Credit to Walmart for creating an environment where a person can still love their job after years of service.
That stuff can't be faked, even with a high salary. Before you say, "it's easy to say when you're getting paid $240K a year." Nah. A person needs challenge; a purpose. Lots of FANG ICs making $500K+ who hate their job. Why? No challenge or palpable purpose.
To create a scaled corp structure where a person can ascend from the bottom is also tough to do.
If you work a lot like this lady does you do not really have much time to reason about how you spend your life and whats important.
It just happens to you. But it becomes all encompassing and consumes the person. For some thats the right way to live their life, for most not so much.
FANG has a problem in that they have a lot of highly paid individuals doing nothing or very little, so they have a lot of time to sit around and get depressed about it.
Another issue is we’re a couple generations in where kids were told over and over swe is what their passion is without it being a real reality. Eventually they get old enough to realize the lie but not young enough to take the risk of doing something about it.
> but not young enough to take the risk of doing something about it.
I cannot grok this statement. The older I am the bigger risks I was able to take because I had accumulated more financial independence. Why would you be able to take more risks when you are young?
When I was 23 I had little savings, little assets, lots of debt I was worried about paying off, and felt like I needed to work or I was going to be homeless and starve. I took the highest paying job I could find, and worked until I had enough experience and network to find a higher paying job. I took no risks.
When I was 33 I took large career risks because I had no debt (outside of low mortgage payment), lots of savings, plenty of assets, and a professional network to fall back on if my risk didn't pay off.
According to systems theory (and karl marx?) purpose of the system is what the system does. Here system = person.
And according to those who dont like that theory "The Protestant Ethic" is the reason for "The Spirit of Capitalism" or continuing to work/optimize/explore/exploit way past the point your Needs are meet.
IMHO This is like status. Sounds smart but not much behind it... How do you know what are someone needs, maybe they evlolve? Maybe your need is to try a FAANG job and have first hand expiring that will change your needs to less material. Maybe one of your needs is to satisfy protestant ethics? And your need is to go beyond the first level needs... So I'd say the same way system purposes I'd defined by what it does. Your needs are defined by what your do.
Having said that, this type of philosophizing is nothing but an empty exercise in confusion. Everyone one is an individual an has his one subjective epirience, a person aspires to live his life as he best understands it.. anything beyond that is just nonsensical.
If there companies paying 500K who’d like a software engineer to just professionally do the job, not complain, not have an agenda, not worry about promotions - drop me a reply. You pay, I work. That’s the all there’s to it.
> That stuff can't be faked, even with a high salary. Before you say, "it's easy to say when you're getting paid $240K a year." Nah. A person needs challenge; a purpose. Lots of FANG ICs making $500K+ who hate their job. Why? No challenge or palpable purpose.
Something only someone with a high income would say. Contrary to all data and research and evidence.
Not sure if you’re discrediting the parent comment or pointing out the reality of it.
But yes this is something only someone with a high income would say. And yes, it’s true.
Beyond a certain income, the wrong job can be soul sucking and depressing. And it takes achieving that level of income to fully appreciate that reality.
It's been described as another way to hit rock bottom, because you realize that even after "making it" it doesn't make you happy. So NOW what do you do?
"You don't seem to realize that a poor person who is unhappy is in a better position than a rich person who is unhappy. Because the poor person has hope. He thinks money would help."
There are more than a few studies behind it. Is that "scientific"? Remember that viral story about the guy who made the min salary in his company $70K? What did he base that number on, do you think?
Separately, if someone said that your take is "complete anti-scientific hogwash only poor people would repeat," would you think their opinion valid?
… maybe cite them? While I could see a study that says being vastly wealthy doesn't lead to happiness, the kinda wealth gap being discussed here is "cannot easily afford a home" ($70k/y; max $1.7k/mo affordable) and "can trivially afford a home" ($500k/y–$700k/y; max $17.5k/mo affordable). (For reference, homes in my area are currently ~$4.8k/mo.)
And a 2021 follow-up that addresses criticisms of the original (TLDR: if you were already happy, you get more happy > 75K. If you were unhappy, you don't get more happy > 75K.)
There are plenty of studies showing a diminishing return in happiness / general satisfaction after a certain income threshold. You can look themselves up yourself.
> I could send you paper and paper that wealth/income and stability increases happiness aggregated
Nobody disputed that. You made a statement about "something only someone with a high income would say." That's drawing the generality to a specific. It would be like concluding from the fact that most dogs are black, brown and white, that every dog is black, brown or white.
In this case, it could absolutely be the case that the factors that cause money to turn into happiness are not present among FAANG employees to a greater degree than population.
I hated it and put my money where my mouth was. I took another job for a massive pay cut.
Money isn’t everything. I started comparing my everyday life to prison. “How much money would I take to live in prison?” Realized it was gonna have to be a lot more than what I was getting.
Yes, please. I think a lot of HN people have lost all sense of proportion. A 7 figure job is $1M plus--a year. That's financially life-changing, no matter how much you hate the content of the work. Grin and bear it for a couple of years, and then... do anything you like for the rest of your life. Maybe 0.1% of the population gets an opportunity like that.
I think if a marriage breaks up after 2 years of one partner working 80+ hours a week to make enough money to have reasonable financial stability for the rest of their lives, the marriage probably had other issues.
Of course 2 years of stress can lead to otherwise-good marriages breaking up. Didn't you know happy couples who divorced during COVID lockdowns? It was common.
To me, those seem like fragile marriages. If it wasn't covid, then it'd be an illness or disability. If covid unearthed ideological differences, then it's likely that would have surfaced during other poticial events. If it was the financial hardship, that may have struck at another time. It's not that 2 years of stress can't destroy a marriage, it's just that it tends to destroy the weak ones.
I also didn't know any couples to divorce during lockdown.
Sure. I’m just arguing that “Here’s an opportunity to sacrifice for 2 years and put ourselves on a solid financial footing” is different from “the world is collapsing and we have to make the best of it”.
Sure, those things are common in many jobs that pay much less. Many marriages can survive a year or two of hardship. If they can't, then perhaps it's not a good marriage and it will fall apart anyways at the next major event. Illnesses happen all the time, but I assume you mean stress-related. But there are many stressful jobs that pay much less and result in injury or disability.
It's also possible they're saying it because they're in a national article and would almost certainly lose their job if they represented the company poorly. I would also guess PR got involved to approve or even pick which manager would show their image the best.
The other interesting effect I notice is that in rural communities especially, you find a lot more long-term employees that have just stayed because it was the solidest employer of the time.
Between jobs and before I launched into my current IT position I had a small stint at my local Walmart just to make ends meet -- MANY of the staff had 5, 10, 15, and even 20+ year service badges. Many of those 20+ year employees were there as the concrete was being poured and have been here since that store first opened in the community.
Also these people can make personal impact that is visible for them. They might be wrong, but still they can affect things and see them changing... It might not be possible in many other jobs specially in big corporations.
Yeah, after a certain amount (like enough to cover expenses, have a little fun, and build savings) and a certain amount of time, your income stops being something that makes you excited. This is especially true if you’re around other people who make the same as you do. If becomes normalized in your mind. Everyone needs a challenge and some goals. Something to look forward to.
I'm looking forward to retirement. I'm not interested in professional challenges anymore. In my experience they're usually BS and you don't get rewarded.
That article is from 2014. The average Walmart employee rate today is $17.06.
And a non-zero amount of those employees can someday make a lot more.
How many other companies of that size can say the same?
I'm not saying it's not a problem, and not saying we shouldn't be trying so solve it. But are we talking about wage reform, or Walmart uniquely being a shithead?
I read the article you linked and it feels like it's got an agenda. Conjecture 1 is that Walmart doesn't pay employees enough, then Conjecture 2 is that it pays its executives "too much," but conveniently defines "executive" as just the CEO, when in reality executives include the very people that OP's article is about - store managers!
I admittedly stopped reading after that because one can always find a convenient fact to backup their view. If I'm misinterpreting, let me know.
It's also complicated. When Walmart announced wage increases in 2015, their stock fell 5%. Who owns Walmart stock? Us.
> How many other companies of that size can say the same?
This is a bit of a strawman argument. How many other companies exist on planet Earth of this size? Very few. And are you insinuating that Walmart is paying well because they want to? I doubt it. They are tried-and-tested mega corp that responds to labour market pressures. I don't attribute anything else to this level of pay. Finally, average isn't a good metric to use; median is more useful.
If we leave size aside, I would say that Starbucks and Whole Foods are very good employers and large.
I was not insinuating that. The bigger you get as a corp, the harder it is to do have a mutually beneficial relationship with your employees, -because- market forces dictate so much of the strategy. So, that Walmart is the literal biggest corp and can still have legit upward mobility and satisfied mid-level employees is no small feat.
That stuff can't be faked, even with a high salary. Before you say, "it's easy to say when you're getting paid $240K a year." Nah. A person needs challenge; a purpose. Lots of FANG ICs making $500K+ who hate their job. Why? No challenge or palpable purpose.
To create a scaled corp structure where a person can ascend from the bottom is also tough to do.