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.

22 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 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you are an excellent employee you can work as long as you want at a company, as long as that company is in business. A company would never fire an excellent employee. They are way too hard to find.

    3. 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.

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

      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.

    5. Re:Job duration... by flink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Job duration... by flink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.
    11. Re:Job duration... by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

  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?

    1. Re:Er mah gerd... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 5, Funny

      But you’re supposed to give corporations unrequited loyalty and like it. How dare you expect corporations to have any loyalty to their employees.

  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. That is patently incorrect by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Informative

    The New Deal was funded with large tax increases on the wealthy. Following it and up until the 70s the marginal tax rate was 90% (e.g. you paid 90% of your income after around $22 million/year when adjusted for inflation). Wages weren't paid as stock dividends yet and offshore tax shelters weren't a thing so the tax was actually paid. It was the largest sustained period of growth in the middle class in American history. These are all facts, and you can verify them with a few minutes/hours on google.

    Then Nixon & Regan came along, convinced everybody that Government was the Problem and Not the solution (lovely slogan that) and real wages and the middle class have been in decline ever since. This is also a fact you can verify on Google.

    Face it, right wing economics don't work. We tried my way and it worked. We tried your way and it didn't. The logical thing is to go back to my way. Stop _feeling_ and start _thinking_. That's the only way out of this mess.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That is patently incorrect by kenh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    2. Re:That is patently incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As multiple sources clarify, 47% do not pay the "Federal Income Tax" while 28% do not pay net federal taxes. The difference is mainly because the payroll (FICA) tax is an income tax but is not the Federal Income Tax. That is, the United States has multiple income taxes and the 47% comment is about one of them, making it very misleading. Additionally, there's a good number of households you'd expect to not pay taxes. About a third of those 28% are elderly people, for instance.

      (These numbers are all from articles around the time of Romney's 47% remark. The precise numbers are likely similar but not identical today.)

  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.

  8. 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.