Hacker News Reader

There's no reason you can't find the new job before ditching the existing one.

The additional wisdom of this approach is that the interview processes you go though are enough to teach you that all the other jobs are crap too and leaving the current one is pointless.

Also, you can find that all the other crap jobs pay 10-20% better, giving you information and leverage to get a better salary, better benefits, more time off, etc.

Incremental steps up might be easy for high performers, but finding an amazing job is really hard, you have to identify a position and then grow yourself to fit it – not something that can be done in a couple hours a week. This is why executives are funemployed for long periods of time.

99% of the time that’s true. The one time I had to quit a job without having one lined up was when I was doing contract to perm.

In hindsight, I shouldn’t have taken the job in the first place, but I had just been laid off.

I knew they weren’t going to make me full time and as a contractor who was already being watched closely I couldn’t have multiple “doctors appointments”, take advantage of flex time, etc. I needed to focus on getting a job full time.

It was 2012, the economy was looking up and I figured I could get s job relatively quickly through my network of recruiters. I walked out noon on Monday and called a recruiter. I had a phone interview with a division of what was then a Fortune 10 company on Wednesday, in person Thursday morning and an offer Thursday evening making $10K more than the job I was laid off from three months earlier.

Yes that was partially dumb luck and not something I would try again.

I think the philosophical point of the article is that if you reached the point where you contemplate breaking up or quitting then you're past a critical threshold. The issues are big enough to get you thinking and you're probably past the point where you see a point in fixing or tried and it didn't work. In which case it will just get progressively worse and the end result is almost inevitable. Hence "probably should".

The practicals of doing this will vary of course. There are many factors to keep in mind and a lot of them are personal/subjective.

Breaking up in a relationship is different and it depends on how deep you’re (dating, living together, kids, married) in and how insurmountable the problems are.

Sure but I'd imagine that when you actually start contemplating a breakup you already identified an issue and tried to fix it or work around it. So if you are still entertaining that thought it's because you ran through your options and you're mostly out of them.

You might decide to live with this but again, if you started thinking about it to the point where you consider breakup then it's likely a serious enough issue and it doesn't get better.

This shouldn't stop you from trying to the point where by all definitions the relationship is dead. There's no rule for this other than a rule of thumb. But that one pretty much suggests at that point you are just delaying the inevitable. Unless all you actually need to fix it is time.

True. But a job is also a relationship, a relationship that works both ways - or should.

It might not always be simple or easy but if you're in a bad and unfulfilling relationship then it's up to you to swallow hard and move on. Staying is lost opportunity.

Yes, but it’s much easier to find a “compatible” job than a compatible partner. I’m not emotional or financially invested in my job or the relationships I have with people at my job.

A divorce has both higher emotional cost - especially if you have kids and are close to your in laws - and financial costs. If my job causes undo stress and hardship, I will leave at a moments notice. If my marriage is causing me stress and my spouse is willing to put in the effort to help us come to a better place, I’ll do what it takes to make things better. I’ll go to marriage counseling, but there is only so much you can do in an organization.

I think it's because you have fewer requirements from a job and you can make more acceptable compromises. Finding a compatible partner requires a lot more than 5-6 evaluation points.

I always thought that is what everybody did before they quit - how wrong I was.

Maybe not everyone, but most of the time the reason you quit is because of a new job. In all honesty the smart practice is to search for a new job immediately after you get one and keep updating your backlog of potential jobs (you don't have to apply, just keep them in mind)

> In all honesty the smart practice is to search for a new job immediately after you get one and keep updating your backlog of potential jobs (you don't have to apply, just keep them in mind)

This is certainly the advice given if you're ruthlessly careerist, and it can be a good strategy if you're still looking for that dream role, but it can also backfire on you.

As someone who often needs to recruit I pay fairly close attention to the stability of an applicant's career. In general I don't like to see a lot of job-hopping unless it's in the early years of someone's career, because it can be hard to find a role you really like. Periods of contracting are another exception, although some evidence of stable employment for some period is also beneficial.

Recruiting is hugely important, but sucks a lot of time and effort from a team, and incurs significant costs, both direct and indirect. If you've been working for a decade and have never been in a job for more than 2 years that can be a pretty big turn-off.

You could of course argue that because I'd prefer to recruit people who will stay for more than 2 years, the roles I have available may not suit you.

Bottom line: there's a trade-off you're potentially making by behaving this way, which is fine, but it's important you understand that fact. Still, it's a good idea to start looking for a new job before you've started to hate the old one (bitter experience speaking right here): leave on a high because it'll probably set you up much better for the future.

I don't think the suggestion was to job hop. My read was that they were suggesting to just always be aware of the market (hence the don't have to apply line) so that you can jump at the perfect opportunity if it comes up, or if something happens to change at your current employer that would require you to search for another job, you're already ahead of the game.

I agree this should be your first choice if you want to stay employed. That's a legitimate "if" since some people may want to take time off from employment for personal reasons or to focus on a project. If that's you, you have my blessing. Think it through, and do what's right for you.

I was working as an M&A analyst at an investment bank, and this job has an implied shelf-life. A typical program is two years, and some people stay on for a third year as an "Associate I". Your options for jobs after an investment banking analyst program are much narrower than I estimated when I left college to seek my fortune. Analysts will usually go one of three places: private equity (or venture capital depending on your background), corporate finance (M&A at a big company), or hedge fund. The sad truth that haunts me to this day is, I thought my duty was to quit when my time was up. An Associate I position was not available at my bank after my two years, so I decided to leave. I interviewed for a few positions before leaving (one of them serious), but I didn't receive any offers. I was burned out and really just want to get out of there. One of my coworkers asked me what I planned to do when I left. I said, "Whatever the hell I want." One other serious misestimation on my part: turns out I was not enthusiastic about fighting for a job in an industry that already had too many people fighting for not enough scraps.

I required a lot of time and self-reflection to not get some combination of angry, sad, and ashamed when recounting my time in finance. One thing that still upsets me today is, I was a naive 25 year old who didn't even understand the terms of my employment. I was not a contract employee; our agreement was employment-at-will, and I was under no obligation to leave. Yet, the HR department at my bank hardly even acknowledged that I was leaving. Someone told me to leave my keycard and Blackberry on my desk before I left. No exit interview or discussion of any kind. They really let me down because I was clueless. Could I have asked a lot of questions? Yes! And if you are in a similar situation, learn from my mistake. Ask a lot of questions, and find the right people you need to be asking. The thing you should understand about investment banking is, it tends to be a conservative environment with a strong hierarchy. Analysts are at the bottom of the hierarchy. The best analysts are those who efficiently do what they are told to do. I was very good at not complaining even when things sucked, and I was pretty good at the actual work too. But unfortunately, when I thought I was being told to leave. I followed that order too well, and I didn't complain.

> You know how to tell when the economy is in the last 25% of an economic expansion? When everywhere you turn is another white collar professional under the age of 30 in the middle of an existential crisis.

Can you elaborate on that? I feel like you’re talking about something quite important but I can’t really grasp what it is.

He's saying the luxury of an existential crisis is a symptom of a bloated economy. In 2008, you'd be lucky to have a job at all, and very grateful if you did. As that memory fades, people feel more and more entitled to a comfortable existence. When they reach the level of "if i'm the least bit unhappy with my job, fuck it, I should quit and do something else"...we've jumped the shark. At least, that's my read of what he's saying.

True. Last year, I resigned and then started looking for a job and got several offers. This was only possible because all of my co-workers were able to find better opportunities. If it weren't for the good job scene around me, I probably wouldn't have resigned.

Yeah that's basically my point. I want to state, though, that I'm not just beating up on the under 30 crowd. I empathize with all struggles. But the same way that some people have never known a world without the internet, some people have never been hit by an economic recession. So, you have a lot of smart, ambitious people aged 24-32 who have built an impressive ~5 year career during a time of great economic expansion. For someone in this category, my advice is this: find someone 10 years older than you who works in your field, and ask them what their life was like from 2006-2010.

Thanks for explaining :)

> And I'll bet you all my bitcoin the experiment data was not collected during any year from 2008-2012.

From the paper, data was collected starting from January 23, 2013 for roughly a year.

Thanks. I didn't see that in the paper. Guess I get to hold on to my bitcoin.

I don't actually own any bitcoin ;)

And some of us are going to be like, "What? I thought things were just supposed to keep getting better every year. We've had one breakfast yes, but what about second breakfast? Elevenses? Afternoon tea? Dinner? Supper?"

Hobbits = dilettantes (or vice versa). This would explain so much.

Ha! I like the LOTR reference.

I am in no way trying to be offensive here but wtf is a grain elevator? Second question. Why elevate grain?

This?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_elevator

How do you want to store the grain if you don't elevate it?

It won't go to the top of the pile itself, and if you insert new grain at the bottom of the pile, you have to elevate the existing pile anyway.

You could store it in a big hole in the ground, but then you'd have to elevate it to get it out. And it would be much more difficult to keep it dry. It would turn into beer before you could use it.

> then you'd have to elevate it to get it out.

> It would turn into beer

I'm confused - are you suggesting reasons you should use a big hole in the ground or reasons you shouldn't use a big hole in the ground?

It won't be good beer, let's put it that way.

In the midwest (U.S.), grain elevators are the big cement silo looking things you see in movies set in Iowa or Kansas. Really, elevators are synonymous with ag cooperative businesses. Grain storage is a primary function of these businesses. In the fall (harvest), they get really busy, and I worked as a seasonal employee. Long hours, dirty work, but the pay was not bad with all the overtime.

If you want to store grain in a really big bucket (like a grain silo), how are you going to fill that bucket?

No need to downvote, this sounds like someone is just curious and willing to learn.