The idea that someone's response to being fired should be the same as a manager's response to one of their reports quitting is hilariously out of touch.
And the changes were the part of a system wide (civilization wide ?) response.
Someone has to take the garbage, and be paid for it.
If the job isn’t attracting workers, than by market logic the pay should be increased.
If the pay is being kept artificially low though, then there is inefficiency in the system.
What are you talking about? real (ie. inflation adjusted) wages have gone up more for the lowest quartile of americans[1]. Is paying people more to get them to work "re-enslavement" now?
[1] https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker, click the "wage level" button
Too many focus on equal outcome instead of equal opportuniy.
A rule applying across the board to everyone doesn't really imply that it provides equal opportunity.
Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
Also your estimation of HN users is probably out of date with the current state of the employment market.
[1] https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/Tips-on-writing-a-revie...
> your estimation of HN users is probably out of date with the current state of the employment market
You're probably not around start-ups if layoffs are a top concern.
Well yes. If you're at a startup you should assume you're always a few months from being laid off. Everyone should assume that. You're fighing to survive; the default is dead.
Dropbox, on the other hand, is not a start-up. It's had to file WARN notices [1]. "Nobody can do a background check on a company to see who they laid off or fired before they work there" is false.
It’s one thing to be laid off from a startup in general. Another entirely to be laid off right now.
The number of recent layoffs is everyone’s concern right now because of how hard it will be for you to find a job afterward. Layoffs always were going on, and always will for startups, but the days of turning down job offers due to small uncertainties are mostly paused or gone at this point. The demand crunch is very real.
What? I don't want you to know when I was fired and why. Employment reports typically don't contain the why either because that's litigation bait.
We're talking about the information asymmetry in hiring and firing. Why does knowing the titles and time periods of those laid off in the past help you estimate your lay-off odds in the future?
>Why does knowing the titles and time periods of those laid off in the past help you estimate your lay-off odds in the future?
I don't know. Why does knowing my titles and time period help businesses judge how useful I'll be for this new position? It's the same issue but that's where the asymmetry is. People seem fine with big business being able to do that but not prospective employees who may care about retention rates.
But to answer your question: retentions rates let me know how hard the company will try to keep me during bad/down times. Someone who can't even retain for 2 years probably has smoke.