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.
Are you sure you're being honest with yourself? You may not "ask anything in return", but I'm sure you're hoping they can help you out in the future and wouldn't be happy if they slammed the door in your face in the future after you helped them out.
Truly, we are only really genuine with those who can do nothing for us.
Obviously I am hoping they will help me in the future. I hope that my brother in law will give me a place to stay if I lose my house too. Does that mean every time I am nice to him I am 'using him'? Helping friends and family is human nature. Maybe you should start treating co-workers more like human beings and less like another pawn in a game. That is how you build a network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123
Thanks for the pointless, snide commentary.
If you bothered to read at all, you would see that I never said networking didn't work or was a bad idea. My complaint is with the assumption that anyone can brown-nose their way into the good graces of somebody in power, who can then get around the hiring rules so you can get a job without having to toss an application into an online black-hole or go through a mountain of aimless interviews. Those are the "rules" to which I'm referring - the rules that govern how a corporation normally hires people and which were clearly circumvented in the OP's story.
Most workers do not have access to the powerful people, and powerful people are not interesting in befriending a bunch of "disposable" working-class grunts who will then ask them for a job. So, yeah, if you're lucky enough to be related to somebody in power, or you were friends with them before they became powerful, you may be able to network your way past the gatekeepers that prevent employment. If not, you're out of luck.
And networking is not about brown-nosing...you seem to have completely missed that point. If you are doing nothing but sucking up to people, you will never build a good network.
Obviously I am hoping they will help me in the future. I hope that my brother in law will give me a place to stay if I lose my house too. Does that mean every time I am nice to him I am 'using him'? Helping friends and family is human nature. Maybe you should start treating co-workers more like human beings and less like another pawn in a game. That is how you build a network.
.
How in the world did you reach that conclusion after reading his post? Good grief.
If you bothered to read at all, you would see that I never said networking didn't work or was a bad idea. My complaint is with the assumption that anyone can brown-nose their way into the good graces of somebody in power, who can then get around the hiring rules so you can get a job without having to toss an application into an online black-hole or go through a mountain of aimless interviews. Those are the "rules" to which I'm referring - the rules that govern how a corporation normally hires people and which were clearly circumvented in the OP's story.
Most workers do not have access to the powerful people, and powerful people are not interested in befriending a bunch of "disposable" working-class grunts who will then ask them for a job. So, yeah, if you're lucky enough to be related to somebody in power, or you were friends with them before they became powerful, you may be able to network your way past the gatekeepers that prevent employment. If not, you're out of luck.
LOSS OF JOBS — LOSS OF SECURITY "Again, the idea that you not feel terribly secure, promoting the notion that the world isn't a terribly reliable place. The United States was to be kept strong in information, communications, high technology, education and agriculture. The United States was seen as continuing to be sort of the keystone of this global system. But heavy industry would be transported out. One of the comments made about heavy industry was that we had had enough environmental damage from smokestacks and industrial waste and some of the other people could put up with that for a while. This again, was supposed to be a "redeeming quality" for Americans to accept. You took away our industry but you saved our environment. So we really didn't lose on it."
LIMITING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE MAKES ELIMINATING THE ELDERLY EASIER
A big item – [that] was elaborated at some length – was the cost of medical care would be burdensomely high. Medical care would be connected very closely with one's work, but also would be made very, very high in cost so that it would simply be unavailable to people beyond a certain time. And unless they had a remarkably rich, supporting family, they would just have to do without care.
And the idea was that if everybody says, "Enough! What a burden it is on the young to try to maintain the old people," then the young would become agreeable to helping Mom and Dad along the way, provided this was done humanely and with dignity. And then the real example was - there could be like a nice, farewell party, a real celebration. Mom and Dad had done a good job. And then after the party's over they take the "demise pill." PLANNING THE CONTROL OVER MEDICINE
The next topic is Medicine. There would be profound changes in the practice of medicine. Overall, medicine would be much more tightly controlled. The observation was made, "Congress is not going to go along with national health insurance. That (in 1969), he said, "is now, abundantly evident. But it's not necessary. We have other ways to control health care." These would come about more gradually, but all health care delivery would come under tight control. Medical care would be closely connected to work. If you don't work or can't work, you won't have access to medical care. The days of hospitals giving away free care would gradually wind down, to where it was virtually non-existent. Costs would be forced up so that people won't be able to afford to go without insurance. People pay... you pay for it, you're entitled to it. It was only subsequently that I began to realize the extent to which you would not be paying for it. Your medical care would be paid for by others. And therefore you would gratefully accept, on bended knee, what was offered to you as a privilege. Your role being responsible for your own care would be diminished."
MORE TIME IN SCHOOLS, BUT THEY "WOULDN'T LEARN ANYTHING."
As regards education, he indicated that kids would spend more time in schools, but in many schools they wouldn't learn anything. They'll learn some things, but not as much as formerly. Better schools in better areas with better people – their kids will learn more. In the better schools, learning would be accelerated. And this is another time where he said, "We think we can push evolution."
By pushing kids to learn more, he seemed to be suggesting that their brains would evolve, that their offspring would evolve – sort of pushing evolution – where kids would learn and be more intelligent at a younger age. As if this pushing would alter their physiology. Overall, schooling would be prolonged. This meant prolonged through the school year. I'm not sure what he said about a long school day, I do remember he said that school was planned to go all summer, that the summer school vacation would become a thing of the past. Not only for schools, but for other reasons. People would begin to think of vacation times year round, not just in the summer.
For most people, it would take longer to complete their education. To get what originally had been in a bachelor's program would now require advanced degrees and more schooling. So that a lot of school time would be just wasted time. Good schools would become more competitive. I inferred when he said that, that he was including all schools – elementary up through college – but I don't recall whether he said that.
Students would have to decide at a younger age what they would want to study and get onto their track early, if they would qualify. It would be harder to change to another field of study once you get started. Studies would be concentrated in much greater depth, but narrowed. You wouldn't have access to material in other fields, outside your own area of study, without approval. This seem to be more... where he talked about limited access to other fields... I seem to recall that as being more at the college level, high school and college level, perhaps. People would be very specialized in their own area of expertise. But they won't be able to get a broad education and won't be able to understand what is going on overall. CONTROLLING WHO HAS ACCESS TO INFORMATION
He was already talking about computers in education, and at that time he said anybody who wanted computer access, or access to books that were not directly related to their field of study would have to have a very good reason for so doing. Otherwise, access would be denied. SCHOOLS AS THE HUB OF THE COMMUNITY
Another angle was that the schools would become more important in people's overall life. Kids in addition to their academics, would have to get into school activities unless they wanted to feel completely out of it. But spontaneous activities among kids – the thing that came to my mind when I heard this was sandlot football and sandlot baseball teams that we worked up as kids growing up. I said the kids wanting any activities outside of school would be almost forced to get them through the school. There would be few opportunities outside.
Now the pressures of the accelerated academic program, the accelerated demands, where kids would feel they had to be part of something – one or another athletic club or some school activity – these pressures he recognized would cause some students to burn out. He said, "the smartest ones will learn how to cope with pressures and to survive. There will be some help available to students in handling stress, but the unfit won't be able to make it. They will then move on to other things."
In this connection, and later on in the connection with drug abuse and alcohol abuse, he indicated that psychiatric services to help would be increased dramatically. In all the pushing for achievement, it was recognized that many people would need help, and the people worth keeping around would be able to accept and benefit from that help, and still be super-achievers. Those who could not would fall by the wayside and therefore were sort of dispensable – "expendable" – I guess is the word I want. Education would be lifelong. Adults would be going to school. There'll always be new information that adults must have to keep up. When you can't keep up anymore, you're too old. This was another way of letting older people know that the time had come for them to move on and take the demise pill. If you get too tired to keep up with your education, or you got too old to learn new information, then this was a signal – you begin to prepare to get ready to step aside."
Basically, corporate America[and everybody really] is looking for a certain type of person. Extroverted, perky, upbeat, neat and clean, preferably tall, good looking, a lot of energy, always "on." Sadly, we can't all be "winners." For some people DNA sees to that! I guess that is why Hitler was into eugenics. He wanted to create a whole race of "winners." Sometimes I think that we are doing the same thing today but only in a passive way. Perhaps in the future "winners" will be the only ones to survive because there will be no opportunities for the lesser among us. You will have to have a Yuppie attitude just to get a job bagging groceries!
Previous post was also meant for you. It will help you understand the why of the current reality. It will not necessarily help you but sometimes understanding the why helps.
It must be nice for him. I do give him credit for establishing himself by showing great skills in his field and building a solid reputation. Good for him.
I was just thinking about this because I've never had anyone help me or assist me in any way despite what happens to me which can be extremely frustrating. I'm sure 1/2 of America feels this way too. I often wonder what it's like to just mention some change of circumstance and have someone just let you know to pass them your resume and everything will be established for you. I remind myself that God never puts more on you then you can bear but sometimes when I look back on my life I sure do wish the red sea would part for me to walk through rather than me always having to ride the rapids across.
As the OP, I should add something that has been touched on but perhaps not sufficiently emphasized:
Building his network was not a fast process. It took a long time -- decades, really -- where he showed over and over again that he could be relied on to produce good results. And not just to one person but to lots of people (because he had many different supervisors, and many different project managers, and many customers over the years). It was because he had helped get all these people out of jams over the years that he was remembered when he needed help himself.
Have you read any of his other posts on this forum?
Where have I ever stated I use my co-workers as pawns, WTF man? I like my co-workers for the most part. I'm not the one who refuses to help an intern if that intern won't work for my company in the future. That was you. You can disagree with me but don't call me a user. You are quite the hypocrite.
Almost every time I've helped a colleague, co-worker, partner, friend etc. in need...whether it's to clean her son's laptop by removing viruses/trojans and then recommending something such as MSE for future preventative maintenance...or to help him and his roommate set up their wireless network in their condo...or to simply give advice about the iPad...or to suggest good brands for home theater AV receivers and speakers...or to review and critique her written essay that's required for admission to a university...etc etc...I did not ask for anything in return. I did it simply because I wanted to, had the time and knowledge, liked the person, felt it was feasible, and felt that it was the right thing to do. There was no kiss-ass, no hidden agenda involved. If I got anything in return, it was because they took the initiative to do so...sometimes I graciously accepted, othertimes I politely declined.
The reason they came to me? Over time, they noticed that (a) I did my job well and with a good attitude and good effort, (b) I had good knowledge and skill in relevant areas and (c) I was empathetic and generally cared about others' well being both on and off the job. These things lead to others having confidence and trust in you. You build up a good reputation among others.
If I didn't have the sufficient expertise to aid that person in something, then (if possible) I would refer them to someone else with the skills, or some helpful resource.
Little things like that - or even just to reconnect at lunch or at happy hour over drinks - or sending them a birthday or Xmas card...can go a long way towards them remembering you in a positive light, and might just give you an edge...an inside track...over others for opportunities that are a good match for you. The opportunity could be a new job with a 30% bump in salary w/ great benefits and perks, or a sweetheart deal on that new car that doesn't get publicly advertised, or a new revenue-generating business opportunity for your current company that could put it in the black for the year, or VIP access to that exclusive club, etc etc.
Almost all hiring managers strongly prefer to hire people that they know and like, or that someone else (of good standing) in the company knows and likes. The higher up the ladder the available position is, the truer this becomes. There's a comfort level and confidence in such hires that this new hire can and will do the job well...the employer has SEEN their work and the fruits of their labor. Other "unknown" candidates armed with a resume and going thru an interview will have a difficult time competing with that.
It's really not that hard to understand...
Anyone can build a network (unless you're a hermit or hate people or something). Admittedly, extroverts may have an easier time doing so, but introverts can do it too. However, I will say that most people who have strong connections began building their networks at a YOUNG age...college, even high school...and nurtured and grew their networks over the years. These people can easily and quickly find good work, even in a tough economy.
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.
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.
