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.
Back in 1987, when there was a more realistic software developer shortage, the company that I worked for from 1987 to 2016, wasn't averse to paying for my relocation and providing me with a superior compensation package. I also don't know where it was mentioned that employers pay two salaries, they didn't for me or for anyone else that I knew. But that was a good deal that my company gave me, and it certainly wasn't a fantasy. Perhaps with the way employers behave today and no real worker shortages that kind of a deal is indeed a fantasy nowadays.
Back in 1987, when there was a more realistic software developer shortage, the company that I worked for from 1987 to 2016, wasn't averse to paying for my relocation and providing me with a superior compensation package. I also don't know where it was mentioned that employers pay two salaries, they didn't for me or for anyone else that I knew. But that was a good deal that my company gave me, and it certainly wasn't a fantasy. Perhaps with the way employers behave today and no real worker shortages that kind of a deal is indeed a fantasy nowadays.
It might actually be real shortages coming up because alot of people know that they cant really get ahead without working themselves into an early grave so alot of people are opting to work just hard enough to pay for some food and weed. People are not dumb, they know that in order to make enough money to advance their lives they have to work extraordinarily hard (far harder than previous generations) and on top of that get extremely lucky.
Even people that want to start their own business are up against a massive barrier to entry as far as equipment, raw materials, software, etc to do much.
You were smart not to change majors because a genuine shortage like this is rare and VERY short lived. When these rare events happen you better believe that the elites and business owners are having "retreats" to strategize how to flood the market with said skill. They will start shelling out money for media hype, start worming there way into high schools to spread lies, start offereing retraining "opportunities".
So while these people may have had multiple job opportunities you know the employers were seething (just like fishbrains does by trying to shift definitions, I dont really care what he calls it, if I cant get "showered with riches" then why should I uproot my entire family across the country) so they may get a few years before they are axed so they have to save their money, but even then they are now suck with a degree and multiple years of expereince in something they may not even like just becuase there was an extremely temporary genuine shortage.
Elites and business owners are not going to allow a genuine shortage to go on very long if they can help it. What they really want is surfs that come with the land so everything is turn key and they only have to spend the money once with another lord. Thats what gives them wet dreams at night.
Having to pay out real money that will advance someone to their level is a nightmare scenario to them.
My question is if they are so seething over these skills shortages why dont the share holders and executives learn the skill themselves and get it done, it is their business after all you would think they would care a little more about it. Kind of like when GE was whining about turbine techs/mechanics/engineers, there was nothing stopping their share holders and executives from rolling up their sleves and learning how to build turbines, but instead they complained and whined to the media. Believe me there are enough lay abouts at the upper level to get down on the floor and get it done, they just didnt want to.
Yes, I agree. My mom didn't want me to switch majors to Packaging. She said that this career came out of nowhere and would probably disappear into nowhere. Easy come easy go. Yes, employers figured out how to solve this shortage. Part of it was to use mechanical engineers as packaging specialists. Now many of those positions are temporary gigs.
I am glad that I never switched to Packaging even if it had remained a hot field. I just couldn't envision myself designing those packages over and over again. That would drive me crazy.
I don't think a shortage means what you think it means. If you want to improve your chances of getting a good job, you might want to rethink your expectations of a good job.
That's, of course, the whole point: Upthread, and in many other threads in this forum, I've discussed that the prevailing operative mechanism about which most of what people express concern is the institutionalized devaluing of work in our economy. I've talked about how it goes back to Frederick Taylor, and how he realized that by switching from having a dozen skilled craftspeople to having a one skilled craftsperson plus 11 comparatively unskilled workers, each trained to perform a very small and specific job in the value chain, costs can be remarkably reduced. And we see that realization has given birth to what we see today: literally hundreds of different strategies and tactics industry uses to constrain and reduce the value of work, itself.
So, of course, if the definition of a "good job" is re-thought by comparing it solely to worse jobs then there will "always" be good jobs. However, such an observation is no significant meaning. Comparatives with regard to wages, especially, are meaningful only when the comparison is to what it costs to pay one's own way and secure one's own future.
Try living in the real world for a moment, rather than spinning these fantasies where companies are eager to shower riches on any person who shows up.
They aren't fantasies - they're memories of how things were. I worry when I see so many people who have no memory (either due to forgetting or not having been aware/alive at the time) of how things have been in the past. Fundamental aspects of how things used to be have been washed away by the aforementioned Taylorist strategies and tactics. It is not unreasonable to consider those strategies and tactics to be reflections of unfair exploitation of an unjust power differential, and to reject your implication that their impact should be deemed acceptable by default.
It isn't "fantasy" to expect the labor marketplace to furnish for all opportunities that they can pursue and obtain, opportunities that allow them to pay their own way and secure their own future. That's a bare minimum society should furnish in deference to the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Don't expect that any kind of "winners and losers" rationalizations will be viewed as righteous - they're not and haven't been since people started putting moral codes down on paper/papyrus.
They aren't fantasies - they're memories of how things were. I worry when I see so many people who have no memory (either due to forgetting or not having been aware/alive at the time) of how things have been in the past. Fundamental aspects of how things used to be have been washed away by the aforementioned Taylorist strategies and tactics. It is not unreasonable to consider those strategies and tactics to be reflections of unfair exploitation of an unjust power differential, and to reject your implication that their impact should be deemed acceptable by default.
It isn't "fantasy" to expect the labor marketplace to furnish for all opportunities that they can pursue and obtain, opportunities that allow them to pay their own way and secure their own future. That's a bare minimum society should furnish in deference to the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Don't expect that any kind of "winners and losers" rationalizations will be viewed as righteous - they're not and haven't been since people started putting moral codes down on paper/papyrus.
Absolutely correct. And well said in a rational and intellectual manner.
They aren't fantasies - they're memories of how things were. I worry when I see so many people who have no memory (either due to forgetting or not having been aware/alive at the time) of how things have been in the past. Fundamental aspects of how things used to be have been washed away by the aforementioned Taylorist strategies and tactics. It is not unreasonable to consider those strategies and tactics to be reflections of unfair exploitation of an unjust power differential, and to reject your implication that their impact should be deemed acceptable by default.
Once again we seem to be divided between the philosophical ideal, and the practical reality. As our laws and economy stands at the moment, the reality is people like Pittsflyer are unrealistic.
Back in the 1950s-1970s, we had a fundamentally different workforce. Women generally did not pursue a career path, and worked for only a few years until they got married. The US was also the only large economy with infrastructure that had not been devastated by WW2, and was the economic engine that rebuilt Europe. We also had a strong, pro-union attitude, and many jobs had not been replaced with automation.
Put another way, the market for US goods was huge, our workforce was half of what it is now, we have pro-labor laws and polices, and we needed lots of hands to do anything.
That is all different now, and for a modern worker to expect things to be done the way they were 50 years ago isn't realistic.
Quote:
It isn't "fantasy" to expect the labor marketplace to furnish for all opportunities that they can pursue and obtain, opportunities that allow them to pay their own way and secure their own future. That's a bare minimum society should furnish in deference to the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Don't expect that any kind of "winners and losers" rationalizations will be viewed as righteous - they're not and haven't been since people started putting moral codes down on paper/papyrus.
Philosophically, I agree with you. I am on record numerous times advocating for more pro-labor legislation. Higher minimum wages, single payer health insurance, mandated vacation, maternity leave, and a revamp of our tax code. However, until those things happen, the man on the street is left with the reality of working within a system that is massively skewed in favor of corporate interests to the detriment of the individual.
It is a reality I live every day. I make a decent living, and I have decent benefits. I also have to accomplish a job within strict budgetary limits, and to do that I have to keep my payroll costs down to the market level. Fortunately, my employer still offers good benefits, so it isn't all black and white in my world, but I couldn't even begin to pay the type of wages some on this board demand.
That's, of course, the whole point: Upthread, and in many other threads in this forum, I've discussed that the prevailing operative mechanism about which most of what people express concern is the institutionalized devaluing of work in our economy. I've talked about how it goes back to Frederick Taylor, and how he realized that by switching from having a dozen skilled craftspeople to having a one skilled craftsperson plus 11 comparatively unskilled workers, each trained to perform a very small and specific job in the value chain, costs can be remarkably reduced. And we see that realization has given birth to what we see today: literally hundreds of different strategies and tactics industry uses to constrain and reduce the value of work, itself.
this is what made the assembly line so productive and made America as powerhouse...
The cheaper labor from one person doing one job meant they got to employ more people... Today the gig economy is doing that. It is in transition so people aren't liking the change
The run up to the 1990s saw people unspecializing and extending their skills to other areas. They are the ones that struggle now. The jobs where people specialize do fine today. Why hire a stem worker if they can train someone close enough to it to do the job? Not specialized enough to protect the niche. Job title and job responsibilities are all mixed together these days. Unions kept duties clear cut, when people say they want a union, this is what they want.
People want to go back in time but ignore things that made those times productive?
Even the high physician pay is leveling out because they spend more time on administration than practicing medicine
Once again we seem to be divided between the philosophical ideal, and the practical reality. As our laws and economy stands at the moment, the reality is people like Pittsflyer are unrealistic.
Back in the 1950s-1970s, we had a fundamentally different workforce. Women generally did not pursue a career path, and worked for only a few years until they got married. The US was also the only large economy with infrastructure that had not been devastated by WW2, and was the economic engine that rebuilt Europe. We also had a strong, pro-union attitude, and many jobs had not been replaced with automation.
Put another way, the market for US goods was huge, our workforce was half of what it is now, we have pro-labor laws and polices, and we needed lots of hands to do anything.
That is all different now, and for a modern worker to expect things to be done the way they were 50 years ago isn't realistic.
Philosophically, I agree with you. I am on record numerous times advocating for more pro-labor legislation. Higher minimum wages, single payer health insurance, mandated vacation, maternity leave, and a revamp of our tax code. However, until those things happen, the man on the street is left with the reality of working within a system that is massively skewed in favor of corporate interests to the detriment of the individual.
It is a reality I live every day. I make a decent living, and I have decent benefits. I also have to accomplish a job within strict budgetary limits, and to do that I have to keep my payroll costs down to the market level. Fortunately, my employer still offers good benefits, so it isn't all black and white in my world, but I couldn't even begin to pay the type of wages some on this board demand.
But yet wasent it you that poo pooed nuclear conflict? IF WW2 created the scenario that led to propsperity then why do we poo poo looking foward to WW3.
Everyone knows that global conflict (or a world wide plauge) is what will lead us into the next renessance. What ever it takes to get there we need to make it happen.
But it has to be global and the eliets have to loose everything, small regional conflicts just make the eliets richer.
If you know of a better way then great but through out all of history the only way to a renassance was mass conflict (or disease in the case of the black death).
But yet wasent it you that poo pooed nuclear conflict? IF WW2 created the scenario that led to propsperity then why do we poo poo looking foward to WW3.
Yes, and I am still opposed to the thermonuclear annihilation of billions of people. Partly because I don’t want to die in a ball of fire, or the subsequent disease and starvation.
Plus, I think that your hypothesis is flawed. War does not always lead to renaissance, renaissance can happen without war, and hundreds of years of subsistence living seems to be too high a price to pay.
I will let you in on a secret. In the most recent Marvel movie, Infinity War, Thanos was the villain, not the hero.
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.
