On loyalty to Your Employer
357 comments
·April 24, 2025rckt
swatcoder
Keep in mind that the benefits of loyalty vary with the size of the organization and the number peers your name gets lost among in the org chart.
The larger the company, and the more they're ballooned out with abstract drones chomping on abstract work items, the more loyalty becomes a means for abuse. Turnover is rampant and their processes are built to optimally accommodate it. They're egregores, not people, and they don't experience loyalty or attachment. But they do benefit from yours, and so they'll milk it until you give up
But in smaller groups and smaller communities, where you're actually working with people, loyalty and even affection can really make a difference in how satisfying your worklife is, how much security you can feel in your opportunities, etc
It's not so much that there's "no place for loyalty in employer-employee relationships", it's just that the place for loyalty is different depending on what's inhabiting the employer role opposite you -- and the high-profile large employers of the modern age are incapable of reciprocating. But if loyalty comes naturally to you, and feels good to you when reciprocated, you have the option to look elsewhere instead of seething in resentment and disappointment.
gorbachev
There is a special form of small company that's even worse. It's the kind where "we're a family". Those are worse than anything a big company bureaucracy / bean-counting could ever be.
mohaine
Small companies really magnify the extreems. Good ones are really great but bad ones are extra bad. Sadly, they are also nimble enough to switch between them, at least in one direction.
int_19h
The difference is that in a small company, it's the owner who is abusing you (or not). It's all down to the qualities of the person itself.
In a large company, it happens regardless of the qualities of the people involve, because it's baked into the processes. Good-natured people can mitigate it to some extent, but they cannot prevent it.
ok_computer
You cannot take a week off who will cover your responsibilities?! Lol, that kind of small company.
groby_b
That depends. A lot of them are. A lot of them have owners that actually treat you like family.
Differentiating between the two based on signals during hiring is almost impossible, though.
fwip
The small and successful company (~100 people) my brother-in-law works at is currently self-destructing, specifically because the CEO is that exact kind of family-loyalty "father figure" wannabe.
MangoCoffee
>But in smaller groups and smaller communities, where you're actually working with people, loyalty and even affection can really make a difference in how satisfying your worklife is, how much security you can feel in your opportunities, etc
I've been in IT for over 20 years, mostly working in small to mid-sized companies. Small companies will let you go as soon as they feel a pinch. every company is the same, no matter their size.
You're expected to give two weeks' notice, but they can let you go without any notice.
Corporate loyalty is the dumbest trick employers ever pulled.
metters
> You're expected to give two weeks' notice, but they can let you go without any notice.
Luckily, this is not the case where I live. Both sides have the same amount of notice
jjmarr
My parents told me to be loyal to people, not companies.
People get me a job when I look for one.
usrusr
Only in moderation. When employees start forming cells inside the org things quickly become toxic.
nine_k
Exactly what I always proclaim. I'm loyal to my team, to my coworkers, the living beings, not to the org chart that pulled them together.
(Another thing I keep repeating is "You are not your job".)
emgeee
I agree. Tenures may be short but careers are long and tech is (surprisingly) small. Credibility builds trust and trust between people is ultimately what business run on. "Do right be people" is a good strategy.
espinchi
Good advice. The company gets your loyalty as a side-effect
ivape
The larger the company, and the more they're ballooned out with abstract drones chomping on abstract work items
I was actually thinking about this the other day. When an employer implements an "aloof" layer between the work done and the bottom line, the employer and employee don't get to bond. You and your company should be on the same page when it comes to generating business and on the same page when it comes to concerns. Shipmates, for real. With layers of management of all varieties (middle management, project management, developer management (this is tricky because the Dev Lead becomes your only connection to the bottom line)), the "aloofness" leads to unfulfilled lives. That's when the employee doesn't feel fulfilled or understands who they are on the ship. And it follows that the captain(s) of the ship (leadership) are unfulfilled because they are no longer in love with the crew (can easily fire, hire, layoff, disconnect from the employees lives). I haven't fully thought this thought out so I will probably expand on it as time goes on, but this is my line of thinking at the moment.
It's a love issue due to a lack of direct bonding (and no, company social gatherings and "fun" is not the bonding I am talking about. I am talking about taking on Moby Dick together). The love is indirectly routed through these other layers until it's been fully diluted and misunderstood, unfulfilling to all. Everyone must love the ship, the crew, the captain, the ocean, and the whale they are hunting.
jacobsenscott
You might want to read Moby Dick all the way to the end.
int_19h
This difference is because smaller organizations are less of an entity in their own right, and more of an actual group of people doing things together (even if legally the company might still be a separate entity).
As organizations grow, they become more than a mere sum of its parts. It seems to be an emergent phenomenon driven by complexity - as humans interact, this very interaction creates something resembling an entity in its own right past a certain scale, with its own agenda (distinct from individual agendas of its constituent humans) and drive for self-preservation as a whole - the egregore that you mentioned. My pet theory is that this starts to happen when you scale beyond the Dunbar number, but the effect is only obvious at scales where most members of the organization are faceless strangers to each other.
Either way, this emergent entity is decidedly amoral.
kermatt
The term loyalty is dangerous for an employee.
Having seen companies of all sizes lay people off for the exact same reason - Returns did not match expectations - my personal perspective is to treat all employers the same.
No company with a balance sheet is loyal to employees. Keeping that idea in mind, and thus on an equal perspective, is healthy for both sides. "It's just business" is good advice and not just in movies.
mystraline
I applied to a job in the 'Who's Hiring' thread this month.
Had an interview. I'm a professional good at my craft, with tenure at hard positions.
I get hit with "we don't just want someone who checks in does work and leaves, 9 to 5". Like, are you wanting 60h/week and pay 40h/week? Or is this you're not wanting a slacker?
Or better yet, since you want skin in the game on my side, what's my equity as a partner?
My understanding is that I shop up and work well, and you pay me. And I'm in an at-will employment state, so it really is 1 day at a time.
Loyalty is bought at 1 day increments, since that is all the loyalty is afforded to me.
However, I will definitely lie, since no recruiter or HR wants to admit that their candidate is here because you pay. Its the verboten secret everyone dances around.
jacobsenscott
That loyalty and affection your are feeling is only going one way. I've worked for small and large places. Work is always transactional. The day the CFO at your 10 person startup that "feels like a family" gets some pressure from investors to cut costs, well, your loyalty does not factor into the decision making.
throwaway7783
I agree in parts. Loyalty and corresponding benefits are a local optima. But when the macro is controlled and influenced by external (to the local) forces, and these forces have power, loyalty means nothing in terms of security. But you will still have good relationships with people and new opportunities may surface as a benefit.
But loyalty to a company is complete, utter BS.
bbarnett
There are good and bad companies. How you are treated is how you gauge it, and good companies do deserve "working" loyality.
This is different from personal loyalty.
It's a little like politeness. Social grace. Don't demean yourself of course, but treating entities which treat you well reciprocally is valid and even moral.
HEmanZ
All loyalty is a risk. Even loyalty to your spouse is a risk. Just like how all love and human trust is a risk.
To feel human you have to take these emotional risks. You shouldn’t bet your life that a mega-corp has absolute and utter loyalty to you. You shouldn’t bet your entire life that your spouse has absolute loyalty to you (we have divorce, pre-nups, and post-nups for a reason). But it strikes me as a pretty soulless existence to have no loyalty to your place of work, in the same way it would be a pretty soulless existence to never form loyalty with the people in your life, even if it isn’t absolute loyalty.
horsawlarway
Things don't deserve loyalty. Your company is a "thing".
People - people can absolutely deserve loyalty, and those people can be managers, coworkers, spouses, family, etc.
But don't mix the two up in your mind.
simpaticoder
>Things don't deserve loyalty. Your company is a "thing".
A country is a thing and loyalty to it is called "patriotism". A sports-team or TV show or band is a thing, loyalty to it is called "fandom". Loyalty to an idea or philosophy is called "being principled" or "idealism". Do you believe that things don't deserve loyalty, such that all of these are errors? Or do these examples not capture the sense of your statement?
amelius
What about your boss, then.
Bnjoroge
not that binary lmao
BOOSTERHIDROGEN
Unfortunately all managers focus on push rank, so why loyalty to them?
pkdpic
I think I agree with both perspectives. And it makes me realize that in the past when I've tried to draw hardcore no-loyalty / emotional attachment boundaries teammates / employers pick up in the vibe and it slowly becomes mildly but chronically toxic.
It's 100% an emergence scam behavior of corporate entities to trick their employees into developing loyalty and tricking managers / founders etc into thinking its not just a way of scamming lower-end employees imo... I never got the feeling that managers were consciously trying to trick us into developing loyalty, felt more like they were then ones drinking the most coolaid on it...
Also agree with the base human need to feel at least some loyalty in any relationship to feel like it's healthy.
I think my hack has been to develop loyalty to people on my team laterally. Seems to work but sometimes leadership / management still seems like they catch a whiff that I dont have a deep emotional need to respond to their frantic 8pm or Sunday afternoon Teams messages...
But if they fire me for not being loyal who cares, the economies doing great right?
sanderjd
In addition to what others have said about loyalty to the people who happen to work at a company, which I agree with entirely:
I think it's good to have admiration for the company (or any organization) you work for. If you can't find anything you admire, it might be better to find another place to work where you can.
This implies having the privilege of having options. For me, it's probably the primary reason I try to direct my career toward having skills or connections that give me options.
tart-lemonade
Being able to take pride in your work also helps a lot. In academia, my work may not be the most well compensated (it's perfectly reasonable for the area but I'm not going to be retiring early), but it is modern software that meaningfully helps others at my institution and doesn't actively make society worse.
542354234235
>You shouldn’t bet your life that a mega-corp has absolute and utter loyalty to you.
But your mega corp doesn't have loyalty to you. They have loyalty to their shareholders, and you are a means to that end. The shareholders are the spouse, and you are just the person they paid to make the yearly birthday present. If a little flattery gets them a better price, then they flatter. If their spouse's interests change, you'll never see them again.
robertlagrant
> you are just the person they paid to make the yearly birthday present
Equally, if you presenting yourself well and negotiating well gets you a better wage to make that birthday present, then you should do those things. It's a two-way street.
Apocryphon
This soullessness wasn't always the case. Prior to the cost-cutting minmaxing of Jack Welch's industries-influential tenure as CEO of General Electric, corporate America wasn't quite so brazen about layoffs, because they weren't viewed as a way to maximize shareholder returns- and shareholder value wasn't viewed as the only priority for corporate leaders. (He also introduced what would later become stack ranking at Microsoft and other tech companies.)
On the other side, certainly a fluid labor market such as tech was a couple of years ago would foster a lack of loyalty, as employees hop from employer to employer for rapid career growth.
None of this necessarily contradicts with your point. It's just labor relations don't exist in a vacuum. Sometimes a lot needs to be done to earn trust in a low-trust cultural environment.
542354234235
But also there were actual benefits to loyalty that don’t exist anymore. Labor union participation was huge in the post WWII, pre-Welch time frame. They used that leverage to negotiate benefits, many of which rewarded loyalty. Pension plans vs 401ks, significant pay raises based on seniority, clear paths to promotion, job security prioritizing senior workers, etc. Those things permeated through job markets and companies without unions as well, given the labor force competition. People were loyal because they had real tangible compensation and benefits for it.
I think another shift around Welch was that companies used to focus more on long term value, which would result in stock price increases in the long term, even if not in any given short term. That if a company was healthy and valuable, one of the many benefits would be rising stocks. The shift to focus on short term stock increases as almost the only goal, means companies will pull the copper piping out the walls and destroy the house if it means a juicy bump in the Q3 earnings call.
convolvatron
i think we can draw a distinction between loyalty to the company, either as an abstract entity or its concrete leadership, and human relationships with people who may also be employed there. there are two companies here, one has a stock ticker and the other is an organic collection of people. i dont owe either of them loyalty, but the second company might easily earn it.
bitwize
Loyalty is worth it if you can reasonably assume it will be repaid in kind. Assuming you didn't make a huge mistake in partner selection, that assumption is valid for your spouse. It emphatically does NOT hold for your employer, who will drop you the instant you become a problem. Therefore, it makes no sense to be loyal to your employer beyond the bare minimum.
lo_zamoyski
It's not about feelings. It's about making human life possible, as we are social animals. We develop through relationships.
Loyalty is a commitment to the objective good of the other, of skin in the game. Loyalty is hierarchical and the particular variety and its entailed commitments depends on the particular nature of the relationship.
In a hyperindividualist liberal society, the presumption is basically Hobbesian; life is taken to be intrinsically and thoroughly adversarial and exploitative, and relationships are taken to be basically instrumental and transactional. (This even informs scientific interpretation, as science is downstream of culture.) Society is taken to be intrinsically a matter of "contract" or a kind of Mexican standoff. Loyalty is a quaint and anachronistic notion, a passing emotion that expires the moment the landscape of opportunities shifts. Provisional and temporary.
kijin
Loyalty develops naturally in a good relationship. It's a fruit to be cherished, but it's not a goal that you should pursue for its own sake.
There's no point in asking first, whether employers should be loyal to their employers or vice versa. The important question is whether they are good to one another. If they are, you might also find loyalty among them, but that's not where the focus should be.
Someone who gets obsessed with loyalty too much, I think, is likely to have sinister intentions. They probably want you to be loyal to them but don't plan on being good to you.
goostavos
I similarly got this lesson early in my career. One of my first jobs. I was young and excited to be at a startup. Learning a ton. I poured hours into that job. Then, one day we were pulled onto a call, told they couldn't afford us any more, and fired on the spot. We were immediately locked out of everything and that was that.
It was shocking at the time. To young me, it was a big "....oh" kind of realization about what kind of relationship you can/should have with any kind of business.
Now, I'm here cause you pay me. I don't keep stuff at my desk or decorate 'my' space. I show up, do the job, and leave. Once I close this laptop, work is dead to me until the next day.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally work more than 40hr/week, but most of the time my work/life balance is fantastic by choice.
kemayo
You can think of mutual-loyalty as an extended transaction, if you prefer. If, in exchange for you not planning on leaving the company, the company actively does its best to treat you well and preserve your job long-term, that can be a good trade-off.
The mutuality is important. You absolutely shouldn't think of yourself as "loyal" to a company that won't stick up for you. (And many companies won't, to be clear. If asked to choose between cutting executive salaries by 2% and firing you, most companies won't think too hard about that. You shouldn't be loyal to those ones.)
pc86
I like the thought of this but how does it work in practice?
The company treats me well and preserves my job while I'm planning not to leave. Until they don't. Because once the transaction is more trouble than its worth - either financially, or politically, or interpersonally - I'm gone. But if I am planning to leave, the company doesn't know that and treats me the exact same way.
harles
It’s definitely not a transaction. Every time I’ve seen push come to shove, companies prioritize the folks they see as critical to their company’s success with loyalty not even being a small factor. And if it’s a moderate to large sized company, many of the decisions will be made by a consulting firm with 0 context (or care) for loyalty.
dogleash
> the company actively does its best to treat you well and preserve your job long-term
Like fuck they do. They make a cost-benefit guess about proactive moves to reduce attrition, and the amount they do is tied the cost of replacement for the role in question.
kemayo
There's a reason I put "if" before that.
eitally
This isn't universally true (and I'm saying this as someone who's been laid off three times in my career). When searching for a job, it's important to perform due diligence to ascertain whether the company is on solid footing, their strategy makes sense, and your role will be valued. But once you're there, who your boss is, including how well they mentor you and what their political clout is within the business, can absolutely make "loyalty" worthwhile because the ROI can be career acceleration (in terms of compensation, job title and also breadth/depth of experience/exposure) that goes far beyond just the direct pay when you consider the overall value.
Scene_Cast2
Employer? No. But I've seen some very smart coworkers value and reward deep, specialized knowledge that is built through working in the same area (of not just tech but also business application) for many years.
teucris
This is the trap I fall into. I have had so many amazing colleagues and I want to do right by them. Sometimes it’s been trench camaraderie, sometimes just really great working relationships, but I almost always feel like I owe it to my fellow employees to work hard, do well for the company, etc.
It’s taken me a long time to learn, but that form of loyalty doesn’t equate to employer loyalty.
xingped
Doesn't really matter how much your coworkers value you when your employer suddenly decides tomorrow that they've decided to change focus for the 5th time this month and it's your department getting cut this time.
null
thunky
That's experience, which has nothing to do with loyalty.
hylaride
It's camaraderie. Some of the best professional relationships I've had were in terribly run organizations with like-minded peers. I don't know why, but strong bonds form in those situations (and taken to the extreme in the military).
mycall
There is some coorelation. To get the experience, you need to appear be a team player and show some signs of loyality to continue obtaining the experience. Different employers have different checks on this, often ego based.
TheGRS
I think that loyalty counts when the decision-makers are more localized. People who show up and demonstrate that they care will generally get the bonuses from their direct managers or higher up managers who recognize the effort (because it happened to cross their path somehow). But these monetary decisions are more and more just calculations on a spreadsheet - here's your 3% annual pay increase and we can allocate 10% of the workforce gets a larger raise to ensure 80% retention. When the layoffs come it has nothing to do loyalty and often has little to do with competence in the role. Hopefully the guy with the spreadsheet is considering whether they can continue to run the business with certain individuals or not, but I don't think it ever gets that granular. This is the MBA era of business.
StormChaser_5
Agree 100% but for my own mental health I like to pretend loyalty does exist day to day but give myself a wake up call if that credit account as you call it is getting too big
jp57
I find it interesting how starkly bimodal attitudes toward employer loyalty are.
There is a middle ground between getting a company logo tattoo on one hand and on the other being a clock puncher, who fulfills the minimum job requirements and begrudges any request to put in extra effort.
It's possible, even admirable, to be diligent and take pride in one's work for reasons other than drinking the company kool-aid. It's possible to be diligent and work hard, and still leave if you are mistreated.
Yes, employment is inherently transactional, but for jobs like software engineering, machine learning engineering and other high education jobs, the aggregate of the transaction is much closer to a year of work than an hour or day of work. Also, the terms of the transaction often include a variable bonus for performance, as judged by the employer. It seems reasonable to incent people to work harder by offering more compensation in return. It's up to everyone to decide whether the terms of the transaction work for them, but there isn't One True Way™ for everyone regarding company loyalty.
It's also possible to be loyal to the people you work with--even your boss, if she merits it--without being loyal to The Company. I've worked in great teams in companies that have a reputation for being shitty employers. In one case, that didn't stop me from leaving because the job wasn't the right fit for my family and my wife was unhappy. I felt somewhat bad about leaving, but I still left.
Mixed feelings are okay.
kemiller
I was leaving a company recently and the fresh grads, with whom I had a good relationship, asked if I had any advice.
I said, “Always remember that the company is not your friend. I don’t mean your boss or your coworkers, they might well be or become your friend. I mean the company itself. If all is well, it may be an excellent ally, but the company can and sometimes will turn on you in an instant if its goals change. Your boss’s job, even if they are your friend, is ultimately to serve the company.
Go out there, work hard, have fun, but put your needs first in the bigger picture.”
rachofsunshine
This is basically how I approach it with my employees.
I'm very clear with anyone who works for me that our interests won't always align. I'm also clear with them that I'm not going to screw them over and that I won't take any offense if they negotiate with me or ask for things. I lay out what my lines are: I will not knowingly lie to them, and I will usually provide complete information except when I have a good reason to. I ask the same of them. Beyond that, we're adults who can negotiate like adults.
There's nothing wrong with a transactional relationship, and it doesn't mean you can't be human. Things only get unfair when the relationship is only expected to be transactional in one direction, where employees are supposed to have undying loyalty to a company that will lay them off as soon as it becomes convenient to do so.
rich_sasha
"Loyalty" is also worth something to self - to the loyal employee. It is a signal on CV that given the right environment, you commit to projects and people value your input. That's not to say, stay at all cost, but that when you leave, you pay a price too, and sometimes it's not worth it.
In my line of work, it can easily take 6-12 months until people are really productive, I'm reluctant to hire someone who will be a time sink for all this time then leave 3 months later.
whatever1
Companies don’t appreciate craftsmanship, in fact they openly state they would rather replace craftsmen with llm-based blop generators. So why not spend your time on your own thing? Be it your family/hobby.
null
null
mystified5016
By default I give loyalty and dedication to my employer until and unless my trust and respect are broken. I'm one of those engineers that will happily give 115% for extended periods, but only if I feel I'm being treated fairly and with the respect my abilities and position deserve.
Once that social contract is broken, I'm just a clock puncher until I find a new job. If my employer doesn't appreciate the amount and quality of my work, I'll just find someone who will.
I don't think my standards here are particularly high, but I've never worked anywhere that didn't wind up treating me like trash after a year or two. I guess they just take me for granted after a while and assume I'll never quit. I dunno, I can't make sense of it.
null
CharlieDigital
> “When I’m on my deathbed, I won’t look back at my life and wish I had worked harder. I’ll look back and wish I spent more time with the people I loved.”
I immediately wondered if this individual had a family, friends. Had this person already seen the world and its many sights and wonders? Had they already experienced everything good there is to experience in this one lifetime that they were so bored of it that they would prefer to work instead? Had they already swam with whales, explored dense Amazonian jungles, climbed snowy mountains, explored the countless alleys and backstreets of Tokyo, etc.
I completely get the drive to create; I have various side projects I make for fun and to learn. But I would never want to work for the rest of my life. Life is too short and the world is too big.
no_wizard
Not everyone finds 'the work' to be an interrupt either, to be fair. Sometimes the work is the fulfilling part of life, its not having more traditional societal roles. Not to say family and friends aren't important, they absolutely are, but the way I think of it is this way:
When I started working on my own independent venture, I was worried about time. I'm not in a position to quit my job, and I don't think its going to be a VC thing. So I was struggling to find time, so I timed everything I did in a day.
When I did that, I found time I used to idle (IE, not simply relaxing or taking needed down time) with TV watching to be a few hours a day. Didn't even realize it was something I did, it was simply baked into the nightly routine.
Once I replaced that time with working time, I was able to get alot farther along. I suspect if my idea ever takes off, I can examine things more closely and find and shift more time like this.
This is all to say, that you can still enjoy working, prioritize work, but not leave family and friends completely in the lurch at the same time.
All that said: IMO, if you're putting in the hours, do it for yourself, unless you're either moving up to an executive role (or equivalent) at a company where you can cash out big, you're unfortunately a cog in the machine. The best course of action if you really love your work, is to find a sustainable way to work for yourself.
maccard
I think the middle ground is healthy.
I'm in my early 30's, I have a job that I get to "create" in (I make video games).
> I immediately wondered if this individual had a family, friends. Had this person already seen the world and its many sights and wonders? Had they already experienced everything good there is to experience in this one lifetime that they were so bored of it that they would prefer to work instead? Had they already swam with whales, explored dense Amazonian jungles, climbed snowy mountains, explored the countless alleys and backstreets of Tokyo, etc.
Lots of these things are best done when you're younger, healthy, and able to do these things. I would _much_ rather live in a nice house in a nice area with exciting things to do from my mid 20's onwards and enjoy those things for years and years and years, rather than live in a smaller/cheaper/farther out place so that I can retire 10 years earlier and start living. I'd rather have 1-2 of those things to look forward to every year than say "I can't wait until I'm 50 and I can finally start doing all those things".
My dad counted down the days until he could retire, talked about how he would finally get to do X Y and Z. About 2 years before that, health conditions caught up and now he's not fit to do so many of those things that he was so excited and happy to do. If the tradeoff for me is working until I'm a little older while getting to enjoy the journey, rather than minmaxing the time that i can work and retire, then I'll choose to enjoy the ride.
CharlieDigital
> "I can't wait until I'm 50 and I can finally start doing all those things".
When he passed, the family asked me to put together a montage video and shared their photos with me spanning his lifetime. The moments when he was the happiest seemed to be when they were traveling together. As students, as parents, as a couple after my cousins had graduated and started their own lives.
In those last years, he was "waiting" for my aunt to be ready and it felt sad that he didn't get to travel more because my aunt thought more about the money than the short lifetime they had left. His passing was like a wake up call of sorts; a reminder that life is shorter than anyone can expect. It's very hard to convey this in words until one experiences this first hand and feels the shock.
More recently in my own travels, I've realized the same as you: that traveling in your youth makes much more sense than traveling in your "golden" years. You have greater mobility, more energy, less ailments. 20's and 30's are prime for exploring the world. Work will always be there!
TimPC
I think it depends a lot on your finances though. If you come from a rich family and have parental support by all means it is amazing to travel young. But if your travel budget is coming out of your downpayment on your house that could easily be the difference between buying before house prices got out of control or not. For example if you could have bought in 2013 without travel and it takes you till 2015 to save up a 2013 downpayment but in 2015 house prices have gone up and your downpayment needs to be larger and it takes more time, etc.
nyarlathotep_
> Work will always be there!
I really wish this were true; I'd take a year off to work on "life", but any sort of career pause, especially in this environment, seems to be a huge risk.
Ageism is a concern--hell, even finding a new mediocre job in today's market is very difficult.
I think it's "make hay while the sun shines". Seems the future has less opportunity, and there's plenty of time for underemployment later.
mattgreenrocks
Spent my 20s grinding away at getting great at building software. I enjoyed it mostly, but there are definite regrets, esp with tech never being able to shut up about how awesome AI is in killing off any notion of craft.
Re: travel: this is one of the big takeaways from the book Die With Zero: travel is much easier when you are younger even if it is more expensive (relative to your assets). Just got back from an Italy trip where I averaged 5mi a day walking. 10 years from now (50s) it’s a coin flip if it would be possible for me to sustain that much walking over 10 days. Probable? Yes. But not guaranteed.
maccard
Travelling isn’t the be all and end all of things either remember. That might be something that you prioritise but isn’t as important to other people. They might value time with family and friends, and that’s ok too. A bit like with food, “variety is the spice of life”
martindbp
> I would _much_ rather live in a nice house in a nice area with exciting things to do from my mid 20's onwards and enjoy those things for years and years and years, rather than live in a smaller/cheaper/farther out place so that I can retire 10 years earlier and start living.
That's a false dichotomy. You can retire at least 25-30 years earlier than normal if you are a bit mindful of your spending and earn a decent salary. That makes the decision a bit harder doesn't it? Be frugal in your 20s and 30s, retire at 35-40 when you still mostly have your health, or so that you can actually focus on your health and increase your health span, and your 60s and 70s might be better than you expect. Whether this is worth it depends on your individual situation, how much do you earn, how painful is it for you to save, is there something you'd be retiring to, not just away from? I also wouldn't trade a life of misery for 10 retired years, but I don't think it's that simple.
kubb
If normal is 65, then you’re saying you can retire at 35. I have a great salary and I pretty much don’t spend except necessities (rent, food, clothes, healthcare). I’m not even close.
margorczynski
> You can retire at least 25-30 years earlier than normal if you are a bit mindful of your spending and earn a decent salary
I love how detached from reality some people on HN are. I assume by "decent salary" you mean $150k+ per year?
lr4444lr
The loss of work for its centering, routine, mental challenges, socialization across the generations, and sense of accomplishment is harmful to mental and even physical health.
Sure, a construction worker can't be climbing the rafters at 80 years old, but this idea that we just transition to leisure and getting together with friends at a certain point is both fairly novel and of dubious value.
Frieren
> Sure, a construction worker can't be climbing the rafters at 80 years old, but this idea that we just transition to leisure and getting together with friends at a certain point is both fairly novel and of dubious value.
Peopled died and killed for the right to a pension. And many more are still fighting for it around the world. To disregard that so costly-gain right so lightly seems quite a privileged position.
A cosy job, stress-free, well paid, creative... may be worth keeping if you do not have hobbies nor family. But that is not the case for most people. Rich people lives longer than the poor, job conditions is one important factor.
Retric
The idea of retirement is literally thousands of years old at this point. Hell the Roman Empire even had the idea of pensions though it wasn’t that common at the time.
Aging inherently means being unable to be an independent productive member of society at some point. (Ed: well past what we consider retirement age.) Historically in agrarian societies few people reached this point so it wasn’t generally a significant burden to support them. What changed is lowering the retirement age and increased the number of people who live long enough to see it.
esperent
> Historically in agrarian societies few people reached this point so it wasn’t generally a significant burden to support them
This isn't true.
https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/blog/2024/08/15/three-scor...
> ...in England, average life expectancy at birth varied between 35 and 40 years in the centuries between 1600 and 1800. It is a common misconception that, when life expectancy was so low, there must have been very few old people. In fact, the most common age for adult deaths was around 70 years, in line with the Biblical three score years and ten.
moolcool
I don't think that's contradictory to OP though. You can find enrichment and fulfillment in work, while also maintaining balance with the other aspects of life.
lm28469
> The loss of work for its centering, routine, mental challenges, socialization across the generations, and sense of accomplishment is harmful to mental and even physical health.
Most jobs aren't any of these though. With automation and the shift to a service economy jobs have became more and more alienating
v3xro
There is still a rather large area of things that you can do that are not passive sitting-on-couch/sipping-cocktails "leisure" but are nevertheless not classed as "work" because there is no monetary compensation (hobbies being a nice example). Especially if you are self-motivated, you don't need monetary compensation and a boss to tell you what to do, and still enjoy all the benefits of "work".
NegativeLatency
I have enough hobbies/interests/projects and community engagement that I’m not super worried about what I’ll do when I retire. This isn’t true for everyone but it would be good for society in the US if we focused less on work and more on joy.
stetrain
There are options other than working to the exclusion of other fulfillment right up until a specific age cutoff and then having zero work.
Honestly saving all of that until retirement is not a great idea when you look at how many people die in their 60s and 70s and that if you have children and raise a family that's going to happen well before retirement as well.
You can also find routine, mental challenges, and socialization across the generations without "working" in the traditional sense of a full time job for an employer or your own business.
There are lots of ways to balance these things out, and to find that balance along the way instead of hoping you'll find it in some theoretical future retirement.
CharlieDigital
That Samsung exec that died suddenly recently at 63 from cardiac arrest[0]?
You wonder: yeah, this guy made a fortune, but did he get to enjoy his life? If he had just stepped back and said, "I'm going to take a break and take it easy" on his 60th, would he still be alive?
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/24/tech/samsung-co-ceo-han-jong-...
BriggyDwiggs42
You can work, can do all that, without big w Work as the only format. Surely if society can compel people into work as a means to accomplish those positive ends you mentioned, it can be made in a way that still pushes towards those positive ends without many of the drawbacks our current system comes along with.
motorest
> I immediately wondered if this individual had a family, friends. (...)
The saddest thing I ever witnessed in a FANG was a participant of one of those workplace empowerment events. Even though her interview was focused on her bending over backwards to praise their employer's health insurance, the devil was in the details.
The interviewee was praising her employer for providing a nice health insurance, but she mentioned as side-notes that throughout her career she felt so much pressure to perform that she postponed having children until a point where her fertility doctor warned her that she might risk not be able to have children. When she finally felt her job was secured, she decided to not focus on her career anymore and finally went ahead with having children. Except that she was already in her 40s. She had to undergo a couple of years worth of fertility treatments until she finally managed to get pregnant, which was supposedly the focus of her intervention because her employer was so awesome for allowing her to seek medical treatments.
Everyone decides what's best for themselves, but being robbed of having children because you want to bend over backwards for your employer sounds like an awful tradeoff.
CharlieDigital
It's a tough trade off. On the one hand, having a child in your 20's is how our biology is wired. On the other hand, in the modern age, those are also prime years for work and professional growth; I get it.
Last year, I (in my 40's) did a trip to Terceira[0] and after a few days of hiking, had shooting pain in my knee. I immediately wondered if I had torn something! It would be quite the pickle since I had traveled with a backpack. Luckily, it was ITBS (Iliotibial band syndrome) and went away with some Acetaminophen and rest.
But it made me regret that in my 20's I spent more time playing computer games than doing things like this hike that would be even challenging if I were to wait until I retired.
[0] https://youtu.be/DlFKc4OfbpM Terceira is a spectacular destination, by the way, and easy to access from JFK.
mattgreenrocks
20s in tech is basically show up, do your work, and get paid a pittance of the value it generates.
rich_sasha
My grandfather was a doctor and lived a modest life. But he worked all his life. In his 70s he was still volunteering at a local hospice. In fact on his 78th birthday, he went to work in the morning, then attended his birthday party, then had a stroke and died a few weeks later. He never
> swam with whales, explored dense Amazonian jungles, climbed snowy mountains, explored the countless alleys and backstreets of Tokyo, etc.
But I think he enjoyed his life just as it was.
markus_zhang
I always think this is very biased. Basically there are two things to consider:
1. People at deathbed usually don't think very clearly, and it suggests the deathbed experience overrules everything before
2. Many people just have work. They don't have a calling, and neither do they have a career. It does sound reasonable to drop work for something else, as long as money is fine.
geodel
Excellent points.
Considering I have heard these "Deathbed Quotes" so many times with similar sounding refrain I am just inclined to ignore them.
And most people I know and see do drop work for family and friends ever so often as much their situation permits.
gamerdonkey
> And most people I know and see do drop work for family and friends ever so often as much their situation permits.
Your experiences today may well be the result of this idea becoming more and more pervasive over the past 30 or so years, and the resulting reduction in employee loyalty to their employers.
null
PaulRobinson
First, you can do all those things while you work. They are called vacations, and in most of the World, you get 5 weeks/year minimum. With the rise of remote work, and nomadic lifestyles, you might even be able to do this while working in different ways.
A few people have said they can empathise with the notion of never retiring - which I think is a different thing - and I can kind of understand that too.
Work doesn't need to be 40+ hours/week of grind, and it doesn't need to be something you don't enjoy. Making money from those side projects - that can be your work. The reason why so many people want to be influencers, is because their work becomes something fun, where they learn, and where they create. I can imagine doing that for a long time.
So while I can't imagine working in a corp environment doing 40+ hours/week when I'm 70, can I imagine having my own side business? Maybe a few non-exec directorships? Perhaps help with a fractional/part-time gig one or two days a week? Sure.
Can I imagine just being on holiday for the rest of my life, where I'm constantly "exploring", or "experiencing" and never "applying" or "creating"? Not so much.
The old saying goes that if you earn money doing what you love, you never work a day in your life - and that might be where there's a disconnect, you're interpreting work as something not enjoyable, whereas for many of us, there's really deep pleasure in some aspects of it. All we want to do is dial that bit up, dial the other stuff down, and still do all those other things you mentioned too, perhaps as part of the "work".
arjonagelhout
Speaking as a person who can’t see themselves stop working, I think an important factor is how one derives meaning from their life. For some it might be living amazing experiences, and for others it can be in helping others (which could qualify as work). The healthiest seems to be a combination of the two, with a different ratio depending on the person.
Here in the Netherlands it’s common to see retired people do volunteering work, as it can bring great pleasure and satisfaction to help people. There’s of course also the communal aspect of it.
It’s also common to see business owners for example in family businesses to keep working at the company after the official retirement age.
So I’d argue work does not have to be a chore and can be a source of meaning and purpose. But if it is just a means to an end, it makes sense to not want to work your entire life and good labor and retirement laws should protect people from having to work their entire life.
CharlieDigital
"Work" here I would define as exchanging time for money.
Volunteering is not work.
For me personally, I make a distinction between "working" and "creating". I will always want to create (a very broad term), but I will not always want to work. In fact, I don't want to work now; I only want to create. The best is when I can exchange my creation for money -- then it is no longer work.
oofManBang
You might enjoy a fella named marx. Labor is labor, my friend. It should be mostly devoted to things that enrich the lives of us and those around us. It is normal to want to work. It is the alienating nature of selling our labor for a pittance that ruins our lives.
closewith
No, work is effort expended to achieve a result. Whether it's paid or not is irrelevant, and many people work harder for free than they ever do in employment, because the incentives are right.
glimshe
"I work at a nonprofit"
"I worked on my yard today"
Your definition is arbitrary and goes against the established use of the word. Work can be many things. When people say they don't want to stop working, they are just saying they want to keep changing the world in big or small ways until they die.
mid-kid
I wish I could do unpaid volunteer work and still afford live. By which I mean, I really hate that certain kinds of work are not deemed worthy enough of financial compensation, yet are still beneficial to people and society at large.
agubelu
I dislike the word "loyalty" when talking about employment. Loyalty is for your spouse, friends and family. Your relationship with your employer is a contractual one.
When it comes to my job, I believe in doing your best possible work, being professional and acting in good faith. I expect to be paid fairly and treated with respect. If this relationship is mutually beneficial, it can go on for a long while. But it's important to remember that, as soon as it stops being beneficial to one party, it will be unilaterally rescinded.
Haul4ss
This is a very rich-world view of work. Most people can't just "unilaterally rescind" their employment if they decide they don't like it anymore.
I don't disagree with what you're getting at, just understand that loyalty is a necessity to a lot of folks, and I don't think it is because their values are misplaced.
agubelu
I understand your point, but I wouldn't call that loyalty either. Loyalty is a choice, you could cheat on your partner, but you choose not to.
What you're talking about is necessity. If you don't have the possibility to simply walk away from a job, then you're sticking around because you must, not because you're loyal.
4ndrewl
Yeah,that's loyalty in the same way that a hostage is loyal to their captor.
k__
They said "stops beneficial to one party", not that any of the parties stops liking it.
Many people don't like their jobs, that doesn't mean they don't benefit enough from it to pay bills.
ubermonkey
>Most people can't just "unilaterally rescind" their employment if they decide they don't like it anymore.
I suspect what's meant here is that most anyone can take a different job and leave one that no longer serves them, not that most anyone can walk away from a job without another lined up.
shinycode
100% agree, loyalty goes both ways and we rarely see loyal employers (massive layoffs including hi-profile employee who dedicated their life to the company)
dasil003
Loyalty to a corporation is misplaced because it can only be as loyal as its agents are, and those are numerous and constantly shifting.
I think its fine to be loyal to individuals that have earned it, but don’t make the mistake of thinking your boss can guarantee your employment in all circumstances, that’s not how the corporate world works.
energy123
Red flag if bosses use that word, it's either an attempt to manipulate or they have a weird entitled view of what you owe them.
kgwxd
I don't like the word "loyalty" when talking about anything. It's not a virtue in any circumstance. Spouses, friends and family are just as likely to abuse it. A bullshit concept celebrated by those who crave power. It's Religion Light.
hintymad
I think a strong loyalty towards a company will work only in a society like Japan: companies are culturally committed to taking care of them employees until their death. In the meantime, the income gap between ordinary employees and the executives is small. Per this article (https://japanoptimist.substack.com/p/japan-reality-check-4-i...): "The biggest difference between the Salaryman CEO and the Superstar CEO is, of course, the absolute gap in CEO compensation relative to average employee pay: in Japan this is now just about 50-times (for top 50 CEOs; the average is about 12-times)". And there is a seniority system. In contrast, the US companies have none of those.
I'd rather subscribe to Reed Hoffman's notion on company-employee relationship: alliance. That is, a company and its employees are allies. It is a two-way relationship that enables companies and employees to work together toward common goals, even when some of their interests differ. If either a company or an employee feels that the alliance does not exist any more, they part ways. Note that this notion is orthogonal to the power dynamics between a company and its employees. The power dynamics has to do with supply-and-demand of the market and the negotiation power of the employees.
neilv
Some people need to be told not to have loyalty to the company. Such as when the company is screwing them (which might or might not be necessary). Or when you can tell just by talking with the leadership that they will screw the employees.
But other people need to be told not to be toxic baby diaper loads. People exhibiting the same kinds of thinking as the leadership in those other companies.
I've seen companies show a degree of loyalty to people, and much more of that from managers and teammates. In that environment, someone coming in and priding themself on their savvy at thinking this is all purely transactional-- that person is going to be toxic, if they don't quickly realize their misconception, and join the others more cooperatively.
trefoiled
There's an exception to this I've seen since a relative started working in the game industry. There are executives in that industry who have a retinue of loyal followers. The studios the executive works for may change regularly, but his followers come with him each time. These workers will spend their entire career serving one man, and in exchange he always has a job lined up for them and seems to trust them the same way they trust him. It's very different from my experience in the rest of the tech industry, but I'm sure it happens to a limited extent there too.
stephen_cagle
That's interesting. I wonder what other industries are like that, where a single person keeps bringing his (mutually) trusted cadre of employees with them?
I've heard in the past that the skill of a surgeon is actually more a reflection of the surgeon's team than the actual surgeon. So "great surgeons" are actually people who have "great teams". Sounds similar to me.
conductr
I'm a mid-career executive that has earned more money from perks related to joining new companies (bonuses, stock, etc) than I have in salary & annual bonus programs; which would be my main compensation if I stayed long-term at a company.
I simply don't see an economic incentive to loyalty with a sole exception; I'm currently working through a retention bonus period. I actually just signed it a month ago and will be paid 3 years salary a year from then. The full amount pays out if they terminate me beforehand. So, my short term loyalty has been incentivized but I'll likely move on soon afterwards. (FWIW, the CEO left and the board feared I would follow them or leave due to uncertainty so that is what prodded them to offer this, it kind of fell in my lap - but it's also not the first time this has happened)
nemomarx
it seems silly to be that companies will budget for new hires more than they budget for retention incentives. I'm sure they have measured which one pays off better but it feels backwards
conductr
The best retention incentive is paying good people well to begin with. And, it doesn't have to be huge. Paying people 10% above market when you know they are a strong asset defends you from that person ever wanting to leave. [Aside - but, Budget's should be offensive versus defensive so the whole retention bonus strategy should be an exception (unplanned) in my opinion. Granted that's from an operational view. From a cash flow planning view, the CFO knows it's going to spend money somewhere and probably needs to account for that somehow in their financial plan, but it's best to keep it out functional budget - otherwise department heads will be tempted to spend it, or repurpose it on something else.]
Instead, companies try to hire people 10% below market, end up passing on high quality talent that knows their worth, and obtaining talent that is effectively only delivering 70% or less than the high performer would. A lot of companies rely on HR or recruiters to do the initial 'expectation within budget' screen, so the hiring managers never even see the talent that gets turned away or disinterested by a potentially small budget discrepancy. Also, budgets almost always have exceptions especially for outstanding talent that may come along so really think this is unnecessary sacrifice.
samspot
Article points are mostly all valid, don't give your loyalty in return for abuse, etc. etc.
But I've been at my employer 11 years now and I have greatly prospered. They took care of me in many ways that aren't required by law, and gave great benefits. They didn't abuse me or take undue time from my family. They constantly invest in my career -- for their ultimate benefit, yes, but I benefit too. If and when I get transactioned out, I'll have no regrets.
It's ok to reward an employer with some loyalty for treating you well.
But also, this quote needs to be here :)
Would I ever leave this company? Look, I’m all about loyalty, In fact, I feel like part of what I’m being paid for here is my loyalty, But if there were somewhere else that valued loyalty more highly… I’m going wherever they value loyalty the most. — Dwight Schrute
PeterStuer
Systemically, there is a bias to find/retain employees that overcommit, and a bias for employers that will undercommit to the "relationship".
Rationally you can agree it is a purely transactional state. Working hours for compensation. Emotionally in tech many love the work itself, or the nerdy glamour of the industry, or the inherent intelectual bravadory and oneupmanship, and so are ripe for exploitation.
HR will draw you in, infecting your social life with company perks, values and "we are a family" messaging only to turn all process when it comes to an end.
But as the systemics are clear, each new generation will get drawn in. And tbh, often it can still be a good deal.
dasil003
I agree with your first paragraph, but I don’t really like the exploitation framing for tech jobs. Sure there is exploitation but there is also a lot of rest and vest going on. When you look at who’s delivering value in software it’s very unevenly distributed and only loosely correlated with raw work hours. A big part is collaboration and team dynamics. The ground dynamics are much more relevant than HR narratives when it comes to how a job feels and whether high expectations are motivating or seem exploitative.
pydry
I haven't seen much of a bias towards seeking out a predisposition to loyalty in employees except among authoritarian small business owner types who invariably underpay.
I don't think offering perks is necessarily supposed to engender loyalty. It's still a transactional relationship ("ok, google might pay less than the startup but I do get free lunches at google...").
In most companies I have more often seen not even a shred of expectation of loyalty. It's pretty normal to see critical employees quit at an inconvenient time on a critical project and the only person who expresses any bad feelings is the employee in question feeling a bit guilty.
mancerayder
>I haven't seen much of a bias towards seeking out a predisposition to loyalty in employees except among authoritarian small business owner types who invariably underpay.
It's easy. Some red flags:
"This is not a 9 to 5 job, you should know that. But that's normal in this industry"
"We're looking for people who are passionate about their work"
"I won't sugarcoat it, there are good and bad weeks" in terms of workload and hours
"We see a gap in your resume here a decade ago - may I ask why you took time off during this time"
etc
Those are signals.
There's a normalization of sociopathy in the hiring process. That's how we filter. Or maybe it's just financial services?
pydry
Yours are signals that a company is selecting for people who will consent to being overworked. That's not about loyalty.
Loyalty would be "we're looking for candidates who have long job tenures. do not apply if you never stayed at a job longer than 3 years".
PhilipRoman
Eh, I'm okay with doing more than required, as long as the employer also does so on their part.
chii
butif the employer also do their part, then you're not doing more than required - you're doing _exactly_ what is required.
The only way to do more than required is when one party benefits more (e.g., employer gets free overtime, or an employee clocks more hours than they actually did).
lenerdenator
It's not 1950 anymore. Workers are no longer employed by people with a sense of community, duty, patriotism/nationalism, or anything else involving loyalty. The only loyalty is to the bottom line.
As such the employers will receive the same in return.
II2II
While I strongly disagree with the framing of loyalty, it is also important to remember that there is a relationship between what you put into a job and what you get out of it. I'm not going to claim that the relationship is always going to be fair, but walking into a job while seeing everything as transactional is going to have a negative impact upon your employer, your coworkers, and yourself.
By all means, set boundaries. Make it clear that your time off is for you to pursue your own things (hobbies, families, friends, etc.). Also ensure that you are balancing your personal are professional obligations, which is to suggest that it is not reasonable for your priorities to become other people's problems just as it is not reasonable for other people's problems to become your problem. And if you do cross that line, don't view your trip to the unemployment line as a lack of "loyalty" from the company. It is you failing to hold yourself accountable.
Now I'm not going to claim that my words apply to every workplace. Some workplaces are seriously messed up and are truly exploitative. On the other hand, I have also seen workplaces where the employers try to be accommodating to an employee, yet the employee is "doing their best", either intentionally or unintentionally, to spread their misery.
I got it pretty early in my career that loyalty for a company is concept to make you work harder without asking anything in return. And the moment the company shifts focus and you are out of it, then suddenly you understand that this loyalty wasn't kind of a credits account which you've been saving all this time. It's simply nothing. You are on your own and can fuck off.
So there's simply no place for loyalty in employer-employee relationships. One side pays money or whatever, the other is delivering the job being done. That's all.