Over the last year, the US dollar has gained a massive amount of purchasing power against the Euro and is now sitting at about 1:1 and the highest it has been since the turn of the millennium.
Inflation is good for something apparently.
Since I earn in Euros in Finland however, this doesn't pan out so well for me, as pretty much everything in the country is imported and priced internationally in dollars, making everything far more expensive than it was earlier. So, while prices are going up for various reasons, simultaneously, the purchasing power of the Euro that procures the goods is going down, widening the gap even further.
I was reading today that recently, the mean income in Finland surpassed 3300€ a month for the first time, but what locals need to remember is that it has to be considered relative to living costs. While the income has trickled up, living costs have shot up over the last two years, meaning that everyone on average is worse off than they were earlier. Any extra money they might feel they have, is going up in flames through inflation of goods and services costs.
Another article I was reading was trying to say to people that they shouldn't "rush for pay rises" because it could end up costing them. Essentially, they made it sound like getting a payrise was a bad thing, because managers were overpromoting people in order to procure head counts, even if they weren't fully qualified for the position. So, they ended up with under performers and often, people would a few months later, be looking for a new job with a higher salary, hoping to cash in on the inflated title and bargaining position.
Don't be fooled, a payrise is great!
However, I do think that the people who are moving only for salary and able to get increases because of the scarcity, are eventually going to run out of track, if they don't build actual skills along the way. And often, this is part of the challenge with moving for money, because there is also an expectation that a person can do the job the money demands, and the first thing to get cut back in economic downturns at companies is usually, the training.
So, the move for money can backfire, especially when people find themselves in overpromoted positions that hold responsibility and expectations, but find they can't actually do the full job they were hired for. Obviously, it can be stressful to show up for a job each day you can't actually do, but it is worse for the younger generations who tend to be less resilient to trying conditions, often blaming "bad bosses" for their own poor performance.
Anyone but themselves.
And, how long can that job change merry-go-round last? Because at some point, the Good companies that actually look after their staff, are going to not hire people who have changed too often, as they are seen as non-committed and unreliable.
The general sense is if you are changing your employer too often, it isn't the employer that is the problem.
Think about it in terms of a team sports star - are they traded every year, or do they stick it out at a high performing club for the wins? What about the people who are looking for love - are they flipping partners on Tinder nightly looking for "the one"?
Or is it a numbers game.
When it comes to employment, the numbers matter of course, because most people would choose to do something else if they didn't need the money - however, maximizing the salary in the short term can cost salary in the long term, as unless battlefield tested C-level with proven track-record, most companies will have a career path process to move upward. Some positions demand that process and don't fill with externals, because they have to trust the person and trust takes time to develop.
Most people are not C-level employees with enough track-record to walk into a high-level position cold.
So what ends up happening is that at some point, there is the Death of the Salesman effect, where favor turns and companies are no longer willing to take anyone, they want actual skill. At that point, the market becomes highly lucrative for those who have the proven experience that they are trustworthy, but it is acceptable to change companies because "it is time" to move on from pone position. These people get headhunted or recommended by their trusted network.
The people who change jobs all the time, do not get recommended by their friends.
Would you put your social and professional capital on the table to recommend someone for your company that you know changes jobs every six months for money and cites "bad bosses" as the reasoning? Like the people who are continually in bad relationships, at some point you have to say that they have a "type" and,
They are the ones getting into the relationship.
Judgement has to be called into question.
But, when times are tough, it is hard to make good career calls when there is the need for more money, isn't it? More money is always a popular reasoning to shift jobs and when people are worried about their electricity bills going 8x, that bit extra is very attractive.
Under pressure, we tend to make decisions we wouldn't when we have "all the resources int he world", and generally they aren't in our favor. It is decision-making from a position of panic of a sort and while it seems like the smart option at the time, it can very quickly prove otherwise. And when it comes to career decisions, careers are long and depending on country and field, networks can be quite small.
Finland has a small network, which is part of the reason that the companies that look after their people well and offer opportunity, tend to be filled with people willing to commit to the company, as they are recommended and headhunted through the network of trust. This means they end up pooling in these companies and strengthen the value proposition of working for them, as the companies are more likely to be successful, have a healthy culture and be able to better support their people, including through training.
The other companies that don't look after their employees have the opposite happen, where they don't attract the best people and the culture becomes an inhibiting factor that drives the best away. It is a catch-22 for them, where even if they want to attract the best, they already have the not so good, meaning they can pay well, but soon, the best will realize this is not the place for them, and leave to somewhere else - because they have proven record and can.
In many respects, it becomes somewhat of a death spiral for a company, where depending on model, doesn't necessarily mean collapse, but it can mean mediocrity. And, most of us are mediocre, but working for companies that are above average, tends to have a knock-on effect through skilling within the company, meaning that a mediocre foot in the door, can lead to a highly talented and sought after person a few years later.
A few years...
When chasing the highest paycheck, no one has time for a few years. And while some will say "I won't get out of bed for less than..." - Those people generally end up, spending a lot of time in their bed. And eventually, having to take anything they are offered, because they haven't developed their capabilities and trust, so have lost the potential they may have once had, to pick and choose.
Up in flames.
What's the salary?
That might be the wrong differentiator to focus on.
What are the career path and upskilling possibilities?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]