There is something in the second paragraph that made me read it four times, I think, until I was able to read the rest of the post. The author somehow manages to turn around the fact of being laid off into freeing themselves from the "golden handcuffs finally". No matter how I read that paragraph, I can't help the feeling that the author misses the point:
the author did not make that decision, the author had no choice
But what's not landing with me: when the author had the choice, because let's face it, nobody cuffed the author to the desk, nobody forced anybody to do the boring tedious work - the author did not make the decision but rather was prolonging in that, what is portrayed, uncomfortable situation.
The rest of the post paints a portrait of a person who doesn't know what they want. No commitments, no responsibilities, one side wants without being explicit what they can give back.
I think that the key to this post is the paragraph starting with "Accepting a job offer is a bit like getting engaged or married:". But it should be rewritten like this:
> I know (I) will have to make compromises to make it work, but I should not go for it unless I am 100% sure and obviously I should not marry someone I don’t know. If I do, chances are I will end up being unhappy for a long time or staying with them for longer than I want, because I will get used to the day-to-day and the “rewards” while still getting to know them. When I begin to have an understanding of who this person really is, I will already be invested and leaving will be hard. Many never leave(, I never left and I was hurt because I was laid off while unprepared). For a company however, it is much easier to stay with someone who is unhappy in their relationship [with the company itself], because it’s a one-to-many relationship. They have many other employees they can rely on, and an underperforming or unhappy employee can be easily shadowed by better or happier ones without the company suffering. Is it starting to feel dysfunctional?
In that context, the last question could be the writing on the wall. I'm sorry if I come across as condescending, this is my interpretation: this portrays a person who openly admits is not able to make a commitment and is uncertain of their qualities.
The rest of the post suggests the person is looking for a quick fix instead of long term solution. Today they may like this, tomorrow that, today they do something for someone who pays $1/h, tomorrow maybe something better comes through so screw that $1/h. "Didn't like it anyway and you knew the rules so it's your fault".
I like author's rules. Assuming they stick to them. It might work for some companies so good luck.
As a side note: I was hoping to find the info if the person can raise invoices. Obviously, paying invoices in cryptocurrency might not land well with local tax authorities.
"But what's not landing with me: when the author had the choice....nobody cuffed the author to the desk".
Golden handcuffs: a phrase first recorded in 1976, refers to financial allurements and benefits that have the objective to encourage highly compensated employees to remain within a company or organization instead of moving from company to company (or organization to organization) (opposite of a golden parachute).
Surely you can relate to someone taking a job they might not love because it pays more right? I think the main point he's trying to make is think twice before doing a job you hate, just because it pays more. Life is short, your job takes up a lot of your time, so consider doing something you enjoy...even if it pays less. That part at least is good advice I think.
> Surely you can relate to someone taking a job they might not love because it pays more right? I think the main point he's trying to make is think twice before doing a job you hate, just because it pays more. Life is short, your job takes up a lot of your time, so consider doing something you enjoy...even if it pays less. That part at least is good advice I think.
That's correct. I can relate to someone. I repeat from the sibling comment: Maybe the post leaves too much in the unclear. It's not obvious if this is the author reflecting on the past and making up with their inner self or if it is simply taking out on the world. The post doesn't answer any of that.
Because of that, it's not possible to make a judgement why the author did not consider their own advice while at that previous job. If life's too short, why sticking up for until being laid off?
Golden handcuffs means to leave would mean giving up too much money. I think it’s understandable behaviour. It would be financially irresponsible to quit a job that pays very well, especially if you’re not sure of landing another one. Being laid off, however, takes you out of the dilemma, so feels like a relief.
That's right. Thank you, I know what the phrase means. Don't get attached to me simply using their words to make my point.
The point is: instead of making a change, they waited until laid off. So in the end, it's somebody else's fault, like this: "I don’t want to talk too much about it, but let’s say my boss didn’t care about doing good work and didn’t know what good work looked like."
Maybe the post leaves too much in the unclear. It's not obvious if this is the author reflecting on the past and making up with their inner self or if it is simply taking out on the world. The post doesn't answer any of that.
the author did not make that decision, the author had no choice
But what's not landing with me: when the author had the choice, because let's face it, nobody cuffed the author to the desk, nobody forced anybody to do the boring tedious work - the author did not make the decision but rather was prolonging in that, what is portrayed, uncomfortable situation.
The rest of the post paints a portrait of a person who doesn't know what they want. No commitments, no responsibilities, one side wants without being explicit what they can give back.
I think that the key to this post is the paragraph starting with "Accepting a job offer is a bit like getting engaged or married:". But it should be rewritten like this:
> I know (I) will have to make compromises to make it work, but I should not go for it unless I am 100% sure and obviously I should not marry someone I don’t know. If I do, chances are I will end up being unhappy for a long time or staying with them for longer than I want, because I will get used to the day-to-day and the “rewards” while still getting to know them. When I begin to have an understanding of who this person really is, I will already be invested and leaving will be hard. Many never leave(, I never left and I was hurt because I was laid off while unprepared). For a company however, it is much easier to stay with someone who is unhappy in their relationship [with the company itself], because it’s a one-to-many relationship. They have many other employees they can rely on, and an underperforming or unhappy employee can be easily shadowed by better or happier ones without the company suffering. Is it starting to feel dysfunctional?
In that context, the last question could be the writing on the wall. I'm sorry if I come across as condescending, this is my interpretation: this portrays a person who openly admits is not able to make a commitment and is uncertain of their qualities.
The rest of the post suggests the person is looking for a quick fix instead of long term solution. Today they may like this, tomorrow that, today they do something for someone who pays $1/h, tomorrow maybe something better comes through so screw that $1/h. "Didn't like it anyway and you knew the rules so it's your fault".
I like author's rules. Assuming they stick to them. It might work for some companies so good luck.
As a side note: I was hoping to find the info if the person can raise invoices. Obviously, paying invoices in cryptocurrency might not land well with local tax authorities.