Reacting to my MOST CONTROVERSIAL Video

Gonna do a reaction video. Watch one of the videos that we posted a while ago and then read the comments and respond to some of the comments. Let's see how it goes. When I was younger, if you didn't like your job or if you didn't like your boss, the bad news was you had to stay there for a year. True. It's a different time now. Back then you had to stay, otherwise it would hurt your resume. That's just a true statement. And now, particularly young people, there's no stigma to quitting. And it happens sometimes too quickly. Like if you're confrontation avoidant, and I've seen it happen, I'm too afraid to ask my boss for a raise. So I just quit. Or I've been here for four months, I don't like the culture, I quit, or I got in trouble at work, I hate my boss, I quit. And so people are quitting so much. I don't mind. If something's super toxic, get the heck out of it. Most places are not super toxic. Imperfect, yes, but toxicity is like a, like there's a standard, you know? So I think that it's true. I mean, there's been a lot said about this and written about this already, which is because of a helicopter parenting that whenever our kids got uncomfortable, we swooped them and solved the problem so that they wouldn't have to sit in discomfort. As that generation of people who had helicopter parents are entering the workforce. Discomfort is something that they're uncomfortable with. And the reality is the way we grow is through discomfort. The way we learn about ourselves is through discomfort. Of course I'm not telling anybody to stay in a job that is truly toxic or where you're being exploited by the company. But. But sometimes uncomfortable things are some of the best leadership and growth opportunities we have at work. That is true. If it's repetitive, then of course, leave. If it's just a little bit of discomfort or you're going through a period, I, you know, I am a great believer in sticking with it. Let's keep going. It's a high bar. Or this doesn't fit my values, or this doesn't agree with my politics, I quit. My fear is that if we flash forward five years, there's going to be a disproportionately high number of people who have eight jobs in five years. And what's going to happen is an employer is going to look at them, be like.

I can't take the risk that you're going to stick around. I'm not hiring you you sound like an amazing candidate, but you're too high risk for me. And because you've had so many jobs over such a short period of time, you actually haven't stuck around long enough to build up a skill set or know what it's like to manage a storm. So this is one of those predictions that time will tell. You know, I could be completely wrong. This is what I, as somebody who has hired people and looked at their resumes, that if I saw somebody who bounced around their job every six months and I'm just the next on the list, I am going to ask them about it. Like, how can you keep changing jobs? But B, it absolutely would make me nervous that if I hire this person, even if they're fantastic, am I going to just lose them in six months? I'm going to invest time and energy in training them and they're going to fill a space needed in the company. So just coming from somebody who sometimes does hire people, that would cause me concern. But maybe I'm wrong. You've stuck around in the good times and bailed in the bad times. And so you have now been in the workforce for five years, but you don't have five years of work experience. You have four months of work experience. And so I don't want you either because you've never been through a battle. And I see it happening. A young person who's been at a company for eight months goes to their boss and says, I want a raise. I want a significant raise because I'm doing the same job as those people. Those people have been in the workforce for 10 years. I know, but I'm doing the same work as them and I'm doing good work. That's true. You are doing the same work as them and you are doing good work. The difference is I'm not paying them just because they obliquely been in the workforce for 10 years. I'm paying them because you know how to hoist a mainsail in calm waters. And you can hoist a mainsail in calm waters as well as they can hoist a mainsail in calm waters. The difference is they also know how to hoist a mainsail in a storm. I don't know if you can hoist a mainsail in a storm. I like the metaphor, but this is one of those things where it's just the annoying thing of somebody who's been in the workforce for a while. I had the exact same opinion when I was young in my career, which is I'm doing Doing the same work. I'm doing the work better. I couldn't understand why I wasn't being paid the same as people who've been in the workforce longer than me. I had the exact same attitude. And this is one of those annoying things for people who are young in their careers to even hear because it sounds counterintuitive to their own experience. But there is something to be said for having worked in the workforce for a while. You gain perspective and point of view and know how to manage difficult situations just because of experience, not because you're smarter. It's just you should have been through it before. I think you could apply the same logic to almost everything. You know, somebody who's had a couple of relationships, hopefully knows how to manage them better. And somebody who's, you know, played a few games of backgammon.

Is better at understanding the strategy of backgammon. Not because they're smarter. It's because they've had some experience, they've had some practice. And I think having some practice at work is a true thing. Again, it's annoying to hear when somebody's young in their career, I get it. I was the same way. I pay them more because I know that if we run into hard times, I know that they know what to do, and I can trust that we can navigate. And I also know that they will teach you how to hoist a mainsail in a storm. It's like the same reason I buy insurance. I don't expect my house to burn down, but I pay just in case I'm paying them more for skillset that I hope they never have to use. That's why they get more. All right, let's look at some of the comments. Just remember to speak from the perspective of an employer. Yes, that's true. That's why I share the point about, you know, if somebody has lots of jobs on a resume and they don't stick around, that that would cause me concern that that is the perspective of an employer. I'm trying to share the perspective of what other employers.

Why is it always the employees that must be better, but not the employer? I do not believe that at all. I believe that there's responsibility on both sides, and it's the employer who has to go first, because they have. They do have the perspective and they do have the experience, and they, you know, they should exhibit better leadership qualities. It's like a relationship. Nobody says one party has to be better. Both parties have to be better. So, yeah, of course, of course. Completely agree with that. One, they have to be both. Except jobs can actually have no loyalty to their employees. That's true. You can stay fatigue 10 years and the new hire will start at a higher rate there. That is true that we live in a day and age where companies do seem to show less loyalty to their employees. We see this. The fact that mass layoffs are a standardized thing now to balance the books didn't exist many, many years ago. So that one's true. This is hilarious because the minute the company hits the storm, they will manage by getting rid of the people. Agree. And I completely am against that. In the defense of young people who are comfortable with quitting, you know, it is companies that set the rules. Companies show less loyalty to their employees and then they're surprised when their employees show less loyalty to them. I agree it should be, it should be an even street. But I'm, I'm talking about when a company does care about their people and does show loyalty, that there still seems to be a greater comfort with quitting more than staying. But I completely agree with, with that one. I'm completely against when a company just, you know, has a bad year that they just have layoffs to manage the books. I completely agree with that. Been at the Same place for 10 years, stuck it out, hoping for the best because it's so close to home. Don't waste your lives. It's not worth it. I mean, there's truth in that as well, which is it's not all one thing and all the other thing. It's not like. And 10 years is a long time to stick to the place, you know, two or three years or one or two years to realize if there's opportunity there. I don't think I'd stick somewhere 10 years either. Corporations did this to our generation. They stopped valuing, taking care of their employees and in return we stopped being loyal. I mean, yes, I completely agree. And I think so many of the challenges that employers are complaining about today were things that they set in motion for the past 20, 30 years and the fact that we've become so finite minded and so short termist that we care much more about what the shareholder gets than what the employee gets. I think you're 100% right. Dirty B 9 11. It's true. And so the question is, how do we balance it? And this is the work that I do. I'm trying to get leadership to change. I'm trying to get companies to abandon everything Jack Welch did, to abandon using mass layoffs to balance the books. That's I Agree. I agree, but I think there's a push me pull you. I think we can't just shrug our shoulders and say, you change first. Change can start from anywhere. Um, anyway, most places are not super toxic. Best piece of fiction I've ever heard this week. Most places aren't super toxic. That is a true statement. There might be dysfunctional leaders, there might be ill equipped leaders, there might be discomfort. Discomfort. But super toxic, I mean, toxicity is like when you work in a super toxic place. You have somebody yelling at you every day, you have somebody demeaning you every day, you have somebody destroying your self confidence every day. You have somebody undermining you every day. You have somebody backstabbing you every day. Those bosses exist and those jobs exist. But I mean, most, I mean, if that were the case, I mean, I think I don't. But boy, I mean, is that really true. Most, I had the stigma until I saw people getting fired without notice. Agree, agree, agree. When people work till midnight, no respect. Agree, agree, agree. I think there's a lot of comments in here that I completely agree with. All of my books are basically me railing against the way business has gone for the past 30 years to get it to be more human centric. I'm simply proposing that discomfort is part of growth and if somebody's thinking long term about their careers, that sometimes staying in a job that's not toxic, but a job that may not be perfect is actually a great lesson for growth.

I don't want to go through that again, but I'm glad it happened. You know, I mean, I look at jobs that I've had, I worked for bosses that were pretty crap. I don't want that again. I don't want to work for them ever again. But I'm glad it happened because I learned a lot about camaraderie and I learned a lot about what not to do. I tell you one thing that does happen all the time when I rail against the companies as well, which is if you have a manager that can't hold on to employees, they have huge turnover rates that the company doesn't seem to think that it's the manager that's the problem. You know, I've seen this happen so many times, they'll go to the manager and say, what's going on? They go, well, it's a difficult local job. I can't hold on to people. I'm like, hold on. The only common factor in all the people that are churning through here is you. So I think companies can do a better job if they see high churn in a job that it's probably the leader. And I've seen it happen so many times, and usually it's because that leader is very numbers driven and they are able to, you know, really hurt people to make the numbers work and then people quit. It's a, it's a short term strategy that ultimately, as we're learning, doesn't pay dividends. So I think I agree with most of the comments that one of the things I think that we're doing here is trying to make a better version of capitalism, more human centric version of capitalism. Well, thanks for watching. I kind of like doing the reaction videos, if I'm honest. But if you like it, I'll do more of them. Yeah, thanks for watching.