Sociologist: Job Insecurity Is the New Normal 585
Mr.Intel writes: Allison Pugh, professor of Sociology at University of Virginia, and author of The Tumbleweed Society: Working and Caring in an Age of Insecurity, says workers in the U.S. are caught up in a "one-way honor system," in which workers are beholden to employers. She says that the golden era when Americans could get a job, keep it, and expect to retire with an adequate pension are over. JP Morgan Chase has cut 20,000 from its workforce in the past 5 years, last year HP cut 34,000 jobs, and many others have announced layoffs. In this interview Pugh talks about the social effects of this "insecurity culture."
Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a blast from the past.. "within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital."
Karl Marx, Capital, Vol 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Funny)
Look son, we're a tolerant crowd around here, but you go spouting that Commie Pinko crap off in some placers, yer likely to get yer head sawed off by some good ol' boys.
Stick to the Bible, son. It's for the best.
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Stick to the Bible, son. It's for the best.
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat (Exodus 16:16-18
All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)
You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. You shall give him his wages on the same day, before the sun sets (for he is poor and counts on it), lest he cry against you to the Lord, and you be guilty of sin.Deuteronomy 24:14
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You ain't supposed to read the damn thing!
You're just supposed to thump it, while telling others what to do!
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it is called 'Enhancing Shareholder Value' these days
The current variation on the theme involves identifying employees that are owed pensions, converting said pensions (long term debt held by the Company) into 401k's, owned by the employee (at a rate below what the pension should have paid out at), then removing the employee from their position while replacing them with contract labor
This looks really great on the balance sheet, but faces long-term viability as companies face loss of job knowledge and higher long-term contracting costs, that outweigh the fudged numbers they used to make the idea look feasible. Unfortunately, the ass-hats that come up with these ideas usually get bonuses and leave their positions before the shit hits the fans and shareholders are left holding the bag of a broken company and out of control contracting fees
Re: (Score:3)
The current variation on the theme involves identifying employees that are owed pensions, converting said pensions (long term debt held by the Company) into 401k's, owned by the employee (at a rate below what the pension should have paid out at), then removing the employee from their position while replacing them with contract labor
While I understand your point, in the US at least ERISA laws do protect pensions to a reasonable extent. But what is happening, almost universally, is the discontinuation of defined-benefit pensions as a benefit. If you have one already, you generally get to keep it, although it might get frozen. But if you don't have a defined benefit plan, you're not going to get one. A 401k or equivalent is all you're going to get, maybe with some limited matching or company contribution. These days you're pretty much on
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Informative)
It's much worse if you're not financially literate.
I work retail, at Home Depot. And some of my coworkers who actually have very good brains (one is a plumber), have made the interesting mistake of quitting their previous jobs, taking the cash from their 401k, and then not rolling it over to a new 401k within the 60 day period, which led to them a) paying full income tax on it, and b) paying a 10% penalty. One found out from his tax guy before he spent it, so he ended up with enough to pay off his house note and not much else; the plumber is still paying off the IRS.
This is a whole lot more complicated then operating a pension, and there's nobody you can call from your Union (who a) knows you personally because you worked together, and b) probably has a long history of dealing with the issues of people like you and your pension system) to talk to when you get confused.
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans are so predictable. Somebody complains some ridiculously intricate policy set up by the US Congress is too complicated for people who, unlike members of the US Congress, are not upper-middle-class Anglos, and they say a) it's their own damn fault for not being upper-middle-class Anglos, and b) we need to reform the education system.
Well, my fine upper-middle-class friend, everyone has to use the retirement system. It is not an option. Legal Mexicans, illegal Mexicans, people who are actually mentally handicapped, your mother, everyone. This implies that a system designed with 8 different plan types (IRA, 401k, 403b, and 457; all of which also come in Roth varieties), most of which I cannot quite articulate the difference between despite having an 8-hour class on the tax implications of individual retirement accounts this Saturday, is probably too damn complex.
As for the education system, these guys are Baby Boomers. 401ks were not legalized until '78, and not "discovered" by the private sector until 1980. They were out of the school system before the rules existed. Relying on shit people learn when they're 17 to guide their retirement decisions when they're 67 is not a terribly wise plan.
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reading a text in a godly way isn't hard to do either... if you're Morgan Freeman.
Building a complex dashboard in OBIEE isn't hard to do... from my point of view.
Developing a dynamic website is also not hard... for someone out there. For me, it's impossible.
Every thing that's simple to someone might be complicated for someone else. Now, we're talking about a thing that might drive you into (or literally under) the ground financially speaking if done wrong. There should be no room for mistake. If there is, of if the retirement plans are too complicated for more than 1% of population, then it should be simplified/redesigned/reformed/whatever.
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I've noticed too is that when they try to transition from a well cared for workforce to one in which the company essentially says "Work hard, but be ready to get fired at any moment" suddenly a lot of costs start adding up for the company. Suddenly people who might have clocked out for lunch before now start 'working' at their desk. People who would even buy supplies from time to time in order to keep working would just sit idly doing nothing if they didn't have everything they needed waiting on the company to provide everything. Someone who might not have religiously used all of their sick days now uses up every paid sick day available because their throat tickles. Oh and all of those employees you used to classify as independent contractors, a few of them just filed paperwork asking the IRS for guidance on their status. The company now owes 5 years of back taxes on 15% of their payroll. Goodbye last 5 years of profits.
When you become a stickler for rules as an employer you'll suddenly discover that your employees are also really good at finding rules that benefit them.
Troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is an old commie saying: "You keep doing what you been doing and you're going to keep getting what you got."
And what you got is the "new normal". P.T. Barnum had a name for people who believe in "free market capitalism".
Re: (Score:3)
In Soviet Russia, bull shits you.
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
See the thing is, it's not a choice between extremes. In fact we have socialist institutions right here in the US that are incredibly popular.
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been to Soviet Russia (Stalingrad (now St. Petersberg)) and lived in it personally, first hand.` Have you? I agree with the poster who said he'd take free market capitalism over socialism ANY DAY.
And I having been to Leningrad (now St. PetersbUrg) call bullshit on your post. Not only you haven't lived there but you are off by 1000 miles in your geography. I also doubt that you are old enough to have actually lived in Stalingrad and being able to tell about it on Slashdot. Stalingrad was renamed to Volgograd back in 1961. You can say anything about USSR, but they made damn sure they taught their geography and history at school. There is no way for somebody who has lived in USSR to mix Leningrad with Stalingrad. So stop trolling please.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been to Soviet Russia (Stalingrad (now St. Petersberg)) and lived in it personally, first hand.` Have you? I agree with the poster who said he'd take free market capitalism over socialism ANY DAY.
I've lived in Scandinavian for a LONG time, and I'll take Socialism as it is implemented there, over Free-Market Capitalism ANY DAY.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Ten million Russian soldiers died fighting in WWII. You could also say those countries are living under Pax Russiana.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not confuse Stalinism or Maoism with socialism, those first two where strictly police states with the masquerade of what ever political system they were pretending to be. This being no different to Nazism.
So want to see socialism, first the psychopaths have to go, quite simply they will corrupt any ism they are a part of, attempt to turn it into an authoritarian state where they have control and can dominate and exploit the citizens of that society.
Socialism is the system that the majority of people were born into, the family unit, a socialist government is basically about expanding the socialism of the family unit into the greater community to gain the all to obvious outcomes, a caring and sharing society of human beings and the extended family concept.
The 'Free Market' is straight up marketing lie because it is wholly and totally dependent upon nothing in that market ever being Free, everything 'owned' and 'controlled', so that those with the most can control and exploit those with the least. With everything that can be owned being owned, including all of the essentials to life, so that denial of life becomes the tool of exploitation of the not free at all market place of human lives.
Either we shift to socialism or die as a species, that is the choice, suck it up.
Re:Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
So want to see socialism, first the psychopaths have to go, quite simply they will corrupt any ism they are a part of, attempt to turn it into an authoritarian state where they have control and can dominate and exploit the citizens of that society.
The problem here is that your so-called "psychopaths" are normal humans exhibiting normal human behavior. That's the thing about capitalism and markets, you don't need to get rid of normal human behavior in order for them to work well.
The 'Free Market' is straight up marketing lie because it is wholly and totally dependent upon nothing in that market ever being Free, everything 'owned' and 'controlled', so that those with the most can control and exploit those with the least. With everything that can be owned being owned, including all of the essentials to life, so that denial of life becomes the tool of exploitation of the not free at all market place of human lives.
You don't even know what a market is. It's not some magic controlling beast, it is merely an avenue for trade - trade which you don't have to participate in.
Re: Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Sweden. Better example than Norway, because Sweden's economy is based in manufacturing and export of those manufactured goods, rather than dependent on a single intrinsically valuable but eventually limited natural resource.
On the other hand, look at how Norway handles their oil wealth, as opposed to other oil rich countries. Norway invests their oil money in the future of all citizens, rather than using it to line the pockets of the wealthy few.
Re: (Score:3)
A naive view just leads to stupid arguments, pissing contests and pointless shit about whether Rear-Done metal is real or not.
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Troll (Score:4, Informative)
"within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital."
The obvious rebuttal is that the premises are false. For example, labor unions are a typical social construct in capitalism that doesn't result in the claimed consequences. Or consider job search engines. Are workers worse off because the hiring process has been improved a bit? Are we, workers worse off due to technological improvements to worker productivity like computers or air conditioning?
Why should we trust this spew of verbiage when the initial assumptions are patently false?
And let us not forget that so many people, the middle class (or "bourgeoisie"), just aren't living with this sort of drudgery. Marx tried to ignore this group and categorize thema as being more or less enemies of the working class ("proletariat").
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that Dr. Gallo both never claimed to have a cure and never had that cure fail repeatedly and spectacularly in the real world.
Again, what does the cure have to do with the critique? Had Dr. Gallo proposed a cure that was shown not to work, would you be barebacking Nigerian prostitutes?
The obvious rebuttal is that the premises are false. For example, labor unions are a typical social construct in capitalism that doesn't result in the claimed consequences.
I don't even know how to begin responding to this. Labor unions grew out of socialist movements in order to organize workers against capitalist forces. In the analogy, claiming that labor unions somehow disprove Marx's observations regarding capitalism is like claiming that condoms disprove AIDS. And that's without even mentioning the fact that Marx would have been very much pro-union, despite your claim of "the abject failure of Marx's solutions". It's just that he knew capitalist forces would continuously fight to erode the power of workers, even unionized ones, which, again, is exactly what's happened in the US from the 70's onward.
Or consider job search engines. Are workers worse off because the hiring process has been improved a bit? Are we, workers worse off due to technological improvements to worker productivity like computers or air conditioning?
You can certainly cherry pick examples of technological improvements which seem to have benefited workers (though in the case of hiring practices, I'd argue most recent changes have been horrible for workers), but that's not what the quote is about. The claim in the quote is that the more industrialized production becomes, the less the power of the worker, and the larger the alienation of the worker from the fruits of their labor. The massive increase in prevalence of high turnover, low-wage, low-skill jobs in the US over the last several decades is stark evidence that what Marx was talking about is still happening to this day. This isn't some sort of hypothetical, many people can see that this is happening and it's being discussed heavily in society, especially since the recession. Hell, the very article whose comment section we're in right now is about this!
Re: (Score:3)
One?
Just one?
That's a pretty low bar.
Here's 12:
Denmark
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Canada
Ireland
New Zealand
France
Germany
UK
Of the 13 richest nations with the most productive workforces and well-off populaces, 12 are socialist or have extensive state sponsored welfare programs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Norway
So the secret to prosperity is to have a small, homogeneous population, and lots of offshore oil.
Re:Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
GP said, " Name one country, where the people have moved UP in life, that runs under socialism"
My post accomplished that, simply raising the bar in order to try and prove some other point that the answer was not intended for is just an exercise in public masturbation
Re: (Score:3)
In socialism, those starving people are brought up to a higher standard of living.
The 30 million people that starved to death in the Great Leap Forward [wikipedia.org], and the seven million that died in the Holodomor [wikipedia.org], would disagree.
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's just the companies that have changed though, it's the market the companies live in. Before there were plenty of fairly sheltered waters, where you were competing with the shop down the street but it was obvious the town needed a shop like yours. Weathering the bad times was possibly more a game of attrition than truly caring for the workers. Today it's all about globalization and open markets with huge waves like on the open ocean.
Jobs are washed away and probably never coming back, the large multinationals that have caught the huge global waves make tons of money while the small local or regional businesses get crushed. I don't think they have a choice anymore, really. That is to say, I think companies that tried this "cradle to grave" approach to employment would be crushed by the markets. And the ones who are big enough to have a choice, well they're stockholder driven and don't have any particular allegiance to anyone so they'll just squeeze out all the profit they can.
On the bright side, they can't really carry on this race to the bottom without actually pulling people out of the gutter. China and India has seen wages and living standards increase considerably, as they chase new cheap labor that in itself becomes a scarce resource to be competed for. That will cut into the profitability of outsourcing, of course balanced by your pay not being worth as much abroad. Because they make decent money now too.
Re:Insecurity culture.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's got worse as companies got larger and the people at the top more separated from the people at the bottom. In a company of 30 people, the boss having to let five people go means speaking to them personally and experiencing the reaction of the other staff. In a company of 300,000 people an exec decided to get rid of 5,000 people in another town and delegates the job to a subordinate, never even meeting those people once.
It's enabled managers to avoid that unfortunate human trait of compassion, feeing them to make hard nosed business decisions where employees are just another resource. The reason Japanese companies last so long is that the managers, no matter how high up, feel personally responsible when they have to make people redundant, like it's a personal failure and something they should apologise for. In the west they feel the opposite - it's a triumph, money was saved and the business streamlined, and they deserve a fat bonus.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are certainly interesting historical anecdotes. But the original poster made claims about business executives, none of whose scale/type existed back in the days of Seppoku etc. Even if timely, they describe only the orchard, and neither the apple nor the orange.
File this under duh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for the blinding flash of the obvious, Ms. Pugh.
What she says is not "obvious". It not even true. The "lifetime employment" of the past is a myth, based on false nostalgia. For most people, it never happened. Average job tenure is as high today as it ever was. We may have fewer people employed for 30 years at the same company, but we also have far fewer people employed as migrant workers or day laborers. Overall, people today have more job security than in the past, not less.
Re: (Score:3)
And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies want higher profit margins off their products: Greedy.
Investors want higher returns on investment: Greedy.
Upper management sees that there is no way to fulfil all of the above and still give themselves huge pay rises without laying off half the riff-raff and making the other half work twice as hard for half as much: Greedy
Cue ever-decreasing circle as consumers earn less and want even more for it, in the hope of compensating for their shrinking earnings, thus repeating the circle. No single tier here is to blame; we ALL are in a more abstract manner. The blame lies squarely with basic human nature and the words "I want".
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Consumers want more product for less money: Greedy.
I did NOT ask my employer to ship my job overseas. I did NOT ask that they move the division overseas. I did NOT ask to train some Chinese guy about what a pointers and basic programming - let alone dipshit CS topics - because employers are ALL liars when they say they cannot get qualified workers. Liars. Period. There are NO exceptions.
This consumer wants to keep his AMERICAN made good stuff but is stuck with Chinese made crap - and it's all crap - because my I cannot afford more. Thanks in part to my education loans. CS degrees are NOT a guarantee to a decent life.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
When you bought that TV from China, you voted with your money that their workers are better than domestic ones.
When you bought that foreign car, you voted with your money that auto workers in that country are better than domestic ones.
When you bought imported food because it is cheap, you voted that local farms are worthless compared to whatever fillers get tossed in the food.
When you bought at Amazon or Wal-Mart instead of paying a little more at a nearby grocery store, you voted for the race to the bottom
Re: (Score:2)
The most insidious was when we went to an Ethan Allen store several years ago to buy some bedroom furniture. We had been looking at a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Insightful)
When you bought that foreign car, you voted with your money that auto workers in that country are better than domestic ones.
a lot of fords and chevys are made in mexico, and a lot of foreign brands are made in US. careful when you fling your jingoistic mud.
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if you aren't familiar with the concept of false consciousness [wikipedia.org]. Your job got shipped overseas, so now you can only afford imported goods. You voted for a candidate because there's only two choices and the other is outright insane. You didn't have a choice and thus are not to blame.
Simply admit you fell for the lies of a conman, join your local labour union or comparable organization, and push it ever leftward. The only thing the system wants or needs from you is your support, overt or silent, so refuse to give it unless you get something in return, besides dreams of making it rich and getting to be the oppressor yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not insightful. This is typical denial. Hey mods, wtf?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember all those fairy tales about the jinn that grants you three wishes, and how they never quite work out the way people think they do? It's the same with economic policy.
Well, you can't get American made stuff at Chinese prices because Americans (like you) are not willing to work for Chinese wages and under Ch
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Insightful)
When were those conditions NOT true?
Answer, never. It's something more. Perhaps the level of greed increased somewhere, perhaps the short term consequences for taking it too far diminished.Perhaps someone gained disproportionate control of the government.
So let's see here, OH, it looks like corporate profits are at an 85 year high and wages are at a 65 year low! [nytimes.com]
Hrmm, where DID that wealth go?!?
Re: (Score:3)
If you took me and everything I own back to 1970 I would be considered very well off.
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess, no kids?
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:4, Insightful)
And big debts.. Or those hard working parents 'helped'.
people have come to misunderstand the term 'own' these days..
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:4, Insightful)
That same worn out tune has been playing since Reagan and it has only made matters worse for people year by year.
The greedy poor man holding them billionaires down just because he thinks he has a right to eat or something after putting in a 10 hour day. And not even a shred of evidence to back it.
Re: (Score:3)
I provided a reference with real figures. You provided a poorly crafted insult.
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Insightful)
More than forty percent of all workers in the US are making less than $15/hr.
That is some happy American Enterprise Institute horseshit. The real, effective corporate tax rate in the US is less than 13%:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/0... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Insightful)
That would have been true about 15 years ago.
These days you seem to have forgotten that most of the truly physically productive jobs have already been outsourced to other countries (China, Mexico, etc), and you are now sliding down the slippery slope of those countries refining their ownership, capital, and trade situations to take advantage of this.
Japan was once the 'cheap labor' for the US.... and yet people never seem to see a trend.
My only suggestion? Stop damn well following the crowd and consuming every little luxury you can convince yourself you deserve on credit!
Learn a practical skill or three (and no, manipulating office politics is not a practical skill).
Live somewhere that is sustainable n what you can actually contribute.
Take a walk in a park on a nice day and revel in the fact that you are alive.. and that doesnt actually cost (well, much).
Oh, and perhaps treat your friends/family with due care and respect, because when shit happens - everyone needs some support.
Oh, sorry, not in line with the American Dream? oh well, good lucky with that.
That's lovely (Score:4, Interesting)
2. I like this one: "learn a practical skill". Reminds me of a neighbor of mine who'd been to night school 3 times and each time seen her new career outsourced. What you really means is "Somehow develop a significantly higher IQ as if by magic so you can get the STEM degree that you couldn't get when you were 18".
3. The working class doesn't get to pick where they live. It's expensive as hell to up and move. You live where you're born and hope for the best. If people could just move somewhere that's better there'd be no 3rd world countries.
4. See Point # 1.
5. See this [youtube.com]. Specifically the chorus ("Turning 30, 40, 50 gotta move in with my Parents...").
Fuck the American Dream. It's a bill of goods we've all been sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that companies and the "upper management" guys are getting richer and richer every decade, whereas the rest of us is getting poorer and poorer.
Facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:And it all comes down to greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, well funny you should mention that. Germany, Sweden, Norway, Finland all have mixed socialist/capitalist models using whatever works to solve actual problems.
For instance, UBER is a great capitalist solution to the problem of transportation, requiring no new infrastructure. Eventually some regulation will be required to make it safer, but it's a great working solution.
Health care would benefit from this approach too. If health care providers were legally required to post all prices up front (regulation) and the import of foreign drugs and insurance was legal (deregulation), you'd have a combination of government action and market forces that would go a long way to solving the health care mess and keeping a lid on prices.
A simplistic, "Rah, rah, free market capitalism" approach eventually leads to Somalia. An all regulation approach takes you to North Korea. Take your pick. In both cases, evil lives at the extremes.
Invisible hand = rules of the game. (Score:2)
evil lives at the extremes
Wish I had mod points.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No rule of law is Somalia.
Total authoritarian rule is North Korea.
The middle is Capitalism: It proscribes rule of law, things like ownership of resources, voluntary exchange, don't take other people's stuff, enforcement of contracts, and presumes the existence of a justice system.
There's no reason to believe that "rah, rah, [middle of the road] free market capitalism" will lead you to Somalia: Right now it seems to be doing a pretty good job of leading us to corporatism, and at the extreme this becomes fasc
Re: (Score:3)
To proscribe is to prohibit. Perhaps you meant prescribe, or some other word, but using "proscribe" completely flips the meaning of your statement.
UBER is not even close to that (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber isn't a solution. It's a symptom of a very diseased and dysfunctional system that'll eventually collapse in on itself.
Re: (Score:3)
The taxi industry is a poor example if you're looking for something that needs sympathy. Getting in as anything other than a hired driver is nearly impossible. Look at the prices of taxi medallions. In Chicago, a medallion went for about $70K in 2007 before skyrocketing to $357,000 in 2013, then falling back to $270,000 earlier this year. In New York City, it's even worse: they were going for around $850,000 earlier this year, down from $1.2 million in early 2014.
There's also the problem of having a cab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
greed for knowledge (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple wanting is not greed. Greed is the excess of wanting. Especially when it's to the point of depriving others to take more than your share.
Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, as much as people decry unions, and the abuses that comes with unions, that's your answer in terms of balancing the power. One person alone just doesn't have the power, unless they're being hired for an executive/C-level position. Can unions abuse their power? Absolutely, so stay involved, vote in your union elections, make sure your union reps are doing their jobs. It's sometimes easier said than done, but it can be better than the alternative. That's what we had to do the last time things were like this, roughly 100 years or so ago.
Re:Unions (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, because the steel workers protected their jobs...oh wait, the steel industry is gone. Well there's the auto industry, unions did a fine job running them into bankruptcy.
but it can be better than the alternative.
You think there's only one alternative? I think there are several. First, forget about pensions; 401k plans are much better and have replaced them for most workers. Second, plan on having something you can offer to employers besides the threat of a revolution or strike; good workers can find good jobs.
Re:Unions (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything you can do can be taught to someone else willing to work for less.
Have you so soon forgotten Disney's attempt to replace their techs?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-disney-technology-h1b-20150617-story.html [latimes.com]
Seems that the only thing that stopped that was the publicity it got once the techs started complaining.
Re:Unions (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not quite sure why you're lambasting him for suggestion unions by listing the times where unions were indeed a hindrance... because he made this very point himself:
Can unions abuse their power? Absolutely, so stay involved, vote in your union elections, make sure your union reps are doing their jobs.
Or did you only read what you wanted to read? In fact, I think you stopped thinking the moment you read the word "unions".
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is half the people in the workforce are below average.
As an employer, the issue isn't greed: the next person I am going to have to fire doesn't perform at a level that I can break even on his time. If I could command higher billing rates for him, I might be able to just barely break even, but ultimately he isn't able to do anything that a new graduate would, at 35% lower salary. He will be able to get another job, but he will have a real pay cut.
When margins get compressed a business cannot ca
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is half the people in the workforce are below average.
As an employer, the issue isn't greed
of course not! damn those mathematicians and their definitions!
you sure do sound like a swell boss! smart too, even!
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is half the people in the workforce are below average.
half the people are below the *median*. if the distribution of people's abilities is symmetric then it will be true for the average as well, but there's no reason to think that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually we pay top dollar. Person in question makes ~$90k for a skill set worth $60-70k and a billing rate of $110/(billable)hour. When you factor in overhead rates his cost is $90/billable hour. Problem is there is safely 20% re-work.
A more reasonable question is why we are paying him more than he is worth; that is one I don't have a good answer for. Our only solution has been the prospect of firing him rather than cutting his pay...
Re: (Score:2)
You think there's only one alternative? I think there are several. First, forget about pensions; 401k plans are much better and have replaced them for most workers.
How are defined-contribution plans better than defined-benefit plans?
If the 401k plan wasn't tied to the specific company I might be able to see your argument, but given that it's tied to the employer and all of the things that employer could do (ie, ride the company off the rails) I don't see how it could be considered better.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? What does a 401k plan have to do with "executive stock compensation"?
Re:Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ah, yes, because that's exactly what skilled people want: getting paid and hired/fired not based on how good they are or how much they contribute to a company, but based on criteria like seniority and other kinds of b.s. that unions c
Crony Capitalism (Score:5, Insightful)
The big corporations have bought enough presidents and members of congress (in BOTH parties) who allow them to violate the rules of the marketplace. We no longer live in the American free market place, we live in a split economy run by cronies. The average person lives in the consumer half, foreign workers live in the producer half, and the big corporations, investor class, and politicians live astride those two halves (enjoying the benefits of each half and dodging the downsides of each half). This is absolutely NOT free market capitalism.
These corporations demand all the protections of the American marketplace (including things like large consistent marketplace, a stable legal system, stable banking system, intellectual property laws that are actually enforced, and more) but then when the natural laws of supply and demand would hurt them (in labor costs) they ship work out of that market or import cheaper workers into it thereby escaping the rules of the marketplace. BOTH parties let them do it in exchange for "campaign contributions".
Do not vote "R" or "D". Vote for the individual, of whatever party and stop letting them destroy the middle class by using "wedge issues" to distract you. They want you to vote R or D to "protect choice" or to "stop abortion", or to "protect marriage equality" or to "preserve traditional marriage" but the reality is that these things are all being decided by judges in courts and the politicians on both sides have no intention of solving any of them (solving them would remove the issue and eliminate a tool for motivating the party base). What is CERTAIN, however, is that most of these politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle will do whatever the wall st investment bankers who fund their campaigns tell them to do (i.e. continue the destruction of the middle class). There is a reason why the establishment candidates of BOTH parties ("->Hillary" and "Jeb!") share so many Wall St banker backers.
Was just talking about this today (Score:2, Interesting)
I've been working for 25 years to try and beat this system. I hate it. I hate that I can take a corporate job where I'm told what kind of pants to wear, what angle to sit at in my seat, and be given more work than a person can complete in a reasonable timeframe, complete it anyway, and be given even more as a "reward". Alternatively, I can go work for a startup where I have more flexibility, but less security. My "solution" has been to live cheaply. I live in a small paid-off house. I drive paid-off cars. I
JUST WORK HARDER (Score:2)
I'm waiting for a call from Uber (Score:2)
employees have no loyalty either (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea that US workers are "beholden" to employers is ridiculous; it isn't company loyalty that keeps employees with the same employer, it's the cost and difficulty of changing jobs. A big part of why it is so costly and difficult to change jobs is government regulations and government-mandated benefits.
Zero-way honor systems ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if this is representative, but I've found that employees who are treated as disposable often treat their jobs at disposable. In other words, job hopping is often at the employee's initiative. They are ready to look for new work the minute their old job feels a bit more insecure, and are ready to jump at a new job if they are offered new benefits. Note that I said benefits, not security. It is assumed that job security does not exist so it is not something that is worthwhile seeking.
The sad thing is that it hurts employers as much as it hurts employees. It costs money to look for new employees. It costs money to vet new employees. It costs money to train new employees. It costs money to terminate employees or have employees resign. It also costs money in lost productivity in the intervening period. It also adds a great deal of risk, since there is no guarantee that the new employee will be of any value or, if they are of value, that they will be a good fit. Yet a lot of businesses don't seem to realize the impact on the bottom line because churn is not broken out when the accounting is done. Rather, it is a bunch of different expenses that fall in different categories -- if they are even recognized as expenses to start with.
Two way street (Score:5, Interesting)
one-way loyalty (Score:5, Informative)
A couple jobs ago I was chatting with another employee, we were discussing some "ominous signs" such as HR shredding documents like she was preparing for a parade. The topic of "giving notice" came up. The other guy said that if he found a good job somewhere else he'd walk with zero notice.
The manager overheard this and stepped in on the conversation, trying to berate us with "that's not how it's done in business, I expect you to give me at least two weeks' notice if you're going to quit!" I turned to him and said "so, how much notice will you give ME if you're going to lay me off or fire me?" (huff) (huff) (snort) is about all I got back, he couldn't even form words let alone a coherant sentence to respond to that. So I added, "I'll give you as much notice as I believe you'll give me." So rather than answer me, he just stomped away.
I don't think they consider just how much more inconvenient being unemployed is, compared to having to hire someone to replace a single employee that departs unexpectedly. For the boss, it's inconvenient. For the employee, suddenly losing their income, possibly the only income for an entire family, can be devastating. And yet they expect to be provided with notice, while providing none themselves. Sselfish, arrogant, and inconsiderate!
So everyone with a clue began job hunting. I had found new work, it wasn't nearly what I had now, but the writing was on the wall in pretty bold print at this point, so I accepted it. I showed up on a Thursday evening to start my (3rd) shift, and the gal from HR was in the parking lot with her hatch open, handing out unemployment packets. The entire center had been closed, everyone there got laid off that day, no one even was offered a transfer. I found out later that our manager had known this was going to happen for months.
My new job started on Monday. (total time unemployed - two days) Unfortunately, that's how they play the game, so that's how I have to play it too. If they don't like that, they have no one to blame but themselves, I'm just playing by their rules.
What's the point here? (Score:3)
No business wants to shrink, or find out they have to lay off thousands of employees to survive. They are every bit as interested in stability and security as their employees. But it seems nobody wants to talk about that, everyone would rather assign blame or demand radical changes to fix a symptom without asking what the cause is. Or worse, saying "we know what the cause is, it's the greed of evil [corporations/unions]!", assuming their bias is correct and going no further.
Maybe, the "era of security" was an aberration stemming from the absence of international competition in the aftermath of WWII and the devastation wrought on the industrial base of every other developed nation? Is it actually good for workers or the economy if workers spend their entire working lives in the same job? Have we forgotten that a dynamic economy means even established businesses can be forced to shrink in order to survive? What about the high levels of economic uncertainty they have had to contend with of late?
What if it's better this way? Maybe not having a guaranteed job-for-life is better for everyone in the long-term. Can we consider that? What if too much security causes stagnation, making it an unstable condition that necessarily leads to less security in the long term?
Does this article do anything more than let people vent their biases? Flamebait from the start?
Re: (Score:2)
An observation: the higher up you go, the higher the penalty for fucking up.
Yes, that certainly explain the golden parachutes so many bank CEOs got, which is really the norm in the corporacratic world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How does "I don't give a shit, the compiler deals with that crap for me" score?
New norm?? (Score:5, Interesting)
I arrived at America in the 1970's, and immediately plunged into the job market (Chinatown) because I practically had no money with me
After schooling and so on (paid for with the slave wages I got from working in Chinatown and other places) I 'upgraded' my career into research institutions
After that I was (repeatedly) head-hunted and ended up working in a string of tech companies
None of the places I worked had any of the 'job security' clause in the agreement - and in fact, more than one time I've seen long-time employees being escorted by security guards out of the building, with only an envelop with the pink-slip inside and a cardboard carton of personal belongings cleansed out of the cubicle of that employee
I do not know where the that 'sociologist' got his 'new norm" from, but in the good ol' U. S. of A., I never had any sense of 'job security' since 1970's, at least not until I started my own businesses
Unlike research papers dealing with real science, many of the 'research reports' from those 'sociologists' make no freaking sense whatsoever
Re:New norm?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Taco,
I understand you come from a different angle on this whole 'merica thing.
For a large portion of the population, for the years from say 1950 until the late 1980's it was totally normal to get a job out of high school, to join a union associate with that job and to work that job until retirement, with a decent pension. This was not unusual for white collar (professional, non-union) positions either.
Just how common this was started to trend downward through the 1990's, both in the union trades (which were decimated as legacy companies failed to keep up with quality and production) and in white collar positions as eager workers from overseas (familiar?) hit the job market and demonstrated their capabilities and lack of expectation of a life-long position with a pension.
Some upper executives made the mistake of believing that all over-seas applicants where as capable or enthusiastic as the first (and second, third) wave of fresh minds that hit the job market, when in fact they were the upper percent of a percent of their nation's respective bell curves, and started making plans to pitch their local workers under the bus in hopes of bringing on endless droves of freakin braniacs who would have no expectation of wages or benefits that native workers would expect
From my stand-point (my father had the same employer for 40+ years, I have had one employer that I was at for more than a decade, with most lasting less than five years) there are trade-offs between seeking long term employees vs 'contract' work. Long-term employees can benefit a company by providing deep knowledge of the organization and may benefit projects by understanding how thet fit in to the ethos of the culture. They can also be horrible lard-asses who want to ride on the coat-tails of the few employees who want to trailblaze and develop new markets.
Similarly, contract labor, outsourcing companies, etc can provide incredible new opportunities to existing companies and drive them into new markets. They can also become a persistent crutch that cost tons of money and take all of their knowledge with them when they leave, letting the companies wither and die like hollowed husks who have no capability to stand on their own.
In truth, black and white gets us no-where and in order to be successful companies will need to leverage whip-smart contract labor, while building capable internal teams to support their efforts after they have been sent off to their next world-building exercise. Maybe the 'stability' from 1950 to 1980 was the real 'aberration' and the constant changes driven by an influx of new workers is the real American norm
Re: New norm?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. The effects you described are not and should not be taken as normal. Why? Because we the people want an economy that serves us, NOT the other way around. That's the whole point of unions, in fact--to make sure that workers get a decent share of the wealth they produce.
What happened in the 80s and 90s was a fairly massive right wing media war on worker propaganda initiative, one sided 'free trade' deals, and of course massive corporate deregulation. Combine that with the huge rise in home equity loans people used to maintain their lifestyles in the face of falling incomes, tax cuts for the wealthy resulting in benefit cuts for all, and corporations being permitted to raid pension funds in fake bankruptcy proceedings while buying laws preventing you from discharging credit card and student loan debt and doing nothing about medical costs (the number 1 by far since of bankruptcy in the US).
This is how you get our economy today. It was deliberate, it was to benefit the few, and it is not normal except if you define normal the way the corporate propaganda media does.
Re: (Score:3)
For a large portion of the population, for the years from say 1950 until the late 1980's it was totally normal to get a job out of high school, to join a union associate with that job and to work that job until retirement, with a decent pension. This was not unusual for white collar (professional, non-union) positions either.
No.
You could have had such a job in the 80s, but only if you started working there in the 60s or 70s. Most people who got such a new job by the late 80s were already pretty much guaranteed no retirement, despite any agreement they may have had.
What this "sociologist" found is nothing new... it has been going on for many decades now. However, we are just now starting to seriously experience the pain of it.
Companies bemoan lack of "company loyalty" but they haven't been willing to treat employees li
Re:Then make the "aberration" return. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, unions in the USA managed to becomes completely self-interested and corrupt institutions. This is partly due to lack of competition: in most of the rest of the world you have a choice of at least a couple of unions to join, so if your union isn't representing your interests you can switch to another one. Partly due to the ties between unions and organised crime in the USA coming out of the prohibition era. Partly due to the demonisation of anything vaguely socialist during the Cold War, which reduced employee involvement in unions (and if most people aren't involved in the union, then the few that are have disproportionate influence).
Even this has been somewhat eroded by automation. If you're replacing 1,000 employees with robots and 100 workers, then a union's threat to have 600 people go on strike doesn't mean much and even when it does it's very hard to persuade those 600 that striking won't mean that they're moved to the top of the to-be-redundant list.
But, back to my original point: lack of jobs for life isn't the real problem. A large imbalance in negotiating power between companies and employees is. When employees are in a stronger negotiating position, companies will favour keeping existing employees because it's cheaper than hiring new ones.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY.
Whenever I talk about a 2.5% raise being insulting and not a real raise at all, barely keeping up with COL, people look at me like I have three heads. We've been conditioned to never expect a raise of any substance, no matter the company. Bad raises and poor job security, you would think, would lead to more attrition, with all those employees taking their institutional
Re:Not a one-way system (Score:4, Insightful)