Slashdot Mirror
In a Poll, 43% of Millennials in 36 Countries Say They Plan To Leave Their Jobs Within Two Years (qz.com)
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.
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.
This is a myth. Average job tenure is higher today. Some people had "jobs for life" back in the 1950s, but that was not common, and plenty of people worked as day laborers, or in short term work. This was especially true if you were not both white and male.
Also, productivity is higher in states and countries that have lower job tenure. Vibrant and flexible job markets mean unhappy people can easily go where they are more productive and cross pollinate their skills. One of the reasons for the success of Silicon Valley is California's ban on non-compete agreements, which makes both job hopping and recruiting easier.
Churn is good.
I said "excellent". No company would let an employee like that go. There would be no point. The problem with you people is you think everyone is "excellent".
Sure they would. If the "excellent" employee is being payed what they are worth, the company might decide that 2 mediocre employees could do the same job cheaper. Or maybe even farm it out to a bunch of barely passable contractors in Bangalore.
Same here. Finished college in 2001 and kept the job I started as an intern in '97 through 2012. I only left because of a merger I didn't like the smell of. I've been at my current job doing roughly the same kind of work as the first one for five years. 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.
Face it, right wing economics don't work.
You skipped the part where it was John F. Kennedy that cut the tax rates, how reduced taxes encouraged compliance with the tax code and tax revenues increased...
Care to address the 47% of tax filers (which is a subset of "all Americans") that either pay no net federal income taxes or actually receive so-called "tax refunds" far in excess of the taxes withheld from their wages.
Ken
I live in France. From a colleague who worked in the US and came back to France doing the same job, he earned about 3 times more in the US. However, he spend about half of it for the various insurances needed to get to the same level of health and social care that we get "for free" in France.
So when it comes to work and money, he is 50% better off in the US. He is a competent developer.
It is anecdotal evidence but I think it reflects reality. In the US, you need to pay for your safety net, but earnings are, on average, high enough for you to afford it and keep some extra. What I find interesting however, is that even if we get better (and mandatory) protection from the state, we seem to be more into savings and less into debt. The "normal" way of thinking is save to buy, rather than buy first and pay back later. For instance, US-style credit cards are almost nonexistant (what we call credit cards are closer to what you call debit).
In a management training at my employer I was taught that if any employees start talking about joining a union then it's our job as managers to find out why they think they need a union and solve that problem. Incidentally, I'm not a manager but my employer sent me through the training just so that I would have a better understanding of how the company functions. I also work in a right to work state but we have operations throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia.
Unions serve a purpose as a deterrent. A company won't want it's employees to join unions. Smart companies will treat their employees well enough that they won't join a union. Poorly run companies will have employees joining unions which will end up making that company as a whole less efficient because in the end a union is a parasite.