Slashdot Mirror
In This Economy, Quitters Are Winning (wsj.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Workers are choosing to leave their jobs at the fastest rate since the internet boom 17 years ago and getting rewarded for it with bigger paychecks and/or more satisfying work. Labor Department data show that 3.4 million Americans quit their jobs in April, near a 2001 peak and twice the 1.7 million who were laid off from jobs in April. Job-hopping is happening across industries including retail, food service and construction, a sign of broad-based labor-market dynamism. Workers have been made more confident by a strong economy and historically low unemployment, at 3.8% in May, the lowest since 2000. Ms. Enoch started getting interview opportunities the same day she began sending out applications online. The trend could stoke broader wage growth and improve worker productivity, which have been sluggish in the past decade. Workers tend to get their biggest wage increases when they move from one job to another. Job-switchers saw roughly 30% larger annual pay increases in May than those who stayed put over the past 12 months, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
Well, why is that surprising?
American companies are known for exploiting their employees, treating them like shit, paying them as low as they can, and firing them as soon as they can. I, for a change, have job that I'm unlikely to leave any time soon. Why? Because they're paying me a very good salary, and they're treating me very well. They see the human part in their employees, unlike Americans who see their employees as disposable machines. I don't work in the USA, but I used to work for 2 American companies. Now I work for a Scandinavian company, and I love it.
So lower unemployment, lower taxes, and "30% larger annual pay increases" for people changing jobs is a bad thing?
Seriously 'Quitter'? These are just people changing jobs; never mind the ones that were laid off or fired. I guess it's too much in the eyes of WSJ to let the peons change their allegiance. I guess they'd prefer the slave workers to keep working until the same place until they die; without raise. Since this is 4th of July, I give a big FU to WSJ and hooray for some independence and dignity for the average worker.
A job is something you stay at. Long term benefits traded for long term benefits on both sides, including protection.
A gig is short term. A stepping stone. You don't stand for long on any individual stepping stone. Great upside in a rising economy, with a potential downside when the economy falters. There's still a trade of benefits. That part doesn't change.
Both can be called careers. That's the personal development side. Beware however, employees and employers both. You reap what you sow.
Having income growth levels of 3.25% vs 2.5% (30% more) while the rich double and triple their income doesn't solve the problem.
Our issue is not what any other country is taking from us and not what the government is taking from us. Those are just distractions thrown at us by the people getting rich off of the real issue.
Our issue is the larger and larger piece of the pie going to the few while the lower income bracket has steadily grown since 1980ish. We are no longer the country of opportunity for all. Many others have higher percentage chances for people to move up from the income bracket they were born in than America today.
We need a change that restores respect to real work. The hardest workers in America typically get paid the least, and that is not right. The growth in the service industry only exacerbates the problem. People don't respect those mowing the grass or changing their oil when they have never, even in their childhood, gotten off of their fat asses and mowed their own grass or changed their own oil.
The most critical aspect of the days when America was allegedly great is that the typical upper-level executive in a company made about 300% more than the lowest worker on the factory floor - not 3,000% or more.
It's you.
Try not being you. It might help.
I know dozens of people stuck at dead end jobs because they can't go 90-180 days w/o health care. Only the top tier stuff has day 1 health care. This is one of the big reasons I want single payer in America (besides that it saves $17 trillion over the next 10 years. Seriously, we could pay off the National Debt in my lifetime). Wanna see wages go up across the board? Give everyone healthcare so they can demand higher wages. Rising tide/all boats and all that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
American companies are known for exploiting their employees, treating them like shit
In Japan, many Japanese workers work to death.
Same thing happens in Korea, Taiwan and China.
In Bangladesh, workers are routinely locked inside the building they work in and many had been burned to death when fire broke out.
In India, employers have been known to beat their workers to death.
If you are thinking that only American companies treating their employees like shit, please wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.
All companies are alike. To the bosses, their workers are slaves , to be worked to death, without pity.
"Sounds good, who's going first?"
Yes.
And what's on second, I don't know's on third.
The economy is actually quite strong. And it was strong for the past 6 years.
However policy is still treating it like it is in a recession and not investing into safety nets for when it drops again.
Also we are starting trade wars for no real good reason. Which the countries are responding in a more targeted attack that may not hurt the entire economy as much but the states that unwisely voted for trump.
Any country cannot fight off the entire US economy, but they can hit particular states rather hard.
They know targeting the Tech sector will mostly effect people who mostly voted for Clinton. But agriculture, Automotive... that will get the area which would hurt the idiot who started the trade war in the first place.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Also, not even a very desirable applicant is going to get same-day interviews. One would be lucky if their application/resume is reviewed from an online submission.
When I put my resume up on Indeed a month or so ago, I got multiple contacts within 24 hours, including cold calls from recruiters who somehow had my telephone number. I had a couple initial calls with hiring companies set up next day. Sure, no one is going to get an interview the same day, but it's at least possible they might get an interview arranged.
But as soon as you say "online submission" all is lost. I've never known anyone who got a call back from submitting their resume through a company web site. Perhaps it has happened somewhere in the world, but it must be quite rare. If your resume isn't attractive enough that recruiters reach out to you, that sucks. At least get some help prettying up your resume, and you may need to consider moving to where your job is hot. ("You" the generic Slashdot reader, not Mitreya specifically).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
When I put my resume up on Indeed a month or so ago, I got multiple contacts within 24 hours, including cold calls from recruiters who somehow had my telephone number.
That is great but that sort of response isn't the norm. In my line of work (manufacturing operations) such a vigorous response would be almost unheard of no matter how attractive your resume. I think this speaks more to industry and company culture than anything else but just posting your resume will rarely land you interviews that easily in my industry. Your mileage may vary of course. In my wife's line of work she gets calls out of the blue all the time because there simply aren't a lot of people who do what she does.
But as soon as you say "online submission" all is lost. I've never known anyone who got a call back from submitting their resume through a company web site. Perhaps it has happened somewhere in the world, but it must be quite rare.
There is a reason for that. It's because the HR folks get absolute bombarded with resumes so the odds you you actually getting a response unless you are EXACTLY what they are looking for is a good approximation of zero if the company has any size to it at all. Big companies are doing keyword searches and throwing out 99% of the resumes they actually do read. Chances are you'll get at most 30-60 seconds of consideration if you are lucky and the odds of a response are ridiculously low. Those systems are set up to weed out resumes and ward off lawsuits than they are to actually setting up interviews. You are quite right that getting a response that way will be quite unusual.
If your resume isn't attractive enough that recruiters reach out to you, that sucks.
The vast majority of people fall into that category.
At least get some help prettying up your resume, and you may need to consider moving to where your job is hot.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how "pretty" your resume is. And people often cannot move for a variety of good reasons.