Tech unemployment in 17Q1 in the US is 2.5%. That's a national rate, so it is skewed by SV, Austin, NYC, etc., but it's a pretty good market for employees and a pretty tough market for recruiting employers.
But you are taking my "leave and find another job" humorously literally. I agree it would be more prudent to get another job first.
There's a problem in your employment relationship, and it is likely really holding your career back. If it's the company, you should leave and find an employer who is less dysfunctional.
If it's not the company, then it's your own attitude.
Companies certainly are never perfect, but in general they operate in their interest, which in general is keeping their strong people happy. I worry about my strong people leaving all the time -- as I'm falling asleep at night, on weekends, etc.
There's also a group of people that is just good enough that they're still here, but I don't worry at all about them leaving. I guess that also could be a potential explanation for what you're experiencing.
You don't want a company treating you as the adversary, and no company wants employees who treat the company as the adversary. Take be macho emotion bullshit out and determine what outcome you want. Do what is most likely to get you that outcome. Creating a finger-on-the-button scenario and betting on who will blink first will have an unpredictable outcome and is completely, 100% unnecessary.
This is terrible advice. You can achieve the same outcome by raising the issue with your boss and making clear that only being able to use x% of your time off, which you consider part of your compensation, bothers you greatly. If he/she needs you more than you need them, you will see a change to keep you happy. If you need them more, taking parent's dumb advice will get you terminated for cause.
Unlimited time off benefits the company, not the employee. That prospective employees crave it just shows how little they understand about running a company or their own careers.
Meanwhile, millennials love "unlimited time off" vacation policies. Use it or lose it policies are a major reason employees use what little time off they do use. Companies love UTO because you use less time off and we don't have to carry the liability or deal with complicated accrual accounting. Or pay out any PTO balance when you quit. Great work, millennials.
Driving is a catastrophic risk. Eating and not eating are catastrophic risks. Breathing air the composition of which is untested is a catastrophic risk.
The purpose of power generation is to generate power, not employ people. AEI claims 79x as many people are required in the solar industry to generate the same power from a coal plant. I have not dug into the numbers and am not citing the stat to bash solar, only make the point that this is not a good thing to be celebrated. We want solar power to generate tons of energy while employing very few people.
What an impressively evil innovation from the Trump administration. Think of it: the very first administration to double count dollars in an accounting gimmick in order to make its budget look better. Luckily, slashdot and Mr Summers are on the case.
Do you see what happens, Larry? Do you see what happens when you double count tax reform pay-fors?
And here I thought this would be an article about the sorry state of science today, ignorance of basic statistical principles, pretending science can answer questions it can't, pretending results prove things they don't, inability to replicate results and structural lack of attempts to replicate results (doesn't get you published), etc.
Instead, more SJW meta-issues. Cleaning up its act apparently has nothing to do with its actual act.
You can have all kinds of challenges without stress. Half of pilot training is to remain unstressed even when your engine is on fire. You're conflating issues and making my point.
Correct. Your boss will help you with growth if it is in the company's interest. We aren't disagreeing. I'm just suggesting people drop the fantasy that their boss is there for them.
Here is a secret: your boss is not there for you. They are there for the company. They exist not to mentor you or help your career but to get what the company needs out of you and mitigate company risks like you leaving. If the manager decides it is in the company's best interest to release you rather than reform you, that's what she should do. If it's not in the company's interest for you to grow, you shouldn't expect your boss to help you grow.
I have many underlings ask for me to lay out a career path for them. To me this is an admission that they are passive actors in their career, floating along and putting in time and expecting others to figure out the next step for them. And I will do so, in some cases, depending on how much the company needs that employee to stick around even if in another position.
Another secret: your boss is regularly asked how he/she has planned for you leaving voluntarily.
The whole premise of this study is silly. Stress is bad. You do not want any employees to be stressed. You want them performing highly without stress. You especially do not want supervisory employees stressed, as that can be contagious, AND work by folks higher in the food chain is highly levered. You want high performing, calm, stress free supervisory employees. And, you want them to be both smart and lazy. I don't remember the name of the quadrant, but there is a famous quadrant showing IQ and laziness... high IQ and low laziness tend to be poor managers, as they don't delegate tasks they should delegate. High IQ and high laziness can result in a manager that delegates well and can scale his/her IQ across workloads of many employees.
Orgs like Entrepreneurs Organization and Young Presidents Organization will beat owners/CEOs up for trying to work IN the business rather than ON the business. You do your company a great disservice if you are trying to scale by working harder yourself. That scale factor is really poor, increasingly poor at each level of growth, and has a ceiling. You should be working to work yourself out of a job, and you should perform tests where you disappear to play golf and observe what does and doesn't break. You won't actually ever work yourself out of a job if you're growing, but you won't be the limiting factor to your growth.
And that's why supervisory employees get paid more, btw. It's not that they work harder. Good managers have a high ROI due to the scaling of their direction and oversight
Obviously the work of the Russians, based on... well, I said so. And the US hack had all the markings of a Russian hack, which we know all about in detail, and I'm sure every other major govt does as well, but nobody could have left that trail themselves.
And we know about the major hacking operation of sending a phishing email to John Podesta asking him to enter his password into a form on a random website, and Russian mind rays made him actually do it.
VBScript. Yeah, I know. Not the prettiest of languages, but you know, she was there and ready and willing. I really didn't know what I was doing, and I'm sure did quite a bit wrong, but I generally knew what to put where to get the job done.
Your argument still makes no sense. Americans only put up with overbooking because they don't know there is a better way, yet you yourself point out JetBlue doesn't overbook.
Americans want airlines to overbook. They won't ever say it like that, but the evidence is clear. The benefits of overbooking to the consumer are large and the negatives are almost non-existent, because the airlines have become really really good at overbooking. Just look at the FAA stats for IDBs.
But, yes, I have zero illusion that you are ever going to understand this because of your personal preferences, which you have expressed repeatedly now. So I think we can move on.
Wow. You proved my point and you think you destroyed me. This is why these discussions are pointless. You are living in a world where you assume all the methods make logical sense and don't even bother to proces the logic of the experimenter's (I use that term loosely here) train of thought and what assumptions he or she is knowingly or unknowingly just kind of waving away. And I can't get there. I'm stuck here pointing out that in every case we are simply modeling case A vs case B, and one of those cases never existed and could never exist because we are dealing with the alternative histories problem plus climate timescales. So it's impossible to know that your model for the null is correct, and it's quite debatable whether anyone has successfully modeled the climate that does exist, too. What you are hanging your hat on is exactly the bullshit I was referring to in my original reply.
You can choose to believe it. Lots of people believe plenty of things without compelling scientific evidence. And in cases where there is a risk of ruin (fat tailed), that's prudent. But what's perpetually annoying is that people like you pretend it's science, and your side does it so much you have lost all memory of what science really is, and lost all ability to think critically outside the groupthink.
Look, you keep complaining about what Americans want and keep citing how much better service is in the rest of the world. It is clear you just aren't representative of the bulk of the US market. That's ok. As I explained before there are tons of options, including paying a bit more for domestic first class. Meanwhile, you should realize your view on this differs from the majority of US customers, so if I were you I would hesitate before asserting that I am wrong about US customers wanting airlines to overbook, especially since every airline does it and innovation in the US airline industry is almost exclusively focused on price. So you can keep replying and saying the sky isn't blue. But it stopped being interesting quite a while ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Tech unemployment in 17Q1 in the US is 2.5%. That's a national rate, so it is skewed by SV, Austin, NYC, etc., but it's a pretty good market for employees and a pretty tough market for recruiting employers.
But you are taking my "leave and find another job" humorously literally. I agree it would be more prudent to get another job first.
There's a problem in your employment relationship, and it is likely really holding your career back. If it's the company, you should leave and find an employer who is less dysfunctional.
If it's not the company, then it's your own attitude.
Companies certainly are never perfect, but in general they operate in their interest, which in general is keeping their strong people happy. I worry about my strong people leaving all the time -- as I'm falling asleep at night, on weekends, etc.
There's also a group of people that is just good enough that they're still here, but I don't worry at all about them leaving. I guess that also could be a potential explanation for what you're experiencing.
You don't want a company treating you as the adversary, and no company wants employees who treat the company as the adversary. Take be macho emotion bullshit out and determine what outcome you want. Do what is most likely to get you that outcome. Creating a finger-on-the-button scenario and betting on who will blink first will have an unpredictable outcome and is completely, 100% unnecessary.
This is terrible advice. You can achieve the same outcome by raising the issue with your boss and making clear that only being able to use x% of your time off, which you consider part of your compensation, bothers you greatly. If he/she needs you more than you need them, you will see a change to keep you happy. If you need them more, taking parent's dumb advice will get you terminated for cause.
Unlimited time off benefits the company, not the employee. That prospective employees crave it just shows how little they understand about running a company or their own careers.
Meanwhile, millennials love "unlimited time off" vacation policies. Use it or lose it policies are a major reason employees use what little time off they do use. Companies love UTO because you use less time off and we don't have to carry the liability or deal with complicated accrual accounting. Or pay out any PTO balance when you quit. Great work, millennials.
The newly unemployed gig workers thank you for your help.
And liberals, educated or not, tend to deny that the % of variation due to man is unknown. So which of the three groups is anti-science, again?
Driving is a catastrophic risk. Eating and not eating are catastrophic risks. Breathing air the composition of which is untested is a catastrophic risk.
Your implied claim that solar is cheaper than coal requires evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Not to mention solar generates for ~4.5 hours per day and comparing it to baseline power is silly in itself.
But my point is about the headcount metric being a poor proxy.
The purpose of power generation is to generate power, not employ people. AEI claims 79x as many people are required in the solar industry to generate the same power from a coal plant. I have not dug into the numbers and am not citing the stat to bash solar, only make the point that this is not a good thing to be celebrated. We want solar power to generate tons of energy while employing very few people.
Is this a joke? How about burning social security funds and then putting all that future spending on another set of books?
What an impressively evil innovation from the Trump administration. Think of it: the very first administration to double count dollars in an accounting gimmick in order to make its budget look better. Luckily, slashdot and Mr Summers are on the case.
Do you see what happens, Larry? Do you see what happens when you double count tax reform pay-fors?
And here I thought this would be an article about the sorry state of science today, ignorance of basic statistical principles, pretending science can answer questions it can't, pretending results prove things they don't, inability to replicate results and structural lack of attempts to replicate results (doesn't get you published), etc.
Instead, more SJW meta-issues. Cleaning up its act apparently has nothing to do with its actual act.
You can have all kinds of challenges without stress. Half of pilot training is to remain unstressed even when your engine is on fire. You're conflating issues and making my point.
You appear to disagree with the tone but not the content of my comment
Correct. Your boss will help you with growth if it is in the company's interest. We aren't disagreeing. I'm just suggesting people drop the fantasy that their boss is there for them.
Here is a secret: your boss is not there for you. They are there for the company. They exist not to mentor you or help your career but to get what the company needs out of you and mitigate company risks like you leaving. If the manager decides it is in the company's best interest to release you rather than reform you, that's what she should do. If it's not in the company's interest for you to grow, you shouldn't expect your boss to help you grow.
I have many underlings ask for me to lay out a career path for them. To me this is an admission that they are passive actors in their career, floating along and putting in time and expecting others to figure out the next step for them. And I will do so, in some cases, depending on how much the company needs that employee to stick around even if in another position.
Another secret: your boss is regularly asked how he/she has planned for you leaving voluntarily.
The whole premise of this study is silly. Stress is bad. You do not want any employees to be stressed. You want them performing highly without stress. You especially do not want supervisory employees stressed, as that can be contagious, AND work by folks higher in the food chain is highly levered. You want high performing, calm, stress free supervisory employees. And, you want them to be both smart and lazy. I don't remember the name of the quadrant, but there is a famous quadrant showing IQ and laziness... high IQ and low laziness tend to be poor managers, as they don't delegate tasks they should delegate. High IQ and high laziness can result in a manager that delegates well and can scale his/her IQ across workloads of many employees.
Orgs like Entrepreneurs Organization and Young Presidents Organization will beat owners/CEOs up for trying to work IN the business rather than ON the business. You do your company a great disservice if you are trying to scale by working harder yourself. That scale factor is really poor, increasingly poor at each level of growth, and has a ceiling. You should be working to work yourself out of a job, and you should perform tests where you disappear to play golf and observe what does and doesn't break. You won't actually ever work yourself out of a job if you're growing, but you won't be the limiting factor to your growth.
And that's why supervisory employees get paid more, btw. It's not that they work harder. Good managers have a high ROI due to the scaling of their direction and oversight
Obviously the work of the Russians, based on... well, I said so. And the US hack had all the markings of a Russian hack, which we know all about in detail, and I'm sure every other major govt does as well, but nobody could have left that trail themselves.
And we know about the major hacking operation of sending a phishing email to John Podesta asking him to enter his password into a form on a random website, and Russian mind rays made him actually do it.
Breaking news: people with jobs don't tweet every 14 seconds
VBScript. Yeah, I know. Not the prettiest of languages, but you know, she was there and ready and willing. I really didn't know what I was doing, and I'm sure did quite a bit wrong, but I generally knew what to put where to get the job done.
Your argument still makes no sense. Americans only put up with overbooking because they don't know there is a better way, yet you yourself point out JetBlue doesn't overbook.
Americans want airlines to overbook. They won't ever say it like that, but the evidence is clear. The benefits of overbooking to the consumer are large and the negatives are almost non-existent, because the airlines have become really really good at overbooking. Just look at the FAA stats for IDBs.
But, yes, I have zero illusion that you are ever going to understand this because of your personal preferences, which you have expressed repeatedly now. So I think we can move on.
Wow. You proved my point and you think you destroyed me. This is why these discussions are pointless. You are living in a world where you assume all the methods make logical sense and don't even bother to proces the logic of the experimenter's (I use that term loosely here) train of thought and what assumptions he or she is knowingly or unknowingly just kind of waving away. And I can't get there. I'm stuck here pointing out that in every case we are simply modeling case A vs case B, and one of those cases never existed and could never exist because we are dealing with the alternative histories problem plus climate timescales. So it's impossible to know that your model for the null is correct, and it's quite debatable whether anyone has successfully modeled the climate that does exist, too. What you are hanging your hat on is exactly the bullshit I was referring to in my original reply.
You can choose to believe it. Lots of people believe plenty of things without compelling scientific evidence. And in cases where there is a risk of ruin (fat tailed), that's prudent. But what's perpetually annoying is that people like you pretend it's science, and your side does it so much you have lost all memory of what science really is, and lost all ability to think critically outside the groupthink.
Look, you keep complaining about what Americans want and keep citing how much better service is in the rest of the world. It is clear you just aren't representative of the bulk of the US market. That's ok. As I explained before there are tons of options, including paying a bit more for domestic first class. Meanwhile, you should realize your view on this differs from the majority of US customers, so if I were you I would hesitate before asserting that I am wrong about US customers wanting airlines to overbook, especially since every airline does it and innovation in the US airline industry is almost exclusively focused on price. So you can keep replying and saying the sky isn't blue. But it stopped being interesting quite a while ago.