You're concerned that people can be immoral because their economic decisions are harmful to corporations? You're worried about whether both sides are "happy" when one side is a corporation incapable of experiencing feelings? I think you've lost track of what's important.
Your argument isn't just about cold-calling; you seem to be saying it's "immoral" to consider switching jobs at all. But you are not in moral debt to your employer. It is entirely reasonable to want a higher salary, and we shouldn't cry for the corporations that have to pay it.
Switching jobs comes at a cost to the person, too. It involves breaking professional connections and quite possibly relocating. It seems considerably more disruptive to the life of the person who's switching jobs than to the company who has to train someone else, so they're probably doing it for a good reason.
Your life is more than your work. Your project is not your "baby". You might have a baby that's your baby.
I'm not sure what it means to take a job "out of desperation" if it doesn't apply to basically everyone. Most people work because they need money. If these people didn't need money, they wouldn't work for Apple or Google. Maybe they'd start an unprofitable lifestyle business doing what they love. Maybe they'd do something very fulfilling and very unprofitable, like teaching.
There is so much more that you can aspire to than advancing Google's bottom line. If your goals align with Google's, it's entirely because of the paycheck.
> If these people didn't need money, they wouldn't work for Apple or Google.
That’s definitely not true[1] for many of the engineers that I know at these companies. There are lots of extremely valuable and interesting engineering projects that are only possible to tackle in the context of a large corporation (or agency) with billion-dollar budgets and the scale and influence that brings.
[1] How do I know? Because they don’t need the money; they’ve seen enough RSUs in their careers that they could easily “do what they loved” if it were anything other than what they’re doing now. Also, because they tell me as much.
> You're concerned that people can be immoral because their economic decisions are harmful to corporations? You're worried about whether both sides are "happy" when one side is a corporation incapable of experiencing feelings? I think you've lost track of what's important.
I feel like your mind is playing a trick on you. Corporations don't exist as a standalone entity. They're an aggregate entity - one that's made of people.
It's not corporations vs. people. It's people trying to be happy working with other people who also are trying to be happy. We're all trying to work together and build something that's bigger than any of us.
A corporation can't "feel", but it also can't "think", or "decide". The people in it feel, think and decide.
When people "harm the corporation", they hurt other people whose hard work gets diminished in the process.
Maybe you think management is "incapable of feeling", well, then sure, you better leave that company. But I'm insulted by the implication that's the rule, rather than the exception.
And also I'm insulted by the implication these companies are in it just for the money. While Google and Apple, the two biggest companies mired in this scandal are led by people with widely different world views, do you honestly think they're in it just for the money?
Maybe you're letting your cynicism inform your opinions too much, or maybe you're working for a company that really is focused just on money. But don't speak for everyone.
If you're not personifying corporations, I just don't understand who's supposed to be "unhappy" when a worker gets a raise.
The person in payroll? It doesn't actually make them unhappy to put higher numbers on a check.
Someone in management who sets budgets? Working with economic constraints is their job. People I know in this role are happy when they're able to give raises, because their employees are happy.
The shareholders? Cry me a goddamn river.
Of course there are people who are passionate about their work at large corporations, but you can't tell me that the large corporation is what they would choose if they could do anything they wanted with their life and money was no object.
Your argument isn't just about cold-calling; you seem to be saying it's "immoral" to consider switching jobs at all. But you are not in moral debt to your employer. It is entirely reasonable to want a higher salary, and we shouldn't cry for the corporations that have to pay it.
Switching jobs comes at a cost to the person, too. It involves breaking professional connections and quite possibly relocating. It seems considerably more disruptive to the life of the person who's switching jobs than to the company who has to train someone else, so they're probably doing it for a good reason.
Your life is more than your work. Your project is not your "baby". You might have a baby that's your baby.
I'm not sure what it means to take a job "out of desperation" if it doesn't apply to basically everyone. Most people work because they need money. If these people didn't need money, they wouldn't work for Apple or Google. Maybe they'd start an unprofitable lifestyle business doing what they love. Maybe they'd do something very fulfilling and very unprofitable, like teaching.
There is so much more that you can aspire to than advancing Google's bottom line. If your goals align with Google's, it's entirely because of the paycheck.