The definition of "quiet quitting" has been muddied. I feel as if its necessary for any discussion on the topic to include a definition to establish clarity. In my mind "quiet quitting" is the process of doing the bare minimum required by the job tasks and nothing more. If we go with this definition it seems pretty self explanatory. We have had terrible wage stagnation in many industries and a lack of the ability to change government policy has naturally led to this outcome.
It's not a well-defined term but by most definitions, quiet quitting is doing the bare minimum.
> Quiet quitting is a mindset in which employees deliberately limit work activities to their job description, meet yet not exceed the previously established expectations, never volunteer for additional tasks and do all this to merely maintain their current employment status while prioritizing their well-being over organizational goals.
> the process of doing the bare minimum required by the job tasks and nothing more
Once upon a time, this was called "doing your job". I think this is why OP chose to say it was manufactured. It's telling that the term is "quiet quitting" rather than something which doesn't suggest someone is shirking responsibility ("job disengagement", "occupational disinterest", etc).
Talk of "quiet quitting" is an attempt from the management class to make the managed class believe they should be working harder after the latter realized they weren't actually seeing any benefits for their hard work.
As long as birth rates remain low, we will see worker powers continue to expand. As long as education remains expensive, we will see the supply of actually good knowledge workers decrease.
The only reason it appears employers have the upper hand at the moment is a concerted effort to drive down salaries - a power grab while interest rates are high that they can use as an excuse.
Looking to new disruptors in tech/finance over the next 5-10 years. As we saw with Meta and the other big tech co., it only takes one powerful disruptor. We will see which way the wind blows.
It is total bullshit. The US unemployment rate stands at 3.4%, which I believe is the second lowest since we've been counting it. For the record, the lowest unemployment ever was 2.5% in May of 1953.
Here's the author's blurb: Gene Marks is a columnist, author and small business owner. His company, the Marks Group PC, provides technology and financial management services to SMBs in the US and abroad.
Mr. Marks respectfully, I hope you are advising your clients that to increase their potential hiring pool in this historically tight labor market, they embrace remote work.
What if the disruptor is some sort of LLM service like ChatGPT and related AIs/robots that do other physical jobs? That potentially blunts the impact of low birth rates.
> That potentially blunts the impact of low birth rates...
Not at all, society literally breaks down if that is the case because those services would displace 2/3 of the work out there.
Hungry people riot, unrest ensues, and most people have been taught (as a core identity) that if you work hard you will be better off and have a good future for yourself and your children. Those core identity promises being recognized as lies would drive a mass movement of mostly irrational people. You then get the law of reverse effect (psychology) driving this. Who is responsible, who is to blame.
Someone will always have that answer and it need not be true because at that point they won't care.
Also, at 2/3 the population, you are also dealing with intelligent irrationality, a misnomer but the potential risks from that group are much higher, complex, and more costly.
All of this has been happening for a while now yet nothing changes. The US population has been mostly been beaten down and they know that they will be shot down where they stand if they rise up. We see it in the increased militarization of the police. In my opinion I think the US ends up like Brazil. Small well protected enclaves of wealth surrounded by oceans of abandoned poverty.
Workers didn't have the power until recently, and most of them don't know they have the power yet. Covid and retiring boomer generation, followed by a smaller GenX only happened in the last 3 years.
But to answer your question, regulatory/government capture.
This article is simply cherry picked data points and anecdote. Despite some high profile layoffs, we are at basically full employment right now. Things could change, and companies are certainly tightening belts, but the reduction in search queries for a fad term [quiet quitting] isn't it.
Any time I see an article like this[0] I just wonder, "Who is trying to make me think what?"[1] The answer seems kinda obvious in this case: managers are trying to make "me" (the managed) think I don't have leverage as an employee. Treating this like it's any sort of fact admits that I don't think for myself.
Yet there will always be some people who buy into it. I've found that a distinction between independent- and conventional-minded is useful for navigating this sort of thing. It helps immensely to ask oneself, "Why do I think this?" If my answer happens to be some version of, "Because someone told me," then it's worth more independent thought.
Looking outside of tech, where conditions are "very special", it seems likely to me that there will be labor shortages for some time in the future. A lot of people are leaving the market.
Im often wondering where are they going? People got to eat right? My best guess is that they are reducing expenses and in a two person household only one is working now and secondly some are making do with occasional gig work.
Wierdly the richest countries have the fewest self employed and small businesses and the poorest countries have the most self employed people and most small businesses.
26 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 676 ms ] thread> Quiet quitting is a mindset in which employees deliberately limit work activities to their job description, meet yet not exceed the previously established expectations, never volunteer for additional tasks and do all this to merely maintain their current employment status while prioritizing their well-being over organizational goals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule#Quiet_quitting
Once upon a time, this was called "doing your job". I think this is why OP chose to say it was manufactured. It's telling that the term is "quiet quitting" rather than something which doesn't suggest someone is shirking responsibility ("job disengagement", "occupational disinterest", etc).
Talk of "quiet quitting" is an attempt from the management class to make the managed class believe they should be working harder after the latter realized they weren't actually seeing any benefits for their hard work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmq8N4A1u6A
As long as birth rates remain low, we will see worker powers continue to expand. As long as education remains expensive, we will see the supply of actually good knowledge workers decrease.
The only reason it appears employers have the upper hand at the moment is a concerted effort to drive down salaries - a power grab while interest rates are high that they can use as an excuse.
Looking to new disruptors in tech/finance over the next 5-10 years. As we saw with Meta and the other big tech co., it only takes one powerful disruptor. We will see which way the wind blows.
Here's the author's blurb: Gene Marks is a columnist, author and small business owner. His company, the Marks Group PC, provides technology and financial management services to SMBs in the US and abroad.
Mr. Marks respectfully, I hope you are advising your clients that to increase their potential hiring pool in this historically tight labor market, they embrace remote work.
Not at all, society literally breaks down if that is the case because those services would displace 2/3 of the work out there.
Hungry people riot, unrest ensues, and most people have been taught (as a core identity) that if you work hard you will be better off and have a good future for yourself and your children. Those core identity promises being recognized as lies would drive a mass movement of mostly irrational people. You then get the law of reverse effect (psychology) driving this. Who is responsible, who is to blame.
Someone will always have that answer and it need not be true because at that point they won't care.
Also, at 2/3 the population, you are also dealing with intelligent irrationality, a misnomer but the potential risks from that group are much higher, complex, and more costly.
Intelligence is speed and planning.
Right now the market for sv caliber engineering talent is incredibly hot.
But to answer your question, regulatory/government capture.
[0] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
[1] http://paulgraham.com/orth.html
Oh, it's an op/ed by an employer. Laughably transparent.
Yet there will always be some people who buy into it. I've found that a distinction between independent- and conventional-minded is useful for navigating this sort of thing. It helps immensely to ask oneself, "Why do I think this?" If my answer happens to be some version of, "Because someone told me," then it's worth more independent thought.
Never understood why the guardian gave him a platform.
Imagine, giving power to goons who touch reality with their hands, and have to see ALL the consequences of business!