5 ms·

It’s a trade off: Younger workers have less to lose, so tend to leave more — but they’re also less experienced and tend to have lower expectations for the work

It’s a trade off: Younger workers have less to lose, so tend to leave more — but they’re also less experienced and tend to have lower expectations for the workplace. Older workers are less likely to leave because it’s disruptive, but they’re also more experienced at the political side of life — and tend to insist on things like reasonable hours, professional management, etc. My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game — but from the employers who act that way... There’s some who prefer the lower expectations (eg, Amazon) and some who prefer the more stable crew (eg, ATT).

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game Maybe in highly paid and creative fields, but for the vast majority of business around the world, I observe exploiting the power imbalance between employer and employee to be very beneficial for the employer.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  How so? My experience is that you get small gains (eg, 10-100M) but you see an uptick in similarly sized faults (eg, tax audits or plane defects) and then go negative on the occasional preventable disaster (eg, 737 MAX). Edit: this is different than being beneficial for some employee at the employer — ie, it probably improves some VPs bonus even though it’s negative for the company, overall. Then you have the various examples that succeeded by treating workers well — Ford, Avis, Boeing, etc. I’m curious how you’re comparing companies to reach that conclusion.