Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In a Poll, 43% of Millennials in 36 Countries Say They Plan To Leave Their Jobs Within Two Years (qz.com)

Posted by msmash on from the missing-loyalty dept.

A poll by Deloitte with more than 10,000 millennials across 36 countries found that 43% of them are planning to leave their jobs within two years, while only 28% are looking to stay beyond five years.

15 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Job duration... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do most jobs last more than two years in 2018? We're not living in 1958 where someone could go to work for GM or IBM at 21 and work there for 40 years till retirement.

    Employers can fire you at a moment's notice -- why should they expect more loyalty in return?

    1. Re:Job duration... by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do most jobs last more than two years in 2018? We're not living in 1958 where someone could go to work for GM or IBM at 21 and work there for 40 years till retirement.

      Employers can fire you at a moment's notice -- why should they expect more loyalty in return?

      I only read the article summary, but if they're shit minimum wage/tipped jobs, one shithole is exactly the same as any other.

      If they're "professional" jobs, some migration and grass is greener syndrome may figure in.

      You're right about loyalty being a two way street though.

    2. Re:Job duration... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is that in the US, "excellence" is defined as 60 hour weeks with a pitiful week of vacation every other year.

    3. Re:Job duration... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America lacks proper laws, since the American employment system is a race to the bottom as far as vaca time and working hours.

    4. Re:Job duration... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America lacks proper laws, since the American employment system is a race to the bottom as far as vaca time and working hours.

      But not pay. Americans earn more than any country in Europe except Norway (offshore oil) and Luxembourg (tax haven). They also keep more of what they earn.

      This is "proper" since most Americans would rather earn more than have more time off.

      If you want more time off, then ask your employer. But don't try to force your preferences on me.

    5. Re:Job duration... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Americans earn more on average, but spend much more of it on healthcare and are at constant risk of bankruptcy from illness. Also, inequality between workers is way higher.

      It's proper that society seeks to create the most collective happiness and good, while respecting fundamental rights. US society is just someone else's boot using your face as a step up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Job duration... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose I could have a slightly higher salary if I jumped around more, but I don't know if I would be as happy.

      Unless your company is unusual, probably substantially higher but what you say is still correct. Moving up the career ladder beyond a certain point involves getting more responsibilities which means more pay, more hours and more stress. It definitely becomes a career you do as part of your life rather than a job, and it will eat more into your other time as a result. You certainly get less time to enjoy the more money you earn.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Job duration... by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's proper that society seeks to create the most collective happiness and good, while respecting fundamental rights.

      - impossible.

      It is impossible for fundamental individual rights to be respected while aiming for the 'most collective good'. Those are two opposing targets, they do not intersect. The fundamental right of owning your sovereignty, your life, freedom and the results of your labour cannot be respected in a society that aims for the 'most collective happiness and good'. A society that aims for the 'most collective happiness and good' must by definition reject the rights of an individual to his own labour, his own property and his own life and freedom.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
  2. Er mah gerd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...after decades of eliminating long-term employees, companies face employees that do not plan on staying with them!

    Can you imagine that?

  3. Companies don't give raises by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and they don't train. H1-Bs and outsourcing ended that. So the only way to get ahead is to use your current job as a spring board into something better. And since inflation's still a thing and companies don't give raises you're either getting a new job every two years or taking a substantial pay cut.

    Any pretense of a "social contract" is gone. What I don't understand is why folks don't all get behind Bernie Sanders' New New Deal. It's about time to hammer out a new contract since the ruling class reneged on the old one. And while we're at it we might as well take more for the working class this time.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  4. On par with employers by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Millennials just give back the consideration they get from their employers. Companies treat human resource as a fungible asset at best, or as an undesirable cost at worst. No surprise employees are not loyal to their employer in such an environment.

  5. Fight for $15 = mass layoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fight for $15 = "even though I am so unskilled that despite my years in the workforce I can't find an employer willing to pay me more than $15 / hour, I'm going to attack the one place actually willing to give me a paycheck."

    Here's what happens when minimum wage goes up: employers institute layoffs and increase the workload on the remaining staff. Meanwhile, people who used to be able to get low paid jobs now can't get any jobs and so they go on welfare or starve.

    Minimum wage laws create mass unemployment.

    1. Re:Fight for $15 = mass layoffs by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think anyone (well any economist) really disputes that minimum wage has some sort of negative impact on job numbers but it probably isn't fair to make a blanket statement that "Minimum wage laws create mass unemployment.". Obviously a $1 minimum wage wouldn't be something to get too worked up over and a $100 dollar minimum wage would be catastrophic.

  6. Re:Fire anyone who unionizes immediately by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The commie unions are mini-dictatorships. Freedom means RIGHT TO WORK, but commie union bosses want to force everyone to pay their fees and submit to their control.

    As a manager in a right to work state, I will always fire anyone who threatens to unionize immediately.

    Thankfully, this is no longer the early 20th century and support for right to work is growing. The commie unions are losing their power.

    As a manager you use your power to keep the workers down knowing that there's a long line. Fucks like you are why unions are needed, not as a way for people to get dues. You can't treat your workers like shit if they'll all take the hit and up and out on you. Without the guy doing the actual work you've got fuck all yet most of the time the people doing the work get the smallest piece of pie. Fuck you.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  7. Re:Fire anyone who unionizes immediately by crypticedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a manager in a right to work state, I will always fire anyone who threatens to unionize immediately.

    I hope you do, because this is a violation of the law, and both you and your company will be sued into bankruptcy if you try it.