[Broussebar]

So basically GenZ realized that a company is not your friend, they can fire you the moment you are not valuable. I feel sorry for older generations that let themselves be exploited, there's no point in being loyal to a company. IMO I have a deal with the company I'm working with: my skills and time for money, of course I always want a better deal which means more money or more benefits.

[pcthrowaway]

> So basically GenZ realized that a company is not your friend, they can fire you the moment you are not valuable. I feel sorry for older generations that let themselves be exploited, there's no point in being loyal to a company.

Millenials and especially Gen X had a lot of things easier. You could get some stable job and coast and do fine in the economy 20-30 years ago. I think your sympathies for the way us gens X/Y approached jobs 10 years ago is misdirected (though I suspect a lot of Millenials, especially those such as myself who aren't highly compensated, are taking a more individualistic approach to their careers now as well)

Gen Z is out here trying to survive and they've gotten an incredibly raw deal, I'd sympathize with them instead.

[ctrw]

>Millenials and especially Gen X had a lot of things easier.

I'm curious what years you think this applies to.

[JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B]

> Millenials and especially Gen X had a lot of things easier

All I remember is a constant fear of cancer, AIDS, and massive unemployment.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I have a deal with the company I'm working with: my skills and time for money, of course I always want a better deal

This is fair. But it obviously constrains someone to being a worker. You’re not going to develop someone for leadership with that attitude.

[roenxi]

Senior leadership will word it more diplomatically; but that is the only mindset that makes sense for them. Once you have the power to choose to add or remove resources from a project it doesn't make sense to interact with the company in any way other than transacting skills and time for money. Except people with substantial equity stakes, for obvious reasons. One of the tells of a high-performing management culture is everyone can do their job in working hours with the skills that they have formal training in.

There are exceptions where you sometimes get workaholics in high places, especially founders. That can be an advantage or a disadvantage; I've seen at least one founder destroy their own business because they couldn't stop coding, get a regular 8 hours sleep and switch off from time to time. One of the paths from sleep deprivation leads to a rolling crisis and eventual company collapse. They didn't understand that a boundary between work and not-work is necessary for high performance management to happen.

[leokennis]

Unless I misunderstand you, this would mean "leadership" translates to "my time is valued at $xyz per hour which I can get at companies A, B and C, but I love company D so much I will work for them for less than that". Or alternatively, "leadership" means "leaving money on the table because of a feeling of loyalty towards a corporation"?

Please correct me if I misunderstood you.

[episteme]

You can have that attitude internally without impacting your ability to do your job or grow. People in leadership leave companies all the time, there's no need to be tied to a particular one.

[000ooo000]

>You’re not going to develop someone for leadership

Could've ended that sentence there and it would better reflect 99% of organisations, while also explaining part of the attitude you're referring to.

[gorbachev]

Companies have limited leadership opportunities for developers. It's pointless trying to make everyone a leader when there's 1 leadership position for every 20 developers.

Yes, yes, you can be an informal leader as well, but let's please recognize that not everyone wants to be one, and it's ok to be "just a worker".

[znpy]

> You’re not going to develop someone for leadership with that attitude.

Most people will self-develop anyway, and at some point you'll need somebody to fill that leadership position anyway.

So this is not a problem.

Things change constantly, such is life, we'll get used to it.

[roncesvalles]

I think the reason is purely monetary.

Software developer compensation spans a very wide range, especially in the USA. Devs with the same years of experience could be earning anywhere from $50k on the low end to $500k on the high end in the same city. The "upward mobility" across the range is relatively easy and not hindered by your credentials (i.e. you aren't permanently barred from the highest end jobs because you didn't do your undergrad at Harvard, Yale or Princeton).

The fact that the USA allows immigration means that this compensation range applies globally. A dev in Tallinn earning €80k can aspire for the $500k role in San Francisco and actually have a decent shot of getting it.

It's almost unreasonable to expect employees to remain loyal in this situation.

The phenomenon where people stayed in the same job forever happened because they couldn't really go anywhere else to make more. Indeed, at high-paying tech companies, you will find many devs who have been there for decades.

[TheChaplain]

IMHO that likely because our culture changed long ago and loyalty in general is worth less and even considered stupid when there are options.

Naturally this reflects onto businesses, which of course are made and run by people. Loyalty to employees and vice versa is gone in favour of getting the better deal.

[Broussebar]

> IMHO that likely because our culture changed long ago and loyalty in general is worth less and even considered stupid when there are options.

I disagree, loyalty in friendship or with your family is not worth less. Being loyal to human being is not stupid, for me it's being loyal to a company or a brand that is.

When being loyal to your close ones, you create trust and for me this is critical of my hapiness.

I don't get anything from being loyal to a company.

edit: typo

[ctrw]

I wonder how those generations managed to have houses and children in their 20s.

[Broussebar]

I don't fully understand your comment, are you implying that older generations were able to buy a house in their 20s because they were loyal to their companies?

[Freedom2]

Is this genuine wonderment? The state of housing in western countries has been discussed at great length and it's disingenuous to compare that across generations, whereas the state of working and how companies treat you has stayed the same, or gotten worse (as we've seen lately).