Anybody Buying Yet? Where’s the Bottom?

[SAJ-99]

So what?

Any different from someone else running home to reload ammo, spend 3 hours cooking dinner, gardening, bird watching, etc, etc?

Not everyone has the same interests and frankly it's really not your business what people do wirh their free time.

I was picking a mindless common exercise so people could relate. My point was I think there is a broad misunderstanding of the average American. Not saying what they do is any of my business. Saying you want more for your family sounds great, but when you just "want" that without sacrificing time and effort to better yourself (as the example was presented in the post I responded to) then I can't have any sympathy. You, and I, have both made the point that incomes have not risen fast enough, which has led to a lot of the problems we face today, like the SS system moving toward being underfunded. But I have to acknowledge that some of that seems like a growing lack of motivation of the workers. Primary cause? No, but it certainly has an impact.

Yeah, my view is framed by what I did. I spent a lot of time trying to learn as much as I could to make myself more valuable. And maybe I overestimate the lack of people doing something similar. But I also know that most owner/managers will replace most employees with an automated/computerized system if they could....

 

[406dn]

But I also know that most owner/managers will replace most employees with an automated/computerized system if they could....

Most workers realize this. It is one significant reason why management pleas for loyalty and continuous improvement fall on deaf ears. Management, far too often, views their employees with a level of distain and disrespect.

Everyone has a life to live. An employee is seeking to find the best work/life balance that they can. They are not there to fill an employer's every need.

 

[TOGIE]

Not saying what they do is any of my business. Saying you want more for your family sounds great, but when you just "want" that without sacrificing time and effort to better yourself (as the example was presented in the post I responded to) then I can't have any sympathy.

is bettering yourself only valuable if the "bettering" comes in the form of career and socio economic status?

the more i want for my family is time - presence is the most valuable thing and when time is more valuable than money i'm willing to give up the money for the time. stable budgets have more to do with you spend money than how you make it, and time is no different. i'm not gonna place the bet that giving up time for money now will reward me with more time later. it's the same thing randy says about hunting: hunt now, cause later probably won't pan out for you the way you'd ideally want if that's your plan.

living for the career is soooo last generation bro

 

[Nick87]

Most workers realize this. It is one significant reason why management pleas for loyalty and continuous improvement fall on deaf ears. Management, far too often, views their employees with a level of distain and disrespect.

Everyone has a life to live. An employee is seeking to find the best work/life balance that they can. They are not there to fill an employer's every need.

After 20 years I'm realizing loyalty is overrated.

 

[SAJ-99]

Everyone has a life to live. An employee is seeking to find the best work/life balance that they can. They are not there to fill an employer's every need.

And the employer owes you nothing, particularly if you are easily replaced. I do admit that a union will negotiate with the company what is "owed". But it explains why most jobs aren't unionized anymore and corporations fight against them. There is a real battle between labor and capital and labor is losing. I certainly support unions, but our problems are far deeper. There is a general belief by people they should have more but don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. Doesn't matter if is health care or Montana mule deer conversations. And we keep lowering the bars to satisfy that desire. (we can have a whole other thread on how Federal spending cuts reduces slots in residency programs which reduce the number of doctors so people chose to become nurse practitioners because the the cost of become a doctor - we lose something in tradeoff). I keep thinking of that line in the phrase about "easy times make weak men". Times have been too easy for us.

is bettering yourself only valuable if the "bettering" comes in the form of career and socio economic status?

Certainly not, but it is a choice. Once you make that choice you should lose the ability to complain about your career or socioeconomic status.

living for the career is soooo last generation bro

Yeah, I noticed.

 

[Treeshark]

Work, at its core, is two parties knowingly using each other:

-Company uses the employee for production.

-Employee uses the company for personal income.

As long as this relationship is slightly skewed towards the company’s financial advantage, this continues fairly harmoniously: employee’s financial needs are met and company profits. If it gets out of balance (and in many instance is currently is out of balance), issues arise.

 

[BuzzH]

is bettering yourself only valuable if the "bettering" comes in the form of career and socio economic status?

the more i want for my family is time - presence is the most valuable thing and when time is more valuable than money i'm willing to give up the money for the time. stable budgets have more to do with you spend money than how you make it, and time is no different. i'm not gonna place the bet that giving up time for money now will reward me with more time later. it's the same thing randy says about hunting: hunt now, cause later probably won't pan out for you the way you'd ideally want if that's your plan.

living for the career is soooo last generation bro

Exactly and to expand on that.

I think any manager that lives under "well, that's how I did it"...is a total tool that completely misunderstands how to motivate and play to an employees strong points. They also lack the ability to recognize that times have changed and employees are motivated differently today than when you "did it your way".

Too often in business and government there is a tendency to reward those that "show loyalty" by how many hours they clock. I would much rather have an employee that gets their work done, correctly, in 30 hours and puts 100% effort in than an employee that half-asses the same amount of work for 60. Typically the 60 hour a week employee is rewarded over the guy that does the same amount of work in 30. That's a big problem.

I have 2 really good friends that I would call excellent in the terms of understanding employees and getting the job done. Both have the same philosophy, "here's your work, if you can get it done right in 20 hours a week, great, take the other 20 and head to the lake, spend time with your kids, don't care. If you need 60 to get it done, well, do what it takes, don't care".

I can also say that both have long-term employees that kick ass at work and with life.

I listen to that f%$#-head Jamie Dimon and all I see is a classic example of a person that is a thief of other people's lives. Control freak who will force good employees out because he doesn't want them to telework. No telework in an industry where 95% or more of your job is on a computer. He would rather that his employees spend uncompensated hours commuting to a cube farm...all while lying out his ass about how there can't be "team building" with telework. Oh, but we can team build all in separate cubicles? It's a joke and IMO, he is a loser that had a complete and total misunderstanding of the people that work for him when he forced them back into offices.

I also listen to Yvon Chouinard and there's a guy with a complete understanding of his employees. He flat says he doesn't care when his employees work, as long as the job gets done, who cares? Sets up day cares on site and said he had people working with their kids in card board boxes on their desks...who cares? Another employee didn't wear shoes, who cares? One of his lines about what you call someone that plans on surfing next Thursday and having a name for that, they're called losers. There might not be waves next Thursday, you take off work when there's a good surf.

I can tell you who I would be willing to work my ass off for...and who I would just punch the clock for.

 

[BuzzH]

And the employer owes you nothing, particularly if you are easily replaced. I do admit that a union will negotiate with the company what is "owed". But it explains why most jobs aren't unionized anymore and corporations fight against them. There is a real battle between labor and capital and labor is losing. I certainly support unions, but our problems are far deeper. There is a general belief by people they should have more but don't want to sacrifice anything to get it. Doesn't matter if is health care or Montana mule deer conversations. And we keep lowering the bars to satisfy that desire. (we can have a whole other thread on how Federal spending cuts reduces slots in residency programs which reduce the number of doctors so people chose to become nurse practitioners because the the cost of become a doctor - we lose something in tradeoff). I keep thinking of that line in the phrase about "easy times make weak men". Times have been too easy for us.


Certainly not, but it is a choice. Once you make that choice you should lose the ability to complain about your career or socioeconomic status.

Yeah, I noticed.

JFC, you're sacrificing 40 hours of your life a week...pretty big sacrifice, don't you think?

 

[406dn]

And the employer owes you nothing, particularly if you are easily replaced.

Fundamentally, an employer makes a decision on what level of quality they need from their employees. They do this with the level of pay, benefits offered, and corporate culture.

Any time you visit a Costco vs Walmart, it is not difficult to see which one decided they needed better employees.

 

[SAJ-99]

JFC, you're sacrificing 40 hours of your life a week...pretty big sacrifice, don't you think?

yes, but I don't think that's the point of this conversation. If someone else will sacrifice 40hrs/wk for less pay do you fault the employer for hiring them? Of maybe they work $41hrs? That is what is driving the changes. That and the employer getting a larger slice of the benefit than the employee. At some point you "better" yourself professionally because you are in a competition with other people. AI will completely destroy the entire work paradigm, which is why we see the billionaires talk about "no work" and "guaranteed income". We quickly better start finding a way to tax the robots because taxing people's income isn't going to work for much longer.

I do recognize that i'm having this convo with union guys, so we have completely different historical perspectives.

 

[Nick87]

Too often in business and government there is a tendency to reward those that "show loyalty" by how many hours they clock. I would much rather have an employee that gets their work done, correctly, in 30 hours and puts 100% effort in than an employee that half-asses the same amount of work for 60. Typically the 60 hour a week employee is rewarded over the guy that does the same amount of work in 30. That's a big problem.

I have 2 really good friends that I would call excellent in the terms of understanding employees and getting the job done. Both have the same philosophy, "here's your work, if you can get it done right in 20 hours a week, great, take the other 20 and head to the lake, spend time with your kids, don't care. If you need 60 to get it done, well, do what it takes, don't care".

The guy who gets it done in 30 usually gets rewarded with more work.

 

[Treeshark]

The guy who gets it done in 30 usually gets rewarded with more work.

And more money (if he knows how to negotiate for himself).

 

[BuzzH]

And more money (if he knows how to negotiate for himself).

Not necessarily.

 

[Nick87]

Not necessarily.

Maybe not but it does in this world.

 

[Treeshark]

Not necessarily.

If not, he’s failing the second part.

Unless he chooses not to chase for more, perhaps that’s what you’re saying too.

 

[BuzzH]

yes, but I don't think that's the point of this conversation. If someone else will sacrifice 40hrs/wk for less pay do you fault the employer for hiring them? Of maybe they work $41hrs? That is what is driving the changes. That and the employer getting a larger slice of the benefit than the employee. At some point you "better" yourself professionally because you are in a competition with other people. AI will completely destroy the entire work paradigm, which is why we see the billionaires talk about "no work" and "guaranteed income". We quickly better start finding a way to tax the robots because taxing people's income isn't going to work for much longer.

I do recognize that i'm having this convo with union guys, so we have completely different historical perspectives.

But, you're still living under the fallacy that everyone is in competition with everyone else they work with. That's old school mentality, but far from reality in todays younger work force.

We offer winter work for our PSE's, including me...not all of them take it. Some would rather travel, take a job in the winter on the ski hill so they can ski more, spend time doing whatever they want.

We have old school people that I work with that call them slackers, I sure as shit don't. Good on them for doing what makes them absolutely happy. Not everybody is chasing status, higher positions, more money, bigger houses, more toys, etc...and IMO, they may just have it figured out and out-live the ladder climbers chasing status. No doubt most of them seem much happier in life and with work.

 

[BuzzH]

Unless he chooses not to chase for more, perhaps that’s what you’re saying too.

Exactly, they are chasing for more...more time to do things that are much more important to them than giving your life to someone else for money.

 

[Treeshark]

Exactly, they are chasing for more...more time to do things that are much more important to them than giving your life to someone else for money.

That’s true.

Perhaps “value” would have been a better word choice than “money,” but those people are also chasing money- just in a different form (more dollars per hour worked, essentially).

Regardless, if someone is getting “rewarded” for with more work without getting more money/time off/value for it, they’re getting screwed.

 

[Alpine01]

Work, at its core, is two parties knowingly using each other:

-Company uses the employee for production.

-Employee uses the company for personal income.

As long as this relationship is slightly skewed towards the company’s financial advantage, this continues fairly harmoniously: employee’s financial needs are met and company profits. If it gets out of balance (and in many instance is currently is out of balance), issues arise.

As an employee, I always looked at it as "do I need the company more than the company needs me?'. As an early career employee, it was definitely the former. Looking for opportunities to improve/better myself outside my "core" area of expertise and make myself more valuable to the company was the path to changing that dynamic. It was nice to be in the position during the last 10-12 years before retiring that the company definitely needed me more than I needed them. That came from having unique skill sets (and experience) my peers didn't have because they refused to broaden themselves earlier. So while the "average" person was getting their 3% raise, I was getting 8-10% along with 15%+ bonuses. It also gave me the freedom to walk away at a time of my choosing.

 

[Nick87]

If not, he’s failing the second part.

Unless he chooses not to chase for more, perhaps that’s what you’re saying too.

It's very hard in certain industries they'd just as soon replace you. Besides most of this work isn't individual it takes a crew. And the majority would rather make an extra buck them spend time with their family.