After a few more minutes and another set of whines, the guy asks the barman “so why doesn’t he move?” And the barman says “it probably doesn’t hurt enough for him to get up.”
A job change can also mean - inheriting someone else's problematic code base, new office politics and colleagues who may not get along with you. Hardly 0-5% of pay rise really does not justify all this. All in all, one cannot switch jobs easily when the options and benefits of switching are not so good.
This. Everything you said is true about most of Europe, and even more so outside of major tech hubs.
Companies call the shots and employees have to follow if they want to stay employed, because there are no good alternatives to go to, when all companies just act the same and pay the same. And most companies here don't give a damn about what their employees actually want and presume they can bait you with a +10% salary increase but exact same inflexibility, toxic environment and management practices. Good luck with that.
Plus, interviewing and changing jobs in the tech world is a monumental effort, taking both time and a mental toll after several rounds of interviews with several companies, on top of your regular job, time that could have went into hobbies, dating, socializing, travelling, cooking, etc., so there's a lost opportunities cost associated with the job hunt.
I've been interviewing around for about 4 months so far, to hopefully change to a better , less stressful tech job, and I'm already completely exhausted from all the "complete our 20-questions, 6 page HR online form about yourself, before you can submit your application, because our time is more valuable than yours", "solve this week long take home test, and when you're done, we'll let you know that unfortunately this position has already been filled", "there will be several rounds of interviews after wich we'll just ghost you, because f*ck you", "you didn't sound passionate enough about our company's products in your cover letter", etc. And, apparently there's a labor shortage. Yeah ... right.
God, I'm so exhausted from all this, some days I just can't get out of bed anymore and sit there wishing I get hit by lightning, or die in my sleep and end my misery.
If I had two offers, and one was 20% less compensation plus WFH and the other +20% but working from office ONCE a day, I'd go for the WFH one.
Of course everybody's factors are different.
I'm glad you acknowledge it; with rising cost of living, housing prices, and (in my case) medical expenses (the part not covered by insurance, like physical therapy; we're still trying to get a diagnosis so it will be covered), I can't afford a 20% pay cut.
Even pre-pandemic, I rejected an offer from a company literally across the street from where I live, because their offer was >30% lower than what I was earning at the time. I just flat out told them I wouldn't be able to afford to live there - and I live in some of the cheapest houses in this area.
There are switching costs which mean the employee often takes a hit on attempting to move. It's like buying a car, car doesn't work as advertised so someone says, "well stop whining and sell it, you're in market." Like yes, but also nope.
This is not true. There are many such opportunities if you ask, especially now.
> it's not that you will get a 20% pay rise every time you switch
If you work in IT (generous, but it is HN...), this should be your experience unless you switch more than once every two years. Then everyone will mistrust you, but you can still do it as a contractor.
> On top, it is extremely hard to find software development jobs that pay around or above 100K. Most jobs are around 60-80K.
Making around or above 100K in the EU is indeed very unusual. Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape. The lower top salary in the EU comes with the benefit of knowing that if you go blind you won't have to die shitting yourself in some crackhouse.
Tough but fair.
Your statement definitely does not apply where I currently live (Austria). No tech company I've interviewed here is 100% remote as of now. They always expect more or less around 30-50% in office presence for new hires. They almost always have some staff at near 100% remote but those are usually tenured employees that management does not want to lose, so they get extra privileges as a bonus.
>Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape.
That's also not true. American tech workers don't have higher salaries because they get less social safety, but they have higher salaries because a lot more investment money, by orders of magnitude, gets poured into their tech sector compared to Europe where most goes into real estate instead, while the US also has a smaller supply of devs due to their expensive higher education and tougher immigration laws than Europe, meaning that the high demand of devs in the US can't be met by their low supply of workers, so their salaries naturally rise accordingly. It's that simple, basic supply and demand, nothing to do with the presence or lack of social safety from the government, as US taxes aren't that much lower than in Europe.
US taxes being similar to Europe (which in my experience is true) certainly does not equate to an equivalent safety net.
>Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape. The lower top salary in the EU comes with the benefit of knowing that if you go blind you won't have to die shitting yourself in some crackhouse.
Can you elaborate?
I assume the canonical source for information about the US is American TV, but I really can't imagine what you watch that makes you think there is no safety net, even for people making $100K.
So there is obviously no bottom-most robust safety net, as plainly evidenced by the homeless situation. But there are a bunch of safety nets that do sustain millions of people. Welfare, subsidized housing, social security (retirement, and disability), medicare, Medicaid, to name the big ones.
>So there is obviously no bottom-most robust safety net, as plainly evidenced by the homeless situation
What is your perspective on schizophrenia?
Every single US citizen I've ever spoken to has made this clear (sometimes only after a while) without fail.
Apart from anything mentioned in this thread.
In (most) European states it's just not a concern that anyone ever has - if you are getting treatment under national health service then it has nothing to do with your employment status and any treatment would just continue. If you need time off due to ilness it has to be paid for as well(employer only pays for a while, then the state takes over).
"Love it, change it or leave it. No amount of complaining will ever do anything else than paint you as a naysayer."
Was a hard pill to swallow, but my own experience proved me again and again he was spot on.
My current lesson is - most things that look like an easy win would have been claimed a long time ago if not for some unholy hidden mess. If I'm to vote for "change", I should be prepared to deal with the unholy mess. It doesn't matter that I don't see it, it's out there somewhere.
Since I rarely want to take on an unholy mess, and I'm not good at the kind of doublethink that would allow me to love a thing I'm not inclined to love, usually that just leaves one option.
To vanquish these, in the name of The Right Way, one ultimately must engage them in social combat, whether by proxy or directly. And they're better at it than you are. Nerds may be clever, and they may actually be right, but the other players are usually more convincing. And I don't mean merely argumentatively.
The "Schmoozer" class is full of this type of crap. I'm convinced that outside of a few unicorn companies, meritocracy is an illusion.
One of the things I've learned is that authority is a real thing. If you don't have the authority to change something, don't try. You will fail, and it will do nothing but cost you. I've jousted with this many times, and it was a failure every time. (More technical type stuff, but the same holds for this sort of thing too.)
Authority doesn't have to be given from on high; there is also some distributed authority that arises from the unofficial de facto org chart that every organization has. I've managed to push some things through with that (and relevant amounts of consensus) when I was more careful to ensure I had the authority.
But if you don't have at least some authority, you will fail.
This comment is is, not ought. You are welcome to feel about it however you like. But when it comes time to determine your own actions, you should work in the space of is and not ought.
That doesn't mean the only option is to give up. One may attempt to acquire the authority. This can either be by direct appeal, or in some cases, through the long-term acquisition of authority called "respect". One may attempt to convince an existing authority to help with whatever your issue is. Though in this specific case if the problem is specifically fighting existing authority that may not help. There are other options.
But it is a total wishful thinking myth that if you're just smart enough and good enough and just take charge, by golly, you can get anything done! In fact, after a while, when you see someone and on day 3 you see them charging around just trying to change things, you start to see someone who isn't going to be there long.
(Now, I actually like fresh perspectives on my team and don't squash people if they have new ideas, but at the same time, I ask them to take a couple of weeks and be sure they fully understand the changes they are proposing before we consider their suggestions. The end result is better suggestions, and we have taken many of them. This is why I'm specific about it being "day 3"; on day 3, you may know enough to have identified a problem, but you don't know the solution yet.)
But if you can't acquire some authority somehow, your options are reduced to deal with it or leave it. There is no "just bull through and change things anyhow". The entire political structure built into our very genes will not permit it. You're fighting not just your current organization but millions of years of evolution. You will not win.
I guess this is what it looks like when a nerd learns how to do politics.
My theory has been that you look for things people already want to do but can't, and try to enable them with the resources at hand. You can change things that you don't have formal authority for (possibly not for the better) by simply removing roadblocks.
Yes. This is the old point about the Serenity 'prayer': grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to know the difference. Or, as soldiers say more succinctly, "Pick your battles".
I've slowly internalised this over the years. It also applies on a micro-level: when reviewing someone else's work, if something that isn't critical actually gets the job done, just go with it, unless there is an actual problem with an obvious solution that you can suggest. Don't complain just because something is done differently to how you would do it.
The point about Unknown Unknowns is also totally relevant. And cans-of-worms. You really must be very confident you are right before opening them.
Actually that's often the best choice, you need to pick your battles.
“It’s not about the nail.” https://youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
The cliché is true during the hottest hours, but it fails to admit that it is simply because most activity moves to the twilight hours when the heat subsides.
When I left, I thought it was so stupid to build these big offices near the desert and to pack them full of people working 9 to 5 with massive amounts of aircon, effectively imposing on them the Northern European way of life - folks have been inhabiting those areas for millennia, they know how to properly deal with the environment they live in, let them work at night instead and save all that energy.