https://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-fo...
Can you elaborate further on the points of what happened, the countries themselves, and the final quote?
Retirement age increase, easier/cheaper to fire employees, relaxed definitions of extra-time, the usual.
We ended up with a recession and less rights.
Don’t want to reveal the countries, but it’s a common tale.
We ended up with a recession and less rights.
Don’t want to reveal the countries, but it’s a common tale.
Why don't you want to name two countries on earth? Either people can fact check you or you're just full of it.
Also don't think you are special to live in two countries. This will not dox you.
Also don't think you are special to live in two countries. This will not dox you.
> Being easier to fire makes American employees easier to hire, which is at least in part responsible for much higher pay in the USA compared to employee havens such as Europe.
Only if you're a highly sought after tech person and thus have actual leverage. Farm workers, hospitality employees, construction workers - they're all exploited just the same.
Only if you're a highly sought after tech person and thus have actual leverage. Farm workers, hospitality employees, construction workers - they're all exploited just the same.
Whether Americans pay less in tax is debatable once all taxation is included.
Whether Americans pay far more for health insurance, and whether they're far more likely to be bankrupted by a health crisis, has a very straightforward answer: "yes."
Privatised social services - most obviously health, but also some utilities, transport systems, rented housing, and so on - are de facto corporate taxes.
Americans are subjected to constant and insistent "private good, government bad" propaganda from birth, so it's not always easy to get this point across.
Even so. If you're being forced to pay for essential services, and those services are unaffordable and/or may bankrupt you, you would - unquestionably - find that public ownership would be significantly less precarious and more affordable.
Whether Americans pay far more for health insurance, and whether they're far more likely to be bankrupted by a health crisis, has a very straightforward answer: "yes."
Privatised social services - most obviously health, but also some utilities, transport systems, rented housing, and so on - are de facto corporate taxes.
Americans are subjected to constant and insistent "private good, government bad" propaganda from birth, so it's not always easy to get this point across.
Even so. If you're being forced to pay for essential services, and those services are unaffordable and/or may bankrupt you, you would - unquestionably - find that public ownership would be significantly less precarious and more affordable.
> Furthermore, Americans tend to pay less tax.
This isn't actually true. The total US tax burden is very similar to that of other modern nations.
This isn't actually true. The total US tax burden is very similar to that of other modern nations.
We pay less tax, but pay for health insurance rather than having taxes pay for healthcare.
It’s often not even true that Americans pay a lower tax amount or rate, unless you’re at the richest ends of the scale. (~25 years ago, my wife and I both made about $50–55k; she ended up paying a lower total amount of tax in Canada than I did in the US, and I had the shitty American healthcare system with $15 copays. Needless to say, I emigrated.)
There are regressive taxes (e.g., sales taxes / VAT) which are certainly lower in America than most of the rest of the world, and some American states deliberately starve their government of income so that they cannot be obligated to provide basic services and instead shift things to user fees.
There are regressive taxes (e.g., sales taxes / VAT) which are certainly lower in America than most of the rest of the world, and some American states deliberately starve their government of income so that they cannot be obligated to provide basic services and instead shift things to user fees.
Canada is more in line with US for taxes. In Europe, even middle class people pay 40-50% tax.
In Germany we have probation period of 6 months that helps both sides to decide if they want to continue employment.
Can you please explain the causation between easiness of firing / hiring and high salaries?
Can you please explain the causation between easiness of firing / hiring and high salaries?
I can explain the theory.
In scenario H (for hard to fire), we expect employers to spend more time evaluating new hires, because if they make a suboptimal choice, they will be stuck with that employee until they can justify to the authority that the employee is not suitable. This makes them averse to hiring quickly, and also averse to paying a premium unless they are extremely certain of the results. We then expect potential employees to spend more time vetting potential employers, because any involuntary job search process is going to be long and expensive.
In scenario E (for easy to fire), we expect employers to spend less time evaluating new hires, and to be more agreeable to paying a premium, because the loss of hiring suboptimally can be swiftly ended. Since employers hire faster, we expect employees to spend less time vetting employers, since getting a new different job should take less time.
In practice, I suspect that current economic situations are much more of a driver than the regulatory regime.
In scenario H (for hard to fire), we expect employers to spend more time evaluating new hires, because if they make a suboptimal choice, they will be stuck with that employee until they can justify to the authority that the employee is not suitable. This makes them averse to hiring quickly, and also averse to paying a premium unless they are extremely certain of the results. We then expect potential employees to spend more time vetting potential employers, because any involuntary job search process is going to be long and expensive.
In scenario E (for easy to fire), we expect employers to spend less time evaluating new hires, and to be more agreeable to paying a premium, because the loss of hiring suboptimally can be swiftly ended. Since employers hire faster, we expect employees to spend less time vetting employers, since getting a new different job should take less time.
In practice, I suspect that current economic situations are much more of a driver than the regulatory regime.
I can't imagine employers spending more time vetting employees in the tech sector than they already do. The gauntlet candidates run through today is overkill. What more can they test?
Well probation isn't really what I was talking about. That's sort of a pre-employment notice period.
I'm talking about a post-employment notice period. How much notice does the employee get between getting fired and then no longer receiving paycheques? Basically, how much severance does the company have to pay?
Add to this any red tape involved in firing someone.
Now look at it from the point of view of the company. If I, the business owner, know that I have to comply with a raft of regulations and pay several months' severance to fire someone, I'll be very reluctant to hire them in the first place. I'll jump through hoops, work late nights, outsource the job, do anything I can to avoid hiring someone.
On the other hand, if I'm in an at-will state in the US, you can fire someone for no reason with zero notice. Seems crazy right? But it means I won't even think twice about hiring someone either. Could they maybe help on a project? Sure, hire them! Frequently one thing leads to another and employees stay on for a long time anyway.
Now in the second case the same number of companies with the same capital available will end up hiring lots more people due to the lower friction.
Make it easy to get out of a situation, and more people will want to get into that situation.
I'm talking about a post-employment notice period. How much notice does the employee get between getting fired and then no longer receiving paycheques? Basically, how much severance does the company have to pay?
Add to this any red tape involved in firing someone.
Now look at it from the point of view of the company. If I, the business owner, know that I have to comply with a raft of regulations and pay several months' severance to fire someone, I'll be very reluctant to hire them in the first place. I'll jump through hoops, work late nights, outsource the job, do anything I can to avoid hiring someone.
On the other hand, if I'm in an at-will state in the US, you can fire someone for no reason with zero notice. Seems crazy right? But it means I won't even think twice about hiring someone either. Could they maybe help on a project? Sure, hire them! Frequently one thing leads to another and employees stay on for a long time anyway.
Now in the second case the same number of companies with the same capital available will end up hiring lots more people due to the lower friction.
Make it easy to get out of a situation, and more people will want to get into that situation.
If you hire someone for 100k per year and it turns out they only contribute 50k per year, then you lose a minimum of 25k over those six months.
As a business you're more risk-averse in offering high salaries since it costs more when you make a mistake.
As a business you're more risk-averse in offering high salaries since it costs more when you make a mistake.
You can actually fire people with only two weeks notice during the first 6 months. I think the risk really is that nay inherent flaws in a highly paid employee are not detected early, and to fire them later is indeed very costly and complicated.
2 weeks notice in the first 3 months, 4 weeks in the second 3 months. This works both ways, both sides are free to terminate without stating the reason.
What I understood is that it's pretty easy to fire someone in the US without cause. Pretty impossible in most countries in Europe.
Correct, although there is a legal conundrum. If you fire someone without cause, they can claim that you actually did have a cause, and it's one of the illegal causes. So, it's safer to compile evidence and fire someone for any legal cause -- of which "did not meet company needs" is generally safest.
Even safer is offering them a departure settlement of money and/or insurance coverage, in exchange for which they won't sue you.
Even safer is offering them a departure settlement of money and/or insurance coverage, in exchange for which they won't sue you.
Do you really mean that threatening to claw back severance from critics of the company is a significant part of what makes the U.S. job market work?
no, the comment you're replying was not being so narrow
> Being easier to fire makes American employees easier to hire,
No, there's nothing easier about hiring US employees. It only makes it easier to fire them. This reduces the risk of bad hires for the employers, by allowing them to be easily fired.
That encourages employers to be less risk-averse in hiring, but, once again, it does not facilitate the hiring process.
No, there's nothing easier about hiring US employees. It only makes it easier to fire them. This reduces the risk of bad hires for the employers, by allowing them to be easily fired.
That encourages employers to be less risk-averse in hiring, but, once again, it does not facilitate the hiring process.
I don't know about the substance enough to comment, but did want to remark that I saw no sarcasm in the post you replied to.
This is a refreshing comment to read. HN and Reddit discussions about employment in the US is often just a dumpster fire of "America bad", half-baked theories and observations from the perspective of the employee, where US workers have no rights and would be rioting in the streets if we hadn't been brainwashed by corporate media.
Here on earth, what you wrote is much closer to the truth. The American economy is awash with opportunities to work for small businesses, with employees free to move around and chart their own destiny.
Here on earth, what you wrote is much closer to the truth. The American economy is awash with opportunities to work for small businesses, with employees free to move around and chart their own destiny.
> with employees free to move around and chart their own destiny
What about the European system prevents that for the employee?
What about the European system prevents that for the employee?
That we don't have hire and fire, meaning when you take a new job it comes with all kinds of regulations for the company - making them not wanting to change people so often.
Otherwise we surely can do this in europe as well, just with a little bit more friction.
Otherwise we surely can do this in europe as well, just with a little bit more friction.
So it in theory adds more opportunities for the worker, assuming they are in high demand. Of course, if a European leaves their company they don't lose their health coverage.
It also creates demand even for low-skilled work, since there are more low-margin / seasonal businesses that are feasible under the easy-come-easy-go system.
>What about the European system prevents that for the
employee?
From personal experience:
1. Less employment opportunities due to no VC funding, and risk averse mentality of entrepreneurs meaning next to no big EU SW product companies. That's why the best paying jobs in EU tech scene are mostly US companies, which also tend to be clustered in only a few cities in the EU, where housing is now a major issue.
2. Employment and tax laws. 100% cross-country employment across the EU is still not a thing, as every government wants taxes be paid in their country, so they have the laws and bureaucracy in place to make sure jobs and tax revenue don't leave their country, so living in a country while being employed in another is incredibly rare as an employee and not a B-2-B contractor.
3. The big one: Language barriers and bureaucracy differing from country to country means huge friction and risk when moving to a country you're not familiar with, along with the added overhead of learning a new language on top of having a full time job plus the challenge of building new social circles with a different language and culture. I've seen many people leave a country due to the culture shock, language barrier and isolation that lead to, despite them being friendly people and productive workers.
This might even be a fun challenge to deal with when you're young and single, but when you have a spouse and maybe even a child, things get even more complicated fast when it comes to immigration, finding a house or a job, especially if your spouse doesn't work in tech or any other career where English is normalized at work, or even needs their credentials translated and locally equivalated by the authorities to be eligible for employment.
I've met many expat couples where one works in tech and their non-tech spouse has been unemployed for months/years due to their education, skills and experience not being recognized in the new country. Some EU countries really love bureaucracy, credentials, and don't tolerate you not speaking the local language.
A friend of mine got laid off as part of his company going bankrupt with his last two wages going unpaid. The bureaucracy, letter bombardment and appointments in dealing with the authorities to try to recoup those two months wages, all having to be done in German, a foreign language to him(and me), makes the experience completely exhausting and I can feel he just wants to give up on those unpaid wages.
Imagine someone from Ohio having to learn a new language when moving to California and then another language when moving to New York. Not having to deal with bureaucracy in a foreign language for every state is a huge asset for the US and a weakness of the EU labor mobility. The fix could be easy, mandate English as a second language for bureaucracy in every EU country, but I can name a few countries (not the Northern ones) where I know they'd rather see the world burn than adopt English. It's one of the reason why the UK and Ireland are the top destinations for EU migration, at least that was the case for UK before Brexit.
4. Racism, xenofobia, discrimination and glass ceilings from the locals, when you come from the "wrong" country, have a "wrong" sounding name or the "wrong" skin color.
From personal experience:
1. Less employment opportunities due to no VC funding, and risk averse mentality of entrepreneurs meaning next to no big EU SW product companies. That's why the best paying jobs in EU tech scene are mostly US companies, which also tend to be clustered in only a few cities in the EU, where housing is now a major issue.
2. Employment and tax laws. 100% cross-country employment across the EU is still not a thing, as every government wants taxes be paid in their country, so they have the laws and bureaucracy in place to make sure jobs and tax revenue don't leave their country, so living in a country while being employed in another is incredibly rare as an employee and not a B-2-B contractor.
3. The big one: Language barriers and bureaucracy differing from country to country means huge friction and risk when moving to a country you're not familiar with, along with the added overhead of learning a new language on top of having a full time job plus the challenge of building new social circles with a different language and culture. I've seen many people leave a country due to the culture shock, language barrier and isolation that lead to, despite them being friendly people and productive workers.
This might even be a fun challenge to deal with when you're young and single, but when you have a spouse and maybe even a child, things get even more complicated fast when it comes to immigration, finding a house or a job, especially if your spouse doesn't work in tech or any other career where English is normalized at work, or even needs their credentials translated and locally equivalated by the authorities to be eligible for employment.
I've met many expat couples where one works in tech and their non-tech spouse has been unemployed for months/years due to their education, skills and experience not being recognized in the new country. Some EU countries really love bureaucracy, credentials, and don't tolerate you not speaking the local language.
A friend of mine got laid off as part of his company going bankrupt with his last two wages going unpaid. The bureaucracy, letter bombardment and appointments in dealing with the authorities to try to recoup those two months wages, all having to be done in German, a foreign language to him(and me), makes the experience completely exhausting and I can feel he just wants to give up on those unpaid wages.
Imagine someone from Ohio having to learn a new language when moving to California and then another language when moving to New York. Not having to deal with bureaucracy in a foreign language for every state is a huge asset for the US and a weakness of the EU labor mobility. The fix could be easy, mandate English as a second language for bureaucracy in every EU country, but I can name a few countries (not the Northern ones) where I know they'd rather see the world burn than adopt English. It's one of the reason why the UK and Ireland are the top destinations for EU migration, at least that was the case for UK before Brexit.
4. Racism, xenofobia, discrimination and glass ceilings from the locals, when you come from the "wrong" country, have a "wrong" sounding name or the "wrong" skin color.
All those seem fairly reasonable except for the last when comparing Europe and the United States. Though you're not describing general work with #1, you're describing dev work. Unless this whole discussion is only in reference to software devs, but I don't think it is.
Never experienced #3 in Europe. Language barrier is a non-issue since most countries are fluent in English.
#4 is definitely a bit of an issue. Europe is surprisingly regressive, even compared to the US. Lots of rude comments towards non-white coworkers.
#4 is definitely a bit of an issue. Europe is surprisingly regressive, even compared to the US. Lots of rude comments towards non-white coworkers.
>Language barrier is a non-issue since most countries are fluent in English.
Absolutely not treu. You probably didn't read the part in my comment where I explained my experiences where needing the local language was a must for dealing with the bureaucratic paperwork you can end up facing regularly.
Maybe in northern Europe that might be true but it's definitely not my experience in Austria (and even in Denmark I have friend who met doctors' offices telling them they need to speak Danish). Language barrier is defiantly an issue here, especially outside the SW dev world.
Plenty of government offices you have to interact with don't or don't want to speak English (mostly due to older grumpy staff). Plenty of police officers don't speak English (also the older staff). Plenty of doctors, nurses and specialists don't speak English. Plenty(most?) companies outside of SW require German knowledge. Plenty of landlords and building management companies or utility companies don't speak or don't want to speak English. The list can go on, especially if you mostly land with older staff members. The language barrier is real. Sure, sometimes you can get lucky and land a young contact person who speaks great English and will want to help you, but that's quite rare, most will tell you "nur Deutsch" and then you're shit out of luck as a lot of the issues need to be solved over the phone or in person instead of email where you can fire up deepl.
I remember when a negligent driver hit me while cycling, the two police officers who came over spoke no English at all as they were a bit older. This happens quite often when you deal with older staff.
Saying English is all you need to get by is a gross over-exaggeration and does not match the struggles me and my friends had here at all. Sure, you can order a beer and a pizza in English just fine, but any and all official bureaucracy needs to be done in the local language, not in English, often on the phone or in person, on paper and the spot, without the possibility to easily google translate the thing you're signing, like you can on web forms (and even the stuff google translate camera app spits out is a lot of the time confusing as hell). And believe me, there's a lot of paper work: contracts, insurance forms, complaints, registration forms, etc.
Also, it's respectul to learn the local language to integrate, unless you want to make life difficult for yourself, and live in isolation in expat-only bubbles.
Anyway, my point is, from personal experience, it's still a huge hassle, to move and live in countries where you don't speak the local language as not everything and everyone is always geared to swatch to English for your convenience.
Absolutely not treu. You probably didn't read the part in my comment where I explained my experiences where needing the local language was a must for dealing with the bureaucratic paperwork you can end up facing regularly.
Maybe in northern Europe that might be true but it's definitely not my experience in Austria (and even in Denmark I have friend who met doctors' offices telling them they need to speak Danish). Language barrier is defiantly an issue here, especially outside the SW dev world.
Plenty of government offices you have to interact with don't or don't want to speak English (mostly due to older grumpy staff). Plenty of police officers don't speak English (also the older staff). Plenty of doctors, nurses and specialists don't speak English. Plenty(most?) companies outside of SW require German knowledge. Plenty of landlords and building management companies or utility companies don't speak or don't want to speak English. The list can go on, especially if you mostly land with older staff members. The language barrier is real. Sure, sometimes you can get lucky and land a young contact person who speaks great English and will want to help you, but that's quite rare, most will tell you "nur Deutsch" and then you're shit out of luck as a lot of the issues need to be solved over the phone or in person instead of email where you can fire up deepl.
I remember when a negligent driver hit me while cycling, the two police officers who came over spoke no English at all as they were a bit older. This happens quite often when you deal with older staff.
Saying English is all you need to get by is a gross over-exaggeration and does not match the struggles me and my friends had here at all. Sure, you can order a beer and a pizza in English just fine, but any and all official bureaucracy needs to be done in the local language, not in English, often on the phone or in person, on paper and the spot, without the possibility to easily google translate the thing you're signing, like you can on web forms (and even the stuff google translate camera app spits out is a lot of the time confusing as hell). And believe me, there's a lot of paper work: contracts, insurance forms, complaints, registration forms, etc.
Also, it's respectul to learn the local language to integrate, unless you want to make life difficult for yourself, and live in isolation in expat-only bubbles.
Anyway, my point is, from personal experience, it's still a huge hassle, to move and live in countries where you don't speak the local language as not everything and everyone is always geared to swatch to English for your convenience.
its always pretty shocking to me how much things turn into this weird us v them mentality when its really just two different systems with plenty of pros and cons.
Every system could be improved and if you prefer one the other isn't by default inherently evil.
People within both systems can suck.
Every system could be improved and if you prefer one the other isn't by default inherently evil.
People within both systems can suck.
This is so true. I didn't mean to dunk on the European system - just wanted to point out that the US system is not without significant advantages.
I'm from Africa and both places are like heaven on earth in comparison.
I'm from Africa and both places are like heaven on earth in comparison.
"The American economy is awash with opportunities to work for small businesses, with employees free to move around and chart their own destiny. "
If they all are all happy and free to chart their own destiny - why are those contract things then pretty much standard in the US (as it seems to me)?
And maybe things are not perfect on either side of the atlantic?
I would be fine with less regulations and hire and fire here in europe btw - but I would be not OK, having to sign such contracts. But I don't see, why we can't have both. Meaning employee respecting contracts - but not mandated from above.
If they all are all happy and free to chart their own destiny - why are those contract things then pretty much standard in the US (as it seems to me)?
And maybe things are not perfect on either side of the atlantic?
I would be fine with less regulations and hire and fire here in europe btw - but I would be not OK, having to sign such contracts. But I don't see, why we can't have both. Meaning employee respecting contracts - but not mandated from above.
> why are those contract things then pretty much standard in the US (as it seems to me)?
They aren't standard by any means.
They aren't standard by any means.
Severance NDAs and noncompetes have been increasingly used against minimum wage workers. Imagine not being able to get a job at Quiznos because you worked at Jimmy John's, which at one point had such a noncompete. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jimmyjohns-settlement-idU...)
When things that we are used to (but unhappy with) because our jobs involve a lot of proprietary technological secrets trickle down to sandwich shop minimum wage workers…it’s not worth saying that they’re not standard.
There’s a reason that multiple state legislatures are working to ban noncompetes entirely, and it’s not because they’re uncommon.
https://archive.is/kLOFV
When things that we are used to (but unhappy with) because our jobs involve a lot of proprietary technological secrets trickle down to sandwich shop minimum wage workers…it’s not worth saying that they’re not standard.
There’s a reason that multiple state legislatures are working to ban noncompetes entirely, and it’s not because they’re uncommon.
https://archive.is/kLOFV
[deleted]
> with employees free to move around and chart their own destiny.
I've always found it much easier to "chart my own destiny" when my healthcare is guaranteed, forever, for free, whether I have a job or not.
I've always found it much easier to "chart my own destiny" when my healthcare is guaranteed, forever, for free, whether I have a job or not.
[deleted]
Even further more, let us not forget many many employeers are single person business owners as well. So ease of firing is beneficial to the employer, who is also an american citizen with rights. For example, the right not to keep a dickhead on the payroll just cause the law says they have to
I think there's a middle ground between 'at-will employment capitalist hellscape' America and 'unable to be fired for months socialist hellscape' Europe.
It's probably helpful to point out neither is in any way close to being a hellscape, and the people in both places have done a wonderful job building up a civilization that suits them.
Generally I've always found the underlying principle behind the Australian system[0] to be a reasonable middle ground.
Those making less than a certain amount can only be terminated:
a) immediately for cause (theft/fraud/etc)
b) with notice for poor performance
c) with notice and a legislated payout for redundancy where the job is no longer required.
Those earning above a certain amount need to negotiate any/all of these into their contract.
Admittedly it does occasionally result in employees being reinstated whose sacking was (IMO) completely justified. I don't like those specific instances, but I figure it's the price you have to pay for a system that is tilted slightly in favour of employees.
[0] The actual laws are rubbish though, they're intentionally obtuse/vague owing to industrial relations being a political minefield and no government wanting to touch it for fear of voter pushback.
Those making less than a certain amount can only be terminated:
a) immediately for cause (theft/fraud/etc)
b) with notice for poor performance
c) with notice and a legislated payout for redundancy where the job is no longer required.
Those earning above a certain amount need to negotiate any/all of these into their contract.
Admittedly it does occasionally result in employees being reinstated whose sacking was (IMO) completely justified. I don't like those specific instances, but I figure it's the price you have to pay for a system that is tilted slightly in favour of employees.
[0] The actual laws are rubbish though, they're intentionally obtuse/vague owing to industrial relations being a political minefield and no government wanting to touch it for fear of voter pushback.
Europe is much more of a middle ground than the opposite end of the spectrum.
There are no socialist countries in Europe. Every country in Europe is capitalist.
> 'unable to be fired for months socialist hellscape' Europe
A small handful of countries in Europe*
A small handful of countries in Europe*
Independent of the tongue-in-cheek joke of this post, software salaries in the US are triple (or more) than those in Europe, I'd rather keep the tradeoffs we have even if that means there are downsides - the upsides are worth it.
I suspect the labor protections in Europe are part of the reason there aren't many billion dollar software companies there and the salaries are low, hiring is risky when firing is hard.
I suspect the labor protections in Europe are part of the reason there aren't many billion dollar software companies there and the salaries are low, hiring is risky when firing is hard.
Is it really triple, or is that just looking at FAANG? I'd imagine US average to be low to mid 100k. Looking at Germany as an example, it seems their average is 70k Euros, so more than half?
Then there's health insurance which never stops going up, and having to save a large portion of each check for our own retirements because when we're past 50 we're relegated to greeting at WalMart.
I'm not sure which is better, since each Euro country is different and such, but just looking at salary numbers isn't much to go on.
Then there's health insurance which never stops going up, and having to save a large portion of each check for our own retirements because when we're past 50 we're relegated to greeting at WalMart.
I'm not sure which is better, since each Euro country is different and such, but just looking at salary numbers isn't much to go on.
There are places like HK and Singapore where firing is super easy, yet the software industry in those places still pales to USA and even to Europe in some cases
The population is not comparable though. I guess that's why many people compare US to Europe, and not US to Sweden.
It depends. Yes, the salaries are lower, but so are the expenses on average. The fringe benefits are usually good. There's a legal minimum amount of paid holiday days, in my country the minimum is 20/year but some unions have close to 40. There's also a legal maximum amount of allowed overtime, the employer pays a part of the employee's pension in my country et cetera.
It's probably true that it's easier to upscale a company in the US. The hire and fire strategy wouldn't work here as it would only attract poorly educated people that are willing to take any job. It may be a cultural difference, but most middle class people like to have financial stability here, even if payment is lower in that case.
I think that for software companies, the history of computers plays a big role as well. US has always been at the forefront when it comes to hardware, (military) investments and research of integrated circuits and computers, which led to big companies like IBM and subsequently Silicon Valley companies like Apple and MS. I think it may not be the best example because there isn't really any other country or continent that equals the US here, regardless of wages and labor rules.
It's probably true that it's easier to upscale a company in the US. The hire and fire strategy wouldn't work here as it would only attract poorly educated people that are willing to take any job. It may be a cultural difference, but most middle class people like to have financial stability here, even if payment is lower in that case.
I think that for software companies, the history of computers plays a big role as well. US has always been at the forefront when it comes to hardware, (military) investments and research of integrated circuits and computers, which led to big companies like IBM and subsequently Silicon Valley companies like Apple and MS. I think it may not be the best example because there isn't really any other country or continent that equals the US here, regardless of wages and labor rules.
Over the years, I have some to realize that each country has its own warts. Looking across the pond, eg. UK seems to be in a much worse condition than the US in spite of having a big safety net (healthcare, colleges etc).
> I suspect the labor protections in Europe are part of the reason there aren't many billion dollar software companies there
Care to elaborate on why this is a bad thing? Also, software salaries are not all salaries and are probably not all that representative to the bigger picture.
Care to elaborate on why this is a bad thing? Also, software salaries are not all salaries and are probably not all that representative to the bigger picture.
Growth makes people rich, billion dollar companies create a lot of wealth and the US is a very rich country in part because of this.
Some employees that capture a piece of that wealth funnel it back into more startups/growth (Silicon Valley) creating more jobs, more growth and more wealth (not to mention whatever the new startup is doing is usually creating a new thing people want too).
Software salaries are extremely high, but software companies in the US pay a lot in non software roles too.
On net you end up way in a way richer society that operates this way vs. one that incentivizes not operating this way.
That doesn't mean there should be zero protections from abuse, but it's important to be cautious about the net effect of these sorts of regulations and how you can end up trapped in a worse local maximum because of them.
In a society where you can take bigger risks, make bigger bets, you can get a lot bigger wins at scale. I think that's a good/important thing.
Some employees that capture a piece of that wealth funnel it back into more startups/growth (Silicon Valley) creating more jobs, more growth and more wealth (not to mention whatever the new startup is doing is usually creating a new thing people want too).
Software salaries are extremely high, but software companies in the US pay a lot in non software roles too.
On net you end up way in a way richer society that operates this way vs. one that incentivizes not operating this way.
That doesn't mean there should be zero protections from abuse, but it's important to be cautious about the net effect of these sorts of regulations and how you can end up trapped in a worse local maximum because of them.
In a society where you can take bigger risks, make bigger bets, you can get a lot bigger wins at scale. I think that's a good/important thing.
> You should fight for some more rights, sometime <3
I wish we could fight for more rights. We are too spread out for protests to work. The politicians do everything they can to separate themselves from their electorate. And the average person doesn't have enough money to weather a week of no paychecks. Meanwhile half the populace gets angry at the thought of helping out anyone beneath them as they don't want them to get ahead.
The worst is that you have a very vocal minority trying to constantly burn down the house so that they can be king of the burn pit.
I wish we could fight for more rights. We are too spread out for protests to work. The politicians do everything they can to separate themselves from their electorate. And the average person doesn't have enough money to weather a week of no paychecks. Meanwhile half the populace gets angry at the thought of helping out anyone beneath them as they don't want them to get ahead.
The worst is that you have a very vocal minority trying to constantly burn down the house so that they can be king of the burn pit.
This is very succinct. I was raised to value "a hard day's work," and while I still do, I realize as an adult that I should know who or what I'm working for.
> I wish we could fight for more rights. We are too spread out for protests to work.
One word, Unions.
Its why Europe is doing so well with workers rights in STEM today compared to America.
One word, Unions.
Its why Europe is doing so well with workers rights in STEM today compared to America.
It makes no sense to put the blame on individuals like this. I am no fan of the lack of workers' rights in the US, but the holier-than-thou European smugness is really not appreciated, given how little recourse people have in the American system.
I don't think the "holier-than-thou European smugness" is the reason why people lack workers' rights in the US. Most americans have never talked to a European person. But that certainly is the narrative some billionaire backed media is pushing. You only have the recourses you fought for. Having a culture where an organized workforce is not seen as rampant bolshevism would be a good start.
The smugness is believing that if you oppose European style regulations in anyway it is because you are brain washed by "billionaire backed media " and clearly have not seen the light as to how wonderful everything about the European style utopia of perfection we are missing in the backwaters of misery and abuse that is the United States
I didn't say European attitudes were responsible for workers' rights in the US being bad: that would be a hell of a cause. It's just extremely tiring when Europeans come in to flex their workers' rights super smugly like this <3 – yes, we know it's bad, we don't need someone to come rub it in every time.
> You can talk about your salary with anyone you want, discuss it with your colleagues
For all the other just absurd lack of rights employees have in the US, that at least is one that employees do have. Companies are legally _not allowed_ to stop you from discussing your salary with coworkers, or punish you in any way for you having done so.
For all the other just absurd lack of rights employees have in the US, that at least is one that employees do have. Companies are legally _not allowed_ to stop you from discussing your salary with coworkers, or punish you in any way for you having done so.
Actually, if you're not unionized companies are 100% allowed to fire you for whatever reason they like, such as talking about your salary, as long as the underlying reason does not run afoul of anti-discrimination law (which discussing salary won't) and they pay you full severance due to it being a "termination without cause".
They have to fire you under some other pretext (decided to eliminate the position is fine), if they state that you were fired for discussing wages, it's actionable (well, assuming the NLRB governs that job anyway).
That's the best part! They don't have to fire you with a reason, at-will employment means they can just fire you and you're going to have to prove in court it could only have been because you were talking about your salary. Good luck!
You just show up to the office, your fob doesn't work, and security walks out to inform you that you don't work here anymore and to expect an email from HR.
(Will a good company do this? No. Could they if they wanted to, and totally get away with it? You bet!)
You just show up to the office, your fob doesn't work, and security walks out to inform you that you don't work here anymore and to expect an email from HR.
(Will a good company do this? No. Could they if they wanted to, and totally get away with it? You bet!)
"Companies are 100% allowed to" break the National Labor Relations Act because you have moved the goalposts to having to win in court? I don't believe you were previously aware of the NLRA or have any legal insight of value.
You seem to not understand how this plays out in the real world, rather than some idealised "merely by existing, laws prevent companies from breaking the law".
- Your company is most certainly not allowed to break the NLRA. No company is.
- But your company can terminate your employment without cause whenever they like, as long as it's not over something that breaks the law, and as long as they pay the associated full severance.
- You talk about your salary. And given the vast majority of jobs aren't "my employer's so great, I get paid so well" but "there is so much inequality, let's talk about salaries so we can see how deep the rot goes", it's not going to be in a positive light.
- A short while later (definitely not immediately, your company's not a nice company, and it's going to take some time to make sure it has anything on you that they can legally fire you over that doesn't violate the NLBA) your company fires you, without reason, but with full severance.
- You challenge them to provide a reason
- Their lawyers point out they are under no obligation to provide you with a reason because they are complying with "termination without cause" legislation, and that if you think your dismissal was in violation of the law, you take it to court.
Now you have a problem, because now you're going to have to take them to court and prove that they only reason they could have fired you is because you talked about your salary. Can you afford that court case or is it cheaper to take the severance? We're not talking about a happy happy justice "laws work" world, we're talking about the real world, and specifically the real, nasty, world of shit paying US companies, where you aren't a valuable employee but are a disposable asset to be replaced by a cheaper alternative the moment you give them reason to do so, whether that reason is legal or not, because they know you can't afford the challenge, and they know they just need any reason for you to make the case that it was more likely because you talked about salaries than anything else.
- Your company is most certainly not allowed to break the NLRA. No company is.
- But your company can terminate your employment without cause whenever they like, as long as it's not over something that breaks the law, and as long as they pay the associated full severance.
- You talk about your salary. And given the vast majority of jobs aren't "my employer's so great, I get paid so well" but "there is so much inequality, let's talk about salaries so we can see how deep the rot goes", it's not going to be in a positive light.
- A short while later (definitely not immediately, your company's not a nice company, and it's going to take some time to make sure it has anything on you that they can legally fire you over that doesn't violate the NLBA) your company fires you, without reason, but with full severance.
- You challenge them to provide a reason
- Their lawyers point out they are under no obligation to provide you with a reason because they are complying with "termination without cause" legislation, and that if you think your dismissal was in violation of the law, you take it to court.
Now you have a problem, because now you're going to have to take them to court and prove that they only reason they could have fired you is because you talked about your salary. Can you afford that court case or is it cheaper to take the severance? We're not talking about a happy happy justice "laws work" world, we're talking about the real world, and specifically the real, nasty, world of shit paying US companies, where you aren't a valuable employee but are a disposable asset to be replaced by a cheaper alternative the moment you give them reason to do so, whether that reason is legal or not, because they know you can't afford the challenge, and they know they just need any reason for you to make the case that it was more likely because you talked about salaries than anything else.
"We're not firing you for discussing your wages, we're firing you for leaking proprietary individual labor budget information with unauthorized employees."
That would be pretty suspect here too now, actually [0]
[0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/labor_law/publications/la...
[0] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/labor_law/publications/la...
> You should fight for some more rights, sometime <3
What is the purpose of these 'rights'? As a software engineer in America, who's been laid off many times, I get (1) unemployment, (2) 100% free medical (few SW engineers apply, but most who are laid off would be eligible, if they cared),(3) a free vacation for however long as I want, (4) lots of savings because I make so much more than my European counterparts, and (5) a great job market so I can rinse and repeat 1-5. Exactly what am I missing? Having spoken to many non-American devs... they're the ones being abused by being forced to work for sub-market wages for very little gain, and very little opportunity should they decide to branch out on their own.
What is the purpose of these 'rights'? As a software engineer in America, who's been laid off many times, I get (1) unemployment, (2) 100% free medical (few SW engineers apply, but most who are laid off would be eligible, if they cared),(3) a free vacation for however long as I want, (4) lots of savings because I make so much more than my European counterparts, and (5) a great job market so I can rinse and repeat 1-5. Exactly what am I missing? Having spoken to many non-American devs... they're the ones being abused by being forced to work for sub-market wages for very little gain, and very little opportunity should they decide to branch out on their own.
> been laid off many times
How does one end up being laid off many times? Have you had a long career or do you specifically seek out high-risk high-reward jobs?
Or just the roll of the dice?
How does one end up being laid off many times? Have you had a long career or do you specifically seek out high-risk high-reward jobs?
Or just the roll of the dice?
High-risk high-reward. Lots of startups. Some succeed. Some go under.
Not the op but, I've seen this for lots of reasons.
Sometimes just a roll of the dice. Large companies tend to lay off more. If you've only worked in startups, it's very possible you may never be laid off. I've never been laid off despite working 20 years in industry.
Working in banks, FAGMAN, etc, you are much more likely to be laid off. I guess you could consider that high-risk, but those jobs are low-risk overall imo, because they pay a lot more than startups.
Sometimes just a roll of the dice. Large companies tend to lay off more. If you've only worked in startups, it's very possible you may never be laid off. I've never been laid off despite working 20 years in industry.
Working in banks, FAGMAN, etc, you are much more likely to be laid off. I guess you could consider that high-risk, but those jobs are low-risk overall imo, because they pay a lot more than startups.
>> (2) 100% free medical (few SW engineers apply, but most who are laid off would be eligible, if they cared)
Could you explain this one? Do you mean via medicaid?
Could you explain this one? Do you mean via medicaid?
Good call. I assumed COBRA, which is not free but the company will sometimes cover the premia for laid-off employees.
Medicaid (see my answer below). I was shocked to find out I qualified given my income level in the past year, but since I made no money, it was free for my wife and kids and i had to pay a heavily subsidized rate for marketplace insurance, with no expected pay back now that my income is back to normal. I honestly think that the 'America has no social programs' trope that is often parroted by online personalities does a lot of harm in that it discourages people from applying. I applied originally as a joke to show my very fiscally-conservative mother that it is hard to get on to government welfare programs, but I was shocked at how easy it was.
Yes. So my parents told me about this. But in the past, I paid for COBRA. Huge mistake. This time (as part of the layoffs at the beginning of the year that many engineers faced), my mom told me that Medicaid is freely available, and I'd be stupid to pay for COBRA. She's very conservative and one of those 'look at all these people taking advantage of government program types', so I thought she was making it up at first.
However, I looked it up, and she was right. Plugged in my numbers into healthcae.gov, and I got a call from medicaid the next day. Even though I had made the equivalent of >240k per-annum based just on my January income (was laid off in Jan), I qualified for medicaid for my kids immediately (my wife and I would have qualified in a few months in my state due to how they count income, but in the meantime, qualified for a heavily subsidized rate). Medicaid in my state takes income by the week, so since I made no money in the week, my income was considered zero, so my kids got free medical. Some time later we found out my wife is pregnant, so she was also covered by medicaid.
A few things. Firstly, I explicitly called out to the medicaid guy how much money I was expecting to make (almost 300k), as well as how much savings I had. He told me it didn't matter since I made zero in the past week, and medicaid is by the week. Secondly, I explicitly asked, since I expected to make a shit ton of money this year, if I had to pay it back. He said no. Even if I were to make a million dollars this year or a billion, I would never owe anything for those months we were on medicaid.
Of course, I also qualified for unemployment, but that income put us below the medicaid threshold.
Medicaid was better than our private insurance (which was itself a posh PPO plan). I know this because my youngest daughter ended up in the hospital twice and needed an ambulance ride. The november ride cost us more than a thousand. The medicaid ride was free. All things considered, especially given my new job, we saved a good amount of money being laid off.
At the end of it all, I got a new job in April and the new insurance kicked in in May. It was actually hard to get off medicaid since they didn't really have a way to do that (I guess it's not 'intended' for those making a lot of money with periods of unemployment). We had to struggle to explain to the state we didn't need their money anymore and were insured. They insisted on keeping us insured anyway. I was okay with this but my wife thought we shouldn't squander state funds, so she called regularly and finally got through to someone who would cancel it for us (I had already sent in my income change notification forms, but whatever system they had in place didn't remove me).
However, I looked it up, and she was right. Plugged in my numbers into healthcae.gov, and I got a call from medicaid the next day. Even though I had made the equivalent of >240k per-annum based just on my January income (was laid off in Jan), I qualified for medicaid for my kids immediately (my wife and I would have qualified in a few months in my state due to how they count income, but in the meantime, qualified for a heavily subsidized rate). Medicaid in my state takes income by the week, so since I made no money in the week, my income was considered zero, so my kids got free medical. Some time later we found out my wife is pregnant, so she was also covered by medicaid.
A few things. Firstly, I explicitly called out to the medicaid guy how much money I was expecting to make (almost 300k), as well as how much savings I had. He told me it didn't matter since I made zero in the past week, and medicaid is by the week. Secondly, I explicitly asked, since I expected to make a shit ton of money this year, if I had to pay it back. He said no. Even if I were to make a million dollars this year or a billion, I would never owe anything for those months we were on medicaid.
Of course, I also qualified for unemployment, but that income put us below the medicaid threshold.
Medicaid was better than our private insurance (which was itself a posh PPO plan). I know this because my youngest daughter ended up in the hospital twice and needed an ambulance ride. The november ride cost us more than a thousand. The medicaid ride was free. All things considered, especially given my new job, we saved a good amount of money being laid off.
At the end of it all, I got a new job in April and the new insurance kicked in in May. It was actually hard to get off medicaid since they didn't really have a way to do that (I guess it's not 'intended' for those making a lot of money with periods of unemployment). We had to struggle to explain to the state we didn't need their money anymore and were insured. They insisted on keeping us insured anyway. I was okay with this but my wife thought we shouldn't squander state funds, so she called regularly and finally got through to someone who would cancel it for us (I had already sent in my income change notification forms, but whatever system they had in place didn't remove me).
Yeah those were great years. Now in case of a downturn you will lose it all, maybe when you need the most (old age). Let's not even get into the details of your "100% free medical".
Rights enshrined by legislation are worth a bit more than individual agreements
Rights enshrined by legislation are worth a bit more than individual agreements
> Let's not even get into the details of your "100% free medical".
My 100% free medical is enshrined by the law in my state, which sets the eligibility guidelines for medicaid. Please stop parroting misinformation and discouraging people from using the available welfare programs. So many people I've spoken with thought I was crazy for applying to medicaid and didn't do so themselves because they thought they wouldn't be eligible, but they would have been.
My 100% free medical is enshrined by the law in my state, which sets the eligibility guidelines for medicaid. Please stop parroting misinformation and discouraging people from using the available welfare programs. So many people I've spoken with thought I was crazy for applying to medicaid and didn't do so themselves because they thought they wouldn't be eligible, but they would have been.
The thread is a comparison between the US and Europe. You are the one pushing an extreme anecdote - your own personal experience, valid in one US state -, when in reality we know for a fact that on average you can expect much better benefits in Europe, regardless of your employer.
There is a price for that, of course, but to try to claim that the US is better in this particular area is a weak argument. When you use a personal anecdote, it becomes ridiculous.
There is a price for that, of course, but to try to claim that the US is better in this particular area is a weak argument. When you use a personal anecdote, it becomes ridiculous.
> There is a price for that, of course, but to try to claim that the US is better in this particular area is a weak argument. When you use a personal anecdote, it becomes ridiculous.
Given that my anecdote is not about particular policies (although in my state, the public medical is protected as much as any European state), but rather the big picture, and given that American software are typically richer than their European counterparts, I think it's pretty clear that we can make that claim.
Given that my anecdote is not about particular policies (although in my state, the public medical is protected as much as any European state), but rather the big picture, and given that American software are typically richer than their European counterparts, I think it's pretty clear that we can make that claim.
If "social contacts made through your membership in the family" are covered by non-disclosure/non-solicitation, conceivably an ex-employee could be liable for damages?
I agree that "withholding pay" is not the answer here, but if it went to court it might net out in the end.
I agree that "withholding pay" is not the answer here, but if it went to court it might net out in the end.
[deleted]
Tbh, I prefer the American style (both as someone who has worked as a employee and someone who has employed).
I also think this type of European mentality is the reason for its stagnation. Constant regulation that saps the energy out of amazing talent in Europe.
I also think this type of European mentality is the reason for its stagnation. Constant regulation that saps the energy out of amazing talent in Europe.
Is that kind of language legal in states like CA and NY with WARN laws?
WARN just states that you need to give advanced notice, and if you don’t then you have to give severance. Usually you have to sign a release to get your severance, and that includes being in good standing. I’m not sure if the employer can define what “good standing” is, or if it’s a legally binding term.
All this to say, it’s probably legal.
All this to say, it’s probably legal.
This will depend upon how large your family is.
You should fight for higher salaries sometime (sic) <3
Additionally, a company putting this language in their termination agreement doesn't make it legal.
Additionally, a company putting this language in their termination agreement doesn't make it legal.
Americans do not look to government to protect, coddle or provide for them. That is the big difference.
I neither want nor desire government to be my parent
I neither want nor desire government to be my parent
The US mostly has dystopian workers rights laws
"You should fight for some more rights sometime" comes across as pretty condescending, regardless of the trailing emoticon. And unduly self- congratulatory, too--just as it's not within the realm of possibility for the average American worker to change the system they've inherited, it's unlikely that you yourself did a great deal to further the labor-rights regime of Western Europe.
Companies are families like the Mafia is families.
Snark of the finest quality.
Run when you see companies call employees "family". That's how exploitation works.
It wasn't really a good thing unless you were a low performer. We had some people who were hired into jobs they couldn't do well, but they got to keep those jobs because it was like their role in the family. People basically never got fired, including the couple guys in the corner who barely did any work but had been there forever.
When money was tight, they didn't do layoffs. They just cut everyone's compensation by the same percentages. Including those people who didn't do much work, because we can't fire family.
Modern companies avoid this phrase because it has become so toxic that nobody wants to be associated with it. It's a holdover from old school management who speak in boilerplate platitudes like "fast paced environment" that don't mean anything.