U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 09:40 AM
 
2,854 posts, read 785,614 times
Reputation: 5054

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
And a long, stable career with that employer was the normal expectation.
Only substandard employees want that. Quality employees continuously improve their personal capital, evaluate the market for their their services, and make a decision to stay or leave based upon company and personal prospects. Evaluate that every year, and your concept of answering "yes, I'll stay" is like flipping a coin 40 times and expecting it to come up heads each time.

Every employee should consider their employer actually to be their customer. The employee is selling his/her services to that customer. The employee needs to delight the customer. Even so, sometimes the customer decides to stop buying that labor for any number of reasons: selling a division, closing down a failing project, closing a non-competitive product line, or any number of other reasons. Similarly, periodically every employee should make an evaluation and either stay or go - perhaps because their are other customers out there who would gladly purchase the employee's services with better terms & conditions. Sometimes it can be as simple as a better commute. Sometimes the existing customer is a pain in the ass.

If an employee stays too long at a single employer, everyone whispers behind that employee's back, "What's wrong with Bob? Why hasn't he found a better customer for his services (found a new job)?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 09:55 AM
 
2,854 posts, read 785,614 times
Reputation: 5054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
That's not the way it was in the 70s or 80s. That was back before it was expected for college grads to have done internships just to get a job after college. In the 70s, just about any college grad could walk out and get a white collar job, and every employer fully expected to mold the grad to his specification.
That just isn't true. The 1970s had a severe recession triggered by the Arab Oil Embargo and had double-digit inflation as a consequence of paying for the War in Vietnam by a massive increase in the money supply.

For example, Seattle's Sister City in Japan sent foreign aid to Seattle to help the jobless. They sent care packages & food. That's how bad things were.

President Nixon imposed wage-price controls at the start of the decade. The 70s saw substantial stagflation. By the end of the decade there was another recession.

The 80s launched with the largest Misery Index on record (the sum of employment rate plus the unemployment rate). The 80s had the S&L crisis & the Black Monday Crash.

The market for new college grads was not all rainbows & unicorns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Niceville, FL
7,865 posts, read 16,371,294 times
Reputation: 8086
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post

If an employee stays too long at a single employer, everyone whispers behind that employee's back, "What's wrong with Bob? Why hasn't he found a better customer for his services (found a new job)?"
It depends on the industry or sector. Academe is sticky, often for good reasons when you're talking research projects that can run a decade of data compilation (or decades when you're trying to do a longitudinal health study) or the need to move students through degree programs in a timely manner with no class schedule disruptions. If you walk away from tenure, particularly from a top tier research institution, there can be an assumption that it's because you screwed something up and are running away from scandal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Niceville, FL
7,865 posts, read 16,371,294 times
Reputation: 8086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
That's not the way it was in the 70s or 80s. That was back before it was expected for college grads to have done internships just to get a job after college. In the 70s, just about any college grad could walk out and get a white collar job, and every employer fully expected to mold the grad to his specification.
The internship expectations also make it harder for poor kids to break through to the middle class. A lot of those foot-in-the-door internships are unpaid, and a lot of those poor and lower middle class kids need to work the $10-15 an hour summer job picking up road kill for the county highway department in order to help cover expenses during the school year rather than the unpaid office jobs that their upper middle class peers can afford to take during that time frame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:01 PM
 
20,763 posts, read 11,604,917 times
Reputation: 20944
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Only substandard employees want that. Quality employees continuously improve their personal capital, evaluate the market for their their services, and make a decision to stay or leave based upon company and personal prospects. Evaluate that every year, and your concept of answering "yes, I'll stay" is like flipping a coin 40 times and expecting it to come up heads each time.

That's today.



Thirty to fifty years go, companies had advancement ladders that provided those opportunities. It was actually possible to get from the mail room to the board room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:03 PM
 
20,763 posts, read 11,604,917 times
Reputation: 20944
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
That just isn't true. The 1970s had a severe recession triggered by the Arab Oil Embargo and had double-digit inflation as a consequence of paying for the War in Vietnam by a massive increase in the money supply.

For example, Seattle's Sister City in Japan sent foreign aid to Seattle to help the jobless. They sent care packages & food. That's how bad things were.

President Nixon imposed wage-price controls at the start of the decade. The 70s saw substantial stagflation. By the end of the decade there was another recession.

The 80s launched with the largest Misery Index on record (the sum of employment rate plus the unemployment rate). The 80s had the S&L crisis & the Black Monday Crash.

The market for new college grads was not all rainbows & unicorns.

I was there as a college grad. It was true from the 60s into the latter 70s. You can point to specific events that were harbingers of underlying troubles, but at the time the job market took more than a decade to reflect them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,295 posts, read 1,460,258 times
Reputation: 1774
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
That just isn't true. The 1970s had a severe recession triggered by the Arab Oil Embargo and had double-digit inflation as a consequence of paying for the War in Vietnam by a massive increase in the money supply.

For example, Seattle's Sister City in Japan sent foreign aid to Seattle to help the jobless. They sent care packages & food. That's how bad things were.

President Nixon imposed wage-price controls at the start of the decade. The 70s saw substantial stagflation. By the end of the decade there was another recession.

The 80s launched with the largest Misery Index on record (the sum of employment rate plus the unemployment rate). The 80s had the S&L crisis & the Black Monday Crash.

The market for new college grads was not all rainbows & unicorns.
After the dust settled, however, the period from 1973-1983, with its inflation and its recessions, achieved something substantial: pumping up assets significantly. Neighbors of my Dad sold their 90,000 house from 1969 for 750,000 in 1985. That house would sell for maybe 1,250,000 today -- barely tracking inflation since the Reagan years.

Lots of the appreciated capital gains (in stocks as well as in housing) that people are realizing now, occurred during the 1970s.

Of course, this assumes you had assets to invest in the 1960s. It _was_ a tough time for the Boomers who were just getting started.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top