On 6/15/2012 9:40 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2012 8:46:37 AM UTC-4, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/15/12 8:22 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 6/15/12 6:21 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"jps" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:49:35 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

...income inequality among nations and the society havoc caused by
massive inequality.

TED is an interesting presentation of talks on a number of subjects by
recognized experts in many fields.


http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

For those who can actually think, it's an eye opener.


Harry, look for the one with Nick Hanauer. A venture capitalist "job
creator" admitting the truth about hiring and the disparity between
rich and poor.

Mobility is near dead in the US. Dozens of countries offer more
mobility to those willing to work hard and risk.

----------------------------------------------------------

Risk what? Most people who ultimately achieve some level of achievement
or what we used to call
"success" don't view working hard at it as a "risk". They view it as an
opportunity.

Our culture has become overly influenced by the "instant gratification"
mentality. "If I exist, I deserve" type
of thinking. I have seen it exhibited often by newly hatched graduates.
The ink isn't even dry on their
sheepskin and they can't understand why employers aren't beating their
door down with offers of high
paying jobs or positions.

Ya hafta pay your dues in life and you only fail when you give up trying.

Eisboch


The most important thing a new grad can do these days is get a job, any
decent job, keep updating the resume, network like crazy, and jump to
better jobs as they come along. There's little reason these days to be
any more "loyal" to a "for=profit" corporation than it will be to an
employee. *Never* trust a "for-profit" employer, not these days, not
since the death of the social compact in the Reagan Administration.

----------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with that. I think it's the result of a double-edged
sword however,
with both employees and employers contributing to the demise of mutual
loyalty.

I also think there are other influences as well. Job functions and skill
requirements used to be much more static over a career than they are now.
Technology has accelerated obsoleteness. An ambitious employee in a
go-nowhere
job is alert to new job opportunities elsewhere, either for increased
income or
new challenges. Employers with moving targets in terms of rapidly
changing markets for products or services can't carry those who aren't
willing to learn
new skills or accept changes in their routine.

The secret to job security for an employee is to make themselves
valuable to the employer.
It's just the way it works. A for-profit corporation is just that. It's
not a social security
organization.

Eisboch




I know of and have read of too many instances where really hard-working
people who were immensely valuable to their employers were dumped for
all sorts of reasons, and virtually none of them were related to their
job performance.

I know of and have read of too many instances where lazy, unproductive assholes were protected by the union and kept their fat, cushy union jobs even though they were lazy, unproductive assholes with no values to the company and deserved to be dumped.

Oh hell yeah, the teamsters were bad with that... Guys that sat in the
bathroom getting drunk all night were protected, another guy who ate a
grape lost his job...