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.
Unfortunately, some people have a myopic viewpoint based on their limited personal experience and what they saw on a tv program.
I have over 25 years experience in human resources at Fortune 500 companies involved in hiring and terminations including layoffs. On the hiring side, I have seen age discrimination and layoffs due to poor judgments/business decisions of management or sometimes due to acquisitions. With acquisitions certain functions/jobs are eliminated and fewer people are needed. Manufacturing goes overseas, plants relocate, etc. The workers affected often due to no fault of their own and are not easily absorbed by the economy. If this occurs in one's 50's it's very difficult to recover from, perhaps experience was industry specific and skills are not transferrable to other industries or the jobs no longer exist. The world has changed from a manufacturing economy to service economy. People suggest retraining and/or going back to school but sometimes this isn't feasible from a cost standpoint. A tough pill to swallow is the intellect/skills required today may not a match for those displaced.
This isn't to say, some people don't get comfortable in their job, resist change, don't upgrade their skills and enjoy outsized wages/benefits due to seniority/job longevity. We called this "the golden handcuffs" It's patently unfair to state many are unemployed due to poor performance or lack of drive.
I think this view is absolutely the basic truth of what we have witnessed in the recent recession and subsequent changes in the overall employment picture. Lots of jobs are not coming back to the US cities they once inhabited, and the employees will not be "absorbed" into new types of work as was explained to so many of the now disillusioned permanently unemployed. To think that we can rely on government stats for our collective economic understanding would assume the notion that government has no reason to under report, or to obfuscate the unemployment numbers.
The threat in believing such statistically cheery news is that we have allowed ourselves to become comfortable with the idea that if the majority of us are doing alright, then the rest must be somehow tainted with an individual laziness, or worse, sponging off of the more prosperous of us. Many millions of American workers were "retired" after the recession dust cleared, yes, that's the way most saw their future regardless of their age and the lack of any voluntary desire to be retired. When discouraged people stop looking for work--The stats reflect that as a favorable situation.
There has always been a very real concerted effort by government to conceal the worst aspects of an exclusive economy here in America, the growing underclass stands as the most obvious retort to the government's own cheerful reports, "the greatest economy ever" kind of blather that ignores the reality of a growing presence of tents on our city sidewalks and an even more disconcerting rise in the population of those who fly just beneath the government's radar of poverty stats. Yeah, we are most likely better off as a nation than many, but, that doesn't begin to address the concerns of a huge rise in economic disparity we've seen this century.
A great deal of it has to do with the simple diminishing returns from our expenditures. For example, the cost of banking is increased by the necessity of having a cellphone in order to bank online. Then, the cost of the phone in inflated by more standard but unwanted features built into the phone. None of which improve the banking experience.
So the cost of technology is increasing by a larger increment than the value received from the technology, but earlier cheaper models are either no longer available, or no longer supported by the system.
For example, the cost of banking is increased by the necessity of having a cellphone in order to bank online. Then, the cost of the phone in inflated by more standard but unwanted features built into the phone. None of which improve the banking experience.
Hello false dilemma. You don't need a cell phone to bank online, but even if you did how many people who bank online with a cell phone wouldn't have that cell phone anyway? Your example is so obtuse you might as well complain about the unwanted features of cars contributing to the cost of a cheeseburger.
A great deal of it has to do with the simple diminishing returns from our expenditures. For example, the cost of banking is increased by the necessity of having a cellphone in order to bank online. Then, the cost of the phone in inflated by more standard but unwanted features built into the phone. None of which improve the banking experience.
So the cost of technology is increasing by a larger increment than the value received from the technology, but earlier cheaper models are either no longer available, or no longer supported by the system.
True but in some cases, expenditures are wants vs. needs.
I still have flip phone ($39/phone); pay bills; conduct banking transactions from cheap chrome book; use google docs.
I have basic cable; occasionally rent movie from on-demand
I have same washer/dryer for over 15 years -- no electronics; cheaply serviced a couple of times by mechanic
I have same car for 14 years (bought new and serviced regularly)
I have a corporate business background and always did a cost/benefits analysis on any IT upgrades much to the consternation of the IT people.
A great deal of it has to do with the simple diminishing returns from our expenditures. For example, the cost of banking is increased by the necessity of having a cellphone in order to bank online. Then, the cost of the phone in inflated by more standard but unwanted features built into the phone. None of which improve the banking experience.
So the cost of technology is increasing by a larger increment than the value received from the technology, but earlier cheaper models are either no longer available, or no longer supported by the system.
You don’t need a new expensive smart phone to do online banking. You can use a old smartphone, tablet or laptop. As long as you have web access.
True but in some cases, expenditures are wants vs. needs.
I still have flip phone ($39/phone); pay bills; conduct banking transactions from cheap chrome book; use google docs.
I have basic cable; occasionally rent movie from on-demand
I have same washer/dryer for over 15 years -- no electronics; cheaply serviced a couple of times by mechanic
I have same car for 14 years (bought new and serviced regularly)
I have a corporate business background and always did a cost/benefits analysis on any IT upgrades much to the consternation of the IT people.
That last part only works if you really understood/understand what IT was/is trying to accomplish. You being personally on the cheapish side of things would be a big time red-flag to me. FWIIW my wife is CIO of a large company. Her career rearview is lined with accounting and finance types who cast themselves onto the business rubbish heap after denying or financially stonewalling IT spends that were difficult to "rationalize" beforehand.
That last part only works if you really understood/understand what IT was/is trying to accomplish. You being personally on the cheapish side of things would be a big time red-flag to me. FWIIW my wife is CIO of a large company. Her career rearview is lined with accounting and finance types who cast themselves onto the business rubbish heap after denying or financially stonewalling IT spends that were difficult to "rationalize" beforehand.
Yes, I really understood what IT was trying to accomplish. How is a cost/benefits analysis being on the "cheapish" side? It was open to review by the IT department. So, you generalize and stereotype me as cheapish based on your wife's (not even your personal) experience. Did you review her cost/benefits analysis or did you take her word for it that they were stonewalling and there was a good ROI?
I can tell you from my personal experience, IT sometimes wants upgrades with marginal business value to increase their marketplace value by listing the newest technology on their resume. I was head of a large department and did a cost/benefits analysis on all budget items I proposed subject to approval.
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.
