3 ms·
Perhaps in 1922. Those old farts had it easy back then. They could reasonably expect the delayed reward when they get older, the business repaying their loyalty
by praptak 14y ago
Perhaps in 1922. Those old farts had it easy back then. They could reasonably expect the delayed reward when they get older, the business repaying their loyalty for all these years.
Fast forward to the eighties and "the business which feeds and clothes and houses them all" being acquired is a common event. Then the fat gets trimmed. The fat being you, the loyal employee whose work made the business acquire-worthy in the first place. Your loyalty being repaid is not in the books, the value you created is.
So, loyalty to the people is ok. The relationship with a business is governed by contracts and little more.
- lftl 14y agoSo, loyalty to the people is ok. The relationship with a business is governed by contracts and little more. Agreed. In the 20s you took care of "the business" that takes care of you. Nowadays, you attend to "the career" that takes care of you.
- dredmorbius 14y agoIf they lived to retirement age. Life expectancy of a 35 year old male in the 1920s was about 67, for a woman 68. It's about a decade more now. Source (expressed as years of survival): http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html And as I recall, promises of life-long employment hit a bit of a reef in the late 1920s. That said, yes, we've exchanged greater life expectancy for much reduced employer loyalty.
- parasubvert 14y agoKeep in mind there was no social security in 1922. And life expectancy actually hasn't risen that much among the poorer classes, eg see http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html Money has lead to health and prosperity for more, but the poor remain in the lot of our ancestors.