Unless you're on the fast track through management, working within the same company for two decades guarantees that you will have difficulty finding a job at another company should the need arise. Especially in companies like Boeing, where titles such as Internal Auditor and Analyst mean you are essentially a drone doing tasks that do not require critical thinking (I speak from experience).
People need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. At some point you need to look out for yourself, your skills and your future employability outside of the company. Perform well at your job, demand the upfront compensation you deserve and take responsibility for your own career...don't leave it in the hands of a large company bureaucracy.
>this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years.
I don't know about the private sector, but public sector pensions seem generous to me. Especially if you take the first 'early retirement' plan you can get on, if you live for an above-average period of time, it's really quite a lot of cash. Did you know that after you retire and start drawing a government pension you can go back to work in a different department (while drawing your first pension and a paycheck) and if you stay in that new department for a specified number of years, you can retire again, and draw two pensions? Also, your pension is a percentage of your salary... your salary when you retire, not an average of your salary.
That's always been my backup plan, anyhow... if it didn't look like I was going to do ok as a business person by the time I was 30 or so (we're down to a month, and I'd say it looks like I'm doing okay. Not great, but okay.) the plan was to get a government job with a pension.
Really, it makes little sense to work for the government when you are young. your pension is calculated based on your age and your years of service, so as far as pension contributions go, years you put in while older earn more pension, and entry-level salaries for most government jobs usually suck compared to the same position in the private sector. so it makes sense to work in the private sector, gain experience and take advantage of the quicker ramp-up in wages while you are young, then at some point switch to a public sector job with a pension as you get older.
Now, personally I'm relieved that it looks like I'll be able to make it on my own. I don't really think I have the temperament for public-sector work. But economically speaking, it looks like my backup plan, which is to say, working in the private sector while young and the public sector while old is basically sound.
but you do have a good point that staying in one place for 20 years is going to, uh, limit your options when it comes time to move around. I'm just saying, the pensions the public sector kicks out, at least here in California, and assuming you live for a while after you retire, make their total compensation packages look pretty attractive for people capable of that sort of work.
Well, you're betting that government pensions will stay the same (or get better) over the next 20 or so years. That seems to me like a very bad bet to take. California is basically bankrupt from paying government worker pensions (among other reasons). What makes you think those programs will continue?
Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.
>Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.
You may very well be correct. I think it depends on how long and deep this recession is, and how much debt we are willing to take on to support the public sector workers and unions.
My point was just that, at least for people retiring now, the pension doesn't seem 'meager' - if you can get the deal the people retiring now are getting, it seems like pretty good deal. (Though yes, I don't know if if that will be possible in the future.)
I think that advice applies even more at companies like Pixar. But think about what the advice is really suggesting: demand your worth, ensure your skills are still marketable, take responsibility.
If you're working at Pixar, chances are you are still advancing your skills. You are still marketable. But if Pixar suddenly stagnated, if your advancement stopped, and you were no longer staying up with the market, you have only yourself to blame. Why is it "even more important" at Pixar? Because they are so well known, it's important to evaluate where you are.
It's the same for people from Google. Google offers a great work environment, but people still leave. Why? They outgrow Google. They take responsibility, and move forward.
As long as your employer is still pushing you forward, by all means stay. The advice isn't to give up on something you love that is helping you. It's when it stops helping you that you need to evaluate that relationship.
>People need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to
>companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years.
I do not see the loyalty that you speak of. I see a craving for security. I see a strong desire to stay at one place for 15 years (or 20, or 30). I know a lot of people for whom work is not the #1 priority. (I am not judging these people. They are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.) For some of the younger ones, there priorities might be:
Work is nowhere near their top priority, though the money it provides forms the basis of everything else they do. But their focus is on the "everything else" rather than the work.
To jump around from job to job usually means that work is your #1 priority (or maybe #2). It means you need to keep your skills razor sharp and up-to-date. It means you constantly confront the realities of the market. A great surfer doesn't daydream when they are riding a dangerous wave - that would get them killed. Likewise, a successful freelancer doesn't ignore the market - that will get them killed financially.
But, again, when I say all this, I'm not being judgmental about the folks for whom work is the #5th or #6th or #7th priority. I've several friends in that category, and they are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.
But I do not see the loyalty you speak of. To be truly loyal, these folks would make work their #1 priority and would give 100% of their energy to the corporation. There are exceptions, but that is not what I generally see. In the last 10 years, I've twice worked stints in big corporations. What I saw were a lot of people who would work a strict 9-to-5 schedule, and they would be gone by 4:30 on Fridays. They gave the corporations the minimum effort to keep the job, rather than giving 100% of what they were capable of. That is not what I would describe as loyalty. However, the corporations were in no way loyal to the workers, so the worker's lack of loyalty was wholly rational and entirely justified.
The relationship between big corporations and their workers can get dysfunctional. I see that as one of the big problems that big corporations need to wrestle with - possibly the biggest problem that large organizations face is this problem of motivation. Small companies have a different set of problems.
I can completely understand that, but the results are going to be commensurate with the effort those people put in. If someone prioritizes something as the sixth most important priority in their life, then they really have nothing to be disappointed about when the performance for that area of their life is not as strong as the above five things.
Even easier, use a HTTP referrer spoofer (like RefControl in Firefox) and set the referrer to news.google.com or similar, and you never hit the registration wall. Works for FT, WaPo, etc. too.
Too much effort - the last thing I need is more newspaper spam begging me to pay up for something I need, with no escape in sight. Maybe if I lived in NY.
They won't email you unless you want them to. I have been registered for years and haven't gotten one email. I've also only had to sign in once this year, when I got a new computer. It's well worth the effort.
We ought to have a basic income, or at least retraining and job placement that's actually effective. When the country has a surplus of housing stock, threatening her with homelessness is a ridiculously cruel penalty for her inability to personally deduce what our wacky economy wants more of.
>or at least retraining and job placement that's actually effective.
Figure out how to do that, even at an exorbitant cost, and you have yourself quite a business model. As far as I can tell, it's not something that has been figured out yet, in the private or public sector.
Retraining for what? From what I can see retraining efforts are mostly a waste of money - you can apply for as many jobs as you want with a training certificate, but in this economy there are no jobs for people without actual experience.
You know, if she wants to postpone homelessness, she could also sell her "breathtaking piece of property overlooking the sound" with a "lighthouse garret atop the house" and move into a studio apt near a bigger city.
On a 12 month lease, landlords tend to accept a bank statement showing $18x monthly rent in lieu of good credit/employment. Assuming the Seattle area is just as expensive as the NY area, she would only need to have $18k equity in the house to meet that bar.
I tend to see capitalism as "father" and socialism as "mother"? You need to earn your fathers respect, but mother gives her unconditional love. Every child needs a little bit of both to grow up happily? One can make do without either one, but life is just so much better with both parents.
I am divided on this issue, on one hand it make it easier to live on the margin. On the other hand it removes the incentive to stay on unemployment vs. getting a job that pays the same amount. Aka. 500$ / week makes anything under 30k a pay cut after commuting expenses, and anything under 40k a minimal increase.
To avoid that weird incentives gap the basic income should be unconditional, so without a means test. Regardless if they are unemployed or employed every citizen receives every week or month a mount of money. No questions asked. Any money you make from a job is just additional income.
The expectation is that people will want to work. Naturally a unconditional basic income will change things: Some will seek employment, others will start a business, and then there are the open source programmers. etc. Another advantage is that one could eliminate minimum wage.
I'd much prefer a basic job guarantee. Instead of just giving out free money, taken from the productive, the government is obligated to give a basic job to all comers.
That job could take many forms - cleaning courthouses and prisons for the unskilled, DMV clerk for the skilled. But it is important that the job be unpleasant and low paid, so that people have an incentive to seek more useful jobs in the private sector.
Basic jobs fulfills the same goals as basic income (no one is destitute) while reducing the disincentives to work that basic income creates.
I'm proposing a form of help which is fairly cheap (some of the work is stuff the govt would pay for anyway) and has good incentives [1]. For this reason, basic jobs would be a great substitute for unemployment, welfare, etc.
Just because I generally want the government to do less doesn't mean that I don't want them to do things efficiently and with as few unwanted side effects as possible.
The fact that the USSR did it doesn't make it bad policy - that's the reverse Mussolini fallacy. It would also not be a bad thing to make the trains run on time.
[1] For comparison, unemployment insurance creates bad incentives. Rather than looking for work, the woman described in this article went on vacation while collecting unemployment. Replacing unemployment with a "basic jobs" program would prevent this.
There is zero incentive to stay unemployed because you get the same money regardless of age or employment. Chances are she would have taken the same vacation, and then gotten a lower paying job sooner.
PS: It's also a smaller paycheck than SS or unemployment so it's harder to get by without a job.
It's a disincentive to work because of diminishing marginal utility - your second $10,000 of income is not as valuable to you as your first $10,000 of income. If the second $10k/year is less valuable to you than leisure, you will avoid work.
If she got neither unemployment nor basic income, but only basic work, the taxpayers would not have been forced to pay for her vacation.
(1) Being payed is not equivalent with being productive
There is a whole lot of work being done by the so called unemployed which really needs to be done but for which no-one is going to pay them. If anything open source should have proven is that while there is a lot of valuable work to be done, no-one is willing to pay for it being done, especially not in the startup phase when it's not even clear what you are working on. Fundamental work is often overlooked because it only becomes clear how to make it profitable after it is made.
Many people are payed while they are totally unproductive, while many of the most productive people are not payed any more, often even a lot less, then the unproductive people. Crap often sells better then quality work.
(2) Full employment is an illusion
There will never be 100% employment, more and more people will find themselves unable to find employment. Currently there is no safety net for the self-employed.
(3) An unconditional basic income is about basic freedom and what this means in the 21th century.
With an unconditional basic income we take worrying about survival of the table. Survival is something that should not be a worry in the civilized world. A basic income is a general safety net for any mishap, misfortune and plain bad luck than could happen to anyone.
(4) An unconditional basic income is about human dignity.
Giving people options that they don't have today: The freedom to quite an unhealthy, low paying, dead-end job and to look for something worth doing. Even if this is something like developing open source software, or some other creative endeavor.In the end more value is created even if no-one was told to do it.
Regarding 2) and 3), my proposed "Basic Job" provides that. Everyone will be eligible for the Basic Job, including the formerly self employed and the unlucky, and no one needs to worry about survival.
As for 1) and 4), you seem to believe that there are a huge number of budding Linus Torvald's out in the world, being held down by their corporate 9-5 job. I think that's bunk.
If you think I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it easily. Many people do have some variant on basic income: NYC teachers in the rubber rooms, auto workers in the no-job banks, not to mention the vast European welfare class. Could you point out to me some contributions to the open source world from such people?
No, not everyone does things that makes them famous. To be productive does not require one to either get payed or be famous, one can be quite productive and still not get payed enough and at the same time remain nearly anonymous.
Still, people like to do stuff they are passionate about?
The only thing that kills passion is struggling to survive. Scarcity eliminates options, reduces freedom, and it forces people to go into a survival mode, leaning powerlessness. Nothing good can come from this. People who struggle to survive will not have the time or energy to look for better employment or to build their own business.
To have a purpose without resources does not realize much. And if all your time is wasted to survive nothing gets done. People often confuse scarcity with necessity? Something might be very necessary but without sufficient resources innovation is impossible. Necessity is the father of invention and abundance is her mother?
History shows that shared abundance gives peace, freedom, and individual autonomy
Abundance with purpose gave us enlightenment, abundance with necessity gave us innovation.
This story reminds me a bit of my girlfriend's dad.
He worked for a defense contractor as a designer. At the time, everything was done freehand. He got laid off in the early 90's and these jobs pretty much dried up, then started to return 5 or so years later. However, everything was now being done with computers and he couldn't get a job in the field.
He has worked minimum wage jobs ever since.
I feel lucky that in software development I can keep on top of technology trends even if I were unemployed. That is how it has played out so far at least, but will it always? When will the next breakthrough, that which turns the working world on its head, arrive? Hopefully long after I retire, lest I miss the boat like so many did in the past.
So far this field generally produces the things that which drive its own productivity, which means by nature I have had an advantage of understanding new tools moreso than other fields may. I have a hard time callously telling these people they must adapt or die because I recognize that adaptation is being pressured upon them by a field foreign to their practice. Its like your boss coming in tomorrow and telling you that your future employability is based upon your ability to understand why 14 year olds are all ga-ga over Robert Pattinson.
And if you're reading this and don't know who that is, I expect your resignation by the end of the day.
The opposite side I experienced when I bought a German magazine called "brand eins" that focussed on the new kind of work. It was basically cherishing it's target audience into heaven. You came away from it thinking "hey, I can use a mobile phone, so I am a highly skilled and valuable tech worker".
I wonder about your girl-friend's dad. I really wish I could draw or design - that skill must have some value. Could he really find no other way to sell his skills? Why could he not learn to use computers?
I haven't really asked those questions - its something that was mentioned to me just before I first met her parents. She doesn't know all the details, and I don't feel comfortable bringing it up with her dad at this point.
I worked in that field thru the 1990 downturn. Before 1990 draftsman/designer job postings would ask for a lettering sample. I was laid off from an ink on vellum design shop but luckily had a buddy who was still at college and had access to a machine with AutoCad ($5000 in hardware and software in 1990). I visited him for a weekend and worked thru a teach yourself book and was then able to pass simple interview tests.
I was lucky to have access to a machine to train myself and young enough that I was still looking for an entry level position.
Older people are worried they'll be pushed aside for younger, cheaper people with better computer skills. Younger people worry with little experience they'll be pushed aside for older, more knowledgeable people. It's interesting reading both sides of the aisle.
Of course this, "In four years of job hunting, Ms. Reid has discovered that she is no longer technologically proficient." is a true telling of why it's taking so long for some people to find work.
I would agree with d2viant; the most threatening element of a resume is the conception of longevity we inherited from the 20th century social compact of loyalty between eager beavers and large corporations.
My work history is peppered mostly with companies of less than 20 people, and a good chunk of it at companies under 10. However, the job or two I have had -- and the interactions I've had with comparable consulting clients -- in places structurally describable as "enterprise" left me with an enormous appreciation of how differently a lot of the labour force there operates. Most of the people I worked with were strict 9-to-5ers of average intelligence who, over time, became highly knowledgeable, deeply entrenched maintenance experts in various legacy systems the company had, which in many cases dated back to the late 1980s; ROI is ROI. They were quite valuable to those companies, operationally.
However, they had been there 9, 10, 15, 20 years; they had virtually no transferrable skill sets whatsoever. When that technology does (did) go, so will their jobs, and they will (do) have an extremely difficult time finding another job in a competitive technology market at any place that does not specifically use those systems. Even the folks who played more generally applicable roles like accounts payable analysis, audits, marketing, etc. often became idiosyncratic domain specialists in that very company's very particular business process and very particular product and customer domain in ways that seemed to call into doubt their ability to shift into an analogous role in another place in time and space.
The zeitgeist of 1950-1990 at General Electric or Ford Motor Co. has passed; it's not coming back, I fear. If there's any advice I can give to people today so that they don't end up in this situation when they're 50, it's that you have to embrace this "up or out" approach we talk about so much here. Unless you're willingly headed toward management and significant increases in compensation, preferably short-term and relatively liquid, you need to get out after a few years. When I say management, I really do mean management; one of the pathologies I have seen a lot is to give people of the above specimen doing the same kind of grunt work year-on-year managerial-sounding titles to justify further salary increases, but whose jobs still consist of procedures and processes that suffer from the above-mentioned liabilities.
But anyway, the company will not take care of you. Company does not care. Probably will not be around forever anyway, at least not in the present form that has any relevance to you whatsoever.
I can sympathize with the fact that times are difficult but at the same time what does this prototypical worker expect? It sounds like they've been plugging away at an essentially entry level job for 20 years and now they are shocked it's hard to find new work.
I think people's problem is that they are refusing to adjust to the reality of the times. Namely that they need to live more frugally and be more proactive about finding a job instead of just submitting a few resumes online or taking an online computer skills course. As if that is some kind of herculean task.
I found it funny when reading the article that the lady took two trips overseas after getting laid off, amongst other things. She didn't spend 4-years looking for a job like the article suggest ("For Ms. Reid, it has been four years of hunting"). No. She's been unemployed for 4-years.
"Stunned and depressed, she sent out résumés, but figured she had a little time to recover. So she took vacations to Turkey and Thailand with her husband, who is a home repairman. She sought chiropractic treatments for a neck injury and helped nurse a priest dying of cancer."
This also caught me by surprise: "And now, her $500-a-week unemployment benefits have been exhausted."
That has to be wrong. Almost 4-years of unemployment? Of course...
"She has since cut back, forgoing Nordstrom shopping sprees and theater subscriptions, but also cutting out red meat at home and putting off home repairs."
I don't mean to sound harsh. I realize that finding a good job is nice. However, I can only hope to learn from this and remember that it's important to always be learning. Never rest.
I'm not certain that her issue is age related rather than geography. I find it hard to believe that nowhere in the world in the past 4 years is there a job opening she could fill with a MIS and 20 years of experience in audit.
767 jobs on Monster for: audit "masters degree" "information systems"
2 of those jobs are within 20 miles of Seattle, WA (Vashon is an island where you catch a ferry and make it to your job in an hour or so in town).
We live in a global labor pool now and people have a hard time accepting that. You may need to go to the work rather than having the option of choosing from a number of jobs right by where you choose to live.
sure there are...but do you think a company would want to interview someone from 500 miles away? How much must they suck...that they have to be desperate enough to seek a job that far away?
It isn't about "sucking" or not, it is about having a specialized versus generalized skill set. Both candidates and companies have to look outside of their local markets to make a match the more specialized they make their search.
We're (I work for Rackspace Hosting) constantly flying people out for interviews from all over as we look to find the ideal person for a role. For a company it is much more expensive to settle and hire a non-ideal candidate over time than it is to spend some money on the interview and selection process. The same applies even for valley based companies -- do you think Google or Facebook have a policy of "local candidates only"?
I've personally moved more than 100 miles for a job, several times. hell, I've interviewed on the other side of the country and I got the job (I ended up getting a better offer in the sf bay area, so I didn't end up going, but I got the job in Virginia, even if I didn't take it.)
and I've worked with some other people who worked from home most of the time and commuted more than 100 miles once or twice a week.
I've recently been contemplating two separate problems we have in this country, and I think I've come up with a partial solution to both.
Problem 1: Illegal immigrants.
Problem 2: Americans who can't find a job.
This seems like a matching problem. I propose that DHS crack down hard on employers of illegal immigrants. To solve problem 2, they must coordinate with local unemployment agencies. DHS will arrest and deport illegal immigrants. For each illegal thus deported, the unemployment benefits of an American (maybe whoever has been on unemployment the longest) will be terminated and they will be ordered to report to work at the former employer of the illegal. Employing a formerly unemployed American will be part of the penalty for the employer of the illegal immigrant.
To induce cooperation among employers, we could create an amnesty program. Employers can report their illegal workers to DHS and avoid paying fines. Maybe DHS/Unemployment Office will even give extra help to minimize disruption to your business (i.e., no deportation until the day replacements are available).
[edit: to those downmodding, just curious. Is there an obvious flaw in my plan that I'm missing?]
I didn't downmod you, but a couple potential issues are:
- The job market isn't always a zero-sum game, so immigrants aren't always "stealing" jobs from citizens.
- Illegal immigrants are often in low-paying jobs involving manual labor, jobs that many citizens wouldn't consider even if they were available. (Anecdotally, I know one landscaping company that offers all their jobs to legal immigrants/citizens first, and if no one takes them they go to H-1B visas, and if those run out they start looking at illegal immigrants.)
In the short term, it is zero sum. In the long run, I agree with you. Therefore, such a scheme would be best used only for people who have been unemployed for a reasonably long period of time (say, 6 weeks).
As for citizens being unwilling to accept available jobs, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay unemployment benefits to people who are unwilling to work?
"Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older."
So 15% of all unemployed are over 55. That doesn't seem that excessive. If we assumed that the labor force is uniformly distributed (which it probably isn't) from 20 to 65, the expected number is 3.3 million.
And the unemployment rate for that group is 2% lower than the overall rate. This story hams up the emotional manipulation, but the statistics it presents make it look like this group is better off.
I find it really offensive that the Times describes 50-60 as a "vulnerable" time in these people's lives. That's the age of your peak prosperity, when you have the most assets to liquidate for here-and-now expenses.
The centerpiece of the story was a 57 year old female from Boeing. If her financial planning or outcomes were so poor as to leave her near-penniless at 57, she was going to be a bag lady sooner or later. It was just a matter of time. Imagining she could save for an adequate retirement in the ten remaining years of her career was delusional.
I don't think this piece is about a woman who is near penniless at the age of 57, but rather a woman and her husband who might be forced into retirement 10+ years sooner than they anticipated. I think most financially responsible families would be hard pressed to make their retirement stretch an extra 10 years.
That's an equally terrible excuse. At the very least, you have to plan for the possibility that your health will force you into retirement. As you move into your 50s, your risk of catastrophic illness shoots upwards.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of hale, hearty 60 year old women in the world. It's just that one can no longer count on good health. It's important to realize this ahead of time. (In this case, this woman and her husband are really in pretty good shape. Sure, she's not working, but at least she is still capable of working!)
For those in the telecom industry, this has been a pervasive fear since the early 2000's. My mother has a Ph.D. from MIT, has worked at Bell Labs, and is generally productive as hell. After the telecom bust, it took her years to find a job. When she did, it was in another country.
She eventually did make it back here and got a job. But only after getting another Master's degree in analytics (her 5th degree!)
65 comments
[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadPeople need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. At some point you need to look out for yourself, your skills and your future employability outside of the company. Perform well at your job, demand the upfront compensation you deserve and take responsibility for your own career...don't leave it in the hands of a large company bureaucracy.
I don't know about the private sector, but public sector pensions seem generous to me. Especially if you take the first 'early retirement' plan you can get on, if you live for an above-average period of time, it's really quite a lot of cash. Did you know that after you retire and start drawing a government pension you can go back to work in a different department (while drawing your first pension and a paycheck) and if you stay in that new department for a specified number of years, you can retire again, and draw two pensions? Also, your pension is a percentage of your salary... your salary when you retire, not an average of your salary.
That's always been my backup plan, anyhow... if it didn't look like I was going to do ok as a business person by the time I was 30 or so (we're down to a month, and I'd say it looks like I'm doing okay. Not great, but okay.) the plan was to get a government job with a pension.
Really, it makes little sense to work for the government when you are young. your pension is calculated based on your age and your years of service, so as far as pension contributions go, years you put in while older earn more pension, and entry-level salaries for most government jobs usually suck compared to the same position in the private sector. so it makes sense to work in the private sector, gain experience and take advantage of the quicker ramp-up in wages while you are young, then at some point switch to a public sector job with a pension as you get older.
Now, personally I'm relieved that it looks like I'll be able to make it on my own. I don't really think I have the temperament for public-sector work. But economically speaking, it looks like my backup plan, which is to say, working in the private sector while young and the public sector while old is basically sound.
but you do have a good point that staying in one place for 20 years is going to, uh, limit your options when it comes time to move around. I'm just saying, the pensions the public sector kicks out, at least here in California, and assuming you live for a while after you retire, make their total compensation packages look pretty attractive for people capable of that sort of work.
Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.
You may very well be correct. I think it depends on how long and deep this recession is, and how much debt we are willing to take on to support the public sector workers and unions.
My point was just that, at least for people retiring now, the pension doesn't seem 'meager' - if you can get the deal the people retiring now are getting, it seems like pretty good deal. (Though yes, I don't know if if that will be possible in the future.)
Would you give this advice to an animator at Pixar?
If you're working at Pixar, chances are you are still advancing your skills. You are still marketable. But if Pixar suddenly stagnated, if your advancement stopped, and you were no longer staying up with the market, you have only yourself to blame. Why is it "even more important" at Pixar? Because they are so well known, it's important to evaluate where you are.
It's the same for people from Google. Google offers a great work environment, but people still leave. Why? They outgrow Google. They take responsibility, and move forward.
As long as your employer is still pushing you forward, by all means stay. The advice isn't to give up on something you love that is helping you. It's when it stops helping you that you need to evaluate that relationship.
I do not see the loyalty that you speak of. I see a craving for security. I see a strong desire to stay at one place for 15 years (or 20, or 30). I know a lot of people for whom work is not the #1 priority. (I am not judging these people. They are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.) For some of the younger ones, there priorities might be:
1.) education
2.) romantic partner
3.) family
4.) social life
5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc)
6.) work
For some of the older ones, their priorities might be:
1.) children
2.) romantic partner
3.) parents (if parents are still alive)
4.) social life
5.) hobbies (motor cycle racing, video games, knitting, yoga, jogging, sailing, fishing, etc)
6.) work
Work is nowhere near their top priority, though the money it provides forms the basis of everything else they do. But their focus is on the "everything else" rather than the work.
To jump around from job to job usually means that work is your #1 priority (or maybe #2). It means you need to keep your skills razor sharp and up-to-date. It means you constantly confront the realities of the market. A great surfer doesn't daydream when they are riding a dangerous wave - that would get them killed. Likewise, a successful freelancer doesn't ignore the market - that will get them killed financially.
But, again, when I say all this, I'm not being judgmental about the folks for whom work is the #5th or #6th or #7th priority. I've several friends in that category, and they are all healthier, happier, nicer and more sane than I am.
But I do not see the loyalty you speak of. To be truly loyal, these folks would make work their #1 priority and would give 100% of their energy to the corporation. There are exceptions, but that is not what I generally see. In the last 10 years, I've twice worked stints in big corporations. What I saw were a lot of people who would work a strict 9-to-5 schedule, and they would be gone by 4:30 on Fridays. They gave the corporations the minimum effort to keep the job, rather than giving 100% of what they were capable of. That is not what I would describe as loyalty. However, the corporations were in no way loyal to the workers, so the worker's lack of loyalty was wholly rational and entirely justified.
The relationship between big corporations and their workers can get dysfunctional. I see that as one of the big problems that big corporations need to wrestle with - possibly the biggest problem that large organizations face is this problem of motivation. Small companies have a different set of problems.
I've seen a couple of comments like this lately, and each time - had no paywall pop-up.
Is it a geographic thing or something? I'm in the UK so maybe they don't bother targeting people outside the USA?
Figure out how to do that, even at an exorbitant cost, and you have yourself quite a business model. As far as I can tell, it's not something that has been figured out yet, in the private or public sector.
Either you think we should have to earn a worthy living and to be treated with respect.
Or that we have the innate right to a worthy living and to be treated with respect.
What is it going to be: The law of the jungle or a more civilized world?
All civilization can be explained as "socialism": To be civil to each other, help the needy and not let the strongest take everything?
The expectation is that people will want to work. Naturally a unconditional basic income will change things: Some will seek employment, others will start a business, and then there are the open source programmers. etc. Another advantage is that one could eliminate minimum wage.
That job could take many forms - cleaning courthouses and prisons for the unskilled, DMV clerk for the skilled. But it is important that the job be unpleasant and low paid, so that people have an incentive to seek more useful jobs in the private sector.
Basic jobs fulfills the same goals as basic income (no one is destitute) while reducing the disincentives to work that basic income creates.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.h... (Article 40)
Just because I generally want the government to do less doesn't mean that I don't want them to do things efficiently and with as few unwanted side effects as possible.
The fact that the USSR did it doesn't make it bad policy - that's the reverse Mussolini fallacy. It would also not be a bad thing to make the trains run on time.
[1] For comparison, unemployment insurance creates bad incentives. Rather than looking for work, the woman described in this article went on vacation while collecting unemployment. Replacing unemployment with a "basic jobs" program would prevent this.
PS: It's also a smaller paycheck than SS or unemployment so it's harder to get by without a job.
If she got neither unemployment nor basic income, but only basic work, the taxpayers would not have been forced to pay for her vacation.
There is a whole lot of work being done by the so called unemployed which really needs to be done but for which no-one is going to pay them. If anything open source should have proven is that while there is a lot of valuable work to be done, no-one is willing to pay for it being done, especially not in the startup phase when it's not even clear what you are working on. Fundamental work is often overlooked because it only becomes clear how to make it profitable after it is made.
Many people are payed while they are totally unproductive, while many of the most productive people are not payed any more, often even a lot less, then the unproductive people. Crap often sells better then quality work.
(2) Full employment is an illusion
There will never be 100% employment, more and more people will find themselves unable to find employment. Currently there is no safety net for the self-employed.
(3) An unconditional basic income is about basic freedom and what this means in the 21th century.
With an unconditional basic income we take worrying about survival of the table. Survival is something that should not be a worry in the civilized world. A basic income is a general safety net for any mishap, misfortune and plain bad luck than could happen to anyone.
(4) An unconditional basic income is about human dignity.
Giving people options that they don't have today: The freedom to quite an unhealthy, low paying, dead-end job and to look for something worth doing. Even if this is something like developing open source software, or some other creative endeavor.In the end more value is created even if no-one was told to do it.
As for 1) and 4), you seem to believe that there are a huge number of budding Linus Torvald's out in the world, being held down by their corporate 9-5 job. I think that's bunk.
If you think I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it easily. Many people do have some variant on basic income: NYC teachers in the rubber rooms, auto workers in the no-job banks, not to mention the vast European welfare class. Could you point out to me some contributions to the open source world from such people?
Still, people like to do stuff they are passionate about?
The only thing that kills passion is struggling to survive. Scarcity eliminates options, reduces freedom, and it forces people to go into a survival mode, leaning powerlessness. Nothing good can come from this. People who struggle to survive will not have the time or energy to look for better employment or to build their own business.
To have a purpose without resources does not realize much. And if all your time is wasted to survive nothing gets done. People often confuse scarcity with necessity? Something might be very necessary but without sufficient resources innovation is impossible. Necessity is the father of invention and abundance is her mother?
History shows that shared abundance gives peace, freedom, and individual autonomy Abundance with purpose gave us enlightenment, abundance with necessity gave us innovation.
He worked for a defense contractor as a designer. At the time, everything was done freehand. He got laid off in the early 90's and these jobs pretty much dried up, then started to return 5 or so years later. However, everything was now being done with computers and he couldn't get a job in the field.
He has worked minimum wage jobs ever since.
I feel lucky that in software development I can keep on top of technology trends even if I were unemployed. That is how it has played out so far at least, but will it always? When will the next breakthrough, that which turns the working world on its head, arrive? Hopefully long after I retire, lest I miss the boat like so many did in the past.
So far this field generally produces the things that which drive its own productivity, which means by nature I have had an advantage of understanding new tools moreso than other fields may. I have a hard time callously telling these people they must adapt or die because I recognize that adaptation is being pressured upon them by a field foreign to their practice. Its like your boss coming in tomorrow and telling you that your future employability is based upon your ability to understand why 14 year olds are all ga-ga over Robert Pattinson.
And if you're reading this and don't know who that is, I expect your resignation by the end of the day.
I wonder about your girl-friend's dad. I really wish I could draw or design - that skill must have some value. Could he really find no other way to sell his skills? Why could he not learn to use computers?
I was lucky to have access to a machine to train myself and young enough that I was still looking for an entry level position.
If I can go and get very specific training to get my skills up to snuff - I consider that valuable and a benefit to society.
Of course this, "In four years of job hunting, Ms. Reid has discovered that she is no longer technologically proficient." is a true telling of why it's taking so long for some people to find work.
My work history is peppered mostly with companies of less than 20 people, and a good chunk of it at companies under 10. However, the job or two I have had -- and the interactions I've had with comparable consulting clients -- in places structurally describable as "enterprise" left me with an enormous appreciation of how differently a lot of the labour force there operates. Most of the people I worked with were strict 9-to-5ers of average intelligence who, over time, became highly knowledgeable, deeply entrenched maintenance experts in various legacy systems the company had, which in many cases dated back to the late 1980s; ROI is ROI. They were quite valuable to those companies, operationally.
However, they had been there 9, 10, 15, 20 years; they had virtually no transferrable skill sets whatsoever. When that technology does (did) go, so will their jobs, and they will (do) have an extremely difficult time finding another job in a competitive technology market at any place that does not specifically use those systems. Even the folks who played more generally applicable roles like accounts payable analysis, audits, marketing, etc. often became idiosyncratic domain specialists in that very company's very particular business process and very particular product and customer domain in ways that seemed to call into doubt their ability to shift into an analogous role in another place in time and space.
The zeitgeist of 1950-1990 at General Electric or Ford Motor Co. has passed; it's not coming back, I fear. If there's any advice I can give to people today so that they don't end up in this situation when they're 50, it's that you have to embrace this "up or out" approach we talk about so much here. Unless you're willingly headed toward management and significant increases in compensation, preferably short-term and relatively liquid, you need to get out after a few years. When I say management, I really do mean management; one of the pathologies I have seen a lot is to give people of the above specimen doing the same kind of grunt work year-on-year managerial-sounding titles to justify further salary increases, but whose jobs still consist of procedures and processes that suffer from the above-mentioned liabilities.
But anyway, the company will not take care of you. Company does not care. Probably will not be around forever anyway, at least not in the present form that has any relevance to you whatsoever.
I'm always a little suspicious of anyone who has the job title "Project Manager".
I think people's problem is that they are refusing to adjust to the reality of the times. Namely that they need to live more frugally and be more proactive about finding a job instead of just submitting a few resumes online or taking an online computer skills course. As if that is some kind of herculean task.
"Stunned and depressed, she sent out résumés, but figured she had a little time to recover. So she took vacations to Turkey and Thailand with her husband, who is a home repairman. She sought chiropractic treatments for a neck injury and helped nurse a priest dying of cancer."
This also caught me by surprise: "And now, her $500-a-week unemployment benefits have been exhausted."
That has to be wrong. Almost 4-years of unemployment? Of course...
"She has since cut back, forgoing Nordstrom shopping sprees and theater subscriptions, but also cutting out red meat at home and putting off home repairs."
I don't mean to sound harsh. I realize that finding a good job is nice. However, I can only hope to learn from this and remember that it's important to always be learning. Never rest.
767 jobs on Monster for: audit "masters degree" "information systems"
2 of those jobs are within 20 miles of Seattle, WA (Vashon is an island where you catch a ferry and make it to your job in an hour or so in town).
We live in a global labor pool now and people have a hard time accepting that. You may need to go to the work rather than having the option of choosing from a number of jobs right by where you choose to live.
We're (I work for Rackspace Hosting) constantly flying people out for interviews from all over as we look to find the ideal person for a role. For a company it is much more expensive to settle and hire a non-ideal candidate over time than it is to spend some money on the interview and selection process. The same applies even for valley based companies -- do you think Google or Facebook have a policy of "local candidates only"?
and I've worked with some other people who worked from home most of the time and commuted more than 100 miles once or twice a week.
Problem 1: Illegal immigrants.
Problem 2: Americans who can't find a job.
This seems like a matching problem. I propose that DHS crack down hard on employers of illegal immigrants. To solve problem 2, they must coordinate with local unemployment agencies. DHS will arrest and deport illegal immigrants. For each illegal thus deported, the unemployment benefits of an American (maybe whoever has been on unemployment the longest) will be terminated and they will be ordered to report to work at the former employer of the illegal. Employing a formerly unemployed American will be part of the penalty for the employer of the illegal immigrant.
To induce cooperation among employers, we could create an amnesty program. Employers can report their illegal workers to DHS and avoid paying fines. Maybe DHS/Unemployment Office will even give extra help to minimize disruption to your business (i.e., no deportation until the day replacements are available).
[edit: to those downmodding, just curious. Is there an obvious flaw in my plan that I'm missing?]
- The job market isn't always a zero-sum game, so immigrants aren't always "stealing" jobs from citizens.
- Illegal immigrants are often in low-paying jobs involving manual labor, jobs that many citizens wouldn't consider even if they were available. (Anecdotally, I know one landscaping company that offers all their jobs to legal immigrants/citizens first, and if no one takes them they go to H-1B visas, and if those run out they start looking at illegal immigrants.)
As for citizens being unwilling to accept available jobs, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay unemployment benefits to people who are unwilling to work?
So 15% of all unemployed are over 55. That doesn't seem that excessive. If we assumed that the labor force is uniformly distributed (which it probably isn't) from 20 to 65, the expected number is 3.3 million.
The centerpiece of the story was a 57 year old female from Boeing. If her financial planning or outcomes were so poor as to leave her near-penniless at 57, she was going to be a bag lady sooner or later. It was just a matter of time. Imagining she could save for an adequate retirement in the ten remaining years of her career was delusional.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of hale, hearty 60 year old women in the world. It's just that one can no longer count on good health. It's important to realize this ahead of time. (In this case, this woman and her husband are really in pretty good shape. Sure, she's not working, but at least she is still capable of working!)
She eventually did make it back here and got a job. But only after getting another Master's degree in analytics (her 5th degree!)