Well, Bob, edited this title, too, to beat the Google hiccups....
see stuff below....
On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:50:06 -0700 (PDT), BobR
<reed1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, we are in disagreement. The guy with more money has that much
>> more options. When we're talking millions to billions, its infinitely
>> more options.
>>
>Yes, more money means more options but what difference does it make if
>you are unwilling to take advantage of the few options you have?
That all assumes you have even a few good options. Most of these guys
today are faced with nothing but downward mobility in all of their
remaining options. Its all part of that 100+ applicant to job ratio,
age discrimination, etc., thing.
>> > We all have choices but few
>> > of us really take advantage of those choices.
>>
>> You use the word choice as if behind every choice is a viable job. In
>> fact, the only thing behind every choice is nothing more than a
>> strategy for a job-hunting operation. Like the hunter-gatherer days,
>> if there was no saber-toothed tiger to bring down that day, nobody ate
>> dinner that night.
>>
>
>Right, if there was no tiger that day nobody ate tiger meat and you
>had to settle for roots. So what do you do the next day, sit in the
>cave and continue to eat roots because you assume there won't be a
>tiger today?
If you want to read something im****tant, get a copy of Jared Diamond's
book "Collapse" and read the historical-archeological record of how
few civilizations actually coped with their changes in their
environment. Actual fact: Vikings in Greenland, colony starved because
they refused to eat seafood that the eskimos (actually Inuit) could
easily find. Actually several other examples of fact.
"Assume there won't be a tiger today?" and what to do if, in fact,
there is not a tiger today? Its like my fi****ng pond example. Five
fishermen better think what they are going to do because each of the
other five fishermen got all the five fish that there were that day.
P.S. all the marine biologists say our fi****ng stocks in the ocean are
down to the point of near extinction...and nobody is doing crap about
it, either.
>> =A0 It is far easier for
>>
>> > most to head to the local ice house for a cold beer than to attend
>> > cl***** at the local Jr. College.
>>
>> Sure, I agree that there are a lot of lazy, unresourceful people
>> around.
>>
>>
>> > > Yeah, but here is my gripe: the executives get a better "safety
net"
>> > > and have a better deal in general than the underlings and the
>> > > underlings have zero control over anything. Cor****ations are,
>> > > basically, dictator****ps with a guy basically no different than
>> > > _kings_ or emperors in earlier history except that the wars are
>> > > economic rather than military.
>>
>> > I agree with you completely on the golden parachute bull **** but
that
>> > is really making a super issue out of the tip of the tip of the
>> > iceburg. =A0The problems in all cor****ate environments isn't just
with
>> > the top but from every level top to bottom. =A0The CEO's are simply
the
>> > most visible element but many of the decisions that most effect the
>> > rank and file workers are made at various levels throughout the
>> > organization often without the knowledge of the CEO's. =A0 =A0The
decisi=
>on
>> > to layoff and outsource where I was working was made by a mid-level
>> > manager.
>>
>> Yeah, but its all part of the same problem:too much of your life is
>> NOT under YOUR control. =A0AND, its YOU that is inconvenienced by the
>> unemployment dumped on your head not because you did anything wrong.
>>
>
>Yes, I was inconvenienced by the unemployment, especially since I did
>not qualify for any unemployment benefits but when I look back at some
>of my own decisions I realized that I set myself up for much of what
>happened. I was probably more prepared than most but not nearly as
>prepared as I should have been.
Yeah, I could tell some of my own stories. But, I read a few books and
when that bomb came down on my head (a political thing, not
immigration or anything else) I played a particular strategy that they
talked about in the books and got not only a delay, but a little boost
in severance pay, too. It pays to be cool, calm, and composed. ]
Since there were dirty politics in the background, I also filed a
formal greivance some months later and in the end I got an extra
$5,000 severance.
>> > Took a tem****ary position as a Project Manager that led to a position
>> > as Senior Billing Analyst. =A0Both were total departures from my Lead
>> > Systems Designer position that I had been working for years. =A0Found
>> > that the IT field had totally collapsed following the Y2K and dot.com
>> > bust. =A0I could complain that I ran into a lot of age discrimination
as=
>
>> > well but the reality was that I had ridden my experience for several
>> > years instead of staying on top of current trends.
>>
>> > The worst part of being out of work in your late 50's or early 60's
is
>> > that your network of associates is mostly retired or worse, dead.
>>
>> Yes, true, but I'll go beyond that. Worst part is having a hundred
>> other applications for that one job and ten of those guys are as good
>> as you, or better, and they are younger, too.
>>
>
>How true.
Amen.
>> =A0The
>>
>> > second worst part is that you will find yourself interviewing with
>> > people half your age who don't want to hire you because they are
>> > insecure having someone older and more experienced working for them.
>>
>> So, they do hire the younger guys for a second reason: they can be
>> paid less than you.
>>
>
>Again true.
Amen.
>> > My only choice was to fully exploit my network of former clients and
>> > associates with an open attitude and promote my business experience
as
>> > well as my IT experience. =A0I got the position because I was willing
to=
>
>> > use my experience, to learn and most im****tant, I was willing to take
>> > responsibility.
>>
>> But it does not work for everyone.
>>
>
>And it didn't work for me for over 18 months.
You got my sympathy. I know guys that just dissappeared and stopped
answering my emails, etc. I have no idea what they are doing. And, up
till the bomb hit them, they never had problems getting (IT) jobs ever
before in their life. Guess how they feel?
>> > Too many of them think that the only thing they had to do was get
that
>> > degree and everyone would just automatically beat a path to their
>> > door. =A0Its not what you have but what you do with it.
>>
>> Not altogether. If you have ten guys around a fi****ng pond with five
>> fish in it, then five guys (maybe more) are going to have no dinner
>> that night).
>>
>
>You can take the best bait in the world to the lake but if you don't
>bait the damn hook and throw it into the water you aren't going to
>catch a damn thing.
Assuming there is something there to bite?
>>
deleted
>> I have to ask WHY is it OK for CEOs to _force_ innocent underlings to
>> learn something new when, at least up to the time they were laid off,
>> they were working and getting paid what they were due, and the CEOs
>> did not have to do anything except put their signature on a memorandum
>> (which does not require any learning or time or money or anything).
>>
>
>That CEO is really no different from anyone else. They have a product
>(themselves) to market. They must market that product to their
>customer and hope the customer will buy. If the product is faulty or
>doesn't meet the need of the customer, they are out. Each of us has a
>product to sell to our employer. If our product is not valuable
>enough to our employer for them to continue to buy it, we must either
>improve the product or find another.
Yeah, but its like the fi****ng pond. If the fish can't afford to bite,
then no matter what bait they put on the hook, the customer can't buy
that product.
>> And, the other part of the question is WHY do we just forget the
>> underlings, among which there will be a failure rate in getting a job
>> in alternative training, and that will be because there are less jobs
>> in the new field and more guys chasing those jobs, so the losers will
>> be greater than before.
>>
>You said you had your own company and so did I for over 30 years.
Fine, you lasted longer than I did.
> Did
>you hire people that you didn't need or couldn't afford just to have
>more employees?
I never had that many, never grew much. But, its not that simple;
we're talking about doing economic damage to US guys and ****pping the
whole bunch of jobs overseas. Good for overseas guys, but US guys are
now lining up in longer lines for fewer jobs in the USA.
> Would you maintain any employee just because they
>needed a job even though they could no longer provide a service to
>your company?
Gotta think if companies want to sell to guys in the US, then those
guys in the US have to have money--from jobs--to buy stuff.
So far, the trend has been downhill for at least two decades: low end
wages going down, low end jobs dissappearing, too. And, the Mexicans
coming in like Niagara Falls.
>> So, the CEOs get the guarantees (golden parachutes, bonuses, packages)
>> and the underlings get the shaft. Where is the justice in that?
>>
>I agree, there is no justice in that but as I said before that is
>really just the tip of the tip of a very large iceburg.
Fine, we're back to two things: i) stay with CYA strategies, and ii)
***** about it (like we're doing now).
>
>> > > And, that is also an elitist view. You look at the vast majority of
deleted
>>
>> > I am not talking about those people, they don't have the options that
>> > we have and that is clear.
>>
>> Well, then, are they just going to be victims and you have no answers
>> for them?
>>
>> =A0 What is also clear is that they are
>>
>> > starting to climb the ecnomic ladder and as they do, they are
>> > threatening those of us who chose to climb up a few rungs on the
>> > ladder and then rest for the remainder of our life.
>>
>> And, I'm asking why is it that we have a mindset that says "OK, some
>> are going to be winners (and everything is OK) and some are going to
>> be losers (and we're going to not talk about them at all, or care
>> about what happened to them)?
>>
>
>I care very much and have always been willing to help anyone who is
>willing to take the first step.
So am I. Main theme: CYA. Secondary theme: vote for politico (if there
is one) that might do something to stop the carnage.
>> Its the same moral problem as in wars over all of history: the guys
>> with the swords kill the guys without, and we don't ask whether this
>> is good or bad, and even more, don't even talk about whether it might
>> be good to prevent this from happening in the future.
deleted
>> > If not for that, the predators would starve. =A0Its called natural
>> > selection.
>>
>> So, then, its OK with you if people get kicked into the sewer,
>> involuntarily, and its OK if predators live by this method? =A0Or, did
>> you just mean to say "**** happens and so what?"
>>
>
>**** Happens! Its a fact of life. That by no means is acceptance of
>the "getting kicked into the sewer involuntarily" actions.
Yeah, I know. But, in addition to CYA, I'm going to say "ouch" when
that **** happens. Love to throw a brick, too.
deleted.
>> > You are right about that, it takes a willing attitude as well. =A0The
>> > real problem is that most of us really don't want to be forced to
>> > learn something new.
>>
>> Fine, I see two aspects of this: Yes, people need to be willing to
>> learn something new, but, No, why should a bunch of people (the
>> underlings) be forced to learn something new by a few (CEOs) simply
>> because the net result might be to make a few (CEOs and stockholders)
>> richer and a bunch of guye (the underlings) poorer?
>
>Again with the CEO's. I am sorry, I hate most of the big Cor****ate
>CEO's too but there really is more to it than that. We are all upset
>about the offshoring of "our" jobs to people in China and India but
>aren't we trying to do the same to those people that the CEO's are
>doing to us? We are in competition with those people and right now
>they are willing to do exactly what we do but for less money. If we
>can't compete is it fair or right to keep them in poverty by any means
>possible just so we can continue with our lifestyle?
No argument with anything you said above...buuuuuut...what bothers me
is that there are all these people in the bottom half to 2/3 of the
world's population who are getting royallly screwed. No, I don't have
any good answers, either. And, that bothers me, too.
|
