4 ms·

My dad had 2 jobs in his career before he retired and last switched in 1975. I have had 6 so far halfway through my career, and I'm not an outlier from what th

My dad had 2 jobs in his career before he retired and last switched in 1975. I have had 6 so far halfway through my career, and I'm not an outlier from what the data seem to bear out. The word employee should not even exist anymore, I prefer associate, as it is more truthful to the underlying relationship with the corporate entity. Its all business, never personal. I dont even decorate my personal workspaces in my environment with pics of my kids or touch it up to remind myself that this is a transistory situation. My advice 1) Keep a LARGE portion of your before and after tax savings in a combo of 401k, IRA, and stock picks (at least 15 percent). 2) Stay mobile. Do not commit to a large house, etc, in an area of the country where you can be tied down. Mobility, mobility, mobility. 3) Keep a close eye on the finanials of the business. A quarter or two of missed earnings (if public) or low salesforce numbers over an extended period of times screams "run" no matter the bullshit the ceo may be feeding you. 4) Skills, always have an ear and time investment in new ones. You should always be learning one core technology outside of what you use at work, especially if you work at a larger, established company. 5) Network. Always try to interact and build relationships with younger and experienced people inside and outside your job location. Young people see things in new ways and refresh you. Older people have battle scars they can donate to you without the pain of living through them.

wrk1 11y ago
I like many of your suggestions, but the article itself is total BS. First, Uber drivers are replacing taxi drivers, who were never employees to begin with. So it's not a valid example. Second, the headline should read "As long as US sticks to current policies, the number of employees in the US will probably decrease". This is happening because right now in the US, capital (large corporations, billionaires) controls the political process, and they've used it to massively jack up the size of the labor pool: * Illegal immigration -> unskilled jobs. * H1B & other visas -> skilled and semi-skilled jobs. * Free trade with Asia -> manufacturing jobs. * Outsourcing -> IT jobs. * Normalizing 60-80 hour workweeks -> increases the labor pool by 1.5x - 2x. Basically right now we have about 2-3 billion people competing for jobs in the US economy, which is sized for 320 million people. They (capital) want you to believe this is the "future", but in reality they just jacked up the labor pool by a huge amount. Any worker who comes to the US leaves their home country, so the employment dynamic in those countries is quite different. And notice that the EU, whose economy is larger than the US, has avoided this dynamic.
- aswanson 11y ago
  Understood and agree. Im just giving the best advice I can on how not to get hit and run over by the oncoming train. Unless you're Superman and can stand in front of and stop it.
  - wrk1 11y ago
    I think your suggestions are good, especially for young people who are looking to stay afloat in their 20s. One thing that I would add is the time perspective - in the US right now, people in their 20s and early 30s are competing and slowly sorting themselves out into stable career fields. So my suggestion is definitely stay afloat, but don't assume that you will be able to stay afloat forever. Look at what other people are doing and how they are securing stable spots for themselves.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Wait a minute, how does free trade "jack up the size of the labor pool"? Did the foreigners who were previously forbidden from competing with natives not exist? Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Actually "sucks" isn't even the right word, since I doubt you can name a single good or service that Americans have less of today than 20 or 30 years ago. (Expanding categories of goods, e.g. "health care", don't count.) https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...
  - mpyne 11y ago
    > Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Which is why I found it so funny that Bernie Sanders complains about Vietnamese workers (he even called them out by name!). I'm used to seeing race-baiting from politicians of all stripes. I just wasn't used to seeing it from self-described "actual socialists".
codingvelocity 11y ago
I agree largely with what you say but advice point 2 is an obvious smell in today's working world. I'm taking that advice as "don't do anything that would prevent you from moving tomorrow". That includes having a spouse that is employed, having family, having property, etc. Being mobile shouldn't be a requirement for the average person. If you are striving to be top in your field, then mobility might be a requirement.
- aswanson 11y ago
  That one is rough, agreed. A better interpretation might be,"don't get bogged down on an illiquid asset, i.e. a fixer-upper when your cash reserve is low, and would be difficult to generate rental income from". The point is to not let that be an anchor if you lose employment for an extended period of time. It's as much a defensive as offensive posture.
coldtea 11y ago
>The word employee should not even exist anymore, I prefer associate, as it is more truthful to the underlying relationship with the corporate entity. Or maybe "wage slave"?

wrk1 11y ago

I like many of your suggestions, but the article itself is total BS. First, Uber drivers are replacing taxi drivers, who were never employees to begin with. So it's not a valid example. Second, the headline should read "As long as US sticks to current policies, the number of employees in the US will probably decrease". This is happening because right now in the US, capital (large corporations, billionaires) controls the political process, and they've used it to massively jack up the size of the labor pool: * Illegal immigration -> unskilled jobs. * H1B & other visas -> skilled and semi-skilled jobs. * Free trade with Asia -> manufacturing jobs. * Outsourcing -> IT jobs. * Normalizing 60-80 hour workweeks -> increases the labor pool by 1.5x - 2x. Basically right now we have about 2-3 billion people competing for jobs in the US economy, which is sized for 320 million people. They (capital) want you to believe this is the "future", but in reality they just jacked up the labor pool by a huge amount. Any worker who comes to the US leaves their home country, so the employment dynamic in those countries is quite different. And notice that the EU, whose economy is larger than the US, has avoided this dynamic.

aswanson 11y ago
Understood and agree. Im just giving the best advice I can on how not to get hit and run over by the oncoming train. Unless you're Superman and can stand in front of and stop it.
- wrk1 11y ago
  I think your suggestions are good, especially for young people who are looking to stay afloat in their 20s. One thing that I would add is the time perspective - in the US right now, people in their 20s and early 30s are competing and slowly sorting themselves out into stable career fields. So my suggestion is definitely stay afloat, but don't assume that you will be able to stay afloat forever. Look at what other people are doing and how they are securing stable spots for themselves.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
Wait a minute, how does free trade "jack up the size of the labor pool"? Did the foreigners who were previously forbidden from competing with natives not exist? Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Actually "sucks" isn't even the right word, since I doubt you can name a single good or service that Americans have less of today than 20 or 30 years ago. (Expanding categories of goods, e.g. "health care", don't count.) https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...
- mpyne 11y ago
  > Oh right, better to have folks born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line continue to live on $3k/year in order to make sure American wages continue to rise from $40k to $60k. Be honest - your actual complaint is that reducing inequality sucks when you are at the top of the heap. Which is why I found it so funny that Bernie Sanders complains about Vietnamese workers (he even called them out by name!). I'm used to seeing race-baiting from politicians of all stripes. I just wasn't used to seeing it from self-described "actual socialists".

codingvelocity 11y ago

I agree largely with what you say but advice point 2 is an obvious smell in today's working world. I'm taking that advice as "don't do anything that would prevent you from moving tomorrow". That includes having a spouse that is employed, having family, having property, etc. Being mobile shouldn't be a requirement for the average person. If you are striving to be top in your field, then mobility might be a requirement.

aswanson 11y ago
That one is rough, agreed. A better interpretation might be,"don't get bogged down on an illiquid asset, i.e. a fixer-upper when your cash reserve is low, and would be difficult to generate rental income from". The point is to not let that be an anchor if you lose employment for an extended period of time. It's as much a defensive as offensive posture.

coldtea 11y ago

>The word employee should not even exist anymore, I prefer associate, as it is more truthful to the underlying relationship with the corporate entity. Or maybe "wage slave"?