16 years ago at conference in Washington D.C I told Sen.
Dorgan that advocates of free trade
in the United States were just racists. Most people
thought I had lost my marbles, but I went on to say that the
conventional thinking was that the US could keep the high paying
jobs while transferring the low paying jobs overseas what makes
you think that the India's of this world will be content with just
the low paying jobs and that they won't come after the high paying
jobs as well?
To believe that wasn't going to happen was pure racism. I don't
think most people got it but a few did. Unfortunately I have been
proven right. and as long we continue to believe in "American exceptionalism"
at the expense of a hard look at our competitive situation, we are
going to get screwed.
Offshore software development and, to lesser extent, moving to
software maintenance oversees creates complex and expensive to resolve
and contain problems that are usually swiped under the floor in the
quest for quick buck. In all cases, but especially in "Total Offshoring"
cases, those problems tend to increase with the age of the relationship.
The key observation is thatwhen you outsource everything on a
marginal cost basis, you create an inherently unstable operating regime.
This is classic �race to the bottom� problem. In case of IT outsourcing
the costs you had not even acknowledged to exist at all � might come later,
and they tend to arrive all at once and by surprise.
When you outsource everything on a marginal
cost basis,
you create an inherently unstable operating regime.
If we outsource IT in the interests of lowing labor costs, we must be
mature and acknowledge that there are no free lunches. As you will see evaluating
the actual risks/rewards of unbridled globalization of workforce is not
an easy task.
"First you destroy those
who create values. Then you destroy those who know what values are, and
who also know that those who have already been destroyed were in fact
the creators of values.
But real barbarism begins when no one can judge or know that what they
are doing is barbaric."
The problem is that many people face long term unemployment without substantial emergency funds, which further complicates
already difficult situation.
Notable quotes:
"... More than 2K adults to were interviewed to try and ascertain how long they could survive without income. It turns out that approximately 72.4MM employed Americans - 28.4% of the population - believe they wouldn't be able to last for more than a month without a payday. ..."
Imagine you lost your job tomorrow. How long would you be able to sustain your current
lifestyle? A week? A month? A year?
As we await Friday's labor market update, Finder has just published the results of a recent
survey attempting to gauge the financial stability of the average American in the post-pandemic
era.
More than 2K adults to were interviewed to try and ascertain how long they could survive
without income. It turns out that approximately 72.4MM employed Americans - 28.4% of the
population - believe they wouldn't be able to last for more than a month without a payday.
Another 24% said they expected to be able to live comfortably between two months and six
months. That means an estimated 133.6MM working Americans (52.3% of the population) can live
off their savings for six months or less before going broke.
On the other end of the spectrum, roughly 8.7MM employed Americans (or 3.4% of the
population) say they don't need to rely on a rainy day fund since they have employment
insurance which will compensate them should they lose their job.
Amusingly, men appear to be less effective savers than women. Some 32.4MM women (26.7% of
American women) say their savings would stretch at most a month, compared to 40MM men (29.9% of
American men) who admit to the same. Of those people, 9.7MM women (8% of American women) say
their savings wouldn't even stretch a week, compared to 15.5MM men (11.6% of American men) who
admit to the same.
A majority of employed Americans over the age of 18 say their savings would last six months
at most. About 70.7MM men (52.8% of American men) and 62.8MM women (51.8% of American women)
fear they'd be in dire straits within six months of losing their livelihood.
Unsurprisingly, younger people tend to have less of a savings buffer - but the gap between
the generations isn't as wide as it probably should be.
While increasing one's income is perhaps the best route to building a more robust nest egg,
Finder offered some suggestions for people looking to maximize their savings.
1. Create a budget and stick to it
Look at your monthly income against all of your monthly expenses. Add to them expenses you
pay once or twice a year to avoid a surprise when they creep up. After you know where your
money is going, you can allot specific amounts to different categories and effectively track
your spending.
Neoliberals policies for minority students in education can be called “the soft bigotry
of low expectations.”
Racists want discrimination based on race; wokesters want discrimination based on race too.
One in the name of bigotry, one in the name of “tolerance.” Does the motive really
matter if the outcome is the same?
Notable quotes:
"... the ONS dataset is A09, Labour Market status by ethnic group, is testament to white folks ingenuity to overcome such discrimination ..."
My uncle did admissions at Cambridge and he actively discriminated against Public School
boys, despite being one himself. He was actually involved in hiring that black woman to be
the Master at Christ's College.
Similarly at Citi it was very obvious any remotely competent black was promoted way beyond
there competency, although that was largely limited to back and middle office roles.
Still the ONS dataset is A09, Labour Market status by ethnic group, is
testament to white folks ingenuity to overcome such discrimination and the free market
at work.
"... Hiring is a lot more complex and constrained, than this writeup suggests. In stacks of resumes that I used to review, I found almost all applicants exaggerate or lie. ..."
"... Employers (or the ones the future worker will work directly "" like local manager) are in the majority of cases DO NOT hire directly. ..."
"... There is either a staffing firm/ recruitment firm between, often also a different websites (for job seekers) which only redirects towards those. ..."
"... The problem with the HR/ recruitment firms/ jobseeker websites themselves. They dictate who will work somewhere. ..."
"... It's a new world of fraud, total fraud. Biden is an absurd fraud. They are all frauds, because actual accomplishments, real work, are so very much more difficult than lies. ..."
"... There's nothing new under the sun. It's always been fraud, flimflam and bamboozle. Somebody once said, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. But, then again, he could have just been fooling around. ..."
Hiring is a lot more complex and constrained, than this writeup suggests. In stacks of resumes that I used to review, I found almost all applicants exaggerate or lie. That was very problematic,
because once you hire a person, it's hard to get rid of them, even with "at-will" employment.
There is a major problem with the article/ whole employment process:
Employers (or the ones the future worker will work directly "" like local manager) are in the majority of cases DO NOT
hire directly.(Respect for the ones, who do.)
There is either a staffing firm/ recruitment firm between, often also a different websites (for job seekers) which only
redirects towards those.
Also many company have a HR department, etc... The problem with the HR/ recruitment firms/ jobseeker websites themselves.
They dictate who will work somewhere.
Wish to be workers should meet directly with the ones they supposed to work for.
To see whether racial discrimination exists, researchers send the same CV to employers with the same level of qualifications
but different names attached, to see if the foreign-sounding names lead to a greater degree of rejection. They often find that
to be the case.
Given that British blacks most often bear British sounding names and that foreign whites too bear foreign sounding names, I
don't see how the difference in treatment can be put down to racial bias. Moreover, I don't see anything wrong in giving precedence
to compatriots over foreigners. It is the opposite that is unsound.
As a French national with a foreign sounding name, I never expected to be given precedence over native French candidates and
always counted solely on my competence to get a position. If the world we live in were still normal, that would be the normal
attitude because in a normal world people are allowed to prefer their kin vs folks they don't know from Adam. It is the opposite
that isn't normal.
Discard national preference and you get foreign tribes' nepotism.
researchers send the same CV to employers with the same level of qualifications but different names attached, to see if
the foreign-sounding names lead to a greater degree of rejection. They often find that to be the case.
Because it's a lose-lose to hire a Tyrone or Abdul. Even if they're the most qualified, they're "high-maintenance," arriving
with extra-legal protections and considerations. Down the road they can always hide behind the specter of racism if their performance
is found lacking.
It's a new world of fraud, total fraud. Biden is an absurd fraud. They are all frauds, because actual accomplishments,
real work, are so very much more difficult than lies.
Indians are fantastic fraudsters. Africans are fraud specialists. Many Asians are not so much CV fraudsters as they are test
cheaters.
Agreed as they do it in Swiss. They prefer to employ their folk, if find a suitable person and wait up to 6 months before consider
an outlander. Only then ready to employ someone else.
BUT: Will not employ a dullard just because they share a citizenship/ ancestors. About 20% are foreigners among the employed,
in Geneva probably most of the employed.
And this is strictly the opposite what is common in many place (and self-appointed "nationalists" demand): No matter how incompetent
but employ the dullard native, while send home the competent/ hardworking.
Against meritism/ competition and bad for business.
There are plenty of dishonest Europeans, but honesty as a high value seems Western. Subcons caught in a lie will grin and do
a head waggle something between a nod and a shake. Blacks will insist the lie is true. East Asians will lie until you demonstrate
they cannot get away with it. Latin Americans only lie when they speak.
There's nothing new under the sun. It's always been fraud, flimflam and bamboozle. Somebody once said, you can fool all
of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. But, then again,
he could have just been fooling around.
Probably $25 an hour or $50K a year is more realistic. Part time jobs are even better to hem to avoid money crunch and at the
same time continue to look for an IT job. Might be a viable option for younger healthy IT specialists. CDL course from a
reputable truck driving school is around $3500 and they
provide you a truck for the DMV exam, but you can try self-study and might pass written exam from a second try as there is nothing
complex in the test, saving half of those money.
Notable quotes:
"... What's happening, he said, is that drivers are looking at the fact that they can make $70,000 'and stay home a little more.' ..."
"... To put the numbers in perspective, Todd Amen, the president of ATBS, which prepares taxes for mostly independent owner-operators, said in a recent interview with the FreightWaves Drilling Deep podcast that the average tax return his company prepared for drivers' 2020 pay was $67,500. He also said his company prepared numerous 2020 returns with pay in excess of $100,000. ..."
David Parker is the CEO of Covenant Logistics and he was blunt with analysts who follow the
company on its earnings call Tuesday.
'How do we get enough drivers? ' he said in response to a question from Stephens analyst Jack Atkins. 'I don't know.'
Parker then gave an overview of the situation facing Covenant, and by extension other
companies, in trying to recruit drivers. One problem: With rates so high, companies are
encountering the fact that a driver doesn't need to work a full schedule to
pull in a decent salary.
'We're finding out that just to get a driver, let's say the numbers are $85,000 (per year) ,' Parker said,
according to a transcript of the earnings call supplied by SeekingAlpha. '
But a lot of these drivers are happy at $70,000. Now they're not coming to
work for me, unless it's in the ($80,000s), because they're happy making $70,000.'
What's happening, he said, is that drivers are looking at the fact that they can make $70,000 'and stay home a little
more.'
The result is a tightening of capacity. Parker said utilization in the first quarter at Covenant was three or four percentage
points less than it would have as a result of that development. ' It's an interesting dynamic that none of
us have calculated,' he said.
To put the numbers in perspective, Todd Amen, the president of ATBS, which prepares taxes
for mostly independent owner-operators, said in a
recent interview with the FreightWaves Drilling Deep podcast that the average tax return
his company prepared for drivers' 2020 pay was $67,500. He also said his
company prepared numerous 2020 returns with pay in excess of $100,000.
Parker was firm that this was not a situation likely to change soon. 'There's nothing out there that tells me that drivers are
going to readily be available over the medium [term in] one to two years,' he said. 'And that's where I'm at.'
Paul Bunn, the company's COO and senior executive vice president, echoed
what other executives have said recently:
Additional stimulus benefits are making the situation tighter. He said that while offering some hope that as the benefits roll
off, 'that might help a bit.'
But what the government giveth the government can sometimes taketh away. Bunn expressed another familiar sentiment in the
industry today, that an infrastructure bill adding to demand for workers would create more difficulty to put drivers behind the
wheel. Construction, Bunn said, is 'a monster competitor of our industry' and if the bill is approved, 'that's going to be a big
pull.'
Labor is going to be a 'capacity constraint' through the
economy, Bunn said, while conceding that trucking is not unique in that. And because of that
labor squeeze, capacity in many fields is going to be limited. ' The OEMs,
the manufacturers are limited capacity ,' Bunn said. 'They're not ramping up in a major, major way because of labor, because of
commodity pricing, because of the costs.'
All that means is that capacity growth is going to be
'reasonable,' Bunn said. 'It's not going to be crazy, people growing fleets [by] significant amounts.'
'It's all you can do just to hold serve, '
he added.
Don't you know that whining about race, from the racist or the anti-racist side, doesn't
matter, is more important than billionaires fucking us over. It's more important than
anything. It doesn't matter if we die of freezer burn sleeping on cardboard after we've been
laid-off, evicted, and starved. It doesn't matter if we die in a nuclear war that the
billionaires started because they think it would be a good idea.
Nope. All that matters is whining about race. That's the most important thing. All else is
trivial.
Didn't American people suffer from the disease? Yes, the US government is "grotesquely
and manifestly incompetent" and they were likely to expect "a massive coronavirus outbreak
in China would never spread back to America".
The crucial factor here is that the US is not a nation per the most basic definition of
the word, "a group of people born of a common ancestry". Consequently, as illustrated by
job-killing "trade deals" and in countless other ways, there are plenty of "Americans" who
don't care a whit about the fate of Americans. That makes it entirely plausible that the Deep
State and/or one or more billionaires would release a virus in China in the full expectation
that it would hit the US and that once here it would disrupt, impoverish, and kill millions
of Americans. This was a win-win for them. The Deep State and the billionaires don't like
China, which is a non-liberal country and curtails their power by restricting the use of US
tech products. So if somehow the virus were contained in China it would be okay with them, as
it just would be a smaller win. However, what they really wanted was for the virus circle
back to the US. They knew that once here the disruption it would cause would further enrich
and empower them while giving them a pretext to dump it all on Donald Trump, whom they would
accuse of being incompetent and uncaring.
While full of good insights, the problem with this article as far as COVID is concerned is
that it misleads on the main point. COVID is not biowarfare, it is not a pandemic, it's just
the flu. The US recorded the same death rate in 2020 as in previous years and, as Dr. Colleen
Huber has documented, medical oxygen and supply sales were no different from previous
years.
All those COVID-19 deaths were simply deaths of a different name. Of course, we knew from
last March's Diamond Princess cruise–still by far the best controlled COVID
"experiment"–that the case-fatality rate of COVID-19 for the general public is in the
flu range.
But, it never was about COVID-19, which is just a glorified coronavirus of the type seen
even before the dawn of humans. Long before the virus even hit the streets, the media and
governments and medical establishments had secretly planned to to create a "panic-demic" to
scare people into a whole lot of strange and dangerous behaviors–like giving up their
liberties and economic futures. COVID-19 is just a medical nothing-burger that convinced a
lot of otherwise sane people to scare themselves into oblivion. Or did it? If the
post-election analyses are correct, Trump won in a major landslide and even those who voted
against him were already suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. So, maybe the people
weren't fooled by COVID so much as electorally raped by the vast elite cabal.
Whatever we say is a fact-based result of diligent research; whatever you say is a
conspiracy theory – both the US and China representatives subscribe to this
mantra.
Maye both Washington and Beijing are guilty -- of a perpetrating a hoax.
Putin surprised me. He flatly refused the offer of Schwab and his ilk. He condemned the
manner of recent pre-Covid growth, for all the growth went into a few deep pockets.
Moreover, he noted that digital tycoons are dangerous for the world.
The next strong man we elect must be an actual STRONG man. I salute Trump for his genius
in identifying the real majority in this country and for forcing the techno-oligarchs into
overdoing their election steal. Now we need someone who is willing to establish real
authority on behalf of the un-queer.
"... You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end -- which you can never afford to lose -- with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. ..."
James C.
Collins related a conversation he had with Stockdale regarding his coping strategy during
his period in the Vietnamese POW camp. [21] [
non-primary source needed ] When Collins asked which prisoners didn't make it out
of Vietnam, Stockdale replied:
Oh, that's easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, 'We're going to be out
by Christmas.' And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they'd say, 'We're
going to be out by Easter.' And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then
Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart. This
is a very important lesson.
You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end
-- which you can never afford to lose -- with the discipline to confront the most brutal
facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.[22]
The harrowing tale of British explorer Ernest Shackleton's 1914 attempt to reach the South Pole, one of the greatest adventure
stories of the modern age.
In August 1914, polar explorer Ernest Shackleton boarded the
Endurance
and
set sail for Antarctica, where he planned to cross the last uncharted continent on foot. In January 1915, after battling its way
through a thousand miles of pack ice and only a day's sail short of its destination, the
Endurance
became
locked in an island of ice. Thus began the legendary ordeal of Shackleton and his crew of twenty-seven men. When their ship was
finally crushed between two ice floes, they attempted a near-impossible journey over 850 miles of the South Atlantic's heaviest
seas to the closest outpost of civilization.
In
Endurance
,
the definitive account of Ernest Shackleton's fateful trip, Alfred Lansing brilliantly narrates the harrowing and miraculous
voyage that has defined heroism for the modern age.
The
book gave me several adrenaline rushes...it's that well written.
5.0 out of 5 stars
The
book gave me several adrenaline rushes...it's that well written.
Reviewed in the United States on December 27, 2018
Verified Purchase
This is an amazing account of Shackleton's journey that went into
intricate details about the twists and turns every step of the way for this small group of brave explorers. It
reads like a thrilling fiction novel, but the fact that it is non-fiction makes it even more astounding. The
description really paints a true picture of the hellacious conditions that they continued to face time and time
again. This book really put into perspective what a challenge truly is. A simple headache that we might get now
is nowhere near getting your sleeping bag drenched and still having to sleep in it in temperatures near 0 when
you don't know how the weather or current is going to change while you try to sleep. Great read and really hard
to put down because even though you think you know what's going to happen, you still have to find out how.
Would highly recommend if you're looking for a good book that you will have trouble putting down.
38 people found this helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Cold
Reviewed in the United States on November 17, 2018
Verified Purchase
Very cold. Always cold. This is a very detailed (true) story about men
trying to survive in a very hostile environment in c. 1915. Stark and full of detail, the reader almost gets to
feel the cold, hunger and pain the crew experienced while trying to survive Antarctica and return to
civilization. it's amazing that anyone survived this ordeal let alone all of them. Sadly, many creatures and
peaceful animals paid the price for mans survival. The details often are so descriptive and redundant due to
the scope of the story, that it sometimes becomes repetitive and familiar. This is because of the constant
distress and horrible conditions the crew experienced for such a long time. It's a well documented and exciting
story with a bit of a history lesson that really held my interest. It's a popular book that is deserving of its
high ratings.
21 people found this helpful
There is no doubt in my mind that I would not be able to endure even one, the best, day of the unimaginable
hardships that the men of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Exposition (1914-17) -- under the leadership of Sir Ernest
Shackleton -- struggled with for more than 400 days. They endured and survived some of the most incredible,
unbelievable, conditions ever experienced; and Alfred Lansing captures the urgency, the deprivation, and the
desperation, with spellbinding storytelling.
Recommendation: Best adventure story, ever. Should be read by all, especially those of high school age.
"In all the world there is no desolation more complete than the polar night. It is a return to the Ice Age -- no
warmth, no life, no movement." (p. 46).
Basic Books. Kindle Edition, 268 pages.
16 people found this helpful
A
Riveting True Story of Adventure, Survival and Hope
5.0 out of 5 stars
A
Riveting True Story of Adventure, Survival and Hope
Reviewed in the United States on September 25, 2014
Verified Purchase
In 1914 Sir Ernest Shackleton set out on an expedition to make the first
land crossing of the barren Antarctic continent from the east to the west coast. The expedition failed to
accomplish its objective, but became recognized instead as an amazing feat of endurance. Shackleton and a crew
of 27 (plus one stowaway) first headed to the Weddell Sea on the ship Endurance. Their ship was trapped by pack
ice short of their destination and eventually crushed. Forced to abandon ship, the men were trapped on ice
floes for months while they drifted north. Once they were far enough north that the ice thinned somewhat, they
were forced to journey in lifeboats they'd dragged off the ship. After six terrible days, they made it to
uninhabited Elephant Island; from there Shackleton and five other men set off in an open 22-foot boat on an
incredible 800-mile voyage across the notoriously tempestuous Drake Passage to South Georgia Island, where they
hiked across the island's mountain range to reach a whaling camp. From there, they returned in a ship to rescue
the men left behind on Elephant Island.
That these men were able to survive in the harsh, barren conditions of Antarctica, where temperatures
frequently fell below zero is amazing. It's nearly unimaginable that these men could survive for almost two
years, their lives marked by a seemingly endless stretch of misery, suffering, and boredom, not to mention the
threat of starvation. At every turn, their situation seems to go from bad to worse. If this were a work of
fiction, one would be inclined to claim the story was simply too far-fetched. But Endurance isn't just a tale
of misery, it is a vivid description of their journey, the dangers they faced, and the obstacles they overcame.
Through all of this, Shackleton has never lost a man.
Alfred Lansing's book, written in 1958 from interviews and journals of the survivors, is now back in print.
It's a riveting tale of adventure, survival and hope. It is also a rare historical, non-fiction book that is as
exciting as any novel. I've read a number of stories of survival and would rate this as the best of all I have
read. This is one of the great adventure stories of our time. Don't miss it.
Read more
45 people found this helpful
I
recommend this book to add to the collection of those ...
5.0 out of 5 stars
I
recommend this book to add to the collection of those ...
Reviewed in the United States on August 7, 2015
Verified Purchase
What a page turner. Lansing is a master for the description of those
explorers hardships, desire to follow Shacketon' orders. I kept saying to myself that there are few humans
today that are as tough as those men. I recommend this book to add to the collection of those books that give
us the knowledge of what it takes to conquer a goal.
51 people found this helpful
By
far one of the best books I've ever read, & I've read many!
5.0 out of 5 stars
By
far one of the best books I've ever read, & I've read many!
Reviewed in the United States on January 30, 2019
Verified Purchase
I just finished reading 2 of Grann's books - Lost City of Z & The White
Darkness. The latter is the story of Henry Worsley, the grandson of Frank Worsley one of the "extraordinary"
men in Lansing's Endurance. Grann suggested Endurance as a worthy read. Sir Earnest Shackleton & Frank Worsley
were two of some 20 men who incredibly survived a journey to Antarctica that went awry from almost its onset.
Two years later all hands were rescued through the extraordinary will of the men who found themselves at the
mercy of the elements. Lansing's research & grasp of the situation in which these men found themselves in
conjunction with his writing style has put this book at the top of my all time favorites! Fabulous! Fabulous!
Anyone 12 or older will be blown away by this true story & this writer!
4 people found this helpful
ll eyes are on the declining number of unemployed. The May and June jobs reports chronicle
the reabsorption of 5.3 million who lost their jobs in the COVID-19 pandemic. Twelve million
jobs to go to reach pre-pandemic employment.
Yet prior to the pandemic, there were 18 million Americans missing from the economy. These
persons were neither employed nor seeking employment -- nor retirees, students or in-home
caregivers -- and therefore were excluded from the Bureau of Labor Statistics count of the
workforce. In order that America emerge from the pandemic stronger than before, a concerted
initiative by federal and state governments to move them back into the economy -- using
existing resources -- must begin now.
...
Research on the social determinants of health finds that employment has a
very strong correlation with positive health outcomes. To exist as a non-participant in
the economy is thus an invitation to dire health outcomes including premature death.
What's more, these individuals are needed as contributors to our national commonweal,
fueling increased economic and social progress. And people engaged in productive activities
are much less likely to engage in negative and destructive behaviors.
... The USDA's food stamp program has a robustly funded, though underutilized, employment
and training grant. States use the excuse of USDA's partial match requirement as a reason to
opt out.
"... This would be bad news for anyone with a serious health condition, but it would be especially bad news for the oldest pre-Medicare age group, people between the ages of 55 and 64. This group currently faces average premiums of close to $10,000 a year per person for insurance purchased through the ACA exchanges. Insurers could easily charge people with serious health conditions two or three times this amount if the Trump administration wins its case. ..."
"... The 55 to 64 age group will also be hard hit because they are far more likely to have serious health issues than younger people. Just 18 percent of the people in the youngest 18 to 34 age group have a serious health condition, compared to 44 percent of those in the 55 to 64 age group, as shown in the figure above. ..."
Older Workers Targeted in Trump's Lawsuit to End Obamacare
By DEAN BAKER
The Trump administration is supporting a lawsuit which seeks to overturn the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. The implication is that a large share of the older workers
now able to afford health insurance as a result of the ACA will no longer be able to afford
it if the Trump administration wins its lawsuit.
Furthermore, if the suit succeeds it will both end the expansion of Medicaid, which has
insured tens of millions of people, and again allow discrimination against people with
serious health conditions. Ending this discrimination was one of the major goals of the ACA.
The issue is that insurers don't want to insure people who are likely to have health issues
that cost them money. While they are happy to insure healthy people with few medical
expenses, people with heart disease, diabetes, or other health conditions are a bad deal for
insurers.
Before the ACA, insurers could charge outlandish fees to cover people with health
conditions, or simply refuse to insure them altogether. The ACA required insurers to cover
everyone within an age bracket at the same price, regardless of their health. If the Trump
administration has its way, we would go back to the world where insurers could charge people
with health issues whatever they wanted, or alternatively, just deny them coverage.
This would be bad news for anyone with a serious health condition, but it would be
especially bad news for the oldest pre-Medicare age group, people between the ages of 55 and
64. This group currently faces average premiums of close to $10,000 a year per person for
insurance purchased through the ACA exchanges. Insurers could easily charge people with
serious health conditions two or three times this amount if the Trump administration wins its
case.
And, since a Trump victory would eliminate the ACA subsidiaries, people in this age group
with health conditions could be looking to pay $20,000 to $30,000 a year for insurance, with
no help from the government. That will be especially hard since many people with serious
health conditions are unable to work full-time jobs, and some can't work at all.
[Graph]
The 55 to 64 age group will also be hard hit because they are far more likely to have
serious health issues than younger people. Just 18 percent of the people in the youngest 18
to 34 age group have a serious health condition, compared to 44 percent of those in the 55 to
64 age group, as shown in the figure above.
The ACA has many inadequacies, but it has allowed tens of millions to get insurance who
could not otherwise. Donald Trump wants to take this insurance away.
"... First of all, because Stoics believe that our true good resides in our own character and actions, they would frequently remind themselves to distinguish between what's "up to us" and what isn't. Modern Stoics tend to call this "the dichotomy of control" and many people find this distinction alone helpful in alleviating stress. What happens to me is never directly under my control, never completely ..."
"... Marcus likes to ask himself, "What virtue has nature given me to deal with this situation?" That naturally leads to the question: "How do other people cope with similar challenges?" Stoics reflect on character strengths such as wisdom, patience and self-discipline, which potentially make them more resilient in the face of adversity. They try to exemplify these virtues and bring them to bear on the challenges they face in daily life, during a crisis like the pandemic. They learn from how other people cope. Even historical figures or fictional characters can serve as role models. ..."
"... fear does us more harm than the things of which we're afraid. ..."
"... Finally, during a pandemic, you may have to confront the risk, the possibility, of your own death. Since the day you were born, that's always been on the cards. Most of us find it easier to bury our heads in the sand. Avoidance is the No1 most popular coping strategy in the world. We live in denial of the self-evident fact that we all die eventually. ..."
"... "All that comes to pass", he tells himself, even illness and death, should be as "familiar as the rose in spring and the fruit in autumn". Marcus Aurelius, through decades of training in Stoicism, in other words, had taught himself to face death with the steady calm of someone who has done so countless times already in the past. ..."
T he Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was the last famous
Stoic philosopher of antiquity. During the last 14 years of his life he faced one of the worst
plagues in European history. The Antonine Plague, named after him, was probably caused by a
strain of the smallpox virus. It's estimated to have killed up to 5 million people, possibly
including Marcus himself.
="rich-link__link u-faux-block-link__overlay" aria-label="'What it means to be an American':
Abraham Lincoln and a nation divided"
href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/11/abraham-lincoln-verge-book-ted-widmer-interview">
From AD166 to around AD180, repeated outbreaks occurred throughout the known world. Roman
historians describe the legions being devastated, and entire towns and villages being
depopulated and going to ruin. Rome itself was particularly badly affected, carts leaving the
city each day piled high with dead bodies.
In the middle of this plague, Marcus wrote a book, known as The Meditations, which records
the moral and psychological advice he gave himself at this time. He frequently applies Stoic
philosophy to the challenges of coping with pain, illness, anxiety and loss. It's no stretch of
the imagination to view The Meditations as a manual for developing precisely the mental
resilience skills required to cope with a pandemic.
First of all, because Stoics believe that our true good resides in our own character and
actions, they would frequently remind themselves to distinguish between what's "up to us" and
what isn't. Modern Stoics tend to call this "the dichotomy of control" and many people find
this distinction alone helpful in alleviating stress. What happens to me is never directly
under my control, never completely up to me, but my own thoughts and actions are
– at least the voluntary ones. The pandemic isn't really under my control but
the way I behave in response to it is.
Much, if not all, of our thinking is also up to us. Hence, "It's not events that upset us
but rather our opinions about them." More specifically, our judgment that something is really
bad, awful or even catastrophic, causes our distress.
This is one of the basic psychological principles of Stoicism. It's also the basic
premise of modern cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), the leading evidence-based form of
psychotherapy. The pioneers of CBT, Albert Ellis and Aaron T Beck, both describe Stoicism as
the philosophical inspiration for their approach. It's not the virus that makes us afraid but
rather our opinions about it. Nor is it the inconsiderate actions of others, those ignoring
social distancing recommendations, that make us angry so much as our opinions about them.
Many people are struck, on reading The Meditations, by the fact that it opens with a chapter
in which Marcus lists the qualities he most admires in other individuals, about 17 friends,
members of his family and teachers. This is an extended example of one of the central practices
of Stoicism.
Marcus likes to ask himself, "What virtue has nature given me to deal with this
situation?" That naturally leads to the question: "How do other people cope with similar
challenges?" Stoics reflect on character strengths such as wisdom, patience and
self-discipline, which potentially make them more resilient in the face of adversity. They try
to exemplify these virtues and bring them to bear on the challenges they face in daily life,
during a crisis like the pandemic. They learn from how other people cope. Even historical
figures or fictional characters can serve as role models.
With all of this in mind, it's easier to understand another common slogan of Stoicism:
fear does us more harm than the things of which we're afraid. This applies to
unhealthy emotions in general, which the Stoics term "passions" – from pathos ,
the source of our word "pathological". It's true, first of all, in a superficial sense. Even if
you have a 99% chance, or more, of surviving the pandemic, worry and anxiety may be ruining
your life and driving you crazy. In extreme cases some people may even take their own
lives.
In that respect, it's easy to see how fear can do us more harm than the things of which
we're afraid because it can impinge on our physical health and quality of life. However, this
saying also has a deeper meaning for Stoics. The virus can only harm your body – the
worst it can do is kill you. However, fear penetrates into the moral core of our being. It can
destroy your humanity if you let it. For the Stoics that's a fate worse than death.
Finally, during a pandemic, you may have to confront the risk, the possibility, of your
own death. Since the day you were born, that's always been on the cards. Most of us find it
easier to bury our heads in the sand. Avoidance is the No1 most popular coping strategy in the
world. We live in denial of the self-evident fact that we all die eventually. The
Stoics believed that when we're confronted with our own mortality, and grasp its implications,
that can change our perspective on life quite dramatically. Any one of us could die at any
moment. Life doesn't go on forever.
We're told this was what Marcus was thinking about on his deathbed. According to one
historian, his circle of friends were distraught. Marcus calmly asked why they were weeping for
him when, in fact, they should accept both sickness and death as inevitable, part of nature and
the common lot of mankind. He returns to this theme many times throughout The Meditations.
"All that comes to pass", he tells himself, even illness and death, should be as
"familiar as the rose in spring and the fruit in autumn". Marcus Aurelius, through decades of
training in Stoicism, in other words, had taught himself to face death with the steady calm of
someone who has done so countless times already in the past.
Donald Robertson is cognitive behavioural therapist and the author of several books on
philosophy and psychotherapy, including Stoicism and the Art of Happiness and How to Think Like
a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius
. A firsthand account from a U.S. Naval officer is eye opening (emphasis mine).
He'd seen his ship, one of the Navy's fleet of 11 minesweepers, sidelined by repairs and
maintenance for more than 20 months. Once the ship, based in Japan, returned to action, its
crew was only able to conduct its most essential training -- how to identify and defuse
underwater mines -- for fewer than 10 days the entire next year . During those
training missions, the officer said, the crew found it hard to trust the ship's faulty
navigation system: It ran on Windows 2000.
Sonar which identifies dishwashers, crab traps and cars as possible mines, can hardly be
considered a rebuilt military. The Navy's eleven minesweepers built more than 25 years ago,
have had their decommissioning continually delayed because no replacement plan was implemented.
I'll await the deeper understanding of 'deterrence' from b, even as I consider willingness to
commit and brag about war crimes as beyond the point of no return.
Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc |
98
"... a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are a sign of loneliness. ..."
"... And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago�chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the WWW all by themselves. ..."
"... The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to practice it is galling. ..."
"... Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation. ..."
"... So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church. ..."
George Monbiot on human loneliness and its toll. I agree with his observations. I have been cataloguing them in my head for
years, especially after a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are
a sign of loneliness.
A couple of recent trips to Rome have made that point ever more obvious to me: Compared to my North Side neighborhood in Chicago,
where every other person seems to have a dog, and on weekends Clark Street is awash in dogs (on their way to the dog boutiques
and the dog food truck), Rome has few dogs. Rome is much more densely populated, and the Italians still have each other, for good
or for ill. And Americans use the dog as an odd means of making human contact, at least with other dog owners.
But Americanization advances: I was surprised to see people bring dogs into the dining room of a fairly upscale restaurant
in Turin. I haven't seen that before. (Most Italian cafes and restaurants are just too small to accommodate a dog, and the owners
don't have much patience for disruptions.) The dogs barked at each other for while�violating a cardinal rule in Italy that mealtime
is sacred and tranquil. Loneliness rules.
And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago�chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the
WWW all by themselves.
That's why the comments about March on Everywhere in Harper's, recommended by Lambert, fascinated me. Maybe, to be less lonely,
you just have to attend the occasional march, no matter how disorganized (and the Chicago Women's March organizers made a few
big logistical mistakes), no matter how incoherent. Safety in numbers? (And as Monbiot points out, overeating at home alone is
a sign of loneliness: Another argument for a walk with a placard.)
In Britain, men who have spent their entire lives in quadrangles � at school, at college, at the bar, in parliament � instruct
us to stand on our own two feet.
With different imagery, the same is true in this country. The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to
practice it is galling.
Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living
at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation.
So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines
preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church.
We're told that getting ahead at work and reorienting our lives around our jobs will make us
happy. So why hasn't it? Many of those who work in the corporate world are constantly peppered
with questions about their " career progression ." The Internet is
saturated with
articles providing tips and tricks on how to develop a never-fail game plan for
professional development. Millions of Americans are engaged in a never-ending cycle of
résumé-padding that mimics the accumulation of Boy Scout merit badges or A's on
report cards except we never seem to get our Eagle Scout certificates or academic diplomas.
We're told to just keep going until we run out of gas or reach retirement, at which point we
fade into the peripheral oblivion of retirement communities, morning tee-times, and long
midweek lunches at beach restaurants.
The idealistic Chris McCandless in Jon Krakauer's bestselling book Into the Wild
defiantly declares, "I think careers are a 20th century invention and I don't want one." Anyone
who has spent enough time in the career hamster wheel can relate to this sentiment. Is
21st-century careerism -- with its promotion cycles, yearly feedback, and little wooden plaques
commemorating our accomplishments -- really the summit of human existence, the paramount
paradigm of human flourishing?
Michael J. Noughton, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at the University of St.
Thomas, Minnesota, and board chair for Reel Precision Manufacturing, doesn't think so. In his
Getting Work Right: Labor and Leisure in a Fragmented World , Noughton provides a
sobering statistic: approximately two thirds of employees in the United States are "either
indifferent or hostile to their work." That's not just an indicator of professional
dissatisfaction; it's economically disastrous. The same survey estimates that employee
disengagement is costing the U.S. economy "somewhere between 450-550 billion dollars
annually."
The origin of this problem, says Naughton, is an error in how Americans conceive of work and
leisure. We seem to err in one of two ways. One is to label our work as strictly a job, a
nine-to-five that pays the bills. In this paradigm, leisure is an amusement, an escape from the
drudgery of boring, purposeless labor. The other way is that we label our work as a career that
provides the essential fulfillment in our lives. Through this lens, leisure is a utility,
simply another means to serve our work. Outside of work, we exercise to maintain our health in
order to work harder and longer. We read books that help maximize our utility at work and get
ahead of our competitors. We "continue our education" largely to further our careers.
Whichever error we fall into, we inevitably end up dissatisfied. The more we view work as a
painful, boring chore, the less effective we are at it, and the more complacent and
discouraged. Our leisure activities, in turn, no matter how distracting, only compound our
sadness, because no amount of games can ever satisfy our souls. Or, if we see our meaning in
our work and leisure as only another means of increasing productivity, we inevitably burn out,
wondering, perhaps too late in life, what exactly we were working for . As Augustine
of Hippo noted, our hearts are restless for God. More recently, C.S. Lewis noted that we yearn
to be fulfilled by something that nothing in this world can satisfy. We need both our work and
our leisure to be oriented to the transcendent in order to give our lives meaning and
purpose.
The problem is further compounded by the fact that much of the labor Americans perform
isn't actually good . There are "bad goods" that are detrimental to society and human
flourishing. Naughton suggests some examples: violent video games, pornography, adultery dating
sites, cigarettes, high-octane alcohol, abortifacients, gambling, usury, certain types of
weapons, cheat sheet websites, "gentlemen's clubs," and so on. Though not as clear-cut as the
above, one might also add working for the kinds of businesses that contribute to the
impoverishment or destruction of our communities,
as Tucker Carlson has recently argued .
Why does this matter for professional satisfaction? Because if our work doesn't offer goods
and services that contribute to our communities and the common good -- and especially if we are
unable to perceive how our labor plays into that common good -- then it will fundamentally
undermine our happiness. We will perceive our work primarily in a utilitarian sense, shrugging
our shoulders and saying, "it's just a paycheck," ignoring or disregarding the fact that as
rational animals we need to feel like our efforts matter.
Economic liberalism -- at least in its purest free-market expression -- is based on a
paradigm with nominalist and utilitarian origins that promote "freedom of indifference." In
rudimentary terms, this means that we need not be interested in the moral quality of our
economic output. If we produce goods that satisfy people's wants, increasing their "utils," as
my Econ 101 professor used to say, then we are achieving business success. In this paradigm, we
desire an economy that maximizes access to free choice regardless of the content of that
choice, because the more choices we have, the more we can maximize our utils, or sensory
satisfaction.
The freedom of indifference paradigm is in contrast to a more ancient understanding of
economic and civic engagement: a freedom for excellence. In this worldview, "we are made
for something," and participation in public acts of virtue is essential both to our
own well-being and that of our society. By creating goods and services that objectively benefit
others and contributing to an order beyond the maximization of profit, we bless both ourselves
and the polis . Alternatively, goods that increase "utils" but undermine the common
good are rejected.
Returning to Naughton's distinction between work and leisure, we need to perceive the latter
not as an escape from work or a means of enhancing our work, but as a true time of rest. This
means uniting ourselves with the transcendent reality from which we originate and to which we
will return, through prayer, meditation, and worship. By practicing this kind of true leisure,
well
treated in a book by Josef Pieper , we find ourselves refreshed, and discover renewed
motivation and inspiration to contribute to the common good.
Americans are increasingly aware of the problems with Wall Street conservatism and globalist
economics. We perceive that our post-Cold War policies are hurting our nation. Naughton's
treatise on work and leisure offers the beginnings of a game plan for what might replace
them.
Casey Chalk covers religion and other issues for The American Conservative and is a
senior writer for Crisis Magazine. He has degrees in history and teaching from the University
of Virginia, and a masters in theology from Christendom College.
"... "The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well." ..."
"... Recently I read Not Fade Away by Laurence Shames and Peter Barton. It's about Peter Barton, the founder of Liberty Media, who shares his thoughts about dying from cancer. ..."
For the longest time, I believed that there's only one purpose of life: And that is to be happy. Right? Why else go through all
the pain and hardship? It's to achieve happiness in some way. And I'm not the only person who believed that. In fact, if you look
around you, most people are pursuing happiness in their lives.
That's why we collectively buy shit we don't need, go to bed with people we don't love, and try to work hard to get approval of
people we don't like.
Why do we do these things? To be honest, I don't care what the exact reason is. I'm not a scientist. All I know is that it has
something to do with history, culture, media, economy, psychology, politics, the information era, and you name it. The list is endless.
Just a few short years ago, I did everything to chase happiness.
You buy something, and you think that makes you happy.
You hook up with people, and think that makes you happy.
You get a well-paying job you don't like, and think that makes you happy.
You go on holiday, and you think that makes you happy.
But at the end of the day, you're lying in your bed (alone or next to your spouse), and you think: "What's next in this endless
pursuit of happiness?"
Well, I can tell you what's next: You, chasing something random that you believe makes you happy.
It's all a fa�ade. A hoax. A story that's been made up.
Did Aristotle lie to us when he said:
"Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence."
I think we have to look at that quote from a different angle. Because when you read it, you think that happiness is the main goal.
And that's kind of what the quote says as well.
But here's the thing: How do you achieve happiness?
Happiness can't be a goal in itself. Therefore, it's not something that's achievable. I believe that happiness is merely a byproduct
of usefulness. When I talk about this concept with friends, family, and colleagues, I always find it difficult to put this into words.
But I'll give it a try here. Most things we do in life are just activities and experiences.
You go on holiday.
You go to work.
You go shopping.
You have drinks.
You have dinner.
You buy a car.
Those things should make you happy, right? But they are not useful. You're not creating anything. You're just consuming or doing
something. And that's great.
Don't get me wrong. I love to go on holiday, or go shopping sometimes. But to be honest, it's not what gives meaning to life.
What really makes me happy is when I'm useful. When I create something that others can use. Or even when I create something I
can use.
For the longest time I foud it difficult to explain the concept of usefulness and happiness. But when I recently ran into a quote
by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the dots connected.
Emerson says:
"The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some
difference that you have lived and lived well."
And I didn't get that before I became more conscious of what I'm doing with my life. And that always sounds heavy and all. But
it's actually really simple.
It comes down to this: What are you DOING that's making a difference?
Did you do useful things in your lifetime? You don't have to change the world or anything. Just make it a little bit better than
you were born.
If you don't know how, here are some ideas.
Help your boss with something that's not your responsibility.
Take your mother to a spa.
Create a collage with pictures (not a digital one) for your spouse.
Write an article about the stuff you learned in life.
Help the pregnant lady who also has a 2-year old with her stroller.
Call your friend and ask if you can help with something.
Build a standing desk.
Start a business and hire an employee and treat them well.
That's just some stuff I like to do. You can make up your own useful activities.
You see? It's not anything big. But when you do little useful things every day, it adds up to a life that is well lived. A life
that mattered.
The last thing I want is to be on my deathbed and realize there's zero evidence that I ever existed.
Recently I read
Not Fade Away by Laurence Shames and Peter Barton. It's about Peter Barton, the founder of Liberty Media, who shares his
thoughts about dying from cancer.
It's a very powerful book and it will definitely bring tears to your eyes. In the book, he writes about how he lived his life
and how he found his calling. He also went to business school, and this is what he thought of his fellow MBA candidates:
"Bottom line: they were extremely bright people who would never really anything, would never add much to society, would leave
no legacy behind. I found this terribly sad, in the way that wasted potential is always sad."
You can say that about all of us. And after he realized that in his thirties, he founded a company that turned him into a multi-millionaire.
Another person who always makes himself useful is Casey Neistat
. I've been following him for a year and a half now, and every time I watch his
YouTube show , he's doing something.
He also talks about how he always wants to do and create something. He even has a tattoo on his forearm that says "Do More."
Most people would say, "why would you work more?" And then they turn on Netflix and watch back to back episodes of Daredevil.
A different mindset.
Being useful is a mindset. And like with any mindset, it starts with a decision. One day I woke up and thought to myself: What
am I doing for this world? The answer was nothing.
And that same day I started writing. For you it can be painting, creating a product, helping elderly, or anything you feel like
doing.
Don't take it too seriously. Don't overthink it. Just DO something that's useful. Anything.
Darius Foroux writes about productivity, habits, decision making, and personal finance. His ideas and work have been featured
in TIME, NBC, Fast Company, Inc., Observer, and many more publications. Join
his free weekly newsletter.
This article was originally published on October 3, 2016, by Darius Foroux, and is republished here with permission. Darius Foroux
writes about productivity, habits, decision making, and personal finance.
Workers aged 65 and older will be responsible for more than half of all UK employment
growth over the next 10 years and almost two-thirds of employment growth by 2060, according
to new figures.
Since 2008, we've been witnessing a "reverse stagflation", i.e. low unemployment with low
wages (a phenomenon which is impossible according to modern bourgeois economic theory).
The reason for this is what I mentioned earlier: no more technological progress and
negative birth rates. The USA is still benefitting from mass immigration from Central
America, but this demographic bonus won't last for much: now even the Third World countries
are barely above the minimum 2 children per woman (including most of Latin American nations).
Only a bunch of African nations (which have high mortality rates either way, so it doesn't
matter) and India still have the "demographic bonus" in a level such as to be
capitalistically viable.
This problem is not new in cotemporary history. It happened once: in the USSR.
In the 1970s, only 6% of the Soviet population was necessary to produce everything the
USSR needed, so the only solution available was to expand the economy extensively, i.e. by
reproducing the same infrastructure more times over.
The problem with that is that the USSR had reached its limits demographically. Its
population growth entered into stagnant to negative territory. Decades passed until the point
where it didn't even matter if they came up with a revolutionary technology, since there were
simply not enough children to teach and train to such new tech. Add to that the pressure from
the Cold War (which drained its R&D to the military sector), and it begun to wither
away.
Now we can predict the same thing is happening to capitalism. Contrary to the USSR, the
capitalist nations had the advantage of having available the demographic bonuses of the Third
World - specially China - to maintain their dynamism even when some countries like Japan and
Germany reached negative birth rates. Now China's demographic bonus is over and also much of
Latin America. To make things even worse for the capitalists, China managed to scape the
"middle income trap" and go to the route of becoming a superpower, thus adding to the
demographic strains of the capitalist center.
The solution, it seems, is to do pension reforms and force the old people back to work.
France is going to destroy its pension system; Brazil already did that; the USA was a pioneer
in forcing its old population to work to the death; Italy destroyed its pension system after
2008; the UK is preparing the terrain now that its social-democracy is definitely
destroyed.
As always I find your application of Marxist critique succinct and correct. This coming
decade, with its unravelling of the financialization phase of our current phase of capitalism
(i.e the US consolidation phase following British imperialism, c.1914-2020s), will be its
terminal decade. The signal that we had entered the financialization phase were the shocks of
1970-73, and the replacement of industrial manufacture (i.e. money>commodity>money+x,
or M-C-M') with finance/speculation (i.e. money>money+x, M-M') has unfolded more or less
according to Marx's analysis in Capital vol.3. This is as much a crisis of value
creation as anything else. In Australia (where I am) the process is particularly transparent:
we have almost no manufacturing sector left and so we exchange labour-value created in China
for mineral resources and engage in the ponzi-scheme of banking and property speculation,
which produces no value whatsoever. Either way the M-C-M' phase in Australia has vanished and
government dedicates itself to full-spectrum protection of the finance economy and mining.
All the while a veneer of productivity is created by immigration, which destroys cities
(because there's no infrastructure to accomodate them), inflates prices and creates the
illusion of 'growth'. This is propped up by a media who perpetuate xenophobia by creating
panic about refugees (5%) while saying zip about the fact that Australia only has economic
growth at all because we bring in 250K new consumers every year. This collapsing
financialization phase will only accelerate this decade and we will wake to find we don't
make anything and have crumbling 1980s-era infrastructure: Australia will suffer badly as the
phase plays out, not least because of a colonial-settler looting mentality around the
'economy' that persists at every level of government.
What I like about the point you're making in your post (#32) is the wider expansive
question of productivity -- or, how do we continue to produce value? It is often overlooked
that Marx sought to liberate human beings from expropriative labour of every kind (which
occurred as much under the Soviets as it does today); this means that capital's aorta
connecting labour to value via money must be severed (rather than the endless attempts to
reform capitalism to make it 'fairer' etc, a sell-out for which Gramsci savaged the union
movement). The relation between work and value must be critiqued relentlessly. To salvage any
kind of optimism about the future we need to invest all our intellectual energy in this
critique and find a radically new way of construing the link between time, labour and value
that does not include social domination.
In the meantime the scenario to which you have drawn our attention -- the parasitic
vampirism now attacking the elderly and the retired -- is an inevitable consequence of our
particular moment in late capitalism, hurtling at speed toward a social catastrophe of debt,
wealth inequality, neo-feudalism and biopolitical police state, all characterized by an image
of 70-year-olds trudging to work in an agony of physical suffering and mental meaninglessness
which will end in a forgotten grave.
I had hoped to welcome 2020 with a optimistic post.
Alas, the current news cycle has thrown up little cause for optimism.
Instead, what has caught my eye today: 2019 closes with release of a new study showing the FDA's failure to police opioids manufacturers
fueled the opioids crisis.
This is yet another example of a familiar theme: inadequate regulation kills people: e.g. think Boeing. Or, on a longer term,
less immediate scale, consider the failure of the Environmental Protection Agency, in so many realms, including the failure to curb
emissions so as to slow the pace of climate change.
In the opioids case, we're talking about thousands and thousands of people.
On Monday, Jama
Internal Medicine published research concerning the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) program to reduce opioids abuse.
The FDA launched its risk evaluation and mitigation strategy – REMS – in 2012. Researchers examined nearly 10,000 documents, released
in response to a Freedom of Information ACT (FOA) request, to generate the conclusions published by JAMA.
In 2011, the F.D.A. began asking the makers of OxyContin and other addictive long-acting opioids to pay for safety training
for more than half the physicians prescribing the drugs, and to track the effectiveness of the training and other measures in
reducing addiction, overdoses and deaths.
But the F.D.A. was never able to determine whether the program worked, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health found in a new review, because the manufacturers did not gather the right kind of data. Although the agency's approval
of OxyContin in 1995 has long come under fire, its efforts to ensure the safe use of opioids since then have not been scrutinized
nearly as much.
The documents show that even when deficiencies in these efforts became obvious through the F.D.A.'s own review process, the
agency never insisted on improvements to the program, [called a REMS]. . .
The FDA's regulatory failure had serious public health consequences, according to critics of US opioids policy, as reported by
the NYT:
Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the co-director of opioid policy research at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis,
said the safety program was a missed opportunity. He is a leader of
a group of physicians who had encouraged the F.D.A.
to adopt stronger controls, and a frequent critic of the government's response to the epidemic.
Dr. Kolodny, who was not involved in the study, called the program "a really good example of the way F.D.A. has failed to regulate
opioid manufacturers. If F.D.A. had really been doing its job properly, I don't believe we'd have an opioid crisis today."
Now, as readers frequently emphasize in comments: pain management is a considerable problem – one I am all too well aware of,
as I watched my father succumb to cancer. He ultimately passed away at my parents' home.
Although these drugs "can be clinically useful among appropriately selected patients, they have also been widely oversupplied,
are commonly used nonmedically, and account for a disproportionate number of fatal overdoses," the authors write.
The FDA was unable, more than 5 years after it had instituted its study of the opioids program's effectiveness, to determine whether
it had met its objectives, and this may have been because prior assessments were not objective, according to CNN:
Prior analyses had largely been funded by drug companies, and a 2016 FDA advisory committee "noted methodological concerns
regarding these studies," according to the authors. An inspector general report also concluded in 2013 that the agency "lacks
comprehensive data to determine whether risk evaluation and mitigation strategies improve drug safety."
In addition to failing to evaluate the effective of the limited steps it had taken, the FDA neglected to take more aggressive
steps that were within the ambit of its regulatory authority. According to CNN:
"FDA has tools that could mitigate opioid risks more effectively if the agency would be more assertive in using its power to
control opioid prescribing, manufacturing, and distribution," said retired FDA senior executive William K. Hubbard in an
editorial that accompanied the study. "Instead of bold, effective action, the FDA has implemented the Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategy programs that do not even meet the limited criteria set out by the FDA."
One measure the FDA could have taken, according to Hubbard: putting restrictions on opioid distribution.
"Restricting opioid distribution would be a major decision for the FDA, but it is also likely to be the most effective policy
for reducing the harm of opioids," said Hubbard, who spent more than three decades at the agency and oversaw initiatives in areas
such as regulation, policy and economic evaluation.
Perhaps the Johns Hopkins study will spark moves to reform the broken FDA, so that it can once again serve as an effective regulator.
This could perhaps be something we can look forward to achieving in 2020 (although I won't hold my breath).
Or, perhaps if enacting comprehensive reform is too overwhelming, especially with a divided government, as a starting point: can
we agree to stop allowing self-interested industries to finance studies meant to assess the effectiveness of programs to regulate
that very same industry? Please?
The most depressing feature of the current explosion in robot-apocalypse literature is that
it rarely transcends the world of work. Almost every day, news articles appear detailing some
new round of layoffs. In the broader debate, there are apparently only two camps: those who
believe that automation will usher in a world of enriched jobs for all, and those who fear it
will make most of the workforce redundant.
This bifurcation reflects the fact that "working for a living" has been the main occupation
of humankind throughout history. The thought of a cessation of work fills people with dread,
for which the only antidote seems to be the promise of better work. Few have been willing to
take the cheerful view of Bertrand Russell's provocative 1932 essay In Praise of
Idleness . Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the end of necessary labor
could mean barely imaginable opportunities to live, in John Maynard Keynes's words, "wisely,
agreeably, and well"?
The fear of labor-saving technology dates back to the start of the Industrial Revolution,
but two factors in our own time have heightened it. The first is that the new generation of
machines seems poised to replace not only human muscles but also human brains. Owing to
advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence, we are said to be entering an era of
thinking robots; and those robots will soon be able to think even better than we do. The worry
is that teaching machines to perform most of the tasks previously carried out by humans will
make most human labor redundant. In that scenario, what will humans do?
The other fear factor is the increasing precariousness of wage labor – though this
concern is seemingly belied by headline statistics suggesting that unemployment is at a
historic low. The problem is that an economy at "full employment" now contains a large penumbra
of what economist Guy Standing calls the "precariat":
under-employed people who work less and for lower pay than they would like. A growing number of
workers, seeming to lack any kind of job (and pay) security, are thus forced to work well below
their ability.
It is natural that one would interpret the onset of precariousness as the first stage in a
broader trend toward workforce redundancy, especially if one pays attention to alarmist
predictions of the next category of "jobs at risk." But this conclusion is premature. The
penetration of robotics into the world of work has not yet been sufficient to explain the rise
of the precariat. So far, "cost cutting" in the West has largely taken the form of offshoring
to the East, where labor is cheaper, rather than replacing humans with machines. But
"onshoring" work that was previously offshored will offer cold comfort to workers if machines
get most of the jobs.
ROBO-RAPTURE
According to the first view – let us call it "job enrichment" – technology will
eventually create more, better human jobs than it destroys, as has always been the case in the
past. Simple, mundane tasks may increasingly be automated, but human labor will then be freed
up for more "interesting" and "creative" cognitive work.
In late 2017, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) published
Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained , which claimed that as much as 50% of working hours in the
global economy could theoretically be automated; the authors suggested, however, that not more
than 30% actually would be. Further, they estimated that less than 5% of occupations could be
fully automated; but that in 60% of occupations, at least 30% of the required tasks
could be.
In line with the usual mainstream assessment, MGI believes that while there will be no net
loss of jobs in the long run, the "transition may include a period of higher unemployment and
wage adjustments." It all depends, the authors say, on the rate at which displaced workers are
re-employed: a low re-employment rate will lead to a higher medium-term unemployment rate, and
vice versa .
MGI's proposal for massive investment in education to lower the unemployment cost of the
transition is also conventional. The faster the labor reabsorption, the higher the wage growth.
Lower re-employment levels will cause wages to fall, with a greater share of the gains from
automation accruing to capital, not labor. But the authors hasten to add:
"Even if the particulars of historical experience turn out to differ from conditions today,
one lesson seems pertinent: although economies adjust to technological shocks, the transition
period is measured in decades, not years, and the rising prosperity may not be shared by
all."
This assessment is typical, and it has led many to call on governments to invest heavily in
so-called "upskilling" programs. In a
commentary for Project Syndicate , Zia Qureshi of the Brookings
Institution argues that, "with smart, forward-looking policies, we can ensure that the future
of work is a better job." In this view, automation is simply the continuation of the move
toward more, higher-quality jobs that has characterized capitalist growth since the Industrial
Revolution.
History is on the optimists' side. Mechanization has been the durable engine of productivity
and wage growth as well as reductions in working hours, albeit usually with a considerable lag.
Although the Roberts loom cost hundreds of thousands of handloom weavers their jobs in the
nineteenth century, the broader wave of new industrial technologies enabled a much larger
population to be maintained at a higher standard of living.
ROBO-REDUNDANCY
But, according to the second view – call it "job destruction" – this time is
different. The programming of machines to perform ever more complex tasks with ever-increasing
speed, accuracy, precision, and reliability will result in mass unemployment. In Rise of the
Robots , author and entrepreneur Martin Ford addresses the techno-optimists head-on.
"There is a widely held belief – based on historical evidence stretching back at least as
far as the industrial revolution – that while technology may certainly destroy jobs,
businesses, and even entire industries, it will also create entirely new occupations often in
areas that we can't yet imagine." The problem, Ford argues, is that information technology has
now reached the point where it can be considered a true utility, much like electricity.
It stands to reason that the successful new industries that will emerge in the years ahead
will have taken full advantage of this powerful new utility and the distributed machine
intelligence that accompanies it. That means they will rarely – if ever – be highly
labor-intensive. The threat is that as creative destruction unfolds, the "destruction" will
fall primarily on labor-intensive businesses in traditional areas like retail and food
preparation, whereas the "creation" will generate new industries that simply don't employ many
people.
On this view, the economy is heading for a tipping point where job creation will begin to
fall consistently short of what is required to employ the workforce fully. We will soon reach
the stage where the machine-driven destruction of existing human jobs far outpaces the creation
of new human jobs, resulting in inexorably rising mass "technological unemployment."
THE
UPSKILLING MIRAGE
Optimists' response to such concerns is that the workforce simply needs to be trained or
upskilled in order to "race with the machines." Typical of this outlook is the following
headline on a
commentary published by the World Economic Forum: "How new technologies can create huge
numbers of meaningful jobs." According to the author, concerns about "the looming devastation
that self-driving technology will have on the 3.5 million truck drivers in the US" are
"misdirected." Augmented-reality technology, we are told, can create loads of new jobs by
enabling people to work from home. All that will be needed is training of the kind offered by
"Upskill, an augmented reality company in the manufacturing and field services sectors," which
"uses wearable technologies to provide step-by-step instructions to industrial workers."
The author, himself the co-founder of an augmented-reality company, goes on to argue that,
"With the pace of technological progress only accelerating and with increasing specialization
becoming the norm in every industry, reducing the time necessary to retrain workers is pivotal
to maintaining the competitiveness of industrialized economies." There is no mention of the
wages that will be offered to these "upskilled" workers in their "meaningful" new jobs. We are
simply told that they will be relocated to "lower cost areas more in need of job creation."
Only at the very end of the commentary does the author acknowledge that, in fact, "Technology
is a force that has the potential to eliminate entire industries through robotics and
automation, and for that we should be concerned."
The retraining argument should give us pause. In portraying upskilling as the solution to
the labor displacement caused by new technologies, optimists rarely admit that if predictions
about "thinking robots" turn out to be anywhere near true, workers would need to be trained in
technical skills to an extent that is unprecedented in human history.
Moreover, the time it takes to upgrade the skills of the workforce will inevitably exceed
the time it takes to automate the economy. This will be true even if claims about an imminent
deluge of automation are greatly exaggerated. In the interval, there will be under- and
unemployment. In fact, this has already been happening. Although automation is not yet bearing
down on workers to the extent that has been predicted, it has nonetheless pushed more of them
into less-skilled jobs; and its mere possibility may be exerting downward pressure on wages.
There are already signs of the new class structure envisioned by the pessimists: "lovely jobs
at the top, lousy jobs at the bottom."
A more fundamental question is what we mean by upskilling, and what its consequences might
be. Often, heavy emphasis is placed on the importance of better technological education at all
levels of society, as if all people will need to succeed in the future is to be taught how to
write and understand computer code.
As the technology writer James Bridle has shown , this line of argument has a
number of limitations. While encouraging people to take up computer programming might be a good
start, such training offers only a functional understanding of technological systems. It does
not equip people to ask higher-level questions along the lines of, "Where did these systems
come from, who designed them and what for, and which of these intentions still lurk within them
today?" Bridle also points out that arguments for technological education and upskilling are
usually offered in "nakedly pro-market terms," following a simple equation: "the information
economy needs more programmers, and young people need jobs in the future."
THE MISSING
DIMENSION
More to the point, the upskilling discourse totally ignores the possibility that automation
could also allow people simply to work less. The reason for this neglect is twofold: it is
commonly assumed that human wants are insatiable, and that we will thus work ad
infinitum to satisfy them; and it is simply taken for granted that work is the primary
source of meaning in human lives. 1
Historically, neither of these claims holds true. The consumption race is a rather recent
phenomenon, dating no earlier than the late nineteenth century. And the possibility that we
might one day liberate ourselves from the "curse of work" has fascinated thinkers from
Aristotle to Russell. Many visions of Utopia betray a longing for leisure and liberation from
toil. Even today, surveys show that people in most developed countries
would prefer to work less, even in the workaholic United States, and might even accept less pay
if it meant logging fewer hours on the clock.
The deeply economistic nature of the current debate excludes the possibility of a
life beyond work . Yet if we want to meet the challenges of the future, it is not enough to
know how to code, analyze data, and invent algorithms. We need to start thinking seriously and
at a systemic level about the operational logic of consumer capitalism and the possibility of
de-growth.
In this process, we must abandon the false dichotomy between "jobs" and "idleness."
Full employment need not mean full-time employment, and leisure time need not
be spent idly. (Education can play an important role in ensuring that it is not.) Above all,
wealth and income will need to be distributed in such a way that machine-enabled productivity
gains do not accrue disproportionately to a small minority of owners, managers, and
technicians.
So disturbing, and this problem is only going to increase in the US as people realize they
can no longer afford to rent anywhere, and there are millions of Boomers who rent, with no
available affordable housing to move into, and no livable wage jobs (despite education) for
those who would gladly continue working – due to an as yet to be headlined age
discrimination which started during the dot.com boom Clinton/Gore ushered in, and exploded
during Obama's reign. Sickeningly, in Silicon Valley, 35 year olds feel over the hill.
None of the candidates want to even address this rental housing issue (for all ages) with
Federal Tax Policy even? Renters are the only ones who invest major sums of money into
housing, with no equity whatsoever?
Yes, it is the canary growing fainter and struggling for life in the dark gloom of the
coal mine. The most basic human requirement for survival is shelter, after food and water.
Clothing is also in that category. The poor and homeless ( absolutely including the working
poor) at first , when attention started to be given to the " national crisis and (in some
people's minds) and national disgrace", was just, you know, the usual suspects. From hobos (
whom many saw as romanticized free spirits or stubborn old guys) to including the abandoned
mentally ill, drug addicts, criminals, people with "something to hide", teens on the run from
neglect or abuse to? The numbers of people who are essentially w/o shelter is not going to
remain out of sight, out of mind. Now, we know that mothers, fathers, grandparents, children
and grandchildren are homeless. And, if they are not, many are living in what , once upon a
time, poor or desolate housing. Many are living in ,what was once called a boarding house, in
a room with their kids. They supposedly have access to "common areas". This is not people who
often even have more than a casual aquaintanceship with their "landlords". This is not the
"Golden Girls" living the high life in sunny Florida with the owner, who is an adorable
rascal. No doubt, some examples of older, single women housing together is a good fit for
some.
Most older people on limited incomes don't live in a golden fantasy world. Besides young
people not being able to afford outrageous rents, now include the older people. Couple this
with the "reports" that there are people hungry in this country. Age has become no restrictor
on this tragic fact. This can not stand. Trickle down the ,as was mentioned , breads and
circuses in all of their guises. Cheap, junk fast food will become not so cheap when in dire
poverty. Housing is just cold, hearted cash for the owners. Who gets to watch the circuses
and gladiators ? Got cable tv( even if you personally choose not to not the point)? Afford
the cost of any pro sports tickets ? Attend any cultural events that include paying for
tickets? Yep, am not going to include the all American past time of watching a game at the
local pub. Many people can not afford the luxury of the food and drinks OK, it's time to stop
now with my pov. I am fortunate to not be in the above circumstances. Too many are,
though.
God knows what's being planned behind closed doors for this increasing tragedy, the
reality is too clear for Congress not to be aware of it. Meanwhile, I'm fully sure that
amoral predators who are investing in those areas they're betting the homeless will be forced
to dwell and die in, or choose to be euthanized at.
Meanwhile, Congress does absolutely nothing about putting a stop to obscenely biased,
corrupted and deadly in its blatant discrimination AI, which is increasingly decimating
millions of jobs, and virtually tagging people with social scores they'll never get
out from under, no matter how false. This, ever since Obama glibly announced there would be
many jobs lost, and some pain, due to technologyThe Technocracy . A
Bipartisan, Horrid Congress accepted it as a necessary reality.
The only thing missing was a police officer going in after with a drawn gun. When millions
of people were being kicked out of their homes about a decade a go, I saw a photo that won an
award at the time. It showed a cop, with pistol drawn, going into a house that had the family
kicked out from it. Surrounding him was all the left overs from a family's life and it was
very sad.
It is heart rending. Even watching renters who leave before being evicted is heart
rending, they're forced to throw away many belongings, like perfectly good mattresses and
basic necessities. Lived at an apartment complex turned into ratty ass condos for mostly
foreign property 'flippers' who continued renting them out, then 'flipping' them. The
despair, fear, and loss during a huge job downturn was horrid to witness, as many had lived
there over ten years. I was lucky to be on my feet somewhat at the time, no longer.
Every fricking sign, particularly in Silicon Valley, that advertises Apartment
Homes ™ should be torn down and destroyed. The average US renters have
always been treated as second class leechers, I've witnessed it my entire adult life, now
they're being treated even worse.
Thanks Clinton/Gore, Obomber/Biden,
Nanny Pelosi , et al; and we thought that was only the mark of Republicans busy at
work.
Thinking on this subject even more, it occurs to me why the powers that be are so invested
in pitting each generation against the other. An empowered US renters' 'lobby' could be
enormous. It would cross all age – along with race, gender, religion, and geographic
– spectrums. Renters, along with the homeless are increasing in vast numbers of all
ages. The last thing the powers that be would want, is for those vast millions to stick
together against them, and age is the easiest barrier for the powers that be to keep renters
separated by.
Despite spending 40 to 60 hours a week picking up riders in his 2015 Subaru Forester, Mr.
Ellenbogen is barely surviving financially. He had to give up his apartment and move into his
mother's condo in Verona, N.J. He relies on Medicaid for health care.
"It's something I'm accepting because I'm in need of money," he said of his Lyft gig. "I'm
capable of better things, but this is what's available to me."
Economists debate how to define this kind of employment, often categorized as
"nontraditional jobs" or "alternative work arrangements," and how to calculate the proportion
of the older work force engaged in it.
Popularly seen as the province of the young, it now provides work for a growing number of
people in their 50s, 60s and beyond.
The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics includes independent contractors (who may be
self-employed but well compensated) and estimates that 11.4 percent of those aged 50 to 62 have
nontraditional jobs. The Government Accountability Office, using an even broader definition
including part-timers, says the figure is 31.2 percent.
Among workers over 62, economists at The New School's Retirement Equity Lab have found that
9 percent were in "on-call, temp, contract or gig jobs" in 2015; the researchers
believe the percentage has grown since then .
Their study defines nontraditional jobs as those that provide no health insurance or
retirement benefits. "They're probably low-paid," said Alicia Munnell, director of the center.
"Some have erratic schedules."
... ... ...
The majority of those in nontraditional jobs at ages 50 to 62 rely on them for most of their
employment, and their retirement income at 62 is 26 percent lower than that of employees
holding traditional jobs. (Nontraditional jobholders have somewhat higher rates of depression,
as well.)
... ... ...
Nontraditional jobs include food service and retail, as well as gig jobs; among the fastest
growing categories are janitorial work, and personal care and health aide positions. "They're
not easy on older bodies," Dr. Ghilarducci pointed out. "They require a lot of physical
stamina."
... ... ...
Mr. Ellenbogen, for instance, has a master's degree in social psychology from the
University of Vermont. After getting laid off from sales positions and finding a return to
business coaching unprofitable, he became a commission-only sales rep for Home Depot, with no
base salary or benefits.
The company let him go, he said, when retina surgery left him unable to drive for two
months. After he recovered, the only work he could find was with Lyft, where about a quarter of
drivers are over 50, the company reported last year.
Mr. Ellenbogen has searched for jobs on LinkedIn, on Indeed, in local newspapers. The New
Start Career Network at Rutgers University has provided free weekly sessions with a coach.
Nothing has materialized, so Mr. Ellenbogen keeps driving, trying to delay claiming Social
Security to maximize his benefits.
Following decades of increased life expectancy rates, Americans have been dying earlier for
three consecutive years since 2014, turning the elusive quest for the 'American Dream' into a
real-life nightmare for many. Corporate America must accept some portion of the blame for the
looming disaster.
Something is killing Americans and researchers have yet to find the culprit. But we can risk
some intuitive guesses.
According to researchers from the Center on Society and Health, Virginia Commonwealth
University School of Medicine, American life expectancy has not kept pace with that of other
wealthy countries and is now in fact decreasing.
The National Center for Health Statistics reported that life expectancy in the United States
peaked (78.9 years) in 2014 and subsequently dropped for 3 consecutive years, hitting 78.6
years in 2017. The decrease was most significant among men (0.4 years) than women (0.2 years)
and happened across racial-ethnic lines: between 2014 and 2016, life expectancy decreased among
non-Hispanic white populations (from 78.8 to 78.5 years), non-Hispanic black populations (from
75.3 years to 74.8 years), and Hispanic populations (82.1 to 81.8 years).
"By 2014, midlife mortality was increasing across all racial groups, caused by drug
overdoses, alcohol abuse, suicides, and a diverse list of organ system diseases," wrote
researchers Steven H. Woolf and Heidi Schoomaker in a
study that appears in the latest issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical
Association.
At the very beginning of the report, Woolf and Schoomaker reveal that the geographical area
with the largest relative increases occurred "in the Ohio Valley and New England."
"The implications for public health and the economy are substantial," they added, "making
it vital to understand the underlying causes."
Incidentally, it would be difficult for any observer of the U.S. political scene to read
that passage without immediately connecting it to the 2016 presidential election between Donald
Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Taking advantage of the deep industrial decline that has long plagued the Ohio Valley, made
up of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, Trump successfully
tapped into a very real social illness, at least partially connected to
economic stagnation , which helped propel him into the White House.
Significantly, thirty-seven states witnessed significant jumps in midlife mortality in the
years leading up to 2017. As the researchers pointed out, however, the trend was concentrated
in certain states, many of which, for example in New England, did not support Trump in
2016.
"Between 2010 and 2017, the largest relative increases in mortality occurred in New
England (New Hampshire, 23.3%; Maine, 20.7%; Vermont, 19.9%, Massachusetts 12.1%) and the
Ohio Valley (West Virginia, 23.0%; Ohio, 21.6%; Indiana, 14.8%; Kentucky, 14.7%), as well as
in New Mexico (17.5%), South Dakota (15.5%), Pennsylvania (14.4%), North Dakota (12.7%),
Alaska (12.0%), and Maryland (11.0%). In contrast, the nation's most populous states
(California, Texas, and New York) experienced relatively small increases in midlife
mortality.
Eight of the 10 states with the highest number of excess deaths were in the industrial
Midwest or Appalachia, whereas rural US counties experienced greater increases in midlife
mortality than did urban counties.
A tragic irony of the study suggests that greater access to healthcare, notably among the
more affluent white population, actually correlates to an increase in higher mortality rates.
The reason is connected to the out-of-control prescription of opioid drugs to combat pain and
depression.
"The sharp increase in overdose deaths that began in the 1990s primarily affected white
populations and came in 3 waves," the report explained: (1) the introduction of OxyContin in
1996 and overuse of prescription opioids, followed by (2) increased heroin use, often by
patients who had become addicted to prescription opioids, and (3) the subsequent emergence of
potent synthetic opioids (eg, fentanyl analogues) -- the latter triggering a large post-2013
increase in overdose deaths.
"That white populations first experienced a larger increase in overdose deaths than
nonwhite populations may reflect their greater access to health care (and thus prescription
drugs)."
In September, Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, reached a
tentative settlement with 23 states and more than 2,000 cities and counties that sued the
company, owned by the Sackler family, over its role in the opioid crisis
Other factors also helped to drive up the U.S. mortality rate, including alcoholic liver
disease and suicides, 85% of which occurred with a firearm or other method.
The United States spends more on health care than any other country, yet its overall health
report card fares worse than those of other wealthy countries. Americans experience higher
rates of illness and injury and die earlier than people in other high-income
nations.
Researchers were perplexed but not surprised by the data as there existed clear signs back
in the 1980s that the United States was heading for a cliff as far as longevity rates go.
So what is it that's claiming the life of Americans, many at the prime of their life, at a
faster pace than in the past? The reality is that it is likely to be an accumulation of
negative factors that are finally beginning to take a toll. For example, apart from the opioid
crisis, there has also been an almost total collapse of union representation across Corporate
America, which has essentially crushed any form of workplace democracy. This author, a former
member of three worker unions, witnessed this egregious abuse of corporate power firsthand,
which is apparent by the total stagnation of wages for many decades.
Today's real average wage – that is, after accounting for inflation – has about
the same purchasing power it did about half a century ago . Meanwhile, in the majority of
cases, increases in salary have a marked tendency to go to the highest-paid tier of
executives.
In a
report by Pew Research, "real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago:
The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would
today."
One needs only consider the growing mountain of tuition debt now
consuming the paychecks of many university graduates, many of whom have yet to land their dream
6-figure job from their relatively worthless liberal education, to better understand the quiet
desperation that exists across the country.
At the same time, the exponential rise in the use of social media, which has been proven to
trigger depression
and loneliness in users, also deserves serious consideration. What society is experiencing
with its massive online presence is a total overhaul as to the way human beings relate to each
other. Presently, it would be very difficult to argue that the changes have been positive; in
fact, they seem to be contributing to the
early demise of millions of Americans in the prime of life.
Taken together, abusive labor practices that ignores workplace democracy, the epidemic of
opioid usage, compounded by the anti-social features of 'social media' suggests a perfect storm
of factors precipitating the rise of early deaths in the United States. Since all of these
areas fall in one way or another under the control of corporate power, this powerful agency
must find ways to help address the problem. The future success of America depends upon it.
With a college degree and half a brain things are still pretty good. They look pretty good
for trades guys too, as long as they are honest hard workers. I just got a quote from some
guy to dig up a 70 foot driveway and replace it with topsoil... $14,000. Nobody is hurting
too bad where I am except serious white trash with no job skills. Well, blacks and latinos
without job skills are hurting too, the difference is, they're resigned to their fate after
300+ years of getting abused. It's the Trump trailer trash who are mad that they aren't
throwing around big money any more for stealing copper or whatever the **** these trash did
before now.
You think life expectancy has dropped off now? Give it 10 or 20 years. Fentynal+a cheap
plastic mask with nitrogen or co2 emitter will be easily available on the internet...Most
people over 50 are ill equipped to deal with burgeoning economic realities. I'm 51 and I see
it all around me in NW Montana, dudes that are 50 or 100 pounds overweight, smoking, drinking
whisky and taking pills, not showing up for work. The economy here is booming and yet there
are men and women, mostly my age or older wandering around with tombstone eyes all day,
bumming money in front of the grocery stores. I spend more time than I like in Portland OR,
and it's even more apparent there. There are kids that panhandle, but 90% of the people
camping on the street are 45+. Dis Eases of dispair.
When men abandon their families to pursue money and fame, their families move on, and
then, when the men found they were chasing fool's gold, they despaired and died, since they
had fucked themselves, their children and the women who were willing to love them.
There wasn't any reason to live, if one doesn't believe in repairing such social crimes,
or second chances. And there's a time limit for such rehabilitation; wait too long to get
smart, and your chances are gone.
I know of three such cases in my immediate family.
In "Democracy in America", Alexis de Tocqueville commented on Americans' obsession with
money and means of procuring it. I would hypothesize that the deteriorating economic means of
ordinary Americans is behind the increase in midlife mortality. The pursuit of money has
resulted in a lifestyle that is not conducive to a happy and healthy life.
Stress causes the body to release cortisol which responds by building up belly fat for the
emergency times ahead. Sleep and stress reduction can reduce the waist line, slowly.
"there has also been an almost total collapse of union representation across Corporate
America, which has essentially crushed any form of workplace democracy. This author, a former
member of three worker unions, witnessed this egregious abuse of corporate power firsthand,
which is apparent by the total stagnation of wages for many decades." This cracked me up.
companies are NOT Democratic and never should be.
Isn't Capitalism wonderful? We mandate that a company may not make a decision not in the interests of the shareholder.
And then whinge because Big Pharma does just that. It makes drugs that maximize
profits. Why did you expect anything different?
And what about insurance companies? How are shareholders of insurance companies served if
the insurance companies pay up for claims? Anyway, let me present a physicians
point of view , that the AMA represents the shareholders of Big Pharma, not the
doctors. BTW. Black salve works against Big C. (I have to use euphemisms because it is illegal to
utter the words "Cures Big C". Why? I dunno. ( Bloodroot , a common plant.)
How unpatriotic it would be to praise Unions! So I shan't. Instead I recommend Guilds. A complete monopoly of particular trades by their
own Guild House. The guild controls the training of their members. It controls who gets to
work where. It controls their accommodation and pension. It controls for the benefit of it's
members. It is Vast.
It negotiates with politicians on protecting it's own interests by Law. (Hey, why should
only multi-national companies lobby in their own interest!)
For instance. A electrical guild would negotiate a contract with a builders guild for
cheap housing. (You scratch my back, I scratch yours.) It would negotiate with the teacher's
guild for the correct education of their children.
Big international companies are going to love it. But why do we need to consider their
emotions?
This rampant social illness is why Trump ran for President. He knew there were a lot of
hurting people out there who needed to believe in something, anything, and most importantly
he knew they would devour every scoop of manure he shoveled their way.
"real terms average hourly earnings peaked more than 45 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate
recorded in January 1973 had the same purchasing power that $23.68 would today."
No big drama here considering growth in wealth inequality for the period.
"... Meanwhile, greed -- once best known for its place on the list of Seven Deadly Sins -- became a point of pride for Wall Street's Masters of the Universe. With a sophisticated smile, the rallying cry of the rich and fashionable became "1 got mine -- the rest of you are on your own." ..."
And yet America's policies were headed in the wrong direction. The big banks kept lobbying Congress to pass a bill that would
gut families' last refuge in the bankruptcy courts -- the same bill we describe in this book. (It went by the awful name Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, but it should have been called the Gut the Safety Net and Pay OIT the Big Banks Act.).
The proposed law would carefully preserve bankruptcy protections for the likes of Donald Trump and his friends, while ordinary families
that had been crushed by debts from medical problems or job losses were thrown under the bus.
When we wrote The Two-Income Trap, it was already pretty clear that the big banks would win this battle. The fight kept going
for two more years, but the tide of blame-the-unlucky combined with relentless lobbying and campaign contributions finally overwhelmed
Congress.
In 2005, the Wall Street banking industry got the changes they wanted, and struggling families lost out. After the law was rewritten,
about 800,000 families a year that once would have turned to bankruptcy to try to get back on their feet were shut out of the system.1
That was 800,000 families -- mostly people who had lost jobs, suffered a medical catastrophe, or gone through a divorce or death
in the family. And now, instead of reorganizing their finances and building some security, they were at the mercy of debt collectors
who called twenty or thirty times a day -- and could keep on calling and calling for as long as they thought they could squeeze another
nickel from a desperate family.
As it turned out, the new law tore a big hole in the last safety net for working families, just in time for the Great Recession.
Meanwhile, the bank regulators kept playing blind and deaf while the housing bubble inflated. Once it burst, the economy collapsed.
The foreclosure problem we flagged back in 2003 rolled into a global economic meltdown by 2008, as millions of people lost their
homes, and millions more lost their jobs, their savings, and their chance at a secure retirement. Overall, the total cost of the
crash was estimated as high as S14 trillion.2
Meanwhile, America's giant banks got bailed out, CEO pay shot up, the stock market roared back, and the investor class got rich
beyond even their own fevered dreams.3
A generation ago, a fortune-teller might have predicted a very different future. With so many mothers headed into the workforce,
Americans might have demanded a much heavier investment in public day care, extended school days, and better family leave policies.
Equal pay for equal work might have become sacrosanct. As wages stagnated, there might have been more urgency for raising the minimum
wage, strengthening unions, and expanding Social Security. And our commitment to affordable college and universal preschool might
have become unshakeable.
But the political landscape was changing even faster than the new economic realities. Government was quickly becoming an object
of ridicule, even to the president of the United States. Instead of staking his prestige on making government more accountable and
efficient, Ronald Reagan repeated his famous barb "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are Tin from the government
and I'm here to help."'8 After generations of faithfulness to the promise of the Constitution to promote general welfare, at the
moment when the economic foundations of the middle class began to tremble, our efforts to strengthen each other and offer a helping
hand had become the butt of a national joke.
Those who continued to believe in what we could do together faced another harsh reality: much of government had been hijacked
by the rich and powerful. Regulators who were supposed to watch out for the public interest shifted their loyalties, smiling benignly
as giant banks jacked up short-term profits by cheating families, looking the other way as giant power companies scam mod customers,
and partying with industry executives as oil companies cut comers on safety and environmental rules. In this book we told one of
those stories, about how a spineless Congress rewrote the bankruptcy laws to enrich a handful of credit card companies.
Meanwhile, greed -- once best known for its place on the list of Seven Deadly Sins -- became a point of pride for Wall Street's
Masters of the Universe. With a sophisticated smile, the rallying cry of the rich and fashionable became "1 got mine -- the rest
of you are on your own."
These shifts played nicely into each other. Every' attack on "big government" meant families lost an ally, and the rules tilted
more and These shifts played nicely into each other. Every attack on "big government" meant families lost an ally, and the rules
tilted more and more in favor of those who could hire armies of lobbyists and lawyers. Lower taxes for the wealthy -- and more money
in the pockets of those who subscribed to the greed-is-good mantra. And if the consequence meant less money for preschools or public
colleges or disability coverage -- the things that would create more security for an overstretched middle class -- then that was
just too bad.
Little by little, as the middle class got deeper and deeper in trouble, government stopped working for the middle class, or at
least it stopped working so hard. The rich paid a little less and kept a little more. Even if they didn't say it in so many words,
they got exactly what they wanted. Remember the 90 percent -- America's middle class, working class, and poor -- the ones who got
70 percent of all income growth from 1935 through 1980?
From 1980-2014, the 90 percent got nothing.9 None. Zero. Zip. Not a penny in income growth. Instead, for an entire generation,
the top 10 percent captured all of the income growth in the entire country. l(X) percent.
It didn't have to be this way. The Two-Income Trap is about families that w'ork hard, but some things go wrong along the way --
illnesses and job losses, and maybe some bad decisions. But this isn't what has put the middle class on the ropes. After all, people
have gotten sick and lost jobs and made less-than-perfect decisions for generations -- and vet, for generations America's middle
class expanded. creating more opportunity to build real economic security and pass on a brighter future to their children.
What would it take to help strengthen the middle class? The problems facing the middle-class family are complex and far-reaching,
and the solutions must be too. We wish there could be a simple silver bullet, but after a generation of relentless assault, there
just isn't. But there is one overriding idea. Together we can. It's time to say it out loud: a generation of I-got-mine policy-making
has failed -- failed miserably, completely, and overwhelmingly. And it's time to change direction before the entire middle class
has been replaced by hundreds of millions of Americans barely hanging on by their fingernails.
Americas middle class was built through investments in education, infrastructure, and research -- and by' making sure we all have
a safety net. We need to strengthen those building blocks: Step up investments in public education. Rein in the cost of college and
cut out- standing student loans. Create universal preschool and affordable child care. Upgrade infrastructure -- mass transit, energy,
communications -- to make it more attractive to build good, middle-class jobs here in America. Recognize that the modem economy can
be perilous, and a strong safety net is needed now more than ever. Strengthen disability coverage, retirement coverage, and paid
sick leave. And for heavens sake, get rid of the awful banker-backed bankruptcy law, so that when things go wrong, families at least
have a chance at a fresh start. We welcome the re-issue of The Two-Income Trap because we see the original book as capturing a critical
moment, those last few minutes in which the explanation of why so many hardworking, plav-by- tho-mlcs people were in so much trouble
was simple: It was their own fault. If only they would just pull up their socks, cinch their belts a little tighter, and stop buying
so much stuff, they -- and our country -- would be just fine. That myth has died. And we say', good riddance.
"... The main culprit for the economy's falling growth rate and the general middle-class economic squeeze is debt - or more specifically, the burden of having to pay it back, with penalties, fees and lower credit ratings. The mainstream press depicts the rising market price of homes as a benefit to homeowners, a capital gam as if they almost were real estate speculators or capitalists in miniature, not wage-eamers running up debt. GDP statisticians include the rise hi valuation of owner-occupied real estate and the rising rents it saves homeowners from having to pay as adding to GDP. ..."
"... "What has occurred is an inversion of values about the proper aim of economies. Today, it is to get rich by means of a financialized rentier economy. From the point of view of rentiers and other investors, the production-and-consumption economy is the overhead. The costs of labor and capital are to be minimized by squeezing out more economic rent. By contrast, our approach treats the production-and-consumption sector as primary, and the FIRE sector and other rent extracting sectors as overhead." ..."
"... "Each debt is a credit on the other side of the balance sheet, because behind each borrower is a lender." ..."
Those who praise the post-2008 economy as a successful recovery point to the fact that the
stock market has soar ed to all-time highs, while the unemployment rate has fallen to a
decade-low. But is the stock market a good proxy for how the overall economy is doing? The low
reported unemployment rate sidesteps the predominance of minimum-wage jobs. part-time "gig''
work, and the fact that the Federal Reserve's Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S.
Households in 201S reports that 39% of Americans do not have $400 cash available for a medical
or other emergency, and that a quarter of adults skipped medical care hi 2018 because they
could not afford it. 1 The latest estimates by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report that nearly half (48 percent) of households headed by someone 55 and older
lack any retirement savings or pension benefits.2 Even in what the press calls an economic
boom, most Americans feel stressed and many are chronically angry and worried. According to a
2015 survey by the American Psychological Association, financial worry is the "number one cause
of stress in America today."3 The Fed describes them as suffering from '•financial
fragility." What is fragile is their economic status and self-worth, teetering 011 the brink of
downward mobility. Living hi today's fmancialized economy creates stresses that seem more
damaging emotionally than living hi a poor country. America certainly is not a poor counfry,
but it has become so debt-ridden, and its wealth and income growth so highly concentrated, that
much of its population is emotionally worse off than that of almost any other country hi the
world.
The U.S. economy's soaring wealth and income finds its counterpart on the liabilities side
of the balance sheet. Rising stock prices have been fueled by corporate stock buyback programs
and debt leveraging, not earnings from new tangible investment and employment. And rising real
estate prices reflect the decline hi interest rates, enabling a given rental flow to be
capitalized hito higher bank loans and market prices. Additionally, the wave of foreclosures
011 junk mortgages and debt- strapped new home buyers has reduced home ownership rates, forcing
more of the population into a rental market, whose rising charges for housing have supported
general real estate prices. Thus, these capital gains do not reflect a thriving economy, but a
higher-cost one that is polarizing between creditors and debtors, property owners and renters,
and the financial sector vis-a-vis the rest of the economy.
The main culprit for the economy's falling growth rate and the general middle-class economic
squeeze is debt - or more specifically, the burden of having to pay it back, with penalties,
fees and lower credit ratings. The mainstream press depicts the rising market price of homes as
a benefit to homeowners, a capital gam as if they almost were real estate speculators or
capitalists in miniature, not wage-eamers running up debt. GDP statisticians include the rise
hi valuation of owner-occupied real estate and the rising rents it saves homeowners from having
to pay as adding to GDP. But
2 William E. Gibson, "Nearly Half of Americans 55+ Have No Retirement Savings or Pension
Benefits," AARP, March 28, 2019.
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/retirement-savings/info-2019/no-retirement-money-saved.html
3 Source: American Psychological Association (2015). "American Psychological Association
survey shows money stress weighing on Americans' Health Nationwide," February 4, 2015.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/02/monev-stiess.aspx.
"What has occurred is an inversion of values about the proper aim of economies. Today, it
is to get rich by means of a financialized rentier economy. From the point of view of
rentiers and other investors, the production-and-consumption economy is the overhead. The
costs of labor and capital are to be minimized by squeezing out more economic rent. By
contrast, our approach treats the production-and-consumption sector as primary, and the FIRE
sector and other rent extracting sectors as overhead."
"Each debt is a credit on the other side of the balance sheet, because behind each
borrower is a lender."
Yes it is, but only for couples with low level of marital satisfaction.
Notable quotes:
"... They also looked at marital breakup more generally, focusing on when couples decided to end their relationships (not necessarily if or when they got divorced). Their findings revealed that when men were unemployed, the likelihood that either spouse would leave the marriage increased. What about the woman's employment status? For husbands, whether their wife was employed or not was seemingly unimportant-it was unrelated to their decision to leave the relationship. It did seem to matter for wives, though, but it depended upon how satisfied they were with the marriage. ..."
"... When women were highly satisfied, they were inclined to stay with their partner regardless of whether they had employment. However, when the wife's satisfaction was low, she was more likely to exit the relationship, but only when she had a job. ..."
The first study considers government data from all 50 U.S. states between the years 1960 and 2005.1 The researchers predicted
that higher unemployment numbers would translate to more divorces among heterosexual married couples. Most of us probably would have
predicted this too based on common sense-you would probably expect your partner to be able to hold down a job, right? And indeed,
this was the case, but only before 1980. Surprisingly, since then, as joblessness has increased, divorce rates have actually
decreased.
How do we explain this counterintuitive finding? We don't know for sure, but the researchers speculate that unemployed
people may delay or postpone divorce due to the high costs associated with it. Not only is divorce expensive in terms of legal fees,
but afterward, partners need to pay for two houses instead of one. And if they are still living off of one salary at that point,
those costs may be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is not that uncommon to hear about estranged couples who can't stand
each other but are still living under the same roof.
The second study considered data from a national probability sample of over 3,600 heterosexual married couples in the U.S. collected
between 1987 and 2002. However, instead of looking at the overall association between unemployment and marital outcomes, they considered
how gender and relationship satisfaction factored into the equation. 2
They also looked at marital breakup more generally, focusing on when couples decided to end their relationships (not necessarily
if or when they got divorced). Their findings revealed that when men were unemployed, the likelihood that either spouse would leave
the marriage increased. What about the woman's employment status? For husbands, whether their wife was employed or not was seemingly
unimportant-it was unrelated to their decision to leave the relationship. It did seem to matter for wives, though, but it depended
upon how satisfied they were with the marriage.
When women were highly satisfied, they were inclined to stay with their partner regardless of whether they had employment.
However, when the wife's satisfaction was low, she was more likely to exit the relationship, but only when she had a job.
"... A good economy compensates for much social dysfunction. ..."
"... More than that, it prevents the worst of behaviors that are considered an expression of dysfunction from occurring, as people across all social strata have other things to worry about or keep them busy. Happy people don't bear grudges, or at least they are not on top of their consciousness as long as things are going well. ..."
"... This could be seen time and again in societies with deep and sometimes violent divisions between ethnic groups where in times of relative prosperity (or at least a broadly shared vision for a better future) the conflicts are not removed but put on a backburner, or there is even "finally" reconciliation, and then when the economy turns south, the old grudges and conflicts come back (often not on their own, but fanned by groups who stand to gain from the divisions, or as a way of scapegoating) ..."
"... "backwaters of America, that economy seems to put out fewer and fewer chairs." ~~Harold Pollack~ ..."
"... Going up through the chairs has become so impossible for those on the slow-track. Not enough slots for all the jokers within our once proud country of opportunities, ..."
"... George Orwell: "I doubt, however, whether the unemployed would ultimately benefit if they learned to spend their money more economically. ... If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly." ..."
"... Perhaps you are commenting on the aspect that when (enough) job applicants/holders define down their standards and let employers treat them as floor mats, then the quality of many jobs and the labor relations will be adjusted down accordingly, or at the very least expectations what concessions workers will make will be adjusted up. That seems to be the case unfortunately. ..."
A good economy compensates for much social dysfunction.
A bad economy moves people toward the margins, afflicts those
near the margins and kills those at the margins.
This is what policy makers should consider as they pursue policies that do not put the citizen above all else.
cm -> Avraam Jack Dectis...
"A good economy compensates for much social dysfunction."
More than that, it prevents the worst of behaviors that are considered an expression of dysfunction from occurring, as
people across all social strata have other things to worry about or keep them busy. Happy people don't bear grudges, or at least
they are not on top of their consciousness as long as things are going well.
This could be seen time and again in societies with deep and sometimes violent divisions between ethnic groups where in
times of relative prosperity (or at least a broadly shared vision for a better future) the conflicts are not removed but put on
a backburner, or there is even "finally" reconciliation, and then when the economy turns south, the old grudges and conflicts
come back (often not on their own, but fanned by groups who stand to gain from the divisions, or as a way of scapegoating)
Dune Goon said...
"backwaters of America, that economy seems to put out fewer and fewer chairs." ~~Harold Pollack~
Going up through the chairs has become so impossible for those on the slow-track. Not enough slots for all the jokers within
our once proud country of opportunities, not enough elbow room for Daniel Boone, let alone Jack Daniels! Not enough space
in this county to wet a tree when you feel the urge! Every tiny plot of space has been nailed down and fenced off, divided up
among gated communities. Why?
Because the 1% has an excessive propensity to reproduce their own kind. They are so uneducated about the responsibilities of
birth control and space conservation that they are crowding all of us off the edge of the planet. Worse yet we have begun to *ape
our betters*.
"We've only just begun!"
~~The Carpenters~
William said...
"Many of us know people who receive various public benefits, and who might not need to rely on these programs if they made
better choices, if they learned how to not talk back at work, if they had a better handle on various self-destructive behaviors,
if they were more willing to take that crappy job and forego disability benefits, etc."
George Orwell: "I doubt, however, whether the unemployed would ultimately benefit if they learned to spend their money
more economically. ... If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would
not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly."
cm said in reply to William...
A valid observation, but what you are commenting on is more about getting or keeping a job than managing personal finances.
Perhaps you are commenting on the aspect that when (enough) job applicants/holders define down their standards and let
employers treat them as floor mats, then the quality of many jobs and the labor relations will be adjusted down accordingly, or
at the very least expectations what concessions workers will make will be adjusted up. That seems to be the case unfortunately.
"... In a recent interview Mr. Deaton suggested that middle-aged whites have "lost the narrative of their lives." That is, their economic setbacks have hit hard because they expected better. Or to put it a bit differently, we're looking at people who were raised to believe in the American Dream, and are coping badly with its failure to come true. ..."
"... the truth is that we don't really know why despair appears to be spreading across Middle America. But it clearly is, with troubling consequences for our society... ..."
"... Some people who feel left behind by the American story turn self-destructive; others turn on the elites they feel have betrayed them. ..."
"... What we are seeing is the long term impacts of the "Reagan Revolution." ..."
"... The affected cohort here is the first which has lived with the increased financial and employment insecurity that engendered, as well as the impacts of the massive offshoring of good paying union jobs throughout their working lives. Stress has cumulative impacts on health and well-being, which are a big part of what we are seeing here. ..."
"... Lets face it, this Fed is all about goosing up asset prices to generate short term gains in economic activity. Since the early 90s, the Fed has done nothing but make policy based on Wall Street's interests. I can give them a pass on the dot com debacle but not after that. This toxic relationship between wall street and the Fed has to end. ..."
"... there was a housing bubble that most at the Fed (including Bernanke) denied right upto the middle of 2007 ..."
"... Yellen, to her credit, has admitted multiple times over the years that low rates spur search for yield that blows bubbles ..."
"... Bursting of the bubble led to unemployment for millions and U3 that went to 10% ..."
"... "You are the guys who do not consider the counterfactual where higher rates would have prevented the housing bubble in 2003-05 and that produced the great recession in the first place." ..."
"... Inequality has been rising globally, almost regardless of trade practices ..."
"... It is not some unstoppable global trend. This is neoliberal oligarchy coup d'�tat. Or as it often called "a quite coup". ..."
"... First of all, whether a job can or is offshored has little to do with whether it is "low skilled" but more with whether the workflow around the job can be organized in such a way that the job can be offshore. This is less a matter of "skill level" and more volume and immediacy of interaction with adjacent job functions, or movement of material across distances. ..."
"... The reason wages are stuck is that aggregate jobs are not growing, relative to workforce supply. ..."
"... BTW the primary offshore location is India, probably in good part because of good to excellent English language skills, and India's investment in STEM education and industry (especially software/services and this is even a public stereotype, but for a reason). ..."
"... Very rough figures: half a million Chicago employees may make less than $800 a week -- almost everybody should earn $800 ... ..."
"... Union busting is generally (?) understood as direct interference with the formation and operation of unions or their members. It is probably more common that employers are allowed to just go around the unions - "right to work", subcontracting non-union shops or temp/staffing agencies, etc. ..."
"... Why would people join a union and pay dues when the union is largely impotent to deliver, when there are always still enough desperate people who will (have to) take jobs outside the union system? Employers don't have to bring in scabs when they can legally go through "unencumbered" subcontractors inside or outside the jurisdiction. ..."
"... Credibility trap, fully engaged. ..."
"... The anti-knowledge of the elites is worth reading. http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/02/the-anti-knowledge-of-the-elites/ When such herd instinct and institutional overbearance connects with the credibility trap, the results may be impressive. http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2015/11/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts-pop.html ..."
"... Suicide, once thought to be associated with troubled teens and the elderly, is quickly becoming an age-blind statistic. Middle aged Americans are turning to suicide in alarming numbers. The reasons include easily accessible prescription painkillers, the mortgage crisis and most importantly the challenge of a troubled economy. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention claims suicide rates now top the number of deaths due to automobile accidents. ..."
"... The suicide rate for both younger and older Americans remains virtually unchanged, however, the rate has spiked for those in middle age (35 to 64 years old) with a 28 percent increase (link is external) from 1999 to 2010. ..."
"... When few people kill themselves "on purpose" or die from self-inflicted but probably "unintended" harms (e.g. organ failure or accidental death caused by substance abuse), it can be shrugged off as problems related to the individual (more elaboration possible but not necessary). ..."
"... When it becomes a statistically significant phenomenon (above-noise percentage of total population or demographically identifiable groups), then one has to ask questions about social causes. My first question would be, "what made life suck for those people"? What specific instrument they used to kill themselves would be my second question (it may be the first question for people who are charged with implementing counter measures but not necessarily fixing the causes). ..."
"... Since about the financial crisis (I'm not sure about causation or coincidence - not accidental coincidence BTW but causation by the same underlying causes), there has been a disturbing pattern of high school students throwing themselves in front of local trains. At that age, drinking or drugging oneself to death is apparently not the first "choice". Performance pressure *related to* (not just "and") a lack of convincing career/life prospects has/have been suspected or named as a cause. I don't think teenagers suddenly started to jump in front of trains that have run the same rail line for decades because of the "usual" and centuries to millennia old teenage romantic relationship issues. ..."
"There is a darkness spreading over part of our society":
Despair, American Style, by Paul
Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: A couple of weeks ago President Obama mocked Republicans who are "down on America," and reinforced
his message by doing a pretty good Grumpy Cat impression. He had a point: With job growth at rates not seen since the 1990s, with
the percentage of Americans covered by health insurance hitting record highs, the doom-and-gloom predictions of his political
enemies look ever more at odds with reality.
Yet there is a darkness spreading over part of our society. ... There has been
a lot of comment ... over a new paper by the economists Angus Deaton (who just won a Nobel) and Anne Case, showing that mortality
among middle-aged white Americans has been rising since 1999..., while death rates were falling steadily both in other countries
and among other groups in our own nation.
Even more striking are the proximate causes of rising mortality. Basically, white Americans are, in increasing numbers, killing
themselves... Suicide is way up, and so are deaths from drug poisoning and ... drinking... But what's causing this epidemic of
self-destructive behavior?...
In a recent interview Mr. Deaton suggested that middle-aged whites have "lost the narrative of their lives." That is, their
economic setbacks have hit hard because they expected better. Or to put it a bit differently, we're looking at people who were
raised to believe in the American Dream, and are coping badly with its failure to come true.
That sounds like a plausible hypothesis..., but the truth is that we don't really know why despair appears to be spreading
across Middle America. But it clearly is, with troubling consequences for our society...
I know I'm not the only observer who sees a link between the despair reflected in those mortality numbers and the volatility
of right-wing politics. Some people who feel left behind by the American story turn self-destructive; others turn on the elites
they feel have betrayed them. No, deporting immigrants and wearing baseball caps bearing slogans won't solve their problems,
but neither will cutting taxes on capital gains. So you can understand why some voters have rallied around politicians who at
least seem to feel their pain.
At this point you probably expect me to offer a solution. But while universal health care, higher minimum wages, aid to education,
and so on would do a lot to help Americans in trouble, I'm not sure whether they're enough to cure existential despair.
bakho said...
There are a lot of economic dislocations that the government after the 2001 recession stopped doing much about it. Right after
the 2008 crash, the government did more but by 2010, even the Democratic president dropped the ball. and failed to deliver. Probably
no region of the country is affected more by technological change that the coal regions of KY and WV. Lying politicians promise
a return to the past that cannot be delivered. No one can suggest what the new future will be. The US is due for another round
of urbanization as jobs decline in rural areas. Dislocation forces declining values of properties and requires changes in behavior,
skills and outlook. Those personal changes do not happen without guidance. The social institutions such as churches and government
programs are a backstop, but they are not providing a way forward. There is plenty of work to be done, but our elites are not
willing to invest.
DrDick -> bakho...
The problem goes back much further than that. What we are seeing is the long term impacts of the "Reagan Revolution."
The affected cohort here is the first which has lived with the increased financial and employment insecurity that engendered,
as well as the impacts of the massive offshoring of good paying union jobs throughout their working lives. Stress has cumulative
impacts on health and well-being, which are a big part of what we are seeing here.
ilsm said...
Thuggee doom and gloom is about their fading chance to reinstate the slavocracy.
The fever swamp of right wing ideas is more loony than 1964.
Extremism is the new normal.
bmorejoe -> ilsm...
Yup. The slow death of white supremacy.
Peter K. -> Anonymous...
If it wasn't for monetary policy things would be even worse as the Republicans in Congress forced fiscal austerity on the economy
during the "recovery."
sanjait -> Peter K....
That's the painful irony of a comment like that one from Anonymous ... he seems completely unaware that, yes, ZIRP has done
a huge amount to prevent the kind of problems described above. He like most ZIRP critics fails to consider what the counterfactual
looks like (i.e., something like the Great Depression redux).
Anonymous -> sanjait...
You are the guys who do not consider the counterfactual where higher rates would have prevented the housing bubble in 2003-05
and that produced the great recession in the first place. Because preemptive monetary policy has gone out of fashion completely.
And now we are going to repeat the whole process over when the present bubble in stocks and corporate bonds bursts along with
the malinvestment in China, commodity exporters etc.
Peter K. -> Anonymous...
"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system.
High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted,
and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."
sanjait -> Anonymous...
"You want regulation? I would like to see
1) Reinstate Glass Steagall
2) impose a 10bp trans tax on trading financial instruments."
Great. Two things with zero chance of averting bubbles but make great populist pablum.
This is why we can't have nice things!
"3) Outlaw any Fed person working for a bank/financial firm after they leave office."
This seems like a decent idea. Hard to enforce, as highly intelligent and accomplished people tend not to be accepting of such
restrictions, but it could be worth it anyway.
likbez -> sanjait...
" highly intelligent and accomplished people tend not to be accepting of such restrictions, but it could be worth it anyway."
You are forgetting that it depends on a simple fact to whom political power belongs. And that's the key whether "highly intelligent
and accomplished people" will accept those restrictions of not.
If the government was not fully captured by financial capital, then I think even limited prosecution of banksters "Stalin's
purge style" would do wonders in preventing housing bubble and 2008 financial crush.
Please try to imagine the effect of trial and exile to Alaska for some period just a dozen people involved in Securitization
of mortgages boom (and those highly intelligent people can do wonders in improving oil industry in Alaska ;-).
Starting with Mr. Weill, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin, Mr. Phil Gramm, Dr. Summers and Mr. Clinton.
Anonymous -> Peter K....
"2003-2005 didn't have excess inflation and wage gains."
Monetary policy can not hinge just on inflation or wage gains. Why are wage gains a problem anyway?
Lets face it, this Fed is all about goosing up asset prices to generate short term gains in economic activity. Since the
early 90s, the Fed has done nothing but make policy based on Wall Street's interests. I can give them a pass on the dot com debacle
but not after that. This toxic relationship between wall street and the Fed has to end.
You want regulation? I would like to see
1) Reinstate Glass Steagall
2) impose a 10bp trans tax on trading financial instruments.
3) Outlaw any Fed person working for a bank/financial firm after they leave office. Bernanke, David Warsh etc included. That includes
Mishkin getting paid to shill for failing Iceland banks or Bernanke making paid speeches to hedge funds.
Anonymous -> EMichael...
Fact: there was a housing bubble that most at the Fed (including Bernanke) denied right upto the middle of 2007
Fact: Yellen, to her credit, has admitted multiple times over the years that low rates spur search for yield that blows bubbles
Fact: Bursting of the bubble led to unemployment for millions and U3 that went to 10%
what facts are you referring to?
EMichael -> Anonymous...
That FED rates caused the bubble.
to think this you have to ignore that a 400% Fed Rate increase from 2004 to 2005 had absolutely no effect on mortgage originations.
Then of course, you have to explain why 7 years at zero has not caused another housing bubble.
Correlation is not causation. Lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation.
pgl -> Anonymous...
"You are the guys who do not consider the counterfactual where higher rates would have prevented the housing bubble
in 2003-05 and that produced the great recession in the first place."
You are repeating the John B. Taylor line about interest rates being held "too low and too long". And guess what - most economists
have called Taylor's claim for the BS it really is. We should also note we never heard this BS when Taylor was part of the Bush
Administration. And do check - Greenspan and later Bernanke were raising interest rates well before any excess demand was generated
which is why inflation never took off.
So do keep repeating this intellectual garbage and we keep noting you are just a stupid troll.
Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century
By Anne Case and Angus Deaton
Midlife increases in suicides and drug poisonings have been previously noted. However, that these upward trends were persistent
and large enough to drive up all-cause midlife mortality has, to our knowledge, been overlooked. If the white mortality rate for
ages 45−54 had held at their 1998 value, 96,000 deaths would have been avoided from 1999�2013, 7,000 in 2013 alone. If it had
continued to decline at its previous (1979‒1998) rate, half a million deaths would have been avoided in the period 1999‒2013,
comparable to lives lost in the US AIDS epidemic through mid-2015. Concurrent declines in self-reported health, mental health,
and ability to work, increased reports of pain, and deteriorating measures of liver function all point to increasing midlife distress.
Abstract
This paper documents a marked increase in the all-cause mortality of middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women in the United
States between 1999 and 2013. This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other
rich country saw a similar turnaround. The midlife mortality reversal was confined to white non-Hispanics; black non-Hispanics
and Hispanics at midlife, and those aged 65 and above in every racial and ethnic group, continued to see mortality rates fall.
This increase for whites was largely accounted for by increasing death rates from drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic
liver diseases and cirrhosis. Although all education groups saw increases in mortality from suicide and poisonings, and an overall
increase in external cause mortality, those with less education saw the most marked increases. Rising midlife mortality rates
of white non-Hispanics were paralleled by increases in midlife morbidity. Self-reported declines in health, mental health, and
ability to conduct activities of daily living, and increases in chronic pain and inability to work, as well as clinically measured
deteriorations in liver function, all point to growing distress in this population. We comment on potential economic causes and
consequences of this deterioration.
ilsm -> Sarah...
Murka is different. Noni's plan would work if it were opportune for the slavocracy and the Kochs and ARAMCO don't lose any
"growth".
Maybe cost plus climate repair contracts to shipyards fumbling through useless nuclear powered behemoths for war plans made
in 1942.
Someone gotta make big money plundering for the public good, in Murka!
CSP said...
The answers to our malaise seem readily apparent to me, and I'm a southern-born white male working in a small, struggling Georgia
town.
1. Kill the national war machine
2. Kill the national Wall Street financial fraud machine
3. Get out-of-control mega corporations under control
4. Return savings to Main Street (see #1, #2 and #3)
5. Provide national, universal health insurance to everyone as a right
6. Provide free education to everyone, as much as their academic abilities can earn them
7. Strengthen social security and lower the retirement age to clear the current chronic underemployment of young people
It seems to me that these seven steps would free the American people to pursue their dreams, not the dreams of Washington or
Wall Street. Unfortunately, it is readily apparent that true freedom and real individual empowerment are the last things our leaders
desire. Shame on them and shame on everyone who helps to make it so.
DeDude -> CSP...
You are right. Problem is that most southern-born white males working in a small, struggling Georgia town would rather die
than voting for the one candidate who might institute those changes - Bernie Sanders.
The people who are beginning to realize that the american dream is a mirage, are the same people who vote for GOP candidates
who want to give even more to the plutocrats.
kthomas said...
The kids in Seattle had it right when WTO showed up.
Why is anyone suprised by all this?
We exported out jobs. First all the manufacturing. Now all of the Service jobs.
But hey...we helped millions in China and India get out of poverty, only to put outselves into it.
America was sold to highest bidder a long long time ago. A Ken Melvin put it, the chickens came home to roost in 2000.
sanjait -> kthomas...
So you think the problem with America is that we lost our low skilled manufacturing and call center tech support jobs?
I can sort of see why people assume that "we exported out jobs" is the reason for stagnant incomes in the U.S., but it's still
tiresome, because it's still just wrong.
Manufacturing employment crashed in the US mostly because it has been declining globally. The world economy is less material
based than ever, and machines do more of the work making stuff.
And while some services can be outsourced, the vast majority can't. Period.
Inequality has been rising globally, almost regardless of trade practices. The U.S. has one of the more closed economies in
the developed world, so if globalization were the cause, we'd be the most insulated. But we aren't, which should be a pretty good
indication that globalization isn't the cause.
cm -> sanjait...
Yes, the loss of "low skilled" jobs is still a loss of jobs. Many people work in "low skilled" jobs because there are not enough
"higher skill" jobs to go around, as most work demanded is not of the most fancy type.
We have heard this now for a few decades, that "low skilled" jobs lost will be replaced with "high skill" (and better paid)
jobs, and the evidence is somewhat lacking. There has been growth in higher skill jobs in absolute terms, but when you adjust
by population growth, it is flat or declining.
When people hypothetically or actually get the "higher skills" recommended to them, into what higher skill jobs are they to
move?
I have known a number of anecdotes of people with degrees or who held "skilled" jobs that were forced by circumstances to take
commodity jobs or jobs at lower pay grades or "skill levels" due to aggregate loss of "higher skill" jobs or age discrimination,
or had to go from employment to temp jobs.
And it is not true that only "lower skill" jobs are outsourced. Initially, yes, as "higher skills" obviously don't exist yet
in the outsourcing region. But that doesn't last long, especially if the outsourcers expend resources to train and grow the remote
skill base, at the expense of the domestic workforce which is expected to already have experience (which has worked for a while
due to workforce overhangs from previous industry "restructuring").
likbez -> sanjait...
"Inequality has been rising globally, almost regardless of trade practices."
It is not some unstoppable global trend. This is neoliberal oligarchy coup d'�tat. Or as it often called "a quite coup".
sanjait -> cm...
"Yes, the loss of "low skilled" jobs is still a loss of jobs. Many people work in "low skilled" jobs because there
are not enough "higher skill" jobs to go around, as most work demanded is not of the most fancy type.
We have heard this now for a few decades, that "low skilled" jobs lost will be replaced with "high skill" (and better
paid) jobs, and the evidence is somewhat lacking. "
And that is *exactly my point.*
The lack of wage growth isn't isolated to low skilled domains. It's weak across the board.
What does that tell us?
It tells us that offshoring of low skilled jobs isn't the problem.
"And it is not true that only "lower skill" jobs are outsourced. Initially, yes, as "higher skills" obviously don't exist
yet in the outsourcing region."
You could make this argument, but I think (judging by your own hedging) you know this isn't the case. Offshoring of higher
skilled jobs does happen but it's a marginal factor in reality. You hypothesize that it may someday become a bigger factor ...
but just notice that we've had stagnant wages now for a few decades.
My point is that offshoring IS NOT THE CAUSE of stagnating wages. I'd argue that globalization is a force that can't really
be stopped by national policy anyway, but even if you think it could, it's important to realize IT WOULD DO ALMOST NOTHING to
alleviate inequality.
cm -> sanjait...
I was responding to your point:
"So you think the problem with America is that we lost our low skilled manufacturing and call center tech support jobs?"
With the follow-on:
"I can sort of see why people assume that "we exported out jobs" is the reason for stagnant incomes in the U.S., but
it's still tiresome, because it's still just wrong."
Labor markets are very sensitive to marginal effects. If let's say "normal" or "heightened" turnover is 10% p.a. spread out
over the year, then the continued availability (or not) of around 1% vacancies (for the respective skill sets etc.) each month
makes a huge difference. There was the argument that the #1 factor is automation and process restructuring, and offshoring is
trailing somewhere behind that in job destruction volume.
I didn't research it in detail because I have no reason to doubt it. But it is a compounded effect - every percentage point
in open positions (and *better* open positions - few people are looking to take a pay cut) makes a big difference. If let's say
the automation losses are replaced with other jobs, offshoring will tip the scale. Due to aggregate effects one cannot say what
is the "extra" like with who is causing congestion on a backed up road (basically everybody, not the first or last person to join).
"Manufacturing employment crashed in the US mostly because it has been declining globally. The world economy is less
material based than ever, and machines do more of the work making stuff."
Are you kidding me? The world economy is less material based? OK maybe 20 years after the paperless office we are finally printing
less, but just because the material turnover, waste, and environmental pollution is not in your face (because of offshoring!),
it doesn't mean less stuff is produced or material consumed. If anything, it is market saturation and aggregate demand limitations
that lead to lower material and energy consumption (or lower growth rates).
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, several nations (US and Germany among others) had programs to promote new car sales
(cash for clunkers etc.) that were based on the idea that people can get credit for their old car, but its engine had to be destroyed
and made unrepairable so it cannot enter the used car market and defeat the purpose of the program. I assume the clunkers were
then responsibly and sustainably recycled.
cm -> sanjait...
"The lack of wage growth isn't isolated to low skilled domains. It's weak across the board.
What does that tell us?
It tells us taht offshoring of low skilled jobs isn't the problem."
This doesn't follow. First of all, whether a job can or is offshored has little to do with whether it is "low skilled"
but more with whether the workflow around the job can be organized in such a way that the job can be offshore. This is less a
matter of "skill level" and more volume and immediacy of interaction with adjacent job functions, or movement of material across
distances. Also consider that aside from time zone differences (which are of course a big deal between e.g. US and Europe/Asia),
there is not much difference whether a job is performed in another country or in a different domestic region, or perhaps just
"working from home" 1 mile from the office, for office-type jobs. Of course the other caveat is whether the person can physically
attend meetings with little fuss and expense - so remote management/coordination work is naturally not a big thing.
The reason wages are stuck is that aggregate jobs are not growing, relative to workforce supply. When the boomers
retire for real in another 5-10 years, that may change. OTOH several tech companies I know have periodic programs where they offer
workers over 55 or so packages to leave the company, so they cannot really hurt for talent, though they keep complaining and are
busy bringing in young(er) people on work visa. Free agents, it depends on the company. Some companies hire NCGs, but they also
"buy out" older workers.
cm -> cm...
Caveat: Based on what I see (outside sectors with strong/early growth), domestic hiring of NCGs/"fresh blood" falls in two
categories:
Location bound jobs (sales, marketing, legal, HR, administration, ..., also functions attached to those or otherwise preferring
"cultural affinity") - which are largely staffed with locals, also foreigners (visa as well as free agent (green card/citizen))
"Technical functions" and "technical" back office (i.e. little or no customer contact) - predominantly foreigners on visa
(e.g. graduates of US colleges), though some "free agent" hiring may happen depending on circumstances
Then there is also the gender split - "technical/engineering" jobs are overweighed in men, except technical jobs in traditionally
"non-technical/non-product" departments which have a higher share of women.
All this is of course a matter of top-down hiring preferences, as generally everything is either controlled top-down or tacitly
allowed to happen by selective non-interference.
cm -> sanjait...
"You could make this argument, but I think (judging by your own hedging) you know this isn't the case. Offshoring of
higher skilled jobs does happen but it's a marginal factor in reality. You hypothesize that it may someday become a bigger
factor ... but just notice that we've had stagnant wages now for a few decades."
I've written a lot of text so far but didn't address all points ...
My "hedging" is retrospective. I don't hypothesize what may eventually happen but it is happening here and now. I don't presume
to present a representative picture, but in my sphere of experience/observation (mostly a subset of computer software), offshoring
of *knowledge work* started in the mid to late 90's (and that's not the earliest it started in general - of course a lot of the
early offshoring in the 80's was market/language specific customization, e.g. US tech in Europe etc., and more "local culture
expertise" and not offshoring proper). In the late 90's and early 2000's, offshoring was overshadowed by the Y2K/dotcom booms,
so that phase didn't get high visibility (among the people "affected" it sure did). Also the internet was not yet ubiquitous -
broadband existed only at the corporate level.
15-20 years ago it was testing and "low level" programming, perhaps self contained limited-complexity functions or modules
written to fairly rigid specifications, or troubleshooting and bug fixes implemented here or there.
Then 10-15 years ago it advanced to offshore product maintenance, following up on QA issues, small development projects,
or assisting/supporting roles in "real" projects (either conducted offshore or people visiting the domestic offices for weeks
to months).
This went on in parallel with domestic visa workers from the first 15-20 years ago wave either being encouraged or themselves
expressing a desire to go back home (personal, career, family reasons etc.) and "spread the knowledge" and advancing into technical/organization
management roles.
Then 5-10 years ago with clearly grown offshore skills (my theory is that people everywhere are cut from the same cloth,
and we are now at 10+ years industry experience in this narrative), the offshore sites started taking on ownership of product
components, while all the "previous" functions of testing, R&D support, tech pub (which I didn't mention earlier), etc. remained
and evolved further. Also IT (though IT support is more timezone bound and is thus present in all time zones).
Since then there has been little change, it is pretty much a steady state.
BTW the primary offshore location is India, probably in good part because of good to excellent English language skills,
and India's investment in STEM education and industry (especially software/services and this is even a public stereotype, but
for a reason).
Syaloch -> sanjait...
Whether low skilled jobs were eliminated due to offshoring or automation doesn't really matter. What matters is that the jobs
disappeared, replaced by a small number of higher skill jobs paying comparable wages plus a large number of low skill jobs offering
lower wages.
The aggregate effect was stagnation and even decline in living standards. Plus any new jobs were not necessarily produced in
the same geographic region as those that were lost, leading to concentration of unemployment and despair.
sanjait -> Syaloch...
"Whether low skilled jobs were eliminated due to offshoring or automation doesn't really matter. "
Well, actually it does matter, because we have a whole lot of people (in both political parties) who think the way to fight
inequality is to try to reverse globalization.
If they are incorrect, it matters, because they should be applying their votes and their energy to more effective solutions,
and rejecting the proposed solutions of both the well-meaning advocates and the outright demagogues who think restricting trade
is some kind of answer.
Syaloch -> sanjait...
I meant it doesn't matter in terms of the despair felt by those affected. All that matters to those affected is that they have
been obsoleted without either economic or social support to help them.
However, in terms of addressing this problem economically it really doesn't matter that much either. Offshoring is effectively
a low-tech form of automation. If companies can't lower labor costs by using cheaper offshore labor they'll find ways to either
drive down domestic wages or to use less labor. For the unskilled laborer the end result is the same.
Syaloch -> Syaloch...
See the thought experiment I posted on the links thread, and then add the following:
Suppose the investigative journalist discovered instead that Freedonia itself is a sham, and that rather than being imported
from overseas, the clothing was actually coming from an automated factory straight out of Vonnegut's "Player Piano" that was hidden
in a remote domestic location. Would the people who were demanding limits on Freedonian exports now say, "Oh well, I guess that's
OK" simply because the factory was located within the US?
Dan Kervick -> kthomas...
I enjoyed listening to this talk by Fredrick Reinfeldt at the LSE:
Reinfeldt is a center-right politicians and former Swedish Prime Minister. OF course, what counts as center-right in Sweden
seems very different from what counts as center-right in the US.
Perhaps there is some kind of basis here for some bipartisan progress on jobs and full employment.
William said...
I'm sure this isn't caused by any single factor, but has anyone seriously investigated a link between this phenomena and the
military?
Veterans probably aren't a large enough cohort to explain the effect in full, but white people from the south are the most
likely group to become soldiers, and veterans are the most likely group to have alcohol/drug abuse and suicide problems.
This would also be evidence why we aren't seeing it in other countries, no one else has anywhere near the number of vets we
have.
cm -> William...
Vets are surely part of the aggregate problem of lack of career/economic prospects, in fact a lot of people join(ed) the military
because of a lack of other jobs to begin with. But as the lack of prospects is aggregate it affects everybody.
" At this point you probably expect me to offer a solution. But while universal health care, higher minimum wages, aid to
education, and so on would do a lot to help Americans in trouble, I'm not sure whether they're enough to cure existential despair."
UNOINIZED and (therefore shall we say) politicized: you are in control of your narrative -- win or lose. Can it get any more hopeful
than that? And you will probably win.
Winning being defined as labor eeking out EQUALLY emotionally satisfying/dissatisfying market results -- EQUAL that is with
the satisfaction of ownership and the consumer. That's what happens when all three interface in the market -- labor interfacing
indirectly through collective bargaining.
(Labor's monopoly neutralizes ownership's monopsony -- the consumers' willingness to pay providing the checks and balances
on labor's monopoly.)
If you feel you've done well RELATIVE to the standards of your own economic era you will feel you've done well SUBJECTIVELY.
For instance, my generation of (American born) cab drivers earned about $750 for a 60 hour (grueling) work week up to the early
80s. With multiples strip-offs I won't detail here (will on request -- diff for diff cities) that has been reduced to about $500
a week (at best I suspect!) I believe and that is just not enough to get guys like me out there for that grueling work.
Let's take the minimum wage comparison from peak-to-peak instead of from peak-to-trough: $11 and hour in 1968 -- at HALF TODAY'S
per capita income (economic output) -- to $7.25 today. How many American born workers are going to show up for $7.25 in the day
of SUVs and "up-to-date kitchens" all around us. $8.75 was perfectly enticing for Americans working in 1956 ($8.75 thanks to the
"Master of the Senate"). The recent raise to $10 is not good enough for Chicago's 100,000 gang members (out of my estimate 200,000
gang age minority males). Can hustle that much on the street w/o the SUBJECTIVE feeling of wage slavery.
Ditto hiring result for two-tier supermarket contracts after Walmart undercut the unions.
Without effective unions (centralized bargaining is the gold standard: only thing that fends off Walmart type contract muscling.
Done that way since 1966 with the Teamsters Union's National Master Freight Agreement; the long practiced law or custom from continental
Europe to French Canada to Argentina to Indonesia.
It occurred to me this morning that if the quintessential example of centralized bargaining Germany has 25% or our population
and produces 200% more cars than we do, then, Germans produces 8X as many cars per capita than we do!
And thoroughly union organized Germans feel very much in control of the narrative of their lives.
No longer thoroughly, with recent labor market reforms the door has likewise been blown open to contingent workforces, staffing
agencies, and similar forms of (perma) temp work. And moving work to nations with lower labor standards (e.g. "peripheral" Europe,
less so outside Europe) has been going on for decades, for parts, subassembly, and even final assembly.
Very rough figures: half a million Chicago employees may make less than $800 a week -- almost everybody should earn $800
...
... putative minimum wage? -- might allow some slippage in high labor businesses like fast food restaurants; 33% labor costs!
-- sort of like the Teamsters will allow exceptions when needed from Master agreements if you open up your books, they need your
working business too, consumer ultimately sets limits.
Average raise of $200 a week -- $10,000 a year equals $5 billion shift in income -- out of a $170 billion Chicago GDP (1% of
national) -- not too shabby to bring an end to gang wars and Despair American Style.
Just takes making union busting a felony LIKE EVERY OTHER FORM OF UNFAIR MARKET MUSCLING (even taking a movie in the movies).
The body of laws are there -- the issues presumably settled -- the enforcement just needs "dentures."
Union busting is generally (?) understood as direct interference with the formation and operation of unions or their members.
It is probably more common that employers are allowed to just go around the unions - "right to work", subcontracting non-union
shops or temp/staffing agencies, etc.
Why would people join a union and pay dues when the union is largely impotent to deliver, when there are always still enough
desperate people who will (have to) take jobs outside the union system? Employers don't have to bring in scabs when they can legally
go through "unencumbered" subcontractors inside or outside the jurisdiction.
cm -> cm...
It comes down to the collective action problem. You can organize people who form a "community" (workers in the same business
site, or similar aggregates more or less subject to Dunbar's number or with a strong tribal/ethnic/otherwise cohesion narrative).
Beyond that, if you can get a soapbox in the regional press, etc., otherwise good luck. It probably sounds defeatist but I don't
have a solution.
When the union management is outed for corruption or other abuses or questioable practices (e.g. itself employing temps or
subcontractors), it doesn't help.
Syaloch said...
There was a good discussion of this on last Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher.
Surprisingly, I pretty much agree with David Frum's analysis -- and Maher's comment that Trump, with his recent book, "Crippled
America", has his finger on the pulse of this segment of the population. Essentially what we're seeing is the impact of economic
stagnation upon a culture whose reserves of social capital have been depleted, as described in Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone".
When the going gets tough it's a lot harder to manage without a sense of identity and purpose, and without the support of family,
friends, churches, and communities. Facebook "friends" are no substitute for the real thing.
Peter K. said...
Jared Bernsetin:
"...since the late 1970s, we've been at full employment only 30 percent of the time (see the data note below for an explanation
of how this is measured). For the three decades before that, the job market was at full employment 70 percent of the time."
We need better macro (monetary, fiscal, trade) policy.
Maybe middle-aged blacks and hispanics have better attitudes and health since they made it through a tough youth, have more
realistic expectations and race relations are better than the bad old days even if they are far from perfect. The United States
is becoming more multicultural.
Suicide, once thought to be associated with troubled teens and the elderly, is quickly becoming an age-blind statistic.
Middle aged Americans are turning to suicide in alarming numbers. The reasons include easily accessible prescription painkillers,
the mortgage crisis and most importantly the challenge of a troubled economy. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention claims
suicide rates now top the number of deaths due to automobile accidents.
The suicide rate for both younger and older Americans remains virtually unchanged, however, the rate has spiked for those
in middle age (35 to 64 years old) with a 28 percent increase (link is external) from 1999 to 2010. The rate for whites in
middle-age jumped an alarming 40 percent during the same time frame. According to the CDC, there were more than 38,000 suicides
(link is external) in 2010 making it the tenth leading cause of death in America overall (third leading cause from age 15-24).
The US 2010 Final Data quantifies the US statistics for suicide by race, sex and age. Interestingly, African-American suicides
have declined and are considerably lower than whites. Reasons are thought to include better coping skills when negative things
occur as well as different cultural norms with respect to taking your own life. Also, Blacks (and Hispanics) tend to have stronger
family support, community support and church support to carry them through these rough times.
While money woes definitely contribute to stress and poor mental health, it can be devastating to those already prone to depression
-- and depression is indeed still the number one risk factor for suicide. A person with no hope and nowhere to go, can now easily
turn to their prescription painkiller and overdose, bringing the pain, stress and worry to an end. In fact, prescription painkillers
were the third leading cause of suicide (and rising rapidly) for middle aged Americans in 2010 (guns are still number 1). ...
cm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
When few people kill themselves "on purpose" or die from self-inflicted but probably "unintended" harms (e.g. organ failure
or accidental death caused by substance abuse), it can be shrugged off as problems related to the individual (more elaboration
possible but not necessary).
When it becomes a statistically significant phenomenon (above-noise percentage of total population or demographically identifiable
groups), then one has to ask questions about social causes. My first question would be, "what made life suck for those people"?
What specific instrument they used to kill themselves would be my second question (it may be the first question for people who
are charged with implementing counter measures but not necessarily fixing the causes).
Since about the financial crisis (I'm not sure about causation or coincidence - not accidental coincidence BTW but causation
by the same underlying causes), there has been a disturbing pattern of high school students throwing themselves in front of local
trains. At that age, drinking or drugging oneself to death is apparently not the first "choice". Performance pressure *related
to* (not just "and") a lack of convincing career/life prospects has/have been suspected or named as a cause. I don't think teenagers
suddenly started to jump in front of trains that have run the same rail line for decades because of the "usual" and centuries
to millennia old teenage romantic relationship issues.
"... If returns to experience are in decline, if wisdom no longer pays off, then that might help suggest why a group of mostly older people who are not, as a group, disadvantaged might become convinced that the country has taken a turn for the worse. It suggests why their grievances should so idealize the past, and why all the talk about coal miners and factories, jobs in which unions have codified returns to experience into the salary structure, might become such a fixation. ..."
The Despair of Learning That Experience No Longer Matters
April 10, 2017
.....................
The arguments about Case and Deaton's work have been an echo of the one that consumed so much of the primary campaign, and
then the general election, and which is still unresolved: whether the fury of Donald Trump's supporters came from cultural and
racial grievance or from economic plight. Case and Deaton's scholarship does not settle the question. As they write, more than
once, "more work is needed."
But part of what Case and Deaton offer in their new paper is an emotional logic to an economic argument.
If returns to experience are in decline, if wisdom no longer pays off, then that might help suggest why a group of mostly
older people who are not, as a group, disadvantaged might become convinced that the country has taken a turn for the worse. It
suggests why their grievances should so idealize the past, and why all the talk about coal miners and factories, jobs in which
unions have codified returns to experience into the salary structure, might become such a fixation.
Whatever comes from the deliberations over Case and Deaton's statistics, there is within their numbers an especially interesting
story.
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F09%2Fstarving-seniors-how-america-fails-to-feed-its-aging.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
By Laura Ungar, who health issues out of Kaiser Health News' St. Louis office, and Trudy
Lieberman, a journalist for more than 45 years, and a past president of the Association of
Health Care Journalists. Originally published by Kaiser Health
News .
MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- Army veteran Eugene Milligan is 75 years old and blind. He uses a
wheelchair since losing half his right leg to diabetes and gets dialysis for kidney
failure.
And he has struggled to get enough to eat.
Earlier this year, he ended up in the hospital after burning himself while boiling water for
oatmeal. The long stay caused the Memphis vet to fall off a charity's rolls for home-delivered
Meals on Wheels , so he had
to rely on others, such as his son, a generous off-duty nurse and a local church to bring him
food.
"Many times, I've felt like I was starving," he said. "There's neighbors that need food too.
There's people at dialysis that need food. There's hunger everywhere."
Indeed, millions of seniors across the country quietly go hungry as the safety net designed
to catch them frays. Nearly 8% of Americans 60 and older were "food insecure" in 2017,
according to a recent study released
by the anti-hunger group Feeding America. That's 5.5 million seniors who don't have
consistent access to enough food for a healthy life, a number that has more than doubled since
2001 and is only expected to grow as America grays.
While the plight of hungry children elicits support and can be tackled in schools, the
plight of hungry older Americans is shrouded by isolation and a generation's pride. The problem
is most acute in parts of the South and Southwest. Louisiana has the highest rate among states,
with 12% of seniors facing food insecurity. Memphis fares worst among major metropolitan areas,
with 17% of seniors like Milligan unsure of their next meal.
And government relief falls short. One of the main federal programs helping seniors is
starved for money. The Older Americans Act -- passed more than half a century ago as part of
President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society reforms -- was amended in 1972 to provide for
home-delivered and group meals, along with other services, for anyone 60 and older. But its
funding has lagged far behind senior population growth, as well as economic inflation.
The biggest chunk of the act's budget, nutrition services, dropped by 8% over the past 18
years when adjusted for inflation, an AARP report
found in February. Home-delivered and group meals have decreased by nearly 21 million since
2005. Only a fraction of those facing food insecurity get any meal services under the act; a
U.S. Government
Accountability Office report examining 2013 data found 83% got none.
With the act set to expire Sept. 30, Congress is now considering its reauthorization and how
much to spend going forward.
Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only 45% of eligible adults 60
and older have signed up for another source of federal aid: SNAP, the food stamp program for
America's poorest. Those who don't are typically either unaware they could qualify, believe
their benefits would be tiny or can no longer get to a grocery store to use them.
Even fewer seniors may have SNAP in the future. More than 13% of SNAP households with
elderly members would lose benefits under a recent Trump administration proposal.
For now, millions of seniors -- especially low-income ones -- go without. Across the nation,
waits are common to receive home-delivered meals from a crucial provider, Meals on Wheels, a
network of 5,000 community-based programs. In Memphis, for example, the wait to get on the
Meals on Wheels schedule is more than a year long.
"It's really sad because a meal is not an expensive thing," said Sally Jones Heinz,
president and CEO of the Metropolitan
Inter-Faith Association , which provides home-delivered meals in Memphis. "This shouldn't
be the way things are in 2019."
Since malnutrition exacerbates diseases and prevents healing, seniors without steady,
nutritious food can wind up in hospitals, which drives up Medicare and Medicaid costs, hitting taxpayers with an even
bigger bill . Sometimes seniors relapse quickly after discharge -- or worse.
Widower Robert Mukes, 71, starved to death on a cold December day in 2016, alone in his
Cincinnati apartment.
The Hamilton County Coroner listed the primary cause of death as "starvation of unknown
etiology" and noted "possible hypothermia," pointing out that his apartment had no electricity
or running water. Death records show the 5-foot-7-inch man weighed just 100.5 pounds.
A Clear Need
On a hot May morning in Memphis, seniors trickled into a food bank at the Riverside
Missionary Baptist Church, 3 miles from the opulent tourist mecca of Graceland. They picked up
boxes packed with canned goods, rice, vegetables and meat.
Marion Thomas, 63, placed her box in the trunk of a friend's car. She lives with chronic
back pain and high blood pressure and started coming to the pantry three years ago. She's
disabled, relies on Social Security and gets $42 a month from SNAP based on her income,
household size and other factors. That's much less than the average $125-a-month benefit for
households with seniors, but more than the $16 minimum that one in five such households get.
Still, Thomas said, "I can't buy very much."
A day later, the Mid-South Food Bank brought a "mobile pantry" to Latham Terrace, a senior
housing complex, where a long line of people waited. Some inched forward in wheelchairs; others
leaned on canes. One by one, they collected their allotments.
The need is just as real elsewhere. In Dallas, Texas, 69-year-old China Anderson squirrels
away milk, cookies and other parts of her home-delivered lunches for dinner because she can no
longer stand and cook due to scoliosis and eight deteriorating vertebral discs.
As seniors ration food, programs ration services.
Although more than a third of the Meals on Wheels money comes from the Older Americans Act,
even with additional public and private dollars, funds are still so limited that some programs
have no choice but to triage people using score sheets that assign points based on who needs
food the most. Seniors coming from the hospital and those without family usually top waiting
lists.
More than 1,000 were waiting on the Memphis area's list recently. And in Dallas, $4.1
million in donations wiped out a 1,000-person waiting list in December, but within months it
had crept back up to 100.
Nationally, "there are tens of thousands of seniors who are waiting," said Erika
Kelly , chief membership and advocacy officer for Meals on Wheels America. "While they're
waiting, their health deteriorates and, in some cases, we know seniors have died."
Edwin Walker, a deputy assistant secretary for the federal Administration on Aging,
acknowledged waits are a long-standing problem, but said 2.4 million people a year benefit from
the Older Americans Act's group or home-delivered meals, allowing them to stay independent and
healthy.
Seniors get human connection, as well as food, from these services. Aner Lee Murphy, a
102-year-old Meals on Wheels client in Memphis, counts on the visits with volunteers Libby and
Bob Anderson almost as much as the food. She calls them "my children," hugging them close and
offering a prayer each time they leave.
But others miss out on such physical and psychological nourishment. A devastating phone call
brought that home for Kim Daugherty, executive director of the Aging Commission of the
Mid-South , which connects seniors to service providers in the region. The woman on the
line told Daugherty she'd been on the waiting list for more than a year.
"Ma'am, there are several hundred people ahead of you," Daugherty reluctantly explained.
"I just need you all to remember," came the caller's haunting reply, "I'm hungry and I need
food."
A Slow Killer
James
Ziliak , a poverty researcher at the University of Kentucky who worked on the Feeding
America study, said food insecurity shot up with the Great Recession, starting in the late
2000s, and peaked in 2014. He said it shows no signs of dropping to pre-recession levels.
While older adults of all income levels can face difficulty accessing and preparing healthy
food, rates are highest among seniors in poverty. They are also high among minorities. More
than 17% of black seniors and 16% of Hispanic seniors are food insecure, compared with fewer
than 7% of white seniors.
A host of issues combine to set those seniors on a downward spiral, said registered
dietitian Lauri Wright , who
chairs the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of North Florida. Going to
the grocery store gets a lot harder if they can't drive. Expensive medications leave less money
for food. Chronic physical and mental health problems sap stamina and make it tough to cook.
Inch by inch, hungry seniors decline.
And, even if it rarely kills directly, hunger can complicate illness and kill slowly.
Malnutrition blunts immunity, which already tends to weaken as people age. Once they start
losing weight, they're more likely to grow frail and are more likely to die within a year, said
Dr. John Morley, director of the division of geriatric medicine at Saint Louis University.
Seniors just out of the hospital are particularly vulnerable. Many wind up getting
readmitted, pushing up taxpayers' costs for Medicare and Medicaid. A
recent analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that Medicare could save $1.57 for
every dollar spent on home-delivered meals for chronically ill seniors after a
hospitalization.
Most hospitals don't refer senior outpatients to Meals on Wheels, and advocates say too few
insurance companies get involved in making sure seniors have enough to eat to keep them
healthy.
When Milligan, the Memphis veteran, burned himself with boiling water last winter and had to
be hospitalized for 65 days, he fell off the Metropolitan Inter-Faith Association's radar. The
meals he'd been getting for about a decade stopped.
Heinz, Metropolitan's CEO, said the association is usually able to start and stop meals for
short hospital stays. But, Heinz said, the association didn't hear from Milligan and kept
trying to deliver meals for a time while he was in the hospital, then notified the Aging
Commission of the Mid-South he wasn't home. As is standard procedure, Metropolitan officials
said, a staff member from the commission made three attempts to contact him and left a card at
the blind man's home.
But nothing happened when he got out of the hospital this spring. In mid-May, a nurse
referred him for meal delivery. Still, he didn't get meals because he faced a waitlist already
more than 1,000 names long.
After questions from Kaiser Health News, Heinz looked into Milligan's case and realized
that, as a former client, Milligan could get back on the delivery schedule faster.
But even then the process still has hurdles: The aging commission would need to conduct a
new home assessment for meals to resume. That has yet to happen because, amid the wait,
Milligan's health deteriorated.
A Murky Future
As the Older Americans Act awaits reauthorization this fall, many senior advocates worry
about its funding.
In June, the U.S. House passed a $93 million increase to the Older Americans Act's nutrition
programs, raising total funding by about 10% to $1 billion in the next fiscal year. In
inflation-adjusted dollars, that's still less than in 2009. And it still has to pass in the
Republican-controlled Senate, where the proposed increase faces long odds.
U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat who chairs the Civil Rights and Human
Services Subcommittee, expects the panel to tackle legislation for reauthorization of the act
soon after members return from the August recess. She's now working with colleagues "to craft a
strong, bipartisan update," she said, that increases investments in nutrition programs as well
as other services.
"I'm confident the House will soon pass a robust bill," she said, "and I am hopeful that the
Senate will also move quickly so we can better meet the needs of our seniors."
In the meantime, "the need for home-delivered meals keeps increasing every year," said
Lorena Fernandez, who runs a meal
delivery program in Yakima, Wash. Activists are pressing state and local governments to
ensure seniors don't starve, with mixed results. In Louisiana, for example, anti-hunger
advocates stood on the state Capitol steps in May and unsuccessfully called on the state to
invest $1 million to buy food from Louisiana farmers to distribute to hungry residents.
Elsewhere, senior activists across the nation have participated each March in "March for Meals"
events such as walks, fundraisers and rallies designed to focus attention on the problem.
Private fundraising hasn't been easy everywhere, especially rural communities without much
wealth. Philanthropy has instead tended to flow to hungry kids, who outnumber hungry seniors
more than 2-to-1, according to Feeding America.
"Ten years ago, organizations had a goal of ending child hunger and a lot of innovation and
resources went into what could be done," said Jeremy Everett, executive director of Baylor
University's Texas Hunger Initiative. "The same thing has not happened in the senior adult
population." And that has left people struggling for enough food to eat.
As for Milligan, he didn't get back on Meals on Wheels before suffering complications
related to his dialysis in June. He ended up back in the hospital. Ironically, it was there
that he finally had a steady, if temporary, source of food.
It's impossible to know if his time without steady, nutritious food made a difference. What
is almost certain is that feeding him at home would have been far cheaper.
Coulnd't get the JOLTS, November 2016 links to work, but the skills gap is
wild.
At an institution of higher ed I'm familiar with, both faculty and
administrative positions continue to be unfilled. There are very few candidates
even for entry level positions. Failed searches are now the norm. It's feast or
famine: either people are perfect for the job and have many options, or have no
related experience at all.
I wonder if the labor force participation rate is starting to catch up with
the job market. That is, there are a lot of healthy adults who have dropped out
of the workforce who would be the people you'd want in those positions.
Or that the job market is not nearly as liquid as they'd have you believe,
and people can't relocate from where they are because of adult children who
live with them, or things of that nature. All kinds of weird things now in the
job market. I know someone who commutes a significant distance to work that has
to look for another job because their workplace's health care plan only covers
a geographic area close to that job.
Discrimination thru stupid job descriptions is catching up to the
economy paying $12 per hour five years experience required nonsense job
descriptions designed to help the accredited and credentialed have a leg up
There seem to be three types of employment categories
real jobs that might last through 12 quarters
gigs
and surfdumb/$lavery gigs where your hours are messed with, your schedule
is messed with & you are expected to pay for the stupid uniform some bean
counter thinks is branding
IMUO it is not a skills gap it is the demanding of irrelevant capacities
and experience that almost always have very little to do with the actual
tasks required
"... Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so that people from other countries can have higher incomes, and leftists often agree because hey "free movement" and because after all the professional class jobs aren't at risk ..."
"... "I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people." ..."
"... No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong . ..."
"... To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently. ..."
"... Attempts at repairing historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and even as hostile since they can easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than those who racial politics focuses upon. ..."
"... The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back. ..."
"... The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for? ..."
"... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
"... Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. ..."
"... I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community. ..."
"... Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.) ..."
"... Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. ..."
"... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
fn: "Of course there is a subtext to these racist hate campaigns that someone else here raised
and rich ran with a bit, which is the hatred of the unemployed. I think a lot of people voting
leave imagine that the next thing on the agenda is slashing the dole to force poor white people
to do the work the Eastern Europeans did. "
Yes, in part. In part, also, people imagine that
poor citizens will get jobs that previously were done by migrants. This has a hatred of slackers
element that is bad, but as economics, it's pretty well-founded that if you reduce the size of
the labor pool relative to the population then unemployment will go down and wages will go up.
Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so that people
from other countries can have higher incomes, and leftists often agree because hey "free movement"
and because after all the professional class jobs aren't at risk. But strangely enough some
people seem to resent this.
Lupita: "I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash
and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world
powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating
trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people."
... ... ...
Rich Puchalsky 08.04.16 at 12:03 pm
"I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument."
No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole.
But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g.
outsource
Brad DeLong.
engels 08.04.16 at 12:25 pm
While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance
where someone made this argument
Maybe this kind of thing rom Henry Farrell? (There may well be better examples.)
Is some dilution of the traditional European welfare state acceptable, if it substantially increases
the wellbeing of current outsiders (i.e. for example, by bringing Turkey into the club). My answer
is yes, if European leftwingers are to stick to their core principles on justice, fairness, egalitarianism
etc
Large numbers of low-income white southern Americans consistently vote against their
own economic interests. They vote to award tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations, to
cut unemployment benefits, to bust unions, to reward companies for outsourcing jobs, to resist
wage increases, to cut funding for health care for the poor, to cut Social Security and Medicare,
etc.
The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government
being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world.
Why might this be?
In the case of Mexico, because Pe�a Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places
Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni.
Patrick 08.04.16 at 4:32 pm
To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws
them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture
of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view
taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis
of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the
hard work needed to live independently.
They see it as little different from letting your kid move back on after college and smoke
weed in your basement. They don't generally mind people being on unemployment transitionally,
but they're supposed to be a little embarrassed about it and get it over with as soon as
possible.
They not only worry that increased government social spending will incentivize bad
behavior, they worry it will destroy the cultural values they see as vital to Americas past
prosperity. They tend to view claims about historic or systemic injustice necessitating
collective remedy because they view the world as one in which the vagaries of fate decree that
some are born rich or poor, and that success is in improving ones station relative to where
one starts.
Attempts at repairing historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and
even as hostile since they can easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than
those who racial politics focuses upon. Left wing insistence on borrowing the nastiest
rhetoric of libertarians ("this guy is poor because his ancestors couldn't get ahead because
of historical racial injustice so we must help him; your family couldn't get ahead either but
that must have been your fault so you deserve it") comes across as both antithetical to their
values and as downright hostile within the values they see around them.
All of this can be easily learned by just talking to them.
It's not a great world view. It fails to explain quite a lot. For example, they have literally
no way of explaining increased unemployment without positing either that everyone is getting
too lazy to work, or that the government screwed up the system somehow, possibly by making it
too expensive to do business in the US relative to other countries. and given their faith in
the power of hard work, they don't even blame sweatshops- they blame taxes and foreign
subsidies.
I don't know exactly how to reach out to them, except that I can point to some things people
do that repulse them and say "stop doing that."
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 5:50 pm
The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is
overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot
to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw
them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back.
The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely
middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who
do you recommend they vote for?
There is serious deficit of both trust and information among the poor. Poor whites hardly have
a monopoly; black misleadership is epidemic in our era of Cory Booker socialism.
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 7:05 pm
Politics is founded on the complex social psychology of humans as social animals. We elevate
it from its irrational base in emotion to rationalized calculation or philosophy at our peril.
T 08.04.16 at 9:17 pm
@Layman
I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another.
They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush. They've figured out that the
mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud. So, is your argument is that Trump even
more racist? That kind of goes against the whole point of the OP. Not saying that race doesn't
matter. Of course it does. But Trump has a 34% advantage in non-college educated white men. It
just isn't the South. Why does it have to be just race or just class?
Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm
"I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but
my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"
My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning
classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved
in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education
level rather than income.
This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to
be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition),
and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency ,
they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic
and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.
T 08.05.16 at 3:12 pm
@patrick @layman
Patrick, you're right about the Trump demographic. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point
is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since
Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush
for reasons other than race? Are the folks that voted for the other candidates in the primary
less racist so Trump supporters are just the most racist among Republicans? Cruz less racist?
You have to explain the shift within the Republican party because that's what happened.
Anarcissie 08.06.16 at 3:00 pm
Faustusnotes 08.06.16 at 1:50 pm @ 270 -
Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among
the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether
an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage
together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that
groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone
must play the role of outsider. While Berne's theories are a bit too nifty for me to love
them, I have observed a lot of the behaviors he predicts. If one wanted to be sociobiological,
it is not hard to hypothesize evolutionary pressures which could lead to this sort of behavior
being genetically programmed. If a group of humans, a notably combative primate, does not have
strong social cohesion, the war of all against all ensues and everybody dies. Common affections
alone do not seem to provide enough cohesion.
In an earlier but related theory, in the United States, immigrants from diverse European communities
which fought each other for centuries in Europe arrived and managed to now get along because they
had a major Other, the Negro, against whom to define themselves (as the White Race) and thus to
cohere sufficiently to get on with business. The Negro had the additional advantage of being at
first a powerless slave and later, although theoretically freed, was legally, politically, and
economically disabled - an outsider who could not fight back very effectively, nor run away. Even
so, the US almost split apart and there continue to be important class, ethnic, religious, and
regional conflicts. You can see how these two theories resonate.
It may be that we can't have communities without this dark side, although we might be able to
mitigate some of its destructive effects.
bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm
I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an
organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.
Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to serve
their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)
Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy
like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz
status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component
of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business
end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers,
poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory
institutions and authoritarian governments.
For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity
was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community,
but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of
social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.
engels 08.07.16 at 1:02 am
But how did that slavery happen
Possible short answer: the level of technological development made slavery an efficient way
of exploiting labour. At a certain point those conditions changed and slavery became a drag on
further development and it was abolished, along with much of the racist ideology that legitimated
it.
Lupita 08.07.16 at 3:40 am
But how did that slavery happen
In Mesoamerica, all the natives were enslaved because they were conquered by the Spaniards.
Then, Fray Bartolom� de las Casas successfully argued before the Crown that the natives had souls
and, therefore, should be Christianized rather than enslaved. As Bruce Wilder states, this did
not serve the interests of the slaveholding elite, so the African slave trade began and there
was no Fray Bartolom� to argue their case.
It is interesting that while natives were enslaved, the Aztec aristocracy was shipped to Spain
to be presented in court and study Latin. This would not have happened if the Mesoamericans were
considered inferior (soulless) as a race. Furthermore, the Spaniards needed the local elite to
help them out with their empire and the Aztecs were used to slavery and worse. This whole story
can be understood without recurring to racism. The logic of empire suffices.
Workers of all ages are caught in a vice. Older workers need to keep working longer in an economy which values younger
workers (and their cheaper healthcare premiums). Younger workers are caught in the vice of "you don't have enough experience" and
"how do I get experience if nobody will hire me?"
Middle-aged workers are caught between the enormous Millennial generation seeking better jobs and the equally numerous baby Boom
generation seeking to work a few more years to offset their interest-starved retirement funds. (Thank you, predatory and rapacious
Federal Reserve for siphoning all our retirement fund interest to your cronies the Too Big to Fail Banks.)
Workers 55 and older are undeniably working longer. Here is the labor participation rate for 55+ workers:
... And here's why so many workers have to work longer--earned income's share of the GDP has been in a free-fall for decades
as Fed-funded financiers and corporations skim an ever greater share of the nation's GDP.
I am 62, very much an older worker with a startling 46 years in the work force (first formal paycheck, 1970 from Dole Pineapple).
(Thanks to the Fed's zero-interest rate policy, I should be able to retire at 93 or so--unless the Fed imposes a negative-rate policy
on me and the other serfs.)
But I recall with painful clarity the great hardships and difficulties I experienced in the recessions of 1973-74, 1981-82 and
1990-91 when I was in younger demographics. My sympathies are if anything more with younger workers, as it is increasingly difficult
to get useful on-the-job experience if you're starting out.
That said, here are some suggestions for 55+ workers seeking to find work in a very competitive job/paid work market.
1. Target sectors that haven't changed much. There's a reason so many older guys find a niche in Home Depot and
Lowe's--power saws, lumber, appliances, etc. haven't changed that much (except their quality has declined) for 40 years.
The same can be said of many areas of retail sales, house-cleaning, caring for children, etc.
Everyone knows the young have an advantage in sectors dominated by fast-changing technology, so avoid those sectors and stick
to sectors where your knowledge and experience is still applicable and valued by employers.
2. If at all possible, get your healthcare coverage covered by a spouse or plan you pay. Those $2,000/month premiums
for older workers are a big reason why employers would rather hire a $200/month premium younger worker, or limit the hours of older
workers to part-time so no healthcare coverage is required.
Telling an employer you already have healthcare coverage may have a huge impact on your chances of getting hired.
3. If you have any computer-network-social media skills, you can get paid to help everyone 55+ with fewer skills.
Your computer skills may not be up to the same level as a younger person's, but they are probably far more advanced than
other 55+ folks. Many older people are paying somebody $35/hour or more to help them set up email, fix their buggy PCs and Macs,
get them started on Facebook, etc. It might as well be you.
4. Focus on fields where managerial experience and moxie is decisive. Even highly educated young people have
a tough time managing people effectively because they're lacking experience. Applying biz-school case studies to the real world isn't
as easy as it looks. (I found apologizing to my older employees necessary and helpful. Do they teach this in biz school? I doubt
it.)
The ability to work with (and mentor) a variety of people is an essential skill, and it's one that tends to come with age and
experience.
5. Reliability matters. The ability to roll with the punches, show up on time, do what's needed to get the job
done, and focus on outcomes rather than process are still core assets in a work force.
Being 55+ doesn't automatically mean someone has those skills, but they tend to come with decades of work.
6. If nobody will hire you, start your own enterprise to fill scarcities and create value in your community.
The classic example is a handyperson, as it's very difficult for a young person to acquire the spectrum of experience needed to efficiently
assess a wide array of problems and go about fixing them.
#3 above is another example of identifying one's strengths and then seeking a scarcity to fill. Value, profits and high wages
flow to scarcity. Don't try to compete in supplying what's abundant; seek out scarcities and work on addressing those in a reliable
fashion.
Every age group has its strengths and weaknesses, and the task facing all of us is to 1) identify scarcities we can fill and 2)
seek ways to play to our strengths.
Shizzmoney
That's easy: the elitist old people in power will start a war, force the young people into that war, where they will all be
killed and the old people get their jobs.
Also, for those young people who protest the war, the government and corporate military security forces will detain and kill
them, too.
Exactly. Value youth? Is that why we saddle them with $250,000 worth of student loan debt and a degree in women's studies to
find no jobs because we let in illegals and skilled workers with Visas from foreign countries? Seems like we hate our youth. Of
course, they deserve it since they have been focused on being social justice fucktards rather than getting any marketable skills
and paying attention to what the gov't is doing to their future. Schadenfreude.
deja
No, they are stupid enough to saddle themselves with $250,000 worth of student loan debt for a degree in womens' studies.
cougar_w
The OP doesn't make much sense to me. Most of the work people my age do, the young people either don't want or are not qualified
for. Maintaining vital COBOL apps or air traffic controller software from the 70's? Really? And the ones are, they don't mind
working with older employees and seem to enjoy our "gravity".
I work in IT so maybe things are a bit different. Grey beards are huge around here and always will be.
But this has been a challenge for centuries, young people have to find their own way and "their way" (being probably a dream
from childhood or an inspiration from a college professor) might not be practical at first. They bounce around a little until
marriage hits them and then they find something that works for supporting a family. Same as it ever was. The idea that "their
way" is some kind of unswerving life's mission is usually part of the corporate "just do it" meme that sells $400 specialty running
shoes. Yeah whatever, just figure it out actually, life will tell you what you are supposed to be doing, and who you are supposed
to be doing it with.
GeezerGeek
The market for COBOL programmers had a sudden surge around Y2K, but only certain industries still maintain their old COBOL
apps. Curiously, a certain computer/software has recently tried pushing a visual version of COBOL, much like Gates did when he
came out with Visual Basic back in the early 1990s. I retired after 40 years in IT in 2011, so I am a bit out of touch where COBOL
is concerned. Does anyone even teach it anymore in college? Maybe if someone modified it to create phone apps and games it would
once again be popular.
Abbie Normal
Then it's a good thing I didn't follow my undergrad English Prof's advice and switch my major from science to arts, because
he thought there was some "real intelligence" in my writing style that even his grad students lacked. Maybe I should look him
up....
eatthebanksters
I have two buddies, one a 61 year old attonery who has never lost a case and the other a 59 year old facilities director. The
lawyer has been seeking work for 6 years and has pretty much given up...he can't even get hired at lesser jobs because he is overqualified
and 'will leave when something better comes along'. The facilities director has a great resume and knows his stuff but has been
out of work for almost two years. He has come in 'second' more times than I can count. He is working od jobs and living with a
friends mother, exchanging work on the house for rent and meals. Welcome to Obama's economy.
N0TaREALmerican
He'd work if he'd accept less money, but he feels "entitled to earn what HE thinks he's worth". Just another lazy old-fart
who feels the world owns him something. Welcome to a competitive economy old-fart, nobody said life was fair. Stop bitching and
work for less.
mary mary
If you ever need an attorney, you might look for an experienced attorney who worked so hard that he never lost a case.
If you ever inherit a zillion bucks and buy a bunch of properties, you might confer with an experienced facility manager who
actually managed a bunch of properties.
I doubt an attorney who never lost a case achieved that record by going around saying, "somebody owes me something".
I doubt a facilities manager who managed a bunch of properties achieved that by going around saying, "somebody owes me something".
Baa baa
What a load of crap. Most will take anything. I know, I am one. Don't lecture me about being "entitled" you punk. Your post
reeks of the entitlement generation. Slug through 50 years of working, rearing a family, kids to college... I am beginning to
wonder if the hundreds of thousands spent on the education and well-being of your ingrate ass was a misallocation of funds.
corporatewhore
Give credit where credit is due. This inability to find work at an older age has been going on for years and can't be blamed
on Obama. Senior buyers at Macy's, older workers at Monsanto or television weather people at KSDK in St Louis all suffer the same
fate. Labor cost and benefits are all less for the younger generation no matter what level of experience or capability. We develop
a mindset throughout our productive career that we are indispensable and worth it because of our knowledge, contacts and industry
wherewithal. It's all an illusion and we are NOT prepared or equipped to face the reality at an older age that we are completely
dispensable.
At an older age if you want meaning you have to find it and think out of the paradigm that you've been led to believe is real.
No one owes you anything for your experience or wealth of knowledge. Figure it out and rethink yourself as to what you love to
do and want to do not what you must do to make money.
At 58 in 2008 I was fucked over by my corporation and wallowed in miserableness and poverty while i worked every contact and
firm I knew. Nothing resulted. I had to work 3 part time jobs until I earned 2 full time ones and work over 90 hours per week
because I enjoy it. It is work that covers the bills and allows me to create what I want to work on for the future while I still
can walk think and breathe.
Best advice to your children: Go in business for yourself because just as it happened to me, it will happen to you when you
become 55.
Nobody For President
Thanks for that, corporate whore. That sounds like an honest reprise of an incredibly hard time in your life, and I totally
agree. I'm telling all (4) my grandkids, from 7 to 20, to live your life, not someone else's. The oldest one gets it, and I think
the other ones will also, if I live long enough, because I walked that walk.
I'm old, and work full time (more or less) and make a living - not a killing, but a living - at it.
nuubee
Good news old people, the economy currently doesn't value anything you can produce, unless you can print money.
Cautiously Pessimistic
You get up every morning
From your 'larm clock's warning
Take the 8:15 into the city
There's a whistle up above
And people pushin', people shovin'
And the girls who try to look pretty
And if your train's on time
You can get to work by nine
... ... ...
mary mary
MSM says Baby Boomers "have stolen everything", but in fact Baby Boomers are having to extend their careers because they're
broke. This is the easily foreseeable result of 20+ years of the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, making Baby Boomers
suffer the double-whammy of (1) not having their deferred income (pensions) grow, while (2) inflation in fact continued at 6%
annual, thanks also to the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low.
Yes, someone "have stolen everything". That someone is the owners of the Fed.
"... Being an unemployed techie myself, I cannot begin to describe what a godsend this book is. NETSLAVES finally reveals the truth about what it is to be part of what is likely the most under-appreciated sect of the working class. ..."
"... It is a comment on upper and middle management corporate business practices in general, and the dismal fate of the vast armies of workers used as cannon fodder since day one for the follies of unscrupulous robber barons; or morons who just happen to find themselves in the right place at the right time to make market killings; or Scrooges who will never learn what it is to have a heart. Baldwin and Lessard are heirs to the muckrakers of the early 20th Century. Corporate E-merica, take heed. ..."
Being an unemployed techie myself, I cannot begin to describe what a godsend this book is. NETSLAVES finally reveals the
truth about what it is to be part of what is likely the most under-appreciated sect of the working class.
The stale stories of "dorm-room success" have been supplanted by the pathetically sad/darkly humorous accounts of those who
have been saddled with with million-dollar job titles, bleeding ulcers, and ramen noodle grocery budgets.
NETSLAVES is an entertaining and enligtening read, written by two men who have actually been passengers in every sewer pipe
that is the new-media industry. This book is a must for every modern library, as it can be considered a "warning shot" for those
with IT aspirations, or as a source of vindication for those of us who have been dismissed and trampled on. Bravo!
A customer, November 24, 1999
Handwriting on the Wall
NetSlaves tells it like it is for the millions of us on the business end of the IPO and monopoly screwdrivers. Apply these
lessons to the law, publishing, automotive, chemical, airline industries, etc., etc. This book is not just a cerebral and satirical
indictment of the internet industry.
It is a comment on upper and middle management corporate business practices in general, and the dismal fate of the vast
armies of workers used as cannon fodder since day one for the follies of unscrupulous robber barons; or morons who just happen
to find themselves in the right place at the right time to make market killings; or Scrooges who will never learn what it is to
have a heart. Baldwin and Lessard are heirs to the muckrakers of the early 20th Century. Corporate E-merica, take heed.
"... I know what it feels like to be marginalized because you're out of work. To be judged by others as if there's something wrong with you. To grow increasingly depressed, demoralized and despairing as three months turns into six months and that goes on for a year or more; as rejection after rejection becomes crushing, humiliating, and leaves you feeling worthless. ..."
"... All money-related impacts aside, you lose confidence. You wear out. You start to give up ..."
"... Now and then, an acquaintance will make an off-hand remark about those who borrow money or live on credit cards. The assumption is that credit purchases are frivolous, or that the person who racks up consumer debt does so out of irresponsibility and poor judgment. ..."
"... Never assume. Yours truly? I borrowed to put food on the table. I borrowed to pay for school supplies for my kids. I borrowed to enable them to take advantage of academic opportunities that they earned through their own hard work. I also counted my blessings. While I had no family to assist, my kids were healthy and doing well, I was basically healthy despite chronic pain, and I was able to use credit. Borrowing is a double-edged sword of course, especially if it continues for an extended period. But for my little household, debt was the only path to survival. For all I know, it will be again. ..."
"... These days? I still live on a tight budget, I dream of recovering from the years of financial devastation "someday," and I take every gig I can get. Willingly. I've gained new skills along the way and continue to refine them, I'm always looking for another project and thrilled when I nab one, and I'm accustomed to a 12- to 14-hour workday. I put in long hours throughout my corporate career and I have no problem doing so now. In fact, I'm grateful for these workdays and I take none of them for granted. Moreover, I suggest that few of us should take our sources of income as a given ..."
"... The longer that Americans are unemployed, the more likely they are to report signs of poor psychological well-being," says the study. "About one in five Americans who have been unemployed for a year or more say they currently have or are being treated for depression - almost double the rate among those who have been unemployed for five weeks or less. ..."
"... To be in this position - wanting to work, needing to work, knowing you still have much to contribute but never getting a foot in the door - is deeply frustrating, horribly depressing, and leaves us feeling powerless. Add up these elements and you have the formula for despair. ..."
"... One small act of compassion can breathe new hope into the worst situation. And here's what I know with 100% certainty. We may be unemployed, we may be depressed but we aren't powerless if we come together and try to help one another. ..."
Are you over 50, unemployed, depressed and feeling powerless? For that matter, are you any age
and feeling hopeless because you can't seem to land a job?
Frustrated Middle Age Man
The recession may be officially over, and for some segments of the population, things are
looking up. But too many are still sinking or hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Long-term
unemployment or underemployment has become a way of life.
This issue, for me, is personal.
I know what it feels like to be marginalized because you're out of work. To be judged by
others as if there's something wrong with you. To grow increasingly depressed, demoralized and
despairing as three months turns into six months and that goes on for a year or more; as
rejection after rejection becomes crushing, humiliating, and leaves you feeling worthless.
All money-related impacts aside, you lose confidence. You wear out. You start to give up.
And you don't even make it into the "statistics." It's been too long since your last employment
relationship.
Overqualified, Over-Educated, Over 50
Despite my fancy educational background and shiny corporate career history, for a number of years
I was unable to obtain work that was even remotely close to using my skills. Paying me a living
wage? Let's not even discuss it. I must have applied to 100 positions over the course of several
years, attended the usual networking events, and schmoozed every contact I could come up with.
No go. I suffered from the three O's: Overqualified, Over-educated and Over 50, though I may not
have looked it. That last? If you ask me, age was the kicker. Throughout that period, as
post-divorce skirmishes continued to flare (further complicating matters), I nonetheless took
every project I could eke out of the woodwork, supplemented by debt.
Hello, bank bail-out? How about a few bucks for those of us who foot the bill in tax dollars?
The Borrowing Trap
Now and then, an acquaintance will make an off-hand remark about those who borrow money or live
on credit cards. The assumption is that credit purchases are frivolous, or that the person who
racks up consumer debt does so out of irresponsibility and poor judgment.
Never assume. Yours truly? I borrowed to put food on the table. I borrowed to pay for school
supplies for my kids. I borrowed to enable them to take advantage of academic opportunities that
they earned through their own hard work. I also counted my blessings. While I had no family to
assist, my kids were healthy and doing well, I was basically healthy despite chronic pain, and I
was able to use credit. Borrowing is a double-edged sword of course, especially if it continues
for an extended period. But for my little household, debt was the only path to survival. For all
I know, it will be again.
Fighting Your Way Back
These days? I still live on a tight budget, I dream of recovering from the years of financial
devastation "someday," and I take every gig I can get. Willingly. I've gained new skills along
the way and continue to refine them, I'm always looking for another project and thrilled when I
nab one, and I'm accustomed to a 12- to 14-hour workday. I put in long hours throughout my
corporate career and I have no problem doing so now. In fact, I'm grateful for these workdays and
I take none of them for granted. Moreover, I suggest that few of us should take our sources of
income as a given.
You know the expression - "There but for the grace of God go I." Misfortune can visit any one of
us. Layoff. Accident or illness. Gray divorce. The phone call or email with no warning, saying
"you're done" as you're replaced by someone 20 years younger.
And yes, I've internalized the wisdom of this little gem: "If opportunity doesn't knock, build a
door." But I also know it isn't always possible, and the secret to success is not as simple as
hard work. It's aided by the assistance of others, not to mention - luck.
Forbes staff writer Susan Adams cites a Gallup poll as follows:
The longer that Americans are unemployed, the more likely they are to report signs of poor
psychological well-being," says the study. "About one in five Americans who have been
unemployed for a year or more say they currently have or are being treated for depression -
almost double the rate among those who have been unemployed for five weeks or less.
She goes on to note:
The long-term unemployed, unfortunately, have good reason to be depressed. They suffer
plenty of discrimination in the job market. A 2012 study by economist Rand Ghayad found that
employers preferred candidates with no relevant experience, but who had been out of work for
less than six months, to those with experience who had been job hunting for longer than that.
.... ... ...
How many of you have found yourselves laid off and unable to get another job?
How many of you are
struggling in midlife to create a career where once you were responsible for taking care of a
family?
How many of you have knocked on doors and connected until your blue in the face, only to give
up?
How many of you have drained away any savings you may have had or incurred crushing debt?
Have you had more success at creating new ventures for yourself - a business or freelance work?
Were you able to rely on the assistance of family or friends for a temporary period?
If you're over 50, have you found it harder? Have you had an experience similar to Cindy's?
I'm certain that many of you have fought your way back; I'm still fighting after years, but I
have seen progress. Slower than I'd like, but progress all the same.
If someone helped you out, have you paid it forward by making connections for others?
Please do read this comment from Cindy. I have responded as best I can. I'm sure she would
welcome your suggestions.
A Note on Despair
To be in this position - wanting to work, needing to work, knowing you still have much to
contribute but never getting a foot in the door - is deeply frustrating, horribly depressing, and
leaves us feeling powerless. Add up these elements and you have the formula for despair.
It's brutally hard to fight your way back from despair. But sometimes, an act of compassion can
help.
I've been on the receiving end of those incredible kindnesses - from strangers, from readers, and
from one friend in particular, herself too long living on the edge.
One small act of compassion can breathe new hope into the worst situation. And here's what I know
with 100% certainty. We may be unemployed, we may be depressed but we aren't powerless if we
come together and try to help one another.
Don't panic is always a good advice. Following it is another story...
Notable quotes:
"... Using contacts, no matter how far in the past they rest, is nothing to be ashamed of! You've probably spent most of your life working, and meeting a lot of people along the way. ..."
"... Your resume should be tailored to each and every job you apply for. While it is important to showcase your talent and skills, how you present the information is equally important. ..."
When you find yourself over 50 and unemployed, the thought of finding another job may seem daunting and hopeless.
It is quite easy to become discouraged because many people fear being stereotyped because of their age, the tough job market,
or the prospect of being interviewed by someone half their age. However, there are some things the older unemployed should keep in
mind while on the job search. Using the following tips will increase your chances of a short job search and create an overall more
pleasant experience.
Quit telling yourself that no one hires older workers. This is simply just not true. In some cases older
workers have to exert more effort to overcome discrimination, but this is certainly not the case for every employer. There are
even entire websites with jobs posted specifically for older workers, and a quick Google search will render you a list of those
websites. Take advantage of such resources!
Take advantage of new technology. Learn to blog and micro-blog, via Twitter, about your profession and interests.
You should even create a LinkedIn profile (a website similar to Facebook
yet has a more career oriented function) to assist it meeting people in your desired field. All of which will help you stay fine
tuned on your skills, while developing new ones. Learning to use social networking will indicate to potential employers that you
can adapt to change and learn new things, particularly technology, fairly quickly.
Use all those hard earned contacts. Using contacts, no matter how far in the past they rest, is nothing
to be ashamed of! You've probably spent most of your life working, and meeting a lot of people along the way. It is completely
acceptable to reach out to former colleagues, class mates, co-workers and employers for job possibilities. Using resources like
Facebook or LinkedIn are great ways to find those long lost contacts as well. Chances are they would love to hear from you and
help you out if possible.
Don't clutter your resume. Your resume should be tailored to each and every job you apply for. While
it is important to showcase your talent and skills, how you present the information is equally important. This means keep
it straight to the point and relate your past experience to the skills necessary for the job you are applying for. Essentially,
don't do a history dump of every job you've ever had, instead, make each word count!
Don't act superior to the interviewer. It is likely that the people interviewing you will be younger than
you. But this does not mean you should look down upon them. Obviously they have earned their position, and if you play your cards
right, in due time, you will earn yours! Even if you've worked more years than your interviewer has been alive, it's not okay
to tell him or her that you can "teach" them anything. A better idea would be to state your experience working in a multi-generational
work place.
Use these tips to help make your job search less stressful and more positive. Whatever you do, don't throw in the towel before
you've even tried. Your experience and knowledge will be recognized. All you need is the right employer to identify it.
This is essentially a scam. Help in landing $13 per hour job is not a big achievement.
Notable quotes:
"... Older workers like Lane make up a larger percentage of the persistently jobless than ever before. Nearly 40 percent of unemployed workers are over the age of 45 - a 30 percent rise from the 1980s. ..."
"... P2E is an intensive, individualized five-week bootcamp that teaches job skills and works to build job-seekers' confidence and emotional health. "We acknowledge that there are serious emotional issues for people who'd been unemployed for that long," Carbone said. ..."
"... The privately-funded program makes deals with businesses who hire P2E graduates for "internships," a few-week trial period for the would-be employee, whose salary is subsidized by the WorkPlace. Often, it leads to full-time work. According to P2E, 80 percent of their participants have been granted trial periods, and of those, more than 85 percent have been hired by employers. ..."
"... This acceptance of a new economic reality is at the heart of P2E; the program isn't solving the problems of precarity, real-wage decline, or manufacturing losses so much as doing damage control. ..."
"... "I'd say 100 percent of the people who went through Platform are making less than they did previously," said Carbone. "We get them prepared for the fact that their standard of living will go down, that they probably have to change careers." ..."
When Bret Lane was laid off from his telecommunications sales job after 16 years, he wasn't worried.
He'd never been unemployed for more than a few days since he started working as a teenager. But months
passed, and he couldn't find a job. One day, he heard the Purina plant in his Turlock, Calif., neighborhood
was hiring janitors for $14 an hour. When he arrived early at 4 a.m., he counted more than 400 people
lined up to interview.
"That's when I realized things had gotten serious," said Lane, 53, who called being out of work
"pure hell."
Lane's experience is hardly unique.
As of September 2013, 4
million people had been unemployed for six months or more. The economy has been slow to regain the
8.7 million jobs lost during the Great Recession, making prospects grim for many of the long-term
unemployed.
Older workers like Lane make up a larger percentage of the persistently jobless than ever before.
Nearly 40 percent of unemployed workers are over the age of 45 - a 30 percent rise from the 1980s.
And for this group, the job hunt can be particularly long and frustrating. Unemployed people aged
45-54 were jobless for 45 weeks on average, and those 55 to 64 were jobless for 57 weeks, according
to an October 2013
Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll.
Younger workers didn't have such a hard time, perhaps because many employers perceive them to
be more energetic or productive than older workers, said Linda Barrington, an economist at Cornell
University's Institute for Compensation Studies. Employers "acting on such inaccurate assessments
or stereotypes is what benefits younger workers and disadvantages older workers," she said.
Addressing the emotional side of unemployment
An innovative program based in Bridgeport, Conn., is helping to get those who are over 50 and
unemployed for long periods back into the market. Platform to Employment started in 2011 when a Connecticut
job center called the WorkPlace was overwhelmed by calls from "99ers"-people who had been unemployed
for 99 weeks, exhausting their unemployment benefits-many of whom were older workers.
The exact number of 99ers across the country is unknown; the Bureau of Labor Statistics hasn't
distinguished between 99ers and those out of work for a year since 2010, an oversight that
some say renders this group even more politically invisible. Already, the long-term unemployed
face biases in hiring. It's both legal and common for employers to write "unemployed need not apply"
on job postings.
There has been virtually no public policy tackling long-term unemployment since the recession
hit, said P2E founder Joe Carbone, and his program seeks to fill that gap. "These people have lost
access to opportunity, which is a basic American tenet," said Carbone. "We find a way to make them
competitive and feel hopeful."
P2E is an intensive, individualized five-week bootcamp that teaches job skills and works to build
job-seekers' confidence and emotional health. "We acknowledge that there are serious emotional issues
for people who'd been unemployed for that long," Carbone said.
The privately-funded program makes deals with businesses who hire P2E graduates for "internships,"
a few-week trial period for the would-be employee, whose salary is subsidized by the WorkPlace. Often,
it leads to full-time work. According to P2E, 80 percent of their participants have been granted
trial periods, and of those, more than 85 percent have been hired by employers.
Accepting a new economic reality
Bret Lane washes out his coffee pot at his home after a shift at a call center in San Diego, Calif.,
on Oct. 31. Lane was laid off after 16 years as a salesman in telecommunications and was unemployed
until he got a job at a call center. Sandy
Huffaker / Getty Images for NBC News
The program has spread to 10 other cities across the United States, including San Diego, where
Lane, a P2E graduate, has been employed full-time at a call center since May. After a year and nine
months of unemployment, Lane sold his two-bedroom house, pared down his possessions to fit in a 5x10
storage unit, and drove to San Diego to live with his sister. That's when he saw an ad in the paper
for Platform to Employment.
He learned how to make his online resume more searchable by adding keywords, as well as how to
create an impressive LinkedIn profile. "It also occurred to me that I was being discriminated against"
because of age, rather than being rejected for not being good enough. Lane now makes about half of
his previous salary and still lives with his sister, but he's "happy to be working again."
This acceptance of a new economic reality is at the heart of P2E; the program isn't solving the
problems of precarity, real-wage decline, or manufacturing losses so much as doing damage control.
"I'd say 100 percent of the people who went through Platform are making less than they did previously,"
said Carbone. "We get them prepared for the fact that their standard of living will go down, that
they probably have to change careers."
This guidance is necessary, Barrington said. "A lot of [the long-term unemployed] came into the
workforce still thinking you could work for the same company for your whole life," she said. "Someone
has to sit you down and tell you that's not going to happen."
She added that businesses need to be reminded of the value of older workers, who often bring intangible
skills, such as punctuality, responsibility, and "being able to write a memo," that younger employees
may not yet have.
Heidi DeWyngaert, President of Bankwell, a holding company of several banks in Connecticut, said
one of her banks hired an older worker from P2E who is succeeding on the job precisely for these
reasons. "She's mature, reliable and responsible with a great attitude," said DeWyngaert.
The program has gained so much prominence that it's become competitive in its own right. Early
last year, after P2E was featured on 60 Minutes, the Bridgeport office was flooded with inquiries.
The program routinely gets 1,000 applicants for around 20 spots.
Hoping to spark a national conversation
Vanessa Jackson, 57, saw the segment and kept track of P2E's growth until it expanded to her area
in Chicago. Jackson had been unemployed off and on since 2008, when she lost her $100,000 job as
a marketing manager during a corporate downsizing. "I thought, of course, I would get another comparable
job," she said.
But it didn't happen. She decided to get an MBA to "ride out the recession," but that just landed
her more debt. She finally got a part-time job as a deli clerk, until she broke her arm and went
on disability for 10 months. Her $300,000 401(k) account dwindled to $60,000. She sold her house
in the suburbs and moved in with her boyfriend on the South Side of Chicago.
"It was the most desperate thing in the world," Jackson said. It pained her to remember the days
when recruiters would tell her she was one of "the top African-American women in marketing."
P2E "revived my energy," she said. "It lifted the depression that was very much there."
Jackson now works part-time as a project coordinator at a home care service agency for $13 an
hour, which she admits is inadequate for her level of education. Still, she almost missed out on
the opportunity. When P2E came to Chicago earlier this year, she wasn't selected at first. "It felt
like applying for a job in itself," she said. "I beseeched [Chicago program manager Michael Morgan].
He said 'I admire your ambition' and let me in."
Carbone is all too aware of P2E's limited reach. "We've helped hundreds of people, but that doesn't
put even a small dent in the amount who need help," he said. Carbone hopes to spark a national conversation
and, eventually, get the attention of Washington.
"Let's be clear," Carbone said. "I wouldn't be doing this if there were appropriate and relevant
government policies."
2000 | Rated R directed by Steven Soderbergh
Based on the true story of an unemployed mother of three who forced her way into a job as a legal clerk and built an anti-pollution
case against a California utility company. Erin Brockovich has become a name for someone with tenacity and perseverance.
The Journey of Natty Gann
1985 | Rated PG directed by Jeremy Kagan
Disney's family-friendly adventure demonstrates how tough the Great Depression was on kids, namely the teenage girl of the title
who journeys across America to reunite with her father. Grounded by strong performances, including a young John Cusack, this gem
serves as a fine introduction of a difficult subject to younger viewers.
Tootsie
1982 | Rated PG directed by Sydney Pollack
This light-hearted, quirky comedy stars Dustin Hoffman as an unemployed actor who pretends to be a woman for a full-time role in
a soap opera. Beneath the hilarity is a sobering reminder that landing a job sometimes requires thinking outside the box, to say
the least.
Up in the Air
2009 | Rated R directed by Jason Reitman
George Clooney is stellar as a veteran hatchet man who has lost his ability to form meaningful relationships, living a life on the
road. Ultimately this is a poignant drama about identity and what defines us. If we are nothing more than our occupation, what remains
when that is gone?
Russ Breimeier, a freelance film critic who lives in Indianapolis, was unemployed for two years until recently landing a part-time
job.
Probably not. But the quantities necessary might diminish considerably...
Notable quotes:
"... Adapted from the new book The Future of the Professions by Richard Susskind & Daniel Susskind (Oxford University Press, 2015).Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... The proof is in how there is one premium cost if the medical provider is on their own and magically it is cheaper if theu are part of a group or hospital.. Same doctor same practices lower rates prima facia evidence of insurance company rate fraud ..."
"... Re solidarity, you might be surprised. One reason law school enrollments are down is that it is becoming public knowledge that employment for graduates in upwardly mobile career positions is way down ..."
"... Many are shunted into low level proletarian type legal work, churning out evidence for use in lawsuits owned and managed by large firms. Lawyers who do this earn less then a good paralegal with less job security and no benefits. ..."
"... So much of the 'grunt work' of professions � once the entry and training province of new graduates � is now being done overseas by shops that specialize in legal research, or reading x-rays, or accounting and tax preparation. ..."
"... The 'grunt work' that grounds one in the full knowledge of the profession and how it works is slowly removed from the profession. That omission leaves future practitioners with an incomplete understanding. ..."
"... This loss makes them more reliant on big data as both assistant and excuse/defense, and makes them less master craftsmen (if I may use the term without giving offense) and more the front-end interface of one-size-fits-all processes. Very good for corporate profits. Not so good for the professions or their clients. ..."
"... Long ago, firms started off-shoring basic, tedious, repetitive tasks, generally considered as unrewarding, such as software testing or error correction to India. The idea was to focus on "high added-value" jobs such as system architects or project management, and leave low-level operations, supposedly requiring less qualifications, to cheaper Indian contractors. Decades later, there is a shortage of qualified people for those high-skilled jobs - precisely because fewer and fewer young people have had the possibility ..."
"... The result? It is now necessary to import expensive project managers and system architects from foreign countries. ..."
"... Bottom line: the race to the bottom for wages is "on". ..."
"... Professionals would be the next logical choice of squeezing cost out of work; unions, middle management, big industry, airlines, manufacturing and construction have all paid their price at the alter of the 1%. ..."
"... I also agree with the concept of there being less for the bottom 90% to spend. And as more automation kicks in, there will be even less bad choice jobs for these folks to scramble for. Just waiting for truck drivers to be slowly replaced with auto-drive trucks. ..."
"... " . Prefer a fence at the top of the cliff to an ambulance at the bottom " ..."
"... The rich and the truly rich will always have skilled, artistic human professionals to serve their personally tailored bespoke needs. It is the rest of us who will be assigned the doctorobots, the lawyer machines, etc. ..."
"... Part of the "crapification of everything" except for managers and owners, it is part of their cost cutting plan. ..."
"... First they came for the blue collar workers, and I did nothing? Then they came for the white collar workers, and I did nothing? Now they are coming for the professionals, and they are laughing at my passivity? ..."
"... They have played all the classes, higher than the one they are currently discarding, and the remaining consumers are happy to throw their neighbors under the bus. But your turn will come. Karma. ..."
"... Once corporations start setting guidelines and dictating the drugs you can and can't use for treatment, do you think they'll do it according to what's cost effective and least risky for the patient based on current science or do you think they'll do it based on their own profits? ..."
Posted on
January 9, 2016 by Yves Smith Yves here. Many
members of the top 10% regard their role in society as relatively secure, particularly if the are in a niche that serves the capital-deploying
1% or better yet, 0.1%. But a new book suggest their position is not secure. And trends in motion confirm this dour reading, such
as the marked decline in law school enrollments, and the trend in the US to force doctors to practice out of hospitals or HMOs, where
they are salaried and are required to adhere to corporate care guidelines. For instance, my MD is about to have her practice bought
out, and is looking hard as to whether she can establish a concierge practice. Mind you, she appears regularly on TV and writes a
monthly column for a national magazine [not that is how I found her or why I use her]. Yet she has real doubts as to whether she
can support all the overhead. If someone with a profile can't make a go at it solo in a market like Manhattan, pray tell, who can?
The end of the professional era is characterized by four trends: the move from bespoke service; the bypassing of traditional gatekeepers;
a shift from a reactive to a proactive approach to professional work; and the more-for-less challenge.
The Move From Bespoke (Custom) Service
For centuries, much professional work has been handled in the manner of a craft. Individual experts and specialists-people who
know more than others-have offered an essentially bespoke service ("bespoke" is British for "custom"). In the language of the tailor,
their product has been "made-to-measure" rather than "off-the-peg." For each recipient the service has been disposable (used once
only), handcrafted ordinarily by a solitary scribe or sole trusted adviser, often in the spirit of an artist who starts each project
afresh with a blank canvas.
Our research strongly suggests that bespoke professional work in this vein looks set to fade from prominence, as other crafts
(like tailoring and tallow chandlering) have done over the centuries. Significant elements of professional work are being routinized:
in checklists, standard form materials, and in various sorts of systems, many of which are available online. Meanwhile, the work
that remains for human beings to handle conventionally is often not conducted by individual craftspeople, but collaboratively in
teams, sometimes collocated, but more often virtually. And, with the advance of increasingly capable machines, some work may not
be conducted by human beings at all.
Just as we witnessed the "death of gentlemanly capitalism" in the banks in the 1980s, we seem to be observing a similar decline
in bespoke professionalism.
The Bypassed Gatekeepers
In the past, when in need of expert guidance we turned to the professions. Their members knew things that others did not, and
we drew on their knowledge and experience to solve our problems. Each profession acted as a "gatekeeper" of its own, distinct body
of practical expertise. Today this set-up is under threat.
We are already seeing some work being wrested from the hands of traditional professions. Some of the competition is coming from
within. We observe professionals from different professions doing each other's work. They even speak of "eating one another's lunch."
Accountants and consultants, for example, are particularly effective at encroaching on the business of lawyers and actuaries. We
also see intra-professional friction, when, for example, nurses take on work that used to be exclusive to doctors, or paralegals
are engaged to perform tasks that formerly were the province of lawyers.
But the competition is also advancing from outside the traditional boundaries of the professions-from new people and different
institutions. We see a recurring need to draw on people with very different skills, talents, and ways of working. Practicing doctors,
priests, teachers, and auditors did not, for example, develop the software that supports the systems that we describe. Stepping forward
instead are data scientists, process analysts, knowledge engineers, systems engineers, and many more. Today, professionals still
provide much of the content, but in time they may find themselves down-staged by these new specialists. We also see a diverse set
of institutions entering the fray-business process outsourcers, retail brands, Internet companies, major software and service vendors,
to name a few. What these providers have in common is that they look nothing like twentieth-century doctors, accountants, architects,
and the rest.
More than this, human experts in the professions are no longer the only source of practical expertise. There are illustrations
of practical expertise being made available by recipients of professional work-in effect, sidestepping the gatekeepers.
On various platforms, typically online, people share their past experience and help others to resolve similar problems. These "communities
of experience," as we call them, are springing up across many professions (for example, PatientsLikeMe and the WebMD communities
in medicine). We say more about them in a moment. More radical still are systems and machines that themselves generate practical
expertise. These are underpinned by a variety of advanced techniques, such as Big Data and artificial intelligence. These platforms
and systems tend not to be owned and run by the traditional professions. Whether those who do so will in turn become "new gatekeepers"
is a subject of some concern.
The keys to the kingdom are changing. Or, if not changing, they are at least being shared with others.
You nailed it on medical professionals would like to add, that at least here in flori duh there seems to be massive pricing
fraud by malpractice and liability insurance providers which state regulators allow to continue to force small or single practitioners
to join groups by financial obliteration at least in floriduh, there is the usual massive distortion suggesting insurance companies
are paying out huge amounts when there in fact seems to be collusion amongst insurance companies neglecting the legal requirement
to try to settle on good faith and end up forcing people to settle for pennies on the dollar yet the insurance companies keep
picking the pockets of medical professionals
The proof is in how there is one premium cost if the medical provider is on their own and magically it is cheaper if theu
are part of a group or hospital.. Same doctor same practices lower rates prima facia evidence of insurance company rate fraud
Yes some of it is only logical though, if masses of the population see their income declining and yet the costs of medical
care keeps increasing eventually noone can afford to see the doctor never mind the ACA etc.. And it can get to be this way with
a lot of professional services less urgent and distorted than medical care, like soon noone can afford an accountant, you use
turbo tax, a lawyer � no middle class people start to make their own wills. Many professions seek ever further protections of
government for their guilds (more and more requirements to practice to try to preserve their privilege) and yet with nothing protecting
the income of the other 80% (read: unions, that would be their role) unless they plan to only serve the fellow 20%
So solidarity? Yea, but making the solidarity argument with many (not all) members of such professions is a waste of time as
they instinctively side with the 1s.
Re solidarity, you might be surprised. One reason law school enrollments are down is that it is becoming public knowledge
that employment for graduates in upwardly mobile career positions is way down
Many are shunted into low level proletarian type legal work, churning out evidence for use in lawsuits owned and managed
by large firms. Lawyers who do this earn less then a good paralegal with less job security and no benefits.
It has been said Paralegals are being squeezed out, to make way for the huge increase in law graduates from prior class booms.
Why not use cheap lawyers, with better credential, and desperate for employment?
So much of the 'grunt work' of professions � once the entry and training province of new graduates � is now being done
overseas by shops that specialize in legal research, or reading x-rays, or accounting and tax preparation.
There are 3 downsides to this, in my opinion. New college grads have fewer entry slots. The 'grunt work' that grounds one
in the full knowledge of the profession and how it works is slowly removed from the profession. That omission
leaves future practitioners with an incomplete understanding.
This loss makes them more reliant on big data as both assistant and excuse/defense, and makes them less master craftsmen
(if I may use the term without giving offense) and more the front-end interface of one-size-fits-all processes. Very good for
corporate profits. Not so good for the professions or their clients.
Your first two points (no entry-level jobs for beginners, no acquisition of professional basics) are essential - and their
detrimental effects are already painfully felt in some professions.
Case in point: software development.
Long ago, firms started off-shoring basic, tedious, repetitive tasks, generally considered as unrewarding, such as software
testing or error correction to India. The idea was to focus on "high added-value" jobs such as system architects or project management,
and leave low-level operations, supposedly requiring less qualifications, to cheaper Indian contractors. Decades later, there
is a shortage of qualified people for those high-skilled jobs - precisely because fewer and fewer young people have had the possibility
to
(a) start in the profession at entry-level positions (when job postings all require qualifications as senior software engineer
and five years experience, what do you do?)
(b) learn the ropes and practice the skills from the ground up (the necessary step before rising in the professional hierarchy).
The result? It is now necessary to import expensive project managers and system architects from foreign countries.
From what I read, the UK has been especially hit by this phenomenon, because it was particularly enthusiastic about off-shoring
IT to India.
I can't find the cite, but last year I read that some of the Indian companies that American law firms have outsourced to are
now moving offices "stateside" to hire American attorneys, here.
The Washington State Bar has initiated a
legal technician
program , and I find the timing questionable, even if the premise of the program is good-hearted. As the market is awash in
underemployed, licensed attorneys, the Bar is going ahead and turning veteran paralegals into the people to undercut the market
even further. It seems like bad timing to let someone who has years of experience, and no law school debt get over on a bunch
law school grads who are facing a life of being hounded for their debts. I spoke to someone at the Bar who made a good defense,
that the legal technician is like an ARNP. Only later did it occur to me that there are very few out-of-work doctors.
From another perspective, the legal technician answers another problem of the collapsing paralegal market. Much of the collapse
has been driven by advances in document management, especially scanning that 'reads' the text and makes it searchable. But hey,
here is a shiny new program. Go ahead and set up a parenting plan with your abusive ex for $75! What could go wrong?
The key to really get the legal field de-humanized would be robot judges and robotic juries. I hope someone is already working
on it.
Don't worry what's old is new again. At some point in the future we'll all be scratching glyphs on clay tablets .once the 2nd
law of thermodynamics really kicks in ..plenty of work then!
Work! What about George Jetson? The go west value system we are stuck with these days is almost perfectly incompatible with
a future that requires very little human labor.
Professionals would be the next logical choice of squeezing cost out of work; unions, middle management, big industry,
airlines, manufacturing and construction have all paid their price at the alter of the 1%.
Public sector unions are hanging on but as the majority of local & state taxpayers have less to give, these wages, benefits
and especially pensions will be cut. Those earning less and less will gleefully pull down those public employees who are 'living
like kings'.
I also agree with the concept of there being less for the bottom 90% to spend. And as more automation kicks in, there will
be even less bad choice jobs for these folks to scramble for. Just waiting for truck drivers to be slowly replaced with auto-drive
trucks.
This leads us to an enhanced confrontation at the Federal level on how to go forward. The earned income tax credit, a good
concept also under siege, I believe, will have to be supplemented with a minimum guaranteed income.
By this time, 20 years, the DEMs will be the party of business and the GOP will be entirely dependent on fed govt subsidies.
Oh the irony.
Reading Rise of a The Robots right now, and the law and accounting profession have and will continue to be hurt hard by computers
armed with big data, and the education and medical profession are next. Has to be. It's already a travesty that education and
medical costs continue to rise as incomes stagnate and drop, and that just cannot continue. Well, maybe it can, until all of those
guns out there are used by the people as they rise up. Look at the buffoon who many are considering for the Republican nominee,
more out of blind, misinformed anger, than anything. Scary.
The rich and the truly rich will always have skilled, artistic human professionals to serve their personally tailored bespoke
needs. It is the rest of us who will be assigned the doctorobots, the lawyer machines, etc.
The French phrase "Everything changes and remains the same" remains true today.
Whereas today the top of society has its professionals to isolate and protect them from the remainder of the population and
the rules nobility and the church had its knights, nobles, obedient serfs and peasants to fight and protect "their" nobility.
Names and titles changed but the rules remained. Those who have will get those who don't will not.
Correct. The same applies in education. The wealthy know what kinds of schools serve their children best: those with better
teacher to student ratios, rich arts curricula, and a progressive approach to instruction. Just see what Obama's kids got at their
fancy Quaker school. The rest get standardized lesson plans, big class sizes, deep cuts in music and the arts, and high-stakes
testing.
Part of the "crapification of everything" except for managers and owners, it is part of their cost cutting plan.
Why would you trust a medical system run by politicians and insurance companies a system promoted by those same managers
and owners. Like hiring the Three Stooges as your plumber, electrician and roofer. Gullibility will be the death of us that
and malice.
First they came for the blue collar workers, and I did nothing? Then they came for the white collar workers, and I did
nothing? Now they are coming for the professionals, and they are laughing at my passivity?
They have played all the classes, higher than the one they are currently discarding, and the remaining consumers are happy
to throw their neighbors under the bus. But your turn will come. Karma.
In Oregon some doctors are unionizing to resist medical assembly line medicine.
From NYTimes:
Doctors Unionize to Resist the Medical Machine
"Dr. Alexander and his colleagues say they are in favor of efficiency gains. It's the particular way the hospital has interpreted
this mandate that has left them feeling demoralized. If you talk to them for long enough, you get the distinct feeling it is
not just their jobs that hang in the balance, but the loss of something much less tangible - the ability of doctors everywhere
to exercise their professional judgment."
I find myself thinking about an episode of the original Connections series, that was produced in the 70s.
There it was mused about how corporate management would idle their days away waiting for the computer in the basement to crunch
the numbers and come up with company decisions they were then to implement.
Instead what happened was that the professional managerial class, the MBAs, dug in while computers instead replaced the laborers
via robotics.
Or shorter: The common argument that 'we (by that I mean you) have to become more employable' is about to hit home among the
people with long education. Will they recognize the similarity to what has already happened to others and/or will they themselves
make themselves more 'employable'?
I think one of the major consequences we are seeing as a result of a misguided professional system is the lack of basic legal
services for millions of people. This resulted in people being thrown out of their homes as the result of very obvious fraud and
yet having no recourse unless they were able to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees.
I think the popular new series 'Making of a Murderer' emphasizes this problem. I don't think a show that emphasizes the problems
that the very poor have with justice from the lack of being able to pay for legal services would have been this popular 10 years
ago.
Once corporations start setting guidelines and dictating the drugs you can and can't use for treatment, do you think they'll
do it according to what's cost effective and least risky for the patient based on current science or do you think they'll do it
based on their own profits?
What happens when they own their own pharmacies � as they're all scrambling to do right now � and try to jack up reimbursement
through that unit too? Do you think patients were served when Philidor started (criminally) altering scripts and making substitutions?
For profit healthcare is really sickcare, isn't it? Why cure a disease when treating it brings in more revenue? Why sell cheap
human insulin when you can patent a variety on the molecule, jack up the price and carve up the market?
Keep the sucker paying the vig
These guys aren't adopting better guidelines for treating chronic disease based on the best available science. In fact, as
they corporatize they're getting worse. I've talked to these clowns. They're typically ten years behind the state of the art in
their field. Patients do the reading and then they stare at us like we're morons. Fifteen years later they swear they knew the
truth all along.
If these corporate suits are setting the guidelines for care, how come there's no common national board standard for care,
no portfolio investment model approach where they model the disease with the best available experts, determine how to intervene
in the various genetic pathways that are perturbed and then pick the simplest, cheapest methods/chemicals to try first?
That sounds like a pretty reasonable, scientific approach to treatment � but, if that's your standard, then these people are
in breech of fiduciary duty left and right and it all has to do with that old canard "maximizing shareholder value." What about
maximizing customer service? Corporate medicine will lead to tobacco-level deaths. I know doctors who have been personally injured
in this system already. Corporations want to avoid risk to their profit � *not* their patient. Imagine what *those* mandatory
arbitration clauses are going to look like. Imagine what the sequel to _Merchants of Doubt_ will look like in the era of corporate
medicine and Supreme Court decisions that bust doctors' unions.
I'm still burning from Peter Thiel's comments on monopolies in the New York Times this morning. Does he have any clue how bad
the service is in regional hospital cartels already and how fast prices are rising?
It's not even a matter of price in the drug markets now. It's basic availability. Aside from the persistent shortages of cheap,
effective generics due to the kickback scheme in PMOs/PBMs, we now have explicit regulatory interference. The FDA has been moving
to withdraw entire lines of medication from compounding pharmacies even when there's no rival big pharma product competing against
them or any indication of patient risk. These are decades-old treatments. (It's the CDC's job to set treatment guidelines, by
the way, not the FDA's).
It's just a knee-jerk reaction at this point to protect imaginary future profits, I suppose. You can't make up this stuff.
The FDA has even imposed a 30% sales volume rule for "safety." It has nothing to do with purity or contamination of compounded
products. If Tesla sold exploding cars, how would restricting 30% of their sales volume to California improve consumer safety?
It's clearly a market-rigging reg � and it's because the corporate medicine lobby wants it.
What does this have to do with corporate medicine? Compounding pharmacies in big chain hospitals � which are often pitifully
narrow in their professional scope � are all magically exempt (oligopolistic and more expensive too). Isn't that wonderful?
The current corporatization of medicine rests on the notion that the chief challenge faced by those of us with serious illnesses
is that we simply don't read enough fine print or fill out enough paperwork.
If you think that corporations have done a fine job handling your retirement investments in this era of lax accounting standards,
wait until you see what they do with your actual body.
This article is based on the faulty perception that this is all normal benign efficiency working it's way out of an antiquated
system, perhaps with a few -to be expected- hiccups. It isn't.
What we are experiencing is wholesale greed and corruption on an international scale working it's way into the core of our
civilization like mold or cancer, and perverting technology as well as the process of social change and adjustment to that change
� for it's exclusive benefit � as it goes. It is unconscionable that we could call this progress or adjustment in anything but
the most cruelly ironic sense.
The shift from reactive to proactive my foot! 60 years ago doctors were getting out proactive messages far better
than today via education, television, the media and so on. And they gave a damn!!! Today, insurance companies are devising ever
new ways to minimize what they spend on your care, maximize what they charge you for it, and call it, "proactive." Proactive theft,
or genocide for fun and profit, would be closer to the mark.
Secular stagnation of the US economy might be parcially driven by high (above $50 per barrel) oil prices. That nessesarity
generates high level of unemployment, especially chromic unemployment and "perma-temps".
Masterpiece, offers solution for THE problem of our time/div> I am astonished at the quality of this book, which is about the
eighth book in a personal reading program that included Paul Roberts' The End of Oil, Kenneth Deffeyes' Beyond Oil, Jared Diamon's
Collapse, Cottrell's Energy and Society, Michael Klare's Blood and Oil, and others, all extremely good and relevant books.
The task this author undertakes is to help readers find a new perspective from which to constructively and usefully interpret
inevitable and major changes the world around us. By taking this approach, the author is providing the very essential tool we
need to cope with these changes.
The issue is our ecological footprint.
Catton uses the term "Age of Exuberance" to represent the time since 1492 when first a newly discovered hemisphere and then
the invention of fossil-fuel-driven machines allowed Old-World humans to escape the constraints imposed by a population roughly
at earth's carrying capacity, and instead to grow (and philosophize and emote) expansively.
He then reminds us that we are soon to be squeezed by the twin jaws of excessive population and exhausted resources, as our
current population is utterly dependent on the mining and burning of fossil energy and its use to exploit earth's resources in
general.
In spring 2005, the buzz about "the end of cheap energy" is reaching quite a pitch, and when and if the "peak oil" scenario
(or other environmental limit-event) is reached, the impact on our social / political world will be enormous. Already the US is
brandishing and using its superior weaponry to sieze control of oil assets; this same kind of desperate struggle may well erupt
at all levels of society if we don't find a way to identify the problem, anticipate its consequences, and find solutions.
Catton offers a perspective based on biology / ecology -- not bad, since we are indeed animals in an ecology and we are indeed
subject to the iron laws of nature and physics.
With this perspective we can avoid ending up screaming nonsense at each other when changes begin to get scary. My urgent recommendation
is, read this G.D. book and do it now.
"... It has to be explained that Stoics believe that nothing external to the individual is secure, and thus the truly important thing is virtue, based on ethics and moral. ..."
"... Stoicism is the appropriate philosophy for what awaits us. It brings out the best of us and it eases the anguish. The illusion of control is our worst enemy. Matters are completely out of our control and Nature will deal with them as she pleases. ..."
I wholeheartedly agree that even a cursory look at things reveals the overwhelming scope
of things and quickly leads to despair.
It doesn't have to lead to despair. I recommend
Stoicism
, which is the way
Greeks and Romans coped with their own decline.
In the words of Seneca:
"Let Nature deal with matter, which is her own, as she pleases; let us be cheerful and brave
in the face of everything, reflecting that it is nothing of our own that perishes." (De Provid.
v.8)
It has to be explained that Stoics believe that nothing external to the individual is secure,
and thus the truly important thing is virtue, based on ethics and moral.
Virtue can not be
taken from an individual whatever the circumstances, and helps him deal with adversity. That is
what Seneca means with
"nothing of our own that perishes"
.
Stoicism is the appropriate philosophy for what awaits us. It brings out the best of us
and it eases the anguish. The illusion of control is our worst enemy. Matters are completely out
of our control and Nature will deal with them as she pleases.
"... I am lucky in that I lived very frugally my whole life as I have always feared what was coming, and what in my opinion has now come. I am retired, and have been for over 4 years, but not by choice. ..."
"... For me, the misery index is High. I am lucky that I am not in danger of homelessness, but I have to be very careful about what I spend as prices keep going up and up and most things I consume. Meaning, food, utilities, taxes, etc. These days food doesn't go up by cents, but rather usually a dollar at a time. Carrots at my local Costco just went from $6.99 to $7.99 for example. ..."
"... I think that for everyone but the top 10%, the Misery Index is High ..."
From just outside Boulder, CO: John Edwards said "there are two Americas". I am thinking
he was more than correct, but that it should be 4 Americas: the top ,1%, the rest of the top
10%, the people who were prudent and saved and are older who are suffering but still can
afford to live, and the truly poor who can't come up with $400 in an emergency, which would
include the homeless. I am lucky in that I lived very frugally my whole life as I have
always feared what was coming, and what in my opinion has now come. I am retired, and have
been for over 4 years, but not by choice. Nobody here wants to hire an over 60 IT
worker.
I measure the "economy" and the it's health by what I refer to as the "misery index". It
isn't measured in numbers but rather in how one feels about their life and the world around
them. For me, the misery index is High. I am lucky that I am not in danger of
homelessness, but I have to be very careful about what I spend as prices keep going up and up
and most things I consume. Meaning, food, utilities, taxes, etc. These days food doesn't go
up by cents, but rather usually a dollar at a time. Carrots at my local Costco just went from
$6.99 to $7.99 for example.
I think that for everyone but the top 10%, the Misery Index is High . But, around
here, it is I believe one of the more affluent areas of the country. People are buying up
$1.5 million dollar houses like crazy, and tearing down $1 million dollar old houses to build
new custom houses. Tesla's and Mercedes are everywhere. Google has taken over Boulder and the
young Tech workers are numerous. My little town of about 10,000 people is building new homes
on every square inch of available land. They are talking about another 500 new homes of close
to a million dollars to well over a million dollars. Traffic is outrageous, and bad air
pollution days seem to be more and more numerous these days.
So, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times". Depends on who you are.
I think though that we are in the midst of a class war. The racial issues we are
experiencing are to distract people and divide people. Divide people on race, divide people
on age, divide people on ideology. No matter what, just divide people so while the common
"man" is fighting each other, the rich plunder more and more.
Finally, from my perspective, as a student of history, especially Nazi Germany, and Russia
under Stalin, I am more and more frightened each day by the acceptance of the Trump rhetoric.
It is messianic and dangerous.
"... A lesson of use at job interviews, schools and even in families. I am thankful for an added knowledge and understanding of the many problems associated with these Endeavors. This book should be a "must" to all young people. ..."
Bold Endeavors by Jack Stuster proved to be a real page-turner! Since childhood reading about adventures and explorers had
been my favorite literature. In this book the persons behind these endeavors came to life.
They were of flesh and blood and you as a reader took part of their everyday life, their hardships and personal problems. A
thrilling experience. A lesson in the importance of relationships not only among people in isolation
A lesson of use at job interviews, schools and even in families. I am thankful for an added knowledge and understanding
of the many problems associated with these Endeavors. This book should be a "must" to all young people.
Unemployment benefits currently are usually is just six month or so; this is the time when you can plan you "downsizing". You do
not need to rush but at the same time do not expect that you will get job offers quickly, if at all. Usually it does not happen.
many advertised positions are fakes, another substantial percentage is already reserved for H1B candidates and posting them is the
necessary legal formality.
Often losing job logically requires selling your home and moving to a modest apartment, especially if no children are living with
you. At 50 it is abut time... You need to do it later anyway, so why not now. But that's a very tough decision to make... Still, if the current housing market is close to the top
(as it is in 2019), this is one of the best moves
you can make. Getting from your house several hundred thousand dollars allows you to create kind of private pension to compensate for
losses in income till you hit your Social Security check, which currently means 66.
$300K investment in A quality bonds that returns 3% per year is enough to provides you with $24K per year "private pension" from 50 to
age of 66 when social security kicks in. That allows you to pay for the apartment and amenities. The food is extra but with this
level of income you qualify for food assistance.
This way you can take lower paid job, of much lower paid job (which mean $15 per hour), of temp job and survive.
And if this are many form you house sell your 401k remains intact and can supplement your SS income later on. Simple Excel spreadsheet can provide you with
a complete picture of what you can afford and what not. Actually the ability to walk of fresh air for 3 or more hours each day worth a lot
of money ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Losing a job in your 50s is a devastating moment, especially if the job is connected to a long career ripe with upward mobility. As a frequent observer of this phenomenon, it's as scary and troublesome as unchecked credit card debt or an expensive chronic health condition. This is one of the many reasons why I believe our 50s can be the most challenging decade of our lives. ..."
"... The first thing you should do is identify the exact day your job income stops arriving ..."
"... Next, and by next I mean five minutes later, explore your eligibility for unemployment benefits, and then file for them if you're able. ..."
"... Grab your bank statement, a marker, and a calculator. As much as you want to pretend its business as usual, you shouldn't. Identify expenses that don't make sense if you don't have a job. Circle them. Add them up. Resolve to eliminate them for the time being, and possibly permanently. While this won't necessarily lengthen your fuse, it could lessen the severity of a potential boom. ..."
Losing a job in your 50s is a devastating moment, especially if the job is connected to a long career ripe with upward mobility.
As a frequent observer of this phenomenon, it's as scary and troublesome as unchecked credit card debt or an expensive chronic health
condition. This is one of the many reasons why I believe our 50s can be the most challenging decade of our lives.
Assuming you can clear the mental challenges, the financial and administrative obstacles can leave you feeling like a Rube Goldberg
machine.
Income, health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, bills, expenses, short-term savings and retirement savings are
all immediately important in the face of a job loss. Never mind your Parent PLUS loans, financially-dependent aging parents, and
boomerang children (adult kids who live at home), which might all be lurking as well.
When does your income stop?
From the shocking moment a person learns their job is no longer their job, the word "triage" must flash in bright lights like
an obnoxiously large sign in Times Square. This is more challenging than you might think. Like a pickpocket bumping into you right
before he grabs your wallet, the distraction is the problem that takes your focus away from the real problem.
This is hard to do because of the emotion that arrives with the dirty deed. The mind immediately begins to race to sources of
money and relief. And unfortunately that relief is often found in the wrong place.
The first thing you should do is identify the exact day your job income stops arriving . That's how much time you have
to defuse the bomb. Your fuse may come in the form of a severance package, or work you've performed but haven't been paid for yet.
When do benefits kick in?
Next, and by next I mean five minutes later, explore your eligibility for unemployment benefits, and then file for them if
you're able. However, in some states severance pay affects your immediate eligibility for unemployment benefits. In other words,
you can't file for unemployment until your severance payments go away.
Assuming you can't just retire at this moment, which you likely can't, you must secure fresh employment income quickly. But quickly
is relative to the length of your fuse. I've witnessed way too many people miscalculate the length and importance of their fuse.
If you're able to get back to work quickly, the initial job loss plus severance ends up enhancing your financial life. If you take
too much time, by your choice or that of the cosmos, boom.
The next move is much more hands-on, and must also be performed the day you find yourself without a job.
What nonessentials do I cut?
Grab your bank statement, a marker, and a calculator. As much as you want to pretend its business as usual, you shouldn't.
Identify expenses that don't make sense if you don't have a job. Circle them. Add them up. Resolve to eliminate them for the time
being, and possibly permanently. While this won't necessarily lengthen your fuse, it could lessen the severity of a potential boom.
The idea of diving into your spending habits on the day you lose your job is no fun. But when else will you have such a powerful
reason to do so? You won't. It's better than dipping into your assets to fund your current lifestyle. And that's where we'll pick
it up the next time.
We've covered day one. In my next column we will tackle day two and beyond.
Peter Dunn is an author, speaker and radio host, and he has a free podcast: "Million Dollar Plan." Have a question for Pete
the Planner? Email him at [email protected]. The views and opinions expressed in this column are the author's and do not
necessarily reflect those of USA TODAY.
I love it. A company which fell in love so much with their extraordinary profits that they
sabatoged their design and will now suffer enormous financial consequences. They're lucky to
have all their defense/military contracts.
The software at the heart of the Boeing 737 MAX crisis was developed at a time when the company was laying off experienced engineers
and replacing them with temporary workers making as little as $9 per hour, according to
Bloomberg .
In an effort to cut costs, Boeing was relying on subcontractors making paltry wages to develop and test its software. Often times,
these subcontractors would be from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace, like India.
Boeing had recent college graduates working for Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. in a building across from Seattle's
Boeing Field, in flight test groups supporting the MAX. The coders from HCL designed to specifications set by Boeing but, according
to Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer, "it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just
writing the code."
Rabin said: "...it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly."
In addition to cutting costs, the hiring of Indian companies may have landed Boeing orders for the Indian military and commercial
aircraft, like a $22 billion order received in January 2017 . That order included 100 737 MAX 8 jets and was Boeing's largest order
ever from an Indian airline. India traditionally orders from Airbus.
HCL engineers helped develop and test the 737 MAX's flight display software while employees from another Indian company, Cyient
Ltd, handled the software for flight test equipment. In 2011, Boeing named Cyient, then known as Infotech, to a list of its "suppliers
of the year".
One HCL employee posted online: "Provided quick workaround to resolve production issue which resulted in not delaying flight test
of 737-Max (delay in each flight test will cost very big amount for Boeing) ."
But Boeing says the company didn't rely on engineers from HCL for the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which was
linked to both last October's crash and March's crash. The company also says it didn't rely on Indian companies for the cockpit warning
light issue that was disclosed after the crashes.
A Boeing spokesperson said: "Boeing has many decades of experience working with supplier/partners around the world. Our primary
focus is on always ensuring that our products and services are safe, of the highest quality and comply with all applicable regulations."
HCL, on the other hand, said: "HCL has a strong and long-standing business relationship with The Boeing Company, and we take pride
in the work we do for all our customers. However, HCL does not comment on specific work we do for our customers. HCL is not associated
with any ongoing issues with 737 Max."
Recent simulator tests run by the FAA indicate that software issues on the 737 MAX run deeper than first thought. Engineers who
worked on the plane, which Boeing started developing eight years ago, complained of pressure from managers to limit changes that
might introduce extra time or cost.
Rick Ludtke, a former Boeing flight controls engineer laid off in 2017, said: "Boeing was doing all kinds of things, everything
you can imagine, to reduce cost , including moving work from Puget Sound, because we'd become very expensive here. All that's very
understandable if you think of it from a business perspective. Slowly over time it appears that's eroded the ability for Puget Sound
designers to design."
Rabin even recalled an incident where senior software engineers were told they weren't needed because Boeing's productions were
mature. Rabin said: "I was shocked that in a room full of a couple hundred mostly senior engineers we were being told that we weren't
needed."
Any given jetliner is made up of millions of parts and millions of lines of code. Boeing has often turned over large portions
of the work to suppliers and subcontractors that follow its blueprints. But beginning in 2004 with the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing sought
to increase profits by providing high-level specs and then asking suppliers to design more parts themselves.
Boeing also promised to invest $1.7 billion in Indian companies as a result of an $11 billion order in 2005 from Air India. This
investment helped HCL and other software developers.
For the 787, HCL offered a price to Boeing that they couldn't refuse, either: free. HCL "took no up-front payments on the 787
and only started collecting payments based on sales years later".
Rockwell Collins won the MAX contract for cockpit displays and relied in part on HCL engineers and contract engineers from Cyient
to test flight test equipment.
Charles LoveJoy, a former flight-test instrumentation design engineer at the company, said: "We did have our challenges with the
India team. They met the requirements, per se, but you could do it better."
I love it. A company which fell in love so much with their extraordinary profits that they sabatoged their design and will
now suffer enormous financial consequences. They're lucky to have all their defense/military contracts.
Oftentimes, it's the cut-and-paste code that's the problem. If you don't have a good appreciation for what every line does,
you're never going to know what the sub or entire program does.
By 2002 i could not sit down with any developers without hearing at least one story about how they had been in a code review
meeting and seen absolute garbage turned out by H-1B workers.
Lots of people have known about this problem for many years now.
May the gods damn all financial managers! One of the two professions, along with bankers, which have absolutely no social value
whatsoever. There should be open hunting season on both!
Shifting to high-level specs puts more power in the hands of management/accounting types, since it doesn't require engineering
knowledge to track a deadline. Indeed, this whole story is the wet dream of business school, the idea of being able to accomplish
technical tasks purely by demand. A lot of public schools teach kids science is magic so when they grow up, the think they can
just give directions and technology appears.
In this country, one must have a license from the FAA to work on commercial aircraft. That means training and certification
that usually results in higher pay for those qualified to perform the repairs to the aircraft your family will fly on.
In case you're not aware, much of the heavy stuff like D checks (overhaul) have been outsourced by the airlines to foreign
countries where the FAA has nothing to say about it. Those contractors can hire whoever they wish for whatever they'll accept.
I have worked with some of those "mechanics" who cannot even read.
Keep that in mind next time the TSA perv is fondling your junk. That might be your last sexual encounter.
"... A suicide occurs in the United States roughly once every 12 minutes . What's more, after decades of decline, the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people annually -- the suicide rate -- has been increasing sharply since the late 1990s. Suicides now claim two-and-a-half times as many lives in this country as do homicides , even though the murder rate gets so much more attention. ..."
"... In some states the upsurge was far higher: North Dakota (57.6%), New Hampshire (48.3%), Kansas (45%), Idaho (43%). ..."
"... Since 2008 , suicide has ranked 10th among the causes of death in this country. For Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, however, it comes in second; for those between 35 and 45, fourth. The United States also has the ninth-highest rate in the 38-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Globally , it ranks 27th. ..."
"... The rates in rural counties are almost double those in the most urbanized ones, which is why states like Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, and North Dakota sit atop the suicide list. Furthermore, a far higher percentage of people in rural states own guns than in cities and suburbs, leading to a higher rate of suicide involving firearms, the means used in half of all such acts in this country. ..."
"... Education is also a factor. The suicide rate is lowest among individuals with college degrees. Those who, at best, completed high school are, by comparison, twice as likely to kill themselves. Suicide rates also tend to be lower among people in higher-income brackets. ..."
"... Evidence from the United States , Brazil , Japan , and Sweden does indicate that, as income inequality increases, so does the suicide rate. ..."
"... One aspect of the suicide epidemic is puzzling. Though whites have fared far better economically (and in many other ways) than African Americans, their suicide rate is significantly higher . ..."
"... The higher suicide rate among whites as well as among people with only a high school diploma highlights suicide's disproportionate effect on working-class whites. This segment of the population also accounts for a disproportionate share of what economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have labeled " deaths of despair " -- those caused by suicides plus opioid overdoses and liver diseases linked to alcohol abuse. Though it's hard to offer a complete explanation for this, economic hardship and its ripple effects do appear to matter. ..."
"... Trump has neglected his base on pretty much every issue; this one's no exception. ..."
Yves here. This post describes how the forces driving the US suicide surge started well before the Trump era, but explains how
Trump has not only refused to acknowledge the problem, but has made matters worse.
However, it's not as if the Democrats are embracing this issue either.
BY Rajan Menon, the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New
York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. His latest book is The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention
Originally published at
TomDispatch .
We hear a lot about suicide when celebrities like
Anthony Bourdain and
Kate Spade die by their own hand.
Otherwise, it seldom makes the headlines. That's odd given the magnitude of the problem.
In 2017, 47,173 Americans killed themselves.
In that single year, in other words, the suicide count was nearly
seven times greater than the number
of American soldiers killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars between 2001 and 2018.
A suicide occurs in the United States roughly once every
12 minutes . What's more, after decades
of decline, the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people annually -- the suicide rate -- has been increasing sharply since
the late 1990s. Suicides now claim two-and-a-half times as many lives in this country as do
homicides , even
though the murder rate gets so much more attention.
In other words, we're talking about a national
epidemic of self-inflicted
deaths.
Worrisome Numbers
Anyone who has lost a close relative or friend to suicide or has worked on a suicide hotline (as I have) knows that statistics
transform the individual, the personal, and indeed the mysterious aspects of that violent act -- Why this person? Why now? Why in
this manner? -- into depersonalized abstractions. Still, to grasp how serious the suicide epidemic has become, numbers are a necessity.
According to a 2018 Centers for Disease Control study , between
1999 and 2016, the suicide rate increased in every state in the union except Nevada, which already had a remarkably high rate. In
30 states, it jumped by 25% or more; in 17, by at least a third. Nationally, it increased
33% . In some states the upsurge was far
higher: North Dakota (57.6%), New Hampshire (48.3%), Kansas (45%), Idaho (43%).
Alas, the news only gets grimmer.
Since 2008 , suicide has ranked 10th
among the causes of death in this country. For Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, however, it comes in second; for those between
35 and 45, fourth. The United States also has the ninth-highest
rate in the 38-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Globally , it ranks 27th.
More importantly, the trend in the United States doesn't align with what's happening elsewhere in the developed world. The World
Health Organization, for instance, reports
that Great Britain, Canada, and China all have notably lower suicide rates than the U.S.,
as do all but
six countries in the European Union. (Japan's is only slightly lower.)
World Bank statistics show that, worldwide,
the suicide rate fell from 12.8 per 100,000 in 2000 to 10.6 in 2016. It's been falling in
China ,
Japan
(where it has declined steadily for nearly a
decade and is at its lowest point in 37 years), most of Europe, and even countries like
South Korea and
Russia that
have a significantly higher suicide rate than the United States. In Russia, for instance, it has dropped by nearly 26% from a
high point of 42 per 100,000 in
1994 to 31 in 2019.
We know a fair amount about the patterns
of suicide in the United States. In 2017, the rate was highest for men between the ages of 45 and 64 (30 per 100,000) and those 75
and older (39.7 per 100,000).
The rates in rural counties are almost double those in the most urbanized ones, which is why states like Idaho, Kansas, New
Hampshire, and North Dakota sit atop the suicide list. Furthermore, a far higher percentage of people in rural states own
guns than in cities and suburbs, leading to a
higher rate of suicide involving firearms, the means used in half
of all such acts in this country.
There are gender-based differences as well.
From 1999 to 2017, the rate for men was substantially higher than for women -- almost four-and-a-half times higher in the first of
those years, slightly more than three-and-a-half times in the last.
Education is also a factor. The suicide rate is
lowest among individuals with college degrees. Those who, at best, completed high school are, by comparison, twice as likely to kill
themselves. Suicide rates also tend to be lower
among people in higher-income brackets.
The Economics of Stress
This surge in the suicide rate has taken place in years during which the working class has experienced greater economic hardship
and psychological stress. Increased competition from abroad and outsourcing, the results of globalization, have contributed to job
loss, particularly in economic sectors like manufacturing, steel, and mining that had long been mainstays of employment for such
workers. The jobs still available often paid less and provided fewer benefits.
Technological change, including computerization, robotics, and the coming of artificial intelligence, has similarly begun to displace
labor in significant ways, leaving Americans without college degrees, especially those 50 and older, in
far more difficult straits when it comes to
finding new jobs that pay
well. The lack of anything resembling an
industrial policy of a sort that exists in Europe
has made these dislocations even more painful for American workers, while a sharp decline in private-sector union membership
-- down
from nearly 17% in 1983 to 6.4% today -- has reduced their ability to press for higher wages through collective bargaining.
Furthermore, the inflation-adjusted median wage has barely budged
over the last four decades (even as
CEO salaries have soared). And a decline in worker productivity doesn't explain it: between 1973 and 2017 productivity
increased by 77%, while a worker's average hourly wage only
rose by 12.4%. Wage stagnation has made it
harder for working-class
Americans to get by, let alone have a lifestyle comparable to that of their parents or grandparents.
The gap in earnings between those at the top and bottom of American society has also increased -- a lot. Since 1979, the
wages of Americans in the 10th percentile increased by a pitiful
1.2%. Those in the 50th percentile did a bit better, making a gain of 6%. By contrast, those in the 90th percentile increased by
34.3% and those near the peak of the wage pyramid -- the top 1% and especially the rarefied 0.1% -- made far more
substantial
gains.
And mind you, we're just talking about wages, not other forms of income like large stock dividends, expensive homes, or eyepopping
inheritances. The share of net national wealth held by the richest 0.1%
increased from 10% in the 1980s to 20% in 2016.
By contrast, the share of the bottom 90% shrank in those same decades from about 35% to 20%. As for the top 1%, by 2016 its share
had increased to almost 39% .
The precise relationship between economic inequality and suicide rates remains unclear, and suicide certainly can't simply be
reduced to wealth disparities or financial stress. Still, strikingly, in contrast to the United States, suicide rates are noticeably
lower and have been declining in
Western
European countries where income inequalities are far less pronounced, publicly funded healthcare is regarded as a right (not
demonized as a pathway to serfdom), social safety nets far more extensive, and
apprenticeships and worker
retraining programs more widespread.
Evidence from the United States
, Brazil ,
Japan , and
Sweden does indicate that, as income inequality increases,
so does the suicide rate. If so, the good news is that progressive economic policies -- should Democrats ever retake the White
House and the Senate -- could make a positive difference. A study
based on state-by-state variations in the U.S. found that simply boosting the minimum wage and Earned Income Tax Credit by 10%
appreciably reduces the suicide rate among people without college degrees.
The Race Enigma
One aspect of the suicide epidemic is puzzling. Though whites have fared far better economically (and in many other ways)
than African Americans, their suicide rate is significantly
higher . It increased from 11.3 per 100,000
in 2000 to 15.85 per 100,000 in 2017; for African Americans in those years the rates were 5.52 per 100,000 and 6.61 per 100,000.
Black men are
10 times more likely to be homicide victims than white men, but the latter are two-and-half times more likely to kill themselves.
The higher suicide rate among whites as well as among people with only a high school diploma highlights suicide's disproportionate
effect on working-class whites. This segment of the population also accounts for a disproportionate share of what economists Anne
Case and Angus Deaton have labeled "
deaths of despair
" -- those caused by suicides plus
opioid overdoses
and liver diseases linked to alcohol abuse. Though it's hard to offer a complete explanation for this, economic hardship and
its ripple effects do appear to matter.
According to a study by the
St. Louis Federal Reserve , the white working class accounted for 45% of all income earned in the United States in 1990, but
only 27% in 2016. In those same years, its share of national wealth plummeted, from 45% to 22%. And as inflation-adjusted wages have
decreased for
men without college degrees, many white workers seem to have
lost hope of success of
any sort. Paradoxically, the sense of failure and the accompanying stress may be greater for white workers precisely because they
traditionally were much
better off economically than their African American and Hispanic counterparts.
In addition, the fraying of communities knit together by employment in once-robust factories and mines has increased
social isolation
among them, and the evidence that it -- along with
opioid addiction and
alcohol abuse -- increases the risk of suicide
is strong . On top of that,
a significantly higher proportion of
whites than blacks and Hispanics own firearms, and suicide rates are markedly higher in states where gun
ownership is more widespread.
Trump's Faux Populism
The large increase in suicide within the white working class began a couple of decades before Donald Trump's election. Still,
it's reasonable to ask what he's tried to do about it, particularly since votes from these Americans helped propel him to the White
House. In 2016, he received
64% of the votes of whites without college degrees; Hillary Clinton, only 28%. Nationwide, he beat Clinton in
counties where deaths of despair rose significantly between 2000 and 2015.
White workers will remain crucial to Trump's chances of winning in 2020. Yet while he has spoken about, and initiated steps aimed
at reducing, the high suicide rate among
veterans , his speeches and tweets have never highlighted the national suicide epidemic or its inordinate impact on white workers.
More importantly, to the extent that economic despair contributes to their high suicide rate, his policies will only make matters
worse.
The real benefits from the December 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act championed by the president and congressional Republicans flowed
to those on the top steps of the economic ladder. By 2027, when the Act's provisions will run out, the wealthiest Americans are expected
to have captured
81.8% of the gains. And that's not counting the windfall they received from recent changes in taxes on inheritances. Trump and
the GOP
doubled the annual amount exempt from estate taxes -- wealth bequeathed to heirs -- through 2025 from $5.6 million per individual
to $11.2 million (or $22.4 million per couple). And who benefits most from this act of generosity? Not workers, that's for sure,
but every household with an estate worth $22 million or more will.
As for job retraining provided by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the president
proposed
cutting that program by 40% in his 2019 budget, later settling for keeping it at 2017 levels. Future cuts seem in the cards as
long as Trump is in the White House. The Congressional Budget Office
projects that his tax cuts alone will produce even bigger budget
deficits in the years to come. (The shortfall last year was
$779 billion and it is expected to
reach $1 trillion by 2020.) Inevitably, the president and congressional Republicans will then demand additional reductions in spending
for social programs.
This is all the more likely because Trump and those Republicans also
slashed corporate taxes
from 35% to 21% -- an estimated
$1.4
trillion in savings for corporations over the next decade. And unlike the income tax cut, the corporate tax has
no end
date . The president assured his base that the big bucks those companies had stashed abroad would start flowing home and produce
a wave of job creation -- all without adding to the deficit. As it happens, however, most of that repatriated cash has been used
for corporate stock buy-backs, which totaled more than
$800 billion last year. That, in turn, boosted share prices, but didn't exactly rain money down on workers. No surprise, of course,
since the wealthiest 10% of Americans own at least
84% of all stocks and the bottom
60% have less than
2% of them.
And the president's corporate tax cut hasn't produced the tsunami of job-generating investments he predicted either. Indeed, in
its aftermath, more than 80% of American
companies stated that their plans for investment and hiring hadn't changed. As a result, the monthly increase in jobs has proven
unremarkable compared to President Obama's
second term, when the economic recovery that Trump largely inherited began. Yes, the economy did grow
2.3%
in 2017 and
2.9% in 2018 (though not
3.1% as the president claimed). There wasn't, however, any "unprecedented economic boom -- a boom that has rarely been seen before"
as he insisted in this year's State of the Union
Address .
Anyway, what matters for workers struggling to get by is growth in real wages, and there's nothing to celebrate on that front:
between 2017 and mid-2018 they actually
declined by 1.63% for white workers and 2.5% for African Americans, while they rose for Hispanics by a measly 0.37%. And though
Trump insists that his beloved tariff hikes are going to help workers, they will actually raise the prices of goods, hurting the
working class and other low-income Americans
the most .
Then there are the obstacles those susceptible to suicide face in receiving insurance-provided mental-health care. If you're a
white worker without medical coverage or have a policy with a deductible and co-payments that are high and your income, while low,
is too high to qualify for Medicaid, Trump and the GOP haven't done anything for you. Never mind the president's
tweet proclaiming that "the Republican Party Will Become 'The Party of Healthcare!'"
Let me amend that: actually, they have done something. It's just not what you'd call helpful. The
percentage of uninsured
adults, which fell from 18% in 2013 to 10.9% at the end of 2016, thanks in no small measure to
Obamacare , had risen to 13.7% by the end of last year.
The bottom line? On a problem that literally has life-and-death significance for a pivotal portion of his base, Trump has been
AWOL. In fact, to the extent that economic strain contributes to the alarming suicide rate among white workers, his policies are
only likely to exacerbate what is already a national crisis of epidemic proportions.
Trump is running on the claim that he's turned the economy around; addressing suicide undermines this (false) claim. To state
the obvious, NC readers know that Trump is incapable of caring about anyone or anything beyond his in-the-moment interpretation
of his self-interest.
Not just Trump. Most of the Republican Party and much too many Democrats have also abandoned this base, otherwise known as
working class Americans.
The economic facts are near staggering and this article has done a nice job of summarizing these numbers that are spread out
across a lot of different sites.
I've experienced this rise within my own family and probably because of that fact I'm well aware that Trump is only a symptom
of an entire political system that has all but abandoned it's core constituency, the American Working Class.
Yep It's not just Trump. The author mentions this, but still focuses on him for some reason. Maybe accurately attributing the
problems to a failed system makes people feel more hopeless. Current nihilists in Congress make it their duty to destroy once
helpful institutions in the name of "fiscal responsibility," i.e., tax cuts for corporate elites.
I'd assumed, the "working class" had dissappeared, back during Reagan's Miracle? We'd still see each other, sitting dazed on
porches & stoops of rented old places they'd previously; trying to garden, fix their car while smoking, drinking or dazed on something?
Those able to morph into "middle class" lives, might've earned substantially less, especially benefits and retirement package
wise. But, a couple decades later, it was their turn, as machines and foreigners improved productivity. You could lease a truck
to haul imported stuff your kids could sell to each other, or help robots in some warehouse, but those 80s burger flipping, rent-a-cop
& repo-man gigs dried up. Your middle class pals unemployable, everybody in PayDay Loan debt (without any pay day in sight?) SHTF
Bug-out bags� & EZ Credit Bushmasters began showing up at yard sales, even up North. Opioids became the religion of the proletariat
Whites simply had much farther to fall, more equity for our betters to steal. And it was damned near impossible to get the cops
to shoot you?
Man, this just ain't turning out as I'd hoped. Need coffee!
We especially love the euphemism "Deaths O' Despair." since it works so well on a Chyron, especially supered over obese crackers
waddling in crusty MossyOak� Snuggies�
This is a very good article, but I have a comment about the section titled, "The Race Enigma." I think the key to understanding
why African Americans have a lower suicide rate lies in understanding the sociological notion of community, and the related concept
Emil Durkheim called social solidarity. This sense of solidarity and community among African Americans stands in contrast to the
"There is no such thing as society" neoliberal zeitgeist that in fact produces feelings of extreme isolation, failure, and self-recriminations.
An aside: as a white boy growing up in 1950s-60s Detroit I learned that if you yearned for solidarity and community what you had
to do was to hang out with black people.
" if you yearned for solidarity and community what you had to do was to hang out with black people."
amen, to that. in my case rural black people.
and I'll add Hispanics to that.
My wife's extended Familia is so very different from mine.
Solidarity/Belonging is cool.
I recommend it.
on the article we keep the scanner on("local news").we had a 3-4 year rash of suicides and attempted suicides(determined by chisme,
or deduction) out here.
all of them were despair related more than half correlated with meth addiction itself a despair related thing.
ours were equally male/female, and across both our color spectrum.
that leaves economics/opportunity/just being able to get by as the likely cause.
Actually, in the article it states:
"There are gender-based differences as well. From 1999 to 2017, the rate for men was substantially higher than for women -- almost
four-and-a-half times higher in the first of those years, slightly more than three-and-a-half times in the last."
which in some sense makes despair the wrong word, as females are actually quite a bit more likely to be depressed for instance,
but much less likely to "do the deed". Despair if we mean a certain social context maybe, but not just a psychological state.
Suicide deaths are a function of the suicide attempt rate and the efficacy of the method used. A unique aspect of the US is
the prevalence of guns in the society and therefore the greatly increased usage of them in suicide attempts compared to other
countries. Guns are a very efficient way of committing suicide with a very high "success" rate. As of 2010, half of US suicides
were using a gun as opposed to other countries with much lower percentages. So if the US comes even close to other countries in
suicide rates then the US will surpass them in deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Firearms
Now we can add in opiates, especially fentanyl, that can be quite effective as well.
The economic crisis hitting middle America over the past 30 years has been quite focused on the states and populations that
also tend to have high gun ownership rates. So suicide attempts in those populations have a high probability of "success".
I would just take this opportunity to add that the police end up getting called in to prevent on lot of suicide attempts, and
just about every successful one.
In the face of so much blanket demonization of the police, along with justified criticism, it's important to remember that.
As someone who works in the mental health treatment system, acute inpatient psychiatry to be specific, I can say that of the
25 inpatients currently here, 11 have been here before, multiple times. And this is because of several issues, in my experience:
inadequate inpatient resources, staff burnout, inadequate support once they leave the hospital, and the nature of their illnesses.
It's a grim picture here and it's been this way for YEARS. Until MAJOR money is spent on this issue it's not going to get better.
This includes opening more facilities for people to live in long term, instead of closing them, which has been the trend I've
seen.
One last thing the CEO wants "asses in beds", aka census, which is the money maker. There's less profit if people get better
and don't return. And I guess I wouldn't have a job either. Hmmmm: sickness generates wealth.
"... I see a lot of people saying, "They should just move to where the jobs are." 1) They would need accurate and defined information about where the jobs are that are looking for their skills 2) They would need some money to get there 3) They would need a place to stay and the rents and mortages are sky high 'where the jobs are' 4) They would have to be welcome. Two previous mass migrations within the USA come to mind: Black Americans out of the South and the dust bowl migrations to California. They were not welcomed with "open arms". ..."
"... I think the author understates the importance of Corporations being Good Citizens and Good Persons. ..."
"... My father was selected to go to Akron for training and if he passed the tests and did well in the training he might get a chance at Managing a Firestone Store. He was gone for weeks at a time for this process and was even required to go to Akron for more training after becoming a store manager. My father was an intelligent person but did not have a college degree. But I can see now that Firestone did an outstanding job training their store managers in all aspects of the job. Just think about that for a while. ..."
"... Corporations today hate themselves because its only about the money. I guess the point I am trying to make is this loss of Corporate Responsibility to the Nation and its Citizens was something that did exist but is now long gone. ..."
"... All across the West you can find old ghost towns. Towns that flourished until the gold or silver ran out of the local hill. The towns then were deserted. The similar thing can happen when a major employer runs out of "gold'. What the article ignores is all of the other reasons towns die. ..."
"... I would much rather rural stay rural and not become urban. There is more to the quality of life than a constant red hot economy. ..."
"... "The schools go to hell, the crime goes way up, liberals get elected and raise taxes, etc." One only needs to look at Kansas to see that this sentence is flawed. It needs to be changed and re-ordered to properly represent cause and effect. "Conservatives cut taxes, the schools go to hell, the crime goes way up, etc." ..."
"... The days of being qualified for good, well paying work without having more than a mediocre high school are in the past. This doesn't necessarily mean college because the trades require more education than ever before. Cutting school funding to pay for tax cuts is a loser's game. Trickle down economics has failed. ..."
I recently read and reviewed Tim Carney's
excellent book Alienated America , a sort of combination of the "how we got Trump" genre with the sociological works of
researchers like Robert Putnam and Charles Murray. Carney's exploration of the Trump phenomenon, and his grappling with the timeless
question of economic security versus personal responsibility in regard to the formation of virtue, family, and community, are among
the best you'll find. There is a deeper subtext in his book, however, that is not excavated. But first, a quick recap.
As in most treatments of inequality, geographic immobility, deindustrialization, and related issues, Alienated America
features the requisite visits to faded old towns with ghostly main streets, and paeans to the blue-collar jobs that once allowed
men with high school educations to comfortably own homes, raise families, and retire with pensions.
Through a long analysis, including a fascinating visit to a fracking camp in North Dakota -- awash in money but utterly lacking
in neighborliness and community -- Carney concludes that wealth alone does not produce human flourishing. It is rather community
and what social researchers call "civil society" that makes the American Dream possible. Obviously, money helps, but it is not sufficient,
nor, in Carney's telling, even necessary.
... ... ...
Indeed,
large
numbers of human settlements never do, and never have . A one-dimensional, economically undiversified city is essentially a housing
tract for a factory or a wharf or whatever industry drives its economy. What is left when that economic engine breaks down? A company
town without a company. This is the fate that has befallen many of America's declining places, and it is hard to argue that this
economic reality doesn't play a direct role in the decline of the family and of civil society. Is this a "materialist" explanation?
Perhaps. But it may also be true.
There are those who
admirably hope and work
for revival, for restoration in places like Gary, Detroit, or any number of gutted small towns. But many of the buildings in
these ghostly, empty blocks, even with their mighty and almost pleasantly timeworn facades, are far beyond the point where renovation
is economical. For now, poverty is a sort of preservative. More money, for many hollowed-out cities, would simply mean more demolition.
The unwinding of rural and post-industrial America is a human tragedy, not to be written off, much less tacitly celebrated. Yet the
facts of the post-industrial landscape may not care about remaining working-class feelings. This does not mean that any of these
places "
deserve to die ." But it may well mean that their collapse is beyond the ability of policy -- or church -- to alter.
Addison Del Mastro is assistant editor of The American Conservative . He tweets at@ad_mastro.
Interesting and probably spot on. It doesn't take a degree in economics or history to understand how prosperity came and went;
a passing knowledge of the 20th century will suffice. Dating back to the '20s we experienced a classic example of the boom/bust
cycle, with the bust of the 30s lasting basically the entire decade. The good times rwith the onset of WWII and continued afterward
because we, of all the major combatant nations, actually experienced minimal economic, social, and cultural disruption. The devastation
elsewhere was sufficient to provide us a head-start worth a couple decades of strong growth. It wound down around the beginning
of the 70s, coincident with the end of the Vietnam War. We retained some strong advantages, though, and they were sufficient to
provide more growth – on paper at least – even as today's yawning income-distribution gap began to open up. The the Cold War ended
and the days of free-trade saving the world (aka 'Globalism') commenced. It seemed great for awhile but now we're left holding
an empty bag and the rest of the world has sidelined our old industrial workforce through off-shoring for the sake of cheaper
labor. Nope, there's no turning back.
Re: The revival of the American Dream requires the re-churching of America.
Maybe, but it also requires jobs paying a living wage that offer a reasonable degree of long-term security (It's the latter
is lacking in short-lived fracking boom towns)
Having lived in the inner Chicago burbs since the mid 1970's I have watched Chicago turn from being an industrial powerhouse to
a have and have not economy. If you're working in professional/service sector or part of the management of multinational globalist
activity you're doing reasonably well. What's swept under the rug is that Chicago and their ilk hide the vast swaths of decayed
blight and human warehousing with pretty downtown / privileged few neighborhoods. Most of our once great second city serves little
purpose other than to provide housing for the poverty class. So called "Revitalization" only provides window dressing for the
parade of the chosen few.
Prior to living in Chicago, my folks lived in a small city in western IL that was a poster child for the small town decay referred
to above that Mr. Williamson thinks should die.
The town was famous for their productivity. Civic pride was evident in most all aspects of community life there. A major steel
mill anchored the economy as well as numerous smaller hardware manufacturers. The steel mill went belly up, the hardware manufacturers
became distributors of Asian made goods.
The gravy train just dried up. Times aren't so good now for the town that holds so many fond memories for me. Progress. I guess.
"Americans are the descendants of people who crossed oceans and continents for a better life, why are Americans who live
in this dying towns so different? I just don't get it."
Because there is no longer a place with a better life. People left families and homes because life could be dramatically better
someplace else.
An unemployed steel-worker used to making $60,000/year in a $100,000 house isn't going to find life somehow better making $8/hour
as a barista in San Francisco with a $2000/month rent.
I see a lot of people saying, "They should just move to where the jobs are."
1) They would need accurate and defined information about where the jobs are that are looking for their skills
2) They would need some money to get there
3) They would need a place to stay and the rents and mortages are sky high 'where the jobs are'
4) They would have to be welcome. Two previous mass migrations within the USA come to mind: Black Americans out of the South and
the dust bowl migrations to California. They were not welcomed with "open arms".
First let me say that I agree with the author almost 90+%. But I think the author understates the importance of Corporations
being Good Citizens and Good Persons. That is clearly what has happened to America. As the son of a former Firestone Store
Manager, I can attest that Firestone trained all of their store managers in Akron, OH.
My father was selected to go to Akron for training and if he passed the tests and did well in the training he might get
a chance at Managing a Firestone Store. He was gone for weeks at a time for this process and was even required to go to Akron
for more training after becoming a store manager. My father was an intelligent person but did not have a college degree. But I
can see now that Firestone did an outstanding job training their store managers in all aspects of the job. Just think about that
for a while.
The Company cared what the Company looked like everywhere, not just in Akron, OH. There was almost no turnover in my father's
store of employees. He was finally burnt out from dealing with the public in retail sales but they promoted him to District Manager
a job that he kept till he passed away. No employer today gives a crap about any employee or any client. Of course you can't learn
to love someone else till you learn to love yourself. Corporations today hate themselves because its only about the money.
I guess the point I am trying to make is this loss of Corporate Responsibility to the Nation and its Citizens was something that
did exist but is now long gone.
While some will surely say I am crazy, I strongly believe that a very high progressive tax rate on individuals and corporations
would help to change this attitude and at least get money into circulation. We also have to remove the corrupt and criminal group
that has taken over the US Corporations and with that the Governments both National and Local or the US is doomed.
All across the West you can find old ghost towns. Towns that flourished until the gold or silver ran out of the local hill.
The towns then were deserted. The similar thing can happen when a major employer runs out of "gold'. What the article ignores
is all of the other reasons towns die.
The schools go to hell, the crime goes way up, liberals get elected and raise taxes, etc. A town can survive with a big company
leaving, but if all of the social factors cause the best, brightest and hardest working people to pull up roots and leave, maybe
the town didn't die, it committed suicide.
I would much rather rural stay rural and not become urban. There is more to the quality of life than a constant red hot
economy. And really, today, many rural areas are more rural than they were a generation ago. Yes, farms are bigger and so
there are fewer people on more land and so many small rural towns have dried up. Personally, I love it. More room to hunt and
fish, less hectic, more fresh air, and more freedom.
"The schools go to hell, the crime goes way up, liberals get elected and raise taxes, etc." One only needs to look at
Kansas to see that this sentence is flawed. It needs to be changed and re-ordered to properly represent cause and effect. "Conservatives
cut taxes, the schools go to hell, the crime goes way up, etc."
The days of being qualified for good, well paying work
without having more than a mediocre high school are in the past. This doesn't necessarily mean college because the trades require
more education than ever before. Cutting school funding to pay for tax cuts is a loser's game. Trickle down economics has failed.
As is usual, the headline economic number is always the
rosiest number .
Wages for production and nonsupervisory workers accelerated to a 3.4 percent annual pace,
signaling gains for lower-paid employees.
That sounds pretty good. Except for the part where it is a lie. For starters, it doesn't account for
inflation .
Labor Department numbers released Wednesday show that real average hourly earnings, which
compare the nominal rise in wages with the cost of living, rose 1.7 percent in January on a
year-over-year basis.
1.7% is a lot less than 3.4%. While the financial news was bullish, the
actual professionals took the news differently.
Wage inflation was also muted with average hourly earnings rising six cents, or 0.2% in April
after rising by the same margin in March. Average hourly earnings "were disappointing," said Ian Lyngen, head of U.S. rates strategy at
BMO Capital Markets in New York.
Secondly, 1.7% is an average, not a median.
For instance, none of this applied to you if you are an
older
worker .
Weekly earnings for workers aged 55 to 64 were only 0.8% higher in the first quarter of 2019
than they were in the first quarter of 2007, after accounting for inflation, they found.
For comparison, earnings rose 4.7% during that same period for workers between the ages of 35
and 54.
On the other hand, if you worked for a
bank your wages went up at a rate far above average. This goes double if you are in
management.
Among the biggest standouts: commercial banks, which employ an estimated 1.3 million people in
the U.S. Since Trump took office in January 2017, they have increased their average hourly wage
at an annualized pace of almost 11 percent, compared with just 3.3 percent under Obama.
Finally, there is the reason for this incredibly small wage increase fo regular workers.
Hint: it wasn't because of capitalism and all the bullsh*t jobs it creates.
The tiny wage increase that the working class has seen is because of what the capitalists said
was a
terrible idea .
For Americans living in the 21 states where the federal minimum wage is binding, inflation
means that the minimum wage has lost 16 percent of its purchasing power.
But elsewhere, many workers and employers are experiencing a minimum wage well above 2009
levels. That's because state capitols and, to an unprecedented degree, city halls have become
far more active in setting their own minimum wages. ... Averaging across all of these federal, state and local minimum wage laws, the effective minimum
wage in the United States -- the average minimum wage binding each hour of minimum wage work --
will be $11.80 an hour in 2019. Adjusted for inflation, this is probably the highest minimum
wage in American history. The effective minimum wage has not only outpaced inflation in recent years, but it has also
grown faster than typical wages. We can see this from the Kaitz index, which compares the
minimum wage with median overall wages.
So if you are waiting for capitalism to trickle down on you, it's never going to happen.
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 05/03/2019 - 6:21pm
Thousands of South Carolina teachers rallied outside their state capitol Wednesday, demanding
pay raises, more planning time, increased school funding -- and, in a twist, more legal
protections for their freedom of speech SC for Ed, the grassroots activist group that organized Wednesday's demonstration, told CNN
that many teachers fear protesting or speaking up about education issues, worrying they'll
face retaliation at work. Saani Perry, a teacher in Fort Mill, S.C., told CNN that people in
his profession are "expected to sit in the classroom and stay quiet and not speak [their]
mind."
To address these concerns, SC for Ed is lobbying for the Teachers' Freedom of Speech Act,
which was introduced earlier this year in the state House of Representatives. The bill would
specify that "a public school district may not willfully transfer, terminate or fail to renew
the contract of a teacher because the teacher has publicly or privately supported a public
policy decision of any kind." If that happens, teachers would be able to sue for three times
their salary.
Teachers across the country are raising similar concerns about retaliation. Such fears
aren't unfounded: Lawmakers in some states that saw strikes last year have introduced bills
this year that would punish educators for skipping school to protest.
Millennial and generation Z workers are becoming increasingly miserable with their jobs and careers. Since we are told several
times a day by the media that the economy is booming, why are so many young workers so disastrously melancholy all the time?
"When you're struggling with your mental health it can be much harder to stay in work or manage your spending, while being
in debt can cause huge stress and anxiety � so the two issues feed off each other, creating a vicious cycle which can destroy
lives," said Helen Undy the institute's chief executive.
"Yet despite how connected these problems are, financial services rarely think about our mental health, and mental health
services rarely consider what is happening with our money."
So why are we constantly being told everything is fine? The mainstream media loves to say that the U.S. is nearly ten years into
one of the longest economic expansions in history, unemployment is the lowest it's been in almost half a century, and employees have
more job choices than they've had in years. But there's just one problem. That's not actual truthful when taking all of the data
into consideration. Sure, unemployment is low the way the government calculates it, but there's a reason for that.
102 million Americans are no longer "in the workforce" and therefore, unaccounted for.
When a working-age American does not have a job, the federal number crunchers put them into one of two different categories.
Either they are categorized as "unemployed" or they are categorized as "not in the labor force".
But you have to add both of those categories together to get the total number of Americans that are not working.
Over the last decade, the number of Americans that are in the "unemployed" category has been steadily going down, but the number
of Americans "not in the labor force" has been rapidly going up.
In both cases we are talking about Americans that do not have a job. It is just a matter of how the federal government chooses
to categorize those individuals. �
Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog
That could partially explain the misery some are feeling, but those who have jobs aren't happy either. They are often reeling
from student loan and credit card debt. Being depressed makes shopping feel like a solution, but when the bill comes, the depression
once again sets in making this a difficult cycle to break for so many just trying to scrape by.
Depression and suicide rates are rising sharply
and other than putting the blame on superficial issues, researchers are at a loss as to the real reason why. But could it possibly
be that as the elite globalists continue to take over the world and enslave mankind, people are realizing that they aren't meant
to be controlled or manipulated, but meant to be free?
There's something we are all missing all around the globe. Could it possibly be free will and a life of freedom from theft and
violent coercion and force that's missing?
When even your own article lies to everyone... so the modern person that does well are those who lie the best and are the best
con artists. Trump is an example. Low talent High con.
Example the US unemployment number.
Only the pool of unemployed that is Presently eligible for unemployment benefits is counted in the Unemployment number. That
means self employed, commissioned workers, contractors etc are not included in the pool of unemployment even if they are out of
work because they are unemployment ineligible.
Thus, over time, as unemployment benefits are lost, the unemployment pool shrinks. This is called a mathematical regression.
How far does it shrink? To the point of equilibrium which is roughly 4% in which new persons enter the work force to the same
extent of those losing benefits and being removed and become invisible.
Thus, Unemployment is a bogus number grossly understating truthful Unemployment. This method was first used under Obama and
persists today under the Orange poser.
Nepotism and Affirmative action
Why would this make people unhappy? Chronic underemployment. Advancement is mostly by nepotism or affirmative action the flip
side of the same coin. The incoming Harvard Class this year was 30% legacy student... and 30% affirmative action and the rest
be damned. Happy?
Feminism has gripped the workplace.
Men hate working for female bosses. They don't trust them, they don't trust their judgment which often looks political and
never logical. Men feel those women were promoted because of gender.
I saw this years ago in a clean room at National Semiconductor. A woman was put in charge of a team of roughly 30 white nerd
males. She was at them constantly for not locking doors behind them and other menial infractions. She could not comprehend the
complexity of the work or how inspiration operates but she would nag them and bully them.
At another facility there was a genius that would come to work and set up a sleeping bag and go to sleep under his desk. He
was a Unix programmer and system engineer. So when something went wrong they would wake him and he would get up, solve the problem
and go back to sleep.
Then the overstuffed string of pearls showed up as the new unit boss. She was infuriated that somebody would dare sleep on
the clock and so blatantly. So she would harass him and wake him. Then one day she got so mad she started kicking him while he
was sleeping. He grabbed his sleeping bag and briefcase and stormed out.
Ultimately the woman's boss took her to task and explained to her that it didn't matter if that employee slept under his desk
because when he worked to solve problems only he could solve he saved the company millions. She was fired. As a token stipulation
the sleeping genius came back and a sign was posted on his desk. "Kicking this employee is grounds for immediate dismissal."
Usually the nerd walks and just gets replaced by some diversity politician and string of pearls then sets the tone by making
the workplace ****. Women simply are not as intelligent as men and pretending they are just wrecks morale of the people who are
really intelligent. The rise of the shoulder padded woman string of pearls bully is a scourge to one and all.
Simple answer: because people are spineless and terrible negotiators.
Long answer: for years the adage has been "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" or "find a good job and
never leave" or "work your way to the top" or "be a hard worker, trust your leadership, keep your head down, and don't make waves."
********.
If you do what you love, you'll learn to hate it. Welcome to misery.
Upward mobility doesn't happen unless you leave. If you're a good little productive worker drone, management has no incentive
to give you more than 1-3% raises every year to keep you 'loyal.' Once you've wasted 20 or so years being a robot, welcome to
misery.
Nobody gets promoted unless you're a useless ***-kisser who fails to be productive and hasn't done anything egregious enough
to get canned. Once you've been passed by for that promotion you want enough times, welcome to misery.
The people making the decisions at the top are the useless ***-kissers that can't do what you do but they talk a good game.
Most of them are case studies in the Peter Principle. Once you realize that the 'top' consists of nothing but fuckwads, welcome
to misery.
The only way to get ahead and get what you want out of a career is to develop the skills you need and market yourself top someone
who'll pay you what you're worth.
Develop strong negotiation skills early, know your market value, and don't be afraid of change.
Employer loyalty is a farce; if you think your employer is loyal to you, I've got some oceanfront property in New Mexico to
sell you.
The New York Times has an
illuminating article today summarizing recent research on the gender effects of
mandatory overwork in professional jobs. Lawyers, people in finance and other
client-centered occupations are increasingly required to be available round-the-clock, with
50-60 or more hours of work per week the norm. Among other costs, the impact on wage inequality
between men and women is severe. Since women are largely saddled with primary responsibility
for child care, even when couples ostensibly embrace equality on a theoretical level, the
workaholic jobs are allocated to men. This shows up in dramatic differences between typical
male and female career paths. The article doesn't discuss comparable issues in working class
employment, but availability for last-minute changes in work schedules and similar demands are
likely to impact men and women differentially as well.
What the article doesn't point out is that the situation it describes is a classic prisoners
dilemma.* Consider law firms. They compete for clients, and clients prefer attorneys who are
available on call, always prepared and willing to adjust to whatever schedule the client throws
at them. Assume that most lawyers want sane, predictable work hours if they are offered without
a severe penalty in pay. If law firms care about the well-being of their employees but also
about profits, we have all the ingredients to construct a standard PD payoff matrix:
There is a penalty to unilateral cooperation, cutting work hours back to a work-life balance
level. If your firm does it and the others don't, you lose clients to them.
There is a benefit to unilateral defection. If everyone else is cutting hours but you don't,
you scoop up the lion's share of the clients.
Mutual cooperation is preferred to mutual defection. Law firms, we are assuming, would
prefer a world in which overwork was removed from the contest for competitive advantage. They
would compete for clients as before, but none would require their staff to put in soul-crushing
hours. The alternative equilibrium, in which competition is still on the basis of the quality
of work but everyone is on call 24/7 is inferior.
If the game is played once, mutual defection dominates. If it is played repeatedly there is
a possibility for mutual cooperation to establish itself, but only under favorable conditions
(which apparently don't exist in the world of NY law firms). The logical solution is some
form of binding regulation.
The reason for bringing this up is that it strengthens the case for collective action rather
than placing all the responsibility on individuals caught in the system, including for that
matter individual law firms. Or, the responsibility is political, to demand constraints on the
entire industry. One place to start would be something like France's
right-to-disconnect law .
*I haven't read the studies by economists and sociologists cited in the article, but I
suspect many of them make the same point I'm making here.
The neoliberal war on labor in the USA is real. And it is especially real for It folk over 50. No country for the old
men, so to speak...
Notable quotes:
"... Obviously you need a financial cushion to not be earning for months and to pay for the training courses. ..."
"... Yeah, people get set in their ways and resistant to make changes. Steve Jobs talked about people developing grooves in their brain and how important it is to force yourself out of these grooves.* ..."
"... Your thoughts construct patterns like scaffolding in your mind. You are really etching chemical patterns. In most cases, people get stuck in those patterns, just like grooves in a record, and they never get out of them. ..."
"... The brain is like a muscle, it needs to be constantly worked to become strong. If you waste it watching football or looking at porn your brain will atrophy like the muscles of a person in a wheelchair. ..."
"... IBEW (licensed electricians) has no upper age limit for apprentices They have lots of American engineers who applied in their 30s after realizing most companies want diverse HI-B engineers. ..."
"... At 40+, I still can learn advanced mathematics as well as I ever did. In fact, I can still compete with the Chinese 20 year olds. The problem is not mental horsepower, it's time and energy. I rarely have time to concentrate these days (wife, kids, pets), which makes it hard to get the solid hours of prime mental time required to really push yourself at a hard pace and learn advanced material. ..."
"... That's a huge key and I discovered it when I was asked to tutor people who were failing chemistry. I quickly discovered that all it took for most of them to "get it" was to keep approaching the problem from different angles until a light came on for them and for me the challenge of finding the right approach was a great motivator. Invariably it was some minor issue and once they overcame that, it became easy for them. I'm still astonished at that to this day. ..."
"... Sorry man, English teaching is huge, and will remain so for some time to come. I'm heavily involved in the area and know plenty of ESL teachers. Spain for me, and the level of English here is still so dreadful and they all need it, the demand is staggering and their schools suck at teaching it themselves. ..."
"... You have to really dislike your circumstances in the US to leave and be willing to find some way to get by overseas. ..."
"... We already saw this in South Africa. Mandela took over, the country went down the tubes, the wealthy whites left and the Boers were left to die in refugee camps. They WANT to leave and a few went to Russia, but most developed countries don't want them. Not with the limited amount of money they have. ..."
"... Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country except for blacks and rednecks I have met in the Philippines who were stationed there in the military and have a $1000 a month check. Many of them live in more dangerous and dirty internal third worlds in America than what they can have in Southeast Asia and a good many would be homeless. They are worldly enough to leave. ..."
" He's 28 years old getting too old and soft for the entry-level grunt work in the
skilled trades as well. What then?"
I know a UK guy (ex City type) who retrained as an electrician in his early 50s.
Competent guy. Obviously no one would take him on as an apprentice, so he wired up all his
outbuildings as his project to get his certificate. But he's getting work now, word gets
around if you're any good.
Obviously you need a financial cushion to not be earning for months and to pay for the
training courses.
Yeah, people get set in their ways and resistant to make changes. Steve Jobs talked about
people developing grooves in their brain and how important it is to force yourself out of
these grooves.*
I know a Haitian immigrant without a college degree who was working three jobs and then
dropped down to two jobs and went to school part time in his late 40's and earned his degree
in engineering and is a now an engineer in his early 50's.
*From Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson (Simon and Schuster, 2011), pp.330-331:
"It's rare that you see an artist in his 30s or 40s able to really contribute something
amazing," Jobs said wistfully to the writer David Sheff, who published a long and intimate
interview in Playboy the month he turned thirty. "Of course, there are some people who are
innately curious, forever little kids in their awe of life, but they're rare." The
interview touched on many subjects, but Jobs's most poignant ruminations were about growing
old and facing the future:
Your thoughts construct patterns like scaffolding in your mind. You are really
etching chemical patterns. In most cases, people get stuck in those patterns, just like
grooves in a record, and they never get out of them.
I'll always stay connected with Apple. I hope that throughout my life I'll sort of
have the thread of my life and the thread of Apple weave in and out of each other, like a
tapestry. There may be a few years when I'm not there, but I'll always come back. . .
.
If you want to live your life in a creative way, as an artist, you have to not look
back too much. You have to be willing to take whatever you've done and whoever you were and
throw them away.
The more the outside world tries to reinforce an image of you, the harder it is to
continue to be an artist, which is why a lot of times, artists have to say, "Bye. I have to
go. I'm going crazy and I'm getting out of here." And they go and hibernate somewhere.
Maybe later they re-emerge a little differently.
"fluid intelligence" starts crystallizing after your 20's". Nonsense, I had
a great deal of trouble learning anything from my teen years and 20's because I didn't know
how to learn. I went for 30 years and eventually figured out a learning style that worked for
me. I have learned more and mastered more skills in the past ten years ages 49-59 than I had
in the previous 30.
You can challenge yourself like I did and after a while of doing this (6 months) you will
find it a lot easier to learn and comprehend than you did previously. (This is true only if
you haven't damaged your brain from years of smoking and drinking). I constantly challenged
myself with trying to learn math that I had trouble with in school and eventually mastered
it.
The brain is like a muscle, it needs to be constantly worked to become strong. If you waste it watching football or looking at porn your brain will atrophy like the
muscles of a person in a wheelchair.
IBEW (licensed electricians) has no upper age limit for apprentices They have lots of
American engineers who applied in their 30s after realizing most companies want diverse HI-B
engineers.
Upper age limits for almost every occupation disappeared decades ago in America because of
age discrimination laws.
I can't see how any 28 year old could possibly be too soft to go into any kind of manual
labor job.
@anonymous
Yeah, there was a recent study showing that 70 year olds can form neural connections as
quickly as teenagers.
At 40+, I still can learn advanced mathematics as well as I ever did. In fact, I can still
compete with the Chinese 20 year olds. The problem is not mental horsepower, it's time and
energy. I rarely have time to concentrate these days (wife, kids, pets), which makes it hard
to get the solid hours of prime mental time required to really push yourself at a hard pace
and learn advanced material.
This is why the Chinese are basically out of date when they are 30, their companies assume
that they have kids and are not able to give 110% anymore.
eventually figured out a learning style that worked for me.
That's a huge key and I discovered it when I was asked to tutor people who were failing
chemistry. I quickly discovered that all it took for most of them to "get it" was to keep
approaching the problem from different angles until a light came on for them and for me the
challenge of finding the right approach was a great motivator. Invariably it was some minor
issue and once they overcame that, it became easy for them. I'm still astonished at that to
this day.
The brain is like a muscle, it needs to be constantly worked to become strong. If you
waste it watching football or looking at porn your brain will atrophy like the muscles of a
person in a wheelchair.
Yeah. He's 28 years old and apparently his chosen skillset is teaching
EASL in foreign countries. That sector is shrinking as English becomes the global lingua
franca and is taught in elementary schools worldwide. He's really too old and soft for his
Plan B (military), and getting too old and soft for the entry-level grunt work in the skilled
trades as well. What then?
do you know anything first hand about the teaching- english- as-a- second- language
hustle?
Asking sincerely – as I don't know anything about it. However I kinda suspect that
'native speakers' will be in demand in many parts of the globe for some time to come [as an
aside – and maybe Linh has written of this and I missed it – but last spring I
was in Saigon for a couple of weeks and, hanging out one day at the zoo & museum complex,
was startled to see about three groups of Vietnamese primary-school students being led around
by americans in their early 20s, narrating everything in american english . Apparently
private schools offering entirely english-language curriculum are the big hit with the middle
& upper class elite there. Perhaps more of the same elsewhere in the region?]
At any rate the young man in this interview has a lot more in the way of qualifications
and skill sets than I had when I left the States 35 years ago, and I've done just fine. I'd
advise any prospective expats to get that TEFL certificate as it's one extra thing to have in
your back pocket and who knows?
PS: "It really can't be overstated how blessed you are to have American citizenship"
– well, yes it can. Everyone knows that the best passport on earth is from Northwest Euroland, one of those places with free university education and free health care and where
teenage mothers don't daily keel over dead from heroin overdoses in Dollar Stores .. Also
more places visa-free
When
you left the States 35 years ago, the world was 3 billion people smaller. The labor market
has gotten a tad more competitive. I don't see any indication of a trade or other refined
skillset in this article.
People who teach EASL for a living are like people who drive cars for a living: you don't
do it because you're really good at teaching your native language, you do it because
you're not marketable at anything else.
I think being Australian is the best citizenry you can have. The country is far from
perfect, but any lower middle class American white like myself would prefer to be lower
middle class there than in Detroit or Phoenix, where being lower income means life around the
unfettered urban underclass that is paranoia inducing.
Being from the US is not as bad as being Bangladeshi, but if you had to be white and urban
and poor you'd be better off in Sydney than Flint.
The most patriotic Americans have never been anywhere, so they have no idea whether
Australia or Tokyo are better. They have never traveled.
Yeah. He's 28 years old and apparently his chosen skillset is teaching
EASL in foreign countries. That sector is shrinking as English becomes the global lingua
franca and is taught in elementary schools worldwide. He's really too old and soft for his
Plan B (military), and getting too old and soft for the entry-level grunt work in the skilled
trades as well. What then?
do you know anything first hand about the teaching- english- as-a- second- language
hustle?
Asking sincerely – as I don't know anything about it. However I kinda suspect that
'native speakers' will be in demand in many parts of the globe for some time to come [as an
aside – and maybe Linh has written of this and I missed it – but last spring I
was in Saigon for a couple of weeks and, hanging out one day at the zoo & museum complex,
was startled to see about three groups of Vietnamese primary-school students being led around
by americans in their early 20s, narrating everything in american english .
Apparently private schools offering entirely english-language curriculum are the big hit
with the middle & upper class elite there. Perhaps more of the same elsewhere in the
region?]
At any rate the young man in this interview has a lot more in the way of qualifications
and skill sets than I had when I left the States 35 years ago, and I've done just fine. I'd
advise any prospective expats to get that TEFL certificate as it's one extra thing to have in
your back pocket and who knows?
ps: "It really can't be overstated how blessed you are to have American citizenship"
– well, yes it can. Everyone knows that the best passport on earth is from Northwest
Euroland, one of those places with free university education and free health care and where
teenage mothers don't daily keel over dead from heroin overdoses in Dollar Stores ..
People who teach EASL for a living are like people who drive cars for a
living: you don't do it because you're really good at teaching your native language, you do
it because you're not marketable at anything else.
well that's the beauty of it: you don't have to be good at anything other than just being
a native speaker to succeed as an EASL teacher, and thousands more potential customers are
born every day. I'd definitely advise any potential expats to become accomplished, and, even
better, qualified, in as many trades as possible. But imho the real key to success as a long
term expat is your mindset: determination and will-power to survive no matter what. If you
really want to break out of the States and see the world, and don't have inherited wealth,
you will be forced to rely on your wits and good luck and seize the opportunities that arise,
whatever those opportunities may be.
Sorry man, English teaching is huge, and will remain so for some time to
come. I'm heavily involved in the area and know plenty of ESL teachers. Spain for me, and the
level of English here is still so dreadful and they all need it, the demand is staggering and
their schools suck at teaching it themselves.
You are one of those people who just like to shit on things:) and people make a lot of
money out of it, not everyone of course, like any area. But it's perfectly viable and good to
go for a long time yet. It's exactly that English is the lingua Franca that people need to be
at a high level of it. The Chinese market is still massive. The bag packer esl teachers are
the ones that give off this stigma, and 'bag packer' and 'traveller' are by now very much
regarded as dirty words in the ESL world.
Most Americans lack the initiative to move anywhere. Most will complain but will never
leave the street they were born on. Urban whites are used to adaptation being around other
cultures anyhow and being somewhat street smart, but the poor rural whites in the exurbs or
sticks whose live would really improve if they got the hell out of America will never move
anywhere.
You have to really dislike your circumstances in the US to leave and be willing to find
some way to get by overseas.
Lots of people will talk about leaving America without having a clue as to how hard this
is to actually do. Australia and New Zealand are not crying out for white proles with high
school education or GED. It is much more difficult to move overseas and stay overseas than
most Americans think.
Except of course for the ruling elite. And that is because five-star hotels look the same
everywhere and money is an international language.
We already saw this in South Africa. Mandela took over, the country went down the tubes,
the wealthy whites left and the Boers were left to die in refugee camps. They WANT to leave
and a few went to Russia, but most developed countries don't want them. Not with the limited
amount of money they have.
Australia and NZ would rather have refugees than white people in dire circumstances.
Even immigrating to Canada, a country that I worked in, is much much harder than anyone
imagines.
Americans are mostly ignorant to the fact that they live in a 2nd world country except for
blacks and rednecks I have met in the Philippines who were stationed there in the military
and have a $1000 a month check. Many of them live in more dangerous and dirty internal third
worlds in America than what they can have in Southeast Asia and a good many would be
homeless. They are worldly enough to leave.
But most Americans whose lives would be vastly improved overseas think they are living in
the greatest country on earth.
"... While the Tea Party was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-, it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering. Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. ..."
"... Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders' energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood" path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy. ..."
"... In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism. ..."
"... We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism. ..."
"... While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."' ..."
In Chapter 1, we traced the rise of our neoliberal conjuncture back to the crisis of liberalism during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. During this period, huge transformations in capitalism proved impossible
to manage with classical laissez-faire approaches. Out of this crisis, two movements emerged, both of which would eventually shape
the course of the twentieth century and beyond. The first, and the one that became dominant in the aftermath of the crisis, was the
conjuncture of embedded liberalism. The crisis indicated that capitalism wrecked too much damage on the lives of ordinary citizens.
People (white workers and families, especially) warranted social protection from the volatilities and brutalities of capitalism.
The state's public function was expanded to include the provision of a more substantive social safety net, a web of protections for
people and a web of constraints on markets. The second response was the invention of neoliberalism. Deeply skeptical of the common-good
principles that undergirded the emerging social welfare state, neoliberals began organizing on the ground to develop a "new" liberal
govemmentality, one rooted less in laissez-faire principles and more in the generalization of competition and enterprise. They worked
to envision a new society premised on a new social ontology, that is, on new truths about the state, the market, and human beings.
Crucially, neoliberals also began building infrastructures and institutions for disseminating their new' knowledges and theories
(i.e., the Neoliberal Thought Collective), as well as organizing politically to build mass support for new policies (i.e., working
to unite anti-communists, Christian conservatives, and free marketers in common cause against the welfare state). When cracks in
embedded liberalism began to surface -- which is bound to happen with any moving political equilibrium -- neoliberals were there
with new stories and solutions, ready to make the world anew.
We are currently living through the crisis of neoliberalism. As I write this book, Donald Trump has recently secured the U.S.
presidency, prevailing in the national election over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Throughout the election, I couldn't
help but think back to the crisis of liberalism and the two responses that emerged. Similarly, after the Great Recession of 2008,
we've saw two responses emerge to challenge our unworkable status quo, which dispossesses so many people of vital resources for individual
and collective life. On the one hand, we witnessed the rise of Occupy Wall Street. While many continue to critique the movement for
its lack of leadership and a coherent political vision, Occupy was connected to burgeoning movements across the globe, and our current
political horizons have been undoubtedly shaped by the movement's success at repositioning class and economic inequality within our
political horizon. On the other hand, we saw' the rise of the Tea Party, a right-wing response to the crisis. While the Tea Party
was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was
perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-,
it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism.
Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering.
Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. There were just too many fissures and fault lines in
the glossy, cosmopolitan world of left neoliberalism and marketized equality. Indeed, while Clinton ran on status-quo stories of
good governance and neoliberal feminism, confident that demographics and diversity would be enough to win the election, Trump effectively
tapped into the unfolding conjunctural crisis by exacerbating the cracks in the system of marketized equality, channeling political
anger into his celebrity brand that had been built on saying "f*** you" to the culture of left neoliberalism (corporate diversity,
political correctness, etc.) In fact, much like Clinton's challenger in the Democratic primary, Benie Sanders, Trump was a crisis
candidate.
Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders'
energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood"
path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy.
Universal health care. Free higher education. Fair trade. The repeal of Citizens United. Trump offered a different response to
the crisis. Like Sanders, he railed against global trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). However, Trump's
victory was fueled by right neoliberalism's culture of cruelty. While Sanders tapped into and mobilized desires for a more egalitarian
and democratic future, Trump's promise was nostalgic, making America "great again" -- putting the nation back on "top of the world,"
and implying a time when women were "in their place" as male property, and minorities and immigrants were controlled by the state.
Thus, what distinguished Trump's campaign from more traditional Republican campaigns was that it actively and explicitly pitted
one group's equality (white men) against everyone else's (immigrants, women, Muslims, minorities, etc.). As Catherine Rottenberg
suggests, Trump offered voters a choice between a multiracial society (where folks are increasingly disadvantaged and dispossessed)
and white supremacy (where white people would be back on top). However, "[w]hat he neglected to state," Rottenberg writes,
is that neoliberalism flourishes in societies where the playing field is already stacked against various segments of society,
and that it needs only a relatively small select group of capital-enhancing subjects, while everyone else is ultimately dispensable.
1
In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg
argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many
concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism.
We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left
neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested
in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right
and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political
philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism.
While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking
with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the
chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."'
Mark Fisher, the author of Capitalist Realism, put it this way:
The long, dark night of the end of history has to be grasped as an enormous opportunity. The very oppressive pervasiveness
of capitalist realism means that even glimmers of alternative political and economic possibilities can have a disproportionately
great effect. The tiniest event can tear a hole in the grey curtain of reaction which has marked the horizons of possibility under
capitalist realism. From a situation in which nothing can happen, suddenly anything is possible again.4
I think that, for the first time in the history of U.S. capitalism, the vast majority of people might sense the lie of liberal,
capitalist democracy. They feel anxious, unfree, disaffected. Fantasies of the good life have been shattered beyond repair for most
people. Trump and this hopefully brief triumph of right neoliberalism will soon lay this bare for everyone to see. Now, with Trump,
it is absolutely clear: the rich rule the world; we are all disposable; this is no democracy. The question becomes: How will we show
up for history? Will there be new stories, ideas, visions, and fantasies to attach to? How can we productively and meaningful intervene
in the crisis of neoliberalism? How can we "tear a hole in the grey curtain" and open up better worlds? How can we put what we've
learned to use and begin to imagine and build a world beyond living in competition? I hope our critical journey through the neoliberal
conjuncture has enabled you to begin to answer these questions.
More specifically, in recent decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, our common-good sensibilities have been channeled
into neoliberal platforms for social change and privatized action, funneling our political energies into brand culture and marketized
struggles for equality (e.g., charter schools, NGOs and non-profits, neoliberal antiracism and feminism). As a result, despite our
collective anger and disaffected consent, we find ourselves stuck in capitalist realism with no real alternative. Like the neoliberal
care of the self, we are trapped in a privatized mode of politics that relies on cruel optimism; we are attached, it seems, to politics
that inspire and motivate us to action, while keeping us living in competition.
To disrupt the game, we need to construct common political horizons against neoliberal hegemony. We need to use our common stories
and common reason to build common movements against precarity -- for within neoliberalism, precarity is what ultimately has the potential
to thread all of our lives together. Put differently, the ultimate fault line in the neoliberal conjiuicture is the way it subjects
us all to precarity and the biopolitics of disposability, thereby creating conditions of possibility for new coalitions across race,
gender, citizenship, sexuality, and class. Recognizing this potential for coalition in the face of precarization is the most pressing
task facing those who are yearning for a new world. The question is: How do we get there? How do we realize these coalitional potentialities
and materialize common horizons?
Ultimately, mapping the neoliberal conjuncture through everyday life in enterprise culture has not only provided some direction
in terms of what we need; it has also cultivated concrete and practical intellectual resources for political interv ention and social
interconnection -- a critical toolbox for living in common. More specifically, this book has sought to provide resources for thinking
and acting against the four Ds: resources for engaging in counter-conduct, modes of living that refuse, on one hand, to conduct one's
life according to the norm of enterprise, and on the other, to relate to others through the norm of competition. Indeed, we need
new ways of relating, interacting, and living as friends, lovers, workers, vulnerable bodies, and democratic people if we are to
write new stories, invent new govemmentalities, and build coalitions for new worlds.
Against Disimagination: Educated Hope and Affirmative Speculation
We need to stop turning inward, retreating into ourselves, and taking personal responsibility for our lives (a task which is ultimately
impossible). Enough with the disimagination machine! Let's start looking outward, not inward -- to the broader structures that undergird
our lives. Of course, we need to take care of ourselves; we must survive. But I firmly believe that we can do this in ways both big
and small, that transform neoliberal culture and its status-quo stories.
Here's the thing I tell my students all the time. You cannot escape neoliberalism. It is the air we breathe, the water in which
we swim. No job, practice of social activism, program of self-care, or relationship will be totally free from neoliberal impingements
and logics. There is no pure "outside" to get to or work from -- that's just the nature of the neoliberalism's totalizing cultural
power. But let's not forget that neoliberalism's totalizing cultural power is also a source of weakness. Potential for resistance
is everywhere, scattered throughout our everyday lives in enterprise culture. Our critical toolbox can help us identify these potentialities
and navigate and engage our conjuncture in ways that tear open up those new worlds we desire.
In other words, our critical perspective can help us move through the world with what Henry Giroux calls educated hope. Educated
hope means holding in tension the material realities of power and the contingency of history. This orientation of educated hope knows
very well what we're up against. However, in the face of seemingly totalizing power, it also knows that neoliberalism can never become
total because the future is open. Educated hope is what allows us to see the fault lines, fissures, and potentialities of the present
and emboldens us to think and work from that sliver of social space where we do have political agency and freedom to construct a
new world. Educated hope is what undoes the power of capitalist realism. It enables affirmative speculation (such as discussed in
Chapter 5), which does not try to hold the future to neoliberal horizons (that's cruel optimism!), but instead to affirm our commonalities
and the potentialities for the new worlds they signal. Affirmative speculation demands a different sort of risk calculation and management.
It senses how little we have to lose and how much we have to gain from knocking the hustle of our lives.
Against De-democratization: Organizing and Collective Coverning
We can think of educated hope and affirmative speculation as practices of what Wendy Brown calls "bare democracy" -- the basic
idea that ordinary' people like you and me should govern our lives in common, that we should critique and try to change our world,
especially the exploitative and oppressive structures of power that maintain social hierarchies and diminish lives. Neoliberal culture
works to stomp out capacities for bare democracy by transforming democratic desires and feelings into meritocratic desires and feelings.
In neoliberal culture, utopian sensibilities are directed away from the promise of collective utopian sensibilities are directed
away from the promise of collective governing to competing for equality.
We have to get back that democractic feeling! As Jeremy Gilbert taught us, disaffected consent is a post-democratic orientation.
We don't like our world, but we don't think we can do anything about it. So, how do we get back that democratic feeling? How do we
transform our disaffected consent into something new? As I suggested in the last chapter, we organize. Organizing is simply about
people coming together around a common horizon and working collectively to materialize it. In this way, organizing is based on the
idea of radical democracy, not liberal democracy. While the latter is based on formal and abstract rights guaranteed by the state,
radical democracy insists that people should directly make the decisions that impact their lives, security, and well-being. Radical
democracy is a practice of collective governing: it is about us hashing out, together in communities, what matters, and working in
common to build a world based on these new sensibilities.
The work of organizing is messy, often unsatisfying, and sometimes even scary. Organizing based on affirmative speculation and
coalition-building, furthermore, will have to be experimental and uncertain. As Lauren Berlant suggests, it means "embracing the
discomfort of affective experience in a truly open social life that no
one has ever experienced." Organizing through and for the common "requires more adaptable infrastructures. Keep forcing the existing
infrastructures to do what they don't know how to do. Make new ways to be local together, where local doesn't require a physical
neighborhood." 5 What Berlant is saying is that the work of bare democracy requires unlearning, and detaching from, our
current stories and infrastructures in order to see and make things work differently. Organizing for a new world is not easy -- and
there are no guarantees -- but it is the only way out of capitalist realism.
Getting back democratic feeling will at once require and help us lo move beyond the biopolitics of disposability and entrenched
systems of inequality. On one hand, organizing will never be enough if it is not animated by bare democracy, a sensibility that each
of us is equally important when it comes to the project of determining our lives in common. Our bodies, our hurts, our dreams, and
our desires matter regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, or citizenship, and regardless of how r much capital (economic,
social, or cultural) we have. Simply put, in a radical democracy, no one is disposable. This bare-democratic sense of equality must
be foundational to organizing and coalition-building. Otherwise, we will always and inevitably fall back into a world of inequality.
On the other hand, organizing and collective governing will deepen and enhance our sensibilities and capacities for radical equality.
In this context, the kind of self-enclosed individualism that empowers and underwrites the biopolitics of disposability melts away,
as we realize the interconnectedness of our lives and just how amazing it feels to
fail, we affirm our capacities for freedom, political intervention, social interconnection, and collective social doing.
Against Dispossession: Shared Security and Common Wealth
Thinking and acting against the biopolitics of disposability goes hand-in-hand with thinking and acting against dispossession.
Ultimately, when we really understand and feel ourselves in relationships of interconnection with others, we want for them as we
want for ourselves. Our lives and sensibilities of what is good and just are rooted in radical equality, not possessive or self-appreciating
individualism. Because we desire social security and protection, we also know others desire and deserve the same.
However, to really think and act against dispossession means not only advocating for shared security and social protection, but
also for a new society that is built on the egalitarian production and distribution of social wealth that we all produce. In this
sense, we can take Marx's critique of capitalism -- that wealth is produced collectively but appropriated individually -- to heart.
Capitalism was built on the idea that one class -- the owners of the means of production -- could exploit and profit from the collective
labors of everyone else (those who do not own and thus have to work), albeit in very different ways depending on race, gender, or
citizenship. This meant that, for workers of all stripes, their lives existed not for themselves, but for others (the appropriating
class), and that regardless of what we own as consumers, we are not really free or equal in that bare-democratic sense of the word.
If we want to be really free, we need to construct new material and affective social infrastructures for our common wealth. In
these new infrastructures, wealth must not be reduced to economic value; it must be rooted in social value. Here, the production
of wealth does not exist as a separate sphere from the reproduction of our lives. In other words, new infrastructures, based on the
idea of common wealth, will not be set up to exploit our labor, dispossess our communities, or to divide our lives. Rather, they
will work to provide collective social resources and care so that we may all be free to pursue happiness, create beautiful and/or
useful things, and to realize our potential within a social world of living in common. Crucially, to create the conditions for these
new, democratic forms of freedom rooted in radical equality, we need to find ways to refuse and exit the financial networks of Empire
and the dispossessions of creditocracy, building new systems that invite everyone to participate in the ongoing production of new
worlds and the sharing of the wealth that we produce in common.
It's not up to me to tell you exactly where to look, but I assure you that potentialities for these new worlds are everywhere
around you.
It is unclear how long this vulnerability exists, but this is pretty serious staff that shows
how Hillary server could be hacked via Abedin account. As Abedin technical level was lower then
zero, to hack into her home laptop just just trivial.
Microsoft also patched
Exchange against a vulnerability that allowed remote attackers with little more than an
unprivileged mailbox account to gain administrative control over the server. Dubbed
PrivExchange, CVE-2019-0686 was publicly disclosed last month , along with
proof-of-concept code that exploited it. In Tuesday's
advisory , Microsoft officials said they haven't seen active exploits yet but that they
were "likely."
This is a constructive suggestion that is implementable even under neoliberalism. As everything is perverted under
neoliberalism that might prompt layoffs before the age of 55.
Notable quotes:
"... Older workers often struggle to get rehired as easily as younger workers. Age discrimination is a well-known problem in corporate America. What's a 60-year-old back office worker supposed to do if downsized in a merger? The BB&T-SunTrust prospect highlights the need for a new type of unemployment insurance for some of the workforce. ..."
"... One policy might be treating unemployed older workers differently than younger workers. Giving them unemployment benefits for a longer period of time than younger workers would be one idea, as well as accelerating the age of Medicare eligibility for downsized employees over the age of 55. The latter idea would help younger workers as well, by encouraging older workers to accept buyout packages -- freeing up career opportunities for younger workers. ..."
The proposed merger between SunTrust and BB&T makes sense for both firms -- which is why
Wall Street sent both stocks higher on Thursday after the announcement. But employees of the
two banks, especially older workers who are not yet retirement age, are understandably less
enthused at the prospect of downsizing. In a nation with almost 37 million workers over the age
of 55, the quandary of SunTrust-BB&T workforce will become increasingly familiar across the
U.S. economy.
But what's good for the firms isn't good for all of the workers. Older workers often
struggle to get rehired as easily as younger workers.
Age discrimination is a well-known problem in corporate America. What's a 60-year-old back
office worker supposed to do if downsized in a merger? The BB&T-SunTrust prospect
highlights the need for a new type of unemployment insurance for some of the workforce.
One policy might be treating unemployed older workers differently than younger workers.
Giving them unemployment benefits for a longer period of time than younger workers would be one
idea, as well as accelerating the age of Medicare eligibility for downsized employees over the
age of 55. The latter idea would help younger workers as well, by encouraging older workers to
accept buyout packages -- freeing up career opportunities for younger workers.
The economy can be callous toward older workers, but policy makers don't have to be. We
should think about ways of dealing with this shift in the labor market before it happens.
"... By Jerri-Lynn Scofield, who has worked as a securities lawyer and a derivatives trader. She is currently writing a book about textile artisans. ..."
"... Kleber filed suit, pursuing claims for both disparate treatment and disparate impact under the ADEA. The Chicago Tribune notes in Hinsdale man loses appeal in age discrimination case that challenged experience caps in job ads that "Kleber had out of work and job hunting for three years" when he applied for the CareFusion job. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the seventh circuit has now held that the disparate impact section of the ADEA does not extend to job applicants. .Judge Michael Scudder, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority 8-4 opinion, which reverses an earlier 2-1 panel ruling last April in Kleber's favor that had initially overruled the district court's dismissal of Kleber's disparate impact claim. ..."
"... hiring discrimination is difficult to prove and often goes unreported. Only 3 percent have made a formal complaint. ..."
"... The decision narrowly applies to disparate impact claims of age discrimination under the ADEA. It is important to remember that job applicants are protected under the disparate treatment portion of the statute. ..."
"... I forbade my kids to study programming. ..."
"... I'm re reading the classic of Sociology Ain't No Makin It by Jay MacLeod, in which he studies the employment prospects of youths in the 1980s and determined that even then there was no stable private sector employment and your best option is a government job or to have an excellent "network" which is understandably hard for most people to achieve. ..."
"... I think the trick is to study something and programming, so the programming becomes a tool rather than an end. ..."
"... the problem is it is almost impossible to exit the programming business and join another domain. Anyone can enter it. (evidence – all the people with "engineering" degrees from India) Also my wages are now 50% of what i made 10 years ago (nominal). Also I notice that almost no one is doing sincere work. Most are just coasting, pretending to work with the latest toy (ie, preparing for the next interview). ..."
"... I am an "aging" former STEM worker (histology researcher) as well. Much like the IT landscape, you are considered "over-the-hill" at 35, which I turn on the 31st. ..."
"... Most of the positions in science and engineering fields now are basically "gig" positions, lasting a few months to a year. ..."
The case was brought by Dale Kleber, an attorney, who applied for a senior position in
CareFusion's legal department. The job description required applicants to have "3 to 7 years
(no more than 7 years) of relevant legal experience."
Kleber was 58 at the time he applied and had more than seven years of pertinent experience.
CareFusion hired a 29-year-old applicant who met but did not exceed the experience
requirement.
The purpose of the ADEA is to prohibit employment discrimination against people who are 40
years of age or older. Congress enacted the ADEA in 1967 because of its concern that older
workers were disadvantaged in retaining and regaining employment. The ADEA also addressed
concerns that older workers were barred from employment by some common employment practices
that were not intended to exclude older workers, but that had the effect of doing so and were
unrelated to job performance.
It was with these concerns in mind that Congress created a system that included liability
for both disparate treatment and disparate impact. What's the difference between these two
concepts?
According to the EEOC:
[The ADEA] prohibits discrimination against workers because of their older age with
respect to any aspect of employment. In addition to prohibiting intentional discrimination
against older workers (known as "disparate treatment"), the ADEA prohibits practices that,
although facially neutral with regard to age, have the effect of harming older workers more
than younger workers (known as "disparate impact"), unless the employer can show that the
practice is based on an [Reasonable Factor Other Than Age (RFAO)]
The crux: it's much easier for a plaintiff to prove disparate impact, because s/he needn't
show that the employer intended to discriminate. Of course, many if not most employers are
savvy enough not to be explicit about their intentions to discriminate against older people as
they don't wish to get sued.
District, Panel, and Full Seventh Circuit Decisions
The district court dismissed Kleber's disparate impact claim, on the grounds that the text
of the statute- (§ 4(a)(2))- did not extend to outside job applicants. Kleber then
voluntarily dismissed his separate claim for disparate treatment liability to appeal the
dismissal of his disparate impact claim. No doubt he was aware – either because he was an
attorney, or because of the legal advice received – that it is much more difficult to
prevail on a disparate treatment claim, which would require that he establish CareFusion's
intent to discriminate.
Or at least that was true before this decision was rendered.
Unfortunately, the seventh circuit has now held that the disparate impact section of the
ADEA does not extend to job applicants. .Judge Michael Scudder, a Trump appointee, wrote the
majority 8-4 opinion, which reverses an earlier 2-1 panel ruling last April in Kleber's favor
that had initially overruled the district court's dismissal of Kleber's disparate impact
claim.
The majority ruled:
By its terms, § 4(a)(2) proscribes certain conduct by employers and limits its
protection to employees. The prohibited conduct entails an employer acting in any way to
limit, segregate, or classify its employees based on age. The language of § 4(a)(2) then
goes on to make clear that its proscriptions apply only if an employer's actions have a
particular impact -- "depriv[ing] or tend[ing] to deprive any individual of em- ployment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect[ing] his status as an employee." This language
plainly demonstrates that the requisite impact must befall an individual with "status as an
employee." Put most simply, the reach of § 4(a)(2) does not extend to applicants for
employment, as common dictionary definitions confirm that an applicant has no "status as an
employee." (citation omitted)[opinion, pp. 3-4]
By contrast, in the disparate treatment part of the statute (§ 4(a)(1)):
Congress made it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,
terms, conditions, or privi- leges of employment, because of such individual's age."[opinion,
p.6]
The court compared the disparate treatment section – § 4(a)(1) – directly
with the disparate impact section – § 4(a)(2):
Yet a side-by-side comparison of § 4(a)(1) with § 4(a)(2) shows that the
language in the former plainly covering appli-cants is conspicuously absent from the latter.
Section 4(a)(2) says nothing about an employer's decision "to fail or refuse to hire any
individual" and instead speaks only in terms of an employer's actions that "adversely affect
his status as an employee." We cannot conclude this difference means nothing: "when 'Congress
includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another' -- let
alone in the very next provision -- the Court presumes that Congress intended a difference in
meaning." (citations omitted)[opinion, pp. 6-7]
The majority's conclusion:
In the end, the plain language of § 4(a)(2) leaves room for only one interpretation:
Congress authorized only employees to bring disparate impact claims.[opinion, p.8]
People 55 or older comprised 22.4 percent of U.S. workers in 2016, up from 11.9 percent in
1996, and may account for close to one-fourth of the labor force by 2022, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The greying of the workforce is "thanks to better health in older age and insufficient
savings that require people to keeping working longer," according to the Chicago Tribune.
Yet:
numerous hiring practices are under fire for negatively impacting older applicants. In
addition to experience caps, lawsuits have challenged the exclusive use of on-campus
recruiting to fill positions and algorithms that target job ads to show only in certain
people's social media feeds.
Unless Congress amends the ADEA to include job applicants, older people will continue to
face barriers to getting jobs.
The Chicago Tribune reports:
The [EEOC], which receives about 20,000 age discrimination charges every year, issued a
report in June citing surveys that found 3 in 4 older workers believe their age is an
obstacle in getting a job. Yet hiring discrimination is difficult to prove and often goes
unreported. Only 3 percent have made a formal complaint. Allowing older applicants to
challenge policies that have an unintentionally discriminatory impact would offer another
tool for fighting age discrimination, Ray Peeler, associate legal counsel at the EEOC, has
said.
The decision narrowly applies to disparate impact claims of age discrimination under the
ADEA. It is important to remember that job applicants are protected under the disparate
treatment portion of the statute. There is no split among the federal appeals courts on this
issue, making it an unlikely candidate for Supreme Court review, but the four judges in
dissent read the statute as being vague and susceptible to an interpretation that includes
job applicants.
Their conclusion: "a decision finding disparate impact liability for job applicants under
the ADEA is unlikely in the near future."
Alas, for reasons of space, I will not consider the extensive dissent. My purpose in writing
this post is to discuss the majority decision, not to opine on which side made the better
arguments.
There were 3 judges who dissented in whole and one who dissented in part. Of the three
full dissensions, two were Clinton appointees (including the Chief Justice, who was one of
the dissenters) and one was a Reagan appointee. The partial dissenter was also a Reagan
appointee.
"depriv[ing] or tend[ing] to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect[ing] his status as an employee."
–This language plainly demonstrates that the requisite impact must befall an
individual with "status as an employee."
So they totally ignore the first part of the sentence -- "depriv[ing] or tend[ing] to
deprive any individual of employment opportunities " -- "employment opportunities" clearly
applies to applicants.
Its as if these judges cannot make sense of the English language. Hopefully the judges on
appeal will display better command of the language.
I agree. "Employment opportunities," in the "plain language" so meticulously respected by
the 7th Circuit, must surely refer at minimum to 'the chance to apply for a job and to have
one's application fairly considered'. It seems on the other hand a stretch to interpret the
phrase to mean only 'the chance to keep a job one already has'. Both are important, however;
to split them would challenge even Solomonic wisdom, as I suppose the curious decision
discussed here demonstrates. I am less convinced that the facts as presented here establish a
clear case of age discrimination. True, they point in that direction. But a hypothetical
58-year old who only earned a law degree in his or her early 50s, perhaps after an earlier
career in paralegal work, could have legitimately applied for a position requiring 3 to 7
years of "relevant legal experience." That last phrase, is of course, quite weasel-y: what
counts as "relevant" and what counts as "legal" experience would under any circumstances be
subject to (discriminatory) interpretation. The limitation of years of experience in the job
announcement strikes me as a means to keep the salary within a certain budgetary range as
prescribed either by law or collective bargaining.
Almost like the willful misunderstanding of "A well regulated militia being necessary to
the security of a free State "? Of course, that militia also meant slave patrols and the
occasional posse to put down the native "savages," but still.
Being pro-Labor will not get you Federalist Society approval to be nominated to the bench
by Trump.
This decision came down via the ideological makeup of the court, not the letter of the
law.
Their stated pretext is obviously b.s.. It contradicts itself.
I'm re reading the classic of Sociology Ain't No Makin It by Jay MacLeod, in which he
studies the employment prospects of youths in the 1980s and determined that even then there
was no stable private sector employment and your best option is a government job or to have
an excellent "network" which is understandably hard for most people to achieve. So I'm
genuinely interested in what possible options there are for anyone entering the job market
today or God help you, re-entering. I am guessing the barriers to entry to those trades are
quite high but would love to be corrected.
what is the point of being jackpot ready if you can't even support yourself today? To
fantasize about collapse while sleeping in a rented closet and driving for Uber? In that case
one's personal collapse has already happened, which will matter a lot more to an individual
than any potential jackpot.
Plumbers and electricians can make money now of course (although yea barriers to entry do
seem high, don't you kind of have to know people to get in those industries?). But
permaculture?
I think the trick is to study something and programming, so the programming becomes a tool
rather than an end. A couple of my kids used to ride horses. One of the instructors and stable owners said
that a lot of people went to school for equine studies and ended up shoveling horse poop for
a living. She said the thing to do was to study business and do the equestrian stuff as a
hobby/minor. That way you came out prepared to run a business and hire the equine studies
people to clean the stalls.
Do you actually see that many jobs requiring something and programming though? I haven't
really. There seems no easy transition out of software work which that would make possible
either. Might as well just study the "something".
Programming is a means to an end, not the end itself. If all you do is program, then you
are essentially a machine lathe operator, not somebody creating the products the lathe
operators turn out.
Understanding what needs to be done helps with structured programs and better input/output
design. In turn, structured programming is a good tool to understand the basics of how to
manage tasks. At the higher level, Fred Brooks book "The Mythical Man-Month" has a lot of
useful project management information that can be re-applied for non computer program
development.
We are doing a lot of work with mobile computing and data collection to assist in our
regular work. The people doing this are mainly non-computer scientists that have learned
enough programming to get by.
The engineering programs that we use are typically written more by engineers than by
programmers as the entire point behind the program is to apply the theory into a numerical
computation and presentation system. Programmers with a graphic design background can assist in creating much better user
interfaces.
If you have some sort of information theory background (GIS, statistics, etc.) then big
data actually means something.
the problem is it is almost impossible to exit the programming business and join another
domain. Anyone can enter it. (evidence – all the people with "engineering" degrees from
India) Also my wages are now 50% of what i made 10 years ago (nominal). Also I notice that almost
no one is doing sincere work. Most are just coasting, pretending to work with the latest toy
(ie, preparing for the next interview).
Now almost every "interview" requires writing a coding exam. Which other profession will
make you write an exam for 25-30 year veterans? Can you write your high school exam again today? What if your profession requires you to
write it a couple of times almost every year?
I am an "aging" former STEM worker (histology researcher) as well. Much like the IT
landscape, you are considered "over-the-hill" at 35, which I turn on the 31st. While I do not
have children and never intend to get married, many biotech companies consider this the age
at which a worker is getting long in the tooth. This is because there is the underlying
assumption that is when people start having familial obligations.
Most of the positions in
science and engineering fields now are basically "gig" positions, lasting a few months to a
year. A lot of people my age are finding how much harder it is to find any position at all in
these areas as there is a massive pool of people to choose from, even for permatemp work
simply because serfs in their mid-30s might get uppity about benefits like family health
plans or 401k
I am 59 and do not mind having employers discriminate against me due to age. ( I also need
a job) I had my own business and over the years got quite damaged. I was a contractor
specializing in older (historical) work.
I was always the lead worker with many friends and
other s working with me. At 52 I was given a choice of very involved neck surgery or quit. (
no small businesses have disability insurance!)
I shut down everything and helped my friends
who worked for me take some of the work or find something else. I was also a nationally
published computer consultant a long time ago and graphic artist.
Reality is I can still do
many things but I do nothing as well as I did when I was younger and the cost to employers
for me is far higher than a younger person. I had my chance and I chose poorly. Younger
people, if that makes them abetter fit, deserve a chance now more than I do.
I'm sorry for your challenges but I don't think there were many good careers you could
have chosen and it would have required a crystal ball to know which were the good ones.
Americans your age entered the job market just after the very end of the Golden Age of labor
conditions and have been weathering the decline your entire working lives. At least I entered
the job market when everyone knew for years things were falling apart. It's not your fault.
You were cheated plain and simple.
I don't see how it's possible to predict the labor market years in advance. Why blame
yourself for poor choices when so much chance is involved?
With a Jobs Guarantee, such questions would not arise. I also don't think it's only a
question of doing, but a question of sharing ("experience, strength, and hope," as AA -- a
very successful organization! -- puts it, in a way of thinking that has wide
application).
Unelected plutocrat and his international syndicate funded by former IBM artificial
intelligence developer and social darwinian. data manipulation electronic platforms and
social media are at the levels of power in the USA. Anti justice, anti enlightenment,
etc.
Since the installation of GW Bush by the Supreme Court, almost 20 yrs. ago, they have
tunneled deeply, speaking through propaganda machines such as Rush Limbaugh gaining traction
.making it over the finish line with KGB and Russian oligarch backing. The net effect on us?
The loss of all built on the foundation of the enlightenment and an exceptional nation no
king, a nation of, for and by the people, and the rule of law. There is nothing
Judeo-Christian about social darwinism but is eerily similar to National Socialism (Nazis).
The ruling againt the plaintiff by the 7th circuit in the U.S. and their success in creating
chaos in Great Britain vis a vis "Brexit" by fascist Lafarge Inc. are indicators how easy
their ascent.
ows how powerful they have become.
Where are the Bipartisan Presidential Candidates and Legislators on oral and verbal
condemnation of Age Discrimination , along with putting teeth into Age Discrimination
Laws, and Tax Policy. – nowhere to be seen , or heard, that I've noticed;
particularly in Blue ™ California, which is famed for Age Discrimination of
those as young as 36 years of age, since Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed anyone over 35, over
the hill in the early 2000's , and never got crushed for it by the media, or the
Politicians, as he should have (particularly in Silicon Valley).
I know those Republicans are venal, but I dare anyone to show me a meaningful Age
Discrimination Policy Proposal, pushed by Blue ™ Obama, Hillary, even
Sanders and Jill Stein. Certainly none of California's Nationally known (many well over
retirement age) Gubernatorial and Legislative Democratic Politicians: Jerry Brown, Gavin
Newsom, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and Ro Khanna (or the
lesser known California Federal State and Local Democratic Politicians) have ever addressed
it; despite the fact that homelessness deaths of those near 'retirement age' have been
frighteningly increasing in California's obscenely wealthy homelessness 'hotspots,' such as
Silicon Valley.
Such a tragic issue, which has occurred while the last over a decade of Mainstream News
and Online Pundits, have Proclaimed 50 to be the new 30. Sadistic. I have no doubt this is
linked to the ever increasing Deaths of Despair and attempted and successful suicides of
those under, and just over retirement age– while the US has an average Senate age of
65, and a President and 2020 Presidential contenders, over 70 (I am not at all saying older
persons shouldn't be elected, nor that younger persons shouldn't be elected, I'm pointing out
the imbalance, insanity, and cruelty of it).
Further, age discrimination has
been particularly brutal to single, divorced, and widowed females , whom have most
assuredly made far, far less on the dollar than males (if they could even get hired for the
position, or leave the kids alone, and housekeeping undone, to get a job):
Patrick Button, an assistant economics professor at Tulane University, was part of a
research project last year that looked at callback rates from resumes in various
entry-level jobs. He said women seeking the positions appeared to be most affected.
"Based on over 40,000 job applications, we find robust evidence of age discrimination in
hiring against older women, especially those near retirement age, but considerably less
evidence of age discrimination against men," according to an abstract of the study.
Jacquelyn James, co-director of the Center on Aging and Work at Boston College, said age
discrimination in employment is a crucial issue in part because of societal changes that
are forcing people to delay retirement. Moves away from defined-¬benefit pension plans
to less assured forms of retirement savings are part of the reason.
> "Based on over 40,000 job applications, we find robust evidence of age discrimination
in hiring against older women, especially those near retirement age, but considerably less
evidence of age discrimination against men," according to an abstract of the study.
Well, these aren't real women, obviously. If they were, the Democrats would
already be taking care of them.
From the article: The greying of the workforce is "thanks to better health in older age
and insufficient savings that require people to keeping working longer," according to the
Chicago Tribune.
Get on the clue train Chicago Tribune, because your like W and Trump not knowing how a
supermarket works, that's how dense you are. Even if one saved, and even if one won the luck
lottery in terms of job stability and adequate income to save from, healthcare alone is a
reason to work, either to get employer provided if lucky, or to work without it and put most
of one's money toward an ACA plan or the like if not lucky. Yes the cost of almost all other
necessities has also increased greatly, but even parts of the country without a high cost of
living have unaffordable healthcare.
Benefits may be 23-30% or so of payroll and represent another expense management
opportunity for the diligent executive. One piece of low-hanging fruit is the age-related
healthcare cost. If you hire young people, who under-consume healthcare relative to older
cohorts, you save money, ceteris paribus. They have lower premiums, lower loss experience and
they rebound more quickly, so you hit a triple at your first at-bat swinging at that fruit.
Yes, metaphors are fungible along with every line on the income statement.
If your company still has the vestiges of a pension or similar blandishment, you may even
back-load contributions more aggressively, of course to the extent allowable. That added
expense diligence will pay off when those annuated employees leave before hitting
the more expensive funding years.
NB, the above reflects what I saw and heard at a Fortune 500 company.
A reason why the court system is overburdened is lack of clarity in laws and regulations.
Fix the disparity between the two sections of the law so that courts don't have to decide
which section rules.
It amazes me how often the government will give itself exemptions to its own laws and
principles, and also how often "progressive" nonprofits and political groups will also give
themselves such exemptions, for instance, regarding health insurance, paid overtime, paid
training, etc. that they are legally required to provide.
There are specific physical demands in things like policing. So it doesn't make much sense
to hire 55 year old rookie policemen when many policemen are retiring at that age.
Its an interesting quandary. We have older staff that went back to school and changed
careers. They do a good job and get paid at a rate similar to the younger staff with similar
job-related experience. However, they will be retiring at about the same time as the much
more experienced staff, so they will not be future succession replacements for the senior
staff.
So we also have to hire people in their 20s and 30s because that will be the future when
people like me retire in a few years. That could very well be the reason for the specific
wording of the job opening (I haven't read the opinion). I know of current hiring for a
position where the firm is primarily looking for somebody in their 20s or early 30s for
precisely that reason. The staff currently doing the work are in their 40s and 50s and need
to start bringing up the next generation. If somebody went back to school late and was in
their 40s or 50s (so would be at a lower billing rate due to lack of job related experience),
they would be seriously considered. But the firm would still be left with the challenge of
having to hire another person at the younger age within a couple of years to build the
succession. Once people make it past 5 years at the firm, they tend to stay for a long time
with senior staff generally having been at the firm for 20 years or more, so hiring somebody
really is a long-term investment.
People who are kicked out of their IT jobs around 55 now has difficulties to find even
full-time McJobs... Only part time jobs are available. With the current round of layoff and job
freezes, neoliberalism in the USA is entering terminal phase, I think.
A survey by
Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies found on average Americans are retiring at age
63, with more than half indicating they retired sooner than they had planned. Among them, most
retired for health or employment-related reasons.
... ... ...
On April 3, 2018, Linda LaBarbera received the phone call that changed her life forever. "We
are outsourcing your work to India and your services are no longer needed, effective today,"
the voice on the other end of the phone line said.
... ... ...
"It's not like we are starving or don't have a home or anything like that," she says. "But
we did have other plans for before we retired and setting ourselves up a little better while we
both still had jobs."
... ... ...
Linda hasn't needed to dip into her 401(k) yet. She plans to start collecting Social
Security when she turns 70, which will give her the maximum benefit. To earn money and keep
busy, Linda has taken short-term contract editing jobs. She says she will only withdraw money
from her savings if something catastrophic happens. Her husband's salary is their main source
of income.
"I am used to going out and spending money on other people," she says. "We are very generous
with our family and friends who are not as well off as we are. So we take care of a lot of
people. We can't do that anymore. I can't go out and be frivolous anymore. I do have to look at
what we spend - what I spend."
Vogelbacher says cutting costs is essential when living in retirement, especially for those
on a fixed income. He suggests moving to a tax-friendly location if possible.
Kiplinger ranks Alaska, Wyoming, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Florida as the top five
tax-friendly states for retirees. If their health allows, Vogelbacher recommends getting a
part-time job. For those who own a home, he says paying off the mortgage is a smart financial
move.
... ... ...
Monica is one of the 44 percent of unmarried persons who rely on Social Security for 90
percent or more of their income. At the beginning of 2019, Monica and more than 62 million
Americans received a 2.8 percent cost
of living adjustment from Social Security. The increase is the largest since 2012.
With the Social Security hike, Monica's monthly check climbed $33. Unfortunately, the new
year also brought her a slight increase in what she pays for Medicare; along with a $500
property tax bill and the usual laundry list of monthly expenses.
"If you don't have much, the (Social Security) raise doesn't represent anything," she says
with a dry laugh. "But it's good to get it."
"... Four years in GTS ... joined via being outsourced to IBM by my previous employer. Left GTS after 4 years. ..."
"... The IBM way of life was throughout the Oughts and the Teens an utter and complete failure from the perspective of getting work done right and using people to their appropriate and full potential. ..."
"... As a GTS employee, professional technical training was deemed unnecessary, hence I had no access to any unless I paid for it myself and used my personal time ... the only training available was cheesy presentations or other web based garbage from the intranet, or casual / OJT style meetings with other staff who were NOT professional or expert trainers. ..."
"... As a GTS employee, I had NO access to the expert and professional tools that IBM fricking made and sold to the same damn customers I was supposed to be supporting. Did we have expert and professional workflow / document management / ITIL aligned incident and problem management tools? NO, we had fricking Lotus Notes and email. Instead of upgrading to the newest and best software solutions for data center / IT management & support, we degraded everything down the simplest and least complex single function tools that no "best practices" organization on Earth would ever consider using. ..."
"... And the people management paradigm ... employees ranked annually not against a static or shared goal or metric, but in relation to each other, and there was ALWAYS a "top 10 percent" and a "bottom ten percent" required by upper management ... a system that was sociopathic in it's nature because it encourages employees to NOT work together ... by screwing over one's coworkers, perhaps by not giving necessary information, timely support, assistance as needed or requested, one could potentially hurt their performance and make oneself look relatively better. That's a self-defeating system and it was encouraged by the way IBM ran things. ..."
Four years in GTS ... joined via being outsourced to IBM by my previous employer. Left
GTS after 4 years.
The IBM way of life was throughout the Oughts and the Teens an utter and complete
failure from the perspective of getting work done right and using people to their appropriate
and full potential. I went from a multi-disciplinary team of engineers working across
technologies to support corporate needs in the IT environment to being siloed into a
single-function organization.
My first year of on-boarding with IBM was spent deconstructing application integration and
cross-organizational structures of support and interwork that I had spent 6 years building
and maintaining. Handing off different chunks of work (again, before the outsourcing, an
Enterprise solution supported by one multi-disciplinary team) to different IBM GTS work silos
that had no physical special relationship and no interworking history or habits. What we're
talking about here is the notion of "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing"
...
THAT was the IBM way of doing things, and nothing I've read about them over the past
decade or so tells me it has changed.
As a GTS employee, professional technical training was deemed unnecessary, hence I had
no access to any unless I paid for it myself and used my personal time ... the only training
available was cheesy presentations or other web based garbage from the intranet, or casual /
OJT style meetings with other staff who were NOT professional or expert trainers.
As a GTS employee, I had NO access to the expert and professional tools that IBM
fricking made and sold to the same damn customers I was supposed to be supporting. Did we
have expert and professional workflow / document management / ITIL aligned incident and
problem management tools? NO, we had fricking Lotus Notes and email. Instead of upgrading to
the newest and best software solutions for data center / IT management & support, we
degraded everything down the simplest and least complex single function tools that no "best
practices" organization on Earth would ever consider using.
And the people management paradigm ... employees ranked annually not against a static
or shared goal or metric, but in relation to each other, and there was ALWAYS a "top 10
percent" and a "bottom ten percent" required by upper management ... a system that was
sociopathic in it's nature because it encourages employees to NOT work together ... by
screwing over one's coworkers, perhaps by not giving necessary information, timely support,
assistance as needed or requested, one could potentially hurt their performance and make
oneself look relatively better. That's a self-defeating system and it was encouraged by the
way IBM ran things.
The "not invented here" ideology was embedded deeply in the souls of all senior IBMers I
ever met or worked with ... if you come on board with any outside knowledge or experience,
you must not dare to say "this way works better" because you'd be shut down before you could
blink. The phrase "best practices" to them means "the way we've always done it".
IBM gave up on innovation long ago. Since the 90's the vast majority of their software has
been bought, not built. Buy a small company, strip out the innovation, slap an IBM label on
it, sell it as the next coming of Jesus even though they refuse to expend any R&D to push
the product to the next level ... damn near everything IBM sold was gentrified, never cutting
edge.
And don't get me started on sales practices ... tell the customer how product XYZ is a
guaranteed moonshot, they'll be living on lunar real estate in no time at all, and after all
the contracts are signed hand the customer a box of nuts & bolts and a letter telling
them where they can look up instructions on how to build their own moon rocket. Or for XX
dollars more a year, hire a Professional Services IBMer to build it for them.
I have no sympathy for IBM. They need a clean sweep throughout upper management,
especially any of the old True Blue hard-core IBMers.
Step back and think about this for a minute. There are plenty of examples of people who were
doing their jobs, IN SPADES, putting in tons of unpaid overtime, and generally doing whatever
was humanly possible to make sure that whatever was promised to the customer was delivered
(within their span of control... I'm not going to get into a discussion of how IBM pulls the
rug out from underneath contracts after they've been signed).
These people were, and still are, high performers, they are committed to the job and the
purpose that has been communicated to them by their peers, management, and customers; and
they take the time (their OWN time) to pick up new skills and make sure that they are still
current and marketable. They do this because they are committed to doing the job to the best
of their ability.... it's what makes them who they are.
IBM (and other companies) are firing these very people ***for one reason and one reason
ONLY***: their AGE. They have the skills and they're doing their jobs. If the same person was
30 you can bet that they'd still be there. Most of the time it has NOTHING to do with
performance or lack of concurrency. Once the employee is fired, the job is done by someone
else. The work is still there, but it's being done by someone younger and/or of a different
nationality.
The money that is being saved by these companies has to come from somewhere. People that
are having to withdraw their retirement savings 20 or so years earlier than planned are going
to run out of funds.... and when they're in nursing homes, guess who is going to be
supporting them? Social security will be long gone, their kids have their own monetary
challenges.... so it will be government programs.... maybe.
This is not just a problem that impacts the 40 and over crowd. This is going to impact our
entire society for generations to come.
The business reality you speak of can be tempered via government actions. A few things:
One of the major hardships here is laying someone off when they need income the most -
to pay for their children's college education. To mitigate this, as a country we could make a
public education free. That takes off a lot of the sting, some people might relish a change
in career when they are in their 50s except that the drop in salary is so steep when changing
careers.
We could lower the retirement age to 55 and increase Social Security to more than a
poverty-level existence.Being laid off when you're 50 or 55 - with little chance to be hired
anywhere else - would not hurt as much.
We could offer federal wage subsidies for older workers to make them more attractive to
hire. While some might see this as a thumb on the scale against younger workers, in reality
it would be simply a counterweight to the thumb that is already there against older
workers.
Universal health care equalizes the cost of older and younger workers.
The other alternative is a market-based life that, for many, will be cruel, brutish, and
short.
As a new engineering graduate, I joined a similar-sized multinational US-based company in the
early '70s. Their recruiting pitch was, "Come to work here, kid. Do your job, keep your nose
clean, and you will enjoy great, secure work until you retire on easy street".
Soon after I started, the company fired hundreds of 50-something employees and put we
"kids" in their jobs. Seeing that employee loyalty was a one way street at that place, I left
after a couple of years. Best career move I ever made.
As a 25yr+ vet of IBM, I can confirm that this article is spot-on true. IBM used to be a
proud and transparent company that clearly demonstrated that it valued its employees as much
as it did its stock performance or dividend rate or EPS, simply because it is good for
business. Those principles helped make and keep IBM atop the business world as the most
trusted international brand and business icon of success for so many years. In 2000, all that
changed when Sam Palmisano became the CEO. Palmisano's now infamous "Roadmap 2015" ran the
company into the ground through its maniacal focus on increasing EPS at any and all costs.
Literally. Like, its employees, employee compensation, benefits, skills, and education
opportunities. Like, its products, product innovation, quality, and customer service. All of
which resulted in the devastation of its technical capability and competitiveness, employee
engagement, and customer loyalty. Executives seemed happy enough as their compensation grew
nicely with greater financial efficiencies, and Palisano got a sweet $270M+ exit package in
2012 for a job well done. The new CEO, Ginni Rometty has since undergone a lot of scrutiny
for her lack of business results, but she was screwed from day one. Of course, that doesn't
leave her off the hook for the business practices outlined in the article, but what do you
expect: she was hand picked by Palmisano and approved by the same board that thought
Palmisano was golden.
In 1994, I saved my job at IBM for the first time, and survived. But I was 36 years old. I
sat down at the desk of a man in his 50s, and found a few odds and ends left for me in the
desk. Almost 20 years later, it was my turn to go. My health and well-being is much better
now. Less money but better health. The sins committed by management will always be: "I was
just following orders".
"... Correction, March 24, 2018: Eileen Maroney lives in Aiken, South Carolina. The name of her city was incorrect in the original version of this story. ..."
Consider, for example, a planning presentation that former IBM executives said was drafted by heads of a business unit carved
out of IBM's once-giant software group and charged with pursuing the "C," or cloud, portion of the company's CAMS strategy.
The presentation laid out plans for substantially altering the unit's workforce. It was shown to company leaders including Diane
Gherson, the senior vice president for human resources, and James Kavanaugh, recently elevated to chief financial officer. Its language
was couched in the argot of "resources," IBM's term for employees, and "EP's," its shorthand for early professionals or recent college
graduates.
Among the goals: "Shift headcount mix towards greater % of Early Professional hires." Among the means: "[D]rive a more aggressive
performance management approach to enable us to hire and replace where needed, and fund an influx of EPs to correct seniority mix."
Among the expected results: "[A] significant reduction in our workforce of 2,500 resources."
A slide from a similar presentation prepared last spring for the same leaders called for "re-profiling current talent" to "create
room for new talent." Presentations for 2015 and 2016 for the 50,000-employee software group also included plans for "aggressive
performance management" and emphasized the need to "maintain steady attrition to offset hiring."
IBM declined to answer questions about whether either presentation was turned into company policy. The description of the planned
moves matches what hundreds of older ex-employees told ProPublica they believe happened to them: They were ousted because of their
age. The company used their exits to hire replacements, many of them young; to ship their work overseas; or to cut its overall headcount.
Ed Alpern, now 65, of Austin, started his 39-year run with IBM as a Selectric typewriter repairman. He ended as a project manager
in October of 2016 when, he said, his manager told him he could either leave with severance and other parting benefits or be given
a bad job review -- something he said he'd never previously received -- and risk being fired without them.
Albert Poggi, now 70, was a three-decade IBM veteran and ran the company's Palisades, New York, technical center where clients
can test new products. When notified in November of 2016 he was losing his job to layoff, he asked his bosses why, given what he
said was a history of high job ratings. "They told me," he said, "they needed to fill it with someone newer."
The presentations from the software group, as well as the stories of ex-employees like Alpern and Poggi, square with internal
documents from two other major IBM business units. The documents for all three cover some or all of the years from 2013 through the
beginning of 2018 and deal with job assessments, hiring, firing and layoffs.
The documents detail practices that appear at odds with how IBM says it treats its employees. In many instances, the practices
in effect, if not intent, tilt against the company's older U.S. workers.
For example, IBM spokespeople and lawyers have said the company never considers a worker's age in making decisions about layoffs
or firings.
But one 2014 document reviewed by ProPublica includes dates of birth. An ex-IBM employee familiar with the process said executives
from one business unit used it to decide about layoffs or other job changes for nearly a thousand workers, almost two-thirds of them
over 50.
Documents from subsequent years show that young workers are protected from cuts for at least a limited period of time. A 2016
slide presentation prepared by the company's global technology services unit, titled "U.S. Resource Action Process" and used to guide
managers in layoff procedures, includes bullets for categories considered "ineligible" for layoff. Among them: "early professional
hires," meaning recent college graduates.
In responding to age-discrimination complaints that ex-employees file with the EEOC, lawyers for IBM say that front-line managers
make all decisions about who gets laid off, and that their decisions are based strictly on skills and job performance, not age.
But ProPublica reviewed spreadsheets that indicate front-line managers hardly acted alone in making layoff calls. Former IBM managers
said the spreadsheets were prepared for upper-level executives and kept continuously updated. They list hundreds of employees together
with codes like "lift and shift," indicating that their jobs were to be lifted from them and shifted overseas, and details such as
whether IBM's clients had approved the change.
An examination of several of the spreadsheets suggests that, whatever the criteria for assembling them, the resulting list of
those marked for layoff was skewed toward older workers. A 2016 spreadsheet listed more than 400 full-time U.S. employees under the
heading "REBAL," which refers to "rebalancing," the process that can lead to laying off workers and either replacing them or shifting
the jobs overseas. Using the job search site LinkedIn, ProPublica was able to locate about 100 of these employees and then obtain
their ages through public records. Ninety percent of those found were 40 or older. Seventy percent were over 50.
IBM frequently cites its history of encouraging diversity in its responses to EEOC complaints about age discrimination. "IBM has
been a leader in taking positive actions to ensure its business opportunities are made available to individuals without regard to
age, race, color, gender, sexual orientation and other categories," a lawyer for the company wrote in a May 2017 letter. "This policy
of non-discrimination is reflected in all IBM business activities."
But ProPublica found at least one company business unit using a point system that disadvantaged older workers. The system awarded
points for attributes valued by the company. The more points a person garnered, according to the former employee, the more protected
she or he was from layoff or other negative job change; the fewer points, the more vulnerable.
The arrangement appears on its face to favor younger newcomers over older veterans. Employees were awarded points for being relatively
new at a job level or in a particular role. Those who worked for IBM for fewer years got more points than those who'd been there
a long time.
The ex-employee familiar with the process said a 2014 spreadsheet from that business unit, labeled "IBM Confidential," was assembled
to assess the job prospects of more than 600 high-level employees, two-thirds of them from the U.S. It included employees' years
of service with IBM, which the former employee said was used internally as a proxy for age. Also listed was an assessment by their
bosses of their career trajectories as measured by the highest job level they were likely to attain if they remained at the company,
as well as their point scores.
The tilt against older workers is evident when employees' years of service are compared with their point scores. Those with no
points and therefore most vulnerable to layoff had worked at IBM an average of more than 30 years; those with a high number of points
averaged half that.
Perhaps even more striking is the comparison between employees' service years and point scores on the one hand and their superiors'
assessments of their career trajectories on the other.
Along with many American employers, IBM has argued it needs to shed older workers because they're no longer at the top of their
games or lack "contemporary" skills.
But among those sized up in the confidential spreadsheet, fully 80 percent of older employees -- those with the most years of
service but no points and therefore most vulnerable to layoff -- were rated by superiors as good enough to stay at their current
job levels or be promoted. By contrast, only a small percentage of younger employees with a high number of points were similarly
rated.
"No major company would use tools to conduct a layoff where a disproportionate share of those let go were African Americans or
women," said Cathy Ventrell-Monsees, senior attorney adviser with the EEOC and former director of age litigation for the senior lobbying
giant AARP. "There's no difference if the tools result in a disproportionate share being older workers."
In addition to the point system that disadvantaged older workers in layoffs, other documents suggest that IBM has made increasingly
aggressive use of its job-rating machinery to pave the way for straight-out firings, or what the company calls "management-initiated
separations." Internal documents suggest that older workers were especially targets.
Like in many companies, IBM employees sit down with their managers at the start of each year and set goals for themselves. IBM
graded on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being top-ranked.
Those rated as 3 or 4 were given formal short-term goals known as personal improvement plans, or PIPs. Historically many managers
were lenient, especially toward those with 3s whose ratings had dropped because of forces beyond their control, such as a weakness
in the overall economy, ex-employees said.
But within the past couple of years, IBM appears to have decided the time for leniency was over. For example, a software group
planning document for 2015 said that, over and above layoffs, the unit should seek to fire about 3,000 of the unit's 50,000-plus
workers.
To make such deep cuts, the document said, executives should strike an "aggressive performance management posture." They needed
to double the share of employees given low 3 and 4 ratings to at least 6.6 percent of the division's workforce. And because layoffs
cost the company more than outright dismissals or resignations, the document said, executives should make sure that more than 80
percent of those with low ratings get fired or forced to quit.
Finally, the 2015 document said the division should work "to attract the best and brightest early professionals" to replace up
to two-thirds of those sent packing. A more recent planning document -- the presentation to top executives Gherson and Kavanaugh
for a business unit carved out of the software group -- recommended using similar techniques to free up money by cutting current
employees to fund an "influx" of young workers.
In a recent interview, Poggi said he was resigned to being laid off. "Everybody at IBM has a bullet with their name on it," he
said. Alpern wasn't nearly as accepting of being threatened with a poor job rating and then fired.
Alpern had a particular reason for wanting to stay on at IBM, at least until the end of last year. His younger son, Justin, then
a high school senior, had been named a National Merit semifinalist. Alpern wanted him to be able to apply for one of the company's
Watson scholarships. But IBM had recently narrowed eligibility so only the children of current employees could apply, not also retirees
as it was until 2014.
Alpern had to make it through December for his son to be eligible.
But in August, he said, his manager ordered him to retire. He sought to buy time by appealing to superiors. But he said the manager's
response was to threaten him with a bad job review that, he was told, would land him on a PIP, where his work would be scrutinized
weekly. If he failed to hit his targets -- and his managers would be the judges of that -- he'd be fired and lose his benefits.
Alpern couldn't risk it; he retired on Oct. 31. His son, now a freshman on the dean's list at Texas A&M University, didn't get
to apply.
"I can think of only a couple regrets or disappointments over my 39 years at IBM,"" he said, "and that's one of them."
'Congratulations on Your Retirement!'
Like any company in the U.S., IBM faces few legal constraints to reducing the size of its workforce. And with its no-disclosure
strategy, it eliminated one of the last regular sources of information about its employment practices and the changing size of its
American workforce.
But there remained the question of whether recent cutbacks were big enough to trigger state and federal requirements for disclosure
of layoffs. And internal documents, such as a slide in a 2016 presentation titled "Transforming to Next Generation Digital Talent,"
suggest executives worried that "winning the talent war" for new young workers required IBM to improve the "attractiveness of (its)
culture and work environment," a tall order in the face of layoffs and firings.
So the company apparently has sought to put a softer face on its cutbacks by recasting many as voluntary rather than the result
of decisions by the firm. One way it has done this is by converting many layoffs to retirements.
Some ex-employees told ProPublica that, faced with a layoff notice, they were just as happy to retire. Others said they felt forced
to accept a retirement package and leave. Several actively objected to the company treating their ouster as a retirement. The company
nevertheless processed their exits as such.
Project manager Ed Alpern's departure was treated in company paperwork as a voluntary retirement. He didn't see it that way, because
the alternative he said he was offered was being fired outright.
Lorilynn King, a 55-year-old IT specialist who worked from her home in Loveland, Colorado, had been with IBM almost as long as
Alpern by May 2016 when her manager called to tell her the company was conducting a layoff and her name was on the list.
King said the manager told her to report to a meeting in Building 1 on IBM's Boulder campus the following day. There, she said,
she found herself in a group of other older employees being told by an IBM human resources representative that they'd all be retiring.
"I have NO intention of retiring," she remembers responding. "I'm being laid off."
ProPublica has collected documents from 15 ex-IBM employees who got layoff notices followed by a retirement package and has talked
with many others who said they received similar paperwork. Critics say the sequence doesn't square well with the law.
"This country has banned mandatory retirement," said Seiner, the University of South Carolina law professor and former EEOC appellate
lawyer. "The law says taking a retirement package has to be voluntary. If you tell somebody 'Retire or we'll lay you off or fire
you,' that's not voluntary."
Until recently, the company's retirement paperwork included a letter from Rometty, the CEO, that read, in part, "I wanted to take
this opportunity to wish you well on your retirement While you may be retiring to embark on the next phase of your personal journey,
you will always remain a valued and appreciated member of the IBM family." Ex-employees said IBM stopped sending the letter last
year.
IBM has also embraced another practice that leads workers, especially older ones, to quit on what appears to be a voluntary basis.
It substantially reversed its pioneering support for telecommuting, telling people who've been working from home for years to begin
reporting to certain, often distant, offices. Their other choice: Resign.
David Harlan had worked as an IBM marketing strategist from his home in Moscow, Idaho, for 15 years when a manager told him last
year of orders to reduce the performance ratings of everybody at his pay grade. Then in February last year, when he was 50, came
an internal video from IBM's new senior vice president, Michelle Peluso, which announced plans to improve the work of marketing employees
by ordering them to work "shoulder to shoulder." Those who wanted to stay on would need to "co-locate" to offices in one of six cities.
Early last year, Harlan received an email congratulating him on "the opportunity to join your team in Raleigh, North Carolina."
He had 30 days to decide on the 2,600-mile move. He resigned in June.
David Harlan worked for IBM for 15 years from his home in Moscow, Idaho, where he also runs a drama company. Early last year,
IBM offered him a choice: Move 2,600 miles to Raleigh-Durham to begin working at an office, or resign. He left in June. (Rajah Bose
for ProPublica)
After the Peluso video was leaked to the press, an IBM spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal that the "
vast
majority " of people ordered to change locations and begin reporting to offices did so. IBM Vice President Ed Barbini said in
an initial email exchange with ProPublica in July that the new policy affected only about 2,000 U.S. employees and that "most" of
those had agreed to move.
But employees across a wide range of company operations, from the systems and technology group to analytics, told ProPublica they've
also been ordered to co-locate in recent years. Many IBMers with long service said that they quit rather than sell their homes, pull
children from school and desert aging parents. IBM declined to say how many older employees were swept up in the co-location initiative.
"They basically knew older employees weren't going to do it," said Eileen Maroney, a 63-year-old IBM product manager from Aiken,
South Carolina, who, like Harlan, was ordered to move to Raleigh or resign. "Older people aren't going to move. It just doesn't make
any sense." Like Harlan, Maroney left IBM last June.
Having people quit rather than being laid off may help IBM avoid disclosing how much it is shrinking its U.S. workforce and where
the reductions are occurring.
Under the federal WARN Act , adopted in the wake
of huge job cuts and factory shutdowns during the 1980s, companies laying off 50 or more employees who constitute at least one-third
of an employer's workforce at a site have to give advance notice of layoffs to the workers, public agencies and local elected officials.
Similar laws in some states where IBM has a substantial presence are even stricter. California, for example, requires advanced
notice for layoffs of 50 or more employees, no matter what the share of the workforce. New York requires notice for 25 employees
who make up a third.
Because the laws were drafted to deal with abrupt job cuts at individual plants, they can miss reductions that occur over long
periods among a workforce like IBM's that was, at least until recently, widely dispersed because of the company's work-from-home
policy.
IBM's training sessions to prepare managers for layoffs suggest the company was aware of WARN thresholds, especially in states
with strict notification laws such as California. A 2016 document entitled "Employee Separation Processing" and labeled "IBM Confidential"
cautions managers about the "unique steps that must be taken when processing separations for California employees."
A ProPublica review of five years of WARN disclosures for a dozen states where the company had large facilities that shed workers
found no disclosures in nine. In the other three, the company alerted authorities of just under 1,000 job cuts -- 380 in California,
369 in New York and 200 in Minnesota. IBM's reported figures are well below the actual number of jobs the company eliminated in these
states, where in recent years it has shuttered, sold off or leveled plants that once employed vast numbers.
By contrast, other employers in the same 12 states reported layoffs last year alone totaling 215,000 people. They ranged from
giant Walmart to Ostrom's Mushroom Farms in Washington state.
Whether IBM operated within the rules of the WARN act, which are notoriously fungible, could not be determined because the company
declined to provide ProPublica with details on its layoffs.
A Second Act, But Poorer
W ith 35 years at IBM under his belt, Ed Miyoshi had plenty of experience being pushed to take buyouts, or early retirement packages,
and refusing them. But he hadn't expected to be pushed last fall.
Miyoshi, of Hopewell Junction, New York, had some years earlier launched a pilot program to improve IBM's technical troubleshooting.
With the blessing of an IBM vice president, he was busily interviewing applicants in India and Brazil to staff teams to roll the
program out to clients worldwide.
The interviews may have been why IBM mistakenly assumed Miyoshi was a manager, and so emailed him to eliminate the one U.S.-based
employee still left in his group.
"That was me," Miyoshi realized.
In his sign-off email to colleagues shortly before Christmas 2016, Miyoshi, then 57, wrote: "I am too young and too poor to stop
working yet, so while this is good-bye to my IBM career, I fully expect to cross paths with some of you very near in the future."
He did, and perhaps sooner than his colleagues had expected; he started as a subcontractor to IBM about two weeks later, on Jan.
3.
Miyoshi is an example of older workers who've lost their regular IBM jobs and been brought back as contractors. Some of them --
not Miyoshi -- became contract workers after IBM told them their skills were out of date and no longer needed.
Employment law experts said that hiring ex-employees as contractors can be legally dicey. It raises the possibility that the layoff
of the employee was not for the stated reason but perhaps because they were targeted for their age, race or gender.
IBM appears to recognize the problem. Ex-employees say the company has repeatedly told managers -- most recently earlier this
year -- not to contract with former employees or sign on with third-party contracting firms staffed by ex-IBMers. But ProPublica
turned up dozens of instances where the company did just that.
Only two weeks after IBM laid him off in December 2016, Ed Miyoshi of Hopewell Junction, New York, started work as a subcontractor
to the company. But he took a $20,000-a-year pay cut. "I'm not a millionaire, so that's a lot of money to me," he says. (Demetrius
Freeman for ProPublica)
Responding to a question in a confidential questionnaire from ProPublica, one 35-year company veteran from New York said he knew
exactly what happened to the job he left behind when he was laid off. "I'M STILL DOING IT. I got a new gig eight days after departure,
working for a third-party company under contract to IBM doing the exact same thing."
In many cases, of course, ex-employees are happy to have another job, even if it is connected with the company that laid them
off.
Henry, the Columbus-based sales and technical specialist who'd been with IBM's "resiliency services" unit, discovered that he'd
lost his regular IBM job because the company had purchased an Indian firm that provided the same services. But after a year out of
work, he wasn't going to turn down the offer of a temporary position as a subcontractor for IBM, relocating data centers. It got
money flowing back into his household and got him back where he liked to be, on the road traveling for business.
The compensation most ex-IBM employees make as contractors isn't comparable. While Henry said he collected the same dollar amount,
it didn't include health insurance, which cost him $1,325 a month. Miyoshi said his paycheck is 20 percent less than what he made
as an IBM regular.
"I took an over $20,000 hit by becoming a contractor. I'm not a millionaire, so that's a lot of money to me," Miyoshi said.
And lower pay isn't the only problem ex-IBM employees-now-subcontractors face. This year, Miyoshi's payable hours have been cut
by an extra 10 "furlough days." Internal documents show that IBM repeatedly furloughs subcontractors without pay, often for two,
three or more weeks a quarter. In some instances, the furloughs occur with little advance notice and at financially difficult moments.
In one document, for example, it appears IBM managers, trying to cope with a cost overrun spotted in mid-November, planned to dump
dozens of subcontractors through the end of the year, the middle of the holiday season.
Former IBM employees now on contract said the company controls costs by notifying contractors in the midst of projects they have
to take pay cuts or lose the work. Miyoshi said that he originally started working for his third-party contracting firm for 10 percent
less than at IBM, but ended up with an additional 10 percent cut in the middle of 2017, when IBM notified the contractor it was slashing
what it would pay.
For many ex-employees, there are few ways out. Henry, for example, sought to improve his chances of landing a new full-time job
by seeking assistance to finish a college degree through a federal program designed to retrain workers hurt by offshoring of jobs.
But when he contacted the Ohio state agency that administers the Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, program, which provides
assistance to workers who lose their jobs for trade-related reasons, he was told IBM hadn't submitted necessary paperwork. State
officials said Henry could apply if he could find other IBM employees who were laid off with him, information that the company doesn't
provide.
TAA is overseen by the Labor Department but is operated by states under individual agreements with Washington, so the rules can
vary from state to state. But generally employers, unions, state agencies and groups of employers can petition for training help
and cash assistance. Labor Department data compiled by the advocacy group Global Trade Watch shows that employers apply in about
40 percent of cases. Some groups of IBM workers have obtained retraining funds when they or their state have applied, but records
dating back to the early 1990s show IBM itself has applied for and won taxpayer assistance only once, in 2008, for three Chicago-area
workers whose jobs were being moved to India.
Teasing New Jobs
A s IBM eliminated thousands of jobs in 2016, David Carroll, a 52-year-old Austin software engineer, thought he was safe.
His job was in mobile development, the "M" in the company's CAMS strategy. And if that didn't protect him, he figured he was only
four months shy of qualifying for a program that gives employees who leave within a year of their three-decade mark access to retiree
medical coverage and other benefits.
But the layoff notice Carroll received March 2 gave him three months -- not four -- to come up with another job. Having been a
manager, he said he knew the gantlet he'd have to run to land a new position inside IBM.
Still, he went at it hard, applying for more than 50 IBM jobs, including one for a job he'd successfully done only a few years
earlier. For his effort, he got one offer -- the week after he'd been forced to depart. He got severance pay but lost access to what
would have been more generous benefits.
Edward Kishkill, then 60, of Hillsdale, New Jersey, had made a similar calculation.
A senior systems engineer, Kishkill recognized the danger of layoffs, but assumed he was immune because he was working in systems
security, the "S" in CAMS and another hot area at the company.
The precaution did him no more good than it had Carroll. Kishkill received a layoff notice the same day, along with 17 of the
22 people on his systems security team, including Diane Moos. The notice said that Kishkill could look for other jobs internally.
But if he hadn't landed anything by the end of May, he was out.
With a daughter who was a senior in high school headed to Boston University, he scrambled to apply, but came up dry. His last
day was May 31, 2016.
For many, the fruitless search for jobs within IBM is the last straw, a final break with the values the company still says it
embraces. Combined with the company's increasingly frequent request that departing employees train their overseas replacements, it
has left many people bitter. Scores of ex-employees interviewed by ProPublica said that managers with job openings told them they
weren't allowed to hire from layoff lists without getting prior, high-level clearance, something that's almost never given.
ProPublica reviewed documents that show that a substantial share of recent IBM layoffs have involved what the company calls "lift
and shift," lifting the work of specific U.S. employees and shifting it to specific workers in countries such as India and Brazil.
For example, a document summarizing U.S. employment in part of the company's global technology services division for 2015 lists nearly
a thousand people as layoff candidates, with the jobs of almost half coded for lift and shift.
Ex-employees interviewed by ProPublica said the lift-and-shift process required their extensive involvement. For example, shortly
after being notified she'd be laid off, Kishkill's colleague, Moos, was told to help prepare a "knowledge transfer" document and
begin a round of conference calls and email exchanges with two Indian IBM employees who'd be taking over her work. Moos said the
interactions consumed much of her last three months at IBM.
Next Chapters
W hile IBM has managed to keep the scale and nature of its recent U.S. employment cuts largely under the public's radar, the company
drew some unwanted attention during the 2016 presidential campaign, when then-candidate
Donald Trump lambasted it for eliminating 500 jobs in Minnesota, where the company has had a presence for a half century, and
shifting the work abroad.
The company also has caught flak -- in places like
Buffalo, New
York ;
Dubuque, Iowa ; Columbia,
Missouri , and
Baton Rouge, Louisiana -- for promising jobs in return for state and local incentives, then failing to deliver. In all, according
to public officials in those and other places, IBM promised to bring on 3,400 workers in exchange for as much as $250 million in
taxpayer financing but has hired only about half as many.
After Trump's victory, Rometty, in a move at least partly aimed at courting the president-elect, pledged to hire 25,000 new U.S.
employees by 2020. Spokesmen said the hiring would increase IBM's U.S. employment total, although, given its continuing job cuts,
the addition is unlikely to approach the promised hiring total.
When The New York Times ran a story last fall saying IBM now has
more employees in India than the U.S.,
Barbini, the corporate spokesman, rushed to declare, "The U.S. has always been and remains IBM's center of gravity." But his stream
of accompanying tweets and graphics focused
as much on the company's record for racking up patents as hiring people.
IBM has long been aware of the damage its job cuts can do to people. In a series of internal training documents to prepare managers
for layoffs in recent years, the company has included this warning: "Loss of a job often triggers a grief reaction similar to what
occurs after a death."
Most, though not all, of the ex-IBM employees with whom ProPublica spoke have weathered the loss and re-invented themselves.
Marjorie Madfis, the digital marketing strategist, couldn't land another tech job after her 2013 layoff, so she headed in a different
direction. She started a nonprofit called Yes She Can Inc. that provides job skills development for young autistic women, including
her 21-year-old daughter.
After almost two years of looking and desperate for useful work, Brian Paulson, the widely traveled IBM senior manager, applied
for and landed a position as a part-time rural letter carrier in Plano, Texas. He now works as a contract project manager for a Las
Vegas gaming and lottery firm.
Ed Alpern, who started at IBM as a Selectric typewriter repairman, watched his son go on to become a National Merit Scholar at
Texas A&M University, but not a Watson scholarship recipient.
Lori King, the IT specialist and 33-year IBM veteran who's now 56, got in a parting shot. She added an addendum to the retirement
papers the firm gave her that read in part: "It was never my plan to retire earlier than at least age 60 and I am not committing
to retire. I have been informed that I am impacted by a resource action effective on 2016-08-22, which is my last day at IBM, but
I am NOT retiring."
King has aced more than a year of government-funded coding boot camps and university computer courses, but has yet to land a new
job.
David Harlan still lives in Moscow, Idaho, after refusing IBM's "invitation" to move to North Carolina, and is artistic director
of the Moscow Art Theatre (Too).
Ed Miyoshi is still a technical troubleshooter working as a subcontractor for IBM.
Ed Kishkill, the senior systems engineer, works part time at a local tech startup, but pays his bills as an associate at a suburban
New Jersey Staples store.
This year, Paul Henry was back on the road, working as an IBM subcontractor in Detroit, about 200 miles from where he lived in
Columbus. On Jan. 8, he put in a 14-hour day and said he planned to call home before turning in. He died in his sleep.
Correction, March 24, 2018: Eileen Maroney lives in Aiken, South Carolina. The name of her city was incorrect in the original
version of this story.
Do you have information about age discrimination at IBM?
Peter Gosselin joined ProPublica as a contributing
reporter in January 2017 to cover aging. He has covered the U.S. and global economies for, among others, the Los Angeles Times and
The Boston Globe, focusing on the lived experiences of working people. He is the author of "High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives
of American Families."
Ariana Tobin is an engagement reporter at ProPublica,
where she works to cultivate communities to inform our coverage. She was previously at The Guardian and WNYC. Ariana has also worked
as digital producer for APM's Marketplace and contributed
to outlets including The
New Republic , On Being , the
St. Louis
Beacon and Bustle .
There's not a word of truth quoted in this article. That is, quoted from IBM spokespeople. It's the culture there now. They don't
even realize that most of their customers have become deaf to the same crap from their Sales and Marketing BS, which is even worse
than their HR speak.
The sad truth is that IBM became incapable of taking its innovation (IBM is indeed a world beating, patent generating machine)
to market a long time ago. It has also lost the ability (if it ever really had it) to acquire other companies and foster their
innovation either - they ran most into the ground. As a result, for nearly a decade revenues have declined and resource actions
grown. The resource actions may seem to be the ugly problem, but they're only the symptom of a fat greedy and pompous bureaucracy
that's lost its ability to grow and stay relevant in a very competitive and changing industry. What they have been able to perfect
and grow is their ability to downsize and return savings as dividends (Big Sam Palmisano's "innovation"). Oh, and for senior management
to line their pockets.
Nothing IBM is currently doing is sustainable.
If you're still employed there, listen to the pain in the words of your fallen comrades and don't knock yourself out trying
to stay afloat. Perhaps learn some BS of your own and milk your job (career? not...) until you find freedom and better pastures.
If you own stock, do like Warren Buffett, and sell it while it still has some value.
This is NOTHING NEW! All major corporations have and will do this at some point in their existence. Another industry that does
this regularly every 3 to 5 years is the pharamaceutical industry. They'll decimate their sales forces in order to, as they like
to put it, "right size" the company.
They'll cloak it as weeding out the low performers, but they'll try to catch the "older" workers in the net as well.
"... I took an early retirement package when IBM first started downsizing. I had 30 years with them, but I could see the writing on the wall so I got out. I landed an exec job with a biotech company some years later and inherited an IBM consulting team that were already engaged. I reviewed their work for 2 months then had the pleasure of terminating the contract and actually escorting the team off the premises because the work product was so awful. ..."
"... Every former or prospective IBM employee is a potential future IBM customer or partner. How you treat them matters! ..."
"... I advise IBM customers now. My biggest professional achievements can be measured in how much revenue IBM lost by my involvement - millions. Favorite is when IBM paid customer to stop the bleeding. ..."
I took an early retirement package when IBM first started downsizing. I had 30 years
with them, but I could see the writing on the wall so I got out. I landed an exec job with a
biotech company some years later and inherited an IBM consulting team that were already
engaged. I reviewed their work for 2 months then had the pleasure of terminating the contract
and actually escorting the team off the premises because the work product was so
awful.
They actually did a presentation of their interim results - but it was a 52 slide package
that they had presented to me in my previous job but with the names and numbers changed.
see more
Intellectual Capital Re-Use! LOL! Not many people realize in IBM that many, if not all of the
original IBM Consulting Group materials were made under the Type 2 Materials clause of the
IBM Contract, which means the customers actually owned the IP rights of the documents. Can
you imagine the mess if just one customer demands to get paid for every re-use of the IP that
was developed for them and then re-used over and over again?
Beautiful! Yea, these companies so fast to push experienced people who have dedicated their
lives to the firm - how can you not...all the hours and commitment it takes - way
underestimate the power of the network of those left for dead and their influence in that
next career gig. Memories are long...very long when it comes to experiences like this.
I advise IBM customers now. My biggest professional achievements can be measured in how
much revenue IBM lost by my involvement - millions. Favorite is when IBM paid customer to
stop the bleeding.
Under neoliberlaism the idea of loyalty between a corporation and an employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests.
Notable quotes:
"... Any expectation of "loyalty", that two-way relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking ..."
"... With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about people not having money to buy their goods and services plus what are they going to do with the surplus of labor ..."
"... This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing software, I will never again recommend IBM products ..."
"... The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The idea of loyalty between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests. ..."
"... The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980. ..."
I started at IBM 3 days out of college in 1979 and retired in 2017. I was satisfied with my choice and never felt mistreated because
I had no expectation of lifetime employment, especially after the pivotal period in the 1990's when IBM almost went out of business.
The company survived that period by dramatically restructuring both manufacturing costs and sales expense including the firing
of tens of thousands of employees. These actions were well documented in the business news of the time, the obvious alternative
was bankruptcy.
I told the authors that anyone working at IBM after 1993 should have had no expectation of a lifetime career. Downsizing, outsourcing,
movement of work around the globe was already commonplace at all such international companies. Any expectation of "loyalty",
that two-way relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking .
I was always prepared to be sent packing, without cause, at any time and always had my resume up-to-date. I stayed because
of interesting work, respectful supervisors, and adequate compensation.
The "resource action" that forced my decision to retire was no surprise, the company that hired me had been gone for decades.
With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about people not having money to buy
their goods and services plus what are they going to do with the surplus of labor
I had, more or less, the same experience at Cisco. They paid me to quit. Luckily, I was ready for it.
The article mentions IBMs 3 failures. So who was it that was responsible for not anticipating the transitions? It is hard enough
doing what you already know. Perhaps companies should be spending more on figuring out "what's next" and not continually playing
catch-up by dumping the older workers for the new.
I was laid off by IBM after 29 years and 4 months. I had received a division award in previous year, and my last PBC appraisal
was 2+ (high performer.) The company I left was not the company I started with. Top management--starting with Gerstner--has steadily
made IBM a less desirable place to work. They now treat employees as interchangeable assets and nothing more. I cannot/would not
recommend IBM as an employer to any young programmer.
Truly awesome work. I do want to add one thing, however--the entire rhetoric about "too many old white guys" that has become so
common absolutely contributes to the notion that this sort of behavior is not just acceptable but in some twisted way admirable
as well.
Is anyone surprised that so many young people don't think capitalism is a good system any more?
I ran a high technology electronic systems company for years. We ran it "the old way." If you worked hard, and tried, we would
bend over backwards to keep you. If technology or business conditions eliminated your job, we would try to train you for a new
one. Our people were loyal, not like IBMers today. I honestly think that's the best way to be profitable.
People afraid of being unjustly RIFFed will always lack vitality.
I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to age discrimination. IBM apparently is just one of many organizations that discriminate.
I'm in the middle of my own fight with the State University of New York (SUNY) over age discrimination. I was terminated by
a one of the technical colleges in the SUNY System. The EEOC/New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) found that "PROBABLE
CAUSE (NYDHR's emphasis) exists to believe that the Respondent (Alfred State College - SUNY) has engaged in or is engaging in
the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." Investigators for NYDHR interviewed several witnesses, who testified that
representatives of the college made statements such as "we need new faces", "three old men" attending a meeting, an older faculty
member described as an "albatross", and "we ought to get rid of the old white guys". Witnesses said these statements were made
by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and a dean at the college.
This saga at IBM is simply a microcosm of our overall economy. Older workers get ousted in favor of younger, cheaper workers;
way too many jobs get outsourced; and so many workers today [young and old] can barely land a full-time job. This is the behavior that our system incentivises (and gets away with) in this post Reagan Revolution era where deregulation is
lauded and unions have been undermined & demonized. We need to seriously re-work 'work', and in order to do this we need to purge
Republicans at every level, as they CLEARLY only serve corporate bottom-lines - not workers - by championing tax codes that reward
outsourcing, fight a livable minimum wage, eliminate pensions, bust unions, fight pay equity for women & family leave, stack the
Supreme Court with radical ideologues who blatantly rule for corporations over people all the time, etc. etc. ~35 years of basically
uninterrupted Conservative economic policy & ideology has proven disastrous for workers and our quality of life. As goes your
middle class, so goes your country.
I am a retired IBM manager having had to execute many of these resource reduction programs.. too many.. as a matter of fact. ProPUBLICA....You
nailed it!
IBM has always treated its customer-facing roles like Disney -- as cast members who need to match a part in a play. In the 60s
and 70s, it was the white-shirt, blue-suit white men whom IBM leaders thought looked like mainframe salesmen. Now, rather than
actually build a credible cloud to compete with Amazon and Microsoft, IBM changes the cast to look like cloud salespeople. (I
work for Microsoft. Commenting for myself alone.)
I am a survivor, the rare employee who has been at IBM for over 35 years. I have seen many, many layoff programs over 20 years
now. I have seen tens of thousands people let go from the Hudson Valley of N.Y. Those of us who have survived, know and lived
through what this article so accurately described. I currently work with 3 laid off/retired and rehired contractors. I have seen
age discrimination daily for over 15 years. It is not only limited to layoffs, it is rampant throughout the company. Promotions,
bonuses, transfers for opportunities, good reviews, etc... are gone if you are over 45. I have seen people under 30 given promotions
to levels that many people worked 25 years for. IBM knows that these younger employees see how they treat us so they think they
can buy them off. Come to think of it, I guess they actually are! They are ageist, there is no doubt, it is about time everyone
knew. Excellent article.
Nice article, but seriously this is old news. IBM has been at this for ...oh twenty years or more. I don't really have a problem with it in terms of a corporation trying to make money. But I do have a problem with how IBM also
likes to avoid layoffs by giving folks over 40 intentionally poor reviews, essentially trying to drive people out. Just have the
guts to tell people, we don't need you anymore, bye. But to string people along as the overseas workers come in...c'mon just be
honest with your workers. High tech over 40 is not easy...I suggest folks prep for a career change before 50. Then you can have the last laugh on a company
like IBM.
From pages 190-191 of my novel, Ordinary Man (Amazon):
Throughout
it all, layoffs became common, impacting mostly older employees with many years
of service. These job cuts were dribbled out in small numbers to conceal them
from the outside world, but employees could plainly see what was going on.
The laid off
employees were supplanted by offshoring work to low-costs countries and hiring
younger employees, often only on temporary contracts that offered low pay and
no benefits � a process pejoratively referred to by veteran employees as
"downsourcing." The recruitment of these younger workers was done under the
guise of bringing in fresh skills, but while many of the new hires brought new
abilities and vitality, they lacked the knowledge and perspective that comes
with experience.
Frequently,
an older more experienced worker would be asked to help educate newer
employees, only to be terminated shortly after completing the task. And the new
hires weren't fooled by what they witnessed and experienced at OpenSwitch,
perceiving very quickly that the company had no real interest in investing in
them for the long term. To the contrary, the objective was clearly to grind as
much work out of them as possible, without offering any hope of increased
reward or opportunity.
Most of the
young recruits left after only a year or two � which, again, was part of the
true agenda at the company. Senior management viewed employees not as talent,
but simply as cost, and didn't want anyone sticking around long enough to move
up the pay scale.
This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing software, I will never again recommend
IBM products. I love AIX and have worked with a lot if IBM products but not anymore. Good luck with the millennials though...
I worked for four major corporations (HP, Intel, Control Data Corporation, and Micron Semiconductor) before I was hired by IBM
as a rare (at that time) experienced new hire.
Even though I ended up working for IBM for 21 years, and retired in 2013, because
of my experiences at those other companies, I never considered IBM my "family."
The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck
from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything.
The way I saw it, every time I received a paycheck
from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost) even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything.
The idea of loyalty between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a motel and its guests.
It is a business arrangement, not a love affair. Every individual needs to continually assess their skills and their value to
their employer. If they are not commensurate, it is the employee's responsibility to either acquire new skills or seek a new employer.
Your employer will not hesitate to lay you off if your skills are no longer needed, or if they can hire someone who can do your
job just as well for less pay. That is free enterprise, and it works for people willing to take advantage of it.
I basically agree. But why should it be OK for a company to fire you just to replace you with a younger you? If all that they
accomplish is lowering their health care costs (which is what this is really about). If the company is paying about the same for
the same work, why is firing older workers for being older OK?
Good question. The point I was trying to make is that people need to watch out for themselves and not expect their employer to
do what is "best" for the employee. I think that is true whatever age the employee happens to be.
Whether employers should be able to discriminate against (treat differently) their employees based on age, gender, race, religion,
etc. is a political question. Morally, I don't think they should discriminate. Politically, I think it is a slippery slope when
the government starts imposing regulations on free enterprise. Government almost always creates more problems than they fix.
Sorry, but when you deregulate the free enterprise, it created more problems than it fixes and that is a fact that has been proven
for the last 38 years.
That's just plain false. Deregulation creates competiiton. Competition for talented and skilled workers creates opportunities
for those that wish to be employed and for those that wish to start new ventures. For example, when Ma Bell was regulated and
had a monopoly on telecommunications there was no innovation in the telecom inudstry. However, when it was deregulated, cell phones,
internet, etc exploded ... creating billionaires and millionaires while also improving the quality of life.
No, it happens to be true. When Reagan deregulate the economy, a lot of those corporate raiders just took over the companies,
sold off the assets, and pocketed the money. What quality of life? Half of American lived near the poverty level and the wages
for the workers have been stagnant for the last 38 years compared to a well-regulated economy in places like Germany and the Scandinavian
countries where the workers have good wages and a far better standard of living than in the USA. Why do you think the Norwegians
told Trump that they will not be immigrating to the USA anytime soon?
What were the economic conditions before Regan? It was a nightmare before Regan. The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare
of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation.
And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980.
At least we had a manufacturing base in the USA, strong regulations of corporations, corporate scandals were far and few, businesses
did not go under so quickly, prices of goods and services did not go through the roof, people had pensions and could reasonably
live off them, and recessions did not last so long or go so deep until Reagan came into office. In Under Reagan, the jobs were
allowed to be send overseas, unions were busted up, pensions were reduced or eliminated, wages except those of the CEOs were staganent,
and the economic conditions under Bush, Senior and Bush, Jr. were no better except that Bush, Jr, was the first president to have
a net minus below zero growth, so every time we get a Republican Administration, the economy really turns into a nightmare. That
is a fact.
You have the Republicans in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin using Reaganomics and they are economic disaster areas.
You had an industrial base in the USA, lots of banks and savings and loans to choose from, lots of mom and pop stores, strong
government regulation of the economy, able to live off your pensions, strong unions and employment laws along with the court system
to back you up against corporate malfeasance. All that was gone when Reagan and the two Bushes came into office.
Amazingly accurate article. The once great IBM now a dishonest and unscrupulous corporation concerned more about earnings per
share than employees, customers, or social responsibility. In Global Services most likely 75% or more jobs are no longer in the
US - can't believe a word coming out of Armonk.
I'm not sure there was ever a paradise in employment. Yeah, you can say there was more job stability 50 or 60 years ago, but that
applied to a much smaller workforce than today (mostly white men). It is a drag, but there are also lot more of us old farts than
there used to be and we live a lot longer in retirement as well. I don't see any magic bullet fix either.
Great article. What's especially infuriating is that the industry continues to claim that there is a shortage of STEM workers.
For example, google "claim of 1.4 million computer science jobs with only 400,000 computer science graduates to fill them". If
companies would openly say, "we have plenty of young STEM workers and prefer them to most older STEM workers", we could at least
start addressing the problem. But they continue to promote the lie of there being a STEM shortage. They just want as big a labor
pool as possible, unemployed workers be damned.
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral is in the toilet. Bonuses for the
rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation
for years. Adjusting for inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at least 1/2 have
quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now we have one or two and if someone is sick or on
vacation, our support structure is to hope nothing breaks. We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation
of being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As the unemployment rate drops, more leave to find a different job, leaving
the old people as they are less willing to start over with pay, vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc.
The younger people are generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a busier colleague.
I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy with
30-40 year guys who are on their way out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people past
2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
Make no mistake. The three and four letter acronyms and other mushy corporate speak may differ from firm to firm, but this is
going on in every large tech company old enough to have a large population of workers over 50. I hope others will now be exposed.
This article hits the nail right on the head, as I come up on my 1 year anniversary from being....ahem....'retired' from 23 years
at IBM....and I'll be damned if I give them the satisfaction of thinking this was like a 'death' to me. It was the greatest thing
that could have ever happened. Ginny and the board should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
Starting around age 40 you start to see age discrimination. I think this is largely due to economics, like increased vacation
times, higher wages, but most of all the perception that older workers will run up the medical costs. You can pass all the age
related discrimination laws you want, but look how ineffective that has been.
If you contrast this with the German workforce, you see that they have more older workers with the skills and younger workers
without are having a difficult time getting in. So what's the difference? There are laws about how many vacation weeks that are
given and there is a national medical system that everyone pays, so discrimination isn't seen in the same light.
The US is the only hold out maybe with South Africa that doesn't have a good national medical insurance program for everyone.
Not only do we pay more than the rest of the world, but we also have discrimination because of it.
This is very good, and this is IBM. I know. I was plaintiff in Gundlach v. IBM Japan, 983 F.Supp.2d 389, which involved their
violating Japanese labor law when I worked in Japan. The New York federal judge purposely ignored key points of Japanese labor
law, and also refused to apply Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment to the parent company in Westchester County. It
is a huge, self-described "global" company with little demonstrated loyalty to America and Americans. Pennsylvania is suing them
for $170 million on a botched upgrade of the state's unemployment system.
In early 2013 I was given a 3 PBC rating for my 2012 performance, the main reason cited by my manager being that my team lead
thought I "seemed distracted". Five months later I was included in a "resource action", and was gone by July. I was 20 months
shy of 55. Younger coworkers were retained. That was about two years after the product I worked on for over a decade was off-shored.
Through a fluke of someone from the old, disbanded team remembering me, I was rehired two years later - ironically in a customer
support position for the very product I helped develop.
While I appreciated my years of service, previous salary, and previous benefits being reinstated, a couple years into it I
realized I just wasn't cut out for the demands of the job - especially the significant 24x7 pager duty. Last June I received email
describing a "Transition to Retirement" plan I was eligible for, took it, and my last day will be June 30. I still dislike the
job, but that plan reclassified me as part time, thus ending pager duty for me. The job still sucks, but at least I no longer
have to despair over numerous week long 24x7 stints throughout the year.
A significant disappointment occurred a couple weeks ago. I was discussing healthcare options with another person leaving the
company who hadn't been resource-actioned as I had, and learned the hard way I lost over $30,000 in some sort of future medical
benefit account the company had established and funded at some point. I'm not sure I was ever even aware of it. That would have
funded several years of healthcare insurance during the 8 years until I'm eligible for Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised if their
not having to give me that had something to do with my seeming "distracted" to them. <rolls eyes="">
What's really painful is the history of that former account can still be viewed at Fidelity, where it associates my departure
date in 2013 with my having "forfeited" that money. Um, no. I did not forfeit that money, nor would I have. I had absolutely no
choice in the matter. I find the use of the word 'forfeited' to describe what happened as both disingenuous and offensive. That
said, I don't know whether's that's IBM's or Fidelity's terminology, though.
Jeff, You should call Fidelity. I recently received a letter from the US Department of Labor that they discovered that IBM was
"holding" funds that belonged to me that I was never told about. This might be similar or same story .
"... As long as companies pay for their employees' health insurance they will have an incentive to fire older employees. ..."
"... The answer is to separate health insurance from employment. Companies can't be trusted. Not only health care, but retirement is also sorely abused by corporations. All the money should be in protected employee based accounts. ..."
American companies pay health insurance premiums based on their specific employee profiles. Insurance companies compete with each
other for the business, but costs are actual. And based on the profile of the pool of employees. So American companies fire older
workers just to lower the average age of their employees. Statistically this is going to lower their health care costs.
As long as companies pay for their employees' health insurance they will have an incentive to fire older employees.
They have an incentive to fire sick employees and employees with genetic risks. Those are harder to implement as ways to
lower costs. Firing older employees is simple to do, just look up their ages.
The answer is to separate health insurance from employment. Companies can't be trusted. Not only health care, but retirement
is also sorely abused by corporations. All the money should be in protected employee based accounts.
By the way, most tech companies are actually run by older people. The goal is to broom out mid-level people based on age. Nobody
is going to suggest to a sixty year old president that they should self fire, for the good of the company.
"... It's no coincidence whatsoever that Diane Gherson, mentioned prominently in the article, blasted out an all-employees email crowing about IBM being a great place to work according to (ahem) LinkedIn. I desperately want to post a link to this piece in the corporate Slack, but that would get me fired immediately instead of in a few months at the next "resource action." It's been a whole 11 months since our division had one, so I know one is coming soon. ..."
"... I used to say when I was there that: "After every defeat, they pin medals on the generals and shoot the soldiers". ..."
"... 1990 is also when H-1B visa rules were changed so that companies no longer had to even attempt to hire an American worker as long as the job paid $60,000, which hasn't changed since. This article doesn't even mention how our work visa system facilitated and even rewarded this abuse of Americans. ..."
"... Well, starting in the 1980s, the American management was allowed by Reagan to get rid of its workforce. ..."
"... It's all about making the numbers so the management can present a Potemkin Village of profits and ever-increasing growth sufficient to get bonuses. There is no relation to any sort of quality or technological advancement, just HR 3-card monte. They have installed air bearing in Old Man Watson's coffin as it has been spinning ever faster ..."
"... Corporate America executive management is all about stock price management. Their bonus's in the millions of dollars are based on stock performance. With IBM's poor revenue performance since Ginny took over, profits can only be maintained by cost reduction. Look at the IBM executive's bonus's throughout the last 20 years and you can see that all resource actions have been driven by Palmisano's and Rominetty's greed for extravagant bonus's. ..."
"... Also worth noting is that IBM drastically cut the cap on it's severance pay calculation. Almost enough to make me regret not having retired before that changed. ..."
"... Yeah, severance started out at 2 yrs pay, went to 1 yr, then to 6 mos. and is now 1 month. ..."
"... You need to investigate AT&T as well, as they did the same thing. I was 'sold' by IBM to AT&T as part of he Network Services operation. AT&T got rid of 4000 of the 8000 US employees sent to AT&T within 3 years. Nearly everyone of us was a 'senior' employee. ..."
dragonflap� 7
months ago I'm a 49-year-old SW engineer who started at IBM as part of an acquisition in 2000. I got laid off in 2002 when IBM
started sending reqs to Bangalore in batches of thousands. After various adventures, I rejoined IBM in 2015 as part of the "C" organization
referenced in the article.
It's no coincidence whatsoever that Diane Gherson, mentioned prominently in the article, blasted out an all-employees email
crowing about IBM being a great place to work according to (ahem) LinkedIn. I desperately want to post a link to this piece in the
corporate Slack, but that would get me fired immediately instead of in a few months at the next "resource action." It's been a whole
11 months since our division had one, so I know one is coming soon.
The lead-in to this piece makes it sound like IBM was forced into these practices by inescapable forces. I'd say not, rather
that it pursued them because a) the management was clueless about how to lead IBM in the new environment and new challenges so
b) it started to play with numbers to keep the (apparent) profits up....to keep the bonuses coming. I used to say when I was
there that: "After every defeat, they pin medals on the generals and shoot the soldiers".
And then there's the Pig with the Wooden Leg shaggy dog story that ends with the punch line, "A pig like that you don't eat
all at once", which has a lot of the flavor of how many of us saw our jobs as IBM die a slow death.
IBM is about to fall out of the sky, much as General Motors did. How could that happen? By endlessly beating the cow to get
more milk.
IBM was hiring right through the Great Depression such that It Did Not Pay Unemployment Insurance. Because it never laid people
off, Because until about 1990, your manager was responsible for making sure you had everything you needed to excel and grow....and
you would find people that had started on the loading dock and had become Senior Programmers. But then about 1990, IBM starting
paying unemployment insurance....just out of the goodness of its heart. Right.
1990 is also when H-1B visa rules were changed so that companies no longer had to even attempt to hire an American worker
as long as the job paid $60,000, which hasn't changed since. This article doesn't even mention how our work visa system facilitated
and even rewarded this abuse of Americans.
I found that other Ex-IBMer's respect other Ex-IBMer's work ethics, knowledge and initiative.
Other companies are happy to get them as a valueable resource. In '89 when our Palo Alto Datacenter moved, we were given two
options: 1.) to become a Programmer (w/training) 2.) move to Boulder or 3.) to leave.
I got my training with programming experience and left IBM in '92, when for 4 yrs IBM offerred really good incentives for leaving
the company. The Executives thought that the IBM Mainframe/MVS z/OS+ was on the way out and the Laptop (Small but Increasing Capacity)
Computer would take over everything.
It didn't. It did allow many skilled IBMers to succeed outside of IBM and help built up our customer skill sets. And like many,
when the opportunity arose to return I did. In '91 I was accidentally given a male co-workers paycheck and that was one of the
reasons for leaving. During my various Contract work outside, I bumped into other male IBMer's that had left too, some I had trained,
and when they disclosed that it was their salary (which was 20-40%) higher than mine was the reason they left, I knew I had made
the right decision.
Women tend to under-value themselves and their capabilities. Contracting also taught me that companies that had 70% employees
and 30% contractors, meant that contractors would be let go if they exceeded their quarterly expenditures.
I first contracted with IBM in '98 and when I decided to re-join IBM '01, I had (3) job offers and I took the most lucrative
exciting one to focus on fixing & improving DB2z Qry Parallelism. I developed a targeted L3 Technical Change Team to help L2 Support
reduce Customer problems reported and improve our product. The instability within IBM remained and I saw IBM try to eliminate
aging, salaried, benefited employees. The 1.) find a job within IBM ... to 2.) to leave ... was now standard.
While my salary had more than doubled since I left IBM the first time, it still wasn't near other male counterparts. The continual
rating competition based on salary ranged titles and timing a title raise after a round of layoffs, not before. I had another
advantage going and that was that my changed reduced retirement benefits helped me stay there. It all comes down to the numbers
that Mgmt is told to cut & save IBM. While much of this article implies others were hired, at our Silicon Valley Location and
other locations, they had no intent to backfill. So the already burdened employees were laden with more workloads & stress.
In the early to mid 2000's IBM setup a counter lab in China where they were paying 1/4th U.S. salaries and many SVL IBMers
went to CSDL to train our new world 24x7 support employees. But many were not IBM loyal and their attrition rates were very high,
so it fell to a wave of new-hires at SVL to help address it.
It's all about making the numbers so the management can present a Potemkin Village of profits and ever-increasing growth
sufficient to get bonuses. There is no relation to any sort of quality or technological advancement, just HR 3-card monte. They
have installed air bearing in Old Man Watson's coffin as it has been spinning ever faster
Corporate America executive management is all about stock price management. Their bonus's in the millions of dollars are
based on stock performance. With IBM's poor revenue performance since Ginny took over, profits can only be maintained by cost
reduction. Look at the IBM executive's bonus's throughout the last 20 years and you can see that all resource actions have been
driven by Palmisano's and Rominetty's greed for extravagant bonus's.
Bravo ProPublica for another "sock it to them" article - journalism in honor of the spirit of great newspapers everywhere that
the refuge of justice in hard times is with the press.
Also worth noting is that IBM drastically cut the cap on it's severance pay calculation. Almost enough to make me regret
not having retired before that changed.
You need to investigate AT&T as well, as they did the same thing. I was 'sold' by IBM to AT&T as part of he Network Services
operation. AT&T got rid of 4000 of the 8000 US employees sent to AT&T within 3 years. Nearly everyone of us was a 'senior' employee.
As a permanent old contractor and free-enterprise defender myself, I don't blame IBM a bit for wanting to cut the fat. But
for the outright *lies, deception and fraud* that they use to break laws, weasel out of obligations... really just makes me want
to shoot them... and I never even worked for them.
Where I worked, In Rochester,MN, people have known what is happening for years. My last years with IBM were the most depressing
time in my life.
I hear a rumor that IBM would love to close plants they no longer use but they are so environmentally polluted that it is cheaper
to maintain than to clean up and sell.
One of the biggest driving factors in age discrimination is health insurance costs, not salary. It can cost 4-5x as much to
insure and older employee vs. a younger one, and employers know this. THE #1 THING WE CAN DO TO STOP AGE DISCRIMINATION IS TO
MOVE AWAY FROM OUR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED INSURANCE SYSTEM. It could be single-payer, but it could also be a robust individual market
with enough pool diversification to make it viable. Freeing employers from this cost burden would allow them to pick the right
talent regardless of age.
The American business have constantly fought against single payer since the end of World War II and why should I feel sorry
for them when all of a sudden, they are complaining about health care costs? It is outrageous that workers have to face age discrimination;
however, the CEOs don't have to deal with that issue since they belong to a tiny group of people who can land a job anywhere else.
Single payer won't help. We have single payer in Canada and just as much age discrimination in employment. Society in general
does not like older people so unless you're a doctor, judge or pharmacist you will face age bias. It's even worse in popular culture
never mind in employment.
Thanks for the great article. I left IBM last year. USA based. 49. Product Manager in one of IBMs strategic initiatives, however
got told to relocate or leave. I found another job and left. I came to IBM from an acquisition. My only regret is, I wish I had
left this toxic environment earlier. It truely is a dreadful place to work.
The methodology has trickled down to smaller companies pursuing the same net results for headcount reduction. The similarities
to my experience were painful to read. The grief I felt after my job was "eliminated" 10 years ago while the Recession was at
its worst and shortly after my 50th birthday was coming back. I never have recovered financially but have started writing a murder
mystery. The first victim? The CEO who let me go. It's true. Revenge is best served cold.
Well written . people like me have experienced exactly what you wrote. IBM is a shadow of it's former greatness and I have
advised my children to stay away from IBM and companies like it as they start their careers. IBM is a corrupt company. Shame on
them !
I suspect someone will end up hunt them down with an axe at some point. That's the only way they'll probably learn. I don't
know about IBM specifically, but when Carly Fiorina ran HP, she travelled with and even went into engineering labs with an armed
security detail.
Was let go after 34 years of service. Mine Resource Action latter had additional lines after '...unless you are offered ...
position within IBM before that date.' , implying don't even try to look for a position. They lines were ' Additional business
controls are in effect to manage the business objectives of this resource action, therefore, job offers within (the name of division)
will be highly unlikely.'.
I've worked for a series of vendors for over thirty years. A job at IBM used to be the brass ring; nowadays, not so much.
I've heard persistent rumors from IBMers that U.S. headcount is below 25,000 nowadays. Given events like the recent downtime
of the internal systems used to order parts (5 or so days--website down because staff who maintained it were let go without replacements),
it's hard not to see the spiral continue down the drain.
What I can't figure out is whether Rometty and cronies know what they're doing or are just clueless. Either way, the result
is the same: destruction of a once-great company and brand. Tragic.
Well, none of these layoffs/ageist RIFs affect the execs, so they don't see the effects, or they see the effects but attribute
them to some other cause.
(I'm surprised the article doesn't address this part of the story; how many affected by layoffs are exec/senior management?
My bet is very few.)
I was a D-banded exec (Director-level) who was impacted and I know even some VPs who were affected as well, so they do spread
the pain, even in the exec ranks.
That's different than I have seen in companies I have worked for (like HP). There RIFs (Reduction In Force, their acronym for
layoff) went to the director level and no further up.
IMHO this is perilous for RHEL. It would be very easy for IBM to fire most of the
developers and just latch on to the enterprise services stuff to milk it till its dry.
Why would you say that? IBM is renowned for their wonderful employee relations.
</s>
If I were a Red Hat employee over 40, I'd be sweating right now.
blockquote> We run just about everything on CentOS around here, downstream of
RHEL. Should we be worried?
I don't think so, at least no more than you should have already been. IBM has adopted RHEL
as their standard platform for a lot of things, all the way up to big-iron mainframes. Not to
mention, over the two decades, they've done a hell of a lot of enhancements to Linux that are
a big part of why it scales so well (Darl Mcbride just felt like someone walked over his
grave. Hey, let's jump on it a bit too!).
Say what you like about IBM (like they've turned into a super-shitty place to work for or
be a customer of), but they've been a damn good friend to Linux. If I actually worked for Red
Hat though, I would be really unhappy because you can bet that "independence" will last a few
quarters before everyone gets outsourced to Brazil.
Brazil is too expensive. Last time I heard, they were outsourcing from Brazil to chapear
LA countries...
IBM are paying around 12x annual revenue for Red Hat which is a significant multiple so
they will have to squeeze more money out of the business somehow. Either they grow
customers or they increase margins or both.
IBM had little choice but to do something like this. They are in a terminal spiral
thanks to years of bad leadership. The confused billing of the purchase smacks of rush, so
far I have seen Red Hat described as a cloud company, an info sec company, an open source
company...
So IBM are buying Red Hat as a last chance bid to avoid being put through the PE
threshing machine. Red Hat get a ludicrous premium so will take the money.
And RH customers will want to check their contracts...
They will lay off Redhat staff to cut costs and replace them with remote programmers
living in Calcutta. To big corporations a programmer is a fungible item, if you can swap
programmer A woth programmer B at 1/4 the cost its a big win and you beat earnings estimate
by a penny.
No good will come from this. IBM's corporate environment and financial near-sightedness
will kill Red Hat. Time to start looking for a new standard bearer in Linux for business.
This will kill both companies. Red has trouble making money and IBM has trouble not
messing up what good their is and trouble making money. They both die, but a slow, possibly
accelerating, death.
F or nearly a half century, IBM came as close as any company to bearing the torch for the American Dream.
As the world's dominant technology firm, payrolls at International Business Machines Corp. swelled to nearly a quarter-million
U.S. white-collar workers in the 1980s. Its profits helped underwrite a broad agenda of racial equality, equal pay for women and
an unbeatable offer of great wages and something close to lifetime employment, all in return for unswerving loyalty.
But when high tech suddenly started shifting and companies went global, IBM faced the changing landscape with a distinction most
of its fiercest competitors didn't have: a large number of experienced and aging U.S. employees.
The company reacted with a strategy that, in the words of one confidential planning document, would "correct seniority mix." It
slashed IBM's U.S. workforce by as much as three-quarters from its 1980s peak, replacing a substantial share with younger, less-experienced
and lower-paid workers and sending many positions overseas. ProPublica estimates that in the past five years alone, IBM has eliminated
more than 20,000 American employees ages 40 and over, about 60 percent of its estimated total U.S. job cuts during those years.
In making these cuts, IBM has flouted or outflanked U.S. laws and regulations intended to protect later-career workers from age
discrimination, according to a ProPublica review of internal company documents, legal filings and public records, as well as information
provided via interviews and questionnaires filled out by more than 1,000 former IBM employees.
Among ProPublica's findings, IBM:
Denied older workers information the law says they need in order to decide whether they've been victims of age bias, and required
them to sign away the right to go to court or join with others to seek redress. Targeted people for layoffs and firings with techniques
that tilted against older workers, even when the company rated them high performers. In some instances, the money saved from the
departures went toward hiring young replacements. Converted job cuts into retirements and took steps to boost resignations and firings.
The moves reduced the number of employees counted as layoffs, where high numbers can trigger public disclosure requirements. Encouraged
employees targeted for layoff to apply for other IBM positions, while quietly advising managers not to hire them and requiring many
of the workers to train their replacements. Told some older employees being laid off that their skills were out of date, but then
brought them back as contract workers, often for the same work at lower pay and fewer benefits.
IBM declined requests for the numbers or age breakdown of its job cuts. ProPublica provided the company with a 10-page summary
of its findings and the evidence on which they were based. IBM spokesman Edward Barbini said that to respond the company needed to
see copies of all documents cited in the story, a request ProPublica could not fulfill without breaking faith with its sources. Instead,
ProPublica provided IBM with detailed descriptions of the paperwork. Barbini declined to address the documents or answer specific
questions about the firm's policies and practices, and instead issued the following statement:
"We are proud of our company and our employees' ability to reinvent themselves era after era, while always complying with the
law. Our ability to do this is why we are the only tech company that has not only survived but thrived for more than 100 years."
With nearly 400,000 people worldwide, and tens of thousands still in the U.S., IBM remains a corporate giant. How it handles the
shift from its veteran baby-boom workforce to younger generations will likely influence what other employers do. And the way it treats
its experienced workers will eventually affect younger IBM employees as they too age.
Fifty years ago, Congress made it illegal with the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act , or ADEA, to treat older workers differently than younger ones with only a few exceptions, such as jobs that
require special physical qualifications. And for years, judges and policymakers treated the law as essentially on a par with prohibitions
against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation and other categories.
In recent decades, however, the courts have responded to corporate pleas for greater leeway to meet global competition and satisfy
investor demands for rising profits by expanding the exceptions and
shrinking
the protections against age bias .
"Age discrimination is an open secret like sexual harassment was until recently," said Victoria Lipnic, the acting chair of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, the independent federal agency that administers the nation's workplace anti-discrimination
laws.
"Everybody knows it's happening, but often these cases are difficult to prove" because courts have weakened the law, Lipnic said.
"The fact remains it's an unfair and illegal way to treat people that can be economically devastating."
Many companies have sought to take advantage of the court rulings. But the story of IBM's downsizing provides an unusually detailed
portrait of how a major American corporation systematically identified employees to coax or force out of work in their 40s, 50s and
60s, a time when many are still productive and need a paycheck, but face huge hurdles finding anything like comparable jobs.
The dislocation caused by IBM's cuts has been especially great because until recently the company encouraged its employees to
think of themselves as "IBMers" and many operated under the assumption that they had career-long employment.
When the ax suddenly fell, IBM provided almost no information about why an employee was cut or who else was departing, leaving
people to piece together what had happened through websites, listservs and Facebook groups such as "Watching IBM" or "Geographically
Undesirable IBM Marketers," as well as informal support groups.
Marjorie Madfis, at the time 57, was a New York-based digital marketing strategist and 17-year IBM employee when she and six other
members of her nine-person team -- all women in their 40s and 50s -- were laid off in July 2013. The two who remained were younger
men.
Since her specialty was one that IBM had said it was expanding, she asked for a written explanation of why she was let go. The
company declined to provide it.
"They got rid of a group of highly skilled, highly effective, highly respected women, including me, for a reason nobody knows,"
Madfis said in an interview. "The only explanation is our age."
Brian Paulson, also 57, a senior manager with 18 years at IBM, had been on the road for more than a year overseeing hundreds of
workers across two continents as well as hitting his sales targets for new services, when he got a phone call in October 2015 telling
him he was out. He said the caller, an executive who was not among his immediate managers, cited "performance" as the reason, but
refused to explain what specific aspects of his work might have fallen short.
It took Paulson two years to land another job, even though he was equipped with an advanced degree, continuously employed at high-level
technical jobs for more than three decades and ready to move anywhere from his Fairview, Texas, home.
"It's tough when you've worked your whole life," he said. "The company doesn't tell you anything. And once you get to a certain
age, you don't hear a word from the places you apply."
Paul Henry, a 61-year-old IBM sales and technical specialist who loved being on the road, had just returned to his Columbus home
from a business trip in August 2016 when he learned he'd been let go. When he asked why, he said an executive told him to "keep your
mouth shut and go quietly."
Henry was jobless more than a year, ran through much of his savings to cover the mortgage and health insurance and applied for
more than 150 jobs before he found a temporary slot.
"If you're over 55, forget about preparing for retirement," he said in an interview. "You have to prepare for losing your job
and burning through every cent you've saved just to get to retirement."
IBM's latest actions aren't anything like what most ex-employees with whom ProPublica talked expected from their years of service,
or what today's young workers think awaits them -- or are prepared to deal with -- later in their careers.
"In a fast-moving economy, employers are always going to be tempted to replace older workers with younger ones, more expensive
workers with cheaper ones, those who've performed steadily with ones who seem to be up on the latest thing," said Joseph Seiner,
an employment law professor at the University of South Carolina and former appellate attorney for the EEOC.
"But it's not good for society," he added. "We have rules to try to maintain some fairness in our lives, our age-discrimination
laws among them. You can't just disregard them."
When it comes to employment claims, studies have found that arbitrators overwhelmingly favor
employers.
Research by Cornell University law and labor relations specialist Alexander Colvin found
that workers win
only 19 percent of the time when their cases are arbitrated. By contrast,
they win 36 percent of the time when they go to federal court, and 57 percent in state
courts. Average payouts when an employee wins follow a similar pattern.
Given those odds, and having signed away their rights to go to court, some laid-off IBM
workers have chosen the one independent forum companies can't deny them: the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. That's where Moos, the Long Beach systems security
specialist, and several of her colleagues, turned for help when they were laid off. In their
complaints to the agency, they said they'd suffered age discrimination because of the company's
effort to "drastically change the IBM employee age mix to be seen as a startup."
In its formal reply to the EEOC, IBM said that age couldn't have been a factor in their
dismissals. Among the reasons it cited: The managers who decided on the layoffs were in their
40s and therefore older too.
This makes for absolutely horrifying, chills-down-your-spine reading. A modern corporate horror story - worthy of a 'Black Mirror'
episode. Phenomenal reporting by Ariana Tobin and Peter Gosselin. Thank you for exposing this. I hope this puts an end to this
at IBM and makes every other company and industry doing this in covert and illegal ways think twice about continuing.
Agree..a well written expose'. I've been a victim of IBM's "PIP" (Performance Improvement Plan) strategy, not because of my real
performance mind you, but rather, I wasn't billing hours between projects and it was hurting my unit's bottom line. The way IBM
instructs management to structure the PIP, it's almost impossible to dig your way out, and it's intentional. If you have a PIP
on your record, nobody in IBM wants to touch you, so in effect you're already gone.
I see the PIP problem as its nearly impossible to take the fact that we know PIP is a scam to court. IBM will say its an issue
with you, your performance nose dived and your manager tried to fix that. You have to not only fight those simple statements,
but prove that PIP is actually systematic worker abuse.
Cindy, they've been doing this for at least 15-20 years, or even longer according to some of the previous comments. It is
in fact a modern corporate horror story; it's also life at a modern corporation, period.
After over 35 years working there, 19 of them as a manager sending out more of those notification letters than I care to remember,
I can vouch for the accuracy of this investigative work. It's an incredibly toxic and hostile environment and has been for the
last 5 or so years. One of the items I was appraised on annually was how many US jobs I moved offshore. It was a relief when I
received my notification letter after a two minute phone call telling me it was on the way. Sleeping at night and looking myself
in the mirror aren't as hard as they were when I worked there.
IBM will never regain any semblance of their former glory (or profit) until they begin to treat employees well again.
With all the offshoring and resource actions with no backfill over the last 10 years, so much is broken. Customers suffer almost
as much as the employees.
I don't know how in the world they ended up on that LinkedIn list. Based on my fairly recent experience there are a half dozen
happy employees in the US, and most of them are C level.
Well done. It squares well with my 18 years at IBM, watching resource action after resource action and hearing what my (unusually
honest) manager told me. Things got progressively worse from 2012 onward. I never realized how stressful it was to live under
the shadow of impending layoffs until I finally found the courage to leave in 2015. Best decision I've made.
IBM answers to its shareholders, period. Employees are an afterthought - simply a means to an end. It's shameful. (That's not
to say that individual people managers feel that way. I'm speaking about IBM executives.)
Well, they almost answer to their shareholders, but that's after the IBM executives take their share. Ginni's compensation is
tied to stock price (apparently not earnings) and buy backs maintain the stock price.
If the criteria for layoff is being allegedly overpaid and allegedly a poor performer, then it follows that Grinnin' Jenny should
have been let go long ago.
Just another fine example of how people become disposable.
And, when it comes to cost containment and profit maximization, there is no place for ethics in American business.
Businesses can lie just as well as politicians.
Millennials are smart to avoid this kind of problem by remaining loyal only to themselves. Companies certainly define anyone
as replaceable - even their over-paid CEO's.
The millennials saw what happen to their parents and grandparents getting screwed over after a life time of work and loyalty.
You can't blame them for not caring about so called traditional American work ethics and then they are attacked for not having
them when the business leaders threw away all those value decades ago.
Some of these IBM people have themselves to blame for cutting their own economic throats for fighting against unions, putting
in politicians who are pro-business and thinking that their education and high paying white collar STEM jobs will give them economic
immunity.
If America was more of a free market and free enterprise instead of being more of a close market of oligarchies and monopolies,
and strong government regulations, companies would think twice about treating their workforce badly because they know their workforce
would leave for other companies or start up their own companies without too much of a hassle.
Under the old IBM you could not get a union as workers were treated with dignity and respect - see the 3 core beliefs. Back
then a union would not have accomplished anything.
Doesn't matter if it was the old IBM or new IBM, you wonder how many still actually voted against their economic interests in
the political elections that in the long run undermine labor rights in this country.
So one shouldn't vote? Neither party cares about the average voter except at election time. Both sell out to Big Business - after
all, that's where the big campaign donations come from. If you believe only one party favors Big Business, then you have been
watching to much "fake news". Even the unions know they have been sold out by both and are wising up. How many of those jobs were
shipped overseas the past 25 years.
No, they should have been more active in voting for politicians who would look after the workers' rights in this country for the
last 38 years plus ensuring that Congressional people and the president would not be packing the court system with pro-business
judges. Sorry, but it is the Big Business that have been favoring the Republican Party for a long, long time and the jobs have
been shipped out for the last 38 years.
Age discrimination has been standard operating procedure in IT for at least 30 years. And
there are no significant consequences, if any consequences at all, for doing it in a blatant
fashion. The companies just need to make sure the quota of H1B visas is increased when they
are doing this on an IBM scale!
Age discrimination and a myriad other forms of discrimination have been standard operating
procedure in the US. Period. Full stop. No need to equivocate.
These practices are "interesting". And people still wonder why there are so many deadly amok
runs at US companies? What do they expect when they replace old and experienced workers with
inexperienced millenials, who often lack basic knowledge about their job? Better performance?
This will run US tech companies into the ground. This sort of "American" HR management is
gaining ground here in Germany as well, its troubling. And on top they have to compete against
foreign tech immigrants from middle eastern and asian companies. Sure fire recipe for social
unrest and people voting for right-wing parties.
I too was a victim of IBM's underhanded trickery to get rid of people...39 years with IBM,
a top performer. I never got a letter telling me to move to Raleigh. All i got was a phone
call asking me if i wanted to take the 6 month exception to consider it. Yet, after taking the
6 month exception, I was told I could no longer move, the colocation was closed. Either I find
another job, not in Marketing support (not even Marketing) or leave the company. I received no
letter from Ginni, nothing. I was under the impression I could show up in Raleigh after the
exception period. Not so. It was never explained....After 3 months I will begin contracting
with IBM. Not because I like them, because I need the money...thanks for the article.
dropped in 2013 after 22 years. IBM stopped leading in the late 1980's, afterwards it
implemented "market driven quality" which meant listen for the latest trends, see what other
people were doing, and then buy the competition or drive them out of business. "Innovation that
matters": it's only interesting if an IBM manager can see a way to monetize it.
That's a low standard. It's OK, there are other places that are doing better. In fact, the
best of the old experienced people went to work there. Newsflash: quality doesn't change with
generations, you either create it or you don't.
Sounds like IBM is building its product portfolio to match its desired workforce. And of
course, on every round of layoffs, the clear criterion was people who were compliant and
pliable - who's ready to follow orders ? Best of luck.
I agree with many who state the report is well done. However, this crap started in the early
1990s. In the late 1980s, IBM offered decent packages to retirement eligible employees. For
those close to retirement age, it was a great deal - 2 weeks pay for every year of service
(capped at 26 years) plus being kept on to perform their old job for 6 months (while
collecting retirement, until the government stepped in an put a halt to it). Nobody eligible
was forced to take the package (at least not to general knowledge). The last decent package
was in 1991 - similar, but not able to come back for 6 months.
However, in 1991, those offered the package were basically told take it or else. Anyone
with 30 years of service or 15 years and 55 was eligible and anyone within 5 years of
eligibility could "bridge" the difference.
They also had to sign a form stating they would not sue IBM in order to get up to a years
pay - not taxable per IRS documents back then (but IBM took out the taxes anyway and the IRS
refused to return - an employee group had hired lawyers to get the taxes back, a failed
attempt which only enriched the lawyers).
After that, things went downhill and accelerated when Gerstner took over. After 1991,
there were still a some workers who could get 30 years or more, but that was more the
exception. I suspect the way the company has been run the past 25 years or so has the Watsons
spinning in their graves. Gone are the 3 core beliefs - "Respect for the individual",
"Service to the customer" and "Excellence must be a way of life".
could be true... but i thought Watson was the IBM data analytics computer thingy... beat two
human players at Jeopardy on live tv a year or two or so back.. featured on 60 Minutes just
around last year.... :
IBM's policy reminds me of the "If a citizen = 30 y.o., then mass execute such, else if they
run then hunt and kill them one by one" social policy in the Michael York movie "Logan's
Run."
From Wiki, in case you don't know: "It depicts a utopian future society on the surface,
revealed as a dystopia where the population and the consumption of resources are maintained
in equilibrium by killing everyone who reaches the age of 30. The story follows the actions
of Logan 5, a "Sandman" who has terminated others who have attempted to escape death, and is
now faced with termination himself."
"... The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980. ..."
If anything, IBM is behind the curve. I was terminated along with my entire department from a
major IBM subcontractor, with all affected employees "coincidentally" being over 50. By
"eliminating the department" and forcing me to sign a waiver to receive my meager severance,
they avoided any legal repercussions. 18 months later on the dot (the minimum legal time
period), my workload was assigned to three new hires, all young. Interestingly, their
combined salaries are more than mine, and I could have picked up all their work for about
$200 in training (in social media posting, something I picked up on my own last year and am
doing quite well, thank you).
And my former colleagues are not alone. A lot of friends of mine have had similar
outcomes, and as the article states, no one will hire people my age willingly in my old
capacity. Luckily again, I've pivoted into copywriting--a discipline where age is still
associated with quality ("dang kids can't spell anymore!"). But I'm doing it freelance, with
the commensurate loss of security, benefits, and predictability of income.
So if IBM is doing this now, they are laggards. But because they're so big, there's a much
more obvious paper trail.
One of the most in-depth, thoughtful and enlightening pieces of journalism I've seen. Having
worked on Capitol Hill during the early 1980's for the House and Senate Aging Committees, we
worked hard to abolish the remnants of mandatory retirement and to strengthen the protections
under the ADEA. Sadly, the EEOC has become a toothless bureaucracy when it comes to age
discrimination cases and the employers, as evidenced by the IBM case, have become
sophisticated in hiding what they're doing to older workers. Peter's incredibly well
researched article lays the case out for all to see. Now the question is whether the
government will step up to its responsibilities and protect older workers from this kind of
discrimination in the future. Peter has done a great service in any case.
The US tech sector has mostly ignored US citizen applicants, of all ages, since the early
2000s. Instead, preferring to hire foreign nationals. The applications of top US citizen
grads are literally thrown in the garbage (or its electronic equivalent) while companies like
IBM have their hiring processes dominated by Indian nationals. IBM is absolutely a
poster-child for H-1B, L-1, and OPT visa abuse.
Bottom line is we have entered an era when there are only two classes who are protected in
our economy; the Investor Class and the Executive Class. With Wall Street's constant demand
for higher profits and increased shareholder value over all other business imperatives, rank
and file workers have been relegated to the class of expendable resource. I propose that all
of us over fifty who have been riffed out of Corporate America band together for the specific
purpose of beating the pants off them in the marketplace. The best revenge is whooping their
youngster butts at the customer negotiating table. By demonstrating we are still flexible and
nimble, yet with the experience to avoid the missteps of misspent youth, we prove we can
deliver value well beyond what narrow-minded bean counters can achieve.
I started at IBM 3 days out of college in 1979 and retired in 2017. I was satisfied with my
choice and never felt mistreated because I had no expectation of lifetime employment,
especially after the pivotal period in the 1990's when IBM almost went out of business. The
company survived that period by dramatically restructuring both manufacturing costs and sales
expense including the firing of tens of thousands of employees. These actions were well
documented in the business news of the time, the obvious alternative was bankruptcy.
I told the authors that anyone working at IBM after 1993 should have had no expectation of
a lifetime career. Downsizing, outsourcing, movement of work around the globe was already
commonplace at all such international companies. Any expectation of "loyalty", that two-way
relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking. I was always
prepared to be sent packing, without cause, at any time and always had my resume up-to-date.
I stayed because of interesting work, respectful supervisors, and adequate compensation. The
"resource action" that forced my decision to retire was no surprise, the company that hired
me had been gone for decades.
With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about
people not having money to buy their goods and services plus what are they going to do with
the surplus of labor
I had, more or less, the same experience at Cisco. They paid me to quit. Luckily, I was ready
for it.
The article mentions IBMs 3 failures. So who was it that was responsible for not
anticipating the transitions? It is hard enough doing what you already know. Perhaps
companies should be spending more on figuring out "what's next" and not continually playing
catch-up by dumping the older workers for the new.
I was laid off by IBM after 29 years and 4 months. I had received a division award in
previous year, and my last PBC appraisal was 2+ (high performer.) The company I left was not
the company I started with. Top management--starting with Gerstner--has steadily made IBM a
less desirable place to work. They now treat employees as interchangeable assets and nothing
more. I cannot/would not recommend IBM as an employer to any young programmer.
Truly awesome work. I do want to add one thing, however--the entire rhetoric about "too many
old white guys" that has become so common absolutely contributes to the notion that this sort
of behavior is not just acceptable but in some twisted way admirable as well.
Is anyone surprised that so many young people don't think capitalism is a good system any
more?
I ran a high technology electronic systems company for years. We ran it "the old way." If
you worked hard, and tried, we would bend over backwards to keep you. If technology or
business conditions eliminated your job, we would try to train you for a new one. Our people
were loyal, not like IBMers today. I honestly think that's the best way to be profitable.
People afraid of being unjustly RIFFed will always lack vitality.
I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to age discrimination. IBM apparently is just
one of many organizations that discriminate.
I'm in the middle of my own fight with the State University of New York (SUNY) over age
discrimination. I was terminated by a one of the technical colleges in the SUNY System. The
EEOC/New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) found that "PROBABLE CAUSE (NYDHR's
emphasis) exists to believe that the Respondent (Alfred State College - SUNY) has engaged in
or is engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." Investigators for
NYDHR interviewed several witnesses, who testified that representatives of the college made
statements such as "we need new faces", "three old men" attending a meeting, an older faculty
member described as an "albatross", and "we ought to get rid of the old white guys".
Witnesses said these statements were made by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and a
dean at the college.
This saga at IBM is simply a microcosm of our overall economy. Older workers get ousted in
favor of younger, cheaper workers; way too many jobs get outsourced; and so many workers
today [young and old] can barely land a full-time job.
This is the behavior that our system incentivises (and gets away with) in this post Reagan
Revolution era where deregulation is lauded and unions have been undermined & demonized.
We need to seriously re-work 'work', and in order to do this we need to purge Republicans at
every level, as they CLEARLY only serve corporate bottom-lines - not workers - by championing
tax codes that reward outsourcing, fight a livable minimum wage, eliminate pensions, bust
unions, fight pay equity for women & family leave, stack the Supreme Court with radical
ideologues who blatantly rule for corporations over people all the time, etc. etc. ~35 years
of basically uninterrupted Conservative economic policy & ideology has proven disastrous
for workers and our quality of life. As goes your middle class, so goes your country.
I am a retired IBM manager having had to execute many of these resource reduction programs..
too many.. as a matter of fact. ProPUBLICA....You nailed it!
IBM has always treated its customer-facing roles like Disney -- as cast members who need to
match a part in a play. In the 60s and 70s, it was the white-shirt, blue-suit white men whom
IBM leaders thought looked like mainframe salesmen. Now, rather than actually build a
credible cloud to compete with Amazon and Microsoft, IBM changes the cast to look like cloud
salespeople. (I work for Microsoft. Commenting for myself alone.)
I am a survivor, the rare employee who has been at IBM for over 35 years. I have seen many,
many layoff programs over 20 years now. I have seen tens of thousands people let go from the
Hudson Valley of N.Y. Those of us who have survived, know and lived through what this article
so accurately described. I currently work with 3 laid off/retired and rehired contractors. I
have seen age discrimination daily for over 15 years. It is not only limited to layoffs, it
is rampant throughout the company. Promotions, bonuses, transfers for opportunities, good
reviews, etc... are gone if you are over 45. I have seen people under 30 given promotions to
levels that many people worked 25 years for. IBM knows that these younger employees see how
they treat us so they think they can buy them off. Come to think of it, I guess they actually
are! They are ageist, there is no doubt, it is about time everyone knew. Excellent article.
Nice article, but seriously this is old news. IBM has been at this for ...oh twenty years or
more.
I don't really have a problem with it in terms of a corporation trying to make money. But I
do have a problem with how IBM also likes to avoid layoffs by giving folks over 40
intentionally poor reviews, essentially trying to drive people out. Just have the guts to
tell people, we don't need you anymore, bye. But to string people along as the overseas
workers come in...c'mon just be honest with your workers.
High tech over 40 is not easy...I suggest folks prep for a career change before 50. Then you
can have the last laugh on a company like IBM.
From pages 190-191 of my novel, Ordinary Man (Amazon):
Throughout
it all, layoffs became common, impacting mostly older employees with many years
of service. These job cuts were dribbled out in small numbers to conceal them
from the outside world, but employees could plainly see what was going on.
The laid off
employees were supplanted by offshoring work to low-costs countries and hiring
younger employees, often only on temporary contracts that offered low pay and
no benefits – a process pejoratively referred to by veteran employees as
"downsourcing." The recruitment of these younger workers was done under the
guise of bringing in fresh skills, but while many of the new hires brought new
abilities and vitality, they lacked the knowledge and perspective that comes
with experience.
Frequently,
an older more experienced worker would be asked to help educate newer
employees, only to be terminated shortly after completing the task. And the new
hires weren't fooled by what they witnessed and experienced at OpenSwitch,
perceiving very quickly that the company had no real interest in investing in
them for the long term. To the contrary, the objective was clearly to grind as
much work out of them as possible, without offering any hope of increased
reward or opportunity.
Most of the
young recruits left after only a year or two – which, again, was part of the
true agenda at the company. Senior management viewed employees not as talent,
but simply as cost, and didn't want anyone sticking around long enough to move
up the pay scale.
This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing
software, I will never again recommend IBM products. I love AIX and have worked with a lot if
IBM products but not anymore. Good luck with the millennials though...
I worked for four major corporations (HP, Intel, Control Data Corporation, and Micron
Semiconductor) before I was hired by IBM as a rare (at that time) experienced new hire. Even
though I ended up working for IBM for 21 years, and retired in 2013, because of my
experiences at those other companies, I never considered IBM my "family." The way I saw it,
every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost)
even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The idea of loyalty
between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a
motel and its guests. It is a business arrangement, not a love affair. Every individual needs
to continually assess their skills and their value to their employer. If they are not
commensurate, it is the employee's responsibility to either acquire new skills or seek a new
employer. Your employer will not hesitate to lay you off if your skills are no longer needed,
or if they can hire someone who can do your job just as well for less pay. That is free
enterprise, and it works for people willing to take advantage of it.
I basically agree. But why should it be OK for a company to fire you just to replace you with
a younger you? If all that they accomplish is lowering their health care costs (which is what
this is really about). If the company is paying about the same for the same work, why is
firing older workers for being older OK?
Good question. The point I was trying to make is that people need to watch out for themselves
and not expect their employer to do what is "best" for the employee. I think that is true
whatever age the employee happens to be.
Whether employers should be able to discriminate against (treat differently) their
employees based on age, gender, race, religion, etc. is a political question. Morally, I
don't think they should discriminate. Politically, I think it is a slippery slope when the
government starts imposing regulations on free enterprise. Government almost always creates
more problems than they fix.
Sorry, but when you deregulate the free enterprise, it created more problems than it fixes
and that is a fact that has been proven for the last 38 years.
That's just plain false. Deregulation creates competiiton. Competition for talented and
skilled workers creates opportunities for those that wish to be employed and for those that
wish to start new ventures. For example, when Ma Bell was regulated and had a monopoly on
telecommunications there was no innovation in the telecom inudstry. However, when it was
deregulated, cell phones, internet, etc exploded ... creating billionaires and millionaires
while also improving the quality of life.
No, it happens to be true. When Reagan deregulate the economy, a lot of those corporate
raiders just took over the companies, sold off the assets, and pocketed the money. What
quality of life? Half of American lived near the poverty level and the wages for the workers
have been stagnant for the last 38 years compared to a well-regulated economy in places like
Germany and the Scandinavian countries where the workers have good wages and a far better
standard of living than in the USA. Why do you think the Norwegians told Trump that they will
not be immigrating to the USA anytime soon?
What were the economic conditions before Regan? It was a nightmare before Regan.
The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The
economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined
low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And
the prime rate hit 20% by 1980.
At least we had a manufacturing base in the USA, strong regulations of corporations,
corporate scandals were far and few, businesses did not go under so quickly, prices of goods
and services did not go through the roof, people had pensions and could reasonably live off
them, and recessions did not last so long or go so deep until Reagan came into office. In
Under Reagan, the jobs were allowed to be send overseas, unions were busted up, pensions were
reduced or eliminated, wages except those of the CEOs were staganent, and the economic
conditions under Bush, Senior and Bush, Jr. were no better except that Bush, Jr, was the
first president to have a net minus below zero growth, so every time we get a Republican
Administration, the economy really turns into a nightmare. That is a fact.
You have the Republicans in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin using Reaganomics and they are
economic disaster areas.
You had an industrial base in the USA, lots of banks and savings and loans to choose from,
lots of mom and pop stores, strong government regulation of the economy, able to live off
your pensions, strong unions and employment laws along with the court system to back you up
against corporate malfeasance. All that was gone when Reagan and the two Bushes came into
office.
Amazingly accurate article. The once great IBM now a dishonest and unscrupulous corporation
concerned more about earnings per share than employees, customers, or social responsibility.
In Global Services most likely 75% or more jobs are no longer in the US - can't believe a
word coming out of Armonk.
I'm not sure there was ever a paradise in employment. Yeah, you can say there was more job
stability 50 or 60 years ago, but that applied to a much smaller workforce than today (mostly
white men). It is a drag, but there are also lot more of us old farts than there used to be
and we live a lot longer in retirement as well. I don't see any magic bullet fix either.
Great article. What's especially infuriating is that the industry continues to claim that
there is a shortage of STEM workers. For example, google "claim of 1.4 million computer
science jobs with only 400,000 computer science graduates to fill them". If companies would
openly say, "we have plenty of young STEM workers and prefer them to most older STEM
workers", we could at least start addressing the problem. But they continue to promote the
lie of there being a STEM shortage. They just want as big a labor pool as possible,
unemployed workers be damned.
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral
is in the toilet. Bonuses for the rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets
millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation for years. Adjusting for
inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at
least 1/2 have quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now
we have one or two and if someone is sick or on vacation, our support structure is to hope
nothing breaks. We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation of
being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As the unemployment rate drops, more leave to
find a different job, leaving the old people as they are less willing to start over with pay,
vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc. The younger people are
generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a
busier colleague. I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they
are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy with 30-40 year guys who are on their way
out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people past
2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
Make no mistake. The three and four letter acronyms and other mushy corporate speak may
differ from firm to firm, but this is going on in every large tech company old enough to have
a large population of workers over 50. I hope others will now be exposed.
This article hits the nail right on the head, as I come up on my 1 year anniversary from
being....ahem....'retired' from 23 years at IBM....and I'll be damned if I give them the
satisfaction of thinking this was like a 'death' to me. It was the greatest thing that could
have ever happened. Ginny and the board should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
Starting around age 40 you start to see age discrimination. I think this is largely due to
economics, like increased vacation times, higher wages, but most of all the perception that
older workers will run up the medical costs. You can pass all the age related discrimination
laws you want, but look how ineffective that has been.
If you contrast this with the German workforce, you see that they have more older workers
with the skills and younger workers without are having a difficult time getting in. So what's
the difference? There are laws about how many vacation weeks that are given and there is a
national medical system that everyone pays, so discrimination isn't seen in the same
light.
The US is the only hold out maybe with South Africa that doesn't have a good national
medical insurance program for everyone. Not only do we pay more than the rest of the world,
but we also have discrimination because of it.
This is very good, and this is IBM. I know. I was plaintiff in Gundlach v. IBM Japan, 983
F.Supp.2d 389, which involved their violating Japanese labor law when I worked in Japan. The
New York federal judge purposely ignored key points of Japanese labor law, and also refused
to apply Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment to the parent company in Westchester
County. It is a huge, self-described "global" company with little demonstrated loyalty to
America and Americans. Pennsylvania is suing them for $170 million on a botched upgrade of
the state's unemployment system.
In early 2013 I was given a 3 PBC rating for my 2012 performance, the main reason cited by my
manager being that my team lead thought I "seemed distracted". Five months later I was
included in a "resource action", and was gone by July. I was 20 months shy of 55. Younger
coworkers were retained. That was about two years after the product I worked on for over a
decade was off-shored.
Through a fluke of someone from the old, disbanded team remembering me, I was rehired two
years later - ironically in a customer support position for the very product I helped
develop.
While I appreciated my years of service, previous salary, and previous benefits being
reinstated, a couple years into it I realized I just wasn't cut out for the demands of the
job - especially the significant 24x7 pager duty. Last June I received email describing a
"Transition to Retirement" plan I was eligible for, took it, and my last day will be June 30.
I still dislike the job, but that plan reclassified me as part time, thus ending pager duty
for me. The job still sucks, but at least I no longer have to despair over numerous week long
24x7 stints throughout the year.
A significant disappointment occurred a couple weeks ago. I was discussing healthcare
options with another person leaving the company who hadn't been resource-actioned as I had,
and learned the hard way I lost over $30,000 in some sort of future medical benefit account
the company had established and funded at some point. I'm not sure I was ever even aware of
it. That would have funded several years of healthcare insurance during the 8 years until I'm
eligible for Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised if their not having to give me that had
something to do with my seeming "distracted" to them. <rolls eyes="">
What's really painful is the history of that former account can still be viewed at
Fidelity, where it associates my departure date in 2013 with my having "forfeited" that
money. Um, no. I did not forfeit that money, nor would I have. I had absolutely no choice in
the matter. I find the use of the word 'forfeited' to describe what happened as both
disingenuous and offensive. That said, I don't know whether's that's IBM's or Fidelity's
terminology, though.
Jeff, You should call Fidelity. I recently received a letter from the US Department of Labor
that they discovered that IBM was "holding" funds that belonged to me that I was never told
about. This might be similar or same story.
Great article. And so so close to home. I worked at IBM for 23 years until I became yet
another statistic -- caught up in one of their many "RA's" -- Resource Actions. I also can
identify with the point about being encouraged to find a job internally yet hiring managers
told to not hire. We were encouraged to apply for jobs outside the US -- Europe mainly -- as
long as we were willing to move and work at the prevailing local wage rate. I was totally
fine with that as my wife had been itching for some time for a chance to live abroad. I
applied for several jobs across Europe using an internal system IBM set up just for that
purpose. Never heard a word. Phone calls and internal e-mails to managers posting jobs in the
internal system went unanswered. It turned out to be a total sham as far as I was concerned.
IBM has laid off hundreds of thousands in the last few decades. Think of the MILLIONS of
children, spouses, brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, and other family members of laid-off
people that were affected. Those people are or will be business owners and in positions to
make technology decisions. How many of them will think "Yeah, right, hire IBM. They're the
company that screwed daddy/mommy". I fully expect -- and I fully hope -- that I live to see
IBM go out of business. Which they will, sooner or later, as they are living off of past
laurels -- billions in the bank, a big fat patent portfolio, and real estate that they
continue to sell off or rent out. If you do hire IBM, you should fully expect that they'll
send some 20-something out to your company a few weeks after you hire them, that person will
be reading "XYZ for Dummys" on the plane on the way to your offices and will show up as your
IBM 'expert'.
> I was given the choice, retire or get a bad review and get fired, no severance. I
retired and have not been employed since because of my age. Got news for these business
people, experience trumps inexperience. Recently, I have developed several commercial Web
sites using cloud technology. In your face IBM.
> This could well have been written about Honeywell. Same tactics exactly. I laid myself
off and called it retirement after years of shoddy treatment and phonied up employee
evaluations. I took it personally until I realized that this is just American Management in
action. I don't know how they look themselves in the mirror in the morning.
> As an HR professional, I get sick when I hear of these tactics. Although this is not the
first company to use this strategy to make a "paradigm shift". Where are the geniuses at
Harvard, Yale, or the Wharton school of business (where our genius POTUS attended)? Can't
they come up with a better model of how to make these changes in an organization without
setting up the corp for a major lawsuit or God forbid ......they treat their employees with
dignity and respect.
> They are not trained at our business schools to think long-term or look for solutions to
problems or turn to the workforce for solutions. They are trained to maximizes the profits
and let society subsidies their losses and costs.
> Isn't it interesting that you are the first one (here or anywhere else that I've seen)
to talk about the complicity of Harvard and Yale in the rise of the Oligarchs.
Perhaps we should consider reevaluation of their lofty perch in American Education. Now if
we could only think of a way to expose the fraud.
"... In the early 1980's President Regan fired the striking air traffic controllers. This sent the message to management around the USA that it was OK to abuse employees in the workplace. By the end of the 1980's unions were totally emasculated and you had workers "going postal" in an abusive workplace. When unions were at their peak of power, they could appeal to the courts and actually stop a factory from moving out of the country by enforcing a labor contact. ..."
"... The American workplace is a nuthouse. Each and every individual workplace environment is like a cult. ..."
"... The American workplace is just a byproduct of the militarization of everyday life. ..."
"... Silicon Valley and Wall Street handed billions of dollars to this arrogant, ignorant Millennial Elizabeth Holmes. She abused any employee that questioned her. This should sound familiar to any employee who has had an overbearing know-it-all, bully boss in the workplace. Hopefully she will go to jail and a message will be sent that any young agist bully will not be given the power of god in the workplace. ..."
In the early 1980's President Regan fired the striking air traffic controllers. This
sent the message to management around the USA that it was OK to abuse employees in the
workplace. By the end of the 1980's unions were totally emasculated and you had workers
"going postal" in an abusive workplace. When unions were at their peak of power, they could
appeal to the courts and actually stop a factory from moving out of the country by enforcing
a labor contact.
Today we have a President in the White House who was elected on a platform of "YOU'RE
FIRED." Not surprisingly, Trump was elected by the vast majority of selfish lowlives in this
country. The American workplace is a nuthouse. Each and every individual workplace
environment is like a cult.
That is not good for someone like me who hates taking orders from people. But I have seen
it all. Ten years ago a Manhattan law firm fired every lawyer in a litigation unit except an
ex-playboy playmate. Look it up it was in the papers. I was fired from a job where many of my
bosses went to federal prison and then I was invited to the Christmas Party.
What are the salaries of these IBM employees and how much are their replacements making?
The workplace becomes a surrogate family. Who knows why some people get along and others
don't. My theory on agism in the workplace is that younger employees don't want to be around
their surrogate mother or father in the workplace after just leaving the real home under the
rules of their real parents.
The American workplace is just a byproduct of the militarization of everyday life. In the
1800's, Herman Melville wrote in his beautiful book "White Jacket" that one of the most
humiliating aspects of the military is taking orders from a younger military officer. I read
that book when I was 20. I didn't feel the sting of that wisdom until I was 40 and had a 30 year old appointed as
my supervisor who had 10 years less experience than me.
By the way, the executive that made
her my supervisor was one of the sleaziest bosses I have ever had in my career. Look at the
tech giant Theranos. Silicon Valley and Wall Street handed billions of dollars to this
arrogant, ignorant Millennial Elizabeth Holmes. She abused any employee that questioned her.
This should sound familiar to any employee who has had an overbearing know-it-all, bully boss
in the workplace. Hopefully she will go to jail and a message will be sent that any young agist bully will not be given the power of god in the workplace.
It takes a lot of courage for an addict to recover and stay clean. And it is sadly not news that drug addiction and high levels
of prescription drug use are signs that something is deeply broken in our society. There are always some people afflicted with deep
personal pain but our system is doing a very good job of generating unnecessary pain and desperation.
Mady Ohlman was 22 on the evening some years ago when she stood in a friend's bathroom looking down at the sink.
"I had set up a bunch of needles filled with heroin because I wanted to just do them back-to-back-to-back," Ohlman recalled. She
doesn't remember how many she injected before collapsing, or how long she lay drugged-out on the floor.
"But I remember being pissed because I could still get up, you know?"
She wanted to be dead, she said, glancing down, a wisp of straight brown hair slipping from behind an ear across her thin face.
At that point, said Ohlman, she'd been addicted to opioids -- controlled by the drugs -- for more than three years.
"And doing all these things you don't want to do that are horrible -- you know, selling my body, stealing from my mom, sleeping
in my car," Ohlman said. "How could I not be suicidal?"
For this young woman, whose weight had dropped to about 90 pounds, who was shooting heroin just to avoid feeling violently ill,
suicide seemed a painless way out.
"You realize getting clean would be a lot of work," Ohlman said, her voice rising. "And you realize dying would be a lot less
painful. You also feel like you'll be doing everyone else a favor if you die."
Ohlman, who has now been sober for more than four years, said many drug users hit the same point, when the disease and the pursuit
of illegal drugs crushes their will to live. Ohlman is among at least
40 percent of active
drug users who wrestle with depression, anxiety or another mental health issue that increases the risk of suicide.
Measuring Suicide Among Patients Addicted To Opioids
Massachusetts, where Ohlman lives, began formally
recognizing
in May 2017 that some opioid overdose deaths are suicides. The state confirmed only about 2 percent of all overdose deaths as suicides,
but Dr. Monica Bhare l, head of the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, said it's difficult to determine a person's true intent.
"For one thing, medical examiners use different criteria for whether suicide was involved or not," Bharel said, and the "tremendous
amount of stigma surrounding both overdose deaths and suicide sometimes makes it extremely challenging to piece everything together
and figure out unintentional and intentional."
Research on drug addiction and suicide suggests much higher numbers.
"[Based on the literature that's available], it looks like it's anywhere between 25 and 45 percent of deaths by overdose that
may be actual suicides," said
Dr. Maria Oquendo
, immediate past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
Oquendo pointed to one study of overdoses
from prescription opioids that found nearly 54 percent were unintentional. The rest were either suicide attempts or undetermined.
Several large studies show an increased risk of suicide among drug users addicted to opioids, especially women. In
a study of about 5 million veterans, women were eight
times as likely as others to be at risk for suicide, while men faced a twofold risk.
The opioid epidemic is occurring at the same time suicides have
hit a 30-year high , but Oquendo said few doctors
look for a connection.
"They are not monitoring it," said Oquendo, who chairs the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. "They are
probably not assessing it in the kinds of depths they would need to prevent some of the deaths."
That's starting to change. A few hospitals in Boston, for example, aim to ask every patient admitted about substance use, as well
as about whether they've considered hurting themselves.
"No one has answered the chicken and egg [problem]," said
Dr. Kiame Mahaniah , a family physician who runs the
Lynn Community Health Center in Lynn, Mass. Is it that patients "have mental health issues that lead to addiction, or did a life
of addiction then trigger mental health problems?"
With so little data to go on, "it's so important to provide treatment that covers all those bases," Mahaniah said.
'Deaths Of Despair'
When doctors do look deeper into the reasons patients addicted to opioids become suicidal, some economists predict they'll find
deep reservoirs of depression and pain.
In a seminal paper published in 2015, Princeton economists
Angus Deaton and
Anne Case tracked falling marriage rates,
the loss of stable middle-class jobs and rising rates of self-reported pain. The authors say opioid overdoses, suicides and diseases
related to alcoholism are all often "deaths of despair."
"We think of opioids as something that's thrown petrol on the flames and made things infinitely worse," Deaton said, "but the
underlying deep malaise would be there even without the opioids."
Many economists agree on remedies for that deep malaise. Harvard economics professor
David Cutle r said solutions include a good education, a steady
job that pays a decent wage, secure housing, food and health care.
"And also thinking about a sense of purpose in life," Cutler said. "That is, even if one is doing well financially, is there a
sense that one is contributing in a meaningful way?"
Tackling Despair In The Addiction Community
"I know firsthand the sense of hopelessness that people can feel in the throes of addiction," said
Michael Botticelli , executive director of the Grayken Center
for Addiction at Boston Medical Center; he is in recovery for an addiction to alcohol.
Botticelli said recovery programs must help patients come out of isolation and create or recreate bonds with family and friends.
"The vast majority of people I know who are in recovery often talk about this profound sense of re-establishing -- and sometimes
establishing for the first time -- a connection to a much larger community," Botticelli said.
Ohlman said she isn't sure why her attempted suicide, with multiple injections of heroin, didn't work.
"I just got really lucky," Ohlman said. "I don't know how."
A big part of her recovery strategy involves building a supportive community, she said.
"Meetings; 12-step; sponsorship and networking; being involved with people doing what I'm doing," said Ohlman, ticking through
a list of her priorities.
There's a fatal overdose at least once a week within her Cape Cod community, she said. Some are accidental, others not. Ohlman
said she's convinced that telling her story, of losing and then finding hope, will help bring those numbers down.
(propublica.org)As the world's dominant technology firm, payrolls at International Business Machines swelled
to nearly a quarter-million U.S. white-collar workers in the 1980s. Its profits helped
underwrite a broad agenda of racial equality, equal pay for women and an unbeatable offer of
great wages and something close to lifetime employment, all in return for unswerving loyalty.
But when high tech suddenly started shifting and companies went global, IBM faced the changing
landscape with a distinction most of its fiercest competitors didn't have: a large
number of experienced and aging U.S. employees .
The company reacted with a strategy that, in the words of one confidential planning
document, would "correct seniority mix." It slashed IBM's U.S. workforce by as much as
three-quarters from its 1980s peak, replacing a substantial share with younger,
less-experienced and lower-paid workers and sending many positions overseas. ProPublica
estimates that in the past five years alone, IBM has eliminated more than 20,000 American
employees ages 40 and over, about 60 percent of its estimated total U.S. job cuts during those
years. In making these cuts, IBM has flouted or outflanked U.S. laws and regulations intended
to protect later-career workers from age discrimination, according to a ProPublica review of
internal company documents, legal filings and public records, as well as information provided
via interviews and questionnaires filled out by more than 1,000 former IBM employees.
"... It tells me that the bottom line is that Christmas has become a harder season for White families. We are worse off because of BOTH social and economic liberalism which has only benefited an elite few. The bottom half of the White population is now in total disarray – drug addiction, demoralization, divorce, suicide, abortion, atomization, stagnant wages, declining household income and investments – and this dysfunction is creeping up the social ladder. The worst thing we can do is step on the accelerator. ..."
As we move into 2018, I am swinging away from the Republicans. I don't support the Paul Ryan
"Better Way" agenda. I don't support neoliberal economics. I think we have been going in the
wrong direction since the 1970s and don't want to continue going down this road.
Opioid Deaths: As we all know, the opioid epidemic has become a national crisis and the White working class
has been hit the hardest by it. It is a "sea of despair" out there.
White Mortality: As the family crumbles, religion recedes in his life, and his job prospects dwindle, the
middle aged White working class man is turning to drugs, alcohol and suicide: The White suicide
rate has soared since 2000:
Median Household Income: The average household in the United States is poorer in 2017 than it was in 1997:
Real GDP: Since the late 1990s, real GDP and real median household income have parted
ways:
Productivity and Real Wages: Since the 1970s, the minimum wage has parted ways with
productivity gains in the US economy:
Stock Market: Since 2000, the stock market has soared, but 10% of Americans own 80% of
stocks. The top 1% owns 38% of stocks. In 2007, 3/4th of middle class households were invested
in the stock market, but now only 50% are investors. Overall, 52% of Americans now own stocks,
which is down from 65%. The average American has less than $1,000 in their combined checking
and savings accounts.
Do you know what this tells me?
It tells me that the bottom line is that Christmas has become a harder season for White
families. We are worse off because of BOTH social and economic liberalism which has only
benefited an elite few. The bottom half of the White population is now in total disarray
– drug addiction, demoralization, divorce, suicide, abortion, atomization, stagnant
wages, declining household income and investments – and this dysfunction is creeping up
the social ladder. The worst thing we can do is step on the accelerator.
Paul Ryan and his fellow conservatives look at this and conclude we need MORE freedom. We
need lower taxes, more free trade, more deregulation, weaker unions, more immigration and less
social safety net spending. He wants to follow up tax reform with entitlement reform in 2018. I
can't but see how this is going to make an already bad situation for the White working class
even worse.
I'm not rightwing in the sense that these people are. I think their policies are harmful to
the nation. I don't think they feel any sense of duty and obligation to the working class like
we do. They believe in liberal abstractions and make an Ayn Rand fetish out of freedom whereas
we feel a sense of solidarity with them grounded in race, ethnicity and culture which tempers
class division. We recoil at the evisceration of the social fabric whereas conservatives
celebrate this blind march toward plutocracy.
Do the wealthy need to own a greater share of the stock market? Do they need to own a
greater share of our national wealth? Do we need to loosen up morals and the labor market? Do
we need more White children growing up in financially stressed, broken homes on Christmas? Is
the greatest problem facing the nation spending on anti-poverty programs? Paul Ryan and the
True Cons think so.
Yeah, I don't think so. I also think it is a good thing right now that we aren't associated
with the mainstream Right. In the long run, I bet this will pay off for us. I predict this
platform they have been standing on for decades now, which they call the conservative base, is
going to implode on them. Donald Trump was only the first sign that Atlas is about to
shrug.
(Republished from Occidental Dissent by permission of author or representative)
"... The U.S. has a retirement crisis on its hands, and with the far right controlling the executive branch and both houses of Congress, as well as dozens of state governments, things promise to grow immeasurably worse. ..."
"... It wasn't supposed to be this way. Past progressive presidents, notably Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, took important steps to make life more comfortable for aging Americans. FDR signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law as part of his New Deal, and when LBJ passed Medicare in 1965, he established a universal health care program for those 65 and older. But the country has embraced a neoliberal economic model since the election of Ronald Reagan, and all too often, older Americans have been quick to vote for far-right Republicans antagonistic to the social safety net. ..."
"... Since then, Ryan has doubled down on his delusion that the banking sector can manage Social Security and Medicare more effectively than the federal government. Republican attacks on Medicare have become a growing concern: according to EBRI, only 38 percent of workers are confident the program will continue to provide the level of benefits it currently does. ..."
"... As 2017 winds down, Americans with health problems are still in the GOP's crosshairs -- this time because of so-called tax reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (both the House and Senate versions) includes provisions that would undermine Obamacare and cause higher health insurance premiums for older Americans. According to AARP, "Older adults ages 50-64 would be at particularly high risk under the proposal, facing average premium increases of up to $1,500 in 2019 as a result of the bill." ..."
"... Countless Americans who are unable to afford those steep premiums would lose their insurance. The CBO estimates that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would cause the number of uninsured under 65 to increase 4 million by 2019 and 13 million by 2027. The bill would also imperil Americans 65 and over by cutting $25 billion from Medicare . ..."
"... Analyzing W2 tax records in 2012, U.S. Census Bureau researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell found that only 14 percent of private-sector employers in the U.S. were offering a 401(k) or similar retirement packages to their workers. That figure was thought to be closer to 40 percent, but Gideon and Mitchell discovered the actual number was considerably lower when smaller businesses were carefully analyzed, and that larger companies were more likely to offer 401(k) plans than smaller ones. ..."
"... Today, millions of Americans work in the gig economy who don't have full-time jobs or receive W2s, but instead receive 1099s for freelance work. ..."
"... The combination of stagnant wages and an increasingly high cost of living have been especially hellish for Americans who are trying to save for retirement. The United States' national minimum wage, a mere $7.25 per hour, doesn't begin to cover the cost of housing at a time when rents have soared nationwide. Never mind the astronomical prices in New York City, San Francisco or Washington, D.C. Median rents for one-bedroom apartments are as high as $1,010 per month in Atlanta, $960 per month in Baltimore, $860 per month in Jacksonville and $750 per month in Omaha, according to ApartmentList.com. ..."
"... yeah, Canada has a neoliberal infestation that is somewhere between the US and the UK. France has got one too, but it is less advanced. I'll enjoy my great healthcare, public transportation, and generous paid time off while I can. ..."
"... Europeans may scratch their heads, but they should recall their own histories and the long struggle to the universal benefits now enjoyed. Americans are far too complacent. This mildness is viewed by predators as weakness and the attacks will continue. ..."
"... Not sure if many of the readers here watch non-cable national broadcast news, but Pete Peterson and his foundation are as everpresent an advertiser as the pharma industry. Peterson is the strongest, best organized advocate for gutting social services, social security, and sending every last penny out of the tax-mule consumer's pocket toward wall street. The guy needs an equivalent counterpoint enemy. ..."
"... The social advantages that we still enjoy were fought in the streets, and on the "bricks" flowing with the participants blood. 8 hr. day; women's right to vote; ability and right for groups of laborers to organize; worker safety laws ..and so many others. There is no historical memory on how those rights were achieved. We are slowly slipping into an oligarchy greased by the idea that the physical possession of material things is all that matters. Sheeple, yes. ..."
"... Mmm, I think American voters get what they want in the end. They want their politicians because they believe the lies. 19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of wealth. A huge percentage of poor people believe they or their kids will (not can, but will) become wealthy. Most Americans can't find France on a map. ..."
"... I may have been gone for about thirty years, but that has only sharpened my insights into America. It's very hard to see just how flawed America is from the inside but when you step outside and have some perspective, it's frightening. ..."
"... Our government, beginning with Reagan, turned its back on promoting the general welfare. The wealthy soon learned that their best return on investment was the "purchase" of politicians willing to pass the legislation they put in their hands. Much of their investment included creating the right wing media apparatus. ..."
"... The Class War is real. It has been going on for 40 years, with the Conservative army facing virtually no resistance. Conservatives welcome Russia's help. Conservatives welcome barriers to people voting. Conservatives welcome a populace that believes lies that benefit them. Conservatives welcome the social and financial decline of the entire middle class and poor as long as it profits the rich financially, and by extension enhances their power politically. ..."
"... "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery" Thomas Jefferson. Rights of British America, 1774 ME 1:193, Papers 1:125 ..."
"... yes, my problem with the post as well, completely ignores democrat complicity the part where someone with a 26k salary will pay 16k in insurance? No they won't, the system would collapse in that case which will be fine with me. ..."
"... As your quote appears to imply, it's not a problem that can be solved by voting which, let's not forget, is nothing more than expressing an opinion. I am not sticking around just to find out if economically-crushed, opiod-, entertainment-, social media-addled Americans are actually capable of rolling out tumbrils for trips to the guillotines in the city squares. I strongly suspect not. ..."
"... This is the country where, after the banks crushed the economy in 2008, caused tens of thousands to lose their jobs, and then got huge bailouts, the people couldn't even be bothered to take their money out of the big banks and put it elsewhere. Because, you know, convenience! Expressing an opinion, or mobilizing others to express an opinion, or educating or proselytizing others about what opinion to have, is about the limit of what they are willing, or know how to do. ..."
Yves here. I imagine many readers are acutely aware of the problems outlined in this article, if not beset by them already. By
any rational standard, I should move now to a much cheaper country that will have me. I know individuals who live most of the year
in third-world and near-third world countries, but they have very cheap ways of still having a toehold in the US and not (yet or
maybe ever) getting a long-term residence visa. Ecuador is very accommodating regarding retirement visas, and a Social Security level
income goes far there, but yours truly isn't retiring any time soon. And another barrier to an international move (which recall I
did once, so I have some appreciation for what it takes), is that one ought to check out possible destinations but if you are already
time and money and energy stressed, how do you muster the resources to do that at all, let alone properly?
Aside from the potential to greatly reduce fixed costs, a second impetus for me is Medicare. I know for most people, getting on
Medicare is a big plus. I have a very rare good, very old insurance policy. When you include the cost of drug plans, Medicare is
no cheaper than what I have now, and considerably narrows my network. Moreover, I expect it to be thoroughly crapified by ten years
from now (when I am 70), which argues for getting out of Dodge sooner rather than later.
And that's before you get to another wee problem Lambert points out that I would probably not be happy in a third world or high
end second world country. But the only bargain "world city" I know of is Montreal. I'm not sure it would represent enough of an all-in
cost saving to justify the hassle of an international move and the attendant tax compliance burdens .and that charitably assumes
I could even find a way to get permanent residence. Ugh.
By Alex Henderson, who has written for the L.A. Weekly, Billboard, Spin, Creem, the Pasadena Weekly and many other publications.
Follow him on Twitter @alexvhenderson. Originally published at
Alternet
Millions can no longer afford to retire, and may never be able when the GOP passes its tax bill.
The news is not good for millions of aging Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in the United States who are moving closer to retirement
age. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual report on retirement preparedness for 2017, only 18 percent of
U.S.-based workers feel "very confident" about their
ability to retire comfortably ; Craig Copeland,
senior research associate for EBRI and the report's co-author, cited "debt, lack of a retirement plan at work, and low savings" as
"key factors" in workers' retirement-related anxiety. The Insured Retirement Institute finds a mere 23 percent of Baby Boomers and
24 percent of Gen Xers are confident that their savings will last in retirement. To make matters worse, more than 40 percent of Boomers
and over 30 percent of Gen Xers report having
no retirement savings whatsoever .
The U.S. has a
retirement crisis on its hands, and with the far right controlling the executive branch and both houses of Congress, as well
as dozens of state governments, things promise to grow immeasurably worse.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Past progressive presidents, notably Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, took
important steps to make life more comfortable for aging Americans. FDR signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law as part of
his New Deal, and when LBJ passed Medicare in 1965, he established a universal health care program for those 65 and older. But the
country has embraced a neoliberal economic model since the election of Ronald Reagan, and all too often, older Americans have been
quick to vote for far-right Republicans antagonistic to the social safety net.
In the 2016 presidential election, 55 percent of voters 50 and older
cast their ballots for Donald Trump
against just 44 percent for Hillary Clinton. (This was especially true of older white voters; 90 percent of black voters 45 and older,
as well as 67 percent of Latino voters in the same age range voted Democratic.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) economic proposals may have been wildly popular with millennials, but no demographic has a greater
incentive to vote progressive than Americans facing retirement. According to research conducted by the American Association of Retired
Persons, the three greatest concerns of Americans 50 and older are Social Security, health care costs and caregiving for loved ones
-- all areas that have been targeted by Republicans.
House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, a
devotee of social Darwinist Ayn Rand , has made no secret of his desire to
privatize
Social Security and replace traditional Medicare with a voucher program. Had George W. Bush had his way and turned Social Security
over to Wall Street, the economic crash of September 2008 might have left millions of senior citizens homeless.
Since then, Ryan has doubled down on his delusion that the banking sector can manage Social Security and Medicare more effectively
than the federal government. Republican attacks on Medicare have become a growing concern: according to EBRI, only 38 percent of
workers are confident the program will continue to provide the level of benefits it currently does.
The GOP's obsession with abolishing the Affordable Care Act is the most glaring example of its disdain for aging Americans. Yet
Obamacare has been a blessing for Boomers and Gen Xers who have preexisting conditions. The ACA's guaranteed issue plans make no
distinction between a 52-year-old American with diabetes, heart disease or asthma and a 52-year-old who has never had any of those
illnesses. And AARP notes that under the ACA, the uninsured rate for Americans 50 and older decreased from 15 percent in 2013 to
9 percent in 2016.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the replacement bills Donald Trump hoped to ram through Congress this year would
have resulted in staggering
premium hikes for Americans over 50. The CBO's analysis of the American Health Care Act, one of the earlier versions of Trumpcare,
showed that a 64-year-old American making $26,500 per year could have gone from paying $1,700 annually in premiums to just over $16,000.
The CBO also estimated that the GOP's American Health Care Act would have deprived
23 million Americans of health insurance by 2026.
As 2017 winds down, Americans with health problems are still in the GOP's crosshairs -- this time because of so-called tax
reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (both the House and Senate versions) includes provisions that would undermine Obamacare and cause
higher health insurance premiums for older Americans. According to AARP, "Older adults ages 50-64 would be at
particularly high risk under the proposal, facing average premium increases of up to $1,500 in 2019 as a result of the bill."
The CBO estimates that the bill will cause premiums to spike an average of 10 percent overall, with average premiums increasing
$890 per year for a 50-year-old, $1,100 per year for a 55-year-old, $1,350 per year for a 60-year-old and $1,490 per year for a 64-year-old.
Premium increases, according to the CBO, would vary from state to state; in Maine, average premiums for a 64-year-old would rise
as much as $1,750 per year.
Countless Americans who are unable to afford those steep premiums would lose their insurance. The CBO estimates that the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act would cause the number of uninsured under 65 to increase 4 million by 2019 and 13 million by 2027. The bill would
also imperil Americans 65 and over by
cutting $25 billion from
Medicare .
As morally reprehensible as the GOP's tax legislation may be, it is merely an acceleration of the redistribution of wealth from
the bottom to the top that America has undergone since the mid-1970s. (President Richard Nixon may have been a paranoid right-winger
with authoritarian tendencies, but he expanded Medicare and supported universal health care.) Between the decline of labor unions,
age discrimination, stagnant wages, an ever-rising cost of living, low interest rates, and a shortage of retirement accounts, millions
of Gen Xers and Baby Boomers may never be able to retire.
Traditional
defined-benefit
pensions were once a mainstay of American labor, especially among unionized workers. But according to Pew Charitable Trusts,
only
13 percent of Baby Boomers still have them (among millennials, the number falls to 6 percent). In recent decades, 401(k) plans
have become much more prominent, yet a majority of American workers don't have them either.
Analyzing W2 tax records in 2012, U.S. Census Bureau researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell found that only 14 percent
of private-sector employers in the U.S. were offering a 401(k) or similar retirement packages to their workers. That figure was thought
to be closer to 40 percent, but Gideon and Mitchell discovered the actual number was considerably lower when smaller businesses were
carefully analyzed, and that larger companies were more likely to offer 401(k) plans than smaller ones.
Today, millions of Americans work in the gig economy who don't have full-time jobs or receive W2s, but instead receive 1099s
for freelance work. Tax-deferred SEP-IRAs were once a great, low-risk way for freelancers to save for retirement without relying
exclusively on Social Security, but times have changed since the 1980s and '90s when interest rates were considerably higher for
certificates of deposit and savings accounts. According to Bankrate.com,
average rates for one-year
CDs dropped from 11.27 percent in 1984 to 8.1 percent in 1990 to 5.22 percent in 1995 to under 1 percent in 2010, where it currently
remains.
The combination of stagnant wages and an increasingly high cost of living have been especially hellish for Americans who are
trying to save for retirement. The United States' national minimum wage, a mere $7.25 per hour, doesn't begin to cover the cost of
housing at a time when rents have soared nationwide. Never mind the astronomical prices in New York City, San Francisco or Washington,
D.C. Median rents for one-bedroom apartments
are as high as $1,010 per month in Atlanta, $960 per month in Baltimore, $860 per month in Jacksonville and $750 per month in Omaha,
according to ApartmentList.com.
That so many older Americans are renting at all is ominous in its own right. FDR made home ownership a primary goal of the New
Deal, considering it a key component of a thriving middle class. But last year, the Urban Institute found that 19 million Americans
who previously owned a home are now renting, 31 percent between the ages of 36 and 45. Laurie Goodman, one of the study's authors,
contends the Great Recession has "permanently raised the number of renters," and that the explosion of foreclosures has hit Gen Xers
especially hard.
The severity of the U.S. retirement crisis is further addressed in journalist
Jessica Bruder's new book
"Nomadland: Surviving America in the 21st Century," which follows Americans in their 50s, 60s and even 70s
living in RVs or vans , barely eking out a living doing
physically demanding, seasonal temp work from harvesting sugar beets to cleaning toilets at campgrounds. Several had high-paying
jobs before their lives were blown apart by the layoffs, foreclosures and corporate downsizing of the Great Recession. Bruder speaks
with former college professors and software professionals who now find themselves destitute, teetering on the brink of homelessness
and forced to do backbreaking work for next to nothing. Unlike the big banks, they never received a bailout.
These neo-nomads recall the transients of the 1930s, themselves victims of Wall Street's recklessness. But whereas FDR won in
a landslide in 1932 and aggressively pursued a program of progressive economic reforms, Republicans in Congress have set out to shred
what little remains of the social safety net, giving
huge tax breaks
to millionaires and billionaires . The older voters who swept Trump into office may have signed their own death warrants.
If aging Americans are going to be saved from this dystopian future, the U.S. will have to forge a new Great Society. Programs
like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will need to be strengthened, universal health care must become a reality and age discrimination
in the workplace will have to be punished as a civil rights violation like racial and gender-based discrimination. If not, millions
of Gen Xers and Boomers will spend their golden years scraping for pennies.
I certainly will never go back to the States for these and other reasons. I have a friend, also an American citizen, who travels
frequently back to California to visit his son. He is truly worried about getting sick or having an accident when he is there
since he knows it might bankrupt him. As he jokes, he would be happy to have another heart attack here in France since it's free!
For those of you who have traveled the world and talked to people, you probably know that most foreigners are perplexed by
America's attitude to health care and social services. The richest nation in the world thinks that health and social security
(in the larger sense of not being forced into the street) are not rights at all. Europeans scratch their heads at this.
The only solution is education and information, but they are appalling in America. America remains the most ignorant and worst
educated of the developed nations and is probably beaten by many developing nations. It is this ignorance and stupidity that gets
Americans to vote for the likes of Trump or any of the other rapacious millionaires they send to office every year.
A first step would be for Americans to insist that Congress eliminate its incredibly generous and life-long healthcare plans
for elected officials. They should have to do what the rest of Americans do. Of course, since about 95% of Congress are millionaires,
it might not be effective. But it's a start.
France has its share of problems, but boy do they pale next to the problems in America or even Canada. Life here is overall
quite pleasant and I have no desire to go back to N.A.
yeah, Canada has a neoliberal infestation that is somewhere between the US and the UK. France has got one too, but it is
less advanced. I'll enjoy my great healthcare, public transportation, and generous paid time off while I can.
The newest neoliberal effort in Canada was put forward by our
Minister of Finance (a millionaire) who is touting a bill that will get rid of defined benefit pension plans given to public
employees for so-called target benefit pension plans. The risk for target plans is taken by the recipient. Morneau's former firm
promotes target benefit pension plans and the change could benefit Morneau himself as he did not put his assets from his firm
in a blind trust. At the very least, he has a conflict of interest and should probably resign.
There is always an insidious group of wealthy people here who would like to re-make the world in their own image. I fear for
the future.
Europeans may scratch their heads, but they should recall their own histories and the long struggle to the universal benefits
now enjoyed. Americans are far too complacent. This mildness is viewed by predators as weakness and the attacks will continue.
We really should be able to turn this around, and have an obligation to ourselves and our 'nation state' , IF there were a
group of folks running on a fairness, one-for-all, all-for-one platform. That sure isn't the present two-sides-of-the-same-coin
Democraps and Republicrunts.
Not sure if many of the readers here watch non-cable national broadcast news, but Pete Peterson and his foundation are
as everpresent an advertiser as the pharma industry. Peterson is the strongest, best organized advocate for gutting social services,
social security, and sending every last penny out of the tax-mule consumer's pocket toward wall street. The guy needs an equivalent
counterpoint enemy.
Check it out, and be vigilant in dispelling his message and mission. Thanks for running this article.
Running away: the almost-haves run to another nation state, the uber-wealthy want to leave the earth, or live in their private
Idaho in the Rockies or on the Ocean. What's left for the least among us? Whatever we create? https://www.pgpf.org/
I think pathologically optimistic is a better term than complacent. Every time someone dumps on them, their response is usually
along the lines of "Don't worry, it'll get better," "Everything works itself out in the end," "maybe we'll win the lottery," my
personal favorite "things will get better, just give it time" (honestly it's been 40 years of this neoliberal bullcrap, how much
more time are we supposed to give it?), "this is just a phase" or "we can always bring it back later and better than ever." The
last one is most troubling because after 20 years of witnessing things in the public sphere disappearing, I've yet to see a single
thing return in any form at all.
I'm not sure where this annoying optimism came from but I sure wish it would go away.
The "optimism" comes from having a lack of historical memory. So many social protections that we have/had is seen as somehow
coming out of the ether benevolently given without any social struggles. The lack of historical education on this subject in particular
is appalling. Now, most would probably look for an "APP" on their "dumbphones" to solve the problem.
The social advantages that we still enjoy were fought in the streets, and on the "bricks" flowing with the participants
blood. 8 hr. day; women's right to vote; ability and right for groups of laborers to organize; worker safety laws ..and so many
others. There is no historical memory on how those rights were achieved. We are slowly slipping into an oligarchy greased by the
idea that the physical possession of material things is all that matters. Sheeple, yes.
WOW! You must have been outside the U.S. for a long time. Your comment seems to suggest we still have some kind of democracy
here. We don't get to pick which rapacious millionaires we get to vote for and it doesn't matter any way since whichever one we
pick from the sad offerings ends up with policies dictated from elsewhere.
Mmm, I think American voters get what they want in the end. They want their politicians because they believe the lies.
19% of Americans believe they are in the top 1% of wealth. A huge percentage of poor people believe they or their kids will (not
can, but will) become wealthy. Most Americans can't find France on a map.
So, yes, you DO get to pick your rapacious millionaire. You send the same scumbags back to Washington every year because it's
not him, it the other guys who are the problem. One third of Americans support Trump! Really, really support him. They think he
is Jesus, MacArthur and Adam Smith all rolled up into one.
I may have been gone for about thirty years, but that has only sharpened my insights into America. It's very hard to see
just how flawed America is from the inside but when you step outside and have some perspective, it's frightening.
The Democrat party isn't a reform party. Thinking it is so, is because of the "No Other Choice" meme. Not saying that the Republican
party works in my favor. They don't. Political reform goes deeper than reforming either main party. It means going to a European
plurality system (with its own downside). That way growing Third parties will be viable, if they have popular, as opposed to millionaire,
support. I don't see this happening, because of Citizens United, but if all you have is hope, then you have to go with that.
Had George W. Bush had his way and turned Social Security over to Wall Street, the economic crash of September 2008 might
have left millions of senior citizens homeless.
Substitute Bill Clinton for George Bush in that sentence and it works just as well. Neoliberalism is a bipartisan project.
And many of the potential and actual horrors described above arise from the price distortions of the US medical system with
Democratic acquiescence in said system making things worse. The above article reads like a DNC press release.
And finally while Washington politicians of both parties have been threatening Social Security for years that doesn't mean
its third rail status has been repealed. The populist tremors of the last election -- which have caused our elites to lose their
collective mind -- could be a mere prelude to what will happen in the event of a full scale assault on the safety net.
Substitute Obama's quest for a Grand Bargain as well.
Our government, beginning with Reagan, turned its back on promoting the general welfare. The wealthy soon learned that
their best return on investment was the "purchase" of politicians willing to pass the legislation they put in their hands. Much
of their investment included creating the right wing media apparatus.
The Class War is real. It has been going on for 40 years, with the Conservative army facing virtually no resistance. Conservatives
welcome Russia's help. Conservatives welcome barriers to people voting. Conservatives welcome a populace that believes lies that
benefit them. Conservatives welcome the social and financial decline of the entire middle class and poor as long as it profits
the rich financially, and by extension enhances their power politically.
If retirees flee our country that will certainly please the Conservatives as that will be fewer critics (enemies). Also less
need or demand for social programs.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day, but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished
period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing
[a people] to slavery" Thomas Jefferson. Rights of British America, 1774 ME 1:193, Papers 1:125
yes, my problem with the post as well, completely ignores democrat complicity the part where someone with a 26k salary
will pay 16k in insurance? No they won't, the system would collapse in that case which will be fine with me.
"President Richard Nixon may have been a paranoid right-winger with authoritarian tendencies, but he expanded Medicare and
supported universal health care."
"Gimme that old time Republican!"
One of the reasons I love NC is that most political economic analysis is often more harsh on the Democrats than the Repubs
so I am a bit dismayed how this article is way too easy on Team D. How many little (and not so little) knives in the back from
Clinton and Obama? Is a knife in the chest that much worse?
This entire thread is simply heartbreaking, Americans have had their money, their freedom, their privacy, their health, and
sometimes their very lives taken away from them by the State. But the heartbreaking part is that they feel they are powerless
to do anything at all about it so are just trying to leave.
But "People should not fear the government; the government should fear the people"
As your quote appears to imply, it's not a problem that can be solved by voting which, let's not forget, is nothing more
than expressing an opinion. I am not sticking around just to find out if economically-crushed, opiod-, entertainment-, social
media-addled Americans are actually capable of rolling out tumbrils for trips to the guillotines in the city squares. I strongly
suspect not.
This is the country where, after the banks crushed the economy in 2008, caused tens of thousands to lose their jobs, and
then got huge bailouts, the people couldn't even be bothered to take their money out of the big banks and put it elsewhere. Because,
you know, convenience! Expressing an opinion, or mobilizing others to express an opinion, or educating or proselytizing others
about what opinion to have, is about the limit of what they are willing, or know how to do.
"... And, recent studies have shown, the longer you're out of work - especially if you're older and out of work - the harder it becomes to get a job offer. ..."
I thought this was an interesting article. Apologies if this has been posted on NC
already.
A stunning 33% of job seekers ages 55 and older are long-term unemployed, according to
the AARP Public Policy Institute. The average length of unemployment for the roughly 1.2
million people 55+ who are out of work: seven to nine months. "It's emotionally devastating
for them," said Carl Van Horn, director of Rutgers University's John J. Heldrich Center for
Workforce Development, at a Town Hall his center and the nonprofit WorkingNation held
earlier this year in New Brunswick, N.J.
... ... ...
The fight faced by the long-term unemployed
And, recent studies have shown, the longer you're out of work - especially if you're older and out of work - the harder
it becomes to get a job offer.
The job-finding rate declines by roughly 50% within eight months of unemployment, according to a 2016 paper by economists
Gregor Jarosch of Stanford University and Laura Pilossoph of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. "Unemployment duration
has a strongly negative effect on the likelihood of subsequent employment," wrote researchers from the University of
Maryland and the U.S. Census Bureau in another 2016 paper.
"Once upon a time, you could take that first job and it would lead to the next job and the job after that," said Town
Hall panelist John Colborn, chief operating officer at the nonprofit JEVS Human Services, of Philadelphia. "The notion of a
career ladder offered some hope of getting back into the labor market. The rungs of the ladder are getting harder and harder
to find and some of them are broken."
In inner cities, said Kimberly McClain, CEO of The Newark Alliance, "there's an extra layer beyond being older and out of
work. There are issues of race and poverty and being defined by your ZIP Code. There's an incredible sense of urgency."
... ... ...
Filling a work gap
If you are over 50, unemployed and have a work gap right now, the Town Hall speakers said, fill it by volunteering,
getting an internship, doing project work, job-shadowing someone in a field you want to be in or taking a class to re-skill.
These kind of things "make a candidate a lot more attractive," said Colborn. Be sure to note them in your cover letter and
r�sum�.
Town Hall panelist Amanda Mullan, senior vice president and chief human resources officer of the New Jersey Resources
Corp. (a utility company based in Wall, N.J.), said that when her company is interviewing someone who has been out of work
lately, "we will ask: 'What have you done during that time frame?' If we get 'Nuthin,' that shows something about the
individual, from a motivational perspective."
... ... ...
The relief of working again
Finally finding work when you're over 50 and unemployed for a stretch can be a relief for far more than financial
reasons.
"Once I landed my job, the thing I most looked forward to was the weekend," said Konopka. "Not to relax, but because I
didn't have to think about finding a job anymore. That's 24/7 in your head. You're always thinking on a Saturday: 'If I'm
not doing something to find a job, will there be a posting out there?'"
At 5:30 every morning, Tony Gwiazdowski rolls out of bed, brews a pot of coffee and carefully arranges his laptop, cell phone
and notepad like silverware across the kitchen table.
And then he waits.
Gwiazdowski, 57, has been waiting for 16 months. Since losing his job as a transportation sales manager in February 2009, he wakes
each morning to the sobering reminder that, yes, he is still unemployed. So he pushes aside the fatigue, throws on some clothes and
sends out another flurry of resumes and cheery cover letters.
But most days go by without a single phone call. And around sundown, when he hears his neighbors returning home from work, Gwiazdowski
-- the former mayor of Hillsborough -- can't help but allow himself one tiny sigh of resignation.
"You sit there and you wonder, 'What am I doing wrong?'" said Gwiazdowski, who finds companionship in his 2-year-old golden retriever,
Charlie, until his wife returns from work.
"The worst moment is at the end of the day when it's 4:30 and you did everything you could, and the phone hasn't rung, the e-mails
haven't come through."
Gwiazdowski is one of a growing number of chronically unemployed workers in New Jersey and across the country who are struggling
to get through what is becoming one long, jobless nightmare -- even as the rest of the economy has begun to show signs of recovery.
Nationwide, 46 percent of the unemployed -- 6.7 million Americans -- have been without work for at least half a year, by far the
highest percentage recorded since the U.S. Labor Department began tracking the data in 1948.
In New Jersey, nearly 40 percent of the 416,000 unemployed workers last year fit that profile, up from about 20 percent in previous
years, according to the department, which provides only annual breakdowns for individual states. Most of them were unemployed for
more than a year.
But the repercussions of chronic unemployment go beyond the loss of a paycheck or the realization that one might never find the
same kind of job again. For many, the sinking feeling of joblessness -- with no end in sight -- can take a psychological toll, experts
say.
Across the state, mental health crisis units saw a 20 percent increase in demand last year as more residents reported suffering
from unemployment-related stress, according to the New Jersey Association of Mental Health Agencies.
"The longer the unemployment continues, the more impact it will have on their personal lives and mental health," said Shauna Moses,
the association's associate executive director. "There's stress in the marriage, with the kids, other family members, with friends."
And while a few continue to cling to optimism, even the toughest admit there are moments of despair: Fear of never finding work,
envy of employed friends and embarassment at having to tell acquaintances that, nope, still no luck.
"When they say, 'Hi Mayor,' I don't tell a lot of people I'm out of work -- I say I'm semi-retired," said Gwiazdowski, who maxed
out on unemployment benefits several months ago.
"They might think, 'Gee, what's wrong with him? Why can't he get a job?' It's a long story and maybe people really don't care
and now they want to get away from you."
SECOND TIME AROUND
Lynn Kafalas has been there before, too. After losing her computer training job in 2000, the East Hanover resident took four agonizing
years to find new work -- by then, she had refashioned herself into a web designer.
That not-too-distant experience is why Kafalas, 52, who was laid off again eight months ago, grows uneasier with each passing
day. Already, some of her old demons have returned, like loneliness, self-doubt and, worst of all, insomnia. At night, her mind races
to dissect the latest interview: What went wrong? What else should she be doing? And why won't even Barnes & Noble hire her?
"It's like putting a stopper on my life -- I can't move on," said Kafalas, who has given up karate lessons, vacations and regular
outings with friends. "Everything is about the interviews."
And while most of her friends have been supportive, a few have hinted to her that she is doing something wrong, or not doing enough.
The remarks always hit Kafalas with a pang.
In a recent study, researchers at Rutgers University found that the chronically unemployed are prone to high levels of stress,
anxiety, depression, loneliness and even substance abuse, which take a toll on their self-esteem and personal relationships.
"They're the forgotten group," said Carl Van Horn, director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers,
and a co-author of the report. "And the longer you are unemployed, the less likely you are to get a job."
Of the 900 unemployed workers first interviewed last August for the study, only one in 10 landed full-time work by March of this
year, and only half of those lucky few expressed satisfaction with their new jobs. Another one in 10 simply gave up searching.
Among those who were still unemployed, many struggled to make ends meet by borrowing from friends or family, turning to government
food stamps and forgoing health care, according to the study.
More than half said they avoided all social contact, while slightly less than half said they had lost touch with close friends.
Six in 10 said they had problems sleeping.
Kafalas says she deals with her chronic insomnia by hitting the gym for two hours almost every evening, lifting weights and pounding
the treadmill until she feels tired enough to fall asleep.
"Sometimes I forget what day it is. Is it Tuesday? And then I'll think of what TV show ran the night before," she said. "Waiting
is the toughest part."
AGE A FACTOR
Generally, the likelihood of long-term unemployment increases with age, experts say. A report by the National Employment Law Project
this month found that nearly half of those who were unemployed for six months or longer were at least 45 years old. Those between
16 and 24 made up just 14 percent.
Tell that to Adam Blank, 24, who has been living with his girlfriend and her parents at their Martinsville home since losing his
sales job at Best Buy a year and half ago.
Blank, who graduated from Rutgers with a major in communications, says he feels like a burden sometimes, especially since his
girlfriend, Tracy Rosen, 24, works full-time at a local nonprofit. He shows her family gratitude with small chores, like taking out
the garbage, washing dishes, sweeping floors and doing laundry.
Still, he often feels inadequate.
"All I'm doing on an almost daily basis is sitting around the house trying to keep myself from going stir-crazy," said Blank,
who dreams of starting a social media company.
When he is feeling particularly low, Blank said he turns to a tactic employed by prisoners of war in Vietnam: "They used to build
dream houses in their head to help keep their sanity. It's really just imagining a place I can call my own."
LESSONS LEARNED
Meanwhile, Gwiazdowski, ever the optimist, says unemployment has taught him a few things.
He has learned, for example, how to quickly assess an interviewer's age and play up or down his work experience accordingly --
he doesn't want to appear "threatening" to a potential employer who is younger. He has learned that by occasionally deleting and
reuploading his resume to job sites, his entry appears fresh.
"It's almost like a game," he said, laughing. "You are desperate, but you can't show it."
But there are days when he just can't find any humor in his predicament -- like when he finishes a great interview but receives
no offer, or when he hears a fellow job seeker finally found work and feels a slight twinge of jealousy.
"That's what I'm missing -- putting on that shirt and tie in the morning and going to work," he said.
The memory of getting dressed for work is still so vivid, Gwiazdowski says, that he has to believe another job is just around
the corner.
"You always have to hope that that morning when you get up, it's going to be the day," he said.
"Today is going to be the day that something is going to happen."
I collect from the state of iowa, was on tier I and when the gov't recessed without passing extension, iowa stopped paying
tier I claims that were already open, i was scheduled to be on tier I until july 15th, and its gone now, as a surprise, when i
tried to claim my week this week i was notified. SURPRISE, talk about stress.
This is terrible....just wait until RIF'd teachers hit the unemployment offices....but then, this is what NJ wanted...fired
teachers who are to blame for the worst recession our country has seen in 150 years...thanks GWB.....thanks Donald Rumsfeld......thanks
Dick Cheney....thanks Karl "Miss Piggy" Rove...and thank you Mr. Big Boy himself...Gov Krispy Kreame!
For readers who care about this nation's unemployed- Call your Senators to pass HR 4213, the "Extenders" bill. Unfortunately,
it does not add UI benefits weeks, however it DOES continue the emergency federal tiers of UI. If it does not pass this week many
of us are cut off at 26 wks. No tier 1, 2 -nothing.
The longer you are unemployed, the more you are effected by those factors.
Notable quotes:
"... The good news is that only a relatively small number of people are seriously affected by the stress of unemployment to the extent they need medical assistance. Most people don't get to the serious levels of stress, and much as they loathe being unemployed, they suffer few, and minor, ill effects. ..."
"... Worries about income, domestic problems, whatever, the list is as long as humanity. The result of stress is a strain on the nervous system, and these create the physical effects of the situation over time. The chemistry of stress is complex, but it can be rough on the hormonal system. ..."
"... Not at all surprisingly, people under stress experience strong emotions. It's a perfectly natural response to what can be quite intolerable emotional strains. It's fair to say that even normal situations are felt much more severely by people already under stress. Things that wouldn't normally even be issues become problems, and problems become serious problems. Relationships can suffer badly in these circumstances, and that, inevitably, produces further crises. Unfortunately for those affected, these are by now, at this stage, real crises. ..."
"... Some people are stubborn enough and tough enough mentally to control their emotions ruthlessly, and they do better under these conditions. Even that comes at a cost, and although under control, the stress remains a problem. ..."
"... One of the reasons anger management is now a growth industry is because of the growing need for assistance with severe stress over the last decade. This is a common situation, and help is available. ..."
"... Depression is universally hated by anyone who's ever had it. ..."
"... Very important: Do not, under any circumstances, try to use drugs or alcohol as a quick fix. They make it worse, over time, because they actually add stress. Some drugs can make things a lot worse, instantly, too, particularly the modern made-in-a-bathtub variety. They'll also destroy your liver, which doesn't help much, either. ..."
"... You don't have to live in a gym to get enough exercise for basic fitness. A few laps of the pool, a good walk, some basic aerobic exercises, you're talking about 30-45 minutes a day. It's not hard. ..."
It's almost impossible to describe the various psychological impacts, because there are so many. There are sometimes serious consequences,
including suicide, and, some would say worse, chronic depression.
There's not really a single cause and effect. It's a compound effect, and unemployment, by adding stress, affects people, often
badly.
The world doesn't need any more untrained psychologists, and we're not pretending to give medical advice. That's for professionals.
Everybody is different, and their problems are different. What we can do is give you an outline of the common problems, and what
you can do about them.
The good news is that only a relatively small number of people are seriously affected by the stress of unemployment to the extent
they need medical assistance. Most people don't get to the serious levels of stress, and much as they loathe being unemployed, they
suffer few, and minor, ill effects.
For others, there are a series of issues, and the big three are:
Stress
Anger, and other negative emotions
Depression
Stress
Stress is Stage One. It's a natural result of the situation. Worries about income, domestic problems, whatever, the list is as
long as humanity. The result of stress is a strain on the nervous system, and these create the physical effects of the situation
over time. The chemistry of stress is complex, but it can be rough on the hormonal system.
Over an extended period, the body's natural hormonal balances are affected, and this can lead to problems. These are actually
physical issues, but the effects are mental, and the first obvious effects are, naturally, emotional.
Anger, and other negative emotions
Not at all surprisingly, people under stress experience strong emotions. It's a perfectly natural response to what can be quite
intolerable emotional strains. It's fair to say that even normal situations are felt much more severely by people already under stress.
Things that wouldn't normally even be issues become problems, and problems become serious problems. Relationships can suffer badly in these circumstances, and that, inevitably, produces further crises. Unfortunately for those
affected, these are by now, at this stage, real crises.
If the actual situation was already bad, this mental state makes it a lot worse. Constant aggravation doesn't help people to keep
a sense of perspective. Clear thinking isn't easy when under constant stress.
Some people are stubborn enough and tough enough mentally to control their emotions ruthlessly, and they do better under these
conditions. Even that comes at a cost, and although under control, the stress remains a problem.
One of the reasons anger management is now a growth industry is because of the growing need for assistance with severe stress
over the last decade. This is a common situation, and help is available.
If you have reservations about seeking help, bear in mind it can't possibly be any worse than the problem.
Depression
Depression is universally hated by anyone who's ever had it. This is the next stage, and it's caused by hormonal imbalances which
affect serotonin. It's actually a physical problem, but it has mental effects which are sometimes devastating, and potentially life
threatening.
The common symptoms are:
Difficulty in focusing mentally, thoughts all over the place in no logical order
Fits of crying for no known reason
Illogical, or irrational patterns of thought and behavior
Sadness
Suicidal thinking
It's a disgusting experience. No level of obscenity could possibly describe it. Depression is misery on a level people wouldn't
conceive in a nightmare. At this stage the patient needs help, and getting it is actually relatively easy. It's convincing the person they need to do something about it that's difficult. Again, the mental state is working against the person. Even admitting there's a problem is hard for many people in this condition.
Generally speaking, a person who is trusted is the best person to tell anyone experiencing the onset of depression to seek help. Important: If you're experiencing any of those symptoms:
Get on the phone and make an appointment to see your doctor. It takes half an hour for a diagnosis, and you can be on your
way home with a cure in an hour. You don't have to suffer. The sooner you start to get yourself out of depression, the better.
Avoid any antidepressants with the so-called withdrawal side effects. They're not too popular with patients, and are under
some scrutiny. The normal antidepressants work well enough for most people.
Very important: Do not, under any circumstances, try to use drugs or alcohol as a quick fix. They make it worse, over time, because they actually add stress. Some drugs can make things a lot worse, instantly, too, particularly
the modern made-in-a-bathtub variety. They'll also destroy your liver, which doesn't help much, either.
Alcohol, in particular, makes depression much worse. Alcohol is a depressant, itself, and it's also a nasty chemical mix with
all those stress hormones.
If you've ever had alcohol problems, or seen someone with alcohol wrecking their lives, depression makes things about a million
times worse.
Just don't do it. Steer clear of any so-called stimulants, because they don't mix with antidepressants, either.
Unemployment and staying healthy
The above is what you need to know about the risks of unemployment to your health and mental well being.
These situations are avoidable.
Your best defense against the mental stresses and strains of unemployment, and their related problems is staying healthy.
We can promise you that is nothing less than the truth. The healthier you are, the better your defenses against stress, and the
more strength you have to cope with situations.
Basic health is actually pretty easy to achieve:
Diet
Eat real food, not junk, and make sure you're getting enough food. Your body can't work with resources it doesn't have. Good food
is a real asset, and you'll find you don't get tired as easily. You need the energy reserves.
Give yourself a good selection of food that you like, that's also worth eating.
The good news is that plain food is also reasonably cheap, and you can eat as much as you need. Basic meals are easy enough to
prepare, and as long as you're getting all the protein veg and minerals you need, you're pretty much covered.
You can also use a multivitamin cap, or broad spectrum supplements, to make sure you're getting all your trace elements. Also
make sure you're getting the benefits of your food by taking acidophilus or eating yogurt regularly.
Exercise
You don't have to live in a gym to get enough exercise for basic fitness. A few laps of the pool, a good walk, some basic aerobic
exercises, you're talking about 30-45 minutes a day. It's not hard.
Don't just sit and suffer
If anything's wrong, check it out when it starts, not six months later. Most medical conditions become serious when they're allowed
to get worse.
For unemployed people the added risk is also that they may prevent you getting that job, or going for interviews. If something's
causing you problems, get rid of it.
Nobody who's been through the blender of unemployment thinks it's fun.
Anyone who's really done it tough will tell you one thing:
Don't be a victim. Beat the problem, and you'll really appreciate the feeling.
"... According to Amazon's metrics, I was one of their most productive order pickers -- I was a machine, and my pace would accelerate throughout the course of a shift. What they didn't know was that I stayed fast because if I slowed down for even a minute, I'd collapse from boredom and exhaustion ..."
"... toiling in some remote corner of the warehouse, alone for 10 hours, with my every move being monitored by management on a computer screen. ..."
"... ISS could simply deactivate a worker's badge and they would suddenly be out of work. They treated us like beggars because we needed their jobs. Even worse, more than two years later, all I see is: Jeff Bezos is hiring. ..."
"... I have never felt more alone than when I was working there. I worked in isolation and lived under constant surveillance ..."
"... That was 2012 and Amazon's labor and business practices were only beginning to fall under scrutiny. ..."
"... I received $200 a week for the following six months and I haven't had any source of regular income since those benefits lapsed. I sold everything in my apartment and left Pennsylvania as fast as I could. I didn't know how to ask for help. I didn't even know that I qualified for food stamps. ..."
Nichole Gracely has a master's degree and was one of Amazon's best order pickers. Now, after
protesting the company, she's homeless.
I am homeless. My worst days now are better than my best days working at Amazon.
According to Amazon's metrics, I was one of their most productive order pickers -- I was a machine,
and my pace would accelerate throughout the course of a shift. What they didn't know was that
I stayed fast because if I slowed down for even a minute, I'd collapse from boredom and exhaustion.
During peak season, I trained incoming temps regularly. When that was over, I'd be an ordinary
order picker once again, toiling in some remote corner of the warehouse, alone for 10 hours,
with my every move being monitored by management on a computer screen.
Superb performance did not guarantee job security. ISS is the temp agency that provides warehouse
labor for Amazon and they are at the center of the SCOTUS case Integrity Staffing Solutions
vs. Busk. ISS could simply deactivate a worker's badge and they would suddenly be out of work.
They treated us like beggars because we needed their jobs. Even worse, more than two years later,
all I see is: Jeff Bezos is hiring.
I have never felt more alone than when I was working there. I worked in isolation and lived
under constant surveillance. Amazon could mandate overtime and I would have to comply with any
schedule change they deemed necessary, and if there was not any work, they would send us home
early without pay. I started to fall behind on my bills.
At some point, I lost all fear. I had already been through hell. I protested Amazon. The
gag order was lifted and I was free to speak. I spent my last days in a lovely apartment constructing
arguments on discussion boards, writing articles and talking to reporters. That was 2012 and
Amazon's labor and business practices were only beginning to fall under scrutiny. I walked away
from Amazon's warehouse and didn't have any other source of income lined up.
I cashed in on my excellent credit, took out cards, and used them to pay rent and buy food
because it would be six months before I could receive my first unemployment compensation check.
I received $200 a week for the following six months and I haven't had any source of regular
income since those benefits lapsed. I sold everything in my apartment and left Pennsylvania
as fast as I could. I didn't know how to ask for help. I didn't even know that I qualified for
food stamps.
I furthered my Amazon protest while homeless in Seattle. When the Hachette dispute flared
up I "flew a sign," street parlance for panhandling with a piece of cardboard: "I was an order
picker at amazon.com. Earned degrees. Been published. Now,
I'm homeless, writing and doing this. Anything helps."
I have made more money per word with my signs than I will probably ever earn writing, and
I make more money per hour than I will probably ever be paid for my work. People give me money
and offer well wishes and I walk away with a restored faith in humanity.
I flew my protest sign outside Whole Foods while Amazon corporate employees were on lunch
break, and they gawked. I went to my usual flying spots around Seattle and made more money per
hour protesting Amazon with my sign than I did while I worked with them. And that was in Seattle.
One woman asked, "What are you writing?" I told her about the descent from working poor to homeless,
income inequality, my personal experience. She mentioned Thomas Piketty's book, we chatted a
little, she handed me $10 and wished me luck. Another guy said, "Damn, that's a great story!
I'd read it," and handed me a few bucks.
On the topic of outsourcing, IMO it can be cheaper if done right. On paper it always seems like a great idea, but in practice
it's not always the best idea financially and/or getting the same or better result in comparison to keeping it in-house. I've worked
for companies where they have outsourced a particular department/function to companies where I am the one the job is outsourced to.
My observation has been the success of getting projects done (e.g.: programing) or facilitating a role (e.g.: sys admin) rely on a few
factors regardless of outsourcing or not.
Notable quotes:
"... On the topic of outsourcing, IMO it can be cheaper if done right. On paper it always seems like a great idea, but in practice it's not always the best idea financially and/or getting the same or better result in comparison to keeping it in-house. I've worked for companies where they have outsourced a particular department/function to companies where I am the one the job is outsourced to. My observation has been the success of getting projects done (e.g.: programing) or facilitating a role (e.g.: sys admin) rely on a few factors regardless of outsourcing or not. ..."
On the topic of outsourcing, IMO it can be cheaper if done right. On paper it always seems like a great idea, but in practice
it's not always the best idea financially and/or getting the same or better result in comparison to keeping it in-house. I've
worked for companies where they have outsourced a particular department/function to companies where I am the one the job is outsourced
to. My observation has been the success of getting projects done (e.g.: programing) or facilitating a role (e.g.: sys admin) rely
on a few factors regardless of outsourcing or not.
The first is a golden rule of sorts on doing anything:
Cheap
Quality
Fast
You can only pick two; NO exceptions. I've encountered so many upper management types that foolishly think they can get away
with having all three. In my experience 9/10 of the time it turns out a lack of quality bites them in the butt sometime down the
road when they assumed they somehow managed to achieve all three.
The second is communication. Mostly everyone in at least the US has experienced the pain of being subjected to some company's
outsourced customer service and/or tech support that can't effectively communicate with both parties on the same page of understanding
one another. I really shouldn't need to explain why communication, understanding one another is so important. Sadly this is something
I have to constantly explain to my current boss with events like today where my non-outsourced colleague rebooted a number of
production critical servers when he was asked to reboot just one secondary server.
Third is the employee's skill in doing the job. Again, another obvious one, but I've observed that it isn't always on the hiring
menu. Additionally I've seen some people that interview well, but couldn't create a "Hello World" HTML page for a web developer
position as an example. There's no point in hiring or keeping a hired individual to do a job that they lack the skill to do; even
if it's an entry-level position with training, that person should be willing to put for the effort to learn and take notes. I
accept that everyone has their own unique skills that can aide or hinder their ability to learn and be proficient with a particular
task. However, I firmly believe anyone can learn to do anything as long as they put their mind to it. I barely have any artistic
ability and my drawing skills are stick figures at best (XKCD is miles ahead of me); if I were to put forth the effort to learn
how to draw and paint, I could become a good artist. I taught an A+ technician certification class at a tech school a while back
and I had a retired Marine that served in the Vietnam War as one of my students. One could argue his best skill was killing and
blowing stuff up. He worked hard and learned to be a technician and passed CompTIA's certification test without a problem. That
leads me to the next point.
Lastly is attitude of the end employee doing the actual work. It boggles my mind how so many managers loose the plot when it
comes to employee morale and motivation. Productivity generally is improved when those two are improved and it usually doesn't
have to involve spending a bunch of money. The employee's attitude should be getting the work done correctly in a reasonable amount
of time. Demanding it is a poor approach. Poisoning an employee will result in poisoning the company in a small manner all the
way up to the failure of the company. Employees should be encouraged through actual morale improvements, positive motivation,
and incentives for doing more work at the same and/or better quality level.
Outsourcing or keeping things in house can be successful and possibly economical if approached correctly with the appropriate
support of upper management.
How dramatic? Isn't outsourcing done (like it or not) to reduce costs?
Outsourcing is done to reduce the projected costs that PHBs see. In reality, outsourcing can lead to increased costs and delays
due to time zone differences and language/cultural barriers.
I have seen it work reasonably well, but only when the extra effort and delays caused by the increased need for rework that
comes from complex software projects. If you are working with others on software, it is so much quicker to produce quality software
if the person who knows the business requirements is sitting right next to the person doing design and the person cutting code
and the person doing the testing, etc, etc.
If these people or groups are scattered around the world with different cultures and native languages, communication can suffer,
increasing misunderstanding and reducing the quality. I have personally seen this lead to massive increase in code defects in
a project that went from in house development to outsourced.
Also, time zone differences cause problems. I have noticed that the further west people live, the less likely they are to take
into account how far behind they are. Working with people who fail to realise that their Monday morning is the next day for someone
else, or that by the time they are halfway through Friday, others are already on their weekend is not only frustrating, it leads
to slow turn around of bug fixes, etc.
Yeah, I'm told outsourcing keeps costs down, but I am yet to see conclusive evidence of that in the real world. At least in
complex development. YMMV for support/call centre stuff.
"... What happened to the old "sysadmin" of just a few years ago? We've split what used to be the sysadmin into application teams, server teams, storage teams, and network teams. There were often at least a few people, the holders of knowledge, who knew how everything worked, and I mean everything. ..."
"... Now look at what we've done. Knowledge is so decentralized we must invent new roles to act as liaisons between all the IT groups. Architects now hold much of the high-level "how it works" knowledge, but without knowing how any one piece actually does work. In organizations with more than a few hundred IT staff and developers, it becomes nearly impossible for one person to do and know everything. This movement toward specializing in individual areas seems almost natural. That, however, does not provide a free ticket for people to turn a blind eye. ..."
"... Does your IT department function as a unit? Even 20-person IT shops have turf wars, so the answer is very likely, "no." As teams are split into more and more distinct operating units, grouping occurs. One IT budget gets split between all these groups. Often each group will have a manager who pitches his needs to upper management in hopes they will realize how important the team is. ..."
"... The "us vs. them" mentality manifests itself at all levels, and it's reinforced by management having to define each team's worth in the form of a budget. One strategy is to illustrate a doomsday scenario. If you paint a bleak enough picture, you may get more funding. Only if you are careful enough to illustrate the failings are due to lack of capital resources, not management or people. A manager of another group may explain that they are not receiving the correct level of service, so they need to duplicate the efforts of another group and just implement something themselves. On and on, the arguments continue. ..."
What happened to the old "sysadmin" of just a few years ago? We've split what used to be the sysadmin into application teams,
server teams, storage teams, and network teams. There were often at least a few people, the holders of knowledge, who knew how everything
worked, and I mean everything. Every application, every piece of network gear, and how every server was configured -- these
people could save a business in times of disaster.
Now look at what we've done. Knowledge is so decentralized we must invent new roles to act as liaisons between all the IT
groups. Architects now hold much of the high-level "how it works" knowledge, but without knowing how any one piece actually does
work. In organizations with more than a few hundred IT staff and developers, it becomes nearly impossible for one person to do and
know everything. This movement toward specializing in individual areas seems almost natural. That, however, does not provide a free
ticket for people to turn a blind eye.
Specialization
You know the story: Company installs new application, nobody understands it yet, so an expert is hired. Often, the person with
a certification in using the new application only really knows how to run that application. Perhaps they aren't interested in
learning anything else, because their skill is in high demand right now. And besides, everything else in the infrastructure is
run by people who specialize in those elements. Everything is taken care of.
Except, how do these teams communicate when changes need to take place? Are the storage administrators teaching the Windows
administrators about storage multipathing; or worse logging in and setting it up because it's faster for the storage gurus to
do it themselves? A fundamental level of knowledge is often lacking, which makes it very difficult for teams to brainstorm about
new ways evolve IT services. The business environment has made it OK for IT staffers to specialize and only learn one thing.
If you hire someone certified in the application, operating system, or network vendor you use, that is precisely what you get.
Certifications may be a nice filter to quickly identify who has direct knowledge in the area you're hiring for, but often they
indicate specialization or compensation for lack of experience.
Resource Competition
Does your IT department function as a unit? Even 20-person IT shops have turf wars, so the answer is very likely, "no."
As teams are split into more and more distinct operating units, grouping occurs. One IT budget gets split between all these groups.
Often each group will have a manager who pitches his needs to upper management in hopes they will realize how important the team
is.
The "us vs. them" mentality manifests itself at all levels, and it's reinforced by management having to define each team's
worth in the form of a budget. One strategy is to illustrate a doomsday scenario. If you paint a bleak enough picture, you may
get more funding. Only if you are careful enough to illustrate the failings are due to lack of capital resources, not management
or people. A manager of another group may explain that they are not receiving the correct level of service, so they need to duplicate
the efforts of another group and just implement something themselves. On and on, the arguments continue.
Most often, I've seen competition between server groups result in horribly inefficient uses of hardware. For example, what
happens in your organization when one team needs more server hardware? Assume that another team has five unused servers sitting
in a blade chassis. Does the answer change? No, it does not. Even in test environments, sharing doesn't often happen between IT
groups.
With virtualization, some aspects of resource competition get better and some remain the same. When first implemented, most
groups will be running their own type of virtualization for their platform. The next step, I've most often seen, is for test servers
to get virtualized. If a new group is formed to manage the virtualization infrastructure, virtual machines can be allocated to
various application and server teams from a central pool and everyone is now sharing. Or, they begin sharing and then demand their
own physical hardware to be isolated from others' resource hungry utilization. This is nonetheless a step in the right direction.
Auto migration and guaranteed resource policies can go a long way toward making shared infrastructure, even between competing
groups, a viable option.
Blamestorming
The most damaging side effect of splitting into too many distinct IT groups is the reinforcement of an "us versus them" mentality.
Aside from the notion that specialization creates a lack of knowledge, blamestorming is what this article is really about. When a project is delayed, it is all too easy to blame another group. The SAN people didn't allocate storage on time,
so another team was delayed. That is the timeline of the project, so all work halted until that hiccup was restored. Having someone
else to blame when things get delayed makes it all too easy to simply stop working for a while.
More related to the initial points at the beginning of this article, perhaps, is the blamestorm that happens after a system
outage.
Say an ERP system becomes unresponsive a few times throughout the day. The application team says it's just slowing down, and
they don't know why. The network team says everything is fine. The server team says the application is "blocking on IO," which
means it's a SAN issue. The SAN team say there is nothing wrong, and other applications on the same devices are fine. You've ran
through nearly every team, but without an answer still. The SAN people don't have access to the application servers to help diagnose
the problem. The server team doesn't even know how the application runs.
See the problem? Specialized teams are distinct and by nature adversarial. Specialized staffers often relegate
themselves into a niche knowing that as long as they continue working at large enough companies, "someone else" will take care
of all the other pieces.
I unfortunately don't have an answer to this problem. Maybe rotating employees between departments will help. They gain knowledge
and also get to know other people, which should lessen the propensity to view them as outsiders
"This overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies can't find people with the right skills"
. In the IT job markets such postings are often called purple squirrels
Notable quotes:
"... In particular, there seems to be an extremely popular variant of the above where the starting proposition "God makes moral people rich" is improperly converted to "Rich people are more moral" which is then readily negated to "Poor people are immoral" and then expanded to "Poor people are immoral, thus they DESERVE to suffer for it". It's essentially the theological equivalent of dividing by zero ..."
"... That said, the ranks of the neoliberals are not small. They constitute what Jonathan Schell calls a "mass minority." I suspect the neoliberals have about the same level of popular support that the Nazis did at the time of their takeover of Germany in 1932, or the Bolsheviks had in Russia at the time of their takeover in 1917, which is about 20 or 25% of the total population. ..."
"... The ranks of the neoliberals are made to appear far greater than they really are because they have all but exclusive access to the nation's megaphone. The Tea Party can muster a handful of people to disrupt a town hall meeting and it gets coast to coast, primetime coverage. But let a million people protest against bank bailouts, and it is ignored. Thus, by manipulation of the media, the mass minority is made to appear to be much larger than it really is. ..."
Over the past three decades, large parts of our culture here in the US have internalized the lessons of the new Social Darwinism,
with a significant body of literature to explain and justify it. Many of us have internalized, without even realizing it,
the ideas of "dog eat dog", "every man for himself", "society should be structured like the animal kingdom, where the weak and
sick simply die because they cannot compete, and this is healthy", and "everything that happens to you is your own fault. There
is no such thing as circumstance that cannot be overcome, and certainly no birth lottery."
The levers pulled by politicians and the Fed put these things into practice, but even if we managed get different (better)
politicians or Fed chairmen, ones who weren't steeped in this culture and ideology, we'd still be left with the culture in the
population at large, and things like the "unemployed stigma" are likely to die very, very hard. Acceptance of the "just-world
phenomenon" here in the US runs deep.
perfect stranger:
"Religion is just as vulnerable to corporate capture as is the government or the academy."
This is rather rhetorical statement, and wrong one. One need to discern spiritual aspect of religion from the religion as a
tool.
Religion, as is structured, is complicit: in empoverishment, obedience, people's preconditioning, and legislative enabler in
the institutions such as Supreme � and non-supreme � Court(s). It is a form of PR of the ruling class for the governing class.
DownSouth:
perfect stranger,
Religion, just like human nature, is not that easy to put in a box.
For every example you can cite where religion "is complicit: in empoverishment, obedience, people's preconditioning, and legislative
enabler in the institution," I can point to an example of where religion engendered a liberating, emancipatory and revolutionary
spirit.
Examples:
�Early Christianity �Nominalism �Early Protestantism �Gandhi �Martin Luther King
Now granted, there don't seem to be any recent examples of this of any note, unless we consider Chris Hedges a religionist,
which I'm not sure we can do. Would it be appropriate to consider Hedges a religionist?
perfect stranger:
Yes, that maybe, just maybe be the case in early stages of forming new religion(s). In case of Christianity old rulers from
Rome were trying to save own head/throne and the S.P.Q.R. imperia by adopting new religion.
You use examples of Gandhi and MLK which is highly questionable both were fighters for independence and the second, civil rights.
In a word: not members of establishment just as I said there were (probably) seeing the religion as spiritual force not tool of
enslavement.
In particular, there seems to be an extremely popular variant of the above where the starting proposition "God makes moral
people rich" is improperly converted to "Rich people are more moral" which is then readily negated to "Poor people are immoral"
and then expanded to "Poor people are immoral, thus they DESERVE to suffer for it". It's essentially the theological equivalent
of dividing by zero
DownSouth:
Rex,
I agree.
Poll after poll after poll has shown that a majority of Americans, and a rather significant majority, reject the values, attitudes,
beliefs and opinions proselytized by the stealth religion we call "neoclassical economics."
That said, the ranks of the neoliberals are not small. They constitute what Jonathan Schell calls a "mass minority." I
suspect the neoliberals have about the same level of popular support that the Nazis did at the time of their takeover of Germany
in 1932, or the Bolsheviks had in Russia at the time of their takeover in 1917, which is about 20 or 25% of the total population.
The ranks of the neoliberals are made to appear far greater than they really are because they have all but exclusive access
to the nation's megaphone. The Tea Party can muster a handful of people to disrupt a town hall meeting and it gets coast to coast,
primetime coverage. But let a million people protest against bank bailouts, and it is ignored. Thus, by manipulation of the media,
the mass minority is made to appear to be much larger than it really is.
The politicians love this, because as they carry water for their pet corporations, they can point to the Tea Partiers and say:
"See what a huge upwelling of popular support I am responding to."
JTFaraday:
Well, if that's true, then the unemployed are employable but the mass mediated mentality would like them to believe they
are literally and inherently unemployable so that they underestimate and under-sell themselves.
This is as much to the benefit of those who would like to pick up "damaged goods" on the cheap as those who promote the unemployment
problem as one that inheres in prospective employees rather than one that is a byproduct of a bad job market lest someone be tempted
to think we should address it politically.
That's where I see this blame the unemployed finger pointing really getting traction these days.
attempter:
I apologize for the fact that I only read the first few paragraphs of this before quitting in disgust.
I just can no longer abide the notion that "labor" can ever be seen by human beings as a "cost" at all. We really need to refuse
to even tolerate that way of phrasing things. Workers create all wealth. Parasites have no right to exist. These are facts, and
we should refuse to let argument range beyond them.
The only purpose of civilization is to provide a better way of living and for all people. This includes the right and full
opportunity to work and manage for oneself and/or as a cooperative group. If civilization doesn't do that, we're better off without
it.
psychohistorian:
I am one of those long term unemployed.
I suppose my biggest employment claim would be as some sort of IT techie, with numerous supply chain systems and component
design, development, implementation, interfaces with other systems and ongoing support. CCNP certification and a history of techiedom
going back to WEYCOS.
I have a patent (6,209,954) in my name and 12+ years of beating my head against the wall in an industry that buys compliance
with the "there is no problem here, move on now" approach.
Hell, I was a junior woodchuck program administrator back in the early 70's working for the Office of the Governor of the state
of Washington on CETA PSE or Public Service Employment. The office of the Governor ran the PSE program for 32 of the 39 counties
in the state that were not big enough to run their own. I helped organize the project approval process in all those counties to
hire folk at ( if memory serves me max of $833/mo.) to fix and expand parks and provide social and other government services as
defined projects with end dates. If we didn't have the anti-public congress and other government leadership we have this could
be a current component in a rational labor policy but I digress.
I have experience in the construction trades mostly as carpenter but some electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc. also.
So, of course there is some sort of character flaw that is keeping me and all those others from employment ..right. I may have
more of an excuse than others, have paid into SS for 45 years but still would work if it was available ..taking work away from
other who may need it more .why set up a society where we have to compete as such for mere existence???????
One more face to this rant. We need government by the people and for the people which we do not have now. Good, public focused,
not corporate focused government is bigger than any entities that exist under its jurisdiction and is kept updated by required
public participation in elections and potentially other things like military, peace corps, etc. in exchange for advanced education.
I say this as someone who has worked at various levels in both the public and private sectors there are ignorant and misguided
folks everywhere. At least with ongoing active participation there is a chance that government would, once constructed, be able
to evolve as needed within public focus .IMO.
Ishmael:
Some people would say I have been unemployed for 10 years. In 2000 after losing the last of my four CFO gigs for public companies
I found it necessary to start consulting. This has lead to two of my three biggest winning years. I am usually consulting on cutting
edge area of my profession and many times have large staffs reporting to me that I bring on board to get jobs done. For several
years I subcontacted to a large international consulting firm to clean up projects which went wrong. Let me give some insight
here.
First, most good positions have gate keepers who are professional recruiters. It is near impossible to get
by them and if you are unemployed they will hardly talk to you. One time talking to a recruiter at Korn Fery I was interviewing
for a job I have done several times in an industry I have worked in several times. She made a statement that I had never worked
at a well known company. I just about fell out of my chair laughing. At one time I was a senior level executive for the largest
consulting firm in the world and lived on three continents and worked with companies on six. In addition, I had held senior
positions for 2 fortune 500 firms and was the CFO for a company with $4.5 billion in revenue. I am well known at several PE
firms and the founder of one of the largest mentioned in a meeting that one of his great mistakes was not investing in a very
successful LBO (return of in excess of 20 multiple to investors in 18 months) I was the CFO for. In a word most recruiters
are incompetent.
Second, most CEO's any more are just insecure politicians. One time during an interview I had a CEO asked
me to talk about some accomplishments. I was not paying to much attention as I rattled off accomplishments and the CEO went
nuclear and started yelling at me that he did not know where I thought I was going with this job but the only position above
the CFO job was his and he was not going anywhere. I assured him I was only interested in the CFO position and not his, but
I knew the job was over. Twice feed back that I got from recruiters which they took at criticism was the "client said I seemed
very assured of myself."
Third, government, banking, business and the top MBA schools are based upon lying to move forward. I remember
a top human resource executive telling me right before Enron, MCI and Sarbanes Oxley that I needed to learn to be more flexible.
My response was that flexibility would get me an orange jump suit. Don't get me wrong, I have a wide grey zone, but it use
to be in business the looked for people who could identify problems early and resolve them. Now days I see far more of a demand
for people who can come up with PR spins to hide them. An attorney/treasurer consultant who partnered with me on a number of
consulting jobs told me some one called me "not very charming." He said he asked what that meant, and the person who said that
said, "Ish walks into a meeting and within 10 minutes he is asking about the 10,000 pound guerilla sitting in the room that
no one wants to talk about." CEO do not want any challenges in their organization.
Fourth, three above has lead to the hiring of very young and inexperienced people at senior levels. These
people are insecure and do not want more senior and experienced people above them and than has resulted in people older than
45 not finding positions.
Fifth, people are considered expendable and are fired for the lamest reasons anymore. A partner at one of
the larger and more prestigious recruiting firms one time told me, "If you have a good consulting business, just stick
with it. Our average placement does not last 18 months any more." Another well known recruiter in S. Cal. one time
commented to me, "Your average consulting gig runs longer than our average placement."
With all of that said, I have a hard time understanding such statements as "@attempter "Workers create all wealth. Parasites
have no right to exist." What does that mean? Every worker creates wealth. There is no difference in people. Sounds like communism
to me. I make a good living and my net worth has grown working for myself. I have never had a consulting gig terminated by the
client but I have terminated several. Usually, I am brought in to fix what several other people have failed at. I deliver basically
intellectual properties to companies. Does that mean I am not a worker. I do not usually lift anything heavy or move equipment
but I tell people what and where to do it so does that make me a parasite.
Those people who think everyone is equal and everyone deserves equal pay are fools or lazy. My rate is high, but what usually
starts as short term projects usually run 6 months or more because companies find I can do so much more than what most of their
staff can do and I am not a threat.
I would again like to have a senior challenging role at a decent size company but due to the reasons above will probably never
get one. However, you can never tell. I am currently consulting for a midsize very profitable company (grew 400% last year) where
I am twice the age of most people there, but everyone speaks to me with respect so you can never tell.
Lidia:
Ishmael, you're quite right. When I showed my Italian husband's resume to try and "network" in the US, my IT friends assumed
he was lying about his skills and work history.
Contemporaneously, in Italy it is impossible to get a job because of incentives to hire "youth". Age discrimination is
not illegal, so it's quite common to see ads that ask for a programmer under 30 with 5 years of experience in COBOL (the purple
squirrel).
Hosswire
Some good points about the foolishness of recruiters, but a great deal of that foolishness is forced by the clients themselves.
I used to be a recruiter myself, including at Korn Ferry in Southern California. I described the recruiting industry as "yet more
proof that God hates poor people" because my job was to ignore resumes from people seeking jobs and instead "source" aka "poach"
people who already had good jobs by dangling a higher salary in front of them. I didn't do it because I disparaged the unemployed,
or because I could not do the basic analysis to show that a candidate had analogous or transferrable skills to the opening.
I did it because the client, as Yves said, wanted people who were literally in the same job description already.
My theory is that the client wanted to have their ass covered in case the hire didn't work out, by being able to say that they
looked perfect "on paper." The lesson I learned for myself and my friends looking for jobs was simple, if morally dubious.
Basically, that if prospective employers are going to judge you based on a single piece of paper take full advantage of the fact
that you get to write that piece of paper yourself.
Ishmael:
Hosswire - I agree with your comment. There are poor recruiters like the one I sited but in general it is the clients fault.
Fear of failure. All hires have at least a 50% chance of going sideways on you. Most companies do not even have the ability to
look at a resume nor to interview. I did not mean to same nasty things about recruiters, and I even do it sometimes but mine.
I look at failure in a different light than most companies. You need to be continually experimenting and changing to survive
as a company and there will be some failures. The goal is to control the cost of failures while looking for the big pay off on
a winner.
Mannwich:
As a former recruiter and HR "professional" (I use that term very loosely for obvious reasons), I can honestly say that you
nailed it. Most big companies looking for mid to high level white collar "talent" will almost always take the perceived
safest route by hiring those who look the best ON PAPER and in a suit and lack any real interviewing skills to find the real stars.
What's almost comical is that companies almost always want to see the most linear resume possible because they want to see "job
stability" (e.g. a CYA document in case the person fails in that job) when in many cases nobody cares about the long range view
of the company anyway. My question was why should the candidate or employee care about the long range view if the employer clearly
doesn't?
Ishmael:
Manwhich another on point comment. Sometimes either interviewing for a job or consulting with a CEO it starts getting to the
absurd. I see all the time the requirement for stability in a persons background. Hello, where have they been the last 15 years.
In addition, the higher up you go the more likely you will be terminated sometime and that is especially true if you are hired
from outside the orgnanization. Companies want loyalty from an employee but offer none in return.
The average tenure for a CFO anymore is something around 18 months. I have been a first party participant (more than once)
where I went through an endless recruiting process for a company (lasting more than 6 months) they final hire some one and that
person is with the company for 3 months and then resigns (of course we all know it is through mutual agreement).
Ishmael:
Birch:
The real problem has become and maybe this is what you are referring to is the "Crony Capitalism." We have lost control of
our financial situation. Basically, PE is not the gods of the universe that everyone thinks they are. However, every bankers
secret wet dream is to become a private equity guy. Accordingly, bankers make ridiculous loans to PE because if you say no to
them then you can not play in their sand box any more. Since the govt will not let the banks go bankrupt like they should then
this charade continues inslaving everyone.
This country as well as many others has a large percentage of its assets tied up in over priced deals that the bankers/governments
will not let collapse while the blood sucking vampires suck the life out of the assets.
On the other hand, govt is not the answer. Govt is too large and accomplishes too little.
kevin de bruxelles:
The harsh reality is that, at least in the first few rounds, companies kick to the curb their weakest links and perceived
slackers. Therefore when it comes time to hire again, they are loath to go sloppy seconds on what they perceive to be
some other company's rejects. They would much rather hire someone who survived the layoffs working in a similar position in a
similar company. Of course the hiring company is going to have to pay for this privilege. Although not totally reliable, the fact
that someone survived the layoffs provides a form social proof for their workplace abilities.
On the macro level, labor has been under attack for thirty years by off shoring and third world immigration. It is no surprise
that since the working classes have been severely undermined that the middle classes would start to feel some pressure. By mass
immigration and off-shoring are strongly supported by both parties. Only when the pain gets strong enough will enough people rebel
and these two policies will be overturned. We still have a few years to go before this happens.
davver:
Let's say I run a factory. I produce cars and it requires very skilled work. Skilled welding, skilled machinists. Now I introduce
some robotic welders and an assembly line system. The plants productivity improves and the jobs actually get easier. They require
less skill, in fact I've simplified each task to something any idiot can do. Would wages go up or down? Are the workers really
contributing to that increase in productivity or is it the machines and methods I created?
Lets say you think laying off or cutting the wages of my existing workers is wrong. What happens when a new entrant into the
business employs a smaller workforce and lower wages, which they can do using the same technology? The new workers don't feel
like they were cut down in any way, they are just happy to have a job. Before they couldn't get a job at the old plant because
they lacked the skill, but now they can work in the new plant because the work is genuinely easier. Won't I go out of business?
Escariot:
I am 54 and have a ton of peers who are former white collar workers and professionals (project managers, architects, lighting
designers, wholesalers and sales reps for industrial and construction materials and equipment) now out of work going on three
years. Now I say out of work, I mean out of our trained and experienced fields.
We now work two or three gigs (waiting tables, mowing lawns, doing free lance, working in tourism, truck driving, moving company
and fedex ups workers) and work HARD, for much much less than we did, and we are seeing the few jobs that are coming back on line
going to younger workers. It is just the reality. And for most of us the descent has not been graceful, so our credit is a wreck,
which also breeds a whole other level of issues as now it is common for the credit record to be a deal breaker for employment,
housing, etc.
Strangely I don't sense a lot of anger or bitterness as much as humility. And gratitude for ANY work that comes our way. Health
insurance? Retirement accounts? not so much.
Mickey Marzick:
Yves and I have disagreed on how extensive the postwar "pact" between management and labor was in this country. But if you
drew a line from say, Trenton-Patterson, NJ to Cincinatti, OH to Minneapolis, MN, north and east of it where blue collar manufacturing
in steel, rubber, auto, machinery, etc., predominated, this "pact" may have existed but ONLY because physical plant and
production were concentrated there and workers could STOP production.
Outside of these heavy industrial pockets, unions were not always viewed favorably. As one moved into the rural hinterlands
surrounding them there was jealously and/or outright hostility. Elsewhere, especially in the South "unions" were the exception
not the rule. The differences between NE Ohio before 1975 � line from Youngstown to Toledo � and the rest of the state exemplified
this pattern. Even today, the NE counties of Ohio are traditional Democratic strongholds with the rest of the state largely Republican.
And I suspect this pattern existed elsewhere. But it is changing too
In any case, the demonization of the unemployed is just one notch above the vicious demonization of the poor that has
always existed in this country. It's a constant reminder for those still working that you could be next � cast out into
the darkness � because you "failed" or worse yet, SINNED. This internalization of the "inner cop" reinforces the dominant ideology
in two ways. First, it makes any resistance by individuals still employed less likely. Second, it pits those still working against
those who aren't, both of which work against the formation of any significant class consciousness amongst working people. The
"oppressed" very often internalize the value system of the oppressor.
As a nation of immigrants ETHNICITY may have more explanatory power than CLASS. For increasingly, it would appear that
the dominant ethnic group � suburban, white, European Americans � have thrown their lot in with corporate America. Scared of the
prospect of downward social mobility and constantly reminded of URBAN America � the other America � this group is trapped with
nowhere to else to go.
It's the divide and conquer strategy employed by ruling elites in this country since its founding [Federalist #10] with the
Know Nothings, blaming the Irish [NINA - no Irish need apply] and playing off each successive wave of immigrants against
the next. Only when the forces of production became concentrated in the urban industrial enclaves of the North was this
strategy less effective. And even then internal immigration by Blacks to the North in search of employment blunted the formation
of class consciousness among white ethnic industrial workers.
Wherever the postwar "pact of domination" between unions and management held sway, once physical plant was relocated elsewhere
[SOUTH] and eventually offshored, unemployment began to trend upwards. First it was the "rustbelt" now it's a nationwide
phenomenon. Needless to say, the "pact" between labor and management has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
White, suburban America has hitched its wagon to that of the corporate horse. Demonization of the unemployed coupled with demonization
of the poor only serve to terrorize this ethnic group into acquiescence. And as the workplace becomes a multicultural matrix this
ethnic group is constantly reminded of its perilous state. Until this increasingly atomized ethnic group breaks with corporate
America once and for all, it's unlikely that the most debilitating scourge of all working people � UNEMPLOYMENT � will be addressed.
Make no mistake about it, involuntary UNEMPLOYMENT/UNDEREMPLYEMT is a form of terrorism and its demonization is terrorism in
action. This "quiet violence" is psychological and the intimidation wrought by unemployment and/or the threat of it is intended
to dehumanize individuals subjected to it. Much like spousal abuse, the emotional and psychological effects are experienced way
before any physical violence. It's the inner cop that makes overt repression unnecessary. We terrorize ourselves into submission
without even knowing it because we accept it or come to tolerate it. So long as we accept "unemployment" as an inevitable consequence
of progress, as something unfortunate but inevitable, we will continue to travel down the road to serfdom where ARBEIT MACHT FREI!
FULL and GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT are the ultimate labor power.
Eric:
It's delicate since direct age discrimination is illegal, but when circumstances permit separating older workers they have
a very tough time getting back into the workforce in an era of high health care inflation. Older folks consume more health
care and if you are hiring from a huge surplus of available workers it isn't hard to steer around the more experienced. And nobody
gets younger, so when you don't get job A and go for job B 2 weeks later you, you're older still!
James:
Yves said- "This overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies can't find people
with the right skills"
In the IT job markets such postings are often called purple squirrels. The HR departments require the applicant to be expert
in a dozen programming languages. This is an excuse to hire a foreigner on a temp h1-b or other visa.
Most people aren't aware that this model dominates the sciences. Politicians scream we have a shortage of scientists, yet it
seems we only have a shortage of cheap easily exploitable labor. The economist recently pointed out the glut of scientists that
currently exists in the USA.
This understates the problem. The majority of PhD recipients wander through years of postdocs only to end up eventually changing
fields. My observation is that the top ten schools in biochem/chemistry/physics/ biology produce enough scientists to satisfy
the national demand.
The exemption from h1-b visa caps for academic institutions exacerbates the problem, providing academics with almost unlimited
access to labor.
The pharmaceutical sector has been decimated over the last ten years with tens of thousands of scientists/ factory workers
looking for re-training in a dwindling pool of jobs (most of which will deem you overqualified.)
I wonder how the demonization of the unemployed can be so strong even in the face of close to 10% unemployment/20% underemployment.
It's easy and tempting to demonize an abstract young buck or Cadillac-driving welfare queen, but when a family member
or a close friend loses a job, or your kids are stuck at your place because they can't find one, shouldn't that alter your perceptions?
Of course the tendency will be to blame it all on the government, but there has to be a limit to that in hard-hit places like
Ohio, Colorado, or Arizona. And yet, the dynamics aren't changing or even getting worse. Maybe Wisconsin marks a turning point,
I certainly hope it does
damien:
It's more than just stupid recruiting, this stigma. Having got out when the getting was good, years ago, I know
that any corporate functionary would be insane to hire me now. Socialization wears off, the deformation process reverses, and
the ritual and shibboleths become a joke. Even before I bailed I became a huge pain in the ass as economic exigency receded, every
bosses nightmare. I suffered fools less gladly and did the right thing out of sheer anarchic malice.
You really can't maintain corporate culture without existential fear � not just, "Uh oh, I'm gonna get fired,"
fear, but a visceral feeling that you do not exist without a job. In properly indoctrinated workers that feeling is divorced
from economic necessity. So anyone who's survived outside a while is bound to be suspect. That's a sign of economic security,
and security of any sort undermines social control.
youniquelikeme:
You hit the proverbial nail with that reply. (Although, sorry, doing the right thing should not be done out of malice) The real fit has to be in the corporate yes-man culture (malleable ass kisser) to be suited for any executive position
and beyond that it is the willingness to be manipulated and drained to be able to keep a job in lower echelon.
This is the new age of evolution in the work place. The class wars will make it more of an eventual revolution, but it is coming.
The unemployment rate (the actual one, not the Government one) globalization and off shore hiring are not sustainable for much
longer.
Something has to give, but it is more likely to snap then to come easily. People who are made to be repressed and down and
out eventually find the courage to fight back and by then, it is usually not with words.
down and out in Slicon Valley:
This is the response I got from a recruiter:
"I'm going to be overly honest with you. My firm doesn't allow me to submit any candidate who hasn't worked in 6-12
months or more. Recruiting brokers are probably all similar in that way . You are going to have to go through a connection/relationship
you have with a colleague, co-worker, past manager or friend to get your next job .that's my advice for you. Best of luck "
I'm 56 years old with MSEE. Gained 20+ years of experience at the best of the best (TRW, Nortel, Microsoft), have been issued
a patent. Where do I sign up to gain skills required to find a job now?
Litton Graft :
"Best of the Best?" I know you're down now, but looking back at these Gov'mint contractors you've enjoyed the best socialism
money can by.
Nortel/TRW bills/(ed) the Guvmint at 2x, 3x your salary, you can ride this for decades. At the same time the
Inc is attached to the Guvmint ATM localities/counties are giving them a red carpet of total freedom from taxation. Double subsidies.
I've worked many years at the big boy bandits, and there is no delusion in my mind that almost anyone, can do what I do and
get paid 100K+. I've never understood the mindset of some folks who work in the Wermacht Inc: "Well, someone has to do this work"
or worse "What we do, no one else can do" The reason no one else "can do it" is that they are not allowed to. So, we steal from
the poor to build fighter jets, write code or network an agency.
Hosswire:
I used to work as a recruiter and can tell you that I only parroted the things my clients told me. I wanted to
get you hired, because I was lazy and didn't want to have to talk to someone else next.
So what do you do? To place you that recruiter needs to see on a piece of paper that you are currently working? Maybe get an
email or phone call from someone who will vouch for your employment history. That should not be that hard to make happen.
Francois T :
The "bizarre way that companies now spec jobs" is essentially a coded way for mediocre managers to say without saying so explicitly
that "we can afford to be extremely picky, and by God, we shall do so no matter what, because we can!"
Of course, when comes the time to hire back because, oh disaster! business is picking up again, (I'm barely caricaturing here;
some managers become despondent when they realize that workers regain a bit of the higher ground; loss of power does that to lesser
beings) the same idiots who designed those "overly narrow hiring spec then leads to absurd, widespread complaint that companies
can't find people with the right skills" are thrown into a tailspin of despair and misery. Instead of figuring out something as
simple as "if demand is better, so will our business", they can't see anything else than the (eeeek!) cost of hiring workers.
Unable to break their mental corset of penny-pincher, they fail to realize that lack of qualified workers will prevent them to
execute well to begin with.
And guess what: qualified workers cost money, qualified workers urgently needed cost much more.
This managerial attitude must be another factor that explain why entrepreneurship and the formation of small businesses is
on the decline in the US (contrary to the confabulations of the US officialdumb and the chattering class) while rising in Europe
and India/China.
Kit:
If you are 55-60, worked as a professional (i.e., engineering say) and are now unemployed you are dead meat. Sorry to be blunt
but thats the way it is in the US today. Let me repeat that : Dead Meat.
I was terminated at age 59, found absolutely NOTHING even though my qualifications were outstanding. Fortunately, my company
had an old style pension plan which I was able to qualify for (at age 62 without reduced benefits). So for the next 2+ years my
wife and I survived on unemployment insurance, severance, accumulated vacation pay and odd jobs. Not nice � actually, a living
hell.
At age 62, I applied for my pension, early social security, sold our old house (at a good profit) just before the RE crash,
moved back to our home state. Then my wife qualified for social security also. Our total income is now well above the US median.
Today, someone looking at us would think we were the typical corporate retiree. We surely don't let on any differently but
the experience (to get to this point) almost killed us.
I sympathize very strongly with the millions caught in this unemployment death spiral. I wish I had an answer but I just don't.
We were very lucky to survive intact.
Ming:
Thank you Yves for your excellent post, and for bringing to light this crucial issue.
Thank you to all the bloggers, who add to the richness of the this discussion.
I wonder if you could comment on this Yves, and correct me if I am wrong I believe that the power of labor was sapped by the
massive available supply of global labor. The favorable economic policies enacted by China (both official and unofficial), and
trade negotiations between the US government and the Chinese government were critical to creating the massive supply of labor.
Thank you. No rush of course.
Nexus:
There are some odd comments and notions here that are used to support dogma and positions of prejudice. The world can be viewed
in a number of ways. Firstly from a highly individualised and personal perspective � that is what has happened to me and here
are my experiences. Or alternatively the world can be viewed from a broader societal perspective.
In the context of labour there has always been an unequal confrontation between those that control capital and those that offer
their labour, contrary to some of the views exposed here � Marx was a first and foremost a political economist. The political
economist seeks to understand the interplay of production, supply, the state and institutions like the media. Modern day economics
branched off from political economy and has little value in explaining the real world as the complexity of the world has been
reduced to a simplistic rationalistic model of human behaviour underpinned by other equally simplistic notions of 'supply and
demand', which are in turn represented by mathematical models, which in themselves are complex but merely represent what is a
simplistic view of the way the world operates. This dogmatic thinking has avoided the need to create an underpinning epistemology.
This in turn underpins the notion of free choice and individualism which in itself is an illusion as it ignores the operation
of the modern state and the exercise of power and influence within society.
It was stated in one of the comments that the use of capital (machines, robotics, CAD design, etc.) de-skills. This is hardly
the case as skills rise for those that remain and support highly automated/continuous production factories. This is symptomatic
of the owners of capital wanting to extract the maximum value for labour and this is done via the substitution of labour for capital
making the labour that remains to run factories highly productive thus eliminating low skill jobs that have been picked up via
services (people move into non productive low skilled occupations warehousing and retail distribution, fast food outlets,
etc). Of course the worker does not realise the additional value of his or her labour as this is expropriated for the shareholders
(including management as shareholders).
The issue of the US is that since the end of WW2 it is not the industrialists that have called the shots and made investments
it is the financial calculus of the investment banker (Finance Capital). Other comments have tried to ignore the existence of
the elites in society � I would suggest that you read C.W.Mills � The Power Elites as an analysis of how power is exercised
in the US � it is not through the will of the people.
For Finance capital investments are not made on the basis of value add, or contribution through product innovation and the
exchange of goods but on basis of the lowest cost inputs. Consequently, the 'elites' that make investment decisions, as
they control all forms of capital seek to gain access to the cheapest cost inputs. The reality is that the US worker (a
pool of 150m) is now part of a global labour pool of a couple of billion that now includes India and China. This means that the
elites, US transnational corporations for instance, can access both cheaper labour pools, relocate capital and avoid worker protection
(health and safety is not a concern). The strategies of moving factories via off-shoring (over 40,000 US factories closed or relocated)
and out-sourcing/in-sourcing labour is also a representations of this.
The consequence for the US is that the need for domestic labour has diminished and been substituted by cheap labour to
extract the arbitrage between US labour rates and those of Chinese and Indians. Ironically, in this context capital has
become too successful as the mode of consumption in the US shifted from workers that were notionally the people that created the
goods, earned wages and then purchased the goods they created to a new model where the worker was substituted by the consumer
underpinned by cheap debt and low cost imports � it is illustrative to note that real wages have not increased in the US since
the early 1970's while at the same time debt has steadily increased to underpin the illusion of wealth � the 'borrow today and
pay tomorrow' mode of capitalist operation. This model of operation is now broken. The labour force is now being demonized as
there is a now surplus of labour and a need to drive down labour rates through changes in legislation and austerity programs to
meet those of the emerging Chinese and Indian middle class so workers rights need to be broken. Once this is done a process of
in-source may take place as US labour costs will be on par with overseas labour pools.
It is ironic that during the Regan administration a number of strategic thinkers saw the threat from emerging economies and
the danger of Finance Capital and created 'Project Socrates' that would have sought to re-orientate the US economy from one that
was based on the rationale of Finance Capital to one that focused in productive innovation which entailed an alignment of capital
investment, research and training to product innovative goods. Of course this was ignored and the rest is history. The race to
the lowest input cost is ultimately self defeating as it is clear that the economy de-industrialises through labour and capital
changes and living standards collapse. The elites � bankers, US transnational corporations, media, industrial military complex
and the politicians don't care as they make money either way and this way you get other people overseas to work cheap for you.
S P:
Neoliberal orthodoxy treats unemployment as well as wage supression as a necessary means to fight "inflation." If there was
too much power in the hands of organized labor, inflationary pressures would spiral out of control as supply of goods cannot keep
up with demand.
It also treats the printing press as a necessary means to fight "deflation."
So our present scenario: widespread unemployment along with QE to infinity, food stamps for all, is exactly what you'd expect.
The problem with this orthodoxy is that it assumes unlimited growth on a planet with finite resources, particularly oil
and energy. Growth is not going to solve unemployment or wages, because we are bumping up against limits to growth.
There are only two solutions. One is tax the rich and capital gains, slow growth, and reinvest the surplus into jobs/skills
programs, mostly to maintain existing infrastructure or build new energy infrastructure. Even liberals like Krugman skirt around
this, because they aren't willing to accept that we have the reached the end of growth and we need radical redistribution
measures.
The other solution is genuine classical liberalism / libertarianism, along the lines of Austrian thought. Return to sound money,
and let the deflation naturally take care of the imbalances. Yes, it would be wrenching, but it would likely be wrenching for
everybody, making it fair in a universal sense.
Neither of these options is palatable to the elite classes, the financiers of Wall Street, or the leeches and bureaucrats of
D.C.
So this whole experiment called America will fail.
"... By Bill Mitchell, Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity at the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Originally published at billy blog ..."
"... The overwhelming importance of having a job for happiness is evident throughout the analysis, and holds across all of the world's regions. ..."
"... The pattern of human concerns ..."
"... The pattern of human concerns ..."
"... Journal of Happiness Studies ..."
"... The results show the differences between having a job and being unemployed are "very large indeed" on the three well-being measures (life evaluation, positive and negative affective states). ..."
"... Psychological Bulletin ..."
"... 1. "unemployment tends to make people more emotionally unstable than they were previous to unemployment". ..."
"... 2. The unemployed experience feelings of "personal threat"; "fear"; "sense of proportion is shattered"; loss of "common sense of values"; "prestige lost in own eyes and as he imagines, in the eyes of his fellow men"; "feelings of inferiority"; loss of "self-confidence" and a general loss of "morale". ..."
"... in the light of the structure of our society where the job one holds is the prime indicator of status and prestige. ..."
"... Psychological Bulletin ..."
"... Related studies found that the "unemployed become so apathetic that they rarely read anything". Other activities, such as attending movies etc were seen as being motivated by the need to "kill time" – "a minimal indication of the increased desire for such attendance". ..."
"... In spite of hopeless attempts the unemployed continually look for work, often going back again and again to their last place of work. Other writers reiterate this point. ..."
"... The non-pecuniary effects of not having a job are significant in terms of lost status, social alienation, abandonment of daily structure etc, and that has not changed much over history. ..."
"... I think what is missing from this article is the term "identity." If you meet new people, often the conversation starts with what you do for a living. Your identity, in part, is what you do. You can call yourself a plumber, a writer, a banker, a consultant, a reporter but the point is this is part of your identity. When you lose your job long term, your identity here loses one of its main anchor points. ..."
"... This is a crucial point that UBI advocates often ignore. There is a deeply entrenched cultural bias towards associating our work status with our general status and prestige and feelings of these standings. ..."
"... When unemployed, the stress of worry about money may suppress the creative juices. Speaking from experience. People may well 'keep looking for jobs' because they know ultimately they need a job with steady income. The great experience of some freelancers notwithstanding, not all are cut out for it. ..."
"... When considering the world's population as a whole, people with a job evaluate the quality of their lives much more favorably than those who are unemployed. ..."
"... Data like that provided by Mitchell is important to demolishing the horrid "economic anxiety" frame much beloved by liberals, especially wonkish Democrats.* It's not (a) just feelings , to be solved by scented candles or training (the liberal version of rugged individualism) and (b) the effects are real and measurable. It's not surprising, when you think about it, that the working class is about work . ..."
Posted on
November 21, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. Reader
UserFriendly sent this post with the message, "I can confirm this." I can too. And before you
try to attribute our reactions to being Americans, note that the study very clearly points out
that its finding have been confirmed in "all of the world's regions".
By Bill Mitchell, Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment
and Equity at the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Originally published at billy blog
Here is a summary of another interesting study I read last week (published March 30, 2017)
– Happiness at Work
– from academic researchers Jan‐Emmanuel De Neve and George Ward. It explores the
relationship between happiness and labour force status, including whether an individual is
employed or not and the types of jobs they are doing. The results reinforce a long literature,
which emphatically concludes that people are devastated when they lose their jobs and do not
adapt to unemployment as its duration increases. The unemployed are miserable and remain so
even as they become entrenched in long-term unemployment. Further, they do not seem to sense
(or exploit) a freedom to release some inner sense of creativity and purpose. The overwhelming
proportion continually seek work – and relate their social status and life happiness to
gaining a job, rather than living without a job on income support. The overwhelming conclusion
is that "work makes up such an important part of our lives" and that result is robust across
different countries and cultures. Being employed leads to much higher evaluations of the
quality of life relative to being unemployed. And, nothing much has changed in this regard over
the last 80 or so years. These results were well-known in the 1930s, for example. They have a
strong bearing on the debate between income guarantees versus employment guarantees. The UBI
proponents have produced no robust literature to refute these long-held findings.
While the 'Happiness Study' notes that "the relationship between happiness and employment is
a complex and dynamic interaction that runs in both directions" the authors are
unequivocal:
The overwhelming importance of having a job for happiness is evident throughout the
analysis, and holds across all of the world's regions. When considering the world's
population as a whole, people with a job evaluate the quality of their lives much more
favorably than those who are unemployed. The importance of having a job extends far beyond
the salary attached to it, with non-pecuniary aspects of employment such as social status,
social relations, daily structure, and goals all exerting a strong influence on people's
happiness.
And, the inverse:
The importance of employment for people's subjective wellbeing shines a spotlight on the
misery and unhappiness associated with being unemployed.
There is a burgeoning literature on 'happiness', which the authors aim to contribute to.
They define happiness as "subjective well-being", which is "measured along multiple
dimensions":
life evaluation (by way of the Cantril "ladder of life"), positive and negative affect to
measure respondents' experienced positive and negative wellbeing, as well as the more
domain-specific items of job satisfaction and employee engagement. We find that these diverse
measures of subjective wellbeing correlate strongly with each other
Cantril's 'Ladder of Life Scale' (or "Cantril Ladder") is used by polling organisations to
assess well-being. It was developed by social researcher Hadley Cantril (1965) and documented
in his book The pattern of human concerns .
You can learn more about the use of the 'Cantril Ladder' HERE
.
As we read, the "Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale consists of the following":
Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to 10 at the top. The
top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder
represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you
personally feel you stand at this time? (ladder-present) On which step do you think you
will stand about five years from now? (ladder-future)
[Reference: Cantril, H. (1965) The pattern of human concerns , New Brunswick,
Rutgers University Press.]
[Reference: Bjørnskov, C. (2010) 'How Comparable are the Gallup World Poll Life
Satisfaction Data?', Journal of Happiness Studies , 11 (1), 41-60.]
The Cantril scale is usually reported as values between 0 and 10.
The authors in the happiness study use poll data from 150 nations which they say "is
representative of 98% of the world's population". This survey data is available on a mostly
annual basis since 2006.
The following graph (Figure 1 from the Study) shows "the self-reported wellbeing of
individuals around the world according to whether or not they are employed."
The "bars measure the subjective wellbeing of individuals of working age" by employment
status .
The results show the differences between having a job and being unemployed are "very large
indeed" on the three well-being measures (life evaluation, positive and negative affective
states).
People employed "evaluate the quality of their lives around 0.6 points higher on average as
compared to the unemployed on a scale from 0 to 10."
The authors also conduct more sophisticated (and searching) statistical analysis
(multivariate regression) which control for a range of characteristics (gender, age, education,
marital status, composition of household) as well as to "account for the many political,
economic, and cultural differences between countries as well as year-to-year variation".
The conclusion they reach is simple:
the unemployed evaluate the overall state of their lives less highly on the Cantril ladder
and experience more negative emotions in their day-to-day lives as well as fewer positive
ones. These are among the most widely accepted and replicated findings in the science of
happiness Here, income is being held constant along with a number of other relevant
covariates, showing that these unemployment effects go well beyond the income loss associated
with losing one's job.
These results are not surprising. The earliest study of this sort of outcome was from the famous study published by Philip
Eisenberg and Paul Lazersfeld in 1938. [Reference: Eisenberg, P. and Lazarsfeld, P. (1938) 'The psychological effects of
unemployment', Psychological Bulletin , 35(6), 358-390.]
They explore four dimensions of unemployment:
I. The Effects of Unemployment on Personality.
II. Socio-Political Attitudes Affected by Unemployment.
III. Differing Attitudes Produced by Unemployment and Related Factors.
IV. The Effects of Unemployment on Children and Youth.
On the first dimension, they conclude that:
1. "unemployment tends to make people more emotionally unstable than they were previous to
unemployment".
2. The unemployed experience feelings of "personal threat"; "fear"; "sense of proportion is
shattered"; loss of "common sense of values"; "prestige lost in own eyes and as he imagines, in
the eyes of his fellow men"; "feelings of inferiority"; loss of "self-confidence" and a general
loss of "morale".
Devastation, in other words. They were not surprised because they note that:
in the light of the structure of our society where the job one holds is the prime
indicator of status and prestige.
This is a crucial point that UBI advocates often ignore. There is a deeply entrenched
cultural bias towards associating our work status with our general status and prestige and
feelings of these standings. That hasn't changed since Eisenberg and Lazersfeld wrote up the findings of their study in
1938.
It might change over time but that will take a long process of re-education and cultural
shift. Trying to dump a set of new cultural values that only a small minority might currently
hold to onto a society that clearly still values work is only going to create major social
tensions. Eisenberg and Lazarsfeld also considered an earlier 1937 study by Cantril who explored
whether "the unemployed tend to evolve more imaginative schemes than the employed".
[Reference: Cantril, H. (1934) 'The Social Psychology of Everyday Life', Psychological
Bulletin , 31, 297-330.]
The proposition was (is) that once unemployed, do people then explore new options that were
not possible while working, which deliver them with the satisfaction that they lose when they
become jobless. The specific question asked in the research was: "Have there been any changes of interests
and habits among the unemployed?" Related studies found that the "unemployed become so apathetic that they rarely read
anything". Other activities, such as attending movies etc were seen as being motivated by the
need to "kill time" – "a minimal indication of the increased desire for such
attendance".
On the third dimension, Eisenberg and Lazersfeld examine the questions – "Are there
unemployed who don't want to work? Is the relief situation likely to increase this number?",
which are still a central issue today – the bludger being subsidized by income
support.
They concluded that:
the number is few. In spite of hopeless attempts the unemployed continually look for work,
often going back again and again to their last place of work. Other writers reiterate this
point.
So for decades, researchers in this area, as opposed to bloggers who wax lyrical on their
own opinions, have known that the importance of work in our lives goes well beyond the income
we earn. The non-pecuniary effects of not having a job are significant in terms of lost status,
social alienation, abandonment of daily structure etc, and that has not changed much over
history. The happiness paper did explore "how short-lived is the misery associated with being out of
work" in the current cultural settings.
The proposition examined was that:
If the pain is only fleeting and people quickly get used to being unemployed, then we
might see joblessness as less of a key public policy priority in terms of happiness.
They conclude that:
a number of studies have demonstrated that people do not adapt much, if at all, to being
unemployed there is a large initial shock to becoming unemployed, and then as people stay
unemployed over time their levels of life satisfaction remain low . several studies have
shown that even once a person becomes re-employed, the prior experience of unemployment
leaves a mark on his or her happiness.
So there is no sudden or even medium-term realisation that being jobless endows the
individual with a new sense of freedom to become their creative selves, freed from the yoke of
work. To bloom into musicians, artists, or whatever.
The reality is that there is an on-going malaise – a deeply entrenched sense of
failure is overwhelming, which stifles happiness and creativity, even after the individual is
able to return to work.
This negativity, borne heavily by the individual, however, also impacts on society in
general.
The paper recognises that:
A further canonical finding in the literature on unemployment and subjective wellbeing is
that there are so-called "spillover" effects.
High levels of unemployment "increase fear and heighten the sense of job insecurity". Who
will lose their job next type questions?
The researchers found in their data that the higher is the unemployment rate the greater the
anxiety among those who remain employed.
Conclusion
The overwhelming conclusion is that "work makes up such an important part of our lives" and
that result is robust across different countries and cultures.
Being employed leads to much higher evaluations of the quality of life relative to being
unemployed.
The unemployed are miserable and remain so even as they become entrenched in long-term
unemployment. They do not seem to sense (or exploit) a freedom to release some inner sense of
creativity and purpose.
The overwhelming proportion continually seek work – and relate their social status and
life happiness to gaining a job, rather than living without a job on income support.
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) allows us to understand that it is the government that chooses
the unemployment rate – it is a political choice.
For currency-issuing governments it means their deficits are too low relative to the
spending and saving decisions of the non-government sector.
For Eurozone-type nations, it means that in surrendering their currencies and adopting a
foreign currency, they are unable to guarantee sufficient work in the face of negative shifts
in non-government spending. Again, a political choice.
The Job
Guarantee can be used as a vehicle to not only ensure their are sufficient jobs available
at all times but also to start a process of wiping out the worst jobs in the non-government
sector.
That can be done by using the JG wage to ensure low-paid private employers have to
restructure their workplaces and pay higher wages and achieve higher productivity in order to
attract labour from the Job Guarantee pool.
The Series So Far
This is a further part of a series I am writing as background to my next book with Joan
Muysken analysing the Future of Work . More instalments will come as the research
process unfolds.
The blogs in these series should be considered working notes rather than self-contained
topics. Ultimately, they will be edited into the final manuscript of my next book due in 2018.
The book will likely be published by Edward Elgar (UK).
Perhaps I'm utterly depressed but I haven't had a job job for over 5 years. Plenty of
work, however, more than I can handle and it requires priorisation. But I am deliberately not part of the organized herd. I stay away from big cities –
it's scary how managed the herd is in large groups – and I suppose that unemployment
for a herd animal is rather distressing as it is effectively being kicked out of the
herd.
Anyway my advice, worth what you pay for it but let he who has ears, etc. – is to go
local, very local, grow your own food, be part of a community, manage your own work, and
renounce the energy feast herd dynamics. "Unemployment", like "recession", is a mechanism of
control. Not very practical advice for most, I realize, trapped in the herd as they are in
car payments and mortgages, but perhaps aspirational?
I think what is missing from this article is the term "identity." If you meet new people,
often the conversation starts with what you do for a living. Your identity, in part, is what
you do. You can call yourself a plumber, a writer, a banker, a consultant, a reporter but the
point is this is part of your identity. When you lose your job long term, your identity here
loses one of its main anchor points.
Worse, there is a deliberate stigma attached with being long term unemployed. In that article
you have seen the word bludger being used. In parts of the US I have read of the shame of
'living off the county'. And yes, I have been there, seen that, and got the t-shirt. It's
going to be interesting as mechanization and computers turn large portions of the population
from workers to 'gig' workers. Expect mass demoralization.
yes the lives many of us have lived, no longer exist though we appear not notice, as we
"can" live in many of same "ways" ..rather well known psychologist defined some 40 years ago, best to "drop through
cracks"
Well, you also lose money, maybe you become homeless etc. as you have nowhere else to turn
(if there are kids involved to support it gets even scarier though there are some programs).
Or maybe you become dependent on another person(s) to support you which is of course
degrading as you know you must rely on them to live, whether it's a spouse or lover when you
want to work and bring in money, or mom and dads basement, or the kindest friend ever who
lets you sleep on their couch. I mean these are the things that really matter.
Privileged people whose main worry in unemployment would be losing identity, wow out of
touch much? Who cares about some identity for parties, but the ability to have a stable
decent life (gig work hardly counts) is what is needed.
I normally wouldn't comment like this, but you have brought up some extremely important
points about identity that I would like to address.
Recently I had the most intense mushroom experience of my entire life–so intense
that my identity had been completely stripped and I was left in a formless state, at the
level of seeing my bare, unvarnished animal neural circuitry in operation. Suddenly with a
flash of inspiration I realized that the identity of everyone, all of us, is inextricably
tied up in what we do and what we do for other people.
Following from that, I understood that if we passively rely on others for survival,
whether it be relying on friends, family, or government, then we do not have an identity or
reason for existing. And the inner self, the animal core of who we are, will realise this
lack of identity (even if the concious mind denies it), and will continually generate
feelings of profound depression and intense nihilism that will inevitably destroy us if the
root cause is not addressed.
Before this experience I was somewhat ambivalent about my politics, but immediately after
I knew that the political right was correct on everything important, from attitudes on sex to
economic philosophy. People need a core of cultural stability and hard work to grow and
become actualized. The alternative is rudderless dissatisfaction and envy that leads
nowhere.
On the topic of giving "out of kindnes and goodwill", giving without demanding anything in
return is a form of abuse, as it deprives those who receive our feel-good generosity the
motivation to form a coherent identity. If the parents of a basement-dweller were truly good
people, instead of supporting said dweller they'd drag her out by the ear and make her grow
food in the yard or some such. Likewise, those who have supported you without also giving
concrete demands and expecations in return have been unkind, and for your own good I hope
that you will immediately remove yourself from their support. On the other hand, if you have
been thoughtlessly giving because it warms the cockles of your heart, then stop it now. You
are ruining other people this way, and if your voting habits are informed by this kind of
malevolence I'd encourage you to change those as well.
Anyway the original poster is right about everything. Working and having a purpose in life
is an entirely different animal from making money and being "successful" in the
government-sponsored commercial economy. Society and government deliberately try to conflate
the two for various reasons, primarily graft of labor and genius, but that is only a
deliberate mis-framing that needlessly harms people when the mainstream economic system is in
catastrophic decline, as ours is today. You should try to clear up this misconception within
yourself as a way of getting better.
Well, I hope this message can give you a few different thoughts and help you find your way
out of the existential angst you're caught in. Don't wallow in helplessness. Think of
something useful to do, anything, whether it earns you money or not, and go out and start
doing it. You'll be surprised at how much better you feel about yourself in no time.
The problem is you said – I – had an extreme experience [burning bush], the
truth was reviled to – I – and I alone during this extreme chemically altered
state. Which by the way just happens to conform to a heap of environmental biases I
collected. This is why sound methodology demands peer review. disheveled some people think Mister Toads Wild ride at Disneyland on psychotropics is an
excellent adventure too.
I think your observation about the importance of work to identity is most perceptive. This
post makes too little distinction between work and a job and glosses over the place of work
in defining who we are to ourselves and to others. I recall the scene in the movie "About a
Boy" when the hero meets someone he cares about and she asks him what he does for a
living.
I believe there's another aspect of work -- related to identity -- missing in the analysis
of this post. Work can offer a sense of mission -- of acting as part of an effort toward a
larger goal no individual could achieve alone. However you may regard the value in putting
man on the moon there is no mistaking the sense of mission deeply felt by the engineers and
technicians working on the project. What jobs today can claim service to a mission someone
might value?
Agreed on your points. Wage slavery is nothing to aspire to. Self-determination within a
context of an interdependent community is a much better way to live. We do our thing in the city, however.
Finding that "interdependent community" is the hard part. My experience has been that this
endeavour is almost chance based; Serendipity if you will.
Here Down South, the churches still seem to have a stranglehold on small and mid scale social
organization. One of the big effects of 'churching' is the requirement that the individual
gave up personal critical thinking. Thus, the status quo is reinforced. One big happy 'Holy
Circlejerk.'
This is a crucial point that UBI advocates often ignore. There is a deeply entrenched
cultural bias towards associating our work status with our general status and prestige and
feelings of these standings.
That hasn't changed since Eisenberg and Lazersfeld wrote up the findings of their study
in 1938.
It might change over time but that will take a long process of re-education and cultural
shift. Trying to dump a set of new cultural values that only a small minority might
currently hold to onto a society that clearly still values work is only going to create
major social tensions.
I would agree about the entenched cultural norms, etc. But not the pessimism and timeline
for change. An individual can communicate a complex idea to millions in seconds, things move
fast these days.
For me, it seems that what we (we being UBI/radical change proponents) are lacking is a
compelling easily accessible story. Not just regarding UBI (as that is but one part of the
trully revolutionary transformations that must occur) but encompassing everything.
We have countless think pieces, bits of academic writing, books, etc that focus on
individual pieces and changes in isolation. But we've largely abandoned the all-encompassing
narrative, which at their heart is precisely what religion offers and why it can be so
seductive, successful, and resilient for so long.
The status quo has this type of story, it's not all that compelling but given the fact
that it is the status quo and has inertia and tradition on its side (along with the news
media, political, entertainment, etc) it doesn't have to be.
We need to abandon the single narrow issue activism that has become so prominent over the
years and get back to engaging with issues as unseparable and intimately interconnected.
Tinkering around the edges will do nothing, a new political religion is what is
required.
Sorry, I disagree vehemently. Deeply held cultural attitudes are very slow to change and
the study found that work being critical to happiness examined a large number of
societies.
Look at feminism. I was a half-generation after the time when women were starting to get a
shot at real jobs. IIRC, the first class that accepted women at Harvard Law School was in the
1950 and at Harvard Business School, 1965. And the number of first attendees was puny. The
1965 class at HBS had 10 8 women out of a graduating class of over 800; my class in 1981 had
only 11% women.
In the 1980s, you saw a shift from the belief that women could do what men could do to
promotion of the idea that women could/should be feminine as well as successful. This looked
like seriously mixed messages, in that IMHO the earlier tendency to de-emphasize gender roles
in the workplace looked like a positive development.
Women make less than 80% of what men do in the US. Even female doctors in the same
specialities make 80% of their male peers.
The Speenhamland in the UK had what amounted to an income guarantee from the 1790s to
1832. Most people didn't want to be on it and preferred to work. Two generations and being on
the support of local governments was still seen as carrying a stigma.
More generally, social animals have strongly ingrained tendencies to resent situations
they see as unfair. Having someone who is capable of working not work elicits resentment from
many, which is why most people don't want to be in that position. You aren't going to change
that.
And people need a sense of purpose. There are tons of cases of rich heirs falling into
drug addiction or alcoholism and despair because they have no sense of purpose in life. Work
provides that, even if it's mundane work to support a family. That is one of the great
dissservices the Democrats have done to the citizenry at large: sneering at ordinary work
when blue-collar men were the anchors of families and able to take pride in that.
Regarding the large number of societies, we often like to think we're more different than
we actually are focusing on a few glaringly obvious differences and generalizing from there.
Even going back a few hundred years when ideas travelled slower we were still (especially the
"west" though the "east" wasn't all that much more different either) quite similar. So I'm
less inclined to see the large number of societies as evidence.
Generally on societal changes and movements: The issue here is that the leadership has not
changed, they may soften some edges here or there (only to resharpen them again when we're
looking elsewhere) but their underlying ideologies are largely unchanged. A good mass of any
population will go along to survive, whether they agree or not (and we find increasing
evidence that many do not agree, though certainly that they do not agree on a single
alternative).
It may be impossible to implement such changes in who controls the levers of power in a
democratic fashion but it also may be immoral not implement such changes. Of course this is
also clearly a similar path to that walked by many a demonized (in most cases rightfully so)
dictator and despot. 'Tread carefully' are wise words to keep in mind.
Today we have a situation which reflects your example re: social animals and resentment of
unfairness: the elite (who falls into this category is of course debatable, some individuals
moreso than others). But they have intelligently, for their benefit, redirected that
resentment towards those that have little. Is there really any logical connection between not
engaging in wage labor (note: NOT equivalent to not working) and unfairness? Or is it a myth
crafted by those who currently benefit the most?
That resentment is also precisely why it is key that a Basic income be universal with no
means testing, everyone gets the same.
I think we should not extrapolate too much from the relatively small segment of the
population falling into the the inherited money category. Correlation is not causation and
all that.
It also seems that so often individuals jump to the hollywood crafted image of the
layabout stoner sitting on the couch giggling at cartoons (or something similarly negative)
when the concept of less wage labor is brought up. A reduction of wage labor does not equate
to lack of work being done, it simply means doing much of that work for different reasons and
rewards and incentives.
As I said in the Links thread today, we produce too much, we consume too much, we grow too
much. More wage labor overall as a requirement for survival is certainly not the solution to
any real problem that we face, its a massively inefficient use of resources and a massive
strain on the ecosystems.
I am really gobsmacked at the sense of entitlement on display here. Why are people
entitled to an income with no work? Being an adult means toil: cleaning up after yourself,
cleaning up after your kids if you have them, if you are subsistence farmer, tending your
crops and livestock, if you are a modern society denizen, paying your bills and your taxes on
time. The idea that people are entitled to a life of leisure is bollocks. Yet you promote
that.
Society means we have obligations to each other. That means work. In rejecting work you
reject society.
And the touting of "creativity" is a top 10% trope that Thomas Frank called out in Listen,
Liberal. It's a way of devaluing what the bottom 90% do.
My argument with the article is that, to me, it smacks of Taylorism. A follow-on study
would analyze how many hours a laborer must work before the acquired sense of purpose and
dignity and associated happiness began to decline. Would it be 30 hours a week of
backbreaking labor before dignity found itself eroded? 40? 50? 60? When does the worker
break? Just how far can we push the mule before it collapses?
The author alludes to this: "The overwhelming proportion relate their social status and
life happiness to gaining a job"
Work equals happiness. Got it.
But, as a former robotics instructor, and as one who watches the industry (and former
students), I see an automated future as damn near inevitable. Massive job displacement is
coming, life as a minimum wage burger flipper will cease, with no future employment prospects
short of government intervention (WPA and CCC for all, I say). I'm not a Luddite, obviously,
but there are going to be a lot of people, billions, worldwide, with no prospect of
employment. Saying, "You're lazy and entitled" is a bit presumptuous, Yves. Not everyone has
your ability, not everyone has my ability. When the burger flipping jobs are gone, where do
they go? When roombas mop the floors, where do the floor moppers go?
We could use a new Civilian Conservation Corps and and a Works Progress Administration.
There's lots of work that needs doing that isn't getting done by private corporations.
The outrage at non-work wealth and income would be more convincing if it were aimed also
at owners of capital. About 30% of national income is passive -- interest, rents, dividends.
Why are the owners of capital "entitled to an income with no work?" It's all about the
morality that underlies the returns to capital while sugaring over a devaluation of labor. As
a moral issue, everyone should share the returns on capital or we should tax away the
interest, rents, and dividends. If it's an economic issue, berating people for their beliefs
isn't a reason.
The overwhelming majority do work. The top 0.1% is almost entirely private equity managers
who are able to classify labor income as capital gains through the carried interest loophole.
Go look at the Forbes 400.
The 1% are mainly CEOs, plus elite professionals, like partners at top law and consulting
firms and specialty surgeons (heart, brain, oncology). The CEOs similarly should be seen as
getting labor income but have a lot of stock incentive pay (that is how they get seriously
rich) which again gets capital gains treatment.
You are mistaking clever taking advantage of the tax code for where the income actually
comes from. Even the kids of rich people are under pressure to act like entrepreneurs from
their families and peers. Look at Paris Hilton and Ivanka as examples. They both could have
sat back and enjoyed their inheritance, but both went and launched businesses. I'm not saying
the kids of the rich succeed, or would have succeed to the extent they do without parental
string-pulling, but the point is very few hand their fortune over to a money manager and go
sailing or play the cello.
What's your take on Rutger Bergman's ted talk? i think most jobs aren't real jobs at all,
like marketing and ceo's. why can't we do 20 hour work weeks so we don't have huge amounts of unemployment? Note, I was "unemployed" for years since "markets" decide not to fund science in the US.
Yay Germany At least I was fortunate enough to not be forced to work at Walmart or McDonalds
like the majority of people with absolutely no life choices. Ah the sweet coercion of
capitalism.
Your hopes for a UBI are undone by some of the real world observations I've made over many
years, with regard to how a guaranteed income increase, of any measure, for a whole
population of an area, affects prices. Shorter: income going up means prices are raised by
merchants to capture the new income.
Examples: A single industry town raises wages for all employees by 2% for the new calendar
year. Within the first 2 weeks of the new year, all stores and restaurants and service
providers in the town raise their prices by 2%. This happens every year there is a general
wage increase.
Example: Medicare part D passes and within 2 years, Pharma now having new captive
customers whose insurance will pay for drugs, raise prices higher and higher, even on generic
drugs.
A more recent example: ACA passes with no drug price ceilings. Again, as with the passage
of Medicare part D, Pharma raises drug prices to unheard of levels, even older and cheap but
life saving drugs, in the knowledge that a new, large group will have insurance that will pay
for the drugs – a new source of money.
Your assumption that any UBI would not be instantly captured by raised prices is naive, at
best. It's also naive to assume companies would continue to pay wages at the same level to
people still employed, instead of reducing wages and letting UBI fill in the rest. Some
corporations already underpay their workers, then encourage the workers to apply for food
stamps and other public supports to make up for the reduced wage.
The point of the paper is the importance of paid employment to a person's sense of well
being. I agree with the paper.
For the vast majority, a UBI would be income-neutral – it would have to be, to avoid
massive inflation. So people would receive a UBI, but pay more tax to compensate. The effect
on prices would be zero.
The advantage of a UBI is mostly felt at the lower end, where insecure/seasonal work does
now pay. At the moment, a person who went from farm labourer to Christmas work to summer
resort work in the UK would certainly be working hard, but also relentlessly hounded by the
DWP over universal credit. A UBI would make this sort of lifestyle possible.
Davidab,
Good for you, but your perspicacity is not scalable. People are social animals and your attitude toward "the herd", at least as expressed here,
is that of a predator, even if your taste doesn't run toward predation. Social solutions will necessarily be scalable or they won't be solutions for long.
> the organized herd a herd animal trapped in the herd
I don't think throwing 80% to 90% of the population into the "prey" bucket is especially
perspicacious politically (except, of course, for predators or parasites). I also don't think it's especially perspicacious morally. You write:
Not very practical advice for most, I realize, trapped in the herd as they are in car
payments and mortgages, but perhaps aspirational?
Let me translate that: "Trapped in the herd as many are to support spouses and children."
In other words, taking the cares of the world on themselves in order to care for others.
Unemployed stay at home dad here. My children are now old enough to no longer need a stay
at home dad. Things I have done: picked up two musical instruments and last year dug a
natural swimming pond by hand. Further, one would need to refute all the increased happiness
in retirement (NBER). Why social security but not UBI? I get being part of the precariat is
painful and this is a reality for most the unemployed no matter where you live in the world.
A UBI is unworkable because it will never be large enough to make people's lives
unprecarious. Having said that, I am almost positive if you gave every unemployed person 24 k
a year and health benefits, there would be a mass of non working happy creative folks.
UBI seems to me to encourage non-virtuous behavior – sloth, irresponsibility,
fecklessness, and spendthriftness. I like the Finnish model – unemployment insurance is
not limited – except if you refuse work provided by the local job center. Lots of work
is not being done all over America – we could guarantee honest work to all with some
imagination. Start with not spraying roundup and rather using human labor to control weeds
and invasive species.
I do agree that universal health insurance is necessary and sadly Obamacare is not
that.
The crux of this problem is the definition used for "non-virtuous behaviour."
A new CCC is a good place to start though. (Your Tax Dollars At Work! [For some definition of
tax dollars.])
As for BJ above, I would suppose that child rearing was his "employment" for years. good so
far, but his follow-up is untypical. The 'Empty Nester' mother is a well known meme.
Spendthriftness on 24K a year? Seriously? If we are disgorging unprofessional opinions, I will add my own: sloth and
irresponsibility are more signs of depression rather than freedom from having to work. In
fact, I believe (and I think much of the stuff here) supports the idea that people want to be
seen as useful in some way. Doesn't include me! :) .. unfortunately, I have the charmingly named "dependents" so there
you have it.
I lived 6 years as a grad student on 24k a year and would say it was easy. Only thing I
would have to had worried about was awful health insurance. A two household each with 24k
would be even easier, especially if you could do it in a low cost area. So I am not sure what
you mean by spendthrift. But again it will never happen, so we will be stuck with what we
have or most likely an even more sinister system. I guess I am advocating for a JG with
unlimited number of home makers per household.
except if you refuse work provided by the local job center
And who's to say that the local "job center" has work that would be appropriate for every
person's specific talents and interests? This is no better than saying that you should be
willing to go work for some minimum-wage retail job with unpredictable scheduling and other
forms of employer abuses after you lose a high-paying job requiring special talents. I have
to call bullshit on this model. I went through a two-year stretch if unemployment in no small
part because the vast majority of the available jobs for my skill set were associated with
the MIC, surveillance state or the parasitic FIRE sector. I was able to do this because I had
saved up enough FY money and had no debts or family to support.
I can also attest to the negative aspects of unemployment that the post describes. Its all
true and I can't really say that I'e recovered even now, 2.5 years after finding another
suitable job.
The job center in the neighbouring Sweden had the same function. Had is the important
word. My guess is that the last time someone lost their unemployment insurance payout due to
not accepting a job was in the early 1980s. Prior to that companies might, maybe, possibly
have considered hiring someone assigned to them – full employment forced companies to
accept what was offered. Companies did not like the situation and the situation has since
changed.
Now, when full employment is a thing of the past, the way to lose unemployment insurance
payouts is by not applying to enough jobs. An easily gamed system by people not wanting to
work: just apply to completely unsuitable positions and the number of applications will be
high. Many companies are therefore overwhelmed by applications and are therefore often forced
to hire more people in HR to filter out the unsuitable candidates.
People in HR tend not to know much about qualifications and or personalities for the job so
they tend to filter out too many. We're all familiar with the skills-shortage .
Next step of this is that the companies who do want to hire have to use recruitment agencies.
Basically outsourcing the HR to another company whose people are working on commission.
Recruiters sometimes know how to find 'talent', often they are the same kind of people with
the same skills and backgrounds as people working in HR.
To even get to the hiring manager a candidate has to go through two almost identical and
often meaningless interviews. Recruiter and then HR. Good for the GDP I suppose, not sure if
it is good for anything else.
But back on topic again, there is a second way of losing unemployment insurance payout:
Time. Once the period covered has passed there is no more payouts of insurance. After that it
it is time to live on savings, then sell all assets, and then once that is done finally go to
the welfare office and prove that savings are gone and all assets are sold and maybe welfare
might be paid out. People on welfare in Sweden are poor and the indignities they are being
put through are many. Forget about hobbies and forget about volunteering as the money for
either of those activities simply aren't available. Am I surprised by a report saying
unemployed in Sweden are unhappy? Nope.
meanwhile NYTimes testimonials Friday, show average family of 4 healthprofit costs
(tripled, due to trump demise ACA) to be $30,000. per year, with around $10,000. deductible
end of any semblance of affordable access, "murKa"
Where does a character like Bertie Wooster in "Jeeves" fit in your notions of virtuous
behavior? Would you consider him more virtuous working in the management of a firm,
controlling the lives and labor of others -- and humorously helped by his his brilliant
valet, Jeeves, getting him out of trouble?
For contrast -- in class and social status -- take a beer-soaked trailer trash gentleman
of leisure -- and for sake of argument blessed with less than average intelligence -- where
would you put him to work where you'd feel pleased with his product or his service? Would you
feel better about this fellow enjoying a six-pack after working 8 hours a day 5 days a week
virtuously digging and then filling a hole in the ground while carefully watched and goaded
by an overseer? [Actually -- how different is that from "using human labor to control weeds
and invasive species"? I take it you're a fan of chain-gangs and making the poor pick up
trash on the highways?]
What about some of our engineers and scientists virtuously serving the MIC? Is their
behavior virtuous because they're not guilty of sloth, irresponsibility [in executing their
work], fecklessness, and spendthriftness? On this last quality how do you feel about our
government who pay the salaries for all these jobs building better ways to kill and maim?
It is a design by David Pagan Butler. It is his plunge pool design, deepend is 14 by 8 by
7 deep. I used the dirt to make swales around some trees. Win win all around.
The answer is yes my spouse works. So I do have a schedule of waking up to make her lunch
everyday, meeting her at lunch to walk, and making dinner when she gets home, but we do all
those things on her days off so .
But again we would need to explain away, why people who are retired are happier? Just
because they think they payed into social security? Try explaining to someone on the SS dole
how the government spends money into existence and is not paid by taxes or that the
government never saved their tax money, so there are not entitled to this money.
I hated working for other people and doing what they wanted. I began to feel some
happiness when I had a half acre on which I could create my own projects. Things improved
even more when I could assure myself of some small guaranteed income by claiming Social
Security at age 62. To arise in the morning when I feel rested, with interesting projects
like gardens, fences, small buildings ahead and work at my own pace is the essence of delight
for me. I've been following your arguments against UBI for years and disagree vehemently.
I feel I would behave the same as you, if I had the chance. *But* no statements about
human beings are absolute, and because UBI would work for either of us does not mean it would
work for the majority. Nothing devised by man is perfect.
first you had to buy the half acre in a suitable location, then you had to work many years
to qualify for social security, the availability of which you paid for and feel you deserve.
You also have to buy stuff for fences gardens and small buildings. At most that rhymes with a
ubi but is significantly different in it's make up.
> when I had a half acre on which I could create my own projects
That is, when you acquired the half acre, which not everyone can do. It seems to
me there's a good deal of projecting going on with this thread from people who are, in
essence, statistical outliers. But Mitchell summarizes the literature:
So for decades, researchers in this area, as opposed to bloggers who wax lyrical on
their own opinions, have known that the importance of work in our lives goes well beyond
the income we earn.
If the solution that works for you is going to scale, that implies that millions more will
have to own land. If UBI depends on that, how does that happen? (Of course, in a
post-collapse scenario, the land might be taken , but that same scenario makes the
existence of institutions required to convey the UBI highly unlikely. )
Very glad to hear that Bill Mitchell is working on the "Future of Work" book, and to have
this post, and the links to the other segments. Thank you, Yves!
I don't agree with this statement. Never will. I'm the complete opposite. Give me more
leisure time and you'll find me painting, writing, playing instruments and doing things that
I enjoy. I recall back to when I was a student, I relished in the free time I got (believe me
University gave me a lot of free time) between lectures, meaning I could enjoy this time
pursuing creative activities. Sure I might be different than most people but I know countless
people who are the same.
My own opinion is that root problem lies in the pathology of the working mentality, that
'work' and having a 'job' is so engrained into our society and mindset that once you give
most people the time to enjoy other things, they simply can't. They don't know what to do
with themselves and they eventually become unhappy, watching daytime TV sat on the sofa.
I recall back to a conversation with my mother about my father, she said to me, 'I don't
know how your father is going to cope once he retires and has nothing to do' and it's that
very example of where work for so many people becomes so engrained in their mindset, that
they are almost scared of having 'nothing to do' as they say. It's a shame, it's this
systemic working mentality that has led to this mindset. I'm glad I'm the opposite of this
and proud by mother brought me up to be this way. Work, and job are not in my vocabulary. I
work to live, not live to work.
I agree with Andrew. I think this data on the negative effects says more about how being
employed fundamentally breaks the human psyche and turns them into chattel, incapable of
thinking for themselves and destroying their natural creativity. The more a human is molded
into a "good worker" the less they become a full fledged human being. The happiest people are
those that have never placed importance on work, that have always lived by the maxim "work to
live, not live to work". From my own experience every assertion in this article is the
opposite of reality. It is working that makes me apathethic, uncreative, and miserable. The
constant knowing that you're wasting your life, day after day, engaged in an activity merely
to build revenue streams for the rich, instead of doing things that help society or that
please you on a personal level, is what I find misery inducing.
I agree. If financial insecurity is removed from the equation -- free time can be used creatively
for self-actualization, whatever form that may take: cultivating the arts, hobbies, community
activities, worthy causes and projects. The ideology wafting from Mitchell's post smells to me like a rationale for wage slavery
(market driven living, neo-liberalism, etc.)
Besides how are people supposed to spend their time "exploring other opportunities" when
unemployed anyway? To collect unemployment which isn't exactly paying that much anyway, they
have to show they are applying to jobs. To go to the movies the example given costs money,
which one may tend to be short on when unemployed. They probably are looking for work
regardless (for the income). There may still be some free time. But they could go back to
school? Uh in case one just woke up from a rock they were under for 100 years, that costs
money, which one may tend to be short on when unemployed, plus there is no guarantee the new
career will pan out either, no guarantee someone is just chomping at the bit to hire a newly
trained 50 year old or something. I have always taken classes when unemployed, and paid for
it and it's not cheap.
Yes to use one's time wisely in unemployment in the existing system requires a kind of
deep psychological maturity that few have, a kind of Surrender To Fate, to the uncertainty of
whether one will have an income again or not (either that or a sugar daddy or a trust fund).
Because it's not easy to deal with that uncertainty. And uncertainty is the name of the game
in unemployment, that and not having an income may be the pain in it's entirety.
Sadly this breaking down into a "good worker" begins for most shortly after they begin
school. This type of education harms society in a myriad of ways including instilling a
dislike of learning, deference to authority (no matter how irrational and unjust), and a
destruction of a child's natural curiosity.
I don't buy your premise that people are "creative". The overwhelming majority do not have
creative projects they'd be pursuing if they had leisure and income. Go look at retirees,
ones that have just retired, are healthy, and have money.
You are really misconstruing what the studies have found and misapplied it to your
situation. Leisure time when you have a job or a role (being a student) is not at all the
same as having time when you are unemployed, with or without a social safety net.
Work: that can be me hiring someone to cut my yard, or another type of one-off thing
filled with precariousness.
Job: that less temporary work, but by no means permanent. Just a step up from the
precariousness of work.
Career: that is work in the same field over a long period of time and it is more likely
that someone will develop an identity through performing the work. Still precarious, but
maybe more fulfilling.
Sense of purpose: I was always under the impression that is something you have to give
yourself. If it can be taken away by someone what was the purpose?
one often has a role when unemployed: finding work. But it's not a very fulfilling one!
But if one is trying to find work, it's not exactly the absence of a role either even if it
still leaves significantly more free time than otherwise, maybe winning the lottery is the
absence of a role.
But then it's also not like we give people a UBI even for a few years (at any time in
adult life) to get an education. Only if they take out a student loan approaching the size of
a mortgage or have parents willing to pony up are they allowed that (to pay not just for the
education but to live because having a roof over one's head etc. is never free, a UBI via
debt it might be called).
> Give me more leisure time and you'll find me painting, writing, playing instruments
and doing things that I enjoy.
Nothing to breed resentment of "the creative class" here! Blowback from Speenhamland
brought on the workhouses, so be careful what you wish for.
UBI won't happen and JG has been tried (and failed).
The argument that JG would allow the public sector to hire more people is demeaning to
people already employed in the public sector and demonstrably false – people are hired
into the public sector without there being a JG. It is most certainly possible to be against
a JG while wanting more people working in the public sector.
The way forward is to have a government acting for people instead of for corporations.
Increase the amount of paid vacations, reduce the pension age and stop with the Soviet style
worship of work: While some people are apparently proud of their friends and relatives who
died while at work it is also possible to feel sad about that.
The JG was tried in Communist countries in Europe, Asia and Americas. The arguments then
and there were the same as here and now, made by the same type of social 'scientists'
(economists).
Would a JG be different here and now as the Republicans and Democrats are representing the
best interests of the people? Or are they representing the same kind of interests as the
Communist parties did?
Data, please. The USSR fell because it was spending on its military to keep up with the
US, a much larger economy. Countering your assertion we have this:
As long as people argue that "it's not fair" to fix the inequality issue and employ things
like debt jubilee or student loan forgiveness, or if we fix the ridiculous cost of health
care what will all those insurance agents do then we will wind up with the real kind of class
warfare, rather than the current punching from the top down, the punching will come from the
bottom, because the situation is not fair now, it's just TINA according to those who profit
from it. In my own life there is a balance of creativity and work, and I find work enables my
creativity by putting some pressure on my time, i.e., I get up earlier, I practice at 8:30 am
instead of sleeping til 10 and winding up with S.A..D., I go to bed rather than watch tv or
drink to excess.. in other words i have some kind of weird schedule, I have days off sort of
When I've been unemployed I feel the way s described in the article. I find the arguments in
favor of ubi tend to come from people who already have assets, or jobs, or family who they
take care of which is actually a job although uncommonly described as such. The only truth I
see in real life is that the unemployed I am intimately familiar with first are mentally
oppressed by the notion that to repair their situation will require they work every waking
hour at substandard wages for the rest of their life and that is a major barrier to getting
started, and that is a policy choice the gov't and elite classes purposefully made which
created the precariat and will be their undoing if they are unable to see this.
Interesting point. I read a science fiction story in which the protagonist arrives for
work at his full time job at 10:00 AM, and he's finished for the day at 4:00 PM. I can't
remember the name of the story or novel, unfortunately.
Agreed. And they already have it in places like Denmark. Why don't we talk about that? It
actually exists unlike utopian schemes for either total UBI or total work guarantee
(government job creation is not utopian, but imagining it will employ everyone is, and I
would like the UBI to be more widely tried, but in this country we are nowhere close). Funny
how utopia becomes more interesting to people than actual existing arrangements, even though
of course those could be improved on too.
The Danish work arrangement is less than a 40 hour week, and mothers especially often work
part-time but both sexes can. It's here in this country where work is either impossibly
grueling or you are not working. No other choice. In countries with more flexible work
arrangements more women actually work, but it's flexible and flexible for men who choose to
do the parenting as well. I'm not saying this should be for parents only of course.
My own situation is that I am unhappy in my well-paying job and would like nothing more
than to devote myself to other interests. I'm thirty years on in a relationship with someone
who grew up in bad financial circumstances and panics whenever I talk about leaving my job. I
tell her that we have 2 years of living expenses in the bank but I can't guarantee making the
same amount of money if I do leave my job. She has a job that she loves and is important and
pays barely 1/2 of my own income. So she worries about her future with me. She worries about
losing her home. I suppose that makes me the definition of a wage slave. And it makes for an
increasingly unhappy marriage. I admire those who have faced similar circumstances and found
a way through this. Sorry to vent, but this topic and the comments hit a nerve with me and
I'm still trying to figure this out.
Otis;
We are presently going through a period where that "two year cushion" has evaporated, for
various reasons. We are seeing our way through this, straight into penury and privation.
Take nothing for granted in todays' economy.
yes find the lower paying job that you like more first. If you just quit for nothing in
the hopes of finding one it might not happen. Of course unemployment also happens sometimes,
whether we want it or not.
The newer generations are worse when it comes to lifestyle. Those of that are older can at
least remember a time without cellphones internet streaming services leasing a new car every
2 years etc.
What about the young? My niece and her husband should be all set , his mom sunk money into
a home on the condition she moved into a mother in law apartment. So far so good right? 2
years in they are imploding even with the free child care she provides. Combined their
wireless bill a month is over $300. The sit on the couch side by side and stream netflix
shows to dueling iphones in front of a 65 inch tv that is not even turned on. Wearing
headphones in silence.
Both driving new vehicles , both have gym memberships they don't use . They buy lattes 3
or 4 times a day which is probably another 500 a month.
My uncle passed away recently and my niece asked if she was in the will. It was literally
her only communication on the subject. They are going under and could easily trim a few
thousand a month from the budget but simply won't. No one in the family is going to lift a
finger for them at this point they burned every possible bridge already. I have seen people
living in cars plenty lately but I think these will be the first I see to living in brand new
cars .
Somewhere along the line they got the impression that the american dream was a leased car
a starbucks in one hand and an iphone in the other .
Confront them with the concept of living within a paycheck and they react like a patient
hearing he has 3 months to live.
Yeah being poor, never mind growing up poor, just well and truly sucks and it can really
@@@@ you up. Gives people all sorts of issues. I'm rather like her, but I have had the joy of
multi-hour commutes to unexciting soul crushing work. Happy, happy, joy, joy! However don't
forget that with the current political economy things are likely to go bad in all sorts of
ways. This whole site is devoted to that. My suggestion is to keep the job unless you have
something lined up. Not being able to rent has it own stresses too. Take my word for it.
I may be engaging in semantics but I think conflating work and jobs makes this article a
bit of a mixed bag. I know plenty of people who are terribly unhappy in their jobs, but
nonetheless extract a sense of wellbeing from having a stable source of INCOME to pay their
bills (anecdotally speaking, acute stress from recent job losses is closely linked to
uncertainty about how bills are going to be paid, that's why those with a safety net of
accumulated savings report less stress than those without). Loss of status, social standing
and identity and the chronic stress borne from these become evident much later I.e. when the
unemployment is prolonged, accompanied of course by the still unresolved top-of-mind concern
of "how to pay the bills".
As such, acute stress for the recently unemployed is driven by financial/income
uncertainty (I.e. how am I going to pay the bills) whereas chronic stress from prolonged
unemployment brings into play the more identity driven aspects like loss of social standing
and status. For policy interventions to have any effects, policy makers would have to
delineate the primary drivers of stress (or lack of wellbeing as the author calls it) during
the various phases of the unemployment lifecycle. An Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) like
we have here in South Africa appears to address the early stages of unemployment, and the
accompanying acute stress, quite well by providing the income guarantee (for six months) that
cushions the shock of losing a job. What's still missing of course are interventions that
promote the quick return to employment for those on UIF, so maybe a middle of the road
solution between UBI and a jobs guarantee scheme is how policy makers should be framing this,
instead of the binary either/or we currently have.
Lots' of people think they're unhappy with their jobs. Let them sit unemployed for 9
months and ask them if they want that job back. The usual parade of anecdata is on display here in the comments. Mitchell's real data and
analysis in the article above still stand.
If you'd read through my comment, and not rushed through it with a view of dishing out a
flippant response, you'd have seen that nowhere do I question the validity of his data, I
merely question how the argument is presented in some areas (NC discourages unquestioning
deference to the views of experts no??). By the way, anecdotes do add to richer understanding
of a nuanced and layered topic (as this one is) so your dismissal of them in your haste to
invalidate people's observations is hardly helpful.
Yes people many not like their jobs but prefer the security of having them to not. Yes
even if the boss sexually harasses one (as we are seeing is very common). Yes even if there
is other workplace abuse. Yes even when it causes depression or PTSD (but if one stays with
such a job long term it ruins the self confidence that is one prerequisite to get another
job!). Yes even if one is in therapy because of job stress, sexual harassment or you name it.
The job allows the having health insurance, allows the therapy, allows the complaining about
the job in therapy to make it through another week.
When unemployed, the stress of worry about money may suppress the creative juices.
Speaking from experience. People may well 'keep looking for jobs' because they know ultimately they need a job with
steady income. The great experience of some freelancers notwithstanding, not all are cut out
for it.
I would love to see some more about happiness or its lack in retirement–referenced
by stay-at-home dad BJ , above.
I wonder, too, about the impact of *how* one loses one's job. Getting laid off vs fired vs
quitting vs involuntary retirement vs voluntary, etc feel very different. Speaking from
experience on that, too. I will search on these points and post anything of interest.
There are also other things that are degrading about the very process of being unemployed
not mentioned here. What about the constant rejection that it can entail? One is unemployed
and looking for work, one sends out resumes, many of them will never be answered, that's
rejection. Then if one is lucky they get interviews, many will never lead to jobs, yet more
rejection. Does the process of constant rejection itself have a negative effect on a human
being whether it's looking for jobs or dates or whatever? Isn't it learned helplessness to if
one keeps trying for something and keeps failing. Isn't that itself demoralizing entirely
independent of any doubtful innate demoralizing quality of leisure.
I am not so sure if I agree with this article. I think it really depends on whether or not
you have income to support yourself, hate or love your job, and the amount of outside
interests you have, among other things. Almost everyone I know who lives in the NYC area and
commutes into the city .doesn't like their job and finds the whole situation "soul-crushing".
Those that live in Manhattan proper are (feel) a bit better off. I for one stopped working
somewhat voluntarily last year. I write somewhat because I began to dislike my job so much
that it was interfering with my state of well being, however, if I had been allowed to work
remotely I probably would have stuck it out for another couple of years.
I am close enough to
62 that I can make do before SS kicks in although I have completely changed my lifestyle
– i.e. I've given up a materialistic lifestyle and live very frugally.
Additionally I
saved for many years once I decided to embark on this path. I do not find myself depressed at
all and the path this year has been very enriching and exciting (and scary) as I reflect on
what I want for the future. I'm pretty sure I will end up moving and buying a property so
that I can become as self sufficient as possible. Also, I probably will get a job down the
line – but if I can't get one because I am deemed too old that will be ok as well. The
biggest unknown for me is how much health insurance will cost in the future .
The article made clear that the studies included "unemployed but with income" from
government support. It is amazing the degree to which readers ignore that and want to make
the findings about "unemployed with no income".
That's because we Americans all have work=good=worthy=blessed by God while
workless=scum=worthless=accursed by God engraved into our collective soul. Our politics, our
beliefs, are just overlays to that.
Even when we agree that the whole situation just crushes people into paste, and for which
they have no defense regardless of how hard they work, how carefully they plan, or what they
do, that underlay makes use feel that this is their/our fault. Any suggestions that at least
some support can be decoupled from work, and that maybe work, and how much you earn, should
not determine their value, brings the atavistic fear of being the "undeserving poor,"
parasites and therefore reprobated scum.
So we don't hear what you are saying without extra effort because it's bypassing our
conscious thoughts.
Add my voice to those above who feel that forced labor is the bane of existence, not the
wellspring. All this study says to me is that refusing to employ someone in capitalist
society does not make them happy. It makes them outcasts.
So, I say yes to a JG, because anyone who wants work should be offered work. But at the
same time, a proper JG is not forced labor. And the only way to ensure that it is not forced
labor, is to decouple basic needs from wage slavery.
I am critical of those who distinguish between the job and the income. Of course the
income is critical to the dignity of the job. For many jobs, it is the primary source of that
dignity. The notion that all jobs should provide some intrinsic dignity unrelated to the
income, or that people whose dignity is primarily based on the income they earn rather than
the work they do are deluded, is to buy in to the propaganda of "passion" being a requirement
for your work and to really be blind to what is required to make a society function. Someone
has to change the diapers, and wipe the butts of old people. (yes, I've done both.) It
doesn't require passion and any sense of satisfaction is gone by about the second day. But if
you could make a middle class living doing it, there would be a lot fewer unhappy people in
the world.
It is well known that auto factory jobs were not perceived as good jobs until the UAW was
able to make them middle class jobs. The nature of the actual work itself hasn't changed all
that much over the years – mostly it is still very repetitive work that requires little
specialized training, even if the machine technology is much improved. Indeed, I would guess
that more intrinsic satisfaction came from bashing metal than pushing buttons on a CNC
machine, and so the jobs may even be less self-actualizing than they used to be.
The capitalist myth is that the private sector economy generates all the wealth and the
public sector is a claim on that wealth. Yet human development proves to us that this is not
true – a substantial portion of "human capital" is developed outside the paid economy,
government investment in R&D generates productivity growth, etc. And MMT demonstrates
that we do not require private sector savings to fund public investment.
We are still a ways from having the math to demonstrate that government investment in
caring and nurturing is always socially productive – first we need productivity numbers
that reflect more than just private sector "product." But I think we are moving in that
direction. Rather than prioritize a minimum wage JG of make-work, we should first simply pay
people good wages to raise their own children or look after their elderly and disabled
relatives. The MMT JG, as I understand it, would still require people to leave their kids
with others to look after them in order to perform some minimum wage task. That is just
dumb.
Maybe it's dumb, it's certainly dumb in a system like the U.S. where work is brutal and
often low paid and paid childcare is not well remunerated either. But caretakers also working
seems to work in countries with greater income equality, good job protections, flexible work
arrangements, and a decent amount of paid parental leave – yea Denmark, they think
their children should be raised by professionals, but also work-life balance is still pretty
good.
My take is that capitalism has made the benefits and malus of having a job so ingrained
into culture and so reinforced. Having a job is so closely linked to happiness because it
gives you the money needed to pursue it.
A job affords you the ability to pursue whatever goals you want within a capitalist
framework. "Everything" costs money and so having a job gives you the money to pay for those
costs and go on to fulfill your pursuit of happiness.
Analyzing whether people are happy or not under these conditions seem apparent that it is
going to lead to results heavily biased towards finding happiness through employment.
The unemployed are often living off someone else's income and feel like an undeserving
parasite. Adults are generally ingrained with the culture that they have to grow up and be
independent and be able to provide for a new family that they will start up. Becoming
unemployed is like being emasculated and infantile, the opposite of what is expected of
adults.
There's also that not having a job is increasingly being punished especially in the case
of America. American wages have stayed either largely static or have worsened, making being
unemployed that much more of a burden on family or friends. Unemployment has been demonized
by Reaganism and has become systematically punishable for the long term unemployed. If you
are unemployed for too long, you start losing government support. This compounds the frantic
rush to get out of unemployment once unemployed.
There is little luxury to enjoy while unemployed. Life while unemployed is a frustrating
and often disappointing hell of constant job applications and having many of them lead to
nothing. The people providing support often start to become less so over time and become more
convinced of laziness or some kind of lack of character or willpower or education or ability
or whatever. Any sense of systemic failure is transplanted into a sense of personal failure,
especially under neoliberalism.
I am not so sure about the case of Europe and otherwise. I am sure that the third world
often has little or no social safety nets so having work (in exploitative conditions in many
cases) is a must for survival.
Anyways, I wonder about the exact methodologies of these studies and I think they often
take the current feelings about unemployment and then attempt to extrapolate talking points
for UBI/JG from them. Yes, UBI wouldn't change culture overnight and it would take a very,
very long time for people to let down their guard and adjust if UBI is to be implemented in a
manner that would warrant trust. This article seems to understand the potential for that, but
decides against it being a significant factor due to the studies emphasizing the malus of
unemployment.
I wonder how different the results would be if there were studies that asked people how
they would feel if they were unemployed under a UBI system versus the current system. I know
a good number of young people (mostly under 30) who would love to drop out and just play
video games all day. Though the significance of such a drastic demographic shift would
probably lead to great political consequences. It would probably prove the anti-UBI crowd
right in that under a capitalist framework, the capitalists and the employed wouldn't
tolerate the unemployed and would seek to turn them into an underclass.
Personally I think a combination of UBI and JG should be pursued. JG would work better
within the current capitalist framework. I don't think it is without its pitfalls due to
similar possible issues (with the similar policy of full employment) either under
Keynesianism (e.g. Milton Friedman sees it as inefficient) or in the USSR (e.g. bullshit
jobs). There is the possibility of UBI having benefits (not having the unemployed be a burden
but a subsidized contributer to the economy) so I personally don't think it should be fully
disregarded until it is understood better. I would like it if there were better scientific
studies to expand upon the implications of UBI and better measure if it would work or not.
The upcoming studies testing an actual UBI system should help to end the debates once and for
all.
My $0.02:
I have a creative pursuit (no money) and a engineering/physical science technical career
(income!). I am proficient in and passionate about both. Over the last few years, the
technical career became tenuous due to consolidation of regional consulting firms (endemic to
this era)- wages flat to declining, higher work stress, less time off, conversation to
contact employment, etc.- which has resulted in two layoffs.
During the time of tenuous employment, my art took on a darker tone. During unemployment the
art stopped altogether.
I'm recently re-employed in a field that I'm not proficient. Both the peter principle and
imposter syndrome apply. My art has resumed, but the topics are singular about despair and
work, to the point that I feel like I'm constantly reworking the same one piece over and over
again. And the quality has plummeted too.
In some fields (e.g. engineering), being a wage slave is the only realistic option due to
the dominance of a small number of large firms. The big players crowd out independents and
free lancers, while pressuring their own employees through just-high-enough wages and
limiting time off. Engineering services is a relationship- based field, and the big boys (and
they are nearly all boys) have vastly bigger networks to draw work from than a small firm
unless that small firm has a big contact to feed them work (until they get gobbled up). The
big firms also have more areas of expertise which limits how useful a boutique firm is to a
client pool, except under very narrow circumstances. And if you are an introvert like most
engineering people, there's no way to compete with big firms and their marketing staff to
expand a network enough to compete.
In that way, consulting is a lot like art. To make a living at it you need either contacts or
a sponsor. Or an inheritance.
I would be interested to know what the definition of unemployment was for the purpose of
this study (I couldn't find it in the supplied links). If it's simply "people who don't have
a job," for example, then it would include the likes of the idle rich, retirees, wards of the
state, and so on. Binary statements like this one do make it sound like the broad definition
is the one in use:
When considering the world's population as a whole, people with a job evaluate the
quality of their lives much more favorably than those who are unemployed.
The conclusion seems at odds with results I've seen for some of those groups – for
example, I thought it was fairly well accepted that retirees who are supported by a
government plan that is sufficient for them to live on were generally at least as happy as
they had been during their working life.
If, on the other hand, the study uses a narrow definition (e.g. people who are of working
age, want a job or need one to support themselves financially, but can't find one) then the
conclusion seems a lot more reasonable. But that's a heavily loaded definition in economic
and cultural terms. In that case, the conclusion (people are happier if they have a job) only
holds true in the current prevailing model of society. It doesn't rule out the possibility of
structuring society or the economy differently in such a way that people can be non-working
and happy. The existence of one such population already (retirees) strongly suggests that
outcomes like this are possible. A UBI would be an example of just such a restructuring of
society, and therefore I don't think that this study and its result are necessarily a valid
argument against it.
Which makes a person happier -- being considered worthless by one's society or valuable?
How many studies do we need to answer that question? Apparently, a lot, because studies like
this one keep on going. The underlying assumption is that jobs make one valuable. So if you
don't have a job you're worthless. Now, who's happier on the whole, people with jobs or the
unemployed? That's surely good for a few more studies. Did you know that members of socially
devalued groups (minorities, non-heteros, and the like) have higher rates of dysfunction,
rather like the unemployed? Hmm, I wonder if there's maybe a similar principle at work. And
my solution is not to turn all the people of color white nor to change all the women to men
nor to "cure" gays. Well, maybe a few more conclusive studies of this kind will convince me
that we must all be the same, toeing the line for those whom it has pleased God to dictate
our values to us.
I am convinced that we shouldn't outlaw jobs, because I believe the tons of stories about
happy people in their jobs However, I also believe we shouldn't force everyone into jobs,
because I know tons of stories about happy people without jobs. You know, the stories that
the JG people explain away: parents caring for their children (JG -- "oh, we'll make that a
job!"), volunteers working on local planning issues (JG -- "oh, we'll make that a job, too.
In fact, we'll make everything worth doing a job. The important thing is to be able to force
people to work schedules and bosses, because otherwise, they'll all lie around doing nothing
and be miserable"), the retired (JG -- "that's not really the same, but they'd be better off
staying in a job"). And this is all before we get to those who can't really hold a job
because of disability or geography or other responsibilities.
I support the JG over the current situation, but as to what we should be working for, the
more I read the JG arguments, the more paternalistic and just plain narrow minded judgmental
they seem.
Data like that provided by Mitchell is important to demolishing the horrid "economic
anxiety" frame much beloved by liberals, especially wonkish Democrats.* It's not (a) just feelings , to be solved by scented candles or training (the liberal version of
rugged individualism) and (b) the effects are real and measurable. It's not surprising, when
you think about it, that the working class is about work .
* To put this another way, anybody who has really suffered the crawling
inwardness of anxiety, in the clinical sense, knows that it affects every aspect of one's
being. Anxiety is not something deplorables deploy as cover for less than creditable
motives.
Nick 7 months ago Totally
agree with you. Personally I'll always wear shirt and trousers to work regardless of the
dress code. It seems to put me into 'work mode' leaving casual wear to provide me with a
disconnect from work for evenings and weekends.
I find this approach to be even more important when I'm working from home. My Son seems
to respect the 'do not disturb daddy' when I'm in formal wear.
Lindsay Hill Nick7 months
ago I hadn't thought about it in the context of working from home. Makes total sense
- gives you that physical cue to switch between 'work mode' and 'home mode'
Yves here. On the one hand, as someone who is getting to be pretty long in
tooth, I'm not sure about calling un and under-employed older workers
"spare". But when the alternative is being thrown on the trash heap, maybe
that isn't so unflattering.
Even though this analysis is from Australia,
most of if not all of its finding would almost certainly prove out in the
US. However, there is a whole 'nother set of issues here. Australia is 85%
urban, with most of the population living in or near four large cities. So
its labor mobility issues are less pronounced than here. Moreover, a lot of
the whinging in the US about worker shortages, as even readers of the Wall
Street Journal regularly point out in its comment section is:
1. Not being willing to pay enough to skilled workers, which includes
not being willing to pay them to relocate
2. Not being willing to train less skilled workers, as companies once
did as a matter of course
A few weeks back, the Benevolent Society
released a report
which found that age-related discrimination is
particularly rife in the workplace, with over a quarter (29%) of survey
respondents stating they had been turned down for a job because of their old
age, whereas 14% claimed they had been denied a promotion because of their
old age.
Today, the Regional Australia Institute (RAI) has warned that Australia
is facing a pension crisis unless employers stop their "discrimination"
against older workers. From
The ABC
:
[RAI] has warned the Federal Government's pension bill would rise from
$45 billion to $51 billion within three years, unless efforts were made
to help more mature workers gain employment, particularly in regional
communities.
Chief executive Jack Archer said continued unemployment of people
older than 55 would cut economic growth and put a greater strain on
public resources.
"We hear that there is a lot of people who would like to work, who
would love to stay in the workforce either part-time or full-time even
though they're in their late 50s, 60s and even into their 70s," he said.
"But we're not doing a very good job of giving them the training,
giving them the incentives around the pension, and working with employers
to stop the discrimination around employing older workers"
"It basically means you've got a lot of talent on the bench, a lot of
people who could be involved and contributing who are sitting around
homes and wishing they were doing something else," he said
Mr Archer said as the population aged the workforce shrank, and that
risked future economic growth.
But he said that could be reversed provided employers embraced an
older workforce
"[When] those people are earning [an income], their pension bills will
either disappear or be much lower and the government will get a benefit
from that."
For years the growth lobby and the government has told us that Australia
needs to run high levels of immigration in order to alleviate so-called
'skills shortages' and to mitigate an ageing population. This has come
despite the Department of Employment
showing
that Australia's skills shortage
"remains low by historical
standards"
and Australia's labour underutilisation rate tracking at
high levels:
Economic models are often cited as proof that a strong immigration
program is 'good' for the economy because they show that real GDP per capita
is moderately increased via immigration, based on several dubious
assumptions.
The most dubious of these assumptions is that population ageing will
necessarily result in fewer people working, which will subtract from per
capita GDP (due to the ratio of workers to dependents falling).
Leaving aside the fact that the assumed benefit to GDP per capita from
immigration is only transitory, since migrants also age (thereby requiring
an ever-bigger immigration intake to keep the population age profile from
rising), it is just as likely that age-specific workforce participation will
respond to labour demand, resulting in fewer people being unemployed. This
is exactly what has transpired in Japan where an ageing population has
driven the unemployment rate down to only 2.8% � the lowest level since the
early-1990s:
The ABS
last month
revealed
that more Australians are working past traditional retirement
age, thereby mitigating concerns that population ageing will necessarily
reduce the employment-to-population ratio:
Clearly, however, there is much further scope to boost workforce
participation among older workers.
Rather than relying on mass immigration to fill phantom 'labour
shortages' � in turn displacing both young and older workers alike � the
more sensible policy option is to moderate immigration and instead better
utilise the existing workforce as well as use automation to overcome any
loss of workers as the population ages � as has been
utilised in Japan.
It's worth once again highlighting that
economists at MIT
recently found that there is absolutely no
relationship between population ageing and economic decline. To the
contrary, population ageing seems to have been associated with improvements
in GDP per capita, thanks to increased automation:
If
anything, countries experiencing more rapid aging have grown more in
recent decades we show that since the early 1990s or 2000s, the periods
commonly viewed as the beginning of the adverse effects of aging in much
of the advanced world, there is no negative association between aging and
lower GDP per capita on the contrary, the relationship is significantly
positive in many specifications.
The last thing that Australia should be doing is running a mass
immigration program which, as
noted many times
by the Productivity Commission cannot provide a
long-term solution to ageing, and places increasing strains on
infrastructure, housing and the natural environment.
The sustainable 'solution' to population ageing is to better utilise the
existing workforce, where significant spare capacity exists.
At what point might an impatient constituency demand greater
accountability by its elected representatives? In the business world, the
post-2000 accounting scandals like Enron resulted in legislation to make
company execs sign off on financial statements under threat of harsh
personal penalties for misrepresentation. If legislators were forced by
constituents to enact similar legislation about their own actions, the
transparency could be very enlightening and a type of risk reduction due to
acknowledgement of material factors. Imagine seeing in print the real
reasons for votes, the funding sources behind those votes and prospect of
jail time for misrepresentation about what is just their damn job. Call it
Truth-In-Legislating, similar to the prior Truth-In-Lending act.
It's a nice idea, but I don't think that very many executives have
been penalized under the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Jamie Dimon certainly wasn't
penalized for the actions of the London Whale. I guess we'll see what
happens in the near future to the executives of Wells Fargo. I suspect
that a Truth-In-Legislating law would be filled with loopholes or would
be hampered by enforcement failures, like current Congressional ethics
rules and the Sarbanes Oxley Act.
At what point might an impatient constituency demand greater
accountability by its elected representatives?
At that point when they start shooting them (as they did in Russian in
the very early 1900s, or lop their heads off, as they once did in
France).
Personally, I'll never work for any Ameritard corporation ever again,
as real innovation is not allowed, and the vast majority are all about
financialization in some form or other!
My work life the past thirty years became worse and worse and worse,
in direct relation to the majority of others, and my last jobs were
beyond commenting up.
My very last position, which was in no manner related to my
experience, education, skill set and talents -- like too many other
American workers -- ended with a most tortuous layoff: the private equity
firm which was owner in a failed "pump and dump" brought a "toxic work
environment specialist" whose job was to advise the sleazoid senior
executives (and by that time I was probably one of only four actual
employee workers there, they had hired a whole bunch of executives,
though) on how to create a negative work environment to convince us to
leave instead of merely laying us off (worked for two, but not the last
lady there I myself).
The American workplace sucks big time as evidenced by their refusal to
raise wages while forever complaining about their inability to find
skilled employees -- they are all criminals today!
I lived and worked in Australia in the late '70s and early '80s. Times
were different. Back then, the government jobs came with mandatory
retirement. I believe (but could be wrong) that it was at 63, but you could
request staying until 65 (required approval). After that, one could continue
working in the private sector, if you could find a job.
The population was much less than it is now. I believe the idea was to
make room for the younger generation coming up. Back then, government
workers, as well as many private sector workers, had defined benefit pension
plans. So retiring younger typically worked out ok.
I had one friend who continued working until about 70 because she wanted
to; liked her job; and wasn't interested in retiring. However, I knew far
more people who were eager to stop at 63. But back then, it appeared to me
that they had the financial means to do so without much worry.
Things have changed since then. More of my friends are putting off
retirement bc they need the money now. Plus defined benefit pension plans
have mostly been dispensed with and replaced by, I believe (I'm not totally
clear on this), the Aussie version of a 401 (k) (someone can correct me if
I'm wrong).
What the article proposes makes sense. Of course here in the USA, older
workers/job seekers face a host of discriminatory practices, especially for
the better paying jobs. Nowadays, though, US citizens in their golden years
can sell their house, buy an RV, and become itinerant workers � sometimes at
back breaking labor, such as harvesting crops or working at an Amazon gulag
� for $10 an hour. Yippee kay-o kay-aaay!
So let us also talk about cutting Medicare for all of those lazy slacker
Seniors out there. Woo hoo!
There is really two issues:
1) for those whom age discrimination in employment is hitting in their
50s or even younger, before anyone much is retiring, it needs to be
combatted
2) eventually (sometimes in their 60's and really should be at least by
65) people ought to be allowed to retire and with enough money to not be
in poverty. This work full time until you drop garbage is just that (it's
not as if 70 year olds can even say work 20 hours instead, no it's the
same 50+ hours or whatever as everyone else is doing). And most people
won't live that much longer, really they won't, U.S. average lifespans
aren't that long and falling fast. So it really is work until you die
that is being pushed if people aren't allowed to retire sometime in their
60s. Some people have good genes and good luck and so on (they may also
have a healthy lifestyle but sheer luck plays a large role), and will
live far beyond that, but averages
Working past 65 is one of those things where it just depends. I
know people who are happily (and don't "really" need the money)
working past 65 bc they love their jobs and they're not taking a toll
on their health. They enjoy the socialization at work; are
intellectually stimulated; and are quite happy. That's one issue.
But when people HAVE TO work past 65 � and I know quite a few in
this category � when it starts taking a toll on their health, that is
truly bad. And I can reel off several cases that I know of personally.
It's just wrong.
Whether you live much longer or not is sort of up to fate, no
matter what. But yes, if work is taking a toll on your heath, then you
most likely won't live as long.
In January, economists from MIT published a paper, entitled Secular
Stagnation? The Effect of Aging on Economic Growth in the Age of
Automation, which showed that there is absolutely no relationship between
population aging and economic decline. To the contrary, population aging
seems to have been associated with improvements in GDP per capita, thanks
to increased automation:
From the cited article.
I don't know why it never occurred to me before, but there's no reason to
ditch your most knowledgeable, most skilled workers toward the eve of their
careers except if you don't want to pay labor costs. Which we know that
most firms do not, in their mission for profit for shareholders or the
flashy new building or trying to
Innuhvate
.
There's a myth that innovation comes from the 20 something in their
basement, but that's just not the case. Someone who has, for instance,
overseen 100 construction projects building bridges needs to be retained,
not let go. Maybe they can't lift the sledge anymore, but I'd keep them on
as long as possible.
1. Not being willing to pay enough to skilled workers, which includes not
being willing to pay them to relocate
2. Not being willing to train less skilled workers, as companies once did
as a matter of course
3.
older workers have seen all the crap and evil management has
done, and is usually in a much better position than young less established
employees to take effective action against it
This. Don't expect rational actors, in management or labor. If
everyone was paid the same, regardless of age or training or education or
experience etc then the financial incentives for variant outcomes would
decrease. Except for higher health costs for older workers. For them, we
could simply ban employer provide health insurance then that takes that
variable out of the equation too. So yes, the ideal is a rational Marxism
or the uniformity of the hive-mind-feminism. While we would have "from
each according to their ability, to each according to their need" we will
have added it as an axiom that all have the same need. And a whip can
encourage the hoi polloi to do their very best.
Fully agee! To your list I would add a corollory to your item #3 --
older workers having seen all the crap and evil management has done are
more likely to inspire other employees to feel and act with them. -- This
corollory is obvious but I think it bears stating for emphasis of the
point.
I believe your whole list might be viewed as symtoms resulting from
the concept of workers as commodity -- fungible as cogs on a wheel. Young
and old alike are dehumanized.
The boss of the branch office of the firm I last worked for before I
retired constantly emphasized how each of us must remain "fungible" [he's
who introduced me to this word] if we wanted to remain employed. The firm
would win contracts using one set of workers in its bids and slowly
replace them with new workers providing the firm a higher return per hour
billed to the client. I feel very lucky I managed to remain employed -- to
within a couple of years of the age when I could apply for Medicare.
[Maybe it's because I was too cowed to make waves and avoided raises as
best I could.]
[I started my comment considering the idea of "human capital" but ran
into trouble with that concept. Shouldn't capital be assessed in terms of
its replacement costs and its capacity for generating product or other
gain? I had trouble working that calculus into the way firms treat their
employees and decided "commodity" rather than "capital" better fit how
workers were regarded and treated.]
"skills vs. demand imbalance" not labor shortage. Capital wants to tip
the scale the other way, but isn't willing to invest the money to train the
people, per a comment I made last week. Plenty of unemployed or
under-employed even in Japan, much less Oz.
Keeping the elderly, who already have the skills, in the work place
longer is a way to put off making the investments. Getting government to tax
the poor for their own training is another method. Exploiting poor nations
education systems by importing skills yet another.
Some business hope to develop skills that only costs motive power
(electric), minimal maintenance, and are far less capital intensive and
quicker to the market than the current primary source's 18 years. Capitalism
on an finite resource will eat itself, but even capitalism with finite
resources will self-destruct in the end.
Importantly, the chart labeled as Figure 2 uses GDP
per capita
on
the y-axis.
Bearing in mind that GDP growth is composed of labor force growth times
productivity, emerging economies that are growing faster than the rich world
in both population and GDP look more anemic on a per capita basis, allowing
us rich country denizens to feel better about our good selves. :-)
But in terms of absolute GDP growth, things ain't so bright here in the
Homeland. Both population and productivity growth are slowing. Over the past
two-thirds century, the trend in GDP groaf is relentlessly down, even as
debt rises in an apparent attempt to maintain unsustainable living
standards. Chart (viewer discretion advised):
Van Onselen doesn't address the rich world's busted pension systems. To
the extent that they contain a Ponzi element premised on endless growth,
immigration would modestly benefit them by adding new
victims
workers to support the greying masses of doddering Boomers.
Will you still need me
Will you still feed me
When I'm sixty-four?
There's been an increase in the employment of older people in the U.S. in
the U.S. population. To provide a snapshot, below are three tables referring
to the U.S. by age cohorts of 1) the total population, 2) Employment and 3)
employment-population ratios (percent).based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
weightings for population estimates and compiled in the Merge Outgoing
Rotation Groups (MORG) dataset by the National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER) from the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).
The portion of the population 16 to 54 has declined while those over 54
has increased.
1. Percent Population in Age Cohorts: 1986 & 2016
1986 2016 AGE
18.9 15.2 16-24
53.7 49.6 25-54
12.2 16.3 55-64
9.4 11.2 65-74
5.8 7.7 75 & OVER
100.0 100.0 ALL
The portion of the population 16 to 54 employed has declined while the
portion over 54 has increased..
2 Percent Employed in Age Cohorts: 1986 & 2016
1986 2016 AGE
18.5 12.5 16-24
68.4 64.7 25-54
10.4 16.9 55-64
2.3 4.8 65-74
0.4 1.0 75 & OVER
100.0 100.0 ALL
The employment-population ratios (percents) show significant declines for
those under 25 while increases for those 55 and above.
3. Age-Specific Employment Population Ratios (Percents)
1986 2016 AGE
59.5 49.4 16-24
77.3 77.9 25-54
51.8 61.8 55-64
14.8 25.9 65-74
3.8 7.9 75 & OVER
60.7 59.7 ALL
None of the above data refute claims about age and experience inequities.
Rather these provide a base from which to explore such concerns. Because
MORG data are representative samples with population weightings, systematic
contingency analyses are challenging.
In the 30 year interval of these data there have been changes in
population and employment by education status, gender, race, citizenship
status along with industry and occupation, all items of which are found in
the publicly available MORG dataset.
I think you are missing the point. Life expectancy at birth has
increased by nearly five years since 1986. That renders simple
comparisons of labor force participation less meaningful. The implication
is that many people are not just living longer but are in better shape in
their later middle age. Look at the dramatic drop in labor force
participation from the 25-54 age cohort v. 55 to 64. How can so few
people in that age group be working given that even retiring at 65 is
something most people cannot afford? And the increase over time in the
current 55=64 age cohort is significantly due to the entry of women into
the workplace. Mine was the first generation where that became
widespread.
The increase in the over 65 cohort reflects desperation. Anyone who
can work stays working.
Even if life-expectancy is increasing due to improved health, the
percentage of those in older cohorts who are working is increasing at
an even faster rate. If a ratio is 6/8 for a category and goes up to
10/12 the category has increased (8 to 12 or 50%) and the subcategory
has increased (6 to 10 i or 67% and the ratios go from 6/8 or 75/100
to 10/12 or 83.3/100)
I assume you are referencing the employment-population (E/P) ratio
when noting "the dramatic drop in labor force participation from the
25-54 age cohort v. 55 to 64." However the change in the E/P ratio for
25-54 year olds was virtually unchanged (77.3/100 in 1986 to 77.9/100
in 2016) and for the 55-64 year olds the E/P ratio INCREASED
significantly, from 51.8/100 in 1986 to 61.8/100 in 2016.
You query: "How can so few people in that age group be working
given that even retiring at 65 is something most people cannot
afford?" That's a set of concerns the data I've compiled cannot and
thus cannot address. It would take more time to see if an empirical
answer could be constructed, something that doesn't lend itself to
making a timely, empirically based comment. The data I compiled was
done after reading the original post.
You note: ". . . ;;[T] the increase over time in the current 55-64
age cohort is significantly due to the entry of women into the
workplace." Again, I didn't compute the age-gender specific E/P
ratios. I can do that if there's interest. The OVERALL female E/P
ratio (from FRED) did not significantly increase from December 1986 (
51.7/100) to December 2016 (53.8/100).
Your write: "The increase in the over 65 cohort reflects
desperation. Anyone who can work stays working." Again, the data I was
using provided me no basis for this interpretation. I suspect that the
MORG data can provide some support for that interpretation. However,
based on your comments about longer life expectancy, it's likely that
a higher proportion of those in professional-middle class or in the
upper-middle class category Richard Reeves writes about (Dream
Hoarders) were able and willing to continue working. For a time in
higher education some institutions offered incentives for older
faculty to continue working thereby they could continue to receive a
salary and upon becoming eligible for Social Security draw on that
benefit. No doubt many, many vulnerable older people, including
workers laid off in the wake of the Great Recession and otherwise
burdened lengthened their or sought employment.
Again the MORG data can get somewhat closer to your concerns and
interests, but whether this is the forum is a challenge given the
reporting-comment cycle which guides this excellent site.
I don't understand how the media promotes the "society is aging, we need
more immigrants to avoid a labor shortage" argument and the "there will be
no jobs in the near future due to automation, there will be a jobs shortage"
argument at the same time. Dean Baker has discussed this issue:
In any event, helping to keep older workers in the workforce can be a
good thing. Some people become physically inactive after retirement and
their social networks decline which can cause depression and loneliness.
Work might benefit some people who would otherwise sink into inactivity and
loneliness.
Of course, results might vary based on individual differences and those
who engaged in hard physical labor will likely have to retire earlier due to
wear and tear on their bodies.
Increase in life expectancy is greatly influenced by a decrease in
childhood mortality. People are living longer because they aren't dying
in large numbers in childhood anymore in the US. So many arguments that
start out "we're living longer, so something" confuse a reduction in
childhood mortality with how long one can expect to live to in old age,
based on the actuarial charts. Pols who want to cut SS or increase the
retirement age find this confusion very useful.
"
Life expectancy at birth is very sensitive to reductions in the
death rates of children, because each child that survives adds many years
to the amount of life in the population. Thus, the dramatic declines in
infant and child mortality in the twentieth century were accompanied by
equally stunning increases in life expectancy.
"
I've noticed ever since the 1990s that "labor shortage" is a signal for
cost-cutting measures that trigger a recession. Which then becomes the
excuse for shedding workers and really getting the recession on.
It is not just older workers who are spare. There are other forms of
discrimination that could fall by the wayside if solving the "labor
shortage" was the sincere objective.
Often productively, sales, and profits decrease with those cost
cuttings, which justified further cuts which decreases productivity,
sales, and profits which justifies
It's a pattern I first noticed in the 1990s and looking back in the
80s too. It's like some malevolent MBAs went out and convinced the whole
of American middle and senior business management that this was the Way
to do it. It's like something out of the most hidebound, nonsensical
ideas of Maoism and Stalinism as something that could not fail but only
be failed. It is right out of the Chicago Boys' economics playbook.
Thirty-five years later and the Way still hasn't succeeded, but they're
still trying not to fail it.
Love your reflections. Yeah, it's like a religion that they can't
pay more, can't train, must cut people till they are working to their
max at ordinary times (so have no slack for crises), etc. etc., and
that it doesn't work doesn't change the faith in it AT ALL.
This is ranting, but most jobs can be done at most ages. If want someone
to be a SEAL or do 12 hours at farm labor no of course not, but just about
everything else so what's the problem?
All this "we have a skilled labor shortage" or "we have a labor surplus"
or "the workers are all lazy/stupid" narratives" and "it's the unions'
fault" and "the market solves everything" and the implicit "we are a true
meritocracy and the losers are waste who deserve their pain" and my favorite
of the "Job creators do make jobs" being said, and/or believed all at the
same time is insanity made mainstream.
Sometimes I think whoever is running things are told they have to drink
the Draught of UnWisdom before becoming the elites.
So I'm a middle aged fella � early thirties � and have to admit that in
my industry I find that most older workers are a disaster. I'm in tech and
frankly find that most older workers are a detriment simply from being out
of date. While I sympathize, in some cases experience can be a minus rather
than a plus. The willingness to try new things and stay current with modern
technologies/techniques just isn't there for the majority of tech workers
that are over the hill.
"... In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species. ..."
"... So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality. ..."
"... Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal ..."
"... A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that ..."
"... Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas. ..."
"... A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , ..."
"... incredible amount ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: ..."
"... ( also available in Kindle ) and ..."
"... Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even for the wealthy? ..."
Item-wise, the biggest heading there is the second one, "Interior Enforcement." That's very
welcome.
Of course we need improved border security so that people don't enter our country without
permission. That comes under the first heading. An equally pressing problem, though, is the
millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and
public services, who should not be here.
The President's proposals on interior enforcement cover all bases: Sanctuary
cities , visa
overstays , law-enforcement
resources , compulsory E-Verify , more
deportations , improved visa security.
This is a major, wonderful improvement in national policy, when you consider that less than
a year ago the
White House and
Justice Department were run by committed open-borders
fanatics. I thank the President and his staff for having put so much work into such a
detailed proposal for restoring American sovereignty and the rights of American workers and
taxpayers.
That said, here come the quibbles.
That third heading, "Merit-Based Immigration System," with just four items, needs work.
Setting aside improvements on visa controls under the other headings, this is really the only
part of the proposal that covers legal immigration. In my opinion, it does so imperfectly.
There's some good meat in there, mind. Three of the four items -- numbers one, three, and
four -- got a fist-pump from me:
cutting down chain
migration by limiting it to spouse and dependent children; eliminating the Diversity
Visa Lottery ; and limiting the number of refugees admitted, assuming this means severely
cutting back on the numbers, preferably all the way to
zero.
Good stuff. Item two, however, is a problem. Quote:
Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent
residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support
themselves financially.
sounds OK, bringing in talented, well-educated, well-socialized people, rather than
what the late Lee
Kuan Yew referred to as " fruit-pickers ." Forgive
me if I have a rather jaundiced view of this merit-based approach.
For most of my adult life I made a living as a computer programmer. I spent four years
doing this in the U.S.A. through the mid-1970s. Then I came back in the late 1980s and
worked at the same trade here through the 1990s. (Pictured right–my actual H-1B visa ) That gave me two
clear snapshots twenty years apart, of this particular corner of skilled middle-class
employment in America.
In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of
foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized ,
thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American
programmers are an endangered species.
So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been
handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than
Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other
five percent is sentimentality.
On so-called "merit-based immigration," therefore, you can count me a cynic. I have no doubt
that American firms could recruit all the computer programmers they need from among our legacy
population. They used to do so, forty years ago. Then they discovered how to game the
immigration system for cheaper labor.
A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by
employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was
restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass
of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy
Americans. How would that contribute to social harmony?
With coming up to a third of a
billion people, the U.S.A. has all the talent, all the merit , it needs. You might
make a case for a handful of certified geniuses like Einstein or worthy dissidents like
Solzhenitsyn, but those cases aside, there is no reason at all to have guest-worker programs.
They should all be shut down.
Some of these cheap-labor rackets don't even need congressional action to shut them down; it
can be done by regulatory change via executive order. The scandalous OPT-visa scam, for
example, which brings in cheap workers under the guise of student visas.
Here is John Miano writing about the OPT program last month, quote:
Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the
entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training
program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By
comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas.
Because there is no reporting on how long guestworkers stay in the country, we do not know
the total number of workers in each category. Nonetheless, the number of approvals for work
on student visas has grown by 62 percent over the past four years so their numbers will soon
dwarf those on H-1B visas.
End quote. (And a cheery wave of acknowledgement to John Miano here from one of the
other seventeen people in the U.S.A. that knows the correct placement of the hyphen in
"H-1B.")
Our legal immigration system is addled with these scams. Don't even get me started
on
the EB-5 investor's visa . It all needs sweeping away.
So for preference I would rewrite that third heading to include, yes, items one, three, and
four -- cutting down chain migration, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery, and ending refugee
settlement for anyone of less stature than Solzhenitsyn; but then, I'd replace item two with
the following:
End all guest-worker programs, with exceptions only for the highest levels of
talent and accomplishment, limit one hundred visas per annum .
So much for my amendments to the President's October 8th proposals. There is, though, one
glaring omission from that 70-item list. The proposal has no mention at all of birthright
citizenship.
Yes, yes, I know: some constitutional authorities argue that birthright citizenship is
implied in the
Fourteenth Amendment , although it is certain that the framers of that Amendment did not
have foreign tourists or illegal entrants in mind. Other scholars think Congress could
legislate against it.
The only way to find out is to have Congress legislate. If the courts strike down the
legislation as unconstitutional, let's then frame a constitutional amendment and put it to the
people.
Getting rid of birthright citizenship might end up a long and difficult process. We might
ultimately fail. The only way to find out is to get the process started . Failure to
mention this in the President's proposal is a very glaring omission.
I agree with ending birthright citizenship. But Trump should wait until he can put at
least one more strict constitutionalist in the supreme court. There will be a court
challenge, and we need judges who can understand that if the 14th Amendment didn't give
automatic citizenship to American Indians it doesn't give automatic citizenship to children
of Mexican citizens who jumped our border.
John's article, it seems to me, ignores the elephant in the room: the DACA colonists.
Trump is offering this proposal, more or less, in return for some sort of semi-permanent
regularization of their status. Bad trade, in my opinion. Ending DACA and sending those
illegals back where they belong will have more real effect on illegal and legal
immigration/colonization than all sorts of proposals to be implemented in the future, which
can and will be changed by subsequent Administrations and Congresses.
Trump would also be able to drive a much harder bargain with Congress (like maybe a
moratorium on any immigration) if he had kept his campaign promise, ended DACA the afternoon
of January 20, 2017, and busloads of DACA colonists were being sent south of the Rio
Grande.
The best hope for immigration patriots is that the Democrats are so wedded to Open Borders
that the entire proposal dies and Trump, in disgust, reenacts Ike's Operation Wetback.
Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me
later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans
refuse to do are run out the country, then what?
Right, prior to 1965, Americans didn't exist. They had all starved to death because, as
everyone knows, no Americans will work to produce food and, even if they did, once Tyson
chicken plants stop making 50 percent on capital they just shut down.
If there were no Somalis in Minnesota, even Warren Buffett couldn't afford grapes.
Illegal immigrants picking American produce is a false economy.
Illegal immigrants are subsidized by the taxpayer in terms of public health, education,
housing, and welfare.
If businesses didn't have access to cheap and subsidized illegal alien labor, they would
be compelled to resort to more farm automation to reduce cost.
Cheap illegal alien labor delays the inevitable use of newer farm automation
technologies.
Many Americans would likely prefer a machine touch their food rather than a illegal alien
with strange hygiene practices.
In addition, anti-American Democrats and neocons prefer certain kinds of illegal aliens
because they bolster their diversity scheme.
@Realist "Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs
Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?"
Eliminate welfare...then you'll have plenty of workers. Unfortunately, that train left the
station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy,
over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform
manual labor for anyone, including themselves.
@Randal Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not
being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working
classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store
items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants
doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on
it.
The "jobs Americans/Brits/etc won't do" myth is a deliberate distortion of reality that
ignores the laws of supply and demand. There are no jobs Americans etc won't do, only jobs
for which the employers are not prepared to pay wages high enough to make them worthwhile for
Americans etc to do.
Now of course it is more complicated than that. There are jobs that would not be
economically viable if the required wages were to be paid, and there are marginal
contributions to job creation by immigrant populations, but those aspects are in reality far
less significant than the bosses seeking cheap labour want people to think they are.
As a broad summary, a situation in which labour is tight, jobs are easy to come by and
staff hard to hold on to is infinitely better for the ordinary working people of any nation
than one in which there is a huge pool of excess labour, and therefore wages are low and
employees disposable.
You'd think anyone purporting to be on the "left", in the sense of supporting working
class people would understand that basic reality, but far too many on the left have been
indoctrinated in radical leftist anti-racist and internationalist dogmas that make them
functional stooges for big business and its mass immigration program.
Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being
continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes
will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items,
especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing
the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on
it.
There might be some truth in this. When I was a student in England in the 60′s I
spent every summer working on farms, picking hops, apples, pears, potatoes and made some
money and had a lot of fun too and became an expert farm tractor operator.
No reason why US students and high school seniors should not pick up a lot of the slack.
Young people like camping in the countryside and sleeping rough, plus lots of
opportunity to meet others, have sex, smoke weed, drink beer, or whatever. If you get a free
vacation plus a nice check at the end, that makes the relatively low wages worthwhile. It is
not always a question of how much you are paid, but how much you can save.
We can fix the EB-5 visa scam. My suggestion: charge would-be "investors" $1 million to
enter the US. This $1 is not refundable under any circumstance. It is paid when the
"investor's" visa is approved. If the "investor" is convicted of a felony, he is deported. He
may bring no one with him. No wife, no child, no aunt, no uncle. Unless he pays $1 million
for that person.
We will get a few thousand Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes a year under this
program
As to fixing the H-1B visa program, we charge employer users of the program say $25,000
per year per employee. We require the employers to inform all employees that if any is asked
to train a replacement, he should inform the DOJ immediately. The DOJ investigates and if
true, charges managerial employees who asked that a replacement be trained with fraud.
As to birthright citizenship: I say make it a five-year felony to have a child while in
the US illegally. Make it a condition of getting a tourist visa that one not be pregnant. If
the tourist visa lasts say 60 days and the woman has a child while in the US, she gets
charged with fraud.
None of these suggestions requires a constitutional amendment.
In the United States middle class prosperity reached its apogee in 1965 – before the
disastrous (and eminently foreseeable) wage-lowering consequence of the Hart-Celler Open
Immigration Act's massive admission of foreigners increased the supply of labor which began
to lower middle class prosperity and to shrink and eradicate the middle class.
It was in 1965 that ordinary Americans, enjoying maximum employment because employers were
forced to compete for Americans' talents and labor, wielded their peak purchasing
power . Since 1970 wages have remained stagnant, and since 1965 the purchasing power of
ordinary Americans has gone into steep decline.
It is long past time to halt Perpetual Mass Immigration into the United States, to end
birthright citizenship, and to deport all illegal aliens – if, that is, our leaders
genuinely care about and represent us ordinary Americans instead of continuing their
legislative, policy, and judicial enrichment of the 1-percenter campaign donor/rentier class
of transnational Globali$t Open Border$ E$tabli$hment $ellout$.
Re the birthright citizenship argument, that is not settled law in that SCOTUS has never
ruled on the question of whether a child born in the US is thereby a citizen if the parents
are illegally present. Way back in 1897, SCOTUS did resolve the issue of whether a child born
to alien parents who were legally present was thereby a citizen. That case is U.S. vs Wong
Kim Ark 169 US 649. SCOTUS ruled in favor of citizenship. If that was a justiciable issue how
much more so is it when the parents are illegally present?
My thinking is that the result would be the same but, at least, the question would be
settled. I cannot see justices returning a toddler to Beijing or worse. They would never have
invitations to cocktail parties again for the shame heaped upon them for such uncaring
conduct. Today, the title of citizen is conferred simply by bureaucratic rule, not by
judicial order.
Arguments Against Fourteenth Amendment Anchor Baby Interpretation
J. Paige Straley
Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.
The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:
Article 30
Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. "
A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican
citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time
and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary
source, the parents' citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the
child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the
birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an
American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of
citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment
jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary
jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen
at birth.
[MORE]
There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies.
Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a
reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican
citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in
the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are
counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides
widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far
as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil
relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly,
all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal
citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.
Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)
The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent
for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of
commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a
concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray,
Justice for the majority in this decision.
"[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the
time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and
residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in
any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his
birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution." (Italics added.)
For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have " permanent domicile and
residence " But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of
deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in
the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone
would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright
citizenship.
If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or
if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not ". . .carrying on business. .
.", and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright
citizenship
If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies.
Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so
is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal
aliens.
Part three. Birth Tourism
Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife's
pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the
child. This practice is called "birth tourism." WKA provides two tests for birthright
citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit
answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a "birth
tourism" child to be granted birthright citizenship.
@Carroll Price Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without
welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never
hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including
themselves. Then let them starve to death. The Pilgrims nipped that dumb ass idea (welfare)
in the bud
An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and
working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be
here.
Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with
foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than
off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast,
grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even
for the wealthy?
Let alone relatively poor people (like myself) and those on fixed incomes? What
un-thinking Americans want, is having their cake and eating it too. Well, in the real world,
things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented
workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the
country, then what? Please look up;History; United States; pre mid-twentieth century. I'm
pretty sure Americans were eating chicken, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce, etc. prior to
that period. I don't think their diet consisted of venison and tree bark.
But since I wasn't there, maybe I'm wrong and that is actually what they were eating.
I know some people born in the 1920′s; I'll check with them and let you know what they
say.
(wired.com)
Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday September 23, 2017 @09:30PM from the looking-inside dept.
Amazon aggressively recruited thousands of retirees living in mobile homes to migrate to
Amazon's warehouses for seasonal work, according to a story shared by nightcats . Wired reports: From a hiring perspective,
the RVers were a dream labor force. They showed up on demand and dispersed just before
Christmas in what the company cheerfully called a "taillight parade." They asked for
little in the way of benefits or protections . And though warehouse jobs were physically
taxing -- not an obvious fit for older bodies -- recruiters came to see CamperForce workers'
maturity as an asset. These were diligent, responsible employees. Their attendance rates were
excellent. "We've had folks in their eighties who do a phenomenal job for us," noted Kelly
Calmes, a CamperForce representative, in one online recruiting seminar... In a company
presentation, one slide read, "Jeff Bezos has predicted that, by the year 2020, one out of
every four workampers in the United States will have worked for Amazon." The article is
adapted from a new book called " Nomadland
," which also describes seniors in mobile homes being recruited for sugar beet harvesting and
jobs at an Iowa amusement park, as well as work as campground hsots at various national parks.
Many of them "could no longer afford traditional housing," especially after the financial
downturn of 2008. But at least they got to hear stories from their trainers at Amazon about the
occasional "unruly" shelf-toting "Kiva" robot: They told us how one robot had tried to drag
a worker's stepladder away. Occasionally, I was told, two Kivas -- each carrying a tower of
merchandise -- collided like drunken European soccer fans bumping chests. And in April of that
year, the Haslet fire department responded to an accident at the warehouse involving a can of
"bear repellent" (basically industrial-grade pepper spray). According to fire department
records, the can of repellent was run over by a Kiva and the warehouse had to be
evacuated.
"... Karen Panetta, the dean of graduate engineering education at Tufts University and the vice president of communications and public relations at the IEEE-USA, believes the outcome for tech will be Logan's Run -like, where age sets a career limit... ..."
"... It's great to get the new hot shot who just graduated from college, but it's also important to have somebody with 40 years of experience who has seen all of the changes in the industry and can offer a different perspective." ..."
Will the median age of tech firms rise as the Millennial generation
grows older...? The median age range at Google, Facebook, SpaceX, LinkedIn,
Amazon, Salesforce, Apple and Adobe, is 29 to 31, according to a study last
year by PayScale, which analyzes self-reported data...
Karen Panetta, the dean
of graduate engineering education at Tufts University and the vice president
of communications and public relations at the IEEE-USA, believes the outcome
for tech will be Logan's Run -like, where age sets a career limit...
Tech firms want people with the current skills sets and those "without those
skills will be pressured to leave or see minimal career progression," said Panetta...
The idea that the tech industry may have an age bias is not scaring the new
college grads away. "They see retirement so far off, so they are more interested
in how to move up or onto new startup ventures or even business school," said
Panetta.
"The reality sets in when they have families and companies downsize
and it's not so easy to just pick up and go on to another company," she said.
None of this may be a foregone conclusion.
Millennials may see the experience
of today's older workers as a cautionary tale, and usher in cultural changes... David Kurtz, a labor relations partner at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete,
suggests tech firms should be sharing age-related date about their workforce,
adding "The more of a focus you place on an issue the more attention it gets
and the more likely that change can happen.
It's great to get the new hot shot
who just graduated from college, but it's also important to have somebody with
40 years of experience who has seen all of the changes in the industry and can
offer a different perspective."
"... Baker correctly diagnoses the impact of boomers aging, but there is another effect - "knowledge work" and "high skill manufacturing" is more easily outsourced/offshored than work requiring a physical presence. ..."
Baker correctly diagnoses the impact of boomers aging, but
there is another effect - "knowledge work" and "high skill
manufacturing" is more easily outsourced/offshored than
work requiring a physical presence.
Also outsourcing
"higher wage" work is more profitable than outsourcing
"lower wage" work - with lower wages also labor cost as a
proportion of total cost tends to be lower (not always).
And outsourcing and geographically relocating work
creates other overhead costs that are not much related to
the wages of the local work replaced - and those overheads
are larger in relation to lower wages than in relation to
higher wages.
libezkova -> cm... May 20, 2017 at 08:34 PM
"Also outsourcing "higher wage" work is more profitable than outsourcing "lower wage" work"
Paul Krugman Gets Retail Wrong: They are Not Very Good Jobs
Paul Krugman used his column * this morning to ask why we don't pay as much attention to the
loss of jobs in retail as we do to jobs lost in mining and manufacturing. His answer is that in
large part the former jobs tend to be more white and male than the latter. While this is true,
although African Americans have historically been over-represented in manufacturing, there is
another simpler explanation: retail jobs tend to not be very good jobs.
The basic story is that jobs in mining and manufacturing tend to offer higher pay and are far
more likely to come with health care and pension benefits than retail jobs. A worker who loses
a job in these sectors is unlikely to find a comparable job elsewhere. In retail, the odds are
that a person who loses a job will be able to find one with similar pay and benefits.
A quick look at average weekly wages ** can make this point. In mining the average weekly wage
is $1,450, in manufacturing it is $1,070, by comparison in retail it is just $555. It is worth
mentioning that much of this difference is in hours worked, not the hourly pay. There is nothing
wrong with working shorter workweeks (in fact, I think it is a very good idea), but for those
who need a 40 hour plus workweek to make ends meet, a 30-hour a week job will not fit the bill.
This difference in job quality is apparent in the difference in separation rates by industry.
(This is the percentage of workers who lose or leave their job every month.) It was 2.4 percent
for the most recent month in manufacturing. By comparison, it was 4.7 percent in retail, almost
twice as high. (It was 5.2 percent in mining and logging. My guess is that this is driven by logging,
but I will leave that one for folks who know the industry better.)
Anyhow, it shouldn't be a mystery that we tend to be more concerned about the loss of good
jobs than the loss of jobs that are not very good. If we want to ask a deeper question, as to
why retail jobs are not very good, then the demographics almost certainly play a big role.
Since only a small segment of the workforce is going to be employed in manufacturing regardless
of what we do on trade (even the Baker dream policy will add at most 2 million jobs), we should
be focused on making retail and other service sector jobs good jobs. The full agenda for making
this transformation is a long one (higher minimum wages and unions would be a big part of the
picture, along with universal health care insurance and a national pension system), but there
is one immediate item on the agenda.
All right minded people should be yelling about the Federal Reserve Board's interest rate hikes.
The point of these hikes is to slow the economy and reduce the rate of job creation. The Fed's
concern is that the labor market is getting too tight. In a tighter labor market workers, especially
those at the bottom of the pecking order, are able to get larger wage increases. The Fed is ostensibly
worried that this can lead to higher inflation, which can get us to a wage price spiral like we
saw in the 70s.
As I and others have argued, *** there is little basis for thinking that we are anywhere close
to a 1970s type inflation, with inflation consistently running below the Fed's 2.0 percent target,
(which many of us think is too low anyhow). I'd love to see Krugman pushing the cause of full
employment here. We should call out racism and sexism where we see it, but this is a case where
there is a concrete policy that can do something to address it. Come on Paul, we need your voice.
PK: Consider what has happened to department stores. Even as Mr. Trump was boasting about saving
a few hundred jobs in manufacturing here and there, Macy's announced plans to close 68 stores
and lay off 10,000 workers. Sears, another iconic institution, has expressed "substantial doubt"
about its ability to stay in business.
Overall, department stores employ a third fewer people now than they did in 2001. That's half
a million traditional jobs gone - about eighteen times as many jobs as were lost in coal mining
over the same period.
And retailing isn't the only service industry that has been hit hard by changing technology.
Another prime example is newspaper publishing, where employment has declined by 270,000, almost
two-thirds of the work force, since 2000. ...
(To those that had them, they were probably
pretty decent jobs, albeit much less 'gritty'
than mining or manufacturing.)
There is a lot of elitism to go around. People will be much more reluctant to express publicly
the same as in private (or pseudonymously on the internet?). But looking down on other people
and their work is pretty widespread (and in either case there is a lot of assumption about the
nature of the work and the personal attributes of the people doing it - usually of a derogatory
type in both cases).
I find it plausible that Krugman was referring those widespread stereotypes about job categories
that (traditionally?) have not required a college degree, or have been relatively at the low end
of the esteem scale in a given industry (e.g. in "tech" and manufacturing, QA/testing related
work).
It must be possible to comment on such stereotypes, but there is of course always the risk
of being thought to hold them oneself, or indeed being complicit in perpetuating them.
As a thought experiment, I suggest reviewing what you yourself think about occupations not
held by yourself, good friends, and family members and acquaintainces you like/respect (these
qualifications are deliberate). For example, you seem to think not very highly of maids.
Of course, being an RN requires significantly more training than being a maid, and not just
once when you start in your career. But at some level of abstraction, anybody who does work where
their autonomy is quite limited (i.e. they are not setting objectives at any level of the organization)
is "just a worker". That's the very stereotype we are discussing, isn't it?
Krugman thinks nurses are the equivalent of maids...
[ The problem is that Paul Krugman dismissed the work of nurses and maids and gardeners as
"menial." I find no evidence that Krugman understands that even after conditionally apologizing
to nurses. ]
"... things might have worked out with better luck on timing), you need your head examined to start a small business ..."
"... If you can tolerate the BS, it is vastly better to be on a payroll. 90% of all new businesses fail and running one is no picnic. ..."
"... And new business formation has dived in the US, due mainly IMHO to less than robust demand in many sectors of the economy. ..."
"... You're so right. It used to be that there were set asides for small businesses but nowadays Federal and State Governments are only interested in contracts with large businesses. The SBA classification for small business is based on NAICS code (used to be SIC code) is usually $1-2 million or up to 500 employees. I wonder how they can be small businesses! ..."
"... To survive, small businesses need to sell their goods/services to large businesses. Most of the decision makers who purchase these items are unreachable or already have their favorites. Unless your small business has invented a better mousetrap you're SOL! ..."
As someone who has started three businesses, two of them successful (I went to Australia right
before the Gulf War started, which led to new business in Sydney coming to a complete halt for
six months; things might have worked out with better luck on timing), you need your head examined
to start a small business. The most common characteristic of people running their own business
was that they'd been fired twice.
If you can tolerate the BS, it is vastly better to be on a payroll. 90% of all new businesses
fail and running one is no picnic.
And new business formation has dived in the US, due mainly IMHO to less than robust demand
in many sectors of the economy.
Unless your family fully bankrolls you until BK kicks in (snark). I would have loved to write
as a career. Unfortunately, at the time, promises that had been made were broken and I had to
go to work for a F500 just to survive right after my undergraduate degree was completed. Fate
and Karma.
You're so right. It used to be that there were set asides for small businesses but nowadays
Federal and State Governments are only interested in contracts with large businesses. The SBA
classification for small business is based on NAICS code (used to be SIC code) is usually $1-2
million or up to 500 employees. I wonder how they can be small businesses!
To survive, small businesses need to sell their goods/services to large businesses. Most
of the decision makers who purchase these items are unreachable or already have their favorites.
Unless your small business has invented a better mousetrap you're SOL!
Gregor Jarosch (2015, Chicago, Stanford): Jarosch writes a model to explain why losing your
job leads to a very long-lasting decline in your lifetime wages. His hypothesis is that this is due
to people climbing a ladder of jobs that are increasingly secure, so that when one has the
misfortune of losing a job, this leads to a fall down the ladder and a higher likelihood of having
further spells of unemployment in the future. He uses administrative social security data to find
some evidence for this hypothesis.
"the U.S. middle class - with household incomes ranging from two-thirds to double the national
median"
Median household income in the US in 2015 was less the $60K. Two-thirds is $40K. That's almost
poverty not middle class.
Sociologically the middle class is a quasi-elite of professionals and managers, who are largely
immune to economic downturns and trends such as out-sourcing.
The definition game? Define something to something else as is being talked about and then claim,
claims based on a completely different definition are false?
Actually with the change in ratio professionals and managers now tend to upper middle class, (29%
of us is upper middle now, 32% middle).
One of the influences is that post WWII it was possible to be middle class and work on an assembly
line in a job that was described as check your brain at the door. Automation and process changes
have wiped the high pay of such jobs out. Steel makers for example thru mainly process changes
(electric furnaces using scrap, continuous casting and the like) mean that it takes 1/5 the hours
to produce a ton of steel in did in the 1970s.
The movement of assembly line jobs to the middle class occured because there was a period where
the US was much less involved with the rest of the world economically, because their industries
had all been destroyed. The change started during the Johnson admin, and showed up in the high
inflation of the Nixon admin.
Most "professionals and managers" are nowhere near being immune to downturns and outsourcing,
in aggregate.
You could likewise claim that "low skilled" or any other occupations are "immune" as somewhere
around 70-80% of their members continue being employed through tough times, in aggregate.
If you take "tech", companies laying off around 5-10% or even more of their staff in busts
is a frequent enough occurrence. And that's in addition to the "regular" age discrimination and
cycling of workers justified with "outdated skills". Being young and (supposedly) impressionable
is a skill!
"the U.S. middle class - with household incomes ranging from two-thirds to double the national
median"
That's almost tautological. By definition, there can't be a whole lot of change in the population
of groups defined relative to median. Income and wealth of those groups, though, can be enlightening.
Substitute "mean" for "median" and watch what happens. When inequality is driven by extremes
at the tail, using "median" means that you don't see much change in the demographics. (Hint: if
"middle class" is defined as half to twice the average income, there are damned few in that bracket.)
The drive to "efficiency" produced monstrously perverted results in IT hiring. Design for 100% match of the resume is absurd.
Notable quotes:
"... Back in the mid/late 90's, there was a running joke that tech companies were looking for people with more years of experience with certain programming languages than the programming languages even existed ..."
"... That's a very good and historically accurate point (in 90th Java was a crush ;-). And this type of parasitism continues to flourish even now. ..."
"... Also it is not necessary to have exactly all the asked experiences, at least when your resume will be selected/reviewed by a human. Of course if the recruiting process has been made "efficient" that will filter resumes by strict criteria, then the honest/modest applicants will be disproportionately screened out. ..."
"... In a lot of big corps, the early stages of recruiting (processing/screening incoming resumes) are often outsourced to HR who obviously have little idea about the subject matter of the work, and can only go by buzzwords, possibly using computer software (OCR processing of resumes). ..."
"... I can tell you that, from a consulting standpoint, I have been on several contracts where we've interviewed someone who had great skills, and the person who showed up had zero. So now companies will Skype with people to make sure they're talking to the actual consultant. ..."
"... Sadly, that is true of far too many companies of all sorts today, who refuse to train their workers and expect them to come preprogrammed with the company's proprietary software. ..."
"Back in the mid/late
90's, there was a running joke that tech companies were
looking for people with more years of experience with certain programming languages than the programming languages even
existed (in a form to be usable for commercial work)."
That's a very good and historically accurate point (in 90th
Java was a crush ;-). And this type of parasitism continues
to flourish even now. Just with the new buzzwords...
When employee's complain that that can't fill open positions
that often means that they painstakingly define the position
is such a way that the person deemed suitable can hit ground
running on the first day or week on the job. No retraining
period is needed. Like a new brake pads in a car. Totally
replaceable.
To say nothing that in reality Google and other giants
(Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, etc) are to a large extent
"cemeteries" for IT talent. What's so exciting is creating
Gmail and many other Google products ? Absolutely nothing.
This is a pretty disgusting reimplementation work.
One issue that you both don't mention is lags. Translating a
demand for skill into available skill takes years to decades
in the best of circumstances. Even for many so called "low
skilled" jobs, people have to be trained commonly for several
years. For "knowledge work" or "new technology paradigms",
you basically have to bring up a new generation of
school/college graduates.
Expecting training to happen
"just like that", or to be funded by the workers themselves,
is a non-starter.
And when the business has to pay for the training (with
the risk that some of the cost cannot be recouped because
trained up people may leave), then we are back at "lack of
profitability".
Back in the mid/late 90's, there was a running joke that
tech companies were looking for people with more years of
experience with certain programing languages than the
programming languages even existed (in a form to be usable
for commercial work).
"Back in the mid/late 90's, there was a running joke that
tech companies were looking for people with more years of
experience with certain programing languages than the
programming languages even existed (in a form to be usable
for commercial work)."
The trouble is, I think that was no
joke, it was literally true. Which means that were
deliberately recruiting liars. Maybe that explains a lot.
Yes, the joke was based on true anecdotes. Not sure about
"deliberately", my most plausible assumption is that they
just plugged the "skill" description into the standard job ad
templates.
Looking for about 5 years experience - enough to
(presumably) be able to do stuff, but not yet too
old/tainted.
Also it is not necessary to have exactly all the asked
experiences, at least when your resume will be
selected/reviewed by a human. Of course if the recruiting
process has been made "efficient" that will filter resumes by
strict criteria, then the honest/modest applicants will be
disproportionately screened out.
In a lot of big corps, the early stages of recruiting
(processing/screening incoming resumes) are often outsourced
to HR who obviously have little idea about the subject matter
of the work, and can only go by buzzwords, possibly using
computer software (OCR processing of resumes).
I have heard
the story often that hiring managers are presented with
unsuitable resumes/candidates, and often find better matches
going through the raw data themselves. But that costs time
("inefficient").
I can tell you that, from a consulting standpoint, I have
been on several contracts where we've interviewed someone who
had great skills, and the person who showed up had zero. So
now companies will Skype with people to make sure they're
talking to the actual consultant.
Sadly, that is true of far too many companies of all sorts
today, who refuse to train their workers and expect them to
come preprogrammed with the company's proprietary software.
Tech jobs took it on the chin last year. Layoffs at computer, electronics, and telecommunications companies were
up 21 percent to 96,017 jobs cut in 2016
, compared to 79,315 the prior year.
Tech layoffs accounted for 18 percent of the total 526,915 U.S. job cuts announced in 2016, according to Challenger,
Gray & Christmas, a global outplacement firm based in Chicago.
Of the 2016 total, some 66,821 of the layoffs came from computer companies, up 7% year over year.
Challenger attributed much
of that increase to cuts made by Dell Technologies, the entity formed by the $63 billion convergence of Dell and EMC. In preparation
for that combination, layoffs were instituted across EMC and its constituent companies, including VMware.
Carnival Corp. told about 200 IT employees that the company was transferring their work to Capgemini,
a large IT outsourcing firm
Notable quotes:
"... Senior IT engineer Matthew Culver told CBS that the requested "knowledge transfer activities" just meant training their own replacements , and "he isn't buying any of it," writes Slashdot reader dcblogs . ..."
"... Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours. ..."
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:05PM from the Bob-Cratchit-vs-Scrooge dept.
ComputerWorld reports:
In early December, Carnival Corp.
told about 200 IT employees that the company was transferring their work to Capgemini, a large
IT outsourcing firm. The employees had a choice: Either agree to take a job with the contractor or
leave without severance. The employees had until the week before Christmas to make a decision about
their future with the cruise line.
By agreeing to a job with Paris-based Capgemini, employees are guaranteed employment for six
months, said Roger Frizzell, a Carnival spokesman.
"Our expectation is that many will continue to work on our account or placed into other open
positions within Capgemini" that go well beyond the six-month period, he said in an email.
Senior IT engineer Matthew Culver told CBS that the requested "knowledge transfer activities"
just meant training their own replacements , and "he isn't buying any of it," writes Slashdot
reader dcblogs . "After receiving
his offer letter from Capgemini, he sent a counteroffer.
It asked for $500,000...and apology letters to all the affected families," signed by the company's
CEO. In addition, the letter also demanded a $100,000 donation to any charity that provides services
to unemployed American workers. "I appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and I sincerely
hope that you can fulfill these terms."
Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c
the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours.
I would be willing to do my job at a fraction of what I am paid currently should that (that
being how expensive it is to live here) change. It is equally infuriating to me when American
companies use loopholes in our ridiculously complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign
tax shelters to avoid paying taxes while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure,
emergency services, military, etc..
Its assholes like you that always spout off about free market this or that, about some companies
fiduciary responsibilities to it's shareholders blah blah blah... as justification for shitty
behavior.
It is equally infuriating to me when American companies use loopholes in our ridiculously
complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign tax shelters to avoid paying taxes
So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the
politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury
influence who you vote for?
... while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure, emergency services, military,
etc.
No. Taxes are only sheltered on income generated overseas, using overseas infrastructure, emergency
services, etc. I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product
made in China and sold in France.
I suppose it's related to the idea that intellectual property "rights" granted by a country
of origin should still have the same benefits and drawbacks when transferred to another country.
Or at the very least should be treated as an export at such time a base of operations moves out
of country.
Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written in the
US, using US infrastructure, etc . And the company is making the bogus claim that their
Irish subsidiary owns the rights to that software. It's a scam - not a loophole.
They are the same thing. The only way to ensure that there are no tax dodges out there is to
simplify the tax code, and eliminate the words: "except", "but", "excluding", "omitting", "minus",
"exempt", "without", and any other words to those same effects.
Americans are too stupid to ever vote for a poltiician that states they will raise taxes. This
means that either politicians lie, or they actively undermine the tax base. Both of those situations
are bad for the majority of americans, but they vote for the same scumbags over and over, and
will soundly reject any politician who openly advocates tax increases. The result is a race to
the bottom. Welcome to reaping what you sow, brought to you by Democracy(tm).
Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written
in the US, using US infrastructure, etc .
That makes no sense. Plenty of non-American companies develop software in America. Yet only
if they are incorporated in America do they pay income tax on their overseas earnings, and it
is irrelevant where their engineering and development was done.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "using infrastructure". It is just an extraterritorial
money grab that is almost certainly counterproductive since it incentivizes American companies
to invest and create jobs overseas.
Yes, taxes are based on profits. So Google, for instance, makes a bunch of money in the US.
Their Irish branch then charges about that much for "consulting" leaving the American part with
little to no profits to tax.
"I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in
China and sold in France."
Because the manufacturing and sales are controlled by a US based company, as is the profit
benefit which results. If a US entity, which receives the benefits of US law, makes a profit by
any means, why should it not be taxed by the US?
"... Unemployed people who found a job that rated well in these areas reported a substantial improvement in their mental health. By contrast, newly employed people who felt overwhelmed, insecure about their employment, underpaid, and micromanaged reported a sharp decline in their mental health, including increased symptoms of depression and anxiety. Even those who couldn't find a job fared better. This last finding was "striking," Butterworth says. "This runs counter to a common belief that any job offers psychological benefits for individuals over the demoralizing effects of unemployment." ..."
"... Policymakers should address the impact that the workplace has on mental - and not just physical - health, Butterworth says. "In the same way that we no longer accept workplaces that are physically unsafe or in which employees are exposed to dangerous or toxic substances, there could be a greater focus on ensuring a more positive psychosocial environment at work." ..."
March 14, 2011 | Health.com
With unemployment still high, job seekers who have been discouraged by a
lack of work might be inclined to take the first opportunity they're offered.
That will help pay the bills, but it could cause other problems: A new study
suggests that some jobs are so demoralizing they're actually worse for mental
health than no [...]
With unemployment still high, job seekers who have been discouraged by a
lack of work might be inclined to take the first opportunity they're offered.
That will help pay the bills, but it could cause other problems: A new study
suggests that some jobs are so demoralizing they're actually worse for mental
health than not working at all.
The findings add a new wrinkle to the large body of research showing that
being out of work is associated with a greater risk of mental health problems.
In the study, which followed more than 7,000 Australians over a seven-year period,
unemployed people generally reported feeling calmer, happier, less depressed,
and less anxious after finding work, but only if their new jobs were rewarding
and manageable.
"Moving from unemployment to a poor-quality job offered no mental health
benefit, and in fact was more detrimental to mental health than remaining unemployed,"
says the lead author of the study, Peter Butterworth, PhD, a senior research
fellow at the Centre for Mental Health Research at the Australian National University,
in Canberra.
The study was published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Butterworth and his colleagues analyzed data from an annual survey in which
participants described their mental state, their employment status, and-for
those with a job-details of the working conditions that they enjoyed (or didn't
enjoy, as the case may be). The survey respondents were asked how strongly they
agreed with statements such as "My job is complex and difficult" and "I worry
about the future of my job."
The researchers focused on four job characteristics that are closely linked
with mental health: the complexity and demands of the work, job security, compensation,
and job control (i.e., the freedom to decide how best to do the job, rather
than being ordered around).
Unemployed people who found a job that rated well in these areas reported
a substantial improvement in their mental health. By contrast, newly employed
people who felt overwhelmed, insecure about their employment, underpaid, and
micromanaged reported a sharp decline in their mental health, including increased
symptoms of depression and anxiety. Even those who couldn't find a job fared
better.
This last finding was "striking," Butterworth says. "This runs counter to
a common belief that any job offers psychological benefits for individuals over
the demoralizing effects of unemployment."
Although certain types of jobs-such as working in a customer-service call
center-are more likely to be downers, the working environment tends to have
a greater impact on mental health than the job description itself, Butterworth
adds.
Managers are especially important to employee well-being, says Robert Hogan,
PhD, an expert on personality in the workplace and a former chair of the department
of psychology at the University of Tulsa. "Bad bosses will make anybody unhappy,"
Hogan says. "Stress comes from bad managers."
Policymakers should address the impact that the workplace has on mental
- and not just physical - health, Butterworth says. "In the same way that we
no longer accept workplaces that are physically unsafe or in which employees
are exposed to dangerous or toxic substances, there could be a greater focus
on ensuring a more positive psychosocial environment at work."
Their dirty ways: " One day last October, when employees at Cenovus Energy showed up at the office, many discovered that they couldn't
access their computer files on the company's internal system. That's how they found out they were being laid off.
Companies that fought to attract and keep staff have been learning the hard way how to shed them in a hurry. But that doesn't mean
it can't � and shouldn't � be done right
One day last October, when employees at Cenovus Energy showed up at the office, many discovered that they couldn't access their
computer files on the company's internal system. That's how they found out they were being laid off. Two months earlier, employees
at Hutchison Ports Australia in Sydney and Brisbane got a text message, then an email in the middle of the night inviting them to
a beachside hotel. They, too, were being laid off.
Cenovus called its move a mistake. Hutchison Ports Australia said it had begun its consultations with staff and unions regarding
redundancies in June. Whatever the explanation, companies need to start approaching layoffs more carefully. And though everyone in
the energy business is hoping the bloodletting is over, if it isn't, there are ways to soften the blow of layoffs, and do them fairly
and transparently.
Communication
A company should keep its employees informed of the economic forces acting on the business and their employment prospects, says
Martin Birt, president of HRaskme.com and a human resources consultant with 30 years in the business. "Closures should never, in
my view, be a surprise," he says. Neither should layoffs. You can communicate messages with your employees such as how decisions
will be made in what Birt calls a "long-game communications plan," a set of HR principles that will be applied should anything be
decided regarding the company's long-term employment potential. That way, employees have some context as to what to expect when market
circumstances change.
If you choose not to share your long-game communications plan in your employee manual, when speaking to the people you're laying
off, at least communicate how, why and when you made the decision, Birt says. Your actions will get back to suppliers, contractors
and layoff survivors. And if you've communicated fairly and awarded appropriate compensation and benefits, the external environment
will understand what kind of corporate citizen you are.
Listen to Your Experts
Involve the correct teams � operations, human resources and legal � and involve them as early in the decision-making process as
possible, says Birt. These teams will protect you as a corporation from any liability associated with a layoff.
Soften the Blow
Henry Hornstein is an assistant professor at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario's Algoma University, specializing in organizational change
management. In the early 1990s, he was among the staff let go from Imperial Oil's Strathcona refinery. "It was not pleasant," says
Hornstein, "but the way Imperial Oil handled that at the time cushioned the blow." They provided him with a year's worth of salary
and benefits, and services with an outplacement firm. These included resum� writing, interview training and networking support. "Rather
than treating people as commodities, people are treated compassionately," says Hornstein of the experience. You can provide your
employees with psychological support in addition to proper severance, benefits and outplacement services, he says. Consider offering
group meetings where people can talk to others about the negative psychological impacts of downsizing that they've experienced. "Downsizing
is a significant assault on an individual's self-esteem Everybody has a story, and when somebody is downsized, the organization can
[seem to] take an approach that they don't care what the background story is, they just want to get rid of the people." says Hornstein.
Birt agrees, saying companies should be prepared to offer an employee assistance program (EAP), a short-term counseling service for
employees in need of support. This can also add a buffer against the company's liability.
Confidentiality
Having said that, to maintain confidentiality, limit the planning group to only those whose participation is necessary, says Birt.
Consider using specific project-related confidentiality agreements, as well, and clearly describe the consequences for breaching
confidentiality. He also suggests reminding participants with pre-existing confidentiality agreements of the terms of those agreements.
If you are a publicly traded company, you should know if you are required to first inform the markets of your actions. If that is
the case, managers must be prepared to communicate with employees immediately after informing the markets.
Finalize the Details
Before you deliver the news of layoffs, finalize all the details with human resources and legal, including severance, benefits
and pension entitlements, says Birt. You'll be prepared to immediately answer individual questions. Everything you say orally in
a termination meeting should be captured in a termination letter as well, he says. However, give terminated employees a few days
to review their termination package and ask any questions, says Fraser Johnson, a professor at the Ivey School of Business in London,
Ontario. "As soon as you hear the words that you're being laid off, your mind might go blank," he says.
Share the Pain
Rather than targeting employees with layoffs, share the cuts across the corporation, just as Canadian Natural Resources did when
all staff pay was cut by up to 10 percent. Or, introduce flexible work arrangements like part-time work, voluntary leaves of absence,
or deferred compensation in which an employee can work full-time at 80 percent salary for several years before taking a paid sabbatical.
"... His motto (which he shares with me every other day), is, "Never throw anything away". And damned if he can't find exactly what I need when I come over to scrounge at what I call, "Our Store". ..."
"... We wear our clothes out and watch what we buy. We don't travel by air, and limit trips to local visits with family. In the future, perhaps this will be the norm for most instead of today's extravagent consumption which is thought of as normal for Canadians and a birthright. ..."
"... Perhaps as a group, as a species, it seems as if we never learn and make the same and even greater mistakes over and over. But as individuals we can try to do things better, live better; until we can't go on. That is my plan, and I am sticking with it until I can't go on. ..."
"... the banjo prevailed and damned if it isn't getting better. I am well on the way to mastering (to use that term loosely) an Iris Dement version of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms", "I can See Clearly Now" by Johnny Nash, and "I Believe In You" by Don Williams. I think I have sub-conciously chosen these songs to combat my own confessions of doom and gloom. ..."
Back in early 2012, the Premier of Ontario
suggested that the loonie (Canadian
dollar) was becoming a petro-dollar. He was slapped down by the Cons, and
walked back his comment.
"That has knocked the wind out of Ontario exporters and manufacturing in particular," explained McGuinty.
"The only reason the dollar is high - it's a petro dollar , right? It's been driven by the global demand for oil
and gas to be sourced in Western Canada.
"So if I had my preferences, as to whether we have a rapidly growing oil-and-gas sector in the West or a lower dollar benefiting
Ontario, I'll tell you where I'd stand - with the lower dollar."
By the middle of 2014, oil's share of Canada's total exports reached 19 percent from about 6 percent a decade earlier. Meanwhile,
the Ontario-based auto industry was seeing its share of the export pie fall to to 14 percent from 22 percent. The heavier reliance
on crude became an issue in last October's national election, as Harper and his Western-based Conservatives were accused by
all their opponents of having favored oil to the detriment of other regions.
In the process, the Canadian dollar had effectively joined the ranks of petro-currencies. The correlation between movements
in the price of oil and the loonie has increased five-fold since 2000, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In 2015, while
all commodity-exporting countries faced currency pressure, the Canadian dollar was more sensitive to oil price movements
than such petro-states as Mexico, Norway and Russia.
I don't actually see low oil prices re-balanacing the Canadian economy. The cure for low oil prices is low oil prices. Would
you invest in an export dependent industry in Canada? One can reasonably model a scenario where the price of oil goes up to $100/barrel,
the loonie returns to parity with the greenback and an exporters competitiveness disappears with our petro-loonie's parity with
the U.S. dollar.
Being a petro-state makes for a pretty ugly domestic economy.
I believe the decline will bring us Canadians back to our roots and strengths. Personally, I have been disgusted with our past
30 year transformation into urban consumers, no matter what part of the country we live in.
I remember my Grandparents playing penny poker on winter evenings. I grew up with stories of the Depression. While I am 60,
my good friend down the road is 75. He often tells me about living in our Valley from '46 onwards ..a time of bailing water from
the river into a 45 for home supply, canned venison and salmon for winter, oil lamps because Hydro did not arrive until the latter
'60s. His Dad built up a sawmill and his folks provided room and board for 'the crew'. His mom washed their clothing by hand on
Saturdays and finally got a gas powered ringer washer to make it easier. Nowadays, he scrounges scrap steel (old bedframes and
the like) from the recycling bins for our welding projects. He helps me make up power saw chains from scraps and pieces. His
motto (which he shares with me every other day), is, "Never throw anything away". And damned if he can't find exactly what I need
when I come over to scrounge at what I call, "Our Store".
I don't know what will happen to the Vancouverites or Torontonians when property values dive. I imagine that many will lose
everything they think they have, (when their debt bomb blows). I guess then we will see what people are made of. Will they whine?
Or will they pick themselves up and make the best of it?
As for Ron's post, it is similar to one last year. I could hardly read that one as well. Yes, there are deserts and sewers
made by man, and that will be the best that many can hope for. But what is your sphere of influence and power to change things?
I have replanted several thousand trees on our property and let most of it regen into a bramble-filled mixed forest. I have put
in a pond that trout have found from the drainage ditches and flooded wetlands next door. I have cut trails for deer and elk crossing
routes. We grow our gardens without pesticides and with as much compost as possible. We wear our clothes out and watch what
we buy. We don't travel by air, and limit trips to local visits with family. In the future, perhaps this will be the norm for
most instead of today's extravagent consumption which is thought of as normal for Canadians and a birthright.
Ron, the facts are glum. Your story is true. I accept that. What I don't accept is allowing it to bring me down and giving
up .on myself, my loved ones, and my people. Perhaps as a group, as a species, it seems as if we never learn and make the
same and even greater mistakes over and over. But as individuals we can try to do things better, live better; until we can't go
on. That is my plan, and I am sticking with it until I can't go on.
I am teaching myself to play the banjo. (My blessed wife is so so patient). Today, the weather was cold and foggy, my lumber
is frozen into ice lumps, and I was quite house bound being sick of crunching around my frozen yard trying to be productive. So,
the banjo prevailed and damned if it isn't getting better. I am well on the way to mastering (to use that term loosely) an
Iris Dement version of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms", "I can See Clearly Now" by Johnny Nash, and "I Believe In You" by Don
Williams. I think I have sub-conciously chosen these songs to combat my own confessions of doom and gloom. Sometimes, it
is all we have. For you post readers, I will provide the Youtube links for a pick-me-up. A nice glass of whiskey makes for a good
listening partner.
regards and thanks for your heartfelt honesty and efforts
"... I actually think that the bigger effect is not just offshoring, but a vicious circle relating to increasing inequality. After all, most of the economy today is services, but if normal people cant afford the services anymore, then that will of course stagnate, forcing down wages decreasing the affordability even more (or causing substitution of inferior automated or remote services). ..."
"... That is why the one employment bright spot is medical services which are subsidised (one way or the other) almost everywhere. We really have to investigate more the distribution of the circulation of money, how the concentration of money in a few hands means that money circulates through relatively hands. I dont know of anybody who actually investigates this. You could say, it is the disaggregation-is-important problem. ..."
"... One thing that really annoys with political discussion today is the dominance of money illusion. This is particularly extreme in the Euro area today where Germans keep complaining that so and so will be taking our tax money . No one ever seems to stop and think, where does the money come from in the first place , and yet, in macro-economics, this is absolutely the most important question. Nobody even seems to notice that both deleveraging and bankruptcy actively destroy money and that money needs to be replaced. ..."
"... Foreign companies like Toyota and Honda solidified their dominance in family and economy cars, gained market share in high-margin luxury cars, and, in an ironic twist, soon stormed in with their own sophisticatedly engineered and marketed SUVs, pickups and minivans. Detroit, suffering from a "good enough" syndrome and wedded to ineffective marketing gimmicks like rebates and zero-percent financing, failed to give consumers what they really wanted - reliability, the latest technology and good design at a reasonable cost. ..."
"... Yes, I see offshoring as a transitional stage while foreign workers are cheaper than machines. ..."
"... The plot was about automation, but the moral was about humanity. :) ..."
"... "The main business of humanity is to do a good job of being human beings, said Paul, not to serve as appendages to machines, institutions, and systems." ..."
"... It is not the PRODUCERS who have a huge incentive to make sure it never happens. Au contraire, they want their consumers to have more money. It is the OWNERS who want to make sure it never happens because that would dilute their power. ..."
So you think that offshoring does not eventually increase living standards in the destination
countries? That's odd. What's your evidence?
Automation may not be the first response, but it's always in the equation:
CEO: "Those pesky foreign workers are asking for more again! Machines are so much easier to
work with. Can we replace them with machines yet?"
CTO: "Let me check... No, not yet, but a lot of smart people are working on it."
CEO: "OK, then let's look for another offshoring partner with more complacent workers for now
and revisit this later."
The answer to this automation question only has to be yes once to permanently change the playing
field.
reason said...
I actually think that the bigger effect is not just offshoring, but a vicious circle relating
to increasing inequality. After all, most of the economy today is services, but if normal people
can't afford the services anymore, then that will of course stagnate, forcing down wages decreasing
the affordability even more (or causing substitution of inferior automated or remote services).
That is why the one employment bright spot is medical services which are subsidised (one
way or the other) almost everywhere. We really have to investigate more the distribution of the
circulation of money, how the concentration of money in a few hands means that money circulates
through relatively hands. I don't know of anybody who actually investigates this. You could say,
it is the disaggregation-is-important problem.
reason said...
One thing that really annoys with political discussion today is the dominance of money
illusion. This is particularly extreme in the Euro area today where Germans keep complaining that
so and so will be taking "our tax money". No one ever seems to stop and think, "where does the
money come from in the first place", and yet, in macro-economics, this is absolutely the most
important question. Nobody even seems to notice that both deleveraging and bankruptcy actively
destroy money and that money needs to be replaced.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to pgl...
"...the empty suits running GM and Ford were both greedy and incompetent..."
The United States of Toyota: How Detroit Squandered Its Legacy and Enabled Toyota to Become America's
Car Company
September 11, 2007
by Peter M. DeLorenzo
The United States of Toyota is many stories in one. First and foremost, it is a business story,
detailing the decline of the American automobile industry - and the simultaneous rise of an Asian
manufacturer to take its place. It is also a history book, providing an intimate portrait of the
larger-than-life personalities and cars that led the American auto industry through its glory
days and down the path toward extinction. It is a political/current affairs piece, presenting
the rise of a Japanese company - Toyota - not just in terms of its sales success but also in terms
of its cultural success, as it works to assimilate into American society. And finally, it is a
never-before-seen primer on Detroit - The Motor City - a town and a region dominated by the auto
companies, their suppliers and their ad agencies - and by a mindset and culture all its own. In
commentary that is as accurate as it is blunt, Peter De Lorenzo presents the players and the action
in the auto business in a way not seen before in print. His voice is unique and refreshingly candid.
His provocative analyses and assessments - grounded in personal experience and a lifelong immersion
in all things automotive - present a compelling picture of the state of the auto business - how
it used to be, what it has become and where it is headed. From the arrogance and short-sightedness
of the Detroit manufacturers to the acumen and relentlessness of Toyota, The United States of
Toyota paints an insightful portrait of an iconic American industry as it struggles for survival
in the early years of the 21st century.
The End of Detroit: How the Big Three Lost Their Grip on the American Car Market
September 21, 2004
by Micheline Maynard
An in-depth, hard-hitting account of the mistakes, miscalculations and myopia that have doomed
America's automobile industry.
In the 1990s, Detroit's Big Three automobile companies were riding high. The introduction of the
minivan and the SUV had revitalized the industry, and it was widely believed that Detroit had
miraculously overcome the threat of foreign imports and regained its ascendant position. As Micheline
Maynard makes brilliantly clear in THE END OF DETROIT, however, the traditional American car industry
was, in fact, headed for disaster. Maynard argues that by focusing on high-profit trucks and SUVs,
the Big Three missed a golden opportunity to win back the American car-buyer.
Foreign companies
like Toyota and Honda solidified their dominance in family and economy cars, gained market share
in high-margin luxury cars, and, in an ironic twist, soon stormed in with their own sophisticatedly
engineered and marketed SUVs, pickups and minivans. Detroit, suffering from a "good enough" syndrome
and wedded to ineffective marketing gimmicks like rebates and zero-percent financing, failed to
give consumers what they really wanted - reliability, the latest technology and good design at a
reasonable cost. Drawing on a wide range of interviews with industry leaders, including Toyota's Fujio Cho, Nissan's Carlos Ghosn, Chrysler's Dieter Zetsche, BMW's Helmut Panke, and GM's Robert
Lutz, as well as car designers, engineers, test drivers and owners, Maynard presents a stark picture
of the culture of arrogance and insularity that led American car manufacturers astray. Maynard
predicts that, by the end of the decade, one of the American car makers will no longer exist in
its present form.
*
[Like the executives of the US steel industry before them, the management of the big three (plus
one) US automakers possessed legendary inabilities when it came to product development and production
quality control. One can only imagine that their golf games must have been better than their understanding
of auto making.]
pgl said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Exactly - products designs that were better than our. Lean production which we were slow to
adapt. And there are those Jan commercials. Toyotas are selling like crazy. But at least Ford
and GM is finally under new management.
sanjait said in reply to pgl...
A few decades later ... Ford and GM do indeed look to be getting their act together. I'd buy
a car from either one of those companies today.
lower middle class said...
Paging Dr. Proteus... Dr. Paul Proteus!
cm said in reply to lower middle class...
That was automation, not offshoring.
Syaloch said in reply to cm...
In the end that's a distinction without a difference.
Julio said in reply to Syaloch...
Yes, I see offshoring as a transitional stage while foreign workers are cheaper than machines.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Julio...
Machines could not open up SE Asian markets to US firms in the way that offshoring could.
Syaloch said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Suppose we visited those factories from Player Piano and discovered that the few highly educated
workers remaining were not overseeing automated machines, but rather shipping raw materials over
to a foreign country where goods were produced by low-wage laborers. In terms of the domestic
economy, would that make any difference?
Large-scale offshoring was enabled by machines that made the exchange of goods and information
between remote locations possible. Whatever residual labor component is involved is merely an
automation problem that hasn't been solved... yet.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Syaloch...
MNCs wanted their capital investment to have access to the markets with the most growth potential.
Regulatory and FOREX arbitrage helped. Labor costs were low on the totem pole.
Syaloch said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
That's more true with offshored manufacturing than with services. US companies aren't sending
call center jobs to India because they hope to serve the Indian market.
But even with regard to manufacturing labor costs are obviously a major consideration. Just
watch any episode of "Shark Tank" and listen to the sharks explain how stupid anyone is for trying
to manufacture anything here in the US. Are t-shirts sewn in Bangladesh because of the huge growth
potential in apparel sales there? Were the Mexican maquiladoras set up to have better access to
the Mexican market?
lower middle class said in reply to cm...
The plot was about automation, but the moral was about humanity. :)
"The main business of humanity is to do a good job of being human beings," said Paul, "not to
serve as appendages to machines, institutions, and systems."
― Kurt Vonnegut, Player Piano
Syaloch said in reply to lower middle class...
Toward the end of Player Piano the Shah of Bratpuhr asks a very good question: What are people
for?
When I first read Player Piano I also happened by pure chance to be reading a collection of essays
by Wendell Berry titled "What Are People For?"
The eponymous essay from Berry's collection was a great complement to Vonnegut's book.
lower middle class said in reply to Syaloch...
Time for me to visit the library, thanks Syaloch!
reason said...
New Deal democrat
Yes, it is part of your name (and was copied then throughout the Western world). Then of course
there was the Russian and Chinese revolutions, which at least initially were very egalitarian.
New Deal democrat said in reply to reason...
I think you misunderstood my point, which was about liberalizing international trade. I'm not
100% sure, but I don't think that was a really high priority of the Russian and Chinese revolutions.
:)
pgl said in reply to New Deal democrat...
I studied Russian history. Free trade was not exactly what drove Lenin. And it is certainly
not what drives Putin.
PPaine said in reply to New Deal democrat...
There was a significant debate about trade early on with bukharin advocating. Two way openness.
And Lenin a two way state monopoly.
Lenin anticipated what happened to russia after the wall fell ....70 or so years later.
He had a keen insight into MNCs free for all tactics.
Unfortunately state concessions which he supported faced a tacit constriction.
Despite notable exceptions including Pater Koch
reason said...
P.S. New Deal democrat
It is not the PRODUCERS who have a huge incentive to make sure it never happens. Au contraire,
they want their consumers to have more money. It is the OWNERS who want to make sure it never
happens because that would dilute their power.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to reason...
Yep. Capital gains... and gains... and gains, until there is little left for labor gains.
pgl said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Nike makes obscene profits. And for what? Designing new shoes? They don't make anything - their
third party Chinese manufacturers do the hard work at low wages. BTW - the US does not get to
tax those Nike profits as they end up in Bermuda.
well the offshore workers may not be as good at the onshore ones at the moment, but they are on a learning curve and will get
there. and they'll be both cheaper and better.
no one has a right to a high paying job; it's something that must be deserved.
what should IBM do? keep all the onshore workers? how will that fix the dominance of sales and marketing and the lack of
product focus in the company? it won't.
and if Steve Jobs was such a guru, then why are most of Apple's workers in China? was it a case of do as I say, not as I do?
Obviously you are one of the shareholder value crowd. IBM is cutting jobs NOT because of skill set lack but often age and
the COST of an American worker when India can get by at $2 an hour. FAIR???? Try living in this country for $2 an hour, OH
WAIT, MINIMUM WAGE???? IBM and many other firms just LOVE the expense reduction of that low hourly wage, which is one reason
why Disney and AstraZeneca (a $1 billion account) went elsewhere. Texas dumped the Data Center contract. Why? Texas does not
speak Hindi very well. IBM is gutting smart staff for cheap staff. What does this tell you.
Do you believe that IBM will definately increase shareholder value by losing Disney, AstraZeneca and Texas? Why
did these three projects leave? What got them angry enough to dump IBM? Particularly Texas, galling as it was a DATA
CENTER MANAGEMENT job and IBM could not even do that!!! If that fails, then what can IBM do today?
My company told me the reason they were cutting me for IBM is because IBM could hire 5 people in Argentina
for my salary.
Once working for IBM I wondered how any company could accept the service IBM was providing. Told by IBM
management was how IBM was offering a total package with software and services (which made it an attractive
package). And that IBM provides services not as bad as the other outsource companies.
Funny thing though, a lot of the clients are willing to accept the under staffed, under trained, and
incompetence to make their bottom line better.
Francis - I think you are naive about the employees being cut. Within IBM we are now having situations where we
want to ask someone for assistance because they know a product or a procedure and we find out that person whose
expertise we valued and sought was part of the last Resource Action.
Francis just made 3 statements that are quite logical and hard to refute. Other commentors have pointed out
additional factors indicating that IBM may be harming itself in the long term. Let's try to understand both
sides.
Francis..think about what you just said�"learning curve"??? Really?
You call 15 years of offshoring services and call centers to India, including the training itself, a "learning curve"??? You
couldn't even sell that BS to a low level sales or marketing manager in IBM; let alone anyone here. You know nothing about
IBM, if you believe that's why they went to Brazil, Russia, India, China, Bulgaria, Chile, The Philippines, Vietnam, and
Argentina�.to name a few. None of those moves offshore were designed to have a 15 year learning curve�NONE of them. On top
of that, you've just contradicted and exposed the "lie" that IBM has been telling about US IBMers "lacking" the skills to
compete in the global market! It can't be both ways, Francis! Cringely has nailed this and you should re-read his column.
I work for IBM in training. There is a learning curve for employees in developing
countries, and once they start up it they leave IBM and get better jobs with other countries. We are constantly training
new people in the developing markets. Average tenure for employees in Asia and Central America is probably less than 5
years now. But that works to Ginni Rometty's advantage - and the advantage of other executives and share
holders - because they can continue to pay entry level wages. Another strategy is to hire "consultants" rather than
employees because you don't need to give them benefits, and when you let them go it doesn't show up as a "reduction in
force."
I have joined Alliance@IBM, and I am appalled by the number of people who haven't. The union is only as strong as its
membership. And working in a dispersed organization makes it harder to band together. Like most of my colleagues, I work
from home (thereby saving IBM a bundle on infrastructure), and I wouldn't even know where to go to picket on April 24th.
Ah, Francis. Let me tell you about that myth of "they are on a learning curve and will get there. and they'll be both
cheaper and better."
As they learn, they get better, and walk out the door and get hired at a higher salary. Even call centre workers who have
mastered the American mid-western accent go for a premium. As the workers get better, they can get hired for more money
elsewhere until they reach equilibrium with us in the developed world. The ones who are paid crap will _deserve_ to be paid
crap. They are the ones who couldn't climb the learning curve.
Offshoring for cheap labour a short term fix with no long-term sustainability.
The thing is, they're not on a learning curve. At HP Enterprise Services we're in the same situation as IBM Global
Services, upper management has been offshoring thousands of jobs to India to cut costs. The big problem with this is that
EVERYONE is doing it, so there's a situation where there aren't enough qualified people to fill the jobs, and people who
have no business working in IT are getting hired and are not able to do the job. Those who can
do the job will get offered better salary/benefits at other companies so they tend to move on quickly, but the people who
don't know what they're doing and don't learn stick around.
This is very similar to what happened in the Silicon Valley during the DotCom boom. We have tens of thousands of tech
workers in Mumbai/Pune, and the quality of the work they do is abysmal. Every once in awhile
I'll work with someone that is qualified for that job (or at least has a good base set of skills and can learn the job), but
we don't pay them enough so they end up moving on to a company that will pay them better, usually in less than a year of
joining us.
This is a result from a fundamental flaw in upper managements thinking about labor, it's
viewed simply as a cost, not a valuable resource. Sure, they may give lip service to the idea that workers
are some of their most valuable resources, but talking doesn't do any good when they lay off experienced workers for cheap
unskilled labor in India. And this type of thinking especially comes through when they can't even hold on to skilled, or
even semi skilled, labor in India at rock bottom prices.
Not only are IBM, HP, and the like replacing professionals who have acquired very valuable skills through years of
experience with people without those skills, but they aren't providing the training and career paths to those junior
people who don't job-hop. These companies are in effect downgrading not only the IT professions, but also professions
such as Project Management. Innovation and business development through acquisition are not sustainable, and processes
are only as good as the people executing them.
It's fascinating what happened with jobs outsourced to IBM Brazil.
Some went up the learning curve quite quickly.
They now work elsewhere because even academia pays more than IBM in Brazil. Those that don't move at all on the learning
curve stay at IBM.
This post SCREAMS ignorance. The Foxconn employees are in manufacturing, not design, not development, not IT, not�
As for this "learning curve", haven't seen it yet and I've dealt with multiple off-shore contracts.
The struggle is always cost vs. quality. As a hands-on IT guy in the US, my contract rates haven't been
going up because off-shore crews are "better and cheaper". Get some real world experience�
And you can't whine about "xenophobia" and then make comments about off-shore people being "better". You're doing the
same thing
Those folks in India may be somewhat cheaper now, but that isn't going to last. On linked-in I see offers for engineers
in Inda in the $75K range � there's lots of competition for employees, lots of turnover, and rapidly increasting pay.
They may end up remaining worse (that turnover really hurts in areas where you need 5 years to
become competent), but more expensive!
exIBMer says:
April 18, 2012 at 10:11 am
Can't wait for the next installment. The Jobs quote about "IBM's maniacal fixation on process, once a strength but now a
cancer" rings more true than ever in my head. I was part of the March 28 resource action from IBM and am looking forward to
vigorously competing against them, because if there's one thing I can do, it's beat them at their own game.
Mott thinks GM has too many IT people running and supporting the
business and not enough doing new development. "We're really upside down on that
when 75% of the people are spending their time trying to make sure the same
thing happens today that happened yesterday"
GM's new CIO Randy Mott plans to bring nearly all IT
work in-house as one piece of a sweeping IT overhaul. It's a high-risk
strategy that's similar to what Mott drove at Hewlett-Packard.
6 Steps For GM
Insourcing Flipping from 90% outsourced IT to 90%
of work done by internal staff. Lots of hiring ahead.
Data center consolidation From 23 data centers to
two new ones, with the latest hardware and more automation.
Application consolidation 40% or more of GM's
apps could go, by moving to standardized, global
applications.
Software development centers Likely three in U.S.
sites to be determined, based on the local development
talent.
Portfolio management Every IT project will
require a cost-benefit analysis and a priority set by
business units.
Data warehouse consolidation GM has about 200
data marts today and plans to move to one data architecture,
so data's easier to access and use.
As Randy Mott, the new CIO of General Motors, goes about his workday, he
carries with him a well-worn calculator. It sits in front of him in the
place of prominence that most people reserve for a smartphone.
Mott, who has been CIO at Wal-Mart, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard and joined
GM in February, believes in numbers. And as he tries to transform GM's IT
operations, he plans to flip one set of numbers on a scale that no CIO has
ever done before.
Today, about 90% of GM's IT services, from running data centers to
writing applications, are provided by outsourcing companies such as HP/EDS,
IBM, Capgemini, and Wipro, and only 10% are done by GM employees. Mott plans
to flip those percentages in about three years--to 90% GM staff, 10%
outsourcers.
Insourcing IT on that scale will require GM to go on a hiring binge for
software developers, project managers, database experts, business analysts,
and other IT pros over the next three years. As part of that effort, it
plans to create three new software development centers, all of them in the
U.S. IT outsourcers, including GM's one-time
captive provider, EDS, face the loss of contracts once valued at up to $3
billion a year.
This dramatic move away from outsourcing is just one piece of the "IT
transformation" Mott is leading, which includes consolidating data centers
and applications, centralizing IT planning and execution, and getting a
better grip on GM's customer and production data. GM's IT transformation
doesn't emphasize budget cuts but instead centers on delivering more value
from IT, much faster. In many ways, the foundation Mott is laying is similar
to the one Ford started laying four or five years ago as part of its One
Ford/One IT initiative.
The overhaul Mott envisions puts the everyday operations of GM at risk
during a time when the world's No. 2 automaker (Toyota is now No. 1) is
still climbing out of bankruptcy protection and a $50 billion government
bailout. GM's factories, supply chains, and financial reporting rely on the
IT organization to keep information flowing in near real time on a global
scale. The fact that Mott's boss, CEO Dan Akerson, would bless this level of
IT change and accept this level of risk at a still-fragile stage of GM's
recovery shows how essential the best data and technology are to the
company's future.
Akerson "was looking to make changes in the speed and cadence of the
company," Mott says. "Whether it was with me or someone else, Dan Akerson
was going to do an IT transformation here."
Mott's philosophy on outsourcing at GM, as it was at HP, Dell, and
Wal-Mart, is that the company needs more creative, business-changing
ideas from IT, and IT teams need to deliver those innovative projects
faster. Mott doesn't think GM can be creative or fast enough with
outsourced IT. "When the business says 'go,' then that means we start
working on a contract, we don't start working on a project," Mott says of
the current outsourced model. (Mott is on InformationWeek's editorial
advisory board and was named our Chief of the Year in 1997, when he was at
Wal-Mart.)
The shift away from outsourcing is only the most dramatic element of
Mott's IT "transformation." The plan, approved by Akerson and the rest of
the executive operating committee, comes straight out of the playbook Mott
has developed over a three-decade career in the retail, high-tech, and now
automotive industries. Mott's plan for GM is nearly identical to the one he
led at HP between 2005 and 2008 under CEO Mark Hurd, before Hurd and then
Mott got bounced in an executive shake-up.
Sweeping Transformation
Besides the move away from IT outsourcing, the key elements of Mott's
plan include:
Data center consolidation: GM plans to go from 23
sizable data centers worldwide to just two, both in Michigan. In the
process, GM will replace servers, storage, and networking with today's
more efficient gear, in hopes of reducing costs and using more
automation so that fewer of GM's IT pros are involved in "run the
business" kinds of IT operations and more are involved in new
development and innovation.
Application consolidation: Mott estimates that GM
can cut 40% or more of the company's 4,000-plus applications that have
sprung up in various regions and divisions by moving to standardized,
global applications for everything from financials to factory-level
processes.
Hiring: Mott plans to dramatically increase the IT
organization's hiring of new college grads and will look to top computer
science schools beyond the universities with which it now has recruiting
ties. Most of GM's development will be done in the U.S., even though the
company's growth is very much tied to China, Brazil, and other
countries. Mott does plan to hire internationally to bulk up an "IT
planning community" that can gather the requirements needed for GM to
build global apps.
Three new software development centers: One will be
in the Detroit area, with the other two in U.S. locations still to be
determined. They'll be chosen based on the kind of development talent
the company can attract there, including their proximity to key
universities. (Silicon Valley, anyone?) Dispersing IT development will
be a cultural change for the still Detroit-centric GM.
Portfolio management: As he did at HP, Mott will
require that a cost-benefit analysis be done on every IT project,
spelling out the project's benefits in ways that the business unit,
finance team, and IT agree to. The results of those CBAs produce a
metric Mott calls the "revenue of IT," measuring the value IT projects
generate, not just how much they cost. Likewise, Mott will insist that
business managers prioritize the various projects they have planned.
Data warehouse consolidation: GM has about 200 data
marts today, and Mott wants to move all of them to one architecture. The
goal is to make data easier to access and use, and to integrate it
better across groups and divisions to reveal more insights. CEO Akerson
told Fortune in a May interview, "We're looking at our IT systems real
hard. Data warehousing of customer information was not a strength in the
company. Maybe it wasn't even existent, but it will be in the future."
Mott's ambitious transformation plan won't be universally popular. End
users will complain: You're taking away the application that I love for the
greater good of cost savings? Business unit managers will complain: You're
making me do a cost-benefit analysis for my little upgrade? Isn't this the
kind of bureaucracy a nimble GM needs to avoid? Even Mott's IT team will
grumble: You're messing with the fiefdom of IT contractors I manage?
Mott's critics at HP complained that he cut too fast and deep, leaving
business units vulnerable, or that he spent precious resources on internal
bean counting.
There's one additional, controversial piece of Mott's plan: It all
happens at once, over the next three years. Mott described it in the past as
"choosing is losing." For example, if you move to an insourced IT staff and
away from outsourcers, but you don't modernize the data center to increase
IT automation, then you won't get the benefit from those new staffers
working on new projects instead of maintenance and support work.
It fits Mott's general philosophy that many IT projects fail because they
just take too long. It's why he favors putting more staff on a project for a
shorter period--doing fewer projects at a time, but faster. "Every month
that goes by, every quarter that goes by, the ROI goes down," he says.
The clock has started ticking. Mott launched this IT transformation plan
internally in late June on a town hall webcast with GM's 1,500 IT employees
worldwide. The world will be watching: If Mott and his team botch any of
this IT transformation, it could put the company's historic turnaround in
jeopardy.
GM's History Of Outsourcing
To understand why Mott's decision to all but end IT outsourcing at GM is
such a huge cultural change, consider the company's long history with the
practice. GM spends more on IT outsourcing than
just about any other company, and here Mott plans to go to the other end of
the spectrum. He estimates that other automakers now outsource about 30% of
their IT, whereas GM plans to outsource only about 10%.
GM bought Electronic Data Systems, founded by H. Ross Perot, in 1984 as
it tried to diversify beyond making cars and trucks, and EDS subsequently
took over almost all of GM's IT operations. In 1996, GM spun off EDS to
refocus on its auto operations, cutting a deal for EDS to continue running
its IT for 10 years.
Ralph Szygenda, GM's CIO from 1996 to 2009, inherited that deal. Szygenda
was no great fan or foe of outsourcing--it was the model he had, and he knew
there was no appetite at the time for the disruption and risk involved in
changing it. His strategy was to evolve how GM did IT outsourcing.
In 2006, as the EDS pact ended, Szygenda split the work up among six IT
outsourcing companies. EDS landed the most, but Capgemini, HP (which at the
time didn't own EDS), and IBM took large new shares, and India-based Wipro
was among the vendors added. Szygenda mapped out for the bidders how 44 IT
processes would be done in a standardized way, making it easier for GM to
change vendors if needed.
Mott didn't discuss the details of GM's existing outsourcing contracts
and how he would unwind them. At HP, Mott
slashed the company's IT workforce in half--from 19,000, with half of them
contractors, to less than 10,000, with 90% on staff, in 2008.
Mott thinks GM has too many IT people running and supporting the business
and not enough doing new development. "We're
really upside down on that when 75% of the people are spending their time
trying to make sure the same thing happens today that happened yesterday,"
he says.
Few CIOs are as adamantly against outsourcing
as Mott. More often, they hire outsourcers to handle routine IT operations,
with the idea that it will free up staff people for development.
A more typical example sits up the road from GM, at southeast Michigan's
power company, Consumers Energy. CIO Mamatha Chamarthi this year hired
Indian outsourcer HCL to take over Consumers' IT infrastructure and
applications. HCL is building a new data center for that work, hoping to
serve other U.S. clients from it. Chamarthi plans to retrain Consumers IT
employees for development and business analyst roles.
While companies regularly take back projects
or discrete functions from outsourcers they're not happy with, strategic
shifts like Mott's are rare. Only 4% of the 513 business
technology pros we surveyed in our 2011 State of IT Outsourcing Survey said
their companies plan to decrease their use of IT outsourcing. Seventeen
percent were weighing their options, and the remaining 79% were maintaining
or increasing their outsourcing.
Differences From HP
Mott is using the same playbook he used at HP, but there are important
differences. GM isn't looking to make big IT budget cuts, while at HP Hurd
pushed Mott to cut IT spending from 4% of revenue to 2%. Culturally, GM has
been humbled by bankruptcy and the government bailout, hiring a CEO from
outside the auto industry to set a sense of urgency for change that HP
didn't have (see
"Randy Mott's Journey To General Motors").
And while cutting outsourcing will no doubt bring operational
disruptions, job losses at outsourcers, and the end of some long-held
relationships, Mott is hiring, offering candidates the chance to join GM at
a watershed time in the company's history. (Note to readers: GM bought an ad
in this issue. GM knew an article would be running about the company but had
no knowledge of or influence over the content.)
But Mott and company face plenty of challenges.
Akerson noted how GM doesn't have a good grip
on its customer data. Warranty data is in one place, VIN and
parts numbers in another, social media sentiment analysis in a different
silo, Mott says. Much of that data is outside IT's control at this point,
and Mott plans to bring it under IT in one data architecture, so it's more
accessible and integrated. Mott tried the same at HP, where internal IT was
the marquee customer for HP's Neoview data warehouse product. While Mott
says he closed more than 600 data marts at HP as it consolidated, HP ended
its Neoview development and its plans to become a major data warehouse
vendor.
It's a complex challenge to bring myriad data types under one
architecture, and GM's consolidation will have to rely on different
technologies, Mott says. If his team doesn't deliver something notably
better than what employees and partners use today, it'll not only feel like
changing tools for change's sake, hurting the team's credibility, but it
could disrupt the business. "You have to run in
front of what the business is doing today," Mott says. "... It has to be a
step change better. Then you win their hearts and minds."
As far as GM's data center consolidation is concerned, work was under way
before Mott arrived. His predecessor, Terry Kline, began building a modern
data center in Warren, Mich., which should open in October.
Mott thinks it's cheaper and more productive to
run a few highly automated data centers and access them via powerful
networks than to disperse that processing power. However, in
addition to the two data centers GM will consolidate to, it will have six
caching centers near most of its auto engineers, to ensure that the
processing-intensive work they do maintains the highest performance.
Mott Addresses His Critics
Mott was a polarizing figure at HP, and his plans for GM are no less
ambitious. Former HP employees have written to us charging that Mott's IT
organization was too slow to get things done, cut too many valuable people,
and left the company underperforming. Many of those comments came soaked in
emotion. "Like Hurd, Mott was an operator who burned the furniture with a
short-term focus," wrote one commentator.
Mott acknowledges the tension caused by IT restructurings of this scale.
A business unit leader may OK shutting down an app in favor of one used
worldwide, but for employees of that unit "what you just did is take an
application with which they were very comfortable ... and you set the time
frame and didn't give them a choice," he says. For that, he says, IT
"sometimes becomes a lightning rod."
Mott organized that June town hall meeting, with about an hour of
presentation and 90 minutes of Q&A, in hopes of getting his IT people behind
the effort. While Mott talks about letting people move into new roles and
hiring others, employees of GM and its outsourcers will lose their jobs in
this transformation. "'Change the mix' is very personal," Mott says. "You've
got skill sets that you're going to change, and in some cases people can
make transitions to those skills sets and in some cases they can't."
There also won't be a rigid IT org chart. "We will organize every year
based on what we're trying to accomplish for the business," he says.
Outside of IT, GM employees will feel the effect of transformation, too.
Mott's portfolio management process was a culture shock at HP, since it
centralized IT control and forced business managers to prioritize projects.
Mott will fight to quash "shadow IT."
He insists that his cost-benefit analysis process scales to fit the size of
the project--that a small project won't generate excess red tape and that
it's worth the effort in order to allocate scarce IT resources efficiently.
But he knows it will work only if employees feel like they get more IT
benefits as a result.
Mott won't say what GM plans to spend on its
IT transformation, only that it's much less than the $1.7 billion in capital
HP spent. "I'm competing with capital to build a car," he
says.
But the three-year time frame is the same. By January, Mott expects to
have many pieces in place: a strategy and vendors for GM's new enterprise
data warehouse; the Warren data center up and running; an IT portfolio
management and CBA system in place with business units; and a portfolio of
projects laid out that's bigger than 2012's. "Part of the goal is to go to
the business and get them to imagine" what they want from IT, Mott says.
That statement points to what Mott's grand transformation doesn't
address: What GM will do with its faster, more effective IT operation if
this overhaul works. Can GM use analytics to better forecast sales or better
read changing customer tastes? Would better collaboration tools help
engineers and designers be more creative? Could GM and its dealers share
customer insights that move more metal off the lot? Those kinds of ideas
will come from working with business units on their priorities.
IT isn't the key to whether GM lives or dies. Making great cars and
trucks and selling more of them is. Mott's transformation is big, but its
success will be measured by whether it helps or holds back that goal.
As the global economic
downturn grinds on, more
companies are acknowledging
that labor costs aren't
always the most important
factor when deciding where
to build their next factory.
This column argues that, in
times of recession, some
companies find that bringing
their business home can give
them a competitive edge.
While politicians argue strategies to create jobs in the
faltering global economy,
the debate around offshoring
has intensified. Once
considered a clear
competitive advantage in the
fast-changing global market,
manufacturers rushed to
replace domestic labour
forces with lower-cost
workers in emerging markets.
By 2002�03, about a quarter
to half of the manufacturing
companies in Western Europe
were involved in offshore
production (Dachs et al
2006). And by 2008, more
than 50% of US companies had
a corporate offshoring
strategy (Minter 2009).
Recently, though, many of
the perceived offshoring
advantages have been called
into question. First, the
sourcing costs from emerging
economies have been rising
rapidly. For example, as of
mid-2010, many Chinese firms
were facing labour shortages
and were forced to boost
wages to attract qualified
workers (Plunkett Research
2010). Second, the global
commodity price index has
risen significantly (Archstone
Consulting 2009). This has
led to more expensive
transportation costs,
particularly as a result of
higher oil prices, as well
as higher production costs.
Third, the economic
recession that started at
the end of 2007 has had a
severe impact on the market.
Consumers are more cautious
in spending, and firms are
seeking new strategies to
retain customers (Dodes
2011).
So it should not come as
a surprise that more US
manufacturers are 'reshoring',
'onshoring' and 'backshoring'.
General Electric announced
last year that it is moving
some of its appliance
manufacturing from China to
Louisville, Kentucky. NCR
Corp. is pulling all of its
ATM machine production from
China, India, and Hungary
back to a facility in
Columbus, Georgia, in order
to customise products and
get them to clients faster.
In their announcements,
these firms emphasised that
by being closer to the
market, they can better
understand the market and
are able to respond quickly
to market changes.
Finding balance
As these industry
examples illustrate, the
tradeoff between cost and
flexibility can be quite
involved and difficult to
evaluate. It now appears
that the labour-cost
benefits gained from
offshoring might not be
sufficient to cover the lost
flexibility under many
circumstances. So before
making any sourcing
decisions, firms at the
crossroads need to
understand the business
environment as well as the
competitor's sourcing
strategy. The purpose of our
recent paper (Wu and Zhang
2011) is to investigate the
underlying factors that
affect the sourcing trend
and provide insights to
firms on strategic sourcing
decisions in a competitive
setting.
Our paper studies a
two-stage sourcing game in
which competing firms could
choose between sourcing
internationally (call this
the efficient sourcing
strategy due to low
production costs) and
sourcing domestically (call
this the responsive sourcing
strategy due to short lead
times). We first identify
the point of equilibrium
between the two sourcing
strategies. Then we examine
how that equilibrium shifts
based on key parameters. We
find three key factors that
influence a shift from
efficient sourcing to
responsive sourcing:
consumer demand, market
size, and supplier costs.
Consumer demand
All things being equal,
when demand is relatively
stable, most companies look
for the lowest cost option,
which usually translates to
offshoring. As demand
fluctuates, though, as in
the recent recession,
companies need to respond
faster to shifting consumer
sentiments.
Onshore suppliers give
companies greater
flexibility because they
don't have to deal with
overseas transportation,
which means they can place
orders much closer to the
selling season. As a result
the firm can have a better
forecast of demand
information. It also gives
the firm more time to
understand the needs of the
customer and integrate the
updated product
specification required by
the customer into the
production at the last
minute.
Because the major benefit
of sourcing from a
responsive, or onshore,
supplier is to obtain more
accurate demand information,
that advantage disappears
when there is no demand
uncertainty. At that point,
the competitive advantage
rests solely on cost
efficiency. This implies
that for products with
highly predictable demand,
offshoring is still a useful
strategy.
Market size
After that, firms need to
consider market size.
Companies targeting smaller
markets need to stick closer
to home because competition
is more intense and the
firms' selling quantities
are low. That makes accurate
demand information more
valuable because being able
to respond quickly to their
customers outweighs
additional manufacturing
costs. This may partly
explain why the backshoring
phenomenon became prominent
during the recent recession.
Middle-market companies
can benefit from
diversifying their sourcing
strategies by balancing the
lower cost of offshoring
with the increased
flexibility of using
domestic, or onshore,
suppliers to fill short-term
needs. Larger markets,
though, mean bigger orders,
so companies will use
efficient, or low-cost,
sourcing whenever possible.
Supplier cost
Finally, any change in
supplier costs can affect
sourcing decisions.
Naturally, when an offshore
supplier's price rises you
would expect to find more
companies preferring the
convenience of domestic
suppliers. What we found,
though, is that when there
is an equal cost increase
for both domestic and
offshore suppliers, more
companies still place
greater value on being able
to respond quickly to their
clients. The rising cost of
commodities and the
commensurate increase in
backshoring by US companies
is an example of this
phenomenon.
Makers of innovative
products in markets where
tastes change quickly will
value supply flexibility and
are more likely to
"backshore". But for
companies that rely heavily
on low manufacturing costs,
backshoring will decrease,
although the countries from
which they source may
change. As wages increase in
China and other developing
economies, businesses will
seek lower-cost
manufacturing sites
elsewhere.
After all the ruckus about Indians getting green cards in US
in the name of outsourcing, they have finally kicked the onsite
guys off the planet and are going for extreeeeme outsourcing.
CLOUD COMPUTING!
No more need for visas, green cards or anything!
All Fortune [only to their managers] 1000 companies will kneel
before their fortunes and embrace this
no-employee-onsite-running-the-company-by
video-conferencing-model for next 10 years
why bother hiring people when all the software can be used
online
This is the consequence of Hyper-computing !
who said revolutionary ideas are always good
Clap Clap Clap! Bring on the accolades, awards for the new
innovation!
"We believe by removing the unreliable human component in the
execution of projects we have drastically improved productivity
and this should improve margins and make companies more
competetive"
clap clap clap; so 2 geeky guys sitting in bangalore will
manage HR,finance,legal,regulatory,CR and everything else on
supercomputers and hyper-broadband internet
All a company needs is a CEO and a janitor
Rest of you humans can fall of the face of the earth duely
after applauding these visionaries.
We offshored some CAD work to Hyderabad, and it was a
clusterfuck. I spent 3 months cleaning it up, and we lost money
on the job. No way I will ever offshore again.
Quality at a reasonable price can be found in America, and
you can understand what the hell they are saying on the phone.
US universities are producing too few engineers to meet industry
demand, Indian outsourcing companies say, leaving such businesses little
choice but to hire foreign skilled workers to fill jobs in America.
Cognizant Technology Solutions, the US-listed Indian outsourcing
group, says it has 57 recruitment staff in the US permanently looking
for engineers locally but is still being forced to import Indians on
work visas.
"If you look at the core of what we do, the technology work, the
US simply doesn't have the talent base today," said Francisco d'Souza,
Cognizant president and chief executive. "Although unemployment in the
US today is high, IT unemployment is still very low."
The US last month passed a border security law that will be partly
funded by doubling the cost of visas for IT workers, a move that will
mostly affect Indian outsourcing companies.
Indian outsourcing companies usually keep a small portion of their
workforce in the US to work closely with clients, supported by the bulk
of their staff in development centres in India.
But the protectionism move � a senator who sponsored the legislation
described Indian outsourcing companies as "chop shops", a reference
to garages that dismantle and sell stolen cars � may have little impact.
About 70 per cent of US PhD students are foreign born and are often
hired in the US, making their way into Silicon Valley or government
agencies such as Nasa, said Partha Iyengar, of Gartner, the consultancy.
"The bigger challenge for the US is, if they start to lose this talent
at the lower end, the innovation engine that has been driving the economy
starts to dry up," Mr Iyengar said.
India's undergraduate university courses produce about 600,000 engineers
a year compared with about 84,000 in the US in the 2007-08 academic
year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
While less than one quarter of India's engineering graduates are
considered of international standard, they tend mostly to seek careers
in the information technology outsourcing industry, creating a huge
pool of talent for the sector.
By contrast, US engineering graduates are spread across all industries.
Mr d'Souza says about 20 per cent of Cognizant's workforce of 88,700
work in the US and of those more than half are Indians or foreign nationals
in the process of becoming permanent residents.
S. Gopalakrishnan, chief executive of
Infosys Technologies, India's second-largest IT company, said
the group had 10,000 staff in the US but only 1,600 were nationals or
permanent residents. The company wanted to hire 1,000 people a year
in the US but faced a scarcity of talent. "It is a struggle," he said.
Copyright
The Financial Times Limited 2010. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post
to the web.
Lordie, if this isn't disingenuous, I don't know what is. From the
Financial Times:
US universities are producing too few engineers to meet industry
demand, Indian outsourcing companies say, leaving such businesses
little choice but to hire foreign skilled workers to fill jobs in
America
And why are there so few students studying computer science? Because
there are no (well, more accurately, hardly any) entry level jobs. I've
been reading about this on Slashdot for YEARS, about the utter dearth
of anything resembling a career path in IT. Yes, there are no doubt
ways to brute force getting trained, but that cold reality is not the
sort of situation that encourages college students, particularly ones
that have student loans, to pursue a technically-oriented field of study.
And the proximate cause is that companies only want to hire people
that they don't need to train (the cliche is that they can "hit the
ground running"), and that they can get away with it because a lot of
junior level work is farmed out to outsourcers.
But you'd never glean this from the FT, which takes the outsourcers'
complaints at face value:
"If you look at the core of what we do, the technology work,
the US simply doesn't have the talent base today," said Francisco
d'Souza, Cognizant president and chief executive. "Although unemployment
in the US today is high, IT unemployment is still very low."
Yves here. Yes, IT unemployment might be very low now, but for how
many years was it higher than in other industries? My sample (high end
IT consultants, the sort that can build mission critical systems and
do cutting edge Web and apps development) is admittedly biased, but
lots of high end shops shuttered, and another I know went through a
Chapter 11. Things have gotten much better for them lately, but most
of the last decade was pretty grim. So if the guys who weren't competing
with outsourcers had it rough, how was it for the rest of the industry?
Indian outsourcing companies usually keep a small portion of
their workforce in the US to work closely with clients, supported
by the bulk of their staff in development centres in India.
But the protectionism move � a senator who sponsored the legislation
described Indian outsourcing companies as "chop shops", a reference
to garages that dismantle and sell stolen cars � may have little
impact.
About 70 per cent of US PhD students are foreign born and are
often hired in the US, making their way into Silicon Valley or government
agencies such as Nasa, said Partha Iyengar, of Gartner, the consultancy.
Yves here. I'd like some reader comment, but the idea of a PhD as
the proxy for talent in this space sounds questionable. The one highly
regarded systems architect I know who does have a PhD has it in physics,
not computer science.
Mr. Iynengar does comment on the real problem now that the horse
has left the barn and is in the next county:
"The bigger challenge for the US is, if they start to lose this
talent at the lower end, the innovation engine that has been driving
the economy starts to dry up," Mr Iyengar said.
I follow your blog with a lot of interest and I think you bring
an interesting point of view forward. But your last few posts and
links about Indians almost make it seem like you have a 'blind spot'
when it comes to India, particularly when it comes to those of us
who work in high tech.
Ill take the liberty of putting forward a very simple question.
I have about 18 years of formal education, two of them in the US,
where I received a Masters Degree in Computer Science.
What course of action on my part would make you happy?
If I work in India, you would complain about outsourcing..
If I come to the US, you would complain about H1B Visas..
Perhaps work in Germany or Japan?..
PS: These sort of posts invariably attract a vicious stream of
commentary. I hope you have the decency to maintain a clean comments
section.
Yves Smith:
I'm not keen about outsourcing. It generally is a false economy
from the corporate client's perspective. I've pointed that out from
the early days of this blog. And longer term, it's damaging for
the US.
This isn't about India, it's about IT outsourcing, although since
India is the biggest center for outsourced IT, the two are often
treated as synonymous. And that isn't helped by Indian outsourcers
conducting a vocal PR campaign against measures to restrict labor
mobility.
Countries are generally not keen about foreign nationals taking
jobs from the locals. I can't work in Australia for the same reasons
you are complaining about. If you make career plans that depend
on foreign demand, you are at risk of rule changes abroad that will
have an adverse impact on your employment prospects.
Patriot:
Yves,
Outsourcing is also bad for Indian nationals in the United States.
There are many people here on H1B visas who are treated very badly
by the so-called "body shops" that employ them. Many of these contractors
are employed by a hiring agency and then placed at another firm,
and are treated very shabbily by the hiring agency.
Workers on H1B
are treated poorly because the employers know that it is difficult
for the worker to find alternative employment. If fired, the H1B
holder has very little time to find a new job or face deportation.
It creates a climate of fear and exploitation in the workforce,
among the H1B holders.
purple:
It's a modern day bracero program, in actuality.
Poco Ritard:
At one of the *other* large famous software companies in Seattle,
HR used to walk around the desks in the room where I worked, handing
out paychecks and collecting paperwork for INS (yes, I witnessed
this on several occasions). Most of the members (something like
25 out of 30, I counted at one point) of my group were from S. India,
and I think they made on average half of what I did. They worked
7 days a week, shared tiny apartments, sent every dime they could
home and were terrified of losing their job, since getting fired
meant losing the H1B.
They were, as a group, no more or less skilled than anyone else
I've worked with. I formed the impression that they were friendlier
and more polite than most of the US citizens there.
Digital Braceros, sounds right to me.
Cedric Regula:
Go with your instincts, Ives. They screwed us. Who cares about
silicon valley, it's corporate IT that was the big employer.
The FT article also failed to point out all of our IT consulting
firms opened up shop in Bangalore. Something about staying competitive
with the Indian IT firms. Perot didn't even warn us about that one.
Also, our helpful government handed out half a million work visa
and didn't ramp that down to a quarter million visas until 2004,
which I believe was after the last recession that didn't end. So
you could import your very own Indian programmer too.
Also, anyone with a CS degree of any kind was a mainframer in
the '90s. The hot jobs were Unix and client server Wintel. That
opened the door for the rest of us technically inclined people.
Also, engineers are technical people too and I'm sure you heard
what happened to manufacturing?
So they say no one wants to be a technical person in the USofA?
I'm shocked. It's such easy work too.
skj:
@@ Yves
>> It generally is a false economy from the corporate client's perspective.
I've pointed that out from the early days of this blog. And longer
term, it's damaging for the US.
I am not sure what you mean by 'Its a false economy'. Do you
mean to say that you dont think that the corporate client saves
any money? What is false about this economic transaction?
>> This isn't about India, it's about IT outsourcing, although
since India is the biggest center for outsourced IT, the two are
often treated as synonymous. And that isn't helped by Indian outsourcers
conducting a vocal PR campaign against measures to restrict labor
mobility.
What does labor mobility mean when the same task could be performed
just as well in a different country? You start out by saying that
its not about India and by the time you complete the paragraph,
you put forward a couple of lame excuses to treat the two � India
and outsourcing � as the same. Also, you do understand that its
not just about 'Indian outsourcers'.. IBM in all probability employs
more people in India than in the US. All the companies that you
would identify as American � Intel, Google, Qualcomm, Microsoft,
IBM, Cisco, GE, netapp have fairly large Indian operations.
>> Countries are generally not keen about foreign nationals taking
jobs from the locals.
When you drive a Prius thats made in Japan, aren't you taking
away a car manufacturing job from an American worker? Why limit
the angst to IT?
>> I can't work in Australia for the same reasons you are complaining
about.
>> If you make career plans that depend on foreign demand, you
are at risk of rule changes abroad that will have an adverse impact
on your employment prospects.
I actually work for an American company that is dependent on
Asian markets to the tune of 50% of its business. So now I am really
confused as to which 'demand' I have hitched my career plan to.
Leaving my confusion aside, is your suggestion that I find a company
that does a majority of its business only in India?
kievite:
I can explain to you why this is a false economy based on my
experience with outsourcing, especially in the form of
offshoring which is now prevalent. The problem is not India, the
problem is distance, cultural differences, implicit "IT slave"
mentality and race to the bottom. Distributed development is
more tough. Cultural problems "on the other side of the phone
line" such as nepotism are significant. Distributed system
administration is more plausible area then software development,
but in both the level of loyalty is low and attrition rate is
usually significant. People don't like to be discriminated and
labor arbitrage is discrimination in velvet gloves so to speak.
1. When you outsource everything on a marginal cost basis,
you create an inherently unstable operating regime. And regime
change often imply growing dependence on outsourcer as knowledge
flows in only one direction: toward actual programmers who work
in the trenches. Problems usually arise in two or three years.
In case of IT outsourcing those additional costs inherent in
brain drain initially are not even acknowledged. They come
later, and they tend to arrive all at once and by surprise.
2. Loss of flexibility, divided loyalty, demoralization of
staff and the difficulties inherent is distributed development
and managing distributed workforce requires more complex and
more costly coordination that saps a lot of talent and energy of
both programmers and, especially, managers on both ends of the
phone line, so to speak. To be manager of the team split between
here and the other half of the globe is far from fun job.
3. As this is a classic labor arbitrage high attrition rate
and incompetence-related risks are very high. People who cost
$15 an hour in India are often entry level. And when you pay $25
per hour that does not mean that you get who you want. Indian
counter parties are keen on saving money too and can outsource
to save money (I know couple of funny stories with Indian
companies sending some work to Ukraine). The level of "incorrect
information" in resume of the staff of a typical outsourcing
company will makes a nice Onion story, but it can have dire
consequences for the project manager. The quantity of really
talented, highly skilled people in India like in any other
country is very limited. Not all graduates of US colleges are
better then average (especially graduates from private US
colleges, those McDonalds of high education. They often are
ridiculously bad. I personally encountered computer science
graduates with GPS close to 4.0 who cannot write a simple
sorting program in ANY language; and they were from "brick"
campuses not those sham Internet "take money and run" online
universities). So not all of them are worth more then $15 an
hour. As for really talented people few of them are patriotic
enough to stay in India longer than absolutely necessary (that
does not mean that they will not get into ruthless hands of
middlemen here in the USA, if they get H1B). In such an
environment abuse of resources for training, double dealing,
architectural missteps and additional leaks of intellectual
property are inevitable. Too often, a piece of code and the
institutional memory of what it does and how it does it walks
out the door when a developer leaves a company. It is important
to understand that with attrition rate 15% in the three year
offshoring project there might be no key developers at the end
who were present at the beginning of the project. Still the
truth is that even low level developer that is working on a
particular module of code often possesses a lot important
knowledge some of them can be classified as intellectual
property with legs, the property that the company may not even
know he/she possesses.
4. There is almost always middleman in IT outsourcing.
Typically those are real parasites that drain blood from both
side of the project. See other posts about details.
5. All those stories about $150K jobs are good stories but
that does not mean that they happen frequently in the current
economic circumstances. As a former manager I can tell you that
in current environment those jobs, typically held by baby
boomers, are ruthlessly pruned. My guesstimate that $50K-$60K
now is more typical for medium level and $70-$90K for high level
(talented, indispensable) IT staff. I saw quite a lot of
advertisements for entry level IT jobs for $15 per hour. So labor arbitrage is almost over as $60K is less then $30 an
hour.
Yves Smith:
skj,
1. Surveys of the major companies who outsources (for
instance, once conducted by Deloitte Touche of very large
corporate users, IIRC Fortune 100) find high rates of
disappointment with outsourcing, often 70%. As I have explained
repeatedly, the labor savings of low level workers distort the
picture. These are offset by increases in costs at the
managerial level, and those are much more expensive workers. And
those offsets are considerable.
2. The contracts are typically negotiated in a naive fashion.
They are so complex that the big corps rely on specialized
consultants to structure and negotaite them. However, these
consultants demonstrate their value by beating down the vendor
to get the rock bottom price.
So what happens? Often a. Customer is unhappy with service
and can't do much about it (the outsourcer isn't making much
money and has incentives to cut corners in every way not
prohibited by the contract and/or b. Something happens, the
customer needs a variance from the contract, the outsourcer hits
him for huge cost (not unlike change orders in construction
projects.
3. You forget I lived in Australia for two years and am very
familiar with theri visa regime, I have used visa highly
regarded visa consultants and lawyers. You are simply wrong re
my ability to get in under the skilled worker visa. My odds of
being approved as someone over 50 are zero. The only way I might
get in is with a corporate sponsor (which means if I leave their
employ, I have to leave pretty pronto) or spousal (and they
scrutinize spousal applications pretty heavily to see if the
marriage is bona fide).
Larry:
How about Green cards instead of H1Bs? Ask these executives,
trade organizations and lobbyists on why they're so keen on increasing
H1B numbers but not clearing out the Green Card backlog.
lark:
H1B is only about destroying the job base for technical professionals
in the USA.
Green card is another thing entirely.
Overall, more green cards for engineers would strengthen our innovation
and job market, the latter by no longer undermining entry level
jobs.
Nameless:
"And why are there so few students studying computer science?
Because there are no (well, more accurately, hardly any) entry level
jobs. I've been reading about this on Slashdot for YEARS, about
the utter dearth of anything resembling a career path in IT. "
I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Job & career prospects
for people with bachelors' degrees in computer science are better
than in essentially any other area of study. Students with degrees
in nursing will start with somewhat higher hourly rates (but with
poorer career prospects), and some people will get professional
degrees (MD, JD, MBA) which usually pay off quite well, but BSCS
is still the best bang for the buck and has been for the last 15+
years. I can't think of any other industry where people with a bachelor's
and 5 years of experience routinely make six digits.
If the industry had really been decimated and there hadn't been
"anything resembling a career path in IT", I'm sure that I'd be
able to afford a decent house with good neighborhood school within
a 30 minute drive from Silicon Valley on less than a $200k/year
household income.
Yves Smith:
What is your data source for this assertion? This is a very frequent
topic of discussion on Slashdot, and the commentors agree on the
very small number of entry level positions in IT (perhaps until
this year, but I have been seeing long threads related to this from
at least 2005 to 2009).
And these people do not have the income expectations you describe
either. The figures you suggest ($200K a year) are well above what
Apple pays for very senior engineers which suggests to me that your
have a limited data set.
Also, Silicon Valley consists of a LOT more than software coding.
Nameless:
Well, 200k/year needed for a family of an engineer to buy a house
in Palo Alto or Los Gatos is likely to be a double income. Ordinary
engineers in non-managerial positions may make 120k, occasionally
up to 150k. (Just check glassdoor.) The point is really that there
are lots and lots of those 120-150k jobs out there; evidently, more
than there are houses in the vicinity of Silicon Valley.
I'm not sure how to quantify the availability of entry-level
jobs in particular, but, as of this moment, there are 6,700 job
listings in Silicon Valley area on Dice, and there are ">1000 matching
jobs" (it won't tell me how many exactly) in that same area, in
IT on Monster.
Patriot:
When was the last time you applied for an entry level engineering
job?
Yves Smith:
Really? Senior engineers, and I mean the sort working on the
top projects, namely iPad apps, make maybe $140K. They get stock
options too, but you can't pay for your house or the rest of your
life out of deferred comp.
So tell me again what you know re the pay levels and number of
entry level IT jobs? Your factoids are wide of the mark.
"If you're going into industry and not Civil Engineering, I think
starting is generally around $75-85k� I know ChemE's, even with
just a Bachelors, can make around 70-80K straight out� "
?:
As I said, a BSCS gets you nowhere. Thanks for agreeing.
Yves Smith:
I see. The person says "I think" and is talking about Chem Es
and civil engineers.
The topic is IT and the whether there are decent numbers of entry
level jobs. You've still failed to disprove what I've read repeatedly
on Slashdot.
softwareveteran:
Hi Yves,
Ipad app writing is not a high end job, it is one of the low
hanging fruit, low end job.
Yves Smith:
softwarevet,
Sorry the guys in question are top people at Apple, they are
very deeply involved in all the new product development (as in state
secret stuff). And I do have their pay right. It may be that the
party who told me what they are doing re the iPad oversimplified
(I presume related to development of the apps but not apps writing).
Timo:
Ives,
Apple isn't necessarily that good a benchmark when it comes to IT
salaries (and neither is a rather large, very well known web software
company in Mountain View) � they've been highlighted as paying below
average in the Silicon Valley area several times. Admittedly I'm
not 100% sure if this is still the case in the Apple case.
That said, the $120k-$150k range sounds about right for what
I would be asking for (and usually getting) as a senior software
engineer with > 20 years experience.
michael:
Yves, please lets go back to the central statements Nameless
made: "people with a bachelor's and 5 years of experience routinely
make six digits."
I fully agree!
However, making it for 5 years in an IT job means not just you somehow
made your BSCS, but you are able to work your way through all kinds
of tangled messes, without drowning in the complexity.
About entry level jobs: I have only moved to the broader Silicon
Valley area in end of 2007, and was surprised how long it took me
to find a job as senior engineer in data management -actually 6
months- but since then I make 150k.
(But people buying a *decent* house in the Bay Ara on 200k income
are still somewhat insane, in my opinion, as they violate the 'you
can afford a house for 3 times annual income max' rule.)
Oh, and stock options comp is more something in start-ups, kind
of "we cannot pay you more, but if everything works out perfectly,
you might be able retire at 40″ lottery.
Poco Ritard:
I'm with you, Yves.
My kid's 15 and I'm strenuously discouraging him from following
me into Software Engineering. That train left the station a lot
of years ago.
$140K? I wish. I'm a 30 year vet and not near that. OK, I'm in
Seattle and not CA but I ain't rich by local standards. For example,
the median home price in King County is almost 4x my annual salary.
Granted, I work in a non-profit but it *nix flavored medical research
in Seattle and I am highly skilled (no boast). And most of my colleagues
think I'm well paid.
My recommendation to him is to put together a network admin/support
resume to use finding summer/part time jobs while getting a degree
in something else.
American management that can work with Chindian's make great
wages.
American coders are getting slaughtered on wages. The six figure
coders on the East coast back in 2000 will take half of that nowadays
but the trick there working with them is the problem of moonlighting.
Managing American software talent requires a ton of day to day tedious
task oversight.
The Slashdot folks don't like me much but a few of their people
stepped way out of line suing legit companies using Can-Spam Act
of 2004, legislation I directly helped craft.
The big problem with nursing is, similarly, you can't get hired
without experience. And there are waiting lists at most nursing
schools because schools 'can't find' teachers given that being a
nurse pays better than being a prof. And because the US education
system is a joke.
A plus about nursing is that it has the most dynamic union movement
in the United States, with a leadership that is almost entirely
female � and welcome change.
poopyjim:
I have a CS degree and I work in patent law and I hate it, so
I tried for months to get an IT job.
The job market was atrocious (this is in the D.C. metro area).
I ended up getting one offer, for $50k a year (doesn't get you far
in D.C.), which would be a $25k pay cut for me. Also, the job involved
no programming, no creativity, or anything intelligent whatsoever.
The employer just wanted someone to update their website (with a
CMS � no coding).
I also interviewed for a PHP/web developer job, the employer
wanted 3+ years of experience and only wanted to pay around $25/hour
with no benefits � absurd for D.C. And, I wasn't "good enough" to
get this job despite having a good amount of PHP programming experience
(unpaid) � they said they really wanted an "expert". All the other
jobs I possibly could have gotten were temporary (e.g. 2-month)
projects which of course paid by the hour with no benefits.
So yes, my experience with the IT field is that it is a desolate
wasteland, though I'll agree that there still exists a way into
the field, and possibly a path to work your way up if you are determined.
mp:
No one cares any more. I just can't get worked up about it.
Empires eventually die. This one won't be an exception.
Yes, but this one won't die with a whisper. The American ruling
class will take down the whole world with them.
Tao Jonesing:
Yves,
In the last few months, I've met with two PhDs (one in Chemical
Engineering out of MIT and another in Physics out of the University
of California system) both asking for advice on how to break into
the intellectual property field, which is my area of expertise.
Both are American citizens, but neither sees a future in the
tech industry, so both are trying to figure out how to position
themselves as either an expert to help out in financial transactions
(e.g., M&A) or as a lawyer.
I found the discussions to be rather sad.
In the meantime, I have been working with some well-established
and brilliant PhDs in the chip design space. The board of their
company includes Bill Joy.
In terms of what is passing as the proxy for talent these days
in the Silicon Valley (where I am located), I think the PhD is the
true currency. The people that I know who get away with less than
a PhD are those who have accumulated meaningful experience in the
industry (myself included).
In spite of what I've said, I believe your intuition is correct.
The popular narrative that is being pushed does not have to be the
truth. Unfortunately, the policies that are in place seem designed
to prove the popular narrative true.
Patriot:
I have seen similar trends, where mid-senior technical people
who are very qualified are also trying to get out of tech, or at
the very least, start their own business. They see the writing on
the wall and fear outsourcing. These are people who are in their
late 20s, early 30s with ten years of experience. Some of them have
advanced degrees, others are the proverbial Silicon Valley prodigies
who started writing code at the age of 16.
Patriot:
Should have been "started writing code for pay at 16."
Nameless:
People have been fearing outsourcing continuously for as long
as I can remember (at least since 2000). In the mean time, programmer
salaries in India have been growing at the rate of 10-15%/year,
and potential profits for prospective outsourcers have been shrinking
accordingly.
Patriot:
Rising salaries in India have nothing to do with the fact that
people have been fearing outsourcing "forever," which you defined
all the way back to 2000. Thank you for making my point, though,
that people have been fearing outsourcing for quite a while. It
IS a problem. That's why people fear it.
Actually it's been an ongoing problem. You may not remember this,
but the United States used to manufacture hard drives in quantity
domestically. Yes, I know that some firms still run prototype lines
here, but that's not the same as series production. Certain industry
"leaders" chose to outsource critical parts to Japan. Patents aren't
the issue. Technical know-how is, and is not contained in the patent
app. American industrial policy made this possible, and gutted manufacturing
of small precision electric motors in the US. Now that US firms
have started making hard drives in Shenzhen, I expect that within
10 years there will be PRC based hard drive companies doing design.
US based Engineers in non-software jobs have become project managers�
industry will lay off the entire domestic team and leave one engineer
to manage the overseas operation.
Chester Genghis:
Re: PRC based design. You are exactly right.
Manufacturing (be it widgets, cars, hardware, or software) is
the foundation of a healthy economy. Anyone who thinks you can outsource
manufacturing without eventually putting at risk the related functions
of engineering, service, marketing, finance, etc. is willfully short-sighted
or a dupe.
That's what is so pathetic about our (lack of) industrial policy.
alex:
'Certain industry "leaders" chose to outsource critical parts
to Japan. Patents aren't the issue. Technical know-how is, and is
not contained in the patent app.'
Hear, hear! If only more people understood that know-how is more
important than all the so-called intellectual property in the world,
and that know-how can only be obtained by actually doing it.
As for shifting production to Japan, that's particularly depressing.
Japan is not a cheap labor country, so even that excuse doesn't
work.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef:
Isn't 'progress' when they someday come out with a robot that
can write programs?
Then, we don't have to worry about outsourcing.
I can already see people praying against 'progress.'
What if one day, some genius comes up with a contraption that
will manufacture/provide all our GDP by itself cheaper than any
person or corporation can do? He will then own the whole world.
But there is one tiny problem � with everyone else not working,
the genius has no customers�unless the overwhelming majority votes
to take from the genius to support themselves.
That would make a good science fiction.
Also, the next time you read in some economics textbook about
automation doesn't reduce employment, try the above exercise in
reducio ad absurdum.
bob:
The 70% number is probably true, but it speaks much more to the
failed immigration policy of the US. Most of those students want
to stay in the US, and a lot of them come from very wealthy foreign
families who can afford to have a student in school for that long.
I worked with lots within a state university graduate program.
He drove a Porsche. He got pulled over 3 times in one week for driving
well in excess of the speed limit. I suggested that he should tone
down the car (asking him to slow down seemed crazy), not too many
here in blue collar land drive cars that are that expensive. His
response, "It's the cheapest one they make."
jbmoore:
PhD level computer scientists can pretty much go where they please.
They'll be snapped up by top tier companies such as Google. IT consultants
and other IT professionals have to compete for jobs where the educational
requirement can range from a high school diploma to an Associates
or Bachelors degree. An additional problem is that one not only
has to be a systems administrator, but a database administrator
and possibly another specialty as well these days just to get a
foot in the door. I have a doctorate in Biology. I went into IT
to make a living because the job market in academia had been ruined
by a glut of PhDs and because my first postdoc went south. I earned
more as a customer service representative fixing computers over
the phone my first year than I ever did as a postdoc. The dot.com
bust hurt a lot of IT professionals, and with virtualization one
administrator may be taking care of hundreds or thousands of virtual
systems running on 25-100 actual servers making the workloads even
nastier than 10 years ago. Add in the learning curve of keeping
current in a rapidly changing field while competing with cheap Indian
and Chinese labor (H1B and outsource) and it feels like graduate
school again. An additional complication is that Indians are now
running the headhunter shops. Citibank uses Wipro, so one must go
through Wipro to be hired by Citibank. Throw in language communication
problems and the time difference and it makes phone screens and
interviews more difficult.
Chester Genghis:
Re: Indians running headhunter shops. Be thankful fluency in
Hindi isn't typically a job requirement (not yet anyway).
You are joking right? The country speaks English as in everybody.
I don't see Hindi making a comeback, EVER.
michael:
> An additional complication is that Indians are now running
the headhunter shops.
That was my impression also in the greater Silicon Valley or
SF Bay area.
Nameless:
"I'd like some reader comment, but the idea of a PhD as the proxy
for talent in this space sounds questionable. "
There are two aspects here. One is that value of the PhD in natural
sciences has been so badly degraded over the last quarter of a century,
for a number of reasons (too long to discuss here, but I can provide
links if anyone's interested), that most people who do get into
those programs, do that with an eye for a green card.
At the same time, the percentage of Americans who get into UNDERgraduate
programs in CS and natural sciences is abhorrently low (as of last
year, 1st-year undergrads in CS, physics, math, and statistics,
taken together, accounted for a little more than 4% of total university
freshmen), and that has more to do with the cultural stigma of being
a scientist/programmer than with imaginary scarcity of job prospects.
Jon H:
" and that has more to do with the cultural stigma of being a
scientist/programmer than with imaginary scarcity of job prospects."
I don't believe that to be the case. Enrollment has dropped,
largely due to the perceived lack of a future due to outsourcing.
alex:
"that has more to do with the cultural stigma of being a scientist/programmer
than with imaginary scarcity of job prospects"
That "cultural stigma" must be a pretty recent development, because
back in the 90's undergrad CS programs were full up.
Apparently this "cultural stigma" has, by an astounding coincidence,
coincided with the tech bust and the increase in outsourcing. Or
maybe it's not such a coincidence � maybe anyone foolish enough
to go into CS in the last decade deserves to be stigmatized.
giulio:
"And why are there so few students studying (computer) science?"
Given the bad public high school system, the number of US high
school leavers with a comparative advantage (be it ability or preference
based or both) in sciences in general has fallen. The same is true
for the UK.
alex:
Wow, the US and UK school systems must have gone downhill in
a hurry, because 10 years ago CS programs were full.
Where is William of Occam when you need him? Why such torturous
alternate explanations for the simple fact that students are loath
to major in fields with poor job prospects?
mudfarmer:
Outside Silicon Valley and NYC's Financial District, most routine
I/T jobs just don't pay enough to compensate for the the minimum
education they require. The combination BS/MS that most require
for even mundane jobs will set you back 5-6 years and leave you
with $50-$75k in student loans (if you're lucky).
I don't know about
India, but do know that my peers in other countries frequently graduated
with comparable degrees with minimal if any debt. It's difficult
to compete for the same jobs with the same skills when you have
a $75k debt dragging you down.
Ten years out of college I was at the "top" of my career ladder
at IBM and barely keeping my head above water financially.
And to those of you who will retort: well then, don't borrow
so much money. How, precisely, would you get a BS/MS in the US then
and remain competitive with the worldwide workforce? Your companies
keep increasing the minimal requirements to get in the door while
cutting salaries to be "competitive" on a worldwide basis. The market
has responded - it costs too much to get the skills you require,
so students look for other opportunities. Why are you at all surprised?
As far as outsourcing goes: firing a thousand people in the US
to replace them with staff offshore is one thing. Firing them and
then importing a thousand people via H1Bs to replace them is what
the Schumer legislation targets.
Patriot:
One of the major issues here is educational
arbitrage. The Indian government heavily supports education such
that middle class people can get a very affordable education.
Then they can come to the US and accept jobs at lower salaries than
their American counterparts. The Indian H1B contractors aren't making
payments on student loans.
Yves Smith:
Mathematics and physics, no question. Plus if you seek a graduate
degree, you can do that without going into debt at all.
It's interesting to read this, because it's very different from
my personal experience. I went to Harvey Mudd, graduated in 2007
with a degree in CS, and as far as I know, just about everyone from
the CS department ended up with a job (or in grad school). Also,
most of my close friends are either math or physics majors, and
I started out with a better salary than any of them (and, having
since moved on to Google, am now making significantly more).
But CS seems like one of those subjects where getting a degree
from a top school might well be worth quite a bit more than anywhere
else, in terms of how willing people are to look at you. When I
got recruited at Google, it was because the recruiter saw Harvey
Mudd on my LinkedIn profile.
alex:
It's good that you're doing well, but frankly you've only been
in the workforce for 3 years. Give us a post in 20 years and let
us know about the rampant age discrimination. There's no reason
what you do shouldn't be a long term career (historically it was),
but I wouldn't count on it these days. I honestly hope you're an
exception, but it's not the way to bet these days.
Lucio:
Because your system is f****d up. Not only EVERY activity that
can be privately run has been brought private, but eventually must
generate HUGE profits for the supplier. Corporations (and institutions
like colleges) in US have a leverage that we Europeans do not even
think to allow them. Wherever you go (UK excluded) to obtain a college
degree here, you won't incurr in such costs. You will have to pay
top money only for Masters programs like MBAs, but there the reward
is really high.
Chester Genghis:
Minimum requirements keep increasing, salaries are decreasing,
AND the market & nature of work itself has changed drastically in
the last 10 years. Job duties are narrower, more focused on a single
set of skills (i.e. commoditized).
The market (at least for application software) changed as well.
The perceived value of packaged solutions has gone down (along with
the price point), the perceived value of point/custom solutions
has gone up, etc. These developments are all related.
leroguetradeur:
"And why are there so few students studying (computer) science?"
The answer for the UK, from my recent visits, where it has become
a topic of political discussion, is generally said to be that computer
science is no longer taught. I am told it is impossible to study
computer science at high school level or beyond. And very difficult
in further education outside the best universities.
Instead, the schools and almost all further education institutions
are full of 'computer literacy' and ECDL courses. These are basically
courses taught by computing illiterates in how to use Google, Office,
Facebook, Photoshop and Twitter. And Windows Explorer of course,
for truly advanced students.
The result is that any able, interested and computer literate
students interested in programming or systems management drop out
or don't go near the courses. Because the people who plan and run
this stuff are themselves computer illiterates, they don't think
that the problem is that there are no computer science courses any
more. They think the problem is that people are not taking the courses
on offer. They actually don't know there is such a thing as programming
or systems management.
This is par for the course in much of UK public education, where
the few bright and informed students who are left in it sit there,
bored out of their minds, while being taught superficial travesties
of the most basic aspects of a subject by people who themselves
do not understand it and do not want to.
This is a constant theme in the press, and I believe it's lobbying.
Older workers get left in the dust by the younger CS workers b/c
in addition to higher salaries, older workers also cost more in
benefits.
PhDs! Wadwa describes a company that successful used HS students,
who quickly became as productive as college grads.
againsomeone:
I'm a former H1B employee now happily employed outside of US
(~150k annual as systems architect) and while I don't think outsourcing
or restricting labor mobility on all levels is correct course of
action, I absolutely agree that US must protect entry level jobs.
Because if there are no entry level jobs available for US fresh
graduates there won't be any mid level folks few years down the
road and we all will be worse off.
I think global labor mobility mobility for top 10-15% shouldn't
be a big deal. At senior level there shouldn't be much harm from
competition (given anecdotal data of my friends and colleagues around
the globe it does look like earnings somewhat converge at the top).
I think H1B visas should be reformed in a way with only small subset
of visas allowed for entry level jobs with bulk of visas having
high wage requirements floor around 90 percentile. Prevailing wage
crap should be replaced by BLS wage data with some hard defined
floor. I like SS wage cap that is subject to SS tax for instance,
it gets indexed every year, so if company wants to bring some unique
talent over it better pay above max wage that is subject to SS tax.
froggy:
Good point about protecting entry level jobs. Right on the money.
My observation has been there aren't many jobs that appear enrty
level and every employer wants somebody to hit the ground running.
Dave:
As long as our laws permit companies to import overseas workers
and pay them below market wages there will always be a shortage
of homegrown of tech workers. It's simple supply and demand: pay
people more for tech work and you will have more tech workers.
It's too expensive to get a good 'official' education in the
US. Going to a good public school K-12 requires buying a house in
an over priced neighborhood. College requires loans, Masters and
Phd to some extent as well, or at least there will be accumulated
debt due to pathetic stipends. The debt from undergrad also discourages
people from continuing on.
It's much better to marry a foreigner from a 'developing' country
and send your kids to the Free high quality public universities
in those 'developing' countries. Mexico has a few, even.
Debra:
I liked the article, and appreciated the discussion, interesting. There is something that runs ALL THE WAY THROUGH article, and discussion,
though : it's that the ONLY MOTIVATION for people in getting a job
and a degree is the AMOUNT OF PAY they will receive for it.
This is a simplistic assumption that will not help us address
the problems involved here.
One problem : diplomitis,(the assumption that a piece of paper EQUALS
competence, and is the only way of acquiring it) and the increasing
divorce between our educational system at all levels, and the world
of work.
But we have become rather toxicomaniac in our approach to EVERYTHING,
and not just drugs� moving from one bubble to the next IN THE HOPES
OF GETTING RICH AND MAKING LOTS OF MONEY (for many) does not induce
people to DIVERSIFY their activities, or take the risk of moving
into areas that are not well known (law, medecine).
We need professional and economic diversity at this point. Not
a succession of bubbles, as people seek to MAKE MONEY at all costs.
Yves Smith:
No, Debra, you are going for black and white thinking.
Being concerned about supporting oneself and making plans is
NOT about making money at all costs. It's called being responsible.
I went to college when it was affordable, and on top of that,
my folks paid for it And I majored in an elite liberal arts major
(as in they refused 2/3 of the applicants to that major).
Despite having done very well academically and taken some decent
math and econ courses, no one would hire me because I had not majored
in economics (and I had decent extra curriculars, the required leadership
BS). Yet I got into every graduate school (law and business) I applied
to.
That was over 30 years ago, when the world was less mercenary
than now.
The pressure to major in something career related comes from
employes. Students are merely responding to reality.
GregL:
As a parent of 3, I urged my kids to get an undergraduate in
whatever caught their fancy. I wanted them to get their bachelors
degrees and the best way to do that (and get good grades) is to
major in something that consumes you. I was pushing the virtuous
circle of enjoyment -> success -> enjoyment. I was paying the full
tab and they didn't have to work at all.
All three felt that they needed to get jobs and work in school,
take majors that would lead to jobs and sell themselves on the next
step of their 'careers' (work or grad school). I tried to dissuade
them from thinking like that but to no avail.
Skippy�imprinting like a young person having sex for the first
time..eh.
Micah:
I'd agree that a PhD is a poor proxy for talent in CS. As a recent
graduate in that subject, basically the only people from my class
who went on to CS graduate programs were either interested in theory
of some kind or wanted to teach (though some then get lured back
out by the salaries, if they're good). If you can get it, a job
tends to give you much more practical programming experience than
a further advanced degree. But I do know a number of people with
PhDs in other subjects who have since drifted into programming,
which is probably the kind of person you're talking about.
jp:
Yves,
American born, IT pro of 25 years, consultant building enterprise
applications for investment banks.
What the author means to say is that they can't find the talent
they need at the wages they want to pay. If they were paying 2001
money, they would be inundated with high quality, American born,
applicants from the top tier U.S. technical schools. But because
the H1b program has driven wages down, everyone who graduates from
MIT these days wants to go to Wall St. or management consulting.
You are absolutely right� a PhD is a proxy for nothing in IT.
Nobody in IT has an PhD, and none of the groups I've worked for
would ever hire a PhD. Not because they are overqualified, but because
they are wrongly qualified for day-to-day software engineering.
The Indian born Stanford PhD in computer science is the bugaboo
that the H1B lobbyist always pull out. They point out that without
these immigrants, Cisco and Qualcomm would be in deep trouble. And
that's probably true. What they ignore, of course, is that this
deep sciency kind of engineering has nothing at all to do with IT.
The vast majority of IT jobs are software development jobs that
are done by bachelors or masters, and require no specialized education.
Many of these jobs are carried out perfectly well by people who
don't even have engineering degrees.
I can promise you that most corporate IT jobs, whether executed
here or in India or China, could be competently carried out by any
bachelor, in a quantitative or near quantitative field, from a decent
U.S. university.
And you are correct, there are now
no entry level jobs for college grads. This state
of affairs has arisen through a combination of government corruption
(lobbying on the part of Indian body shops and large U.S. employers)
and shortsighted decision making on the part of our youth. In the
last 15-20 years, most engineering grads aspired to: wall St., management
consulting, or law school. Hands on engineering was rightly considered
a hard and dirty way to make a living. So 5 years ago, the only people you could find to take $90K jobs
in the Jersey City back office of an investment bank were h1b.
And hiring managers are biased favorably towards h1bs for a couple
of reasons (I know this very well first hand, having hired lots
of h1bs myself).
First, h1bs are (or were) here as indentured servants. That
means they constantly go above and beyond the call of duty,
or they are on the next boat back to India.
This provides great
flexibility for really poor IT management (which is most of
it). As a project manager, you can totally screw up all aspects
of forward planning, design and architecture, and still deliver
something that (at least superficially) resembles what was supposed
to be delivered. You simply make your indentured servants scramble
really hard and work around the clock.
The other favorable hiring bias for h1bs that I've seen
is that many of the "recruiters" (h1b placement middlemen) are
themselves Indian or Chinese and have good personal relationships
with the hiring managers. These recruiters are much more inclined
to place h1bs than non-h1bs because their profit margins are
typically higher when placing h1bs. The profit margins for these
guys are (or at least were until recently) huge. A "recruiter"
will take 20-30% of a "consultants" salary continuously. They
are able to take a bigger cut from h1bs (especially freshers)
because the h1bs don't understand how the system works (at least
at first).
Now, of course, I'm sure there are plenty of U.S. college grads
who would like to have that $90K/yr back office IT job in Jersey
City. But there are plenty of experienced IT people (mostly through
the h1b program) who are sitting tight on them.
Dont' you think it's kind of funny that Obama is willing to spend
$800B on a stimulus that created (reportedly) a couple hundred thousand
jobs? How many h1bs (of all statuses) + L1 + other "guest" visas
workers are in the U.S. now? I'm not certain, but I've heard that
the number is north of 1 million. Isn't that a 1 million person
unemployment reduction that can be achieved without spending any
public money? It simply requires the stroke of a pen.
Captain Teeb:
JP,
Thanks for a interesting comment. These are not so common.
You sound a lot like me: 25 years in IT, really US-born (no ancestors
arriving after 1800), MSCS. I can tell that you've been there, was
even enlightened by your remarks on how H1Bs enable bad project
management (which is the rule, not the exception). It all makes
sense.
I say it's all of a piece with sending factories to China. Every
company wants to lower its costs at the margin, but if manufacturing
and skilled jobs are relentlessly squeezed, then what does the working
population do? This is a high-level policy decision, let's not kid
ourselves.
Thought experiment: I imagine that Citibank or Lehman could have
found much cheaper Indian or Chinese versions of Dimon and Fuld,
but my guess is that they didn't even look at foreigners. Why? Are
those guys smarter than everyone in India? (I doubt it.) So the
deciding class decides not to replace itself with cheaper foreign
hires, big surprise.
But this sets the patttern for the US: the hollowing out of the
middle class that Yves has talked about before (as polarization
of wealth, high GINI, etc.). How far can the trend go before something
gives?
I saw this coming in the 1990s and emigrated to Europe. I've
worked in four countries now and can say that, in IT, Indians are
rare (and transitory), while Chinese are non-existent. Salaries
are not what the US was during the Y2K (remember that?) run-up,
but everyone's working. Very few of my colleagues even have CS degrees
(1 out of maybe 20); the rest just got a book and a PC and taught
themselves (though I don't recommend this; I'm glad to have the
theory). So the job market must be pretty good.
There's a greater sense in Europe
that you don't squeeze people simply because you can.
Also, I'm 56, and have colleagues who are even older, so the US-style
Cult of Youth is less important. (Sadly, average project management
is no better here, and possibly worse.)
My favorite English-language job board is jobserve.com. If you're
interested, go there and put in your favorite skills, plus a country.
Some (typically lowballers) have the salary or daily rate posted
as well.
Cooter:
I have thought of doing exactly what you describe, although I
am not quite yet in the position to pick up and move. Any other
links or resources on visas/processes/blogs/etc on the subject would
be greatly appreciated. If not, thanks for the information provided.
Regards,
Cooter
00rush:
I agree with some of JP's points above. Yes, most technical jobs
can be done by anybody with a bachelor's degree in a quantitative
or numerical field. Most programmers now seem to use Google as an
auxiliary coding tool anyway.
However, there is still a measurable difference in the quality
of students coming out with a Comp Sci degree from a good US or
UK university compared to those coming out with a degree from a
middling Indian University. InfoSys, TCS and Wipro can hire thousands
of graduates straight from college in India, train them up in whatever
the 'in demand' skill or tool set is and get them doing grunt work
on out sourced projects. I worked very closely with contractors
based in India when I worked for a large US investment bank in London.
I found their skill and motivation levels were poor, and anybody
who showed aptitude / good communication skills was swiftly promoted
and moved on-site. Quality suffers as a result.
There are jobs out here (well in the UK) for people with good
degrees, and those who show an aptitude for the field.
sth:
jp is right on the money. That said, here is my "formula" for
working in IT if you are a US native and are seeing the continuing
rise of laughably low-cost competition and want to know how to survive:
1) Get a BS at a community college, cheap distance learning program,
or simply skip the degree altogether.
2) Do not take on anything resembling large, ongoing expenses.
This means you have to live in a city with good public transportation,
be willing to live in a studio or tiny room, not own a car, never
buy a house, don't acquire any expensive habits (no gambling, drinking,
drugs, smoking, etc.) and do NOT have any children or other dependents.
Fortunately for me, I am very happy with those things; not everyone
loves being a car-less, childfree, non drinking/smoking/drug taking/gambling,
life-long urbanite living in a sardine can. If you have the option
to telecommute or walk to work, do that as well.
3) Save plenty of money to deal with the lean/dry times. Following
#2 you should not have a huge problem doing so.
4) Be willing to work for tiny companies, startups, sole proprietors,
etc. If you can get past the hilariously stupid roadblocks put up
by HR departments in many large companies, you could take a job
in one of those, but do not count on it. America lost "lifetime
employment" years ago; IT often doesn't even have "5 year employment."
There have been times where I did work for 4-5 different clients
a week. Your sleep may suffer sometimes, but there's not a lot you
can do about that one except try to make it up when things are quieter.
5) Be willing to work 80 hour weeks, be the go-to person for
just about everything, be on call 24/7, and never take extended
vacations. Start adapting your mind to stay-cations/3 day weekends
to avoid burnout; forget about that 2 week trip to Europe forever.
6) Study and learn new things constantly. Even long after you
start your career, you should still be reading up on the latest
technologies posted on Slashdot, reading Q&A on stackoverflow, reading
the ACM/Usenix/whatever email lists, reading 20 technology/development/admin
blogs, and picking up any worthwhile O'reilly books. In today's
IT, your education /never ends/. The idea many people have
in other industries that you just "get a degree" and work without
learning new things constantly is a pipe dream. You cannot do that
in IT.
The above is not a joke. I'm a native New Yorker, and have lived
here all my life. I've been in IT for 15 years and lived in Manhattan
for nearly all of it (before that I lived in Brooklyn, my hometown).
This kind of life is definitely not for everybody, but if you want
to survive (and you aren't the next Steve Jobs or Bill Joy) the
above may help you.
I'm sure some will find the above sad (and perhaps it is in some
ways), but this is the reality of IT in today's America.
Whoops, left one out: be wiling to work for under 100k (sometimes
half that), for well, maybe life. Again, #2 should help you there.
Dan:
JP's thoughts on this matter resonate strongly with my own.
I have been a programmer in the New
York area for 30 years where I have witnessed the slow death of
a profession which was once attracted some of the best talent from
the best schools in America. And outsourcing, and
in-sourcing of H1b's and L1's is largely responsible.
If you walk
the IT floors at Bank of New York, Citibank, Bank of America, et.
al. you will not see a non Indian programmer. As JP mentioned, the
approved head hunting vendors are Indian companies. At these banks,
you must contract through these Indian firms, and it would appear
that they will only hire H1B/L1 candidates.
If the quality of their
work were superior I would certainly have no comment, since I think
a company should hire the best talent available. Unfortunately,
this is not the case. In most instances, they are really sloppy
and untrained, but as was said before, they will work hard for fear
of being replaced for lack of effort. Results be damned.
As far
as PHD's are concerned, they represent such a small minority at
the banks of which I speak, that they are hardly worth mentioning,
except of course by politicians who invoke them to defend this program.
"We pay highest skilled labor wages in the world�If we would
open up our borders to skilled labor, far more than we do, ah we
would attract very substantial quantity of skilled labor which would
SUPPRESS THE WAGE LEVELS of the skilled�"
Notice that Alan Greenspan does NOT mention anything about "best
and brightest" or "shortages" in the video clip above. Also notice
his hand gestures as he exclaims; "SUPPRESS THE WAGES"!
LastChanceUSA:
Outsourcing and off-shoring are about wage arbitrage, corporate
profits, and nothing more. Unfortunately, career planning is very
difficult for individuals, when they don't know what occupation
will be axed next.
I'm American born with have two MS degrees, one of which is in
CS, and used to own a successful IT consulting firm. I had no problem
competing with numerous foreign and US IT consultants on quality,
quantity, and honesty. However, I was unwilling to compete solely
on price ($11- $15 per hour in many cases). After three years of
dealing with � "We can get IT people for about $15/hr. You need
to rethink your hourly rates." � I closed my business in 2003. I
even got this line from a previous multi-billion dollar client after
I single-handedly resurrected one of their projects from the grave,
enabled them to meet their original deadline, and prevented millions
in lawsuits for breach of contract. Another previous multi-billion
dollar client let me go in 2000, after I told them that their muti-million
dollar IT transformation project would fail, if they stayed on their
current path. A couple of years later and millions spent on the
transformation project, they lost over one billion dollars in revenue,
because their new software simply didn't work. They then called
me back in to fix the project, as I was the only one who correctly
predicated that the project would fail and why. I got the same line
from this client, too.
I didn't spend many years in college, thousands in tuition, and
countless hours of self-studying after college to work for $15/hr
or less with no possibility of a future. If I can make or save companies
millions, I'm worth a lot more than $15/hr.
Most USA managers believe that one FTE (i.e. full-time equivalent)
equals any other FTE. Unfortunately for those in the work force,
it is much easier to offshore and outsource workers than it is for
workers to retrain.
My advice to people today is to pick an occupation that you enjoy,
are good at, and REQUIRES YOUR PHYSICAL PRESENCE. If you don't,
then you will eventually be faced with loss of livelihood or greatly
reduced wages due to outsourcing and off-shoring.
alex:
"REQUIRES YOUR PHYSICAL PRESENCE"
With the H-1B and L-1 visa programs even that's no guarantee.
constantnormal:
Not all of the hard times in IT employment can be blamed on outsourcing.
The (entirely necessary) balls-to-the-wall push for Y2K remediation
pulled a lot of employment demand forward, leaving a gaping vacuum
following 2000, which accounts for a lot of the employment problems
in the IT realm in the first decade of the new millennium.
And given the digging-in-the-dirt nature of much of the Y2K code
remediation - that which did not involve complete rewrites or system
upgrades, but mucking about in decades-old systems full of cruft
and spaghetti-code - that sort of work was typically not considered
suitable to be outsourced.
I'm not defending outsourcing, which I regard as a blight upon
civilization, destroying the employee-employer relationship and
reducing the career aspirations of domestic workers to piles of
rubble and lifelong enslavement, but there are other factors that
help to explain the employment situation in the realm of IT.
michael:
Not sure why you mention this nowadays, 10 years later � the
pull forward from Y2k impacted about the following 18 months.
alex:
"Y2K code remediation - that which did not involve complete rewrites
or system upgrades, but mucking about in decades-old systems full
of cruft and spaghetti-code - that sort of work was typically not
considered suitable to be outsourced."
On the contrary � an enormous amount of the Y2K work was outsourced.
So much so that some consider Y2K the take off point for outsourcing.
Jon H:
IMHO, CS PhD aren't going to touch business IT with a ten foot
pole. They have far better opportunities.
wunsacon:
The H1B program is a tax on studious Americans.
Let's see what happens if we bring in H1-B's to replace realtors,
traders, salespeople, baristas, Congress critters, CEO's, etc. (Even
for barista positions, a company can always say it "can't find qualified
people for the salary it can pay".) Then, we'll see how much the
rest of Americans like this program.
As it stands now, this program exists precisely because it hurts
some people but not enough to piss *everyone* off.
wp:
Yves,
In 1990-91, when Manmohan Singh was the finance minister, India
was in deep trouble on the forex front. US demanded opening up of
the indian economy to US multinationals as a quid pro quo to ease
their forex shortfalls. IT offshore industry in India is the single
most beneficiary of Manmohan Singh's decision to open up indian
economy to US multinationals.
US multinationals have expanded their reach to indian consumers
at the cost of US programmers. It is a two way street.
wp
MKV:
About 70 per cent of US PhD students are foreign born and
are often hired in the US, making their way into Silicon Valley
or government agencies such as Nasa, said Partha Iyengar, of Gartner,
the consultancy.
Something that I've found as someone recruiting for comp sci
(not IT, mind you) in the elite schools here in the Northeast is
that there is a massive injection of foreign students into post-graduates
programs because their parents are willing to pay full tuition to
put them into these schools, as opposed to many US students who
are looking for scholarships in order to be able to attend these
schools. These schools need to prop up their budgets so it's very
good business for them to market and recruit these kids. But it
doesn't correlate with good engineers.
babak:
This
article is ridicules! What they probably are not stating is that
what they are willing to hire people for is not competitive to the
markets comparebles. Also it may be that people do not want to live
in the small towns in America when they can work in the main cities.
With U-6 being at 17 I cannot accept that non one is qualified for
working for them.
Also if they are not qualified maybe they should be training
them. Also it could be an excuse for people to bring more people
from India and give them Green Cards and hire them at a cheaper
price.
Please also note that in the past 10 years we had a major wage
deflation in IT for American employees. People who made 80k-120k
are making 20k-40k less, because of outsourcing. We are slowly eliminating
any good paying jobs in the US. We are going to be stuck with Dr.
and Lawyers and nothing else� wake up america!
Ron:
Two points
1. US has ALWAYS benefitted from attracting the best minds. The
US economy was NEVER built by local talent, but always by new immigrants.
2. US is not doing this as well as it did in the past. Think
of the country as a company. Wouldnt you want to retain the top
talent, rather than those that are "close to the decision makers"
(usually from behind).
3. Some ideas
- Give stipends to top talent from other countries to study here
for advanced degrees
- Give immediate working permits to foreign students graduating
at the top of their class in US universities
- give immediate working permits to entrepreneurs in other countries
that want to come here. Its a misconception that they take American
jobs. Net-net, they create more jobs than they take
Chester Genghis:
Huh????
We're at almost 10% unemployment (only the official rate, mind
you), with many more underemployed and you think the real problem
is brain drain???
alex:
"US has ALWAYS benefitted from attracting the best minds."
Is it your contention that H-1B's and L-1's are generally the
"best minds"? What's are your criteria and data for arriving at
that surprising conclusion.
"The US economy was NEVER built by local talent, but always by
new immigrants."
First, H-1B's and L-1's are guest workers, not immigrants. Don't
mix apples and oranges.
Second, I gotta love positive stereotypes, which are just the
flip side of negative stereotypes. Is it your contention that Americans
have always been inadequate to the task? In additions to the millions
of very capable rank-and-file Americans, do names like Edison, Ford,
Westinghouse, Wright, Curtiss, Armstrong, Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain,
Noyce and Gould mean anything to you?
LAS:
Having worked with some Indian companies
lately, it occurred to me at times that India doesn't have the talent
base either. I felt like it involved training them
to get through the projects properly and they had a tendency to
crumble before every new challenge. At some point, it just won't
be worth going to India anymore. Come on America, I've seen you
do this work better than it's being done over there now.
Pete:
Yves,
Great post and great comments. I agree with the other commenters
that a CS PHD is not really suitable for most actual corporate jobs.
I have a nice technical analyst position for a large insurance company
and a BA in History, with about 12 years experience in IT. I have
a very niche business expertise which has allowed me some level
of comfort, but otherwise there would be no way I could compete
with the H1B folks on pure talent+work ethic+cost basis.
Workers in many industries have to deal with outsourcing, but
throwing the H1B issue on top of it is a real problem for a couple
of reasons. First, it is unfair to native workers to make a specific
exception for one industry, especially when you consider that most
of the jobs we are talking about are in no way "strategic" for our
economy as a whole. Second, as you state it closes the door for
people to get into the field.
I have many Indian friends and consider myself to be pro-immigration,
so I don't want my opposition to H1B to be construed as nativist
in any way, but I really oppose the program. As has been stated
by other commenters, these guys get paid less and work crazy hours
out of fear of losing their immigration status. I do not understand
how this could fail to depress wages in the industry, making it
less attractive for new people to enter.
They just do what the programmers of the 1990's did and stretch
out completion of the project for eons. If you get something that
actual performs to spec it is a miracle.
Some of the folks I speak to in high places in the corporate
world get it, the cost-benefit of I.T. outsourcing is shrinking
fast or already gone.
bluffraise:
It's tough to compete with someone who wants foreign work experience
on his resume and will therfore work for a bus token and lunch money.
Such was the case in 2001. Job prospects are a little better now.
Tom Hickey:
"The bigger challenge for the US is, if they start to lose
this talent at the lower end, the innovation engine that has been
driving the economy starts to dry up," Mr Iyengar said.
Another torch being passed to Asia. After a while it wil be the
US trying to reverse engineer Asia innovations and get around Asian
patents.
Energy is the biggest and baddest gorilla in the room though.
It's only a matter of time before the world's largest companies
that produce things other than food and bottled water are headquartered
in Asia and all of their CEOs are Asian born and live there, forcing
American CEOs to join the ranks of the unemployed.
This is patently obvious to anyone whose head isn't in the sand.
Power always follows production, which is the heart of any economy.
When American corporations decided to offshore production to Asia
so they could teach their greedy American workers a lesson and vastly
overpay their CEOs while vastly underpaying their Asian workers,
they dug their own grave and engraved their own tombstone.
Chester Genghis:
I agree with you on the inevitable outcomes, but current CEOs
are laughing all the way to the bank. It only takes 2-3 years for
them to loot all they need �well before the other shoe drops.
Speaking of right now, I've been trying to hire a couple people
at the small company I work at. One of the things we do is post
jobs at the nearby Big Ten university � and we've gotten only a
couple hits. Last time we hired (early '08) there were a ton of
candidates (even _a_ woman [all the ones I knew when I was in college
in the early 00's went to IBM]). If I had a referral from a friend
I might even ignore a lack of schooling (I have a lot of college
dropout friends � they all have great IT jobs � Intel, porn, et
al).
And I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. Except for one guy that
we may hire once he's done with school (in a year), all the rest
have been pretty sad. One example is a candidate who does windows
tech support at major US company � so no programming experience
and our shop is entirely Linux. A problem with IT is all the sub-career
paths � once you go down one, it's a tough crawl back up to the
others.
Our company is so niche that even the much better candidates
we've hired in the past took a few months to get up to speed.
Another problem is that business is only OK. With the economic
outlook I'm worried about making a mistake on hiring and it costing
too much in time and resources. So it makes us more reluctant to
expand in the first place.
There is a ton to write on the subject of IT companies and employment
� it's so specialized, and good candidates are a tough fight (how
can we compete with Google).
froggy:
It seems like your situation is similar to entry level workers;
your an entry level businesses and have a tough time working your
way up. Maybe the way to become a market force, is to think juggernaut
and go public? Or sell your sole to some big company in need of
creative new ideas? Being small is rough, and in a global business
environment, seems like the challenge is how to sell and compete
globally.
AFL:
"Our company is so niche that even the much better candidates
we've hired in the past took a few months to get up to speed."
This is Yves point!
Most companies are unwilling to train. They always want people
to be able to hit the ground running.
If you're interested in the long term viability of your company,
you have to invest in hiring and training entry level employees.
But if you invest in training, that's money/time/effort not spent
on your short term goals.
So as a business owner, do you race towards the bottom like everyone
else, or do you take the high road which might lead to bankruptcy�
Most companies are unwilling to train.
They always want people to be able to hit the ground running."
Yep yep. And every company has to decide "how long will it take
to train this person?" And "what is the maximum amount of training
we want to give?" Those two questions set the stage. What is fair,
for the employee and for the company?
In fact I like doing a decent amount of on-the-job-training,
because the investment also seems to be rewarded with loyalty.
Nonetheless, I read the articles
Yves bring up on the subject and think wanting people to hit the
ground running (with little to no training) is more an excuse to
not expand; than a reason to not hire.
Run ads in your local papers for a "Web Developer". Shift through
the couple of dozens resumes for those that have SQL and PHP experience
(web design). Make sure they really have those data skills though.
Setting up a database is tit, managing it for CRM functions, marketing
etc. require some good hand-on experience by the employee. Best
of luck.
Software Insider:
As someone who has worked in the software industry for about
15 years, I have a few observations:
1. A PhD in Computer Science is overkill for most positions.
The majority of projects/products in the overall software space
do not require complex algorithms; rather, they require facility
with a particular platform, ability to map business rules to functional
designs and functional designs to technical designs, and general
problem-solving ability.
Most positions involve either a focus on one of these skills
or a mixture of the skills. None of these skills comes directly
from a CS program, but the foundational skills for programming with
some level of competency are taught in most undergraduate CS programs.
The rest is either innate or comes only with experience working
on non-trivial real-world projects and really understanding trade-offs.
2. As in a lot of industries, the entry-level job seems to have
died out in software. I think some of this is endemic short-termism:
anyone managing a project or team simply wants to get the product
or release out the door, not spend time training someone. So you
start to see a focus on lists of skills and meaningless measures
of experience (e.g. "must have 10 years of object-oriented low-latency
transactional processing at a large company"). I have worked at
several different firms where the "business" side of the shop had
a robust internship/trainee program, but the "technical" side was
expected to only hire people who would be (in theory) immediately
productive at a high level.
3. The majority of the people working in software are not designing
world-class search algorithms or mobile operating systems, nor are
they designing snazzy Web 2.0 interfaces. They are, instead, creating
or maintaining systems into which people enter data, store data,
retrieve data, and process data (think insurance, banking, accounting,
etc.) These people do fairly boring work and get decent but not
fantastic pay. It's a nice middle-class job with limited career
options.
Regarding the alleged problem of a skills shortage, there may
be a few things at work. My guess is
that companies are trying to hire a high level of experience at
a low level of compensation. This means there is
no match with entry-level candidates (say recent grads), nor is
there a match with experienced candidates who already have jobs
that compensate them well.
There may well be skills shortages at the very high end in technology
(chip design, high-performance systems, etc.), but I don't see it
in the general business software area that makes up most of the
job market.
Dave:
Another industry veteran here (10 years). Agree completely except
for this: "It's a nice middle-class
job with limited career options."
Correction, WAS a middle-class job. Wages are totally stalled
and developers are on their way to joining the lower middle class,
and eventually working poor.
A data point�I started in IT out of school earning $65k in 2000
(fabulous pay, I agree). Laid off in 2001 and spent a year minimally
employed. Got another development job in late 2002. In 2006, I was
making $87k. Inflation adjusted, this is maybe 10-12% more than
my very first job.
10 years on, I've increased my productivity and skill by many, many
orders of magnitude and lead a team of 4. I make $105k, barely a
third more than my starting wage.
All these jobs are in cities where a dumpy 1200sf condo costs
$600k and the schools are terrible. My benefits have always been
typical for the IT industry (i.e. terrible�15 days PTO, no sick
days, low to no 401K match, expensive health benefits, 8 holidays
a year).
Barring some miracle whereby I become an executive, I expect
this is very near the peak of my lifetime earnings as an engineer.
At 36 years old, I figure I have AT MOST 15 more years of employability.
I am responsible for funding my own retirement yet do not make enough
save adequately, despite no kids and an extremely frugal lifestyle.
Here in Los Angeles, if you use reasonable assumptions about
career duration and the present value of retirement benefits, you'll
find that the typical union carpenter, prison guard, or municipal
bus driver earns far more over a career than the typical software
engineer.
lark:
Dave I hear you. The profession has been destroyed. The sick
thing is that by the time it totally dries up we'll be too old and
broke to get something else that is decent.
And it's amazing how they have broken the retirement systems
in this country. Working in a business, as opposed to working for
govt, has become such a rip off.
Formerly known as Nameless:
105/65 = 1.615. And since when is 105k a lower-middle-class salary?
80% of the country would kill to make that money.
"Salary: 41,000 � 50,000 Annually
Required Education: Some College
Required Experience: 2 Years of Experience in a Related Field Required"
Dave:
Apparently you aren't aware of a phenomenon known as inflation.
$65k in 2000 is about $78k today.
Larry:
As an actual engineer� it's rough out there. For one thing, I'd
like to know exactly what counts as an IT job.
We've seen the collapse of the job market affect engineering
departments. In last couple decades, radio frequency (RF) engineering,
power engineering, petroleum engineering and nuclear engineering
have all shrunk. So, all the knowledge in these fields are now overseas.
Cynthia:
According to Thom Hartmann (watch link below), the Obama Administration
is proposing that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics stop reporting
the number of American jobs being outsourced. If he is right, then
this is just another example of our most powerful elected officials
trying to hide the ugly truth from us. First it was about our wars,
now it's about our jobs.
I have spent 30 years in the commercial software industry, outsourced
thousands of man hours to India (and other countries). As far as
the impact on America's abaility to inovate
1) Most of the offshore outsourcing hours come from big companies,
like banks, telco's, airlines, etc. These companies do very little
in the way of innovation around software (just try their websites).
Also more and more the big tech companies don't innovate, just buy
(Oracle, HP, Microsoft).
2) Most software innovation happens in tech companies, some large
(Google, Amazon, or Apple), mostly small to medium. The small to
medium guys do very little off shore outsourcing, and most of that
is around testing (man power intensive). This is because you have
to be close to your customer to design great software and so off
shore is a non-starter.
3) Most off shore companies provide a lot of hype about innovation,
but they don't deliver. The do deliver low-cost, talented labor,
who are very good at following directions, not so good about innovating
in a way that is valuable to the end customers.
4) You don't have to have a degree in CS to be an innovator in
the software industry. Most of the real value comes from people
who understand the business being served and don't get obsessed
by the tech. Many of the best designers learned to program after
they got a degree in business or science.
So being a believer in the invisible hand, if the demand is really
there, the supply will show up.
lark:
Thanks for being honest about your role in outsourcing jobs.
I have my own startup in Silicon Valley and I can tell you,
you
are dead wrong about start ups being immune from outsourcing.
Venture capital requires outsourcing
to be in place before they'll fund. That has been true for years
now. You info is out of date.
Don't know about that stringent a condition for VC but in speaking
with the investors, you do have to be willing to consider it. I
like the programmers in the Czech Republic. About 2/3 American wages
and they innovate AND complete the bloody projects without a ton
of micro-management.
lark:
Yes I've heard the Eastern Europeans are the best.
oliverks:
My experience after getting a PhD in math is I could not find
anyone who wanted to hire me at all. Admittedly the market was not
very good at the time.
CS PhDs may be more employable. Almost all PhD student in math
want to become professors, although very few will eventually make
it to be tenured. As a result the math departments do nothing to
cultivate ties with industry.
I finally found a small little company where the owner was more
interested in people. The pay was low (probably 10% less than a
undergrad with CS), but it gave me my start.
I should mention that I was a TA for a computer programming course,
so it was not like I had not programming background. But I had no
formal education in programming.
Oliver
NR:
Yves,
I just don't see why American companies
can repatriate income by selling carbonated soda in India whereas
India and China are blamed for providing goods and services to the
US. When economic colonialism works for the West,
why is there so much umbrage with the reverse? I could argue that
highly sophisticated marketing ploy of coca-cola company is unfair
against a vast majority of farmers in India who sell coconut-juice
for a living (not to mention the health aspects)
If your argument is primarily around labor mobility, would you
be okay if services are provided remotely from India with no onshore
presence? Also, Labor arbitrage is a genuine competitive phenomenon,
much like a country that possesses Uranium or makes Levis.
When does free-trade become fair-trade?
oliverks:
Unfortunately I think it is too late to solve the problem. But
in essence if you are going to allow the free mobility of capital,
you have to allow the free mobility of people. Capital will still
be at an advantage, but the US would still be the center of software
development.
The salaries of programmers would be lower here, but the future
would be brighter, and the tax base would be much better.
I think it is too late for this now.
lark:
Yves you are so right on the money on this. I speak from 20 years
experience.
This whole discussion has revealed to me the sick stupidity of
the media. They never learn, no matter how many times they get bombarded
by feedback from engineers who know the facts on the ground.
They are captives of corporate spin and press releases. No wonder
they were whistling Dixie when we walked over the cliff.
I am disappointed in the FT though. The best of the lot.
Cat:
Software engineering isn't as easy
as everyone thinks it is. A bad hire can cause your project
to fail. This is probably the reason for a dearth of entry level
positions. Lets not forget the IT revolution is still pretty young.
After the big growth where almost anyone would do people now realize
you have to pick and chose.
IT Projects are hugely expensive,
prone to cost over runs and failures. This keeps downward
pressure on wages and hiring managers wanting specific skill sets
that will help them get the project done on time with no training
involved. The fractured nature of the IT business with your multitudes
of programming languages and development platforms makes this even
worse. While a skilled programmer with 10 years doing windows development
would succeed on your Web blah point blah project, the safer route
will always be to hire someone who has the 'experience' even if
they might not be as skilled or have as much time in the workforce.
Because of this the desire for specific
experience the pay for engineers stalls mid career. You
never got to those upper pay levels because the requirement for
new projects are always changing to a new paradigm. Sure you are
5x more productive then someone with 2-3 years of work experience,
but you don't know Java or .net. You've never worked with the compiler
or the Object framework so you aren't qualified and if you do get
the job you certainly aren't worth your high salary.
Which leads to the biggest problem.
Software Engineer's jobs have shelf lives unless they are elite
of their profession. You will almost be unemployable with 15 years
of experience or more as you will be too specialized for mid-level
jobs or too expensive for mid-level jobs.
Unfortunately one of the reasons that software engineers supposedly
have a shelf life is because:
Investment in training good engineers
is considered a waste of money if your HR department is under the illusion you can hire someone cheaply who supposedly
knows the technology already. Unfortunately a lot of the companies
that write software in house for their own use are often not very
clued up when it comes to proper IT recruiting.
Most larger companies can't tell
a good software engineer from a mediocre one in the first place,
which makes (a) even more prevalent, plus they are rare
A lot of the IT community has so
gotten used to having to change employers in order to advance their
career in any way that they've often given up on any long term career
planning. This is also mirrored by a lot of the larger
companies not really offering any sort of longer-term career perspective
for IT employees (hint: not every IT guy wants to be come a manager).
oliverks:
I have argued before that programmers have problems pricing themselves
in terms of ability. There is an interesting externality in that
bad programmers get too much money by mooching of good programmers.
I don't think software is unique to this problem. I find that
lawyers suffer the same problem, and it is interesting that no one
has found a way to solve this issue.
In both cases you are really paying for the prevention of future
problems. For example, if a bad lawyer writes a flawed contract,
it can cost millions to fix. Likewise a bad coder, who appeared
to complete his / her module on time, can cost $100Ks in short term
problems and $1M's later on in software maintenance.
So the problem in both cases is that the lawyers or programmers
appear to have met the short term requirements, but can saddle you
with very long term costs. That is the hard part to sell, and why
the price differentiation is not easy.
Oliver
sth:
A genuine competitive phenomenon? It's not possible to compete
with countries that are Mercantilist/use near slave labor, or have
standards of living that *should* disgust any human being (and so
have much lower costs of living.)
Money flows freely, labor does not. When standards of living,
worker protections, human rights, and immigration/emigration policies
come to about parity between countries, maybe we can talk about
"Globalization" or "Free Trade" (or opening up the H1B program).
Until then, it's a race to the bottom in a shiny McDonald's-yellow
veneer.
You can go to IIT, get sponsored, and live in California. Can
you go to MIT, get sponsored, and live in Bangalore? This question
was researched recently � someone contacted various organizations
in countries like India (business orgs, government orgs, immigration
agencies) and asked if they had programs like the H1B. They were
laughed at hysterically.
Not to mention what was laid out in paragraph 2. Even if you
COULD move to these places and get a job easily, do you really want
to live in a race to the bottom world? Do you want to live in places
with poor sewage systems, garbage on the streets, and terrible human
rights policies? Places with health care systems more broken than
in the US?
I'm ALL for it once we have all those protections/roughtly equal
standard of living in place. The funny thing is, once that happens,
NO COMPANY WILL EVEN BOTHER UNLESS THEY ARE DESPERATE FOR A PERSON
WITH A PARTICULAR SKILLSET THAT THEY CAN'T FIND IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.
Why? Well, it's not about skills in many/most cases � it's about
cheap labor. Once labor costs are a parity between countries, that
"advantage" will disappear and these sorts of programs will get
little more than a shrug.
NR:
SR,
Your premise that trade is going down the path of "race to the
bottom" is not well supported statistically. Trade improves countries,
their peoples and their competitiveness. (Singapore, Malaysia, Japan,
etc.). You cannot point to a Nike sweat shop to point out why it
does not work. Generally, it works.
In the 50's, you could have accused the Japanese of being mercantile.
As their living standards improved, they enforced laws that are
now consistent with global governance rules. Even within the Indian
companies, the IT companies enforce better standards than the rest
of the country as they start to globalize.
It is not possible to be selective about globalization, nor can
you enforce pre-conditions. If the US decided not to import products
and services from India due to a lack of "level playing field",
American companies should not be selling cars and juices either.
Each country will come up with their criteria for level-playing
fields and trade can just say bye-bye.
sth:
Well, we could come up with some wild ideas about how to fix
it. Here's one:
Government enforced price and wage reduction down to India/China/Vietnam
levels along with a massive wealth confiscation scheme to to keep
all the percentages lined up (could likely be done by creating massive
monetary inflation, or directly via fiat.) The same would be done
with debt.
No one gets richer or poorer in real terms; it only affects trade.
Here's another crazy idea: devalue our currency so
that we're as cheap as workers in other countries.
Along with all this, institute a /real/ free, universal
higher education and jobs training program (which
would include paying for your food, rent, bills, etc.)
until you graduate.
I could come up with more, but this would be plenty
to get started.
Doug Terpstra:
NR, you say "It is not possible to be selective about globalization,
nor can you enforce pre-conditions�.Each country will come up with
their criteria for level-playing fields and trade can just say bye-bye."
Selective rules and enforcement is exactly what's happening now
under all SHAFTA agreements-by design-because the masters of the
universe, the US architects of rigged trade (not fair trade), want
it that way. Do you really think Chindia is required to meet fair
trade rules? If so, please send for my latest book: "Easy money
in Real Estate"
That reminds me of Sen John McCain's insult to American workers
in 2006 (when he was for amnesty before he was against it, who said
we didn't need a "dang fence" because Americans wouldn't do the
jobs of illegal immigrants). At a speech to labor, as clueless as
M. Antoinette, he offered $50/hr to pick lettuce and was subsequently
drowned by takers.
You're right that FAIR trade is beneficial, but sth has it exactly
right about the current rigged-trade regime:
"Can you go to MIT, get sponsored, and live in Bangalore? This
question was researched recently � someone contacted various organizations
in countries like India � and asked if they had programs like the
H1B. They were laughed at hysterically."
Jake:
In most major engineering schools
(I work at one), thousands of Indian and Chinese are brought in
at full tuition rates to goose up the Universities cash flow.
So where does a poor Indian kid get $80,000 for two years masters
program? Simple: the University arranges loans through Citibank
and JP Morgan (no money down).
Unlike lower tier schools employers line up to hire here and
until recently I've never heard of a single student not finding
work after graduation. It's funny to see them in the shops with
their shiny new Chase credit cards swiping away.
After graduation they may work in the USA for 1 year on their
student visas, which later translates into an h1-b or some other
visa. In fact some go back home then return on L-1 visas; which
is considered nothing more than an intra-company transfer.
Most people don't realize that a small number of meg-schools
dominate almost the entire production of US engineers. After many
years of working with these people, I strongly dispute the notion
these foreigners are the 'best and the brightest'. Many can barely
write a coherent sentence in English.
So Banks win, the Universities win and the employers get cheap
slave labor. Now why would any of the above parties allow this state
of affairs to end?
As for the IT/Software crowd one of the biggest abusers of ignoring
US applicants is Bloomberg in NYC. If you look through their published
(see link below) visa files from flcdatacenter.com they employ
a vast number of foreign software developers across the country.
While working at a certain enormous software company in Seattle
in the late 90s, my dev lead (that's "boss" to us code monkeys)
was frequently out of the office. It seems there were so many trips
abroad to recruit cheaper talent (particularly eastern Europe at
that time) that his level of management basically was required to
periodically do a stint on the meat hunt.
I remember one meeting at which THE WORD FROM THE MAN HIMSELF
was loudly proclaimed "Find Something To Outsource Today!" Accompanied
by blows on the conference table.
Seriously.
chad:
man so many good comments on this article. I have a BSCSE from
an OK school, live in Dallas, and have about 10 years professional
experience writing software for the health care industry, specifically
pharmacy.
I agree that a PhD doesn't mean a whole lot in my field with
respect to salary. Software engineering
is so broad and a PhD so focused that it's hard to match a PhD to
a job even remotely similar. Furthermore, most of
the PhD's I know took the route because they wanted to learn not
because of job prospects. Much of the CS crowd are just people in
love with technology.
Also, good software engineering is just plain hard. There will
always be a shortage of people that can do it right. I've never
ever seen an outsourced software project come to fruition but I
have seen them drag on for years and years in a perpetual state
of development which is common in my field unfortunately.
Nancy:
Let me try to impress upon those who don't get the dangers and
common citizen's objections to outsourcing Information Technology;
mind you, IT data and information is not in the same category as
outsourcing manufacturing of diapers and pens.
I assume you commonly receive spam emails requesting your SSN
and bank details, written in poor English and orginating from overseas?
How would you like it if Nigeria became the next global hub of
IT outsourcing for the Financial Industry, and industry which has
been in the forefront of outsourcing IT with little heed as to the
security consequences?
Your identity and asset information will be at the disposal of
those who would otherwise pay to obtain it.
Such customer information is a national asset, it is not meant
to be handled by those who have no vested interest in enforcing
security of that information, and by those whose GDP per capita
are orders of magnitude less than yours.
The American public is totally oblivious to the security breaches
that are occurring with their information overseas � they're kept
well under the cover, not subject to US disclosure laws.
I really wonder if CEO and executives are aware of the risk they
are exposing the trusting American public to, including themselves.
The true cost of outsourcing IT will be recognized� if only too
late.
You are correct but what you are describing began happening in
the 1990's. Government programs Project Echelon and Carnivore were
the data collection programs and this was orchestrated through the
SAIC which is a private company and which also sells data. There
is no more internet or data privacy in reality. I am not saying
it is right, just stating the reality.
S Brennan:
I believe every word the CEO's are saying about how critical
the H1-B & L-1 programs are to America's future and to their companies
survival. Without them, their company would fail and that they are
too big to fail�no matter what size they are.
Now that we have establish this as truth, it falls to congress
& the white house to show the mindless minions of America that these
companies are telling the truth, heretofore all these brilliant
and critically needed H1-B's / L-1's are to be paid MORE than 1.5
times the wage of the top earners in the industry AND all over time
is to be double time.
By their own statements, CEO's would gladly do this to:
Establish once and for all these brilliant and critically
acclaimed individuals are truly needed to prevent their company
from going into complete collapse.
Shut those willfully slothful US citizens up once and for
all. Let them work as maids & butlers.
So lets call the CEO's bullshit, no limit on H1-B's just pay
them what you say they are worth.
Ron Hira:
Data is available to answer at least a few of these claims/questions.
�said Francisco d'Souza, Cognizant president and chief executive.
"Although unemployment in the US today is high, IT unemployment
is still very low."
RH: This is a false claim. According to the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics the unemployment rate for Computer Professionals has
averaged 5.8% over the first two quarters of 2010. That's more than
twice the rate of 2.6% in 2008. And more imporantly the current
5.8% rate is higher than its peer group of All Professionals, which
is 4.5% for 2010. Can anyone argue that there's a widespread systemic
shortage of professionals today?
"About 70 per cent of US PhD students are foreign born and are
often hired in the US, making their way into Silicon Valley or government
agencies such as Nasa, said Partha Iyengar, of Gartner, the consultancy."
RH: I guess the reporter was unaware that PhDs account for a
miniscule number of workers, even in computing. According to the
National Science Foundation there were 1,656 Doctorates awarded
in Computer and Information Sciences at US universities in 2007
� this includes both to US and foreign students.
The US IT labor market is about 3.4 million so those 1,656 cannot
have any material effect on the overall supply of IT workers. Almost
all IT workers, even the ones Cognizant hires, do not hold PhDs.
Ron Hira
Rochester Institute of Technology
Formerly known as Nameless:
5.8% is close to full employment. I'm not sure how to describe
2.6% unemployment in 2008 other that "shortage". And note that it
is directly at odds with Yves' assertions that "most of the last
decade was pretty grim" and "the commentors [at Slashdot] agree
on the very small number of entry level positions in IT � from at
least 2005 to 2009″.
alex:
'5.8% is close to full employment.'
For the economy as a whole, yes. For a specific profession, no.
Ron Hira pointed out that 5.8% is higher than the 4.5% for all professions.
Is it your claim that there's no unemployment problem in the professions
these days? Admittedly it's not as bad as for all non-professionals,
but that doesn't make it good. Also the software engineer who's
now flipping burgers is not counted as an unemployed professional
anymore, so those numbers can be very deceptive.
'I'm not sure how to describe 2.6% unemployment in 2008 other
that "shortage".'
Why is that a shortage? That's not an unusually low rate for
professions. Incomes weren't rising faster than productivity, so
there was no shortage in any meaningful (as opposed to propaganda)
sense. At best it's close to market clearing. Is it your contention
that we should always have as much slack labor as possible? Is that
how your bread gets buttered?
'And note that it is directly at odds with Yves' assertions that
� the very small number of entry level positions in IT � from at
least 2005 to 2009″.'
Which isn't a contradiction at all. The CS grad who can't get
a first job and winds up flipping burgers or going to grad school
for a remunerative profession doesn't get counted as an unemployed
CS professional.
alex:
Ron,
Thanks for the hard stats. I don't know how many people here
are familiar with you and your work on this issue, but I personally
want to thank you. For anyone who's not familiar with Ron's work,
just search on his name.
I'd also suggesting searching on "Norm[an] Matloff". Professors
Hira and Matloff have been two of the best spoken and most authoritative
people speaking about this issue. Both heavily base their arguments
on hard data.
Doug Terpstra:
Thank you, Yves. This is the classic lament, "you just can't
find good help anymore", and it exposes another fine example of
unenlightened self-interest inaction- Econners cutting off their
noses, and eating their seed corn.
Beyond hand-wringing and blaming victims, TPTB and MSM make no
attempt to address root causes, including the rising cost of college
education and the generally pathetic public commitment to equal-opportunity
education at all levels. The Neocon motto: "A mind is a terrible
thing to waste [tax dollars on]"
yoganmahew:
So many comments� who says the internet is for nerds�
Anyway, 20 years as of three days ago in airline IT (assembler).
Based on an undergraduate degree in modern history and a three month
training class at my first employer. The problem is, in my book,
that employers aren't prepared to spend the money (quite modest
amounts) inducting people into the specific jobs they want them
to do. Mostly because the employer has no idea what it is that they
want done. Headless chickens on a hot tin roof�
mezurak:
You think you have it bad? Try being a hardware tech. Never mind
if you have been working on computers since the Commodore 64. If
you don't have a string of certifications behind your email sig
along with a BS to back it up then you don't get in the door. I
was a Field Engineer on mainframes in the 70's. The only qualification
I needed was some related military training and a HS diploma. The
company taught me the rest. The young guys today are lucky to get
on a help desk with a BS. Five years of experience gets them not
Google but a gaggle of low end system admin jobs and useless certifications
to put on their resume. Training? Ha! Hit the ground running, trial
by fire, OJT, don't let the door hit you on the way out, there's
your training. I feel sorry for these guys because they are on the
buggy whip path once cloud computing strips the need for private
data centers.
Wade:
I have worked in IT for 15 years and am a senior level systems
engineer. Almost none of the people I work with have Computer Science
degrees. As a matter of fact the best people at their jobs have
either an engineering degree or no degree at all.
Since I started in the industry, there has been a shift from
looking for aptitude to looking for people with degrees and certifications.
This shift hasn't helped the quality of worker at all. Getting a
degree means that you can show up for 4 years, learn information
that will be useless in your field, and pass tests with no bearing
on reality. It doesn't mean that you can think independently and
troubleshoot problems to a rational conclusion. This has resulted
in the shortage of suitable IT people since we discard candidates
based on degree first.
As far as outsourcing to India goes, it isn't as good as it once
was. Training hundreds of thousands on people with no aptitude
to work in the computer industry just diluted the talent pool to
the point that you can't separate the wheat from the chaff. Outsourcing
was popular mostly because it was perceived as cheap, got lots of
press, and most of all shifted responsibility for failure to someone
else. The reality was that the outsource
companies didn't deliever what was contracted and their turnover
was so high that they could not support anything that they wrote.
I am seeing more and more projects being run in house.
lark:
One more data point.
I started at HP in a high level systems software position in
the mid 80's and stayed 12 years (left before Carly).
At that time the company allowed you to attend simulcast Stanford
graduate CS classes on site for free, audit or credit, to keep up
with advanced topics in your field. You could watch the class videos
over lunch. You could also be supported in local grad CS programs.
This from the same company that axed 75% of its R&D a couple
of years ago. A lab mgr friend of mine took early retirement from
HP Labs and left the field (saw it coming). This from the same company
that throws money away on acquisitions because it axed its seed
corn. This from the same company that axed profit sharing. On and
on and on.
And of course, the huge facility where I worked (Cupertino) is
now virtually empty, due to outsourcing, and the plan before Hurd
('Hurt') got his golden parachute was to shut it down and move the
survivors to Palo Alto.
One thing that really burns me is that the press and academia
gets such a 'rise' out of free markets and global business and the
like, that they are just incapable with seeing the facts on the
ground. We shouldn't have to lose the whole industry before some
'expert' notices!!!!!
It really shows the problem with captive media and ideologically
captured economics. It happened with the housing bubble, the financial
crisis � how much destruction can this country take??
lark:
Of course now they expect you to keep up with the field at your
own cost and time � of which there is none to spare.
PQS:
We shouldn't have to lose the whole industry before some 'expert'
notices!!!!!
Amen. I'm in construction, and just last week saw an article
on the local Pacific NW paper about the massive crisis in our industry.
Construction is always on the end of the butterfly in the Amazon,
but the descent into 27% UI and so quickly is unprecendented. Yet
I cannot think of a single news article about this issue. Maybe
everyone thinks that only the hardhats are in construction. Most
of the white collar people I know have been out of work for months
or even into years. Architects, engineers (not the civil guys),
PMs, Superintendents with decades of experience.
2Cents:
In India entry level guys are mass hired in a batch, and based
on the time they have done, they all expect their H or L visa to
be filed. This is the reason all H visas are exhausted till recently
the day they open for filing. Indian companies do not want to pay
the additional cost arising out of visa fee hikes, nor can they
manage their staff and file for visas just in planned time, they
have to file them enmass.
lark:
To see another example of media bias on this topic, see
This article weeps for corporations who can't recruit freely
because of H1B restrictions.
I wrote the writer of this article the following letter. Of course
nothing changed in the coverage of this issue. The corporate bias
is an outrage.
My letter to the NYTimes (not published by them of course):
Dear Editor,
Matt Richtel's article, "Tech Recruiting Clashes with Immigration
Rules", left out a few essential facts and thus left readers with
a view of the situation shaped more by industry propaganda than
reality.
One cannot understand the H1B visa unless one grasps how it is
used in practice. Richtel's article portrays a highly skilled immigrant
who wants to be a contributing member of American society. For the
most part, H1B is not used for this type of immigrant.
H1B is and American visa used overwhelmingly by Indian software
companies. Their engineers go into American firms where they are
trained by American engineers and then they go back to India, taking
the job to India. In 2006 the three companies who took the most
H1 B visa slots were Wipro and Infosys (both Indian companies) and
Cognizant Technology Solutions, which has most of its operations
in India.
These companies took 70% of the H1B visas. Statistics for 2007
can be found at http://tinyurl.com/cwst2u.
This information is easy to find. There have been well publicized
Congressional hearings on precisely this topic.
Your article reads like a corporate press release. This is not
a simple minded case of anti-immigrant sentiment. I am disappointed
that the New York Times presented this careless and one-sided article.
If Google and Intel and the rest want to fast track highly qualified
individuals through our immigration system, then there is a case
to be made for that. But American corporations are not arguing or
acting in good faith, and thus they have undermined both the trust
of American citizens and the H1 B program. Your article perpetuates
this dishonesty and I believe you owe your readers a correction.
Sincerely lark, etc
yoganmahew:
Mind you, you chaps in the US have it easy in some respects.
Your high-end technical salaries are very good and you have some
status with your job. Pity us poor Irish who have to deal with this:
"I find it very hard to swallow the notion that a computer programmer
is
carrying on a profession. In what way is he any different from a
clerk in the
19th century sense? He is just a numerate and literate person carrying
out
clerical work. Obviously, not all programmers fall into that category
(numerate and literate)."
� Frank Carr, Irish Taxation Review, September 2002
Yes, our tax clerks look down on us programming clerks�
chad:
It's interesting how so many IT industry folks read this blog.
Steve:
After 21 year in consulting and seeing
the outsourcing takeover of the last few years, I can say with certainty
that the average Indian IT resource is pretty useless.
We have to clean-up the messes of our offshore staff all
the time with the onshore staff. They
simply do not have the required aptitude, they were just run through
some process to memorize enough to pass a test and become billable.
This is starting to become visible to the low and middle managers
at the client side who are not happy with the quality of work, but
the high level client managers are simply concerned about budgets
and overrule their recommendations. The next few years should bring
this to a head at many companies when failures are clearly identified
from this approach, I doubt that the big banks etc. that have become
too large to change will do anything, but the middle tier companies
are going to see that they cannot afford to let a critical part
of their business become unreliable, especially with the need to
compete in the technical infrastructure required for their business.
I expect that this will stabilize things in the US and should
help to revive the industry if we have not completely gutted the
education and experience pipeline. However I would be hesitant to
push a newbie into things just now, though to be honest, what job
is safe today?
cougar_w:
Just a data point:
20 years in IT, mostly web application development. Like most
workers in my age group I am self-taught (there were pitiful CSCi
departments in the 80s and everything now in play came about in
the last 5 years anyway). I still make around 85K in the Bay Area
CA.
I've actually worked in outsourcing for a little while. What
a joke. I've been outsourced twice. One to India, a second time
to Hungary.
I won't let my kids do this work. Not on a bet. Mechanical or
civil engineering if they want, but that's it. IT and software development
became a dead-end.
Will the US suffer for having slain their home-grown IT expertise?
Seems inevitable. But companies don't really care; current management
is just harvesting the gains from innovation of a previous generation
of workers, who (like myself) are now entering retirement. When
that harvest has played out it will fall to the Chinese and Indians
to take the game forward as the US IT industry follows the example
of other empires that became deluded by their past greatness, and
falls into decline and irrelevance.
"How much of why consultants are hired and what they recommend is really
all about goosing the stock price? Yves Smith and others identify this Wall
Street-imposed imperative as generally worthless and malevolent, one of
the worst developments of the last 30 years. The same for "offshoring",
which is not in fact anywhere near as cost-effective as its fraudulently
represented to be. But Wall Street and "the markets" love it, so their will
must be done�"
Here's a quote from Craig: "We were proud of the way we used to make
things up as we went along. . . . It's like robbing a bank but legal.
We could take somebody straight off the street, teach them a few simple
tricks in a couple of hours and easily charge them out to our clients
for more than �7000 per week." According to Craig (according to
Hari), all of management consulting boils
down to recommending that the client lay off thirty percent of its staff,
after one week of observation and analysis.
James, thank you for your insights�do you also happen to recall
the impact of McKinsey's recommendations on those nine engagements
you had worked on?
I had been on both ends of the consulting game myself.
When I was on the receiving end, with a large hi-tech company
whose management was way over its head, McKinsey was brought in.
Idiotic recommendations, made by bright young guys who knew nothing
of technology, were formulaic and too much spreadsheet driven to
help. In the end, if one stares long
enough at those spreadsheets and cannot see round the corner, the
only consistent recommendation is going to be cost cutting�that
is, giving top management time/legitimacy.
After being a consultant myself for a number of years, I blogged
about "The drama of most consultants"
I worked for a company that an incompetent board of directors
and a succession of incompetent CEO's destroyed, "ably" assisted
all the way to oblivion by McKinsey.
Management consulting is legalized fraud and racketeering, IMHO.
The management consulting firms just another group of enablers for
the looting of American by the Wall Street banksters.
Russ
In both of those cases, a large proportion of the cost savings
came not from firing people, but from dealing with various systems
problems. (And in neither case did the recommendations come after
one week.) The other projects were a combination of strategy, mergers
and acquisitions, entering new markets, and implementing new processes.
This (a few anecdotes) is ambiguous about how much of this activity
and the goals beings sought are really productive at all, not to
mention actually destructive.
For example "Mergers and acquisitions" and generally destructive
and rarely have any social value at all.
How much of why consultants are hired and what they recommend
is really all about goosing the stock price? Yves Smith and others
identify this Wall Street-imposed imperative as generally worthless
and malevolent, one of the worst developments of the last 30 years.
The same for "offshoring", which is not in fact anywhere near as
cost-effective as its fraudulently represented to be. But Wall Street
and "the markets" love it, so their will must be done�
So yes, I've always pictured consultants as simply vectors of
these nefarious Wall Street decrees. I'm glad to be told that's
not always the case, though I fail to understand why any reasonably
intelligent high school graduate can't be hired to do things like
write down numbers and check to make sure things were photocopied
correctly. He might even be able to make those copies without mistakes.
My experience as a programmer has taught me a few things about
writing software. Here are some things that people might find surprising
about writing code:
A programmer spends about 10-20% of his time writing code, and
most programmers write about
10-12 lines of code per day that goes into the final product,
regardless of their skill level. Good programmers spend much of
the other 90% thinking, researching, and experimenting to find the
best design. Bad programmers spend much of that 90% debugging code
by randomly making changes and seeing if they work.
"A great lathe operator commands several times the wage of an average
lathe operator, but a great writer of software code is worth 10,000
times the price of an average software writer." �Bill Gates
A good programmer is ten times more productive than an average
programmer. A great programmer is 20-100 times more productive than
the average. This
is not an exaggeration � studies since the 1960′s have consistently
shown this. A bad programmer is not just unproductive � he will
not only not get any work done, but create a lot of work and headaches
for others to fix.
Great programmers spend very little of their time writing code
� at least code that ends up in the final product. Programmers who
spend much of their time writing code are too lazy, too ignorant,
or too arrogant to find existing solutions to old problems. Great
programmers are masters at recognizing and reusing common patterns.
Good programmers are not afraid to refactor (rewrite) their code
constantly to reach the ideal design. Bad programmers write code
which lacks conceptual integrity, non-redundancy, hierarchy, and
patterns, and so is very difficult to refactor. It's easier to throw
away bad code and start over than to change it.
Software obeys the laws of entropy, like everything else. Continuous
change leads to software rot, which erodes the conceptual integrity
of the original design. Software rot is unavoidable, but programmers
who fail to take conceptual integrity into consideration create
software that rots so so fast that it becomes worthless before it
is even completed. Entropic failure of conceptual integrity is probably
the most common reason for software project failure. (The second
most common reason is delivering something other than what the customer
wanted.) Software rot slows down progress exponentially, so many
projects face exploding timelines and budgets before they are killed.
A
2004 study found that most software projects (51%) will fail
in a critical aspect, and 15% will fail totally. This is an improvement
since 1994, when 31% failed.
Although most software is made by teams, it is not a democratic
activity. Usually, just one person is responsible for the design,
and the rest of the team fills in the details.
Programming is hard work. It's an intense mental activity. Good
programmers think about their work 24/7. They write their most important
code in the shower and in their dreams. Because the most important
work is done away from a keyboard, software projects cannot be accelerated
by spending more time in the office
or adding more people to a project.
Edward D. Weinberger:
Much of the content of this blog was originally posted in the
classic THE MYTHICAL MAN MONTH, by Fredric Brooks. He was the guy
that headed the IBM project to build the first modern operating
system, OS/360, on IBM Mainframes in the 1960′s, so he clearly knew
his stuff. He is convinced of the vast difference between the best
and the average.
Believe it or not, the reason why managers make more than programmers
is well captured by the comic strip DILBERT. Though Dilbert is technically
adept, he clearly does not understand the business world. He therefore
needs the "adult supervision" of the pointy-haired boss. Admittedly,
the boss is an idiot, with absolutely NO technical savvy; however,
he does understand the business world, including the importance
of marketing.
And one other thing. Programmers are paid for more than productivity,
which is why productive programmers are not necessarily paid more
than others. The technology is changing so fast that the guy who
may be a mediocre user of a hot technology gets paid more than the
best COBOL programmer in the world, simply because nobody cares
much about COBOL any more.
Maintenance Man:
A great developer may be worth a lot more than an average one.
Might also be 100 times as productive. Then why again is the great
one getting paid the same salary as the average one?
jambox:
@MaintenanceMan Too many companies allow their software products
to be managed by non-technical managers. They simply do not know
who is good and who isn't! They also don't know good software from
bad and evaluate performance based on speed of delivery most of
all. They're also acutely vulnerable to bafflegibber.
Lou:
Thank you; good article. I recently worked (past tense) at a
place that thought you could in fact speed software delivery by
adding extra programmers and extra hours per programmer. Programming
is not manual labor. Physical bodies can continue laboring long
after the mind shuts off � whereas in programming, when the mind
shuts off, you may code so ineffectively that you make negative
progress. Bless the software managers that understand the pacing
and rhythm of development.
@Maintenance Man, that's a good question. I think it's partly
due to a lack of understanding on the part of managers and companies.
As soon as it's easy to quantify the increased value of a good programmer
vs a bad one, the salary gap will increase.
Paul W. Homer:
Nice. Although I'm still a little unsure of the first two
points. In the short run, I think a great programmer is not all
that much more productive than an average one, but I definitely
believe that if you factor in time and the amount of code that actually
stays alive the difference is huge. Also, I could agree with the
10-12 lines per day, if you are talking averages. I know a lot of
programmers who (without cutting and pasting) can produce thousands
of lines in a very intense week, but who then slack shortly afterwards.
Jeff Dege:
I'm seeing that "good programmers are X-times more productive
than bad programmers" meme, again, and again without a description
of the shapes of the curve. This leaves people with misconceptions.
Productivity is not a normal distribution, it's a Rayleigh distribution.
If good programmers are ten times better than bad programmers, the
distribution will be such that good programmers are twice as good
as average programmers, and average programmers are five times as
good as bad programmers.
The curve is skewed, and the median is above the mean. (Meaning
that most programmers are better than average, as odd as that sounds.)
J:
I love reading something like this and then hear people talk
about how this just proves how great they are at programming. No
one ever seems to read and say, "Hmm � I wonder if I'm the guy that
is a tenth as productive as good programmers?" On another note,
although I agree with some generalizations, I think it is dangerous
to put programmers in three categories: bad, good, and great. There
is a lot of wiggle room where people don't fit nicely in one of
these categories. Some people are also good at some things and not
at others. There are also people that have all the skills, but just
don't have experience yet. Everyone needs to make mistakes and learn
from them, and that just takes some time.
Rosstafarian:
Except that average programmers are not just a multiple better
than bad programmers. Somewhere just south of average, poor programmers
contribute less than the increased communication overhead needed
to include them on the team. A little below that, you have really
poor programmers whose typical coding change makes the system worse
and either requires time by alert developers to fix the problems
they create or dramatically increases the risk of failure of the
effort if it's not detected in time.
In my experience, the best programmers
routinely achieve goals that average programmers don't understand
even when the result is later explained to them.
In terms of pure productivity, the difference is something like
10-15x between the best and the simply good. I firmly believe that
there is a transition to negative value that occurs well into "average"
territory but which is only apparent to a few enlightened members
of management.
Gabe da Silveira:
You're making the same mistake though. It is some combination
of talent and experience that makes one great at anything. There's
absolutely no reason to believe that great programmers were somehow
better than average from the outset� they could have had breakthroughs
throughout their journey. Likewise the most promising candidate
could get lazy in a cush job or maybe lose interest in advancing
their skills.
Ulf Wiger:
@Alfred: In my experience, software companies (esp larger ones)
need many different kinds of programmers. The trick is to find your
niche and figure out how you can best contribute.
The software industry as a whole needs inventors, finishers,
motivators, maintainers, � and also project managers and line managers
who are (or at least have been) skilled enough at programming. Some
people love working for years maintaining and improving a particular
product; others wouldn't be caught dead doing that, but want to
innovate, prove a concept, and then move on.
The trick for every company is to find the right mix, and dependable
programmers who are Good Enough are extremely important. I have
plenty of good war stories about brilliant programmers, but they
are best told over beer�
Matt J.
When I see that much enthusiastic agreement, it raises my suspicions.
The majority is rarely right.
And sure enough, when I look more closely at this, I see lots
of problems covered up with sententious authority. I am glad to
see that doctor doom caught one of them, but there are more.
I will focus on only one, the point about it not being democratic.
This is true, BUT: if you let only one person do all the design,
you feed frustration on the rest of the team, and then what do you
do if the one designer is hit by the proverbial bus? It is better
to admit that the design process cannot be entirely democratic,
but let the one designer bounce his ideas of other members of the
team. This solves both problems by giving them a hand in the design
also, and by distributing knowledge of the design among several
people, so that if he is hit by a bus, he is replaceable without
as much loss.
For the same reason, it is important that that one designer know
how to share with the team. Pick someone who is bright, but autocratic,
and you will ruin the team and the project.
Weinberger had an interesting correction
to the article too, but he overestimates the PHB's command of the
business world.The real
problem of modern day business is that the PHB who is technically
ignorant is nearly as ignorant of the business world, too!
That is WHY Scott Adams has the recurring line about 'manager' really
coming from an ancient word for "mastodon dung". That is WHY he
reminds us of the managers so dumb, they didn't even know how to
use voicemail. He didn't make that example up, either. It comes
from real life.
Nor is it really that new. The reasons
such gross incompetence is tolerated in the overpaid management
class of society was covered very well by Thorstein Veblen in his
"The Theory of the Leisure Class". If you really
want to understand why managers are so destructive, why they will
never admit that Fred Brooks was right, then read this book.
Simply put, in India you need to feed another layer of "outsoucing pigs":
senior outsourcing managers based in the country, who command
salaries above global averages.
Call centre workers are becoming as cheap
to hire in the US as they are in India, according to the head of the
country's largest business process outsourcing company.
High unemployment levels have driven down wages for some low-skilled
outsourcing services in some parts of the US, particularly among the
Hispanic population.
At the same time, wages in India's outsourcing sector have risen
by 10 per cent this year and senior outsourcing
managers based in the country command salaries above global averages.
Pramod Bhasin, the chief executive of
Genpact, said his company expected to treble its workforce in
the US over the next two years, from about 1,500 employees now.
"We need to be very aware [of what's available] as people [in the
US] are open to working at home and working at lower salaries than they
were used to," said Mr Bhasin. "We can hire some seasoned executives
with experience in the US for less money."
The narrowing of the traditional cost advantage is also spurring
other Indian outsourcers to hire more staff outside India.
Wipro, the Bangalore-based IT outsourcing company, started to
recruit workers in Europe, the Middle East and Africa during the global
economic downturn. Suresh Vaswani, joint chief executive of Wipro Technologies,
forecasts that half of his company's overseas workforce will be non-Indians
in two years, from the current 39 per cent.
India is still expected to retain the overall cost advantage,
particularly in more sophisticated software outsourcing.
Observers say that while the cost of some senior positions may have
equalised with the US and certain call centre services may be more cost-effective
to set up in depressed areas of the US, this phenomenon may not outlast
the US downturn.
Even after a tripling in numbers, Genpact's US workforce would still
be only about a ninth of its total staff. The former in-house outsourcing
unit of US multinational
General Electric has operations in Chicago, Pennsylvania, Tennessee
and New York.
The move to expand operations in the US also comes as protectionist
rhetoric against outsourcers rises in Washington. Last week, Charles
Schumer, a US senator, described Indian IT outsourcing companies unflatteringly
as
"chop shops", a term referring to places where stolen cars are dismantled
for their parts.
Mr Bhasin said Indian outsourcers needed to be more sympathetic to
the deep economic woes in the US, not least because US business had
helped India's outsourcing industry "piggy-back" on its success.
India's information technology outsourcing companies have established
global footprints that stretch from Saudi Arabia to San Diego in the
US. Yet they have struggled to develop one of the most promising markets,
just over the Himalaya mountains in neighbouring China.
So difficult a frontier is the Chinese market for India's pioneering
outsourcing groups that their leaders would sooner talk about the potential
of Latin America than the world's fastest growing large economy.
Employees at a call centre in Dalian: foreign companies working in
the country have to get to grips with complicated personal networks
Yet some are still trying to make inroads, recognising the risks
of shunning the lucrative opportunity presented by large, fast-growing
Chinese companies.
Tata Consultancy Services, India's largest IT outsourcing group,
said on Tuesday that it planned to double its 1,100-strong workforce
in China in the coming year.
China and Japan are widely acknowledged by India's software leaders
to be the hardest outsourcing markets to crack. Japan gets its rating
on account of a perceived resistance to change among its country's businesses
and a lack of urgency to innovate, while China's difficulty is ascribed
to cultural differences. Both markets pose
linguistic challengesfor
an Indian sector that has prospered using English
as its medium.
"China, while it has significant potential, takes time to learn.
It's not easy," says
N. Chandrasekaran, the chief executive of Mumbai-based TCS, which
employs about 160,000 people worldwide.
"We want to grow. We want to grow faster but it takes time to learn
the market, attract people and retain people.
Attrition levels are higher in China than they are in India and
that makes it difficult."
Most Indian outsourcing companies have established operations in
China. They recognise the potential of servicing big, fast-growing Chinese
companies with large customer bases and sizeable workforces, and developing
expertise to service other parts of Asia.
Wipro Technologies, the Bangalore-based IT services company,
has opened a global delivery centre in Chengdu, in addition to a facility
in Shanghai. Its Chengdu centre offers services for manufacturing, banking,
financial services and insurance industries. It has expertise in English,
Chinese and Japanese.
Genpact, India's largest business processing company, operates
BPO service centres in the Chinese cities of Changchun, Dalian and Shanghai.
Suresh Vaswani, joint chief executive of Wipro, puts the challenges
of building scale down to more granular market-related issues. He says
India's nimble private sector often finds it difficult to come to terms
with China's more state-driven enterprises.
He identifies strong possibilities working with multinationals in
China and large domestic companies. But he recommends that any business
strategy take into account the "state-influenced" nature of the market,
and the need to create local jobs.
Pramod Bhasin, the chief executive of Genpact, agrees that
India's entrepreneurial style of doing business
does not easily gel with China's more deliberate business culture.
One of the keys to success, he says, is knowing how to navigate China's
corporate power structure, and the complicated personal networks that
lead to business opportunities. Another is learning from the example
of successful US companies such as McKinsey, IBM and Accenture that
establishing a Chinese identity, and hiring a Chinese workforce, are
essential. "In China, we are Chinese," he says simply.
In spite of the obstacles, there is an increasing willingness among
large Chinese companies including state-owned enterprises to outsource
certain services to create
a growing onshore market in China.
Beijing is taking steps to encourage the outsourcing industry, whose
revenues grew to about $26bn last year, according to Deloitte, the auditing
firm. This month, the Ministry of Finance announced that outsourcing
service providers in 21 cities would be freed from business tax on offshore
contracts until 2014.
Industry executives in China say Indian companies struggle to get
the best out of their Chinese operations. "It is much easier for Chinese companies to manage large-scale operations
in China with Chinese staff," says Seth Pinegar, vice-president at iSoftStone,
a leading Chinese outsourcing services provider.
The difficulties encountered by India's outsourcers have caught the
eye of New Delhi. Earlier this year, Anand Sharma, India's commerce
minister, extracted a personal commitment from Wen Jiabao, the Chinese
premier, to
rebalance a booming bilateral trading relationship skewed overwhelmingly
in China's favour.
But most of America appears to have deeply internalized the belief
that labor lacks, and perhaps more important, ought not
to have any bargaining power. This is a wonderful state
of affairs for the managerial elite and investors. Having labor share
in productivity gains was no impediment to growth; indeed, the record
from the end of World War II through the mid-1970s versus the last two
decades would suggest the reverse.
And the argument that US labor cannot compete with China et al is
overblown. In most cases of outsourcing and offshoring, the results
are disappointing (a dirty secret you will find if you burrow into the
literature; for instance, IT, a popular candidate, has a
particularly
poor record). But it also serves to reduce lower-level labor costs
and INCREASE managerial costs (greater coordination required). From
the Wall Street Journal
on IT outsourcing:
Dean Davidson, an analyst who follows outsourcing for Meta Group,
in Stamford, Conn., says that companies usually find their actual
cost savings from moving offshore are less than they would expect
based on straight wage comparisons. "The reality is a general savings
of 15%-20% during the first year," Mr. Davidson says. That's far
less than the 50% to 80% savings based on hourly labor rates, he
says.
Yves here. Recall this is software: no shipping or inventory financing
costs. The gap between the raw labor costs and the net savings is an
increase in compensation to managers (which could be either via larger
bonuses or an increase in headcount).
Yves here. Recall this is software: no shipping or inventory financing
costs. The gap between the raw labor costs and the net savings is an
increase in compensation to managers (which could be either via larger
bonuses or an increase in headcount).
I've had corporate staff of manufacturing companies (not in the production
part of the business, hence no dog in the fight) maintain, having seen
the internal plans, that the case for offshoring and outsourcing were
not compelling, and could easily be depicted as not worth the risk given
transit times and greater business system rigidity. But their corporations
went ahead anyhow because Wall Street looked favorably upon outsourcing.
Yes, some jobs and activities probably would have been lost regardless,
but far more was ceded than had to be.
A second reason for complacency about unemployment is just as deeply
rooted. There is little confidence in conventional policy remedies.
Neoclassical economics posits equilibrium, so near collapses of the
world as we know it are not supposed to happen. The Austrian and Keynesian
schools believe in disequilibria and have prescriptions. However, the
risk of the social breakdown with the Austrian prescription is correctly
seen as high (one of the reasons Roosevelt had a block of support among
major corporations was they recognized the country really could fall
apart, and they saw aggressive intervention as less dangerous than violence
and an increasingly popular Communist movement).
Vijay:
And the argument that US labor cannot compete with China et al
is overblown. In most cases of outsourcing
and offshoring, the results are disappointing (a
dirty secret you will find if you burrow into the literature; for
instance, IT, a popular candidate, has a particularly poor record).
But it also serves to reduce lower-level labor costs and INCREASE
managerial costs (greater coordination required).
From the Wall Street Journal on IT outsourcing:
>> This link that you have given is a poor example of outsourcing.
That talks about outsourcing documentation. One sparrow doesnt make
a summer. Neither does a write up about documentation sum it up!
Yves Smith:
First, you miss the significance
of this example. Technical writing ought to be EASY to offshore
given that it is less dynamic (in particular, is less or not at
all affected by interaction with the client). The fact that something
with fewer moving parts than many other parts of IT development
still fails is telling.
Second, this example is replicated across many sectors. I've seen
repeated studies by Deloitte Touche over the years with Fortune
100 companies. 70% ish are disappointed with outsourcing. If the
biggest companies can't succeed, who can?
And the structure and incentives guarantee lousy outcomes. Companies
hire a consultant to manage the contracting process. The consultant
drives to lower costs to the max. That squeezes vendor margins.
You see one if not both outcomes: one, vendor scrimps on quality,
making client unhappy (recall these relationships are hard to unwind,
so once you are in them, they can easily become very unhappy marriages).
Two, if you as client need a variance (something beyond contract
norms), the vendor will charge through the nose for it, to make
up for the margin squeeze. This makes client unhappy, he feels (and
is) exploited.
My brother and his wife has spent their entire careers in outsourcing,
I have tons of data points here.
Detlef :
There was a "Der Spiegel" article about that back in 2007. Mainly
citing studies by the "Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation
Research (ISI)".
"�insufficient analysis of all relevant production location factors
prior to engagement abroad."
And filling that article with some colorful examples.
My own experiences of outsourcing are IT at a very large bank
and a very small software shop. The small shop was much more successful,
but that is because two of the three principals in the company offshored
themselves to the office they opened in eastern Europe.
The large company made such a hash of software management locally,
that when they outsourced to India,
things went from bad to disaster.
But then again, management today seems to consist of scaring
employees and keeping them off balance, rather than fostering relationships
and spotting talent to promote and nurture. In software it is really
bad in that software projects are generally immensely complex, and
at banks especially, you have business types managing developers
and treating them as fungible quantities - as
if they never read The Mythical Man
Month from 1975� and I'm sure they didn't. Instead, they read crap
from management "experts" who teach them how to screw employees.
Management in the US has become a joke; so no wonder we can't
expect outsourcing (the premise of which is self-contradictory in
the big picture, as Yves notes above), which makes the managers
job ten times more complex, to work out to the company's advantage.
NOTaREALmerican:
Re: If the biggest companies can't succeed, who can?
There's a common misconception about IT and success.
The purpose of IT in big companies is
to spend money, success is generally the lack of massive failure.
Nothing is more like an embedded government agency (like a tic)
than IT. Nobody � outside of IT � knows what we do, why we do it,
or if anything we say is really "real" (meaning, they can't tell
when we spew bullshit � in fact, IT many have invented business
bullshit, this might make an interesting book some day for someone.
Nobody level-sets the tablesteaks in a going forward-space like
IT management)
RagingDebate:
Some of the funds I was once discussing with you Yves outsourced
to the Indians for technology build-out of video conferencing tech.
They were VERY unhappy. I had a working system up in three weeks
whereas a year had gone by and the code was not completed. It was
profitable to outsource tech to the Chindians in 2000 when the wages
were half what they are now. The Chindians still require an expensive
technology manager.
sgt_doom :
This entire concept of "offshoring" is an idiocy, as the principal
model of labor arbitrage is to increase the internal profits (to
the senior management and owners) while externalizing the costs
through cheaper labor.
Since they are offshoring the jobs, causing a major leak in the
economy loop, while bringing back the products of said offshored
jobs, part of the lowering in demand, it is obviously self-defeating
from the get-go.
And, since that BLS study last summer
so effectively pointed out, we have reached critical mass in the
abominable offshoring process in America since July 1999.
"My brother and his wife has spent their entire careers in outsourcing."
Well, we know who's related to the devil, don't we????
(And may all traitors to the tribe and country suffer the consequences
of their misdeeds!)
Imports are linked to higher cost mark-ups and firm
profits,and the gains from such non-competitive imports-the resultof offshoring-are increasingly associated with the reinvestmentof these higher
profits.
Our regression analysis of 35 US manufacturingand service
industries over the period 1998�2006 supportsaggregate and
firm-level studies showing that offshoring isassociated
with a higher share of
corporate
profit in totalvalue added. But the 'dynamic' gains from
offshoringhave not been fully realised because firms have
purchased financialassets-especially share buybacks and
higher dividend payments-toraise shareholder value, rather
than investing in productiveassets that raise productivity,
growth, employment and income.Despite the
corporate
sector's contribution to national savingsover the past decade,
the offshoring�financialisationlinkage reduces the capacity
of non-financial corporations toact as a driver of the recovery
from the economic crisis thatemerged in 2008.
These are all good paying jobs that can support a family and pay
taxes.
Today, 75% of the total headcount is overseas. The overseas revenue
is 65%. The company reported record profits last year. IBM decided
to stop reporting their US headcount this year.
You know that many companies are moving their resources overseas.
China is the new spot to build development centers. These incremental
loses are adding up. But the saddest thing is that they are giving
away the building blocks for innovation.
I just read a few weeks ago the Applied Material is planning to
replace their US research center for a new one in China. That is
another example of what is going on.
And no venture capitalist would attempt to build a solar panel factory
from scratch in the US. The costs and the EPA will prevent that.
Outsourcing jobs has been going on quite some time. Let's address why.
For starters, global wage arbitrage is one huge factor in play.
Unfortunately, wage equalization and standard of living adjustments
between industrialized countries and emerging markets will be a long
painful process for Western society.
On that score, there is little that can be done except reduce wages
and benefits in the public sector and stop wasting money being the world's
policeman. We simply can no longer afford it. Besides, neither of those
things ever made any sense anyway.
US Tax policy is another reason for outsourcing, and that can easily
be addressed, at least in theory.
US corporate tax policy allows deferment of profits overseas, but profits
in the US have a tax rate of 35%. This policy literally begs corporations
to move profits and jobs, overseas.
I have been cut down for saying this before, but I will say it again:
Balanced trade is ok, so no more than say 10%+/- with any country. Beyond
that tariffs 100%. Otherwise we are po-house bound.
You can assemble all the Nobel Economists
you like, but the slide to the bottom will and is happening.
India has more kids under 15 than the US population. China has 200 million
people that are migrant labor. Need I say more? Sufficient capital is/will
find where the cheap labor is, always!
"The one area where
phantom GDP may have made an earlier appearance is information technology.
Outsourcing of production to Asia really took hold in the late 1990s, after
the Information Technology Agreement of 1997 sharply cut the duties on IT
equipment. "At least a portion of the productivity improvement in the late
1990s ought to be attributed to falling import prices," says Feenstra of
UC Davis, who along with Slaughter and two other co-authors has been examining
this question."
By BusinessWeek's admittedly rough estimate, offshoring
may have created about $66 billion in phantom GDP gains since 2003 (page
31). That would lower real GDP today by about half of 1%, which is substantial
but not huge. But put another way, $66 billion would wipe out as much
as 40% of the gains in manufacturing output over the same period.
But the new numbers also require a reassessment of productivity and
wages that could add fire to the national debate over the true performance
of the economy in President Bush's second term. The official statistics
show that productivity, or output per hour, grew at a 1.8% rate over
the past three years. But taking the phantom GDP effect into account,
the actual rate of productivity growth might be closer to 1.6%--about
what it was in the 1980s.
More broadly, it becomes clear that "gains from trade are being measured
instead of productivity," according to Robert C. Feenstra, an economist
at the University of California at Davis and the director of the international
trade and investment program at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
"This has been missed."
Pat Byrne, the global managing partner of Accenture Ltd.'s (ACN
) supply-chain management practice, goes even further, suggesting that
"at least half of U.S. productivity [growth] has been because of globalization."
But quantifying this is tough, he notes, because most companies don't
look at how much of their productivity growth is onshore and how much
is offshore. "I don't know of any companies or industries that have
tried to measure this. Maybe they don't even want to know."
Phantom GDP helps explain why U.S. workers aren't benefiting more as
their companies grow ever more efficient. The cost savings that companies
are reaping "don't represent increased productivity of American workers
producing goods and services in the U.S.," says Houseman. In contrast,
compensation of senior executives is typically tied to profits, which
have soared alongside offshoring.
IMPORTING EARNINGS
But where are those vigorous corporate profits coming from? The strong
earnings growth of U.S.-based corporations is still real, but it may
be that fewer of the gains are coming from improvements in domestic
productivity. In fact, holding down costs by moving key tasks overseas
could be having a greater impact on corporate earnings than anyone guessed--or
measured.
There are investing implications, too, although those are harder to
quantify. Companies with their primary focus in the U.S. might suddenly
seem less attractive, since underlying economic growth is slower here
than the numbers show. But if the statistical systems of other developed
countries suffer from the same problem--and they might--then growth
in Europe and Japan might be overstated, too.
When Houseman first uncovered the problem with the numbers that is created
by offshoring, she was primarily focused on manufacturing productivity,
where the official stats show a 32% increase since 2000. But while some
of the gains may be real, they also include unlikely productivity jumps
in heavily outsourced industries (see BusinessWeek.com, 6/2/07,
"Overseas Sweatshops Are a U.S. Responsibility") such as furniture
and audio and video equipment such as televisions. "In some sectors,
productivity growth may be an indicator not of how competitive American
workers are in international markets," says Houseman, "but rather of
how cost-uncompetitive they are." For example, furniture manufacturing
has been transformed by offshoring in recent years. Imports have surged
from $17.2 billion in 2000 to $30.3 billion in 2006, with virtually
all of that increase coming from low-cost China. And the industry has
lost 21% of its jobs during the same period.
Yet Washington's official statistics show that productivity per hour
in the furniture industry went up by 23% and output by 3% between 2000
and 2005. Those numbers baffle longtime industry consultant Arthur Raymond
of Raleigh, N.C., who has watched factory after factory close. "And
we haven't pumped any money into the remaining plants," says Raymond.
"How anybody can say that domestic production has stayed level is beyond
me."
WRENCHING PROCESS
Paul B. Toms Jr., CEO of publicly traded Hooker Furniture Corp., (HOFT
) recently closed his company's last remaining domestic wood-furniture
manufacturing plant, in Martinsville, Va. It was the culmination of
a wrenching process that started in 2000, when Hooker still made the
vast majority of its products in the U.S. Toms didn't want to go overseas,
he says, but he couldn't pass up the 20% to 25% savings to be gleaned
from manufacturing there.
The lure ofoffshoring works the same way for large companies. Byrne
of Accenture is working with a "major transportation equipment company"
that's planning to offshore more than half of its parts procurement
over the next few years. Most of it will go to China. "We're talking
about 30% to 40% cost reductions," says Byrne.
Yet no matter how hard you look, you can't find any trace of the cost
savings from offshoring in the import price statistics. The furniture
industry's experience is particularly telling. Despite the surge of
low-priced chairs, tables, and similar products from China, the BLS
is reporting that the import price of furniture has actually risen 6.7%
since 2003.
The numbers for Chinese imports as a whole are equally out of step with
reality. Over the past three years, total imports have climbed by 89%,
as U.S.-based companies have rushed to take advantage of the enormous
cost advantages. Yet over the same period, the import price index for
goods coming out of China has declined a mere 2.3%.
FACADE OF GROWTH
The import price index also misses the cost cut when production of an
item, such as blue jeans, is switched from a country such as Mexico
to a cheaper country like China. That's especially likely to happen
if the item goes through a different importer when it comes from a new
country, because government statisticians have no way of linking the
blue jeans made in China with the same pair that had been made in Mexico.
Phantom GDP can also be created in import-dependent industries with
fast product cycles, because the import price statistics can't keep
up with the rapid pace of change. And it can happen when foreign suppliers
take on tasks such as product design without raising the price. That's
an effective cost cut for the American purchaser, but the folks at the
BLS have no way of picking it up.
The effects of phantom GDP seem to be mostly concentrated in the past
three years, when offshoring has accelerated. Indeed, the first time
the term appeared in BusinessWeek was in 2003. Before then,
China and India in particular were much smaller exporters to the U.S.
The one area where phantom GDP may have made an earlier appearance is
information technology. Outsourcing of production to Asia really took
hold in the late 1990s, after the Information Technology Agreement of
1997 sharply cut the duties on IT equipment. "At least a portion of
the productivity improvement in the late 1990s ought to be attributed
to falling import prices," says Feenstra of UC Davis, who along with
Slaughter and two other co-authors has been examining this question.
What does phantom GDP mean for policymakers? For one thing, it calls
into question the economic statistics that the Federal Reserve uses
to guide monetary policy. If domestic productivity growth has been overstated
for the past few years, that suggests the nation's long-term sustainable
growth rate may be lower than thought, and the Fed may have less leeway
to cut rates.
In terms of trade policy, the new perspective suggests the U.S. may
have a worse competitiveness problem than most people realized. It was
easy to downplay the huge trade deficit as long as it seemed as though
domestic growth was strong. But if the import boom is actually creating
only a facade of growth, that's a different story. This lends more credence
to corporate leaders such as CEO John Chambers of Cisco Systems Inc.
(CSCO ) who have publicly
worried about U.S. competitiveness--and who perhaps coincidentally have
been the ones leading the charge offshore.
In a broader sense, though, the problem with the statistics reveals
that the conventional nation-centric view of the U.S. economy is completely
obsolete. Nowadays we live in a world where tightly integrated supply
chains are a reality.
For that reason, Landefeld of the BEA suggests perhaps part of the cost
cuts from offshoring are being appropriately picked up in GDP. In some
cases, intangible activities such as R&D and design of a new product
or service take place in the U.S. even though the production work is
done overseas. Then it may make sense for the gains in productivity
in the supply chain to be booked to this country. Says Landefeld: "The
companies do own those profits." Still, counters Houseman, "it doesn't
represent a more efficient production of things made in this country."
What Landefeld and Houseman can agree on is that the rush of globalization
has brought about a fundamental change in the U.S. economy. This is
why the methods for measuring the economy need to change, too.
On January 6, 2004, Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) and I scandalized
the economics profession and Washington policymakers with our New York
Times article, Second Thoughts on Free Trade. We noted that the two
conditions on which the case for free trade rests no longer exist in
the present-day world and that there was no basis for the assumption
that offshoring of US jobs was beneficial overall to Americans.
...Since 2004 I have written a number of articles pointing out that
offshoring is really labor arbitrage and that if offshoring had the
mutual economic benefits associated with free trade, there would be
US employment growth in export and import-competitive industries. Instead,
employment in these industries has declined in the US but grown remarkably
in Asia. In the 21st century the US economy has been able to create
net new jobs only in nontradable domestic services, such as waitresses
and bartenders and health and social services. Moreover, the growth
in productivity and GDP attributed to the US economy were inconsistent
with the stagnant real incomes of Americans. Somehow productivity and
GDP were growing strongly, but it wasn't showing up in the incomes of
Americans.
Economists have found it difficult to think about the issues that
I have raised. Economists are taught that free trade is a good
thing and that anyone who disputes it is a
protectionist in the
pay of some industry scheming to raise prices that consumers have to
pay. The notion that there could be any problem with free trade is beyond
the imagination of most economists.
In addition to their unexamined commitment to free trade, economists
disbelieved my analysis because they thought it was inconsistent with
statistics indicating high US productivity and GDP growth. They
thought GDP and productivity statistics trumped my use of job data.
All of this may be about to change.
Susan N. Houseman,
a good but previously obscure economist with the Upjohn Institute, has
discovered a problem in the statistical data that produces phantom US
GDP.
Phantom GDP results
when cost reductions achieved by US firms shifting production offshore
are miscounted as US GDP growth. Phantom productivity
increases occur when gains from moving design, research and development
offshore are counted as increases in US productivity.
Obviously, production and productivity that
take place abroad are not part of our domestic economy.
Business Week's June 18 cover story by Michael Mandel [The
Real Cost Of Offshoring] explains the problem identified by
Houseman. Economist Matthew J. Slaughter, a proponent of offshoring,
says: "There are potentially big implications. I worry about
how pervasive this is."Business Week says the implications
are big. The cover story estimates that 40% of the gain in US
manufacturing output since 2003 is phantom GDP.
Most likely that estimate is low. Consider, for example, that
furniture imports have doubled in the past few years (offshored production
counts as imports) while US jobs in furniture manufacture have declined
21%. US statistics, however, show that US output and productivity rose
even as US manufacturers closed their plants and no new investment went
into the industry.
My hat is off to Business Week. It requires courage
for a publication dependent on advertising from global corporations
to tell the truth about offshoring.
Having worked at multiple companies that unsuccessfully (from a development
not dollar savings point if view) I have come to the conclusion that
management does it for two reasons.
1). Wall Street and current business practices require a company
to show that they are following the pack
2). You can fail a project for cheaper.
The reality us that the bean counters know that most software projects
fail. Might as well fail fir cheaper.
As long as it limps along and is not a colossal failure the financial
bottom line is what counts.
So you end up with 80% of the team offshore but 80% of the actual
work still done onshore.
The only time I have seen it work successfully us when a whole self
contained business/dev/management unit is built from the ground up at
a new location.
hans
Oddly I write unit tests becuase I used to do it when I worked
in white box QA.
But most devs dont do it, because well... it takes time and that's
what QA people are for. I do not really have a dedicated QA staff
at the small company I work for now, so it is more a necessity than
ever.
The odd thing is if you are a "good" programmer you can get stuff
done in 10 times less time. When I first worked here we had 100
employees. We probably have 200 now (in 2 years). So when I started
things would need to get shipped and I'd have like maybe 1 person
to help. So now we have a full project management staff, and tons
of bureaucracy and much slower development teams.
So basically I just sit at work and do nothing for days on end,
and its "ok" as long as I code as fast as the "average team" because
the project managers schedule projects like that.
Its sad how in 2.5 years you can turn a startup into a small
company and destroy all the startup qualities of it. haha.
I have worked with a LOT of H1-Bs, and they are fine folks and
do great work. But in my experience they we not so exceptional that
domestic labor could not do the job as well or better. Which is
out of line with the stated propose of the visa.
In my experience, they were used by large corps to flood specific
markets and depress wages.
...........most of H1-B holders don't speak English well and
have some communication problems......but they are skilled workers......I
don't think kick-ass-out-of-this-country policy can solve unemployment
issue......it's another linear thinking .......kindergarten stuff..........
Jobs most at risk for offshore outsourcing are computer programming,
development
As many as 8% of IT workers have been displaced by offshore outsourcing,
either through job loss or an involuntary transfer to a new job by their
employer, which is twice the rate of workers in other occupations, according
to a study based on data collected from some 10,000 people, which may
be the largest survey of its kind.
The survey, conducted by researchers at the New York University Stern
School of Business and the
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, also backs up
the long-standing view that IT employees in purely technical jobs --
computer programmers and software developers who have little customer
interaction -- are at the most risk from offshore outsourcing.
... ... ...
The job site
Careerbuilder.com funded the research, which looked at a spectrum
of occupations, including technology, and
published initial data from the survey in April. But the 44-page
paper, posted
this week on the Social Science Research Network (registration required)
analyzes what the data is saying about the fate of high-tech workers
who have been directly affected by offshore outsourcing.
... ... ...
IT workers concerned about displacement "can focus on further developing
these interpersonal skills, or may find more robust long-term careers
in IT professions that involve significant face-to-face interaction
such as those involving cross-organizational process change or hands-on
support functions," the report's authors wrote.
Since IT workers have been more severely affected than other types
of workers, Tambe and Hitt argue that policy-makers could focus on tech
workers to provide help, including job training and government compensation
to offset wage losses. Educational institutions will have to react as
well, with "increased emphasis on the development of interpersonal and
management skills within the IT curriculum."
About two o'clock in the morning, I heard Bukowski's publisher talking
about the
New
Formalists, a group of poets that wanted to take poetry back to
the strict forms, such as sonnets and metered verse, alledgedly because
they were offended by the likes of Bukowski's rude honesty in free verse.
... ... ...
"As the spirit wanes, the form appears," Bukowski had written...
It's true of most corporations, but most certainly true of IBM that
management never get touched. They really only did a management purge
once that I'm aware, back in the early 1990s, and that was just middle
management. It's a general rule that the incompetent CEOs get to completely
fuck over the company in every possible way before someone finally figures
out that they shouldn't be left alone to manage a Dairy Queen never
mind a multi-billion dollar company. Part of that fucking up is to fire
a good portion of your workforce, outsource them to India, demoralize
the remaining workforce, have your projects then seriously compromized,
your customer satisfaction go down the tubes and then watch a stagnant
or downward-pointed share price now start some sort of nasty nose dive.
Finally the board and the shareholders get all pissed off, fire you
(which means paying you millions to vacate your office), and you head
off to some other company and start fucking them over.
Of course, massive layoffs never work. There are two kinds of employees--politicians
and workers. The workers are too busy to see the boom come down, so
they are the ones who get laid off. The politicians keep their eyes
on the politics of the company, which means that they don't really have
time to get much work done. They are really good at looking good--but
not very good at actually getting work done.
Each time you downsize, you cut a disproportionate quantity of productive
employees. Think of it as a crash diet; you waste muscle and increase
the percentage of fat. This is why crash dieting is a good predictor
of future obesity. It's also why companies that go through this binge/purge
cycle become less and less competitive with each cycle. Look at Ford,
GM, and Chrysler. How many times have they done this? My, now there's
a success story... Re:Thanks Cringely
(Score:5, Informative)
It's true. I'm soon to be out of my job at the end of the month,
as well as the rest of my team (IBMers and (Perma-Temp) Contractors.
My account was slated for transfer to Brazil in January and the talks
started before that. We were expected to train our replacements who
have basically been warm bodies. They're not even particularly talented.
The rest of IBM Global Services is going the same way. So this is a
VERY real thing. I was hoping to get hired on this year to IBM from
being a contractor and that's shot. I'm just concerned given the massive
offshoring that's occurring and how much this WILL impact IT. The displacement
of this many workers is still going to have quite an impact on IT.
IBM has also implemented LEAN in effort to cut their IBM'er workforce
in response to offshore outsourcing, which ironically is the very thing
they're doing themselves. The survivors, although being survivors might
mean they sorta wished they weren't. It's seriously bad.
I'd suggest not touching IBM with a 10 foot pole. They're calling
this the wave of the future... if they want to turn IT into something
equated as fast food. That's the dream they're going for.
The sad part about the whole thing is that I enabled this to happen.
I've spent my time there since day one migrating dying backup environments
from Veritas Backup Exec and ArcServe IT to TSM and the resulting clean-up
work. I am massively disappointed.
Anyone need a Arcserve / Veritas / Tivoli Storage Administrator ?
That's the publicly announced ~1500 or so, it does not confirm a 40%
US workforce layoff. 40% would be a ludicrously desperate move for a
company that at worst is described as stagnant, not exactly in trouble.
When you aren't announcing any losses, just less-than-awesome gains,
it doesn't make sense to just cut out that much in as short a period
as a year. IBM is topheavy and I definitely agree that the management
is the bulk of the problem (not only *way* too many of them, but they
are also more highly paid than the technical people who do real work),
and so I wouldn't be surprised if a couple thousand more get screwed
over the year, but 40% would be the dumbest thing and I think even shareholders
would see it as a detrimental, stupid move.
One problem they do seem to have is startup envy. They see a company
come out of nowhere and achieve great fame and a sizable market cap,
and wonder why they can't achieve the same percentage growth. The obvious
answer (that IBM's market cap is overwhelmingly huge already, nowhere
to really go) doesn't seem to occur to them.
Let's be honest here. I work in Global Services in South America.
A lot of the accounts were way overstaffed and the people there were
not exactly the best and brightest yet still getting 80K+ a year. I'm
not a senior sysadmin by any stretch of imagination, but it can be seen
from all 5000 miles away that my American counterparts are in no way
superior to many of the seniors that I work with who have 10+ years
of experience managing servers in environments where there's less money
and you have to be more inventive to solve problems, and who've had
to face even more difficult economic situations
Many accounts are overspecialized and action is held back by massive
bureaucracy. Despite everything, my pet theory is that IBM simply can't
support its massive managerial structure divided by a million differente
criteria -accounts, competencies, etc.- , eventually it had to give
way.
Laid off a large bunch of their Professional Services staff here
without informing their customers. The customers pulled out the signed
contracts asking who was going to fulfill them. By the time the dust
settled, Sun had either lost a lot of people to other companies or had
to hire the sacked staff back on at higher contract rates to fulfill
the obligations.
Lets say you've got small project A. Small project A has 5 or 6 guys
working on it. They've been working on it for years, wrote a good bit
of the underlying system, know everything about it and can generally
tell you exactly where the problem is if you call them with a problem.
Now you fire all those guys and hire a bunch of guys from Brazil
at 1/4 the original team's salary. Even if the original team hangs around
to train the new guys the new guys have to ramp up from scratch. Even
if they're excellent programmers it's going to take them 6 months to
a year to even get comfortable with the code, even with documentation
in place. During that time the overall application design will get slightly
worse as they try to implement new features in ways that don't fit in
with the original application design.
In the mean time you've got 150 other tech companies realizing that
people in Brazil will work for peanuts and they'll all move in to the
country. Now your programmers are realizing that they can get more peanuts
if they do the same sort of job hopping that we did in the 90s
to get more peanuts. So over the course of the next year your team is
replaced by new people who you have to pay a lot more money to and who
are completely unfamiliar with your code base again. So now you're paying
your Brazilians as much as you were paying your original programming
team and they have no experience with your code base. Good job!
You can only save money that way if you buy into the fallacy that
people are pluggable resources and experience counts for nothing. If
you believe that then you can get as much done with a summer intern
as you can with someone with 20 years of programming experience. Give
it a shot sometime. And you can find a company that doesn't have
that philosophy. I wouldn't want to work for a company that thinks I'm
just a body taking up space anyway.
... when I took the reins at KANA last year, I found a company with
tremendous assets but many operational challenges. One significant challenge
for KANA involved its development operation in India. After a thorough
analysis, I chose to end the relationship with our vendor and bring
development back to the U.S.
The decision we made to "back-shore" our development was the best
move for KANA. Other small to mid-size software companies may be similarly
constrained by their offshoring strategy - and they may not have taken
the time recently to reevaluate the value of their initiatives.
When I joined KANA as CEO last year, I immediately recognized the
company's strengths - a large, loyal customer base, significant technological
assets and a great employee team. However, the company seemed to have
trouble executing as a sustainable, profitable business.
We set about fine tuning KANA's three core assets.
People - During the "bubble" days, KANA had been a very
large company. Though it had downsized, it had retained the large
management infrastructure with the expectation that the company
would grow again. Out of 142 employees, we had 22 Vice Presidents.
In fact, KANA had only four field sales reps in the U.S. but it
had five VPs of strategy.
We restructured the corporate management,
including an almost-entirely new executive team. With only one exception,
all of these new executives were found inside the company.
Clients - KANA has 600 clients - everyone from Best Buy
to Verizon to IBM. These large firms have utilized our technology
to support call centers, email, collaboration and chat. Yet within
our client base, we only had 20 percent penetration, a big opportunity
for upselling and cross selling.
Technology - KANA has the only multi-channel, highly-scalable,
enterprise-class solution for customer service. Our renewal rate
on maintenance was 92 percent - a testament to the fact that customers
were getting real value from our product. Yet the core product was
being developed offshore with questionable efficiency.
The Decision to Back-shore
KANA was one of the earliest software companies to offshore its engineering
and support. The effort began almost four years ago. At one time, KANA
had 250 engineers employed in India and China through its vendors.
After analyzing the state of KANA's development operation, we decided
to put together a strategy to bring the work back inside the company.
There are three main reasons KANA decided to back-shore.
1. Regain Control of Intellectual Property
In my first days as CEO, we made an inventory of our core assets. KANA's
intellectual property was at the top of the list.
Yet the company had decided to outsource
and offshore core product development. That was a major mistake, in
my opinion. It is one thing to outsource porting or localization
or special features and another move core intellectual property offshore.
KANA is not Oracle. When a large vendor hires thousands of its own
employees offshore, the company can manage human resources activities
and ensure protection of these assets very differently than KANA can
at its size.
As a small company, IP is a critical part of KANA's asset base -
one that deserves full control and protection. Globalization is a powerful
force. But I believe it is important to outsource only those things
that enhance the success of your product delivery without outsourcing
the core product engineering.
2. Achieve a Comparable R&D Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
When we began the process to bring engineering back to the U.S., I thought
it would end up costing KANA more money. What happened, however, is
that when we analyzed the costs, we realized
that KANA hadn't saved any money by offshoring.
Indian developers have a very high level of skills. It's no wonder
that executives become fixated on the fact that you can hire 2-3 Indian
programmers for the cost of one U.S. programmer.
However I would be willing to bet that few software vendors have
an idea of the TCO of their offshoring operation. For KANA, the competitive
labor market in India meant that we had little control over who was
working on our projects. There was no way to curb high turnover rates,
control labor cost increases or to hold onto key talent.
Another area of added costs involved significant management resources
from the U.S. KANA had to employ a program
manager for every five engineers in India. These managers
typically spent two to three weeks in India every quarter to ensure
the development process was moving forward.
This added travel, documentation and quality assurance expenses.
A factor which has improved America's competitiveness is the readjustment
of engineering salaries. During the "bubble," developers were like "hired
guns." They could write their own ticket in terms of compensation -
salary plus a demand for hundreds of thousands in equity. It was a seller's
market.
That's changed dramatically. I'm not saying finding the right engineer
in the Silicon Valley is an easy task, but applicants have a more logical,
realistic approach to the job. U.S. developers are simply not pricing
themselves out of the market anymore.
Offshoring may eliminate as many as one in five programming, software
engineering and back office jobs such as data-key entry during the next
several years in certain metropolitan areas where employment in those
fields is the heaviest, according to a study
(download PDF)by The Brookings Institution released this week.
Brookings, a Washington-based think tank, has attempted to put job
loss numbers around one of the most worrisome issues for IT workers
today, while also recommending steps the government can take to slow
the trend.
Where this report, The Implications of Service Offshoring for
Metropolitan Economies, differs from others that have tried to assess
the implications of offshoring is its analysis of how the trend will
affect metro areas with high concentrations of IT-related jobs.
Overall, Brookings found that 28 metropolitan areas with 13.5% of
the nation's population are likely to lose between 2.6% and 4.3% of
their jobs to service offshoring. Those metro areas that could see the
highest job losses, above 3.1%,, are Boulder, Col.; Lowell, Mass.; San
Francisco; San Jose; and Stamford, Conn.
Several other cities, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia,
Los Angeles, could lose between 2.1% to 2.5% of their service jobs.
Among the areas where workers could fare better are Las Vegas and
Riverside, Calif. These two metropolitan areas with more than 1 million
people are likely to see no more than than 1.5% of their jobs moved
offshore. Indeed,
Las Vegas in particular is in need of IT workers.
Although overall "a small share of all U.S. jobs will be lost to
service offshoring in the next decade," the report said that some types
of service jobs are more likely to go than others, including those that
rely heavily on IT and routine or rule-based work.
Some occupations, "especially those in IT or back-office services,
could lose up to 24% of their jobs in particular metropolitan areas
by 2015 as a result of offshoring," the report said. Breaking its results
down by occupation, Brookings found that at least 17% of computer programming,
software engineering and data entry jobs are likely to be offshored
[from] certain metro areas."
Areas that appear to be particularly susceptible to IT and back office
job losses from offshoring, include Bergen-Passaic, N.J.; Boston; Boulder,
Col; Danbury, Conn.; Denver; Hartford, Conn.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Nashua,
N.H.; Newark, N.J.; Orange County, San Francisco and San Jose, all in
Calif.; Stamford, Conn., and Wilmington, Del.
[Jan 18, 2007] There is a considerable danger of abuse of offshore IT
personnel due to micromanagement. See
Feb 8, 2007, MSNBC.com
America's visa program for temporary workers was originally set up to
allow U.S. companies to bring skilled workers who are in short supply
to the U.S. Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle, and Sun Microsystems have
been active participants in the program, hiring foreign workers for
specialized computer programming jobs and positions managing projects
with overseas staff.
The visas, known as H-1Bs, are popular enough that President George
W. Bush is calling for an increase in the cap on the number of workers
who can come to the U.S. under the program. "We've got to expand what's
called H-1B visas," he said in a January speech. "It makes no sense
to say to a young scientist in India, you can't come to America to help
this [country] develop technologies that help us deal with our problems."
But a review of new information from the federal government suggests
that the companies benefiting most from the temporary worker program
aren't U.S. companies at all. Rather, they appear to be Indian outsourcing
firms, which often hire workers from India to train in the U.S. before
returning home to work. Data for the fiscal year 2006, which ended last
September, show that 7 of the top 10 applicants for H-1B visas are Indian
companies. Giants Infosys Technologies and Wipro took the top two spots,
with 22,600 and 19,400 applications, respectively. The company with
the third most applications is Cognizant Technology Solutions, which
is based in Teaneck, N.J., but has most of its operations in India.
All three companies provide services to U.S. companies from India, including
technology support and back-office processing.
The only other U.S. companies among the top 10 are the accounting
and consulting firm Deloitte & Touche and consultancy Accenture. They
rank seventh and ninth, with 8,000 and 7,000 applications, respectively.
Outsourcing conduit... The dominance of Indian outsourcing companies raises public
policy questions about the temporary visa program. Some experts say
that while the intent of H-1B visas may be to help U.S. companies hire
workers with rare skills, the effect in some cases may be to facilitate
moving jobs abroad. The issue has also sparked concern among some prominent
U.S. tech companies, which worry that outsourcers could abuse the visa
program, harming the tech firms' ability to attract foreign talent.
Ron Hira, a public policy professor at the Rochester Institute of
Technology, says it appears that Indian firms may be using their H-1Bs
to bring in workers from their home countries to make them more effective
at outsourcing jobs in India. "The visa program serves a good purpose
when it brings in the best and the brightest," says Hira, who is on
leave at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute and crunched the recently
released visa data to compile the list of top applicants. He says that
as recently as 1998 eight of the top 10 H-1B visa applicants were U.S.
companies. "It serves a bad purpose when it's used to facilitate outsourcing."
Or competitive edge? The Indian outsourcing firms say that's a misinterpretation
of the data. They argue that the temporary visa program allows outsourcing
firms to help U.S. companies become more flexible and ultimately more
competitive in the global economy. Wipro has more than 4,000 employees
in the U.S., and roughly 2,500 are on H-1B visas. About 1,000 new temporary
workers come to the country each year, while 1,000 rotate back to India,
with improved skills to serve clients. "Our goal is to make our customers
more competitive," says Laxman Badiga, Wipro's chief information officer.
An Infosys spokeswoman said executives from that company were not available
for comment.
The government visa data cover only the number of applications for
visas, not the number actually awarded. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration
Services releases the identities of companies that apply for H-1B visas,
not those that receive them. A spokesman for USCIS, which is part of
the Homeland Security Dept., says it won't discuss individual companies
because of privacy issues.
Still, the number of visas awarded is likely correlated to the number
of applications. Efran Hernandez, chief of business and trade services
for USCIS, says H-1B visas are awarded on a "first-come, first-serve"
basis and there is no preference given to U.S. companies over non-U.S.
companies. "You have to be a U.S. employer," says Hernandez. "That doesn't
mean you have to be a U.S. company."
In addition, the temporary visa program includes no requirement that
companies in the U.S. try to hire American employees before they turn
to foreign workers. To obtain a permanent visa, companies must conduct
and provide to the government a labor market test, in which they demonstrate
that they sought to hire American workers first. But the H-1B temporary
visa program mandates no such market test. Instead, companies are required
only to pay the prevailing wages and benefits for a certain job in a
certain market.
The government, including USCIS, says that the provision means that
most companies are going to hire Americans, because there's no financial
advantage to choosing a non-U.S. worker. But Hira says Indian companies
could choose to hire workers from India for training purposes, rather
than financial gain. Government officials acknowledge that companies
that want to give preference to workers from other countries could theoretically
do so. "There's nothing built into the law to stop that," says Hernandez.
Many U.S. companies are enthusiastic supporters of the H-1B visa
program. Tech companies may be the most active participants, but the
visas are also used by companies from General Electric and Boeing to
Lehman Brothers and Caterpillar. Companies have been lobbying the government
to increase the cap on the number of H-1B visas from the current 65,000.
(Because there are exceptions for certain kinds of jobs, the number
of visas issued regularly exceeds that level.)
Squeeze on temporary visas Top technology companies would like to see the cap almost twice
as high as it is now. The Information Technology Industry Council, whose
backers include Apple, Dell, eBay, and Intel, last year asked that the
cap be raised to 115,000. The group says that bringing foreign workers
with very specialized skills to the U.S.-both temporarily and permanently-is
critical to increase innovation and competitiveness. "Visas are a key
component of the innovation agenda," says Kara Calvert, director of
government relations for the council. "It's really important to grow
the economy here rather than overseas."
Yet the ITIC has become concerned in recent months that the temporary
visa program is not being used for its original purpose. The council's
members may not be able to get the workers they want from abroad because
the numerous applications from non-U.S. companies mean fewer H-1B visas
are available for U.S. companies. "We hit the cap earlier and earlier,"
Calvert says. "We think it's important to ensure that the visas are
used for the purpose for which they were intended."
One reason for the squeeze may be that Indian outsourcers have boosted
their visa applications just as the cap has been lowered. Wipro applied
for 3,100 visas in 2001, when the H-1B cap was 195,000 workers, according
to Hira's calculations. Wipro applied for six times that many H-1B visas
last year, when the cap was a third of the previous total.
No easy answers Wipro's Badiga says Indian companies are helping to create
good jobs in the U.S. and fostering innovation. The jobs that Wipro
offers in the U.S. to both Indian and U.S. workers, he says, are more
skilled positions for high-level software design or important customer
relations. What he calls "rote programming jobs" are done from India.
He says that the H-1B visa program allows Wipro workers to get valuable
experience in the States and be more effective at serving customers
in the U.S. "The key question is whether we can create the best value
chain to help our customers be as competitive as possible," says Badiga.
Even critics say that there are no easy solutions for revising the
temporary worker program. Restricting the ability of Indian outsourcing
companies to use H-1Bs, for example, may not stop them from being used
for more effective outsourcing. Accenture, an active participant in
the program and one of the top U. S. outsourcing firms, could hypothetically
use the visas in exactly the same way that Wipro and Infosys do. A spokeswoman
for Accenture did not return calls seeking comment.
U.S. tech companies may push for revisions to the H-1B program. They
could ask that Congress limit the number of visas that go to non-U.S.
companies or that the identities of the recipients be disclosed fully
and speedily. President Bush has said that he wants to work with the
Democratic Congress on new immigration and visa policies, although it's
unclear what shape those reforms might take. "If companies are abusing
those visas, that hurts U.S. companies," says the ITIC's Calvert. "We
want to be at the table when the discussions [on H-1Bs] occur."
LONDON - Workers who survive downsizing measures and hold on to their
jobs may consider themselves lucky but they
have a higher risk of suffering from mental health problem,
Finnish scientists said on Thursday.
After studying the impact of downsizing on municipal employees they
found men who kept their jobs were 50 percent more likely to be
given a prescription for an antidepressant or sleeping pill than people
where there had been no enforced layoffs.
"This quasi-experimental outcome study of 26,653 city employees suggests
that downsizing is a mental health risk, not only for employees who
lose their jobs, but also for those who remain in employment," said
Professor Mika Kivimaki, of University College London.
Women in the study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health were 12 times more likely to use a prescription drug after downsizing.
Sleeping pills were the most commonly used drug for men while women
were more often prescribed anti-anxiety drugs.
Kivimaki and his team said employers, policy makers and occupational
health experts should recognize that downsizing poses mental health
problems.
One of the drawbacks of being an IT professional is being experimented
on by pointy-haired bosses who have fallen in love with a new management
fad. The PHBs have taken us through downsizing, rightsizing, vision
statements, mission statements, dead Chinese warriors, SPC, Extreme
Programming, Quality Circles, Synchronous Manufacturing, Total Quality
Management and (if you were among the really unlucky ones), weeks of
butt-numbing meetings on something called Six Sigma. But we can survive
such things, for geeks have developed a unique ability to doze off with
our eyes open.
The latest PHB craze, however, is far more baleful than any of those
dear old nostrums. It's called offshore outsourcing.
Remember back in 1999, when you had a job, what a hard time you had
talking the boss into letting you telecommute two days a week? "Look
at the savings on office supplies," you said. "Four more hours a week
I can spend working instead of plowing the freeway!" Management's counters
to your arguments were always the same: "All environments other than
the Datawhack Inc cube farm are potentially distracting;" "When you're
not there physically, how will anyone know what you're doing?" and that
ultimate deal killer, "We can't possibly allow our proprietary software
and sensitive client data in the insecure environment of a spare bedroom!"
... ... ...
There are a number of other well-known problems with offshore outsourcing.
In the interest of brevity I'll breeze through some of the larger objections:
Project design is a tennis game played between developer
and customer: Customer asks you to do X, you respond with a
client-level explanation of what it would take to do X, he strokes
his beard and asks you if X-prime would be possible, you volley
back a revised design, and so on. It goes on for at least a few
iterations before you put cursor to code development window.
How long does this game take if the
developer is halfway around the world, learned the customer's language
as a college junior, and is embedded in a totally different culture?
Offshoring is the ultimate development of the management
philosophy that all IT people are as interchangeable as urinal cakes.
What happens in the middle of a multi-year implementation when,
in their ongoing quest for a country where people will work for
free, the PHBs switch to a development team in a different part
of the world?
The ongoing controversy over patent and copyright in America
leads us to believe that corporate boards are concerned about protecting
their intellectual property. What happens to IP when the work
is being done in a country with a radically different legal system?
And if a legal dispute were to arise, do you appeal to a tribunal
run by a tribal chieftain, or do you burn incense before a multi-armed
deity and hope for the best?
When you outsource, you don't go overseas to hire your own
staff. You retain a consulting firm based where the workers are.
Of course, you made sure that this firm had expertise in your
company's field. So now how do you know how many of your direct
competitors the same staff might be working for, right at this moment?
The first outsourcing operations farmed out programming tasks
only. That was, after all, where most of the money went. Everyone
promised to audit the hell out of the code being sent back. And
of course, it was all going to be rigorously tested. But then you
discovered business process outsourcing! Now that you've sent the
whole back office overseas, including the auditors and testers...
well, let's just say that if I find out who you are, I'm not going
to ride on your planes or rely on power from your grid.
The North American developers who used to work for you had
an average of 16 years of experience. But those doddering 28-year-olds
demanded three meals a day, medical care and in a few cases, weekends
off, so you plugged in offshore replacements with an average of
4 years on the job. What do you think might be the actual depth
of their knowledge? How adaptable will they be as new technologies
come along?
Dealing with work located at a great distance requires advanced
remote management. Folks, we're talking about people who are
not confident of their ability to manage a project on the other
side of town.
The PHBs love outsourcing because it saves money. In long-range corporate
planning departments, where the B-school elite gaze ahead all the way
to the hazy outlines of next quarter, the thinking is that the savings
will goose the value of their shares, so that the last eight employees
left in the company will someday retire rich.
What these folks are
ignoring is the effect of outsourcing on politics. Geeks are not very
political, but have until now leaned libertarian. All through the 80s
and 90s, the tech vote created the sunny business climate that made
the big boom possible. Today the geeks � and office workers in general
- are running through their own retirement savings as they vainly look
for work. Once they lose their houses, they will turn into another sullen
huddle of trailer-dwelling outsiders. Like the Greens, their sole political
focus will become vengeance against "the suits." Management, by jumping
into one fad too many, will lose the very political world it had hoped
to create for its own comfort. Look forward to a nation of fifty Californias
where every city is Eugene, Oregon.
Bill Gates Unplugged CNET.com
In the recent interview Bill Gates noted that"The
IT systems are your brain. If you take your brain and outsource it
then any adaptability you want (becomes) a contract negotiation".I think that this aptly describes what
we are experiencing now with the helpdesk.
Here is the full quote:
Q: What's your view of this idea of utility computing? And how
does it speak to seamlessness if indeed this is a case of "here
they go again," putting their twists and turns to what they want
to propagate?
Bill Gates: You have to be careful with utility computing.
That was a rage during the 1990s, that everything would be hosted
and moved outside the company. Where are those hosting companies
now? Only a few things--like running Web sites--fit those models.
The IT systems are your brain. If you take your brain and
outsource it then any adaptability you want (becomes) a contract
negotiation.
Objective must be to improve business process efficiency
Outsourcing projects are at risk of failure because they are driven
by cost savings rather than a desire to improve the efficiency of business
processes. A survey of 400 IT and finance decision makers in private
and public sector companies across the UK commissioned by Unisys found
that the finance department views outsourcing almost entirely as a means
to cut costs, even in organizations where IT is represented at board
level.
Paul Bevan, strategic marketing director at Unisys, explained that
understanding business objectives, rather than a desire to slash budgets,
needed to be the driving force behind outsourcing decisions.
"Even in sectors where IT representation at board level is good,
such as financial services, and where the relationship between IT and
finance is considered better, the IT director's influence dropped away
dramatically and the finance director was much more instrumental in
the decision making process about outsourcing," he said.
"Outsourcing has come from a history of 'sunset' areas that
are technologically difficult or bitty, or because it's a time
consuming activity not perceived to add a lot of value.
"It's no coincidence that, as we go into a recession, instances of
outsourcing go up, but outsourcing is becoming more complex where
it's questionable whether real cost savings are to be gained."
The research also found that, while two thirds of private companies
had already embarked on or were considering outsourcing projects, enthusiasm
is not being mirrored to the same extent in the public sector, where
less than half outsource IT functions.
Earlier this year analyst firm Gartner predicted that 50% of
IT outsourcing arrangements would fail in the next 12 months because
of bad management.
At the same time, poor employee communication is also causing uncertainty,
affecting employees' performance and threatening outsourcing projects.
One in five staff claim that they first hear about an outsourcing
contract though the grapevine rather than official communication channels.
A separate survey sponsored by IT services provider Steria found
that more than half of employees suffer from reduced productivity, and
almost a quarter make errors in their work, during the outsourcing process
due to high levels of stress.
The company warned that human resources departments need to play
a strategic role in the outsourcing process, particularly given widespread
misunderstandings about legislation that protects outsourced employees.
But 51 per cent felt that outsourcing had a positive effect on their
career, and 68 per cent said that they provide a better service than
they did before outsourcing.
"Treating staff badly, not giving them the information they deserve,
and not caring for affected employees is not simply bad practice, it's
a false economy," said Kim Lambert, director of managed services at
Steria.
On Thursday, May 20, the Center
for American Progress held an event, "The Impact of Offshoring on the
U.S. Economy: Policy Perspectives," on Capitol Hill. The panel was moderated
by the Center's director of economic programs, Gene Sperling, and featured
Martin Bailey (International Institute of Economics), Lael Brainard
(Brookings Institution) and Thea Lee (AFL-CIO). Below are suggestions
for how the U.S should deal with offshoring, as well as links to offshoring
resources. A transcript of the presenters
prepared remarks will be posted here when available.
In recent months, Americans have become
increasingly concerned about the impact of offshoring on the United
States economy. The practice of offshoring � when U.S. firms relocate
their production and service facilities overseas � has increased over
the past few years, particularly in white-collar industries that were
previously viewed as more stable and less vulnerable to global competition.
The phenomenon has raised fears that the U.S. economy may be permanently
shedding certain jobs and job categories, which could lead to a hollowing
out of the middle class and downward pressure on wages.
Current labor market data show that Americans
are justified in worrying about job creation � the economy is still
millions of jobs short of where it should be at this point in its recovery.
And while the data on offshoring suggest that it is not the primary
culprit for our current labor market woes, there is considerable uncertainty as to how large its future impact
will be � leaving many unanswered questions about its
impact on the U.S. economy. As a country, we need to engage in a serious
dialogue on these questions and consider a range of potential public
policy responses to address not only the pain and dislocation that offshoring
creates, but also the steps necessary to ensure that the American workforce
continues to compete and win in the global economy.
Job creation in the
United States is too slow. The U.S.
economy has lost more than 2 million jobs since President Bush took
office and analysts believe the economy is still significantly lagging
in job creation (Morgan Stanley estimates the economic recovery
is short 2.4 million jobs from where it should be, while EPI estimates
a job shortage of 5.5 million). The Bush administration tax cuts
� aimed primarily at the wealthy � have done little to address this
concern.
The pain and suffering
of those who have lost their jobs is real.
Although many unemployed workers will eventually find new jobs,
a substantial number of them will have to work for less pay and
fewer benefits. For those that are unemployed, public assistance
is woefully inadequate. More out of work Americans are losing their
unemployment benefits than ever before (nearly 2 million workers
so far this year). Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed and
support for job retraining is underfunded.
Congress should consider
specific policy proposals to address the problems created by job
loss and offshoring. Congress should
immediately strengthen adjustment policies to help dislocated workers.
First, Congress should extend the Trade Adjustment Act (TAA) to
service workers, who are not currently covered. They should also
consider more ambitious wage insurance and temporary health insurance
proposals designed to give unemployed workers a cushion of stability
and ease the transition between jobs. Finally, Congress should increase
support for lifelong learning and retraining programs and consider
retraining tax credits or grants to individual workers.
To compete globally,
the United States needs to greatly improve its education and health
care systems. Congress needs to focus
on improving the U.S. education system so the population is prepared
for a new economy. They should increase investment in science and
engineering education; ensure that schools focus on math and science
at the primary and secondary levels; and increase support to community
colleges. We also need a healthcare system that provides for all
Americans regardless of their employment status.
Insiders exploit their legitimate role within an organization
to harm it. Their knowledge of and access to the organization pose a
substantial threat-probably greater than external threats. In many cases,
the only thing preventing insiders from exploiting their privileged
access and knowledge is the perception that their interests and the
organization's are aligned. So, if delivering a project on time or making
a customer happy is in the insiders' best interests, you can expect
them to contribute and work toward a common goal. However, when
individual and corporate goals aren't so clearly aligned, a certain
segment of the workforce will have no qualms about passively or actively
pursuing their own interests at their employer's cost.
The first report focuses on the people
who have had access to and have perpetrated harm using information systems
in the banking and finance sector, which includes credit unions and
financial institutions. This study, made possible by significant financial
support from the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology
Directorate, is the first of its kind to provide a comprehensive analysis
of insider actions by analyzing both the behavioral and technical aspects
of the threats.
The findings underscore the importance
of organizations' technology, policies and procedures in securing their
networks against insider threats, as most of the cases showcased in
the report were perpetrated by insiders with minimal technical skills.
Various proactive practices are among the suggestions offered by the
report.
The definition of an insider for this study includes current, former,
or contract employees of an organization. The cases analyzed in the
Insider Threat Study involve incidents in which an insider intentionally
exceeded or misused an authorized level of system access in a manner
that affected the organization's data, daily business operations, or
system security, or involved other harm perpetrated via a computer.
For the Insider Threat Study, researchers from the Secret Service
CERT/CC have focused on identifying the physical and online behaviors
and communications that insiders engaged in before the incidents, as
well as how the incidents were eventually executed, detected, and the
insider identified. This approach addresses a broader phenomenon than
previous studies on the topic of insider activity.
I find it useful to draw a contrast
between two different organizational development styles: "process-oriented"
and "commitment-oriented" development. Process-oriented development
achieves its effectiveness through skillful planning, use of carefully
defined processes, efficient use of available time, and skillfull application
of software engineering best practices. This style of development succeeds
because the organization that uses it is constantly improving. Even
if its early attempts are ineffective, steady attention to process means
each successive attempt will work better than the previous attempt.
Commitment-oriented development goes by several
names including "hero-oriented development" and "individual empowerment."
Commitment-oriented organizations are characterized by hiring the best
possible people, asking them for total commitment to their projects,
empowering them with nearly complete autonomy, motivating them to an
extreme degree, and then seeing that they work 60, 80, or 100 hours
a week until the project is finished. Commitment-oriented development
derives its potency from its tremendous motivational ability-study after
study has found that individual motivation is by far the largest single
contributor to productivity. Developers make voluntary, personal commitments
to the projects they work on, and they often go to extraordinary lengths
to make their projects succeed.
Organizational Imposters
When used knowledgeably, either development style can produce
high quality software economically and quickly. But both development
styles have pathological lookalikes that don't work nearly as well,
and that can be difficult to distinguish from the genuine articles.
The process-imposter organization bases its practices
on a slavish devotion to process for process's sake. These organizations
look at process-oriented organizations such as NASA's Software Engineering
Laboratory and IBM's former Federal Systems Division. They observe that
those organizations generate lots of documents and hold frequent meetings.
They conclude that if they generate an equivalent number of documents
and hold a comparable number of meetings they will be similarly successful.
If they generate more documentation and hold more meetings, they will
be even more successful! But they don't understand that the documentation
and the meetings are not responsible for the success; they are the side
effects of a few specific effective processes. We call these organizations
bureaucratic because they put the form of software processes above the
substance. Their misuse of process is demotivating, which hurts productivity.
And they're not very enjoyable to work for.
The commitment-imposter organization focuses primarily
on motivating people to work long hours. These organizations look at
successful companies like Microsoft; observe that they generate very
little documentation; offer stock options to their employees; and then
require them to work mountains of overtime. They conclude that if they,
too, minimize documentation, offer stock options, and require extensive
overtime, they will be successful. The less documentation and the more
overtime, the better! But these organizations miss the fact that Microsoft
and other successful commitment-oriented companies don't require
overtime. They hire people who love to create software. They team these
people with other people who love to create software just as much as
they do. They provide lavish organizational support and rewards for
creating software. And then they turn them loose. The natural outcome
is that software developers and managers choose to work long hours voluntarily.
Imposter organizations confuse the effect (long hours) with the cause
(high motivation). We call the imposter organizations sweatshops because
they emphasize working hard rather than working smart, and they tend
to be chaotic and ineffective. They're not very enjoyable to work for
either.
Cargo Cult Software Engineering
At first glance, these two kinds of imposter organizations
appear to be exact opposites. One is incredibly bureaucratic, and the
other is incredibly chaotic. But one key similarity is actually more
important than their superficial differences. Neither is very effective,
and the reason is that neither understands what really makes its projects
succeed or fail. They go through the motions of looking like effective
organizations that are stylistically similar. But without any real understanding
of why the practices work, they are essentially just sticking pieces
of bamboo in their ears and hoping their projects will land safely.
Many of their projects end up crashing because these are just two different
varieties of cargo cult software engineering, similar in their lack
of understanding of what makes software projects work.
Cargo cult software engineering is easy
to identify. Cargo cult software engineers justify their practices by
saying, "We've always done it this way in the past," or "our company
standards require us to do it this way"-even when those ways make no
sense. They refuse to acknowledge the tradeoffs involved in either process-oriented
or commitment-oriented development. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
When presented with more effective, new practices, cargo cult software
engineers prefer to stay in their wooden huts of familiar, comfortable
and-not-necessarily-effective work habits. "Doing the same thing again
and again and expecting different results is a sign of insanity," the
old saying goes. It's also a sign of cargo cult software engineering.
"Our brains and nervous systems constitute a belief-generating
machine, a system that evolved to assure not truth, logic, and reason,
but survival. The belief engine has seven major components ..."
There is a convergence of two trends
here: subcontracting and what's been described as "lean, mean supply-chain
management."
An early example of subcontractors working
inside the plant because of the corporate outsourcing craze has
been General Electric's use of outside maintenance personnel
- a practice contested by UE from the shop floor to national negotiations.
It's becoming a common practice for companies
to rent each other's employees.
And as example of supply-chain management,
look at how GE Transportation Systems in Erie, Pa. (the employer of
Locals 506 and 618 members) has built a close relationship
with suppliers like Dominion Castings, a Canadian division of Chicago-based
NACO. Beginning with a long-term contract for truck castings
in 1993, GE's relationship with its supplier deepened when NACO became
involved in the design and production of its steerable locomotive truck.
"The NACO tie-up fits into a larger GE strategy that targets just-in-time
delivery from suppliers and significant inventory reductions.
In another variation, IBM, Hewlett-Packard
and Compaq have begun sending bare-bones machines to distributors;
the distributors finish assembling the computers when the orders come
in. One Hewlett-Packard executive was quoted saying, "Putting parts
together? Others can do that." Another HP executive recalled for
Fortune magazine how 20 years ago, H-P workers made screws and steel,
and wound motors. Now production is quickly farmed out.
Nike
and Dell are extreme examples of "hollow corporations" - all
of their goods are produced by subcontractors.
CORPORATE WORLD
Visionaries say that if manufacturing
has a future, this is it. Inventories all but disappear as product designers,
manufacturers and distributors are linked electronically. Goods will
be produced based on retailers' daily needs; even cars will be assembled
according to customer specifications.
Promoters of insourcing say the new partnerships
allow companies to cut costs, use their resources more efficiently,
focus on specific goals, gain access to other's production expertise,
gain economies of scale and get product to market quicker.
For example, management at VW's Resende
plant claims it can concentrate better on logistics, product engineering,
process and quality assurance and customer service.
"Observers in Brazil believe that this
type of closer manufacturer-supplier relationship represents a trend
that is here to stay-and not just in the automotive industry," reports
Industry Week. "It may be more easily implemented in a greenfield
plant, they acknowledge, but if the right strategy is followed regarding
unions, it might be possible to introduce it in existing plants as well."
THE 'RIGHT' LABOR STRATEGY
The "right" labor strategy would presumably
require neutralizing, if not eliminating, and certainly avoiding union
organization. If organized, workers would have a way of objecting to
the seamy side of this flexibility - layoffs, deskilling and smaller
paychecks.
This institutionalization of a two-tier
employment strategy gives the bosses a powerful weapon against unions.
Not surprisingly, last November union members at GM and VW plants in
S�o Paulo, Brazil accepted management's first offer on a new contract.
In Resende, Brazil, local union leaders
hope to organize the VW plant eventually but admit the web of employers
poses a challenge.
OUTSOURCING IS 'IN'
The insourcing phenomenon is bad news
to those American workers who are already under threat from outsourcing
- and should be of concern to those who work for suppliers. In the new
"flexible" and "lean" global economy, subcontractor jobs can be outsourced.
In 1994, U.S. companies subcontracted
about $16 billion worth of work - a figure expected to grow to $37 billion
in 1998. A 1997 study by the OI saw companies planning projects that
would double their outsourcing of all types, including services as well
as production of parts. Last year, companies covered by a Dun & Bradstreet
survey said they would increase manufacturing outsourcing alone by 25
percent. Manufacturers account for nearly two-thirds of all outsourcing
The electronics industry's subcontracting
manufacturing sector is growing faster than overall electronics sales.
Nestl� Corp. may own 495 plants world-wide, but subcontractors
produce more than half its production and almost half its packaging.
Big pharmaceutical firms are relying on small specialized biotech production
companies.
GM outsources about 55 percent of its
work, Ford 62 percent and Chrysler 67 percent, compared to 75 percent
for Japanese automakers. Four out of five auto-parts plants are non-union.
"The restructuring that has swept the
automobile industry for the last several years seems pointed toward
a two-tier industry: one union, one non-union; one more or less well-paid;
one, not; both with super-stressed workplaces," writes Kim Moody in
Labor Notes.
SERVICE AND PUBLIC SECTORS
Of course, not only manufacturing workers
are affected. Information services is a growth industry for subcontractors.
For example, a subcontractor in India handles the medical records for
a hospital in suburban Washington, D.C. Companies from the Philippines
to Ireland are vying for U.S. office jobs.
Postal workers unions have been protesting
plans by the nation's ninth-largest firm - the U.S. Postal Service -
to subcontract work. Public sector employees - federal, state, county
and municipal - face severe threats from subcontracting. School districts
contract for services like cleaning.
Then again, UE Local 792 members
at Wright State University are employed by the university's food-service
subcontractor.
While many UE members are fearful of
- and have been fighting against - the threat of outsourcing, a growing
number of UE members work in manufacturing plants that supply parts
to factories owned by major auto and electrical manufacturing companies.
They have benefited from the 1990s growth in outsourcing, but their
jobs, too, may be in danger.
OURSOURCING OUTSOURCED
"One change in outsourcing is that the
suppliers of outsourcing services themselves are beginning to outsource
non-core functions and form alliances with other providers to offer
end-to-end services," says The Outsourcing Institute. Sub-suppliers
are providing hundreds of individual parts to main suppliers.
Already in the auto industry, companies
are supplied by subcontractors who in turn outsource work.
The ultimate so far, reports Fortune
magazine: "A 'rolling chassis' being delivered by Dana Corp. to Chrysler's
new $315 million Dodge Dakota pickup-truck plant in Campo Largo, Brazil.
The chassis arrives on inflated tires complete with brakes, steering
components, gas tank, and other parts supplied by 70 companies, including
ITT, TRW, Eaton, and Bosch."
OMINOUSLY REMINISCENT
U.S. industry's love affair with outsourcing
and new fling with insourcing is ominously reminiscent of Japan's reliance
on subcontracted labor. Each big company employs 100 subcontractors,
which in turn contracts out to hundreds more companies, some with only
a few employees. The wages and conditions of workers employed by subcontractors
are inferior to those employed by the major corporations.
The big Japanese corporations like this
system because the work of the tiny subcontractors can be of very high
quality; if minor changes are needed they are easy to make, allowing
the corporations to remain highly competitive.
The bottom layers of the Japanese workforce
are made up of subcontract employees, "temporary" employees, "extra-workers,"
day laborers and casual workers, employed by the subcontractors and
myriad of small employers dependent on big capital.
INSOURCING'S PROBLEMS
Despite the hype, insourcing has already
exhibited real-life problems for big corporations - like finding reliable
suppliers and maintaining good relations with subcontractors. When
Daimler entered into a joint venture with a Swiss firm to produce
a micro-car plant in France last year, quality problems delayed the
car's introduction by six months. Daimler says modular assembly works
but will not entrust suppliers with production of its high-price Mercedes
luxury sedans.
As the boundaries of U.S. manufacturing
become blurred, all the way from parts to distribution, accountability
becomes more difficult - a problem potentially for business and labor.
A subcontractor intricately involved in production is not so easily
fired. And who do unions bargain with - or strike against?
As vertical integration gives way to
"virtual integration," the danger for business is that the insourcing
model will simply shift labor costs without cutting costs.
For workers, the danger is that business
will succeed - at the expense of their wages, benefits and jobs.
The union must get on top of insourcing
- or any subcontracting - before it becomes a reality in their workplace,
counsels UE Genl. Pres. Hovis.
"We must be more vigilant about bargaining
over subcontracting while we still have bargaining power, before work
is moved out or in," says Hovis.
Business theorists like to develop fancy names for their theories.
One of the latest is the "virtual company." According to this theory
companies should subcontract ALL their manufacturing and only do
product development, sales, or maybe provide engineering expertise to
companies that use their products. As crazy as this sounds many
big US corporations are falling for this. One model that is held up
as an example is Nike Corporation, which owns no manufacturing facilities.
Nike only designs and markets the sneakers. Of course the people who
boast about Nike usually fail to mention that Nike has been condemned
for subcontracting to companies that use child labor or pay workers
10 cents per hour.
The Japanese Model -
Almost every management fad of the last 20 years has claimed
to be based upon the Japanese miracle and the subcontracting fad is
no different. Following the defeat of Japanese fascism in World War
2, business was restructured with the help of "experts" from the United
States. What came out of this restructuring was bigger monopolies and
a system of subcontracting that was legislated and enforced by big corporations.
Small companies could only work for one big company, thus they and the
workers were and are totally dependent on the big company.
When business slowdowns occur it is the workers in the small companies
that are laid off first, and naturally wages and benefits are much lower
than in the big companies. Since the Japanese economy has been in a
slowdown for the last several years not as many "experts" boast about
the Japanese model.
"Modular consortium" -
This is a fancy name for one of the latest trends in subcontracting,
that is just beginning to start in the US. Volkswagen opened its newest
Brazilian auto factory in late 1996. In this factory Volkswagen gathered
together 6 of its major parts suppliers and had them set up production
right inside the Volkswagen factory! They supply and assemble all the
major components (engines, chassis, painting, transmissions, etc,) while
Volkswagen just oversees final assembly and testing. Since then other
auto companies like General Motors and Renault have followed this example
in Brazil. In the US, some companies (including some UE employers) are
beginning to experiment with this form of subcontracted production.
AUGUST 09, 2004 (COMPUTERWORLD)
- Now here's a real classic on the comeback trail: developing
your own applications. Sounds so retro, doesn't it? The kind
of thing start-ups do when the CEO doubles as the chief product engineer
and surrounds himself with a cabal of MIT grads writing code. So what's
going on when large pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hotel chains,
health care providers and online powerhouses like travel firm Orbitz
are found, in this day and age, productively rolling their own?
Computerworld
reporter Gary H. Anthes answered that question last week in his cover
story about the many sensible, cost-saving and even surprising
reasons why companies build their own applications rather than buying
into more packaged software ["Roll Your Own," QuickLink
47884].
What he uncovered flies in the face of conventional wisdom that buying
is better than building -- a belief assiduously promoted by software
vendors of all sizes.
And no wonder. The lifeblood of so many software companies
increasingly flows directly from their maintenance and support fees,
which have risen to nosebleed levels of 18% to 25% annually to offset
the economic drag of lower sales in recent years.
Take Oracle as Exhibit A. When the database maker posted its financial
results in mid-June, the single biggest factor cited as offsetting its
slow-moving application sales was rapidly growing revenue from those
fat fees for software maintenance. That revenue is increasing nearly
twice as fast as new license revenue, CEO Larry Ellison said.
But it's not just the high cost of applications and their hefty annual
fees that are driving development of homegrown applications. Ranking
high as reasons for this approach are dissatisfaction with complacent
vendors that don't respond quickly enough to user needs, and dismay
over software suites overloaded with features and fiendish complexity.
At Reinsurance Group of America, for example, a $35 million global enterprise
administration system that was developed in-house not only fueled a
competitive leap past the company's rivals but also was vastly preferable
to the nightmare alternative of integrating more than a half-dozen commercial
packages to provide similar capabilities.
Yet the greatest reason of all to roll your own is the ability to
tailor IT to your business, to control the fate of applications too
vital to trust to outside developers. It's about enabling (may Nicholas
Carr forgive us here) a competitive edge that really does matter.
At Reliant Pharmaceuticals, for example, CIO Ron Calderone wisely
heeded user resistance to complicated sales force automation tools and
built a relatively simple system using speech recognition technology
for the field agents. A packaged SFA system would have cost $4 million
to $6 million, Calderone reckoned, but he delivered just what his business
comrades needed for about 15% of that.
"Simple and inexpensive" are often the magic words associated
with the best in-house application projects. We're hearing that mantra
more often these days, particularly as open-source software carves inroads
at the enterprise level. As Orbitz CTO Chris Hjelm put it in our story,
"We are largely an open-source shop, so when we think about buying software,
there's a general aversion to it."
The "buy vs. build" debate will no doubt go on forever. But
the combination of open-source software with sophisticated development
tools and standardized Web services is dramatically changing the face
of that argument. When companies go looking for technical creativity,
innovation and a competitive edge, they won't be buying that off anybody's
shelf but their own.
One day, the political windstorm around offshore outsourcing will
blow over. One day, the inflated numbers on both sides of the debate
will be debunked. One day, the last angry letter from a displaced American
IT worker will be published.
Unfortunately for IT managers everywhere, that day is not today.
The emotional backlash against any plans to outsource technology
jobs overseas -- regardless of how economically or competitively driven
-- is a force to be reckoned with in today's IT workplace. It
dampens the morale of even the most valuable, talented employees, as
we saw recently in our Best Places to Work in IT survey [QuickLink
a4610].
One reader sent us a note last week suggesting that we include "foreign
outsourcing statistics" in future Best Places reports, thereby revealing
how many U.S. citizens are part of the IT head count of the companies
on our list.
Negative reactions can blast back from customers as well as
from affected employees, as Dell and Lehman Brothers discovered when
they had to pull customer service operations out of India. Despite
a few other widely publicized retreats, the majority of Fortune 1,000
companies are forging relentlessly ahead with offshoring plans -- albeit
with greater stealth, in hopes of avoiding bad publicity.
The bottom line driving what Gartner calls an "irreversible megatrend"
is always the same: cost savings too compelling to ignore in an open,
interconnected global marketplace. "To outsource offshore is not
a political decision on the part of the company. It's an economic decision
with political ramifications," says Mike Hoyt, CEO of Paradigm Works.
He's one of our sources in "Damage Control" [QuickLink
47609],
a story about how IT managers can cope with the offshore backlash.
One impressive example of a company dealing effectively
with the backlash problem is Union Bank of California, which created
a "sourcing management office" to handle any concerns that might harm
its reputation with customers. The office's duties include handling
all communications about the bank's offshore plans.
The preventive measures we discuss in our story basically boil
down to having honest, frequent, candid communication with everyone
involved. CFO magazine gave similar advice last month in its
cover story about offshoring, noting that the majority of the 275 financial
executives surveyed had no intention of canceling their offshoring plans,
despite the backlash. Some 42% of those
CFOs said they were realizing net savings of more than 20% from their
offshore projects, and 64% were planning to increase offshoring levels.
So where do companies go wrong in communicating their outsourcing
plans? Let us count the ways. They overlook a basic communications plan
for internal or external consumption (the offshoring version of
a "don't ask, don't tell" policy). They fail to explain why
a given project is going overseas or how such decisions are made. They
try to downplay the negatives about workforce changes. They hide their plans for as long as possible,
then look guilty and act defensive when the news leaks.
Some analysts are predicting that the backlash will fade away by
next year, and I hope they're right. But in the meantime, IT managers
must brace for the backlash and deal with it decisively.
"You don't want rumor to overtake reality," says Michael Treacy,
co-founder of Gen3 Partners, an outsourcing consultancy. "In the end,
you can only politicize so long, and then the facts will prevail."
Maryfran Johnson
is editor in chief of Computerworld. You can contact her at
[email protected].
You've seen it a hundred times before. The proposed system is crucial.
The pros, cons, upsides, and downsides are clear. Benefits are believable,
costs manageable, and resources ready. Yet decision procrastination
rears at every turn, making it tough to get the project underway. Before
demoralization devastates your team as they wait for the final go-ahead,
begin mastering the ancient art of "delay" slaying. Here are some tips
to get you started.
1. Vocalize time's tyranny. IT time delays can seed enterprise
failure. Look at Kmart's loss of industry leadership and market share
when Wal-Mart initiated clever, IT-based business strategies based on
faster, more accurate responses to customer buying habits. Many industry
gurus agree that management of time is the number one critical success
factor in 21st century enterprises. Use it to your advantage by clearly
stating what delay will cost. For example, "for every four months we
delay the beginning of this project, earnings per share will decrease
by two cents in 1999."
Five ways to slay the delay dragon
1.
Vocalize time's tyranny
2. Find the real drivers of delay
3. Speak the right language
4. Expand your "clever reasons" repertoire
5. Dramatize the delay cost
2. Find the real drivers of delay.
Decision delay is always a symptom of deeper issues. Typical causes
include: fear of failure, resistance to perceived power shifts, missing
cost/benefit factors, and lack of buy-in. Unearth the real anxiety source,
then backfill it with relevant time-delay consequences, such as those
outlined below.
3. Speak the right language.
Different decision participants respond to different
language. Executives react best to words such as profits, market share
gains, customer service, and other top-level payoffs. VP and director-level
folks typically speak the language of budgets and people availability.
First-level managers best understand issues such as fewer transaction
problems and more productivity. Tailor the language of your pitch to
the hot buttons of each.
4. Expand your "clever reasons" repertoire.
Often overlooked "price of procrastination" factors include:
Loss of "the best" people. The talents and skills of key
people can make or break a project. Is critical internal or external
staff available now, but not necessarily later? Having average rather
than exceptional people can increase complex project costs by more
than 20% due to poor task prioritization and mishandled change management.
Avoidance of time-based premium costs. The multibillion
dollar overnight letter industry is based on business' willingness
to pay a "speed tax" that's 25 times more expensive than traditional
USPS delivery. Do you really need it? Another example: Y2K people
costs can be two to three times higher this year than last, due
to skill shortages. Delayed projects, that later become urgent,
can bloat costs to shocking heights.
Loss of budget. If you have the money, take it now and
run. Don't make the fatal assumption that systems budgets are forever.
Enterprise priorities shift. Supportive executives move on. Funding
is inherently fluid and wily. Capture it now.
Cost of pain. Pain is the flip side of benefit. Most decision-makers
seek to minimize risk of loss when deciding on systems. Leverage
this reality. For example warn them that, instead of proclaiming
that the project will "increase market share," restate it as "avoid
loss of market share." Turn the benefit--"a new system can improve
customer satisfaction by eight percentage points"--into a risk avoidance
statement such as, "delaying this system will risk a rise in customer
dissatisfaction rise by eight percentage points due to preventable
service problems."
5. Dramatize the delay cost. Want an easy way to make the
cost of delay more vivid? Jon Gearhart, PeopleSoft's industry director
for the public sector, preaches a simple formula: The cost of postponed
payoffs equals the net present value (NPV) of the time series of delayed
tangible payoffs less the NPV of faster initiation of the same benefits.
In other words, every year you wait costs the enterprise the value of
the delayed benefits for that year, adjusted for the cost of money.
For example, if you delay the beginning of a $10 million stream of benefits
until the year 2001 instead of the year 2000, it will cost the enterprise
$626,000, assuming an 8% cost of money. A further delay of an additional
year--to 2002--penalizes the organization another $580,000.
Time is everywhere, and so are the costs of letting it slip away.
By sharpening your "delay slayer" skills, you can leave procrastination
dragons at your feet instead of at your throat.
Re:What the hell *is* IBM Global Services?
(Score:5, Funny)
by bynary (827120) on Friday
May 04, @04:29PM (#18994319)
Moving forward, they leverage their intellectual capital in conjunction
with the synergistic core competencies of a highly mobile workforce
of motivated resources to manage global diversification, decentralize
initiatives, and reduce inventory turnover in an increasingly risk averse
marketplace. They operate on the principles of a paradigm shift away
from participative management towards actionable strategic alliances.
Quite intuitive, really...
NEW YORK, N.Y. (SatireWire.com) - AT&T will reduce
its workforce by an unprecedented 120 percent by the end of 2001, believed
to be the first time a major corporation has laid off more employees
than it actually has.
AT&T stock soared more than 12 points on the news.
The reduction decision, announced Wednesday, came after a year-long
internal review of cost-cutting procedures, said AT&T Chairman C. Michael
Armstrong. The initial report concluded the company would save $1.2
billion by eliminating 20 percent of its 108,000 employees.
From there, said Armstrong, "it didn't take a genius to figure out
that if we cut 40 percent of our workforce, we'd save $2.4 billion,
and if we cut 100 percent of our workforce, we'd save $6 billion. But
then we thought, why stop there? Let's cut another 20 percent and save
$7 billion.
"We believe in increasing shareholder value, and we believe that
by decreasing expenditures, we enhance our competitive cost position
and our bottom line," he added.
AT&T plans to achieve the 100 percent internal reduction through
layoffs, attrition and early retirement packages. To achieve the 20
percent in external reductions, the company plans to involuntarily downsize
22,000 non-AT&T employees who presently work for other companies.
"We pretty much picked them out of a hat," said Armstrong.
Among firms AT&T has picked as "External Reduction Targets," or ERTs,
are Quaker Oats, AMR Corporation, parent of American Airlines, Callaway
Golf, and Charles Schwab & Co. AT&T's plan presents a "win-win" for
the company and ERTs, said Armstrong, as any savings by ERTs would be
passed on to AT&T, while the ERTs themselves would benefit by the increase
in stock price that usually accompanies personnel cutback announcements.
"We're also hoping that since, over the years, we've been really
helpful to a lot of companies, they'll do this for us kind of as a favor,"
said Armstrong.
Legally, pink slips sent out by AT&T would have no standing at ERTs
unless those companies agreed. While executives at ERTs declined to
comment, employees at those companies said they were not inclined to
cooperate.
"This is ridiculous. I don't work for AT&T. They can't fire me,"
said Kaili Blackburn, a flight attendant with American Airlines.
Reactions like that, replied Armstrong, "are not very sporting."
Inspiration for AT&T's plan came from previous cutback initiatives,
said company officials. In January of 1998, for instance, the company
announced it would trim 18,000 jobs over two years. However, just a
year later, AT&T said it had already reached its quota. "We were quite
surprised at the number of employees willing to leave AT&T in such a
hurry, and we decided to build on that," Armstrong said.
Analysts credited Armstrong's short-term vision, noting that the
announcement had the desired effect of immediately increasing AT&T share
value. However, the long-term ramifications could be detrimental, said
Bear Stearns analyst Beldon McInty.
"It's a little early to tell, but by eliminating all its employees,
AT&T may jeopardize its market position and could, at least theoretically,
cease to exist," said McInty.
Armstrong, however, urged patience: "To my knowledge, this hasn't
been done before, so let's just wait and see what happens."
NEW YORK-Seeking to reduce costs and streamline internal operations,
AT&T eliminated 1,500 mid-level employees Tuesday.
"The telecommunications industry is an incredibly competitive one
and, unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary to make cuts in order
to ensure longterm fiscal viability," said AT&T chief executive C. Michael
Armstrong, standing among 10-foot-high piles of former employees. "It's
a shame that these people are no longer with us, but the end result
should be a leaner, stronger AT&T."
More employee liquidation is planned in the near future, with over
$23 million in staff cuts over the next 18 months through buyouts, early-retirement
incentive packages and pneumatic bolt guns.
Addressing stockholders at a meeting yesterday, Armstrong said he
is "extremely excited about the positive impact these changes will make."
The company's stock jumped from 62 1/4 to 72 following the announcement
of the personnel cuts, the second-largest terminal layoff in AT&T history.
"After a 15 percent drop in profits over the last two quarters, we
knew we had to shake things up," said AT&T vice-president of human resources
Harold W. Burlingame. "Once we made the decision to eliminate some personnel,
our priority was to do so in the most quick and painless way possible.
I believe we accomplished this.''
Burlingame expressed regret that AT&T was unable to provide the employees
greater advance notice of their liquidation.
"Whenever we let employees go, we try to let them know well in advance,
so they have ample time to say goodbye to co-workers, supervisors and
loved ones," Burlingame said. "But in this case, we unfortunately couldn't,
because we really needed to have them working hard right up to the minute
we assembled them in the cafeteria."
Burlingame said AT&T has no plans to offer the 1,500 departed employees
severance pay, claiming it would be "of little use to them." He thanked
the employees for their many years of loyal service to AT&T and expressed
hope that they ultimately find themselves in an even better place.
Nobody expected this to be an ordinary Sunday. Airport security was
especially tight on this significant anniversary. The random-pluck programs
were turned off today. Every passenger was required to step into the
X-ray booth, undress, and place all clothing into the gamma box before
being allowed to proceed.
No one will ever know why Austin was the first to be affected, that
morning. Perhaps it had something to do with the city having one of
the last "Bushvilles," tin shanties clustered near the airport. With
the exception of Austin, most of the nation's geeks had been resettled
in huge public dormitories on farms run by the National Forfeiture Administration.
There (living on land once owned by some farmer accused of smoking a
joint, downloading music, violating the new .03 blood-alcohol DUI limit,
visiting a prostitute, or returning DVDs late), a computer person could
compete for regular contracts on the global market, sustaining himself
on a world-average annual income by growing his own food and sharing
camp chores with bunkmates.
But Austin still had a cell of active Republicans, with the ear of
one recalcitrant state appeals judge. The Austin resettlement colony
had been held up on one technicality after another. If you wanted to
find a computer maven in this city, you'd do the pretend-you-don't-see-them
stroll past the beggars at the Bushville perimeter wire, then prowl
the rows of shacks until you found the ragged person whose battered
solar-powered laptop produced the E-mail message that had looked so
good on your watchtablet. If there was going to be any repeat of the
Cupertino food riot of 2005, it was highly likely to happen right here.
A hotel executive from Hearst Dreamland Resort happened to be the
first. After stepping off her flight from San Luis Obispo, she pushed
her card into the Bank of India ATM near Baggage Claim, and keyed in
her PIN. Instead of the usual flood of tiny aluminum dollar coins, the
machine flashed ACCOUNT DECLINED. She was too busy to pick up the Help
Line receiver and wait the twenty minutes it took to get a fuzzy, accented
voice that might or might not have been able to diagnose her problem.
After all, California had only just emerged from Chapter 9 reorganization
after six years, and was still under martial law. Public resentment
simmered over the mass sale of state assets in bankruptcy, even after
Gov. Boxer mandated that eBay hire local temps to run the sale servers.
When the Soros/Tiger Balm partnership snapped up Hearst on the third
day of bidding, the Silicon Valley Geek-Green Alliance had posted anonymized
threats to burn the Castle down. A wall of military security kept the
GGA out, but all the execs had seen hacker attacks in one form or another.
Since the lynching of the Advistron board in 2007, most upper-level
corporate folk had found it prudent to stay in their gated compounds
and let Trav-L-Temp proxies in stiff white Kevlar suits run all their
out-of-town errands.
Up one level in the Austin terminal, there was a commotion at the
Southwest Delta United counter. The reservation system seemed to be
running, but at 0800 sharp it had stopped accepting locator codes. Every
ticket in the system had, apparently, electronically vanished. Passengers
were waving e-ticket confirmation printouts that no longer corresponded
to reservations.
High above the waiting area, the CNN monitor carried first reports
from the airline's check-in counters in New York, Chicago, Zurich, Beijing,
Sydney, and Dubai: every ticket query was coming up Not Found. Twenty-three
minutes later, a corporate rep at the Guangzhou datacenter came on the
air to report an "intrusion" that would require a "software rollback
and restore." The airline would be down the rest of the day.
At the same moment in Los Angeles, every one of the electronic signs
on the Spielberg Freeway began flashing EMERGENCY! EXIT NOW! Five minutes
later, the signs on the Caltrans public freeways followed suit. Traffic
surged onto surface streets to form a puzzled mass of weekend drivers
wondering where to go, just as tourists shopping for souvenirs at the
Chinese Chinese Theater became the first in the nation to discover that
their credit cards had just electronically left home without them.
At the "Summer White House" in upstate New York, President Clinton
was finishing up a working vacation, polishing her Homecoming Week speech
for Wellesley College. Late in her administration, she was looking forward
to summing up the country's years of strife and triumph: the California
bankruptcy, the National Health Plan, the scandal over the Chinese invasion
of Taiwan, and her landmark solution to the outsourcing crisis: the
Labor Resettlement Act.
The Labor Resettlement Act had allowed Americans to get back into
competition with the Third World -- not by imposing tariffs and embargos,
but by competing directly on standard of living. It had almost worked,
too: with the American technical wage brought down to the new-dollar
equivalent of $5,000 a year, the new "dorm geek army" began winning
back software contracts, just in time to boost Clinton's polls enough
to hold off Stossel in 2008, gaining a second term. But in the following
year, the traditional outsourcing havens began to lose share to Vietnam,
Indonesia, and the emerging "Stans" of southwest Asia, where the standard
of living remained still lower, and people will work for even less.
The world back-office wage dropped to $2,500 per year, and only Federal
Reserve Chairman Paul Krugman's program to devalue the dollar kept America
in the running. The country was clawing its way back, and by now it
was rumored that over ten percent of the latest Windows release was
American-made subcontracted code.
Two hours after the first signs of attack, Clinton received a call
on the Pentagon secure link. Defense Secretary Ramsey Clark, white-faced,
broke the news of a nationwide software meltdown. Virus detectors saw
no unusual activity. It was only after the Pentagon, which fortunately
still had a back office staff all its own, began to put together the
stories of al Qaeda operatives who had trickled out of their caves and
gone to computer schools all over the Third World, that the picture
began to come into focus.
In the minutes left before the embedded software that tied America's
TV networks together failed for good, Clinton went on the air, bit her
lip, and began to tell the nation an ancient story of Troy and an outsourced
horse.
Computing Center [n] In a University, that organization
whose functions are 1) To impede wherever possible the development and
usefulness of computing on the campus, 2) To gain the lion's share of
funding, spend it largely on obsolete and otherwise inappropriate Solutions,
and convince the campuse(s) wherever possible to expend their meager
funds on the same, and 3) to oppose vigorously any new, useful and popular
technology for ten years or more until nearly everyone on the campus(es)
and elsewhere in the world is using it, then to adopt that technology
and immediately attempt to gain complete and sole control of it [see
MS-DOS, UNIX, ETHERNET, INTERNET].
Lou Dobbs has been paying attention to the outsourcing of American
jobs to the detriment of our over-all economy with the result that we
are now fighting (unsuccessfully) to keep a middle class in this country.
I think we are well on our way to becoming a third world country...jobs
in the service sector do not pay a living wage. Manufacturing has been
outsourced to the point where we don't even make our own weaponry any
more--how stupid is that? Gee, China, can you sell us some widgets for
our guns? For our tanks, hummers? Can you sell us some uniforms for
our army, navy etc?
Outsourcing the Presidency
Date:
3/10/2006, 1:53 am, EDT
Name:
George Bush
Email:
Number:
55
Congress today announced that the office of President of the United
States
of America will be outsourced to India as of Mar 9, 2006.
The move
is being made to save the President's $400,000 yearly salary, and
also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead
the
office has incurred during the last 5 years.
"We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should
be
significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). Reynolds, with
the
aid of the Government Accounting Office, has studied out-Sourcing of
American jobs extensively. "We cannot expect to remain competitive on
the
world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.
Mr. Bush was informed by email this morning of his termination.
Preparations for the job move have been underway for sometime. Gurvinder
Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India, will be assuming the office
of
President as of January 30, 2006.
Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents
were
vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the position.
He
will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month but with no health coverage
or
other benefits.
It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job
responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference
between
the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few offices
of
the US Government will be open. "Working nights will allow me to keep
my day
job at the American Express call center, "stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive
interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would
be
President someday."
A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be
fully
aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should
not
be a problem because Bush was not familiar with the issues either. Mr.
Singh
will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively
to
most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address
common
concerns without having to understand the underlying issues at all.
"We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson. "President
Bush has used them successfully for years." Mr. Singh may have problems
with
the Texas drawl, but lately Bush has abandoned the "down home" persona
in
his effort to appear intelligent and on top of the Katrina situation.
Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his
final day
of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible
for
$240 a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be
eligible
for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.
Mr. Bush has been provided the out-placement services of Manpower,
Inc. to
help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition.
According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a
new
position due to limited practical work experience.
APPROACHING CONVERGENCE CRITICALLY Carleton University Working Papers
in Communication Technology and Culture By Shawn W. Yerxa April 11,
1994,
www.carleton.ca
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
Copyright � 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org
was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Lindsay Hill Nick 7 months ago I hadn't thought about it in the context of working from home. Makes total sense - gives you that physical cue to switch between 'work mode' and 'home mode'
AWS (and Ron)
