Technology has brought along a change in the way that one stage of life affects the stages that follow. The US had a tremendous appeal to immigrants in the past because it was possible to "start fresh," and people who screwed up in one area had the option of moving somewhere else and "reinventing" themselves.
This had advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages were fairly obvious; hucksters and charlatans and scammers could roam from place to place and never be identified as long as they never stayed in one area for too long. But the advantages were substantial as well - people were free to try new ideas and businesses with the knowledge that if the enterprise failed, the resulting debts could be wiped away via bankruptcy and that it would not spell the end of their financial lives.
This encouraged more business-formation, risk-taking, and entrepreneurship. The reality is, business is a process, and most people fail at their first venture - sometimes their first several ventures. It takes time to learn how to manage properly.
This ability to fail and try again has been eroded quite a lot by lifelong data acquisition, which pins failures to your "record" and keeps them there for years, if not indefinitely. Even if companies claim they "drop" or "erase" those types of things, third-party data aggregators certainly don't.
So it becomes less appealing to take a risk on a personal venture, since the stain of failure - if you fail - may now be permanent. There is much less chance for personal reinvention, and your early financial choices now have much more effect on your future financial status.
Quote:
if more workers actually worked and didn't behave like children who need a full time babysitter more managers wouldn't hate them.
|
Companies always complain about this, but then if you take a look behind their HR practices, they tend to get the job candidates they deserve. Exclusions are often based on criteria that sound good in theory, but turns out to have no actual bearing on job performance in practice. Such as demanding very specific types of "experience" that may only be held by sub-optimal candidates, but which could be learned by an inexperienced candidate. But since the requirements exclude inexperienced candidates, the HR department ends up hiring sub-optimal employees.
Drug-testing, for instance, was pushed hard by HR managers throughout the late-80's and 90's, but has actually been in decline in recent years for positions where it simply doesn't matter. This is because there doesn't appear to be much of a link between producing clean drug test results and being a "good" employee. And yet, HR departments ignored that data for years, and many continue to ignore it today.
They tend to get the candidates they deserve to get. No better and no worse.