In a few more weeks I will have abdicated the steady paycheck forever. That means I'll be depending on a portfolio invested in businesses administered by the good people who still go to w*rk every day.
However, many of the fine folks here post that their w*rkplaces had become intolerable, and that's what finally sparked their retirements.
New organizations (IOW, the latest crop of transient MBAs), new operating models (i.e., repackaged buzzword programs) and new business goals (aka, yet another round of cost-cutting everywhere except on executive compensation) apparently are the catalysts for many of us deciding to pack it in and head for the door.
I've read similar stories countless times:
There is unquestionably a stronger sense that short-term objectives predominate compared to when I hired on back in the previous millennium. Also, I think many managers are little more than clones: they all studied the same curriculum at whatever business school they attended; they read the same books; they adopt the same software; they parrot the same jargon; they play golf at the same clubs and sit on each others' boards. The result is that most organizations are run by interchangeable suits with identical group-think devotion to squeezing rather than growing. No wonder employees find remaining there unbearable.
However, maybe the Good Old Days were just as erratic and chaotic as the Bad New Days. It's entirely possible I just didn't recognize the flaws because of my youth and naivete.
I don't have confidence that a stock portfolio based on intolerable w*rkplaces will be sufficiently sustainable that it will sustain me. So I put it to this group. Are w*rkplaces genuinely worse than they used to be?
However, many of the fine folks here post that their w*rkplaces had become intolerable, and that's what finally sparked their retirements.
New organizations (IOW, the latest crop of transient MBAs), new operating models (i.e., repackaged buzzword programs) and new business goals (aka, yet another round of cost-cutting everywhere except on executive compensation) apparently are the catalysts for many of us deciding to pack it in and head for the door.
I've read similar stories countless times:
"Megacorp (or Govt-agency) X used to be a great place to w*rk, but it's not that way today. The Big Bosses must read Dilbert and think it's a guideline to follow instead of to avoid."
- "We used to have pensions and health insurance. Now we don't even keep up with inflation."
- "Our division director doesn't care about succession planning or where we'll be in five years because he'll already be at his next j*b in two years."
- "If I can't meet some unreasonable expectation, I get spanked. But when the CEO screws up, he blames it on 'headwinds' and gets a bigger bonus."
- "Every new administration tells us we just need to 'embrace change'. But every 'change' is invariably 'Less for you, more for me'."
There is unquestionably a stronger sense that short-term objectives predominate compared to when I hired on back in the previous millennium. Also, I think many managers are little more than clones: they all studied the same curriculum at whatever business school they attended; they read the same books; they adopt the same software; they parrot the same jargon; they play golf at the same clubs and sit on each others' boards. The result is that most organizations are run by interchangeable suits with identical group-think devotion to squeezing rather than growing. No wonder employees find remaining there unbearable.
However, maybe the Good Old Days were just as erratic and chaotic as the Bad New Days. It's entirely possible I just didn't recognize the flaws because of my youth and naivete.
I don't have confidence that a stock portfolio based on intolerable w*rkplaces will be sufficiently sustainable that it will sustain me. So I put it to this group. Are w*rkplaces genuinely worse than they used to be?
Last edited: