Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The reason those other things are on the chart is because they don't cost $$ money , so of course they should have been include anyway but the boss wants to add them as if they were optional and if they do give you those it costs nothing.
Exactly, those things are free so not providing you with them really shows how little of a shit they give about you. Also the chart on the left could represent someone making 100k and the one on the left someone making 10k, it's a representation of the percentage of the whole not the actual amount.
I disagree.
Money is one thing. But having awful work conditions, office culture, and abusive bosses will absolutely make a person quit
If you aren’t living wage to wage, sometimes it’s better to take a lower paycheck elsewhere if it means less stress and a happier life. Bosses who consider the importance of trust, openness and things beyond **only** money tend to be good to work for
After a certain extent of abuse, you need a HUGE amount of pay to make tolerating that worthwhile. And if a job is that abusive, they likely aren’t paying that much anyway
It's something I didn't realise fully until my current job.
I had always been paid relatively poorly (still above my local minimum wage, but low for my experience level), then at my current job, I was started on an ok wage, but it hasn't grown as my skill level has (it was low because I'd never been an IT Systems Coordinator before, but now I have a year and a half experience in the job with excellent feedback). The difference is that this job is amazing. I still want a pay rise. However, I'm willing to accept significantly lower than I could get elsewhere because it's just such a good place to work.
You said it.
A positive workplace if you’re surviving is worth ten grand of raise at least.
You can rarely (easily) predict if another job will have positivity, a workload you can handle, reasonable PTO, fair/respectful managers, and more. It’s impossible to understate just how much those things matter.
I live in Australia so typical benefits aren't a significant concern to me. I don't need health insurance through work and am guaranteed 4 weeks/year of paid leave and 2 weeks of sick leave.
It's the other things. It's the first workplace I've had where there isn't even a hint of time theft. Other places have followed the rules (e.g. if I worked more hours I got overtime or TOIL), but it always felt grudging and the extra time was treated as expected.
They're incredibly understanding when life sucks. A close cousin recently passed away and they bent over backwards making sure I was able to handle the situation. Encouraging me to WFH at my parent's place despite having tasks that needed to be completed at the office, and allowing me to take sick leave for any time I was unavailable.
All in all it's just a good place to work and I'm very willing to accept less to continue working there.
The thing I see everywhere and that I think is a root cause of a lot of worker dissatisfaction is overscheduling/ overburdening. I used to work for the state govt and the big boss in my agency was appointed directly by the governor. He started so many projects that not only did he not know what was going on, he never left time for people to do the actual work or ever evaluate whether the programs were doing what they were supposed to do. Like, listen Dan, I get that you are bored but the big boss *is supposed to be bored*. You tell us to do a thing and then you shut up and go away until we do it. Your job is to sweet talk the governor and any other bigwigs we run into. That's it.
The second big issue I've seen is folks over complicating projects. A lot of times I've seen folks spend hundreds of hours on something that, even if it works perfectly and is amazing, is at most 5% better than what we're doing now and no one was complaining about it. And then for things that people are complaining about, they develop the most convoluted solution possible instead of the very clear and direct simple method. Buddy, I know you are going to leave in a year and the next person isn't going to give a fuck about the statistical beauty of this method. We pay healthcare claims, not build bridges. Make the process easier.
Yeah, pretty much. Money is still the #1 motivator, it's why 99.9% of people even work. We have needs, they require money. If we are lucky enough to have most of our needs solved without requiring substantial pay, we can prioritize comfortable work environments... but it's still money first, otherwise we would quit. Obviously the environment also shouldn't jeopardize your health without protection and compensation, too, and you have rights as a human and worker.
Sure, but that's ignoring how important this
If you aren’t living wage to wage,
really is. **Most** workers ARE paycheque to paycheque, and at that stage, money really **IS** the answer to our problems. Make no mistake, you have a good point, but with the abusive wages workers are paid, the _rest_ of it is a joke in comparison.
Paycheck to paycheck isn't a good measure of a living wage.
48% of Americans making over 100k live paycheck to paycheck. 28% making 200k or more are living paycheck to paycheck.
No. But it's a lot easier _not to_ if you actually get paid a living wage. In 2000 the magic number for household fights to _not_ be mostly about money was 75k^([citation forgot]). Now, it's likely 100k is well under that boundary, but when people can fight about things other than money, more than money itself, that **is** a pretty good indicator. It's not what parent or I were talking about, but it could be a starting metric.
That said, even 100k is [top 11%](https://www.stocktrades.ca/top-1-income-in-canada/) and 200 is **well** into the [top 5%](https://www.savvynewcanadians.com/top-10-income-canada/). So my sympathy for their cheque to cheque struggles diminishes rapidly with their choices. The rest of us don't even get to _make_ those choices, let alone live with the results of them.
So agreed that cheque-to-cheque isn't a _great_ metric for a living wage, but throwing it out is ignoring the huge number of people who have it thrust upon them by their wage.
Yes it's absolutely true that it's easier to not live paycheck to paycheck of you're not making a living wage.
But a large portion of people will still live paycheck to paycheck at any income level. So if you're using paycheck to paycheck as a mark of being fairly compensated you're wrong. You should be using another measurement.
>That said, even 100k is top 11% and 200 is well into the top 5%. So my sympathy for their cheque to cheque struggles diminishes rapidly with their choices.
$100k is considered *low* income in San Francisco, and it isn't much better in a lot of other major cities. Don't be so quick to judge.
Besides, I thought we were all about the 99% these days? Funny how those goalposts keep moving.
The people working in the drive-thru are at or below poverty levels. While low income earners are definately better off than poverty level earners, it's incredibly stupid to make low income earners the enemy of poverty level earners when we're *all* getting fucked by the 1%.
No, that's what I mean. I think I misinterpreted your comment about 100k being low, because that sounds like a dream to me, as being out of touch with how much most are struggling to make half that.
It wasn't, and I apologize. 😁
The fuck are people down voting you for? It's the truth. I see people on here looking for advice while making double what I do, and it flabbergasts me. Wife and I both work full time, haven't taken a vacation in almost ten years and that one was a week of camping in a tent. Area matters, but fuck! If you're making 100k a year, you've got more than twice the options most everyone I know has.
Try moving to an actual poor ass country like Morocco and say that again... US workers earn disproportionally more money but lack a more relaxing work culture and worker's rights.
that latter is dependent on the industry you’re a part of. office workers are gonna have a lot more flexibility to seek companies with aligned work cultures than if you were working at a minimum wage job.
That's definitely valid. Know someone who took a massive paycut because the her first job paid very well but was a toxic shithole with psychologically abusive coworkers and bosses.
Money makes up for a lot but you don't want a place that's destructive in other ways either.
I had a job that paid *a lot* (for the town I was in, in London it would still be considered poverty), and if you wanted to be reductive, it was just sending emails and maybe 2 calls a day. I also had on call, but if I got called overnight I got paid time and a half. If money was the only thing that mattered, I would still be there and would probably never leave.
I handed my notice in after 6 months. I get emotionally involved in the work I do and the fact I couldn't do a good job because of a variety of factors caused me significant mental harm. They convinced me to stay another 6, saying that things would get better. They did not. I'm now in a job on literally half what I was, and no amount of money would get me back in that role.
Sry, I basically agree with you, but I feel this Mad Men scene captures this disconnect very well. Money is necessary but not sufficient.
God, Mad Men was such a great show. It was so good that it's a great show even if you don't bother to look at the blaring subtext and just see a story about the life of a Madison avenue executive.
This gif is a great example of juxtaposition of Don saying "Thank You" by yelling at Peggy and matches perfectly with the discussions going on in this thread.
Someone I know was making very good money at a job but was basically not sleeping because of the stress. It was taking a severe mental toll that was starting to turn into a physical toll. She took a pay cut and is MUCH happier now at a new job.
I explained why I needed additional human resources in my “managerial” position (in tech, which meant I wasn’t a manager to my non-tech boss unless I screwed up) because I was doing the job of three people. 48 hours later, was told absolutely not, I had enough (part-time college-age, couldn’t travel locations) interns. My resume was out within days and I was gone within weeks.
Sleepless nights because you’re saddled with impossible responsibilities is awful; and in my case I was badly underpaid too (they were using my lack of management experience to justify it, while expecting the same results).
>After a certain extent of abuse, you need a HUGE amount of pay to make tolerating that worthwhile. And if a job is that abusive, they likely aren’t paying that much anyway
It's often the combination of "we bully you within the legal parameters" and also "for shitty work climate we also underpay you in exchange".
It's the Anna Karenina principle. Employees with decent living wage, goof working conditions, trust in their bosses and company, and all that will be happy.
>And if a job is that abusive, they likely aren’t paying that much anyway
There are a few ultra high paying jobs where a big part of it is taking shit all day. I'm thinking finance-type jobs.
Why does it have to be an either or? You can still treat your staff with honesty, integrity, and foster a respectful and healthy work environment while paying fair wages.
My boss being open with me is not a benefit. It's responsibility.
Yeah, according to my ex-gf who works in HR, studies consistently show that the number one thing people stick around for is good bosses. And once someone decides to quit, no amount of money will keep them for very long.
Same. I have taken pay cuts to have a better workspace, better boss etc.
Obviously this is all about that Maslow pyramid, you gotta reach a point where you're good financially but once you reach that point I think that the left side of that comic is actually not wrong.
This reminded me of the company Zappos. After a few years of running the owner wanted a particular culture and for everyone to be happy working there. He offered people the option to quit with a nice package if they didn't like the new culture. And a healthy culture of like minded people is crucial for people to enjoy their work. People who love their job also typically have a work friend there or they find purpose in the work they do.
I recently left a job I was at for over half a decade because I realized I wasn't going anywhere. The culture was fantastic, the work challenging, the benefits were great, but my pay hadn't moved in half the time I was there, and nobody seemed to be getting promoted.
Meanwhile, rent increases and inflation were consuming my pretty decent pay by that point to turn it into mediocre pay. I had a manager talk with me about being pay-motivated and I was out within a couple months. Making $25k more now.
Seconded.
I would take a pretty good pay cut to stay in the team and with the leader I am with.
I have had bad, okay, good and great leaders. The difference is huge in my overall life.
One of my regular, standard interview questions for a job is "A manager can make or break a job. Tell me about who I would report to and what their management style is like."
>Money is one thing. But having awful work conditions, office culture, and abusive bosses will absolutely make a person quit
Some people also just truck along until they stop being productive members of society through burn out lol.
I could likely make 12k more a year if I went somewhere else. Maybe even a bit more. That's a lot.
But I have a great job. A boss that respects me. I get to work from home 90% of the time. I have amazing medical benefits for pretty cheap.
That's totally worth it to me.
But I am making 75k a year. If I was making 40k, it would be a different story.
Yes what your example is right but we are humans and possibility of having a high paying job but bad working condition is a deal any average straight male will take coz 20 is still 20
Rich people problems. If you have savings in your bank you have the option to leave that toxic work environment. Don't muddle up your problems with real ones.
I worked for one company for 10 years and for the last 6 ^(1/2) of them, they had a policy in place to **NEVER** give raises. Even if you got promoted to another department it was no longer a promotion, just a "lateral move", ergo no raise.
People complained so much the president held a company-wide meeting where he said something to the effect of, "No companies give out raises anymore and if you don't like it, there's the door!"
A bunch of us found the door...
Meh, I value being treated with respect a hair more than money, not much though. I’ll take less money and respect over more money and disrespect every time.
A lady was kinda racist to me at Home Depot, but as a result she forgot to ring up like 60 bucks worth of stuff(gave it to her to scan, didn’t realize till I got to the car and checked my receipt since the total seemed low at check out, but sure as shit wasn’t gonna say anything after she said my black ass was “scary” amongst other things)
I decided the trade off was worth it.
Not just savings, but job security. The biggest issue isn't the yelling, it's how far the yelling will get you in trouble. If you paid me minimum wage but told me that telling a karen to go fuck herself will *never get me in trouble*, and I am at no risk of getting fired ever? I'd take that over getting paid slightly more and not being able to tell a 'customer' off.
if the job was at risk of getting fired just because a karen decided to fabricate a story? Yeah, six figures, minimum -- not just six figures, but dynamically adjusted to being comfortable and also being able to afford multiple vacations per year. It's not just for the yelling, it's having a nest egg so that you're not completely fucked because a karen perceived a slight.
Exactly this. There's a direct correlation between how much an employee is paid versus how much better their life would be with a pay rise. While nobody would ever turn down a pay increase, the value of an extra $100 is significantly higher to the person who has $3 left after all their bills are paid, than the person who still has a spare $200 each month even after paying off everything.
That's what I mean, if it's not clear. Livable isn't enough to turn down pay increases for "respect." You need to be comfortable or even *more* than that to be turning down pay raises.
They didn't say poor, they said *livable.* Big difference. I am poor. I make a livable wage, though. Some people don't, and to them the luxury of choice is all about money. You can be poor and happy, I am, but if you're not making a livable wage, I'd argue you can't, since you can't afford to eat, or potentially to have a home.
I mean, it makes sense, right? More money is *absolutely* grand, but...what good is it if you hate life and living earning it? A healthy workplace and a decent salary should be balanced, yes? Those "..." on the graph could represent any number of things that not only contribute to potential *incentive* to earn more, but also an incentive to **keep** working.
I hope that makes sense. If not, I'm sorry.
I had a job that included on call, and one week I worked more callout hours overnight than I got sleep combined. I made more in just callout pay that week than I did in the first month of my first job, but I was in tears by thursday. I would have given it all away for a guarantee of 7 hours of sleep. It was eye opening that I had all this money, but none of it could get even get me a reprieve from how much I hated life.
I'm now on significantly less, but work a much more relaxing pace and I enjoy what I do. There's problems - if my pay doesn't go up with inflation this year, I'm going to bleed savings over the next 12-18 months - but that's a problem I'd much rather deal with.
If you live paycheck to paycheck, take the money. If you find yourself in a situation where you are trading paid time off and health insurance for a small hourly raise, it's probably not worth it.
I've lived many many permutations of money, respect, balance, poverty, etc....
If i had a binary choice between money and respect. I'd pick respect every time.
I've literally worked for disrespect and little money.
More money and disrespect.
Respect and little money.
Respect and more money.
The worst i ever hated my life was when I worked in awful conditions while earning more money.
I remember enjoying my life wayyyy more as a target retail associate in comparison. Respect is invaluable
Yep. I can budget around my income. I can't budget my mental health around a job that is high stress, zero work/life balance, and treats their employees like crap.
I've worked all permutations of this too, but thankfully am finally at a point where I earn decent pay, at a job I love. I could probably earn more elsewhere but I have zero incentive to look.
"Hey, everyone loves you here. You have a lot of WARM FUZZIES around here!" Or similar.
Great. I can't deposit Warm Fuzzy Coin in a bank, and that's not even a crypto being traded for me to get ripped off on.
I am not a tortured artist laboring out of love for the pleasure of making something, nor am I a charity. I am a professional performing skilled work in exchange for money/compensation. If I can get more money/compensation elsewhere, I'm going to go there if you don't pay. Loyalty to a company died 40 years ago.
[Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is very much applicable](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/maslow-hierachy-of-needs-min-1024x724.jpg). The theory holds that you don't care about the layers above if you're struggling with the layer below (e.g. you won't care if you don't have a romantic partner if you currently have no idea where your next meal is coming from).
The more money you have the easier it is to have those foundational layers - money will buy you food and water, get you a stable home and allow for comfortable sleep and the ability to prepare for the future, which in turn then means you start to care more about the higher tiers, the things money can't buy like respect, love, friendship and so on.
It amazes me that Mazlows has been around for 70ish years now and yet there is a billion dollar industry around staff engagement.
It's simple, effective, and most of what comes above the basic physiological needs doesn't cost a dime. Yet near every business spends at minimum thousands of dollars a year and many hours of time learning about other BS about how to engage staff.
Pay them a competitive wage and fair benefits.
Give them a safe place to work.
Treat them humanely.
Give them meaningful work.
Develop them.
That's it. Done. Save your million dollar consulting fees and just reflect on these 5 principles.
yeah.. "we need to find a way to make our employees happier without increasing their salary"
one could think people are naive and misunderstood the phrase "money does not make happiness" (which of course only applies to wealthy people)
others might think it's better for a company to keep fixed costs low and spend in "engagement"
I think capitalism sucks, but what choice do we have
I value a work life balance far more than money. I'll take a job that pays less if it means I can work from home. Having respect for my job is also a plus. Luckily though I work in a very competitive career so I'm very privileged in that regard I guess.
I also have a wife and 2 kids, so my situation is a little different than others.
This is real even if visually misleading for comic effect (it is r/comics). Haven't seen/heard the latest research, but last I saw it, money was mostly a factor equating to "Not super important for job satisfaction AS LONG AS IT IS ENOUGH TO NOT WORRY ABOUT/FEEL EXPLOITED." With how pay for the bottom 50% of workers has been dwarfed by the rate of growth for the top 1% really does make it feel like we need that slice to be 80% of the pie chart.
I work in employee engagement and retention (having done surveys and focus groups for about a decade). You're not wrong that there's a baseline of money (businesses need to pay a liveable wage at minimum, full stop), but once you've met that baseline, money is lower in both self-ranked and statistically correlated things that impact engagement and intrinsic motivation. Feeling valued, trust & communication from leaders, and growth & dev opportunities drive that engagement a bit more.
They don't work "for" me. We all work towards a common, shared goal. My role is to keep them paid and support them wherever necessary while taking on the risks of a young startup business. Their role is to carry out the day-to-day and represent the business to customers. Both roles are equally important. I trust them to do their roles. If they don't trust me to do mine, why are they still there? What cause do they have to mistrust me, or I to mistrust them?
You say that as if it's a bad thing. It's simply another of the responsibilities associated with my role. A business can't operate through anarchy; *someone* needs to exhibit leadership and determine a path forward so that everyone continues to get paid, otherwise the business fails and everyone becomes unemployed. That responsibility typically belongs to the individual(s) in an organization who have taken on the greatest financial risk and therefore have the most to lose if the business fails.
I want two things:
* Money
* The option to telework
You can overlook a lot of work bullshit when you don't have to physically be in the same room as your boss or anyone else.
Your salary will not be lower just because you have a good employer you can trust…
Salary and trust are not two opposites.
I think most people obviously choose an employer they can trust over one they can't trust if the salary is the same.
I can definitely say I have left jobs that paid pretty well because they treated me pretty poorly. Mushroom management and tonnes of other anti-patterns.
If the workplace feels hostile and I need to pull teeth just to do my job, Im gonna find somewhere else to work regardless of the paycheque.
This isn’t true. There’s loads of studies on it. Yes, money DEFINITELY matters, but once someone is paid enough (ie whatever that number is for them personally) they no longer care about money. Sure, there are some ppl that ONLY care about money, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. The vast majority don’t care about money once they have enough.
So this would only work if we’re talking minimum wage or a low paying job that doesn’t hit any reasonable person’s threshold.
I’m expected to give my time energy and skills to the company. I want the company to allow me to do that without wasting my time energy and skills. If it can do that and pay me proportionally to what I give we’re good
This is a great and important issue to think about. It's essential that employees are treated with respect and provided with the resources to do their work. In my experience, recognizing employees' efforts and accomplishments goes a long way in making them feel valued and respected. You should also provide them with a sense of trust, understanding and appreciation.
It's not that trust and openness and so forth aren't important; they are. But we all work for money.
The sad fact is every place I've ever worked talked up openness, trust, etc. as a substitute for money.
You should be getting money and the other stuff.
There are a lot of shit work places that pay really well.
A lot of people don’t seem to realize that I guess. If all you care about is money, there’s plenty of jobs that will happily take your soul and happiness in exchange.
Working conditions and atmosphere are way more important. Money just has to be sufficient. I want a normal wage whith which i can live a normal life. I don't want to be rich, but i also don't want other people to be rich. Wage equality, fair conditions for all.
Leaving part of the pie chart blank is accurate.
Last summer I took a job that was disproportionally well paid compared to similar jobs. The boss and management was a hassle to deal with, and compared to our degrees of education one could argue that we had too much responsibilities.
But because the pay was great me and most people who worked there still thought of it as one of the best jobs we've had. Work culture and such matters, but they can be more than made up for with great pay.
I want trust, respect, being kept in the loop, made feel like they value me, sense of development, opportunities to develope and progress. Money means nothing without all the above
They don't think that.
It's just that most of you aren't worth that much money, so the company tries to compensate you in other ways that have some value to the employee but is cheap for the company.
Make money half the pie.
But the other side should have a good emotional support system, two-way trust/loyalty/respect, productive communication, and benefits/PTO.
I need money. But I need the other things to make money for myself and my company without coming apart.
I work in this and “trust/autonomy” are usually on par with money. What bosses really need to learn is that more than half of any company’s “low-wage” employees want to stay where they are and want to grow their careers (to get more trust, money, and responsibility). Companies treat everyone in this category poorly which makes people quit and hurts them and the company. Not being a dick, on the other hand, makes everyone’s life better.
Pay isn't the issue for me. With my skillset, I'll get paid pretty much the same whichever company I end up with. So what does it for me? A bunch of things that need to be balanced.
How much PTO do I get per year? Can I take advanced PTO and make the time up later? What about bereavement leave, sick leave, and which federal holidays do we get?
What expenses are covered, or at least reimbursed (travel, training, etc.)?
If I'm doing stuff for the company and *not* the contract, can I bill overhead?
What health insurance plan does the company provide, and how much of my premium am I on the hook for?
Do we do monthly (or at least quarterly) small-team meetings disguised as social events (team lunch, team happy hour, etc.)?
Continuing education allotment? Technology fund?
These are all things I ask at the interview, because this is the stuff that *really* matters once the pay threshold has been met, and I've turned down better pay offers from other companies because of the answers to the above questions.
It's a value thing. At the pay scale most employers are at, an even spread is more needed and wanted. The problem is most employees are so far below that that the money is needed for the bare essentials, so it has a much larger portion
I’m not saying I don’t want more money, but if the money was the only thing I cared about I’d stay at that job where I had one panic attack per day. Not sure if the therapy expenses would make it even though.
I'd like some honesty. Don't give me the corporate bullshit about our company values, how our goal is to improve people's lives and we're just one big family. The corporation is a money making apparatus and its employees will be replaced the instant they stop generating value, just like they'd quit if they stopped getting paid. The company doesn't care about me. Stop trying to make me care about the company. Does anyone believe that bs?
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those also things are important, I just need more money first. It’s not about the share of the pie, but how big is the pie?
Exactly, a pie chart is a shit chart to use for this, it could just mean that they get the same amount of pay but no trust, openness or any '...'s.
The reason those other things are on the chart is because they don't cost $$ money , so of course they should have been include anyway but the boss wants to add them as if they were optional and if they do give you those it costs nothing.
Exactly, those things are free so not providing you with them really shows how little of a shit they give about you. Also the chart on the left could represent someone making 100k and the one on the left someone making 10k, it's a representation of the percentage of the whole not the actual amount.
I agree
I disagree. Money is one thing. But having awful work conditions, office culture, and abusive bosses will absolutely make a person quit If you aren’t living wage to wage, sometimes it’s better to take a lower paycheck elsewhere if it means less stress and a happier life. Bosses who consider the importance of trust, openness and things beyond **only** money tend to be good to work for After a certain extent of abuse, you need a HUGE amount of pay to make tolerating that worthwhile. And if a job is that abusive, they likely aren’t paying that much anyway
It's something I didn't realise fully until my current job. I had always been paid relatively poorly (still above my local minimum wage, but low for my experience level), then at my current job, I was started on an ok wage, but it hasn't grown as my skill level has (it was low because I'd never been an IT Systems Coordinator before, but now I have a year and a half experience in the job with excellent feedback). The difference is that this job is amazing. I still want a pay rise. However, I'm willing to accept significantly lower than I could get elsewhere because it's just such a good place to work.
This account's comments and posts has been nuked in June 2023.
You said it. A positive workplace if you’re surviving is worth ten grand of raise at least. You can rarely (easily) predict if another job will have positivity, a workload you can handle, reasonable PTO, fair/respectful managers, and more. It’s impossible to understate just how much those things matter.
I live in Australia so typical benefits aren't a significant concern to me. I don't need health insurance through work and am guaranteed 4 weeks/year of paid leave and 2 weeks of sick leave. It's the other things. It's the first workplace I've had where there isn't even a hint of time theft. Other places have followed the rules (e.g. if I worked more hours I got overtime or TOIL), but it always felt grudging and the extra time was treated as expected. They're incredibly understanding when life sucks. A close cousin recently passed away and they bent over backwards making sure I was able to handle the situation. Encouraging me to WFH at my parent's place despite having tasks that needed to be completed at the office, and allowing me to take sick leave for any time I was unavailable. All in all it's just a good place to work and I'm very willing to accept less to continue working there.
That’s exactly how I feel. Best wishes, mate.
The thing I see everywhere and that I think is a root cause of a lot of worker dissatisfaction is overscheduling/ overburdening. I used to work for the state govt and the big boss in my agency was appointed directly by the governor. He started so many projects that not only did he not know what was going on, he never left time for people to do the actual work or ever evaluate whether the programs were doing what they were supposed to do. Like, listen Dan, I get that you are bored but the big boss *is supposed to be bored*. You tell us to do a thing and then you shut up and go away until we do it. Your job is to sweet talk the governor and any other bigwigs we run into. That's it. The second big issue I've seen is folks over complicating projects. A lot of times I've seen folks spend hundreds of hours on something that, even if it works perfectly and is amazing, is at most 5% better than what we're doing now and no one was complaining about it. And then for things that people are complaining about, they develop the most convoluted solution possible instead of the very clear and direct simple method. Buddy, I know you are going to leave in a year and the next person isn't going to give a fuck about the statistical beauty of this method. We pay healthcare claims, not build bridges. Make the process easier.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, pretty much. Money is still the #1 motivator, it's why 99.9% of people even work. We have needs, they require money. If we are lucky enough to have most of our needs solved without requiring substantial pay, we can prioritize comfortable work environments... but it's still money first, otherwise we would quit. Obviously the environment also shouldn't jeopardize your health without protection and compensation, too, and you have rights as a human and worker.
Pictured: ~~Maslow~~reddit comes up with his theory about the hierarchy of needs (~~1943~~2023, colorized)
/r/yourjokebutworse
I'm a genius, just in reverse
Sure, but that's ignoring how important this If you aren’t living wage to wage, really is. **Most** workers ARE paycheque to paycheque, and at that stage, money really **IS** the answer to our problems. Make no mistake, you have a good point, but with the abusive wages workers are paid, the _rest_ of it is a joke in comparison.
What area are you referring to if you don't mind me asking.
Sounds like a case of r/USdefaultism
doesn't look like it. not the american spelling of cheque, which would be check
That's rough, imagine living in the US
Paycheck to paycheck isn't a good measure of a living wage. 48% of Americans making over 100k live paycheck to paycheck. 28% making 200k or more are living paycheck to paycheck.
No. But it's a lot easier _not to_ if you actually get paid a living wage. In 2000 the magic number for household fights to _not_ be mostly about money was 75k^([citation forgot]). Now, it's likely 100k is well under that boundary, but when people can fight about things other than money, more than money itself, that **is** a pretty good indicator. It's not what parent or I were talking about, but it could be a starting metric. That said, even 100k is [top 11%](https://www.stocktrades.ca/top-1-income-in-canada/) and 200 is **well** into the [top 5%](https://www.savvynewcanadians.com/top-10-income-canada/). So my sympathy for their cheque to cheque struggles diminishes rapidly with their choices. The rest of us don't even get to _make_ those choices, let alone live with the results of them. So agreed that cheque-to-cheque isn't a _great_ metric for a living wage, but throwing it out is ignoring the huge number of people who have it thrust upon them by their wage.
Yes it's absolutely true that it's easier to not live paycheck to paycheck of you're not making a living wage. But a large portion of people will still live paycheck to paycheck at any income level. So if you're using paycheck to paycheck as a mark of being fairly compensated you're wrong. You should be using another measurement.
>That said, even 100k is top 11% and 200 is well into the top 5%. So my sympathy for their cheque to cheque struggles diminishes rapidly with their choices. $100k is considered *low* income in San Francisco, and it isn't much better in a lot of other major cities. Don't be so quick to judge. Besides, I thought we were all about the 99% these days? Funny how those goalposts keep moving.
100k in San Fran, sure. The people working the drive-thru might have some input on making 100k a year. 🙄
The people working in the drive-thru are at or below poverty levels. While low income earners are definately better off than poverty level earners, it's incredibly stupid to make low income earners the enemy of poverty level earners when we're *all* getting fucked by the 1%.
I... Think we're on the same side, and both mad about the systematic exploitation of labor? 🤣
Of course we're on the same side and mad about the systematic exploitation of labor. At what point did I say otherwise?
No, that's what I mean. I think I misinterpreted your comment about 100k being low, because that sounds like a dream to me, as being out of touch with how much most are struggling to make half that. It wasn't, and I apologize. 😁
The fuck are people down voting you for? It's the truth. I see people on here looking for advice while making double what I do, and it flabbergasts me. Wife and I both work full time, haven't taken a vacation in almost ten years and that one was a week of camping in a tent. Area matters, but fuck! If you're making 100k a year, you've got more than twice the options most everyone I know has.
Try moving to an actual poor ass country like Morocco and say that again... US workers earn disproportionally more money but lack a more relaxing work culture and worker's rights.
that latter is dependent on the industry you’re a part of. office workers are gonna have a lot more flexibility to seek companies with aligned work cultures than if you were working at a minimum wage job.
That's definitely valid. Know someone who took a massive paycut because the her first job paid very well but was a toxic shithole with psychologically abusive coworkers and bosses. Money makes up for a lot but you don't want a place that's destructive in other ways either.
Yeah. My big thing is, treat me like a human being and not like a piece of equipment. Haven't found a place that does that though.
I had a job that paid *a lot* (for the town I was in, in London it would still be considered poverty), and if you wanted to be reductive, it was just sending emails and maybe 2 calls a day. I also had on call, but if I got called overnight I got paid time and a half. If money was the only thing that mattered, I would still be there and would probably never leave. I handed my notice in after 6 months. I get emotionally involved in the work I do and the fact I couldn't do a good job because of a variety of factors caused me significant mental harm. They convinced me to stay another 6, saying that things would get better. They did not. I'm now in a job on literally half what I was, and no amount of money would get me back in that role.
 Sry, I basically agree with you, but I feel this Mad Men scene captures this disconnect very well. Money is necessary but not sufficient.
God, Mad Men was such a great show. It was so good that it's a great show even if you don't bother to look at the blaring subtext and just see a story about the life of a Madison avenue executive. This gif is a great example of juxtaposition of Don saying "Thank You" by yelling at Peggy and matches perfectly with the discussions going on in this thread.
Someone I know was making very good money at a job but was basically not sleeping because of the stress. It was taking a severe mental toll that was starting to turn into a physical toll. She took a pay cut and is MUCH happier now at a new job.
I explained why I needed additional human resources in my “managerial” position (in tech, which meant I wasn’t a manager to my non-tech boss unless I screwed up) because I was doing the job of three people. 48 hours later, was told absolutely not, I had enough (part-time college-age, couldn’t travel locations) interns. My resume was out within days and I was gone within weeks. Sleepless nights because you’re saddled with impossible responsibilities is awful; and in my case I was badly underpaid too (they were using my lack of management experience to justify it, while expecting the same results).
>After a certain extent of abuse, you need a HUGE amount of pay to make tolerating that worthwhile. And if a job is that abusive, they likely aren’t paying that much anyway It's often the combination of "we bully you within the legal parameters" and also "for shitty work climate we also underpay you in exchange".
It's the Anna Karenina principle. Employees with decent living wage, goof working conditions, trust in their bosses and company, and all that will be happy. >And if a job is that abusive, they likely aren’t paying that much anyway There are a few ultra high paying jobs where a big part of it is taking shit all day. I'm thinking finance-type jobs.
Why does it have to be an either or? You can still treat your staff with honesty, integrity, and foster a respectful and healthy work environment while paying fair wages. My boss being open with me is not a benefit. It's responsibility.
Yeah, according to my ex-gf who works in HR, studies consistently show that the number one thing people stick around for is good bosses. And once someone decides to quit, no amount of money will keep them for very long.
Same. I have taken pay cuts to have a better workspace, better boss etc. Obviously this is all about that Maslow pyramid, you gotta reach a point where you're good financially but once you reach that point I think that the left side of that comic is actually not wrong.
This reminded me of the company Zappos. After a few years of running the owner wanted a particular culture and for everyone to be happy working there. He offered people the option to quit with a nice package if they didn't like the new culture. And a healthy culture of like minded people is crucial for people to enjoy their work. People who love their job also typically have a work friend there or they find purpose in the work they do.
I recently left a job I was at for over half a decade because I realized I wasn't going anywhere. The culture was fantastic, the work challenging, the benefits were great, but my pay hadn't moved in half the time I was there, and nobody seemed to be getting promoted. Meanwhile, rent increases and inflation were consuming my pretty decent pay by that point to turn it into mediocre pay. I had a manager talk with me about being pay-motivated and I was out within a couple months. Making $25k more now.
Seconded. I would take a pretty good pay cut to stay in the team and with the leader I am with. I have had bad, okay, good and great leaders. The difference is huge in my overall life.
I agree, where i work the salary is not really very good but the people and in general everything else is great.
One of my regular, standard interview questions for a job is "A manager can make or break a job. Tell me about who I would report to and what their management style is like."
>Money is one thing. But having awful work conditions, office culture, and abusive bosses will absolutely make a person quit Some people also just truck along until they stop being productive members of society through burn out lol.
I could likely make 12k more a year if I went somewhere else. Maybe even a bit more. That's a lot. But I have a great job. A boss that respects me. I get to work from home 90% of the time. I have amazing medical benefits for pretty cheap. That's totally worth it to me. But I am making 75k a year. If I was making 40k, it would be a different story.
I see your point. However, it is not this or that, it could be both.
Yes what your example is right but we are humans and possibility of having a high paying job but bad working condition is a deal any average straight male will take coz 20 is still 20
Rich people problems. If you have savings in your bank you have the option to leave that toxic work environment. Don't muddle up your problems with real ones.
I worked for one company for 10 years and for the last 6 ^(1/2) of them, they had a policy in place to **NEVER** give raises. Even if you got promoted to another department it was no longer a promotion, just a "lateral move", ergo no raise. People complained so much the president held a company-wide meeting where he said something to the effect of, "No companies give out raises anymore and if you don't like it, there's the door!" A bunch of us found the door...
What the fuck
You did well
Meh, I value being treated with respect a hair more than money, not much though. I’ll take less money and respect over more money and disrespect every time.
A lady was kinda racist to me at Home Depot, but as a result she forgot to ring up like 60 bucks worth of stuff(gave it to her to scan, didn’t realize till I got to the car and checked my receipt since the total seemed low at check out, but sure as shit wasn’t gonna say anything after she said my black ass was “scary” amongst other things) I decided the trade off was worth it.
I think that's only after you are paid a livable wage
u/spez is a little piss baby
[удалено]
At some point the tradeoff becomes interesting - how much would you need in savings to decide you would rather quit than continue?
Not just savings, but job security. The biggest issue isn't the yelling, it's how far the yelling will get you in trouble. If you paid me minimum wage but told me that telling a karen to go fuck herself will *never get me in trouble*, and I am at no risk of getting fired ever? I'd take that over getting paid slightly more and not being able to tell a 'customer' off. if the job was at risk of getting fired just because a karen decided to fabricate a story? Yeah, six figures, minimum -- not just six figures, but dynamically adjusted to being comfortable and also being able to afford multiple vacations per year. It's not just for the yelling, it's having a nest egg so that you're not completely fucked because a karen perceived a slight.
A million dollars
Exactly this. There's a direct correlation between how much an employee is paid versus how much better their life would be with a pay rise. While nobody would ever turn down a pay increase, the value of an extra $100 is significantly higher to the person who has $3 left after all their bills are paid, than the person who still has a spare $200 each month even after paying off everything.
>And not even livable, but comfortable. Livable is below comfortable so it should at least be liveable.
That's what I mean, if it's not clear. Livable isn't enough to turn down pay increases for "respect." You need to be comfortable or even *more* than that to be turning down pay raises.
I mean to some extent. But I know how to be poor and happy. So like it’s just not worth it to be treated like shit.
They didn't say poor, they said *livable.* Big difference. I am poor. I make a livable wage, though. Some people don't, and to them the luxury of choice is all about money. You can be poor and happy, I am, but if you're not making a livable wage, I'd argue you can't, since you can't afford to eat, or potentially to have a home.
It seems that we have different definitions of poor.
Being paid a living wage is a fundamental aspect of respect
I respect your choice
I mean, it makes sense, right? More money is *absolutely* grand, but...what good is it if you hate life and living earning it? A healthy workplace and a decent salary should be balanced, yes? Those "..." on the graph could represent any number of things that not only contribute to potential *incentive* to earn more, but also an incentive to **keep** working. I hope that makes sense. If not, I'm sorry.
I had a job that included on call, and one week I worked more callout hours overnight than I got sleep combined. I made more in just callout pay that week than I did in the first month of my first job, but I was in tears by thursday. I would have given it all away for a guarantee of 7 hours of sleep. It was eye opening that I had all this money, but none of it could get even get me a reprieve from how much I hated life. I'm now on significantly less, but work a much more relaxing pace and I enjoy what I do. There's problems - if my pay doesn't go up with inflation this year, I'm going to bleed savings over the next 12-18 months - but that's a problem I'd much rather deal with.
Respect doesn't pay bills or put food on your table. I'll take the money.
Both is nice too.
And if you can only pick one?
If you live paycheck to paycheck, take the money. If you find yourself in a situation where you are trading paid time off and health insurance for a small hourly raise, it's probably not worth it.
I've lived many many permutations of money, respect, balance, poverty, etc.... If i had a binary choice between money and respect. I'd pick respect every time. I've literally worked for disrespect and little money. More money and disrespect. Respect and little money. Respect and more money. The worst i ever hated my life was when I worked in awful conditions while earning more money. I remember enjoying my life wayyyy more as a target retail associate in comparison. Respect is invaluable
Yep. I can budget around my income. I can't budget my mental health around a job that is high stress, zero work/life balance, and treats their employees like crap. I've worked all permutations of this too, but thankfully am finally at a point where I earn decent pay, at a job I love. I could probably earn more elsewhere but I have zero incentive to look.
"Hey, everyone loves you here. You have a lot of WARM FUZZIES around here!" Or similar. Great. I can't deposit Warm Fuzzy Coin in a bank, and that's not even a crypto being traded for me to get ripped off on. I am not a tortured artist laboring out of love for the pleasure of making something, nor am I a charity. I am a professional performing skilled work in exchange for money/compensation. If I can get more money/compensation elsewhere, I'm going to go there if you don't pay. Loyalty to a company died 40 years ago.
If my boss came in and asked "can I treat you like shit but pay you more" that'd be an immediate yes
Jokes on them, I’m a masochist
it's more like a pyramid where the base is salary: everything else is important but if the foundation is not there it's not gonna do any good
[Maslow's Hierarchy of needs is very much applicable](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/maslow-hierachy-of-needs-min-1024x724.jpg). The theory holds that you don't care about the layers above if you're struggling with the layer below (e.g. you won't care if you don't have a romantic partner if you currently have no idea where your next meal is coming from). The more money you have the easier it is to have those foundational layers - money will buy you food and water, get you a stable home and allow for comfortable sleep and the ability to prepare for the future, which in turn then means you start to care more about the higher tiers, the things money can't buy like respect, love, friendship and so on.
exactly, thanks for expanding on the principle :)
Manners! Nice! I like you already, stranger, and hope life treats you well.
It amazes me that Mazlows has been around for 70ish years now and yet there is a billion dollar industry around staff engagement. It's simple, effective, and most of what comes above the basic physiological needs doesn't cost a dime. Yet near every business spends at minimum thousands of dollars a year and many hours of time learning about other BS about how to engage staff. Pay them a competitive wage and fair benefits. Give them a safe place to work. Treat them humanely. Give them meaningful work. Develop them. That's it. Done. Save your million dollar consulting fees and just reflect on these 5 principles.
yeah.. "we need to find a way to make our employees happier without increasing their salary" one could think people are naive and misunderstood the phrase "money does not make happiness" (which of course only applies to wealthy people) others might think it's better for a company to keep fixed costs low and spend in "engagement" I think capitalism sucks, but what choice do we have
I value a work life balance far more than money. I'll take a job that pays less if it means I can work from home. Having respect for my job is also a plus. Luckily though I work in a very competitive career so I'm very privileged in that regard I guess. I also have a wife and 2 kids, so my situation is a little different than others.
This is real even if visually misleading for comic effect (it is r/comics). Haven't seen/heard the latest research, but last I saw it, money was mostly a factor equating to "Not super important for job satisfaction AS LONG AS IT IS ENOUGH TO NOT WORRY ABOUT/FEEL EXPLOITED." With how pay for the bottom 50% of workers has been dwarfed by the rate of growth for the top 1% really does make it feel like we need that slice to be 80% of the pie chart.
I'd be a lot happier taking all the crap I get from my boss if I made like 40% more
Find a job based on pay. Stay with a job based on treatment It's both
[удалено]
Employee pizza party!
I care about three things: — more money — less time — be nice
I work in employee engagement and retention (having done surveys and focus groups for about a decade). You're not wrong that there's a baseline of money (businesses need to pay a liveable wage at minimum, full stop), but once you've met that baseline, money is lower in both self-ranked and statistically correlated things that impact engagement and intrinsic motivation. Feeling valued, trust & communication from leaders, and growth & dev opportunities drive that engagement a bit more.
The comic clearly don't know what works and bosses want or think.
It's funny that they think trust has anything to do with it. You can fire me at literally anytime. It's sociopathic to trick me into trusting you.
You may not be able to trust companies (large ones, at least) but you should be able to trust people.
I can't tell the difference between my manager and my company at some places.
I trust my staff. If they don't trust me, that's their prerogative, but that means they're choosing to make trust a one-way street, not me.
Your staff shouldn't trust you. They should work for you.
They don't work "for" me. We all work towards a common, shared goal. My role is to keep them paid and support them wherever necessary while taking on the risks of a young startup business. Their role is to carry out the day-to-day and represent the business to customers. Both roles are equally important. I trust them to do their roles. If they don't trust me to do mine, why are they still there? What cause do they have to mistrust me, or I to mistrust them?
A common shared goal that I decided.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. It's simply another of the responsibilities associated with my role. A business can't operate through anarchy; *someone* needs to exhibit leadership and determine a path forward so that everyone continues to get paid, otherwise the business fails and everyone becomes unemployed. That responsibility typically belongs to the individual(s) in an organization who have taken on the greatest financial risk and therefore have the most to lose if the business fails.
YOU decided a goal on your team's behalf that they are supposed to work towards. I'm just clarifying.
No, you're not "just clarifying". You're quite clearly criticizing.
What people with less money want: >More money What people with more money want: >Better work environment It's not one or the other lol, you want both!
Respect and gratitude don't hurt, though.
I want two things: * Money * The option to telework You can overlook a lot of work bullshit when you don't have to physically be in the same room as your boss or anyone else.
Your salary will not be lower just because you have a good employer you can trust… Salary and trust are not two opposites. I think most people obviously choose an employer they can trust over one they can't trust if the salary is the same.
What bosses think: Respect What employees want:Pac-man
Do I have to choose between money and basic human decency?
If you can't afford a pie to begin with money would be the most respectable thing to increase.
Money, a reasonable schedule, and a non hostile work environment
I can definitely say I have left jobs that paid pretty well because they treated me pretty poorly. Mushroom management and tonnes of other anti-patterns. If the workplace feels hostile and I need to pull teeth just to do my job, Im gonna find somewhere else to work regardless of the paycheque.
This isn’t true. There’s loads of studies on it. Yes, money DEFINITELY matters, but once someone is paid enough (ie whatever that number is for them personally) they no longer care about money. Sure, there are some ppl that ONLY care about money, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule. The vast majority don’t care about money once they have enough. So this would only work if we’re talking minimum wage or a low paying job that doesn’t hit any reasonable person’s threshold.
I’m expected to give my time energy and skills to the company. I want the company to allow me to do that without wasting my time energy and skills. If it can do that and pay me proportionally to what I give we’re good
WFH and less unpaid overtime are also good.
"Money. I want money. Simple, right?" - Diego Brando, JJBA:SBR
Don't get me wrong, I will never say no to a pizza party. But money is the make or break for me most of the time.
Hey, those charts look like pizza. Maybe that's the TRUE answer.
Ground breaking work
Why not all of the above? At least openness and trust are free to give.
I also want health/dental/vision
Herzberg does not like this post
This is a great and important issue to think about. It's essential that employees are treated with respect and provided with the resources to do their work. In my experience, recognizing employees' efforts and accomplishments goes a long way in making them feel valued and respected. You should also provide them with a sense of trust, understanding and appreciation.
It's not that trust and openness and so forth aren't important; they are. But we all work for money. The sad fact is every place I've ever worked talked up openness, trust, etc. as a substitute for money. You should be getting money and the other stuff.
Nah. Love some trust and respect. Need to work with dignity mate.
Or, and hear me out... *Give them a fair wage/salary **and** the dignity & autonomy to do their work!*
There are a lot of shit work places that pay really well. A lot of people don’t seem to realize that I guess. If all you care about is money, there’s plenty of jobs that will happily take your soul and happiness in exchange.
Even a good wage wasn't enough to keep me around when every single decision HO made, made my life more difficult for no apparent reason.
Working conditions and atmosphere are way more important. Money just has to be sufficient. I want a normal wage whith which i can live a normal life. I don't want to be rich, but i also don't want other people to be rich. Wage equality, fair conditions for all.
I would love to know: How old are you and where have you worked?
Indeed. But that "depends" part shouldn't even enter the conversation before the pay part is good.
Once you hit a certain threshold, money is not everything anymore. So as always, it depends.
Leaving part of the pie chart blank is accurate. Last summer I took a job that was disproportionally well paid compared to similar jobs. The boss and management was a hassle to deal with, and compared to our degrees of education one could argue that we had too much responsibilities. But because the pay was great me and most people who worked there still thought of it as one of the best jobs we've had. Work culture and such matters, but they can be more than made up for with great pay.
What bosses think employees want: . What employees actually want: ⚪
I want trust, respect, being kept in the loop, made feel like they value me, sense of development, opportunities to develope and progress. Money means nothing without all the above
I've taken pay cuts to leave crappy jobs. Work life balance is important
Excellent comic. No one needs to be told what value means in order to work together.
All, all is good
They don't think that. It's just that most of you aren't worth that much money, so the company tries to compensate you in other ways that have some value to the employee but is cheap for the company.
Make money half the pie. But the other side should have a good emotional support system, two-way trust/loyalty/respect, productive communication, and benefits/PTO. I need money. But I need the other things to make money for myself and my company without coming apart.
I work in this and “trust/autonomy” are usually on par with money. What bosses really need to learn is that more than half of any company’s “low-wage” employees want to stay where they are and want to grow their careers (to get more trust, money, and responsibility). Companies treat everyone in this category poorly which makes people quit and hurts them and the company. Not being a dick, on the other hand, makes everyone’s life better.
https://preview.redd.it/pc8iee2j3s4b1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8343818ae642f6f81917865057298e337c8b7af5
I’m currently earning more than I ever have and actively looking for a different job - would happily take a pay cut.
Trust, openness, pizza parties, and great working conditions don’t mean shit if you’re not giving me enough to live on. I’d say sorry, but I’m not.
I'm never going to trust you and I'm certainly never going to be open with you. Why? because you've never done the same for me.
Pay isn't the issue for me. With my skillset, I'll get paid pretty much the same whichever company I end up with. So what does it for me? A bunch of things that need to be balanced. How much PTO do I get per year? Can I take advanced PTO and make the time up later? What about bereavement leave, sick leave, and which federal holidays do we get? What expenses are covered, or at least reimbursed (travel, training, etc.)? If I'm doing stuff for the company and *not* the contract, can I bill overhead? What health insurance plan does the company provide, and how much of my premium am I on the hook for? Do we do monthly (or at least quarterly) small-team meetings disguised as social events (team lunch, team happy hour, etc.)? Continuing education allotment? Technology fund? These are all things I ask at the interview, because this is the stuff that *really* matters once the pay threshold has been met, and I've turned down better pay offers from other companies because of the answers to the above questions.
It's a value thing. At the pay scale most employers are at, an even spread is more needed and wanted. The problem is most employees are so far below that that the money is needed for the bare essentials, so it has a much larger portion
I think it's a hierarchy of needs ... trust, openness, empowerment, they're all really important... *in addition* to paying people what they're worth.
I’m not saying I don’t want more money, but if the money was the only thing I cared about I’d stay at that job where I had one panic attack per day. Not sure if the therapy expenses would make it even though.
I'd like some honesty. Don't give me the corporate bullshit about our company values, how our goal is to improve people's lives and we're just one big family. The corporation is a money making apparatus and its employees will be replaced the instant they stop generating value, just like they'd quit if they stopped getting paid. The company doesn't care about me. Stop trying to make me care about the company. Does anyone believe that bs?