| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny. Tuition keeps rising but finding a stable job at a University keeps getting harder and harder. Anyone have an explanation here? I know that many schools have transitioned into using adjuncts more than ever but they get paid dirt so that should not really increase tuitions...
It is administrative bloat caused by the inevitable career progression of 2 generations of over-hiring tenured professors. Those people get promoted into cushy admin jobs, they make jobs for their friends, they need administration to administer in the administrators. All the money at the university goes to the top. They increase tuition to cover their salaries, they have faculty hiring freezes, overlead professors with bigger classes and more sections, they fill in the gaps with adjuncts, TAs, and GAs.
In 40 years when they all die or retire it will correct itself. But by that point academia will have been so ravaged that it may take 2 generations to correct, or funding may just go away and the same problem will persist just without the administrative overload.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny. Tuition keeps rising but finding a stable job at a University keeps getting harder and harder. Anyone have an explanation here? I know that many schools have transitioned into using adjuncts more than ever but they get paid dirt so that should not really increase tuitions...It is administrative bloat caused by the inevitable career progression of 2 generations of over-hiring tenured professors. Those people get promoted into cushy admin jobs, they make jobs for their friends, they need administration to administer in the administrators. All the money at the university goes to the top. They increase tuition to cover their salaries, they have faculty hiring freezes, overlead professors with bigger classes and more sections, they fill in the gaps with adjuncts, TAs, and GAs.
In 40 years when they all die or retire it will correct itself. But by that point academia will have been so ravaged that it may take 2 generations to correct, or funding may just go away and the same problem will persist just without the administrative overload.
Thanks! Makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll suggest he re-checkAn example of the kind of job I'm talking about. Not in his field but his credentials qualify him to skip the in-field experience.
Oh man, I'm just gonna leave this here
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's interesting is that tuition raises tend to cause states to reduce funding tend to cause universities to raise tuition. My community college recently had an incident where they raised tuition because "the state is unlikely to increase funding", despite the state senate explicitly saying, "It's because even when we increase funding, you seem to increase tuition anyways."
Treat education like a business, it gets run like a business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's interesting is that tuition raises tend to cause states to reduce funding tend to cause universities to raise tuition. My community college recently had an incident where they raised tuition because "the state is unlikely to increase funding", despite the state senate explicitly saying, "It's because even when we increase funding, you seem to increase tuition anyways."
Treat education like a business, it gets run like a business.
Wow that's like something out of Joseph Heller's notebook....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, here's one that baffles me, that seems to afflict Gen Xers and beyond:
We're interviewing people for a plush technical job: Pays roughly $80k/year, you get to work from home, good benefits, etc., etc.
So we get a candidate, and her resume has typos on it, and she shows up late to her own REMOTE interview! It's not like she can claim there were traffic issues, or she didn't know she'd need network connectivity, or whatever.
In my (non) generation, there were two simple rules of job-seeking:
(1) Typos in your resume? Into the trash it goes.
(2) Late for your interview? No deal.I have absolutely noticed that candidates over 40 fall into the "no typos, right on time" variety, and those under 35 are definitely the, "Whatever. You know what I meant, and I was there no more than 10 minutes late. What's the big deal?" variety.
Really interesting when our job is for developing technical training, where a single typo can result in a massive system crash...
I've noticed this too. My perception has been that America is in an race to be as less formal as possible. My company had moved into Canada and when our partners came to HQ to meet us, they thought we were a bunch of stiff ass bankers. "It's not going to be fun working here!" Simply because we had a formal dress code. The reason was to stop slobs from wearing packer's jerseys and leggings as pants to work. (That just adds more fuel to my perception.)
This isn't just the yougins or about clothing either. I had a director for several years who would often use "are" to mean "our" in email communication (she is close to 50). I just left a meeting discussing writing annual reviews which included directors and their direct reports. The HR rep put the directors on the spot, "do you want written paragraphs and stories, or just a list of bullet points?" There was an overwhelming cry of "bullets!!!" they didn't even say points.... People hate work so much they don't even want to complete sentences or spell out words!
I understand that being too ridged can lead to being too inflexible. Though the trend seems to be towards such loose standards that its hard to find anything of passable quality anymore. /shrug
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that being too ridged can lead to being too inflexible. Though the trend seems to be towards such loose standards that its hard to find anything of passable quality anymore.
As your post illustrates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm worried we're gonna have to let Grognardy go...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could be worse. Could have accidentally summoned a Kelsey Grammerian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that being too ridged can lead to being too inflexible. Though the trend seems to be towards such loose standards that its hard to find anything of passable quality anymore.As your post illustrates.
You missed "yougins".
Also I wish I could afford nice formal clothes to wear.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, here's one that baffles me, that seems to afflict Gen Xers and beyond:
We're interviewing people for a plush technical job: Pays roughly $80k/year, you get to work from home, good benefits, etc., etc.
So we get a candidate, and her resume has typos on it, and she shows up late to her own REMOTE interview! It's not like she can claim there were traffic issues, or she didn't know she'd need network connectivity, or whatever.
In my (non) generation, there were two simple rules of job-seeking:
(1) Typos in your resume? Into the trash it goes.
(2) Late for your interview? No deal.I have absolutely noticed that candidates over 40 fall into the "no typos, right on time" variety, and those under 35 are definitely the, "Whatever. You know what I meant, and I was there no more than 10 minutes late. What's the big deal?" variety.
Really interesting when our job is for developing technical training, where a single typo can result in a massive system crash...
I'm under 40, and I'm always 15 or more minutes early. As well, my resume contains words many hiring managers only pretend to know (until they have a chance to Google them), and yes they're all spelled correctly. :P
It's not an age thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that being too ridged can lead to being too inflexible. Though the trend seems to be towards such loose standards that its hard to find anything of passable quality anymore.As your post illustrates.You missed "yougins".
Also I wish I could afford nice formal clothes to wear.
you can buy mine ive been let go...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, here's one that baffles me, that seems to afflict Gen Xers and beyond:
We're interviewing people for a plush technical job: Pays roughly $80k/year, you get to work from home, good benefits, etc., etc.
So we get a candidate, and her resume has typos on it, and she shows up late to her own REMOTE interview! It's not like she can claim there were traffic issues, or she didn't know she'd need network connectivity, or whatever.
In my (non) generation, there were two simple rules of job-seeking:
(1) Typos in your resume? Into the trash it goes.
(2) Late for your interview? No deal.I have absolutely noticed that candidates over 40 fall into the "no typos, right on time" variety, and those under 35 are definitely the, "Whatever. You know what I meant, and I was there no more than 10 minutes late. What's the big deal?" variety.
Really interesting when our job is for developing technical training, where a single typo can result in a massive system crash...
I'm under 40, and I'm always 15 or more minutes early. As well, my resume contains words many hiring managers only pretend to know (until they have a chance to Google them), and yes they're all spelled correctly. :P
It's not an age thing.
Or... you're just the exception that proves the rule!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
(That should come across as an evil laugh, and not a come-on to a banana. Though I suspect the latter will result in yet another Captain Yesterday alias...)
EDIT: More seriously, KC was asking for generalizations of generations, and the always late/many typos has, for me at least, had a stronger association than most I've heard. I have a friend who's 51, averages two typos a sentence, and who will be late to his own funeral.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, here's one that baffles me, that seems to afflict Gen Xers and beyond:
We're interviewing people for a plush technical job: Pays roughly $80k/year, you get to work from home, good benefits, etc., etc.
So we get a candidate, and her resume has typos on it, and she shows up late to her own REMOTE interview! It's not like she can claim there were traffic issues, or she didn't know she'd need network connectivity, or whatever.
In my (non) generation, there were two simple rules of job-seeking:
(1) Typos in your resume? Into the trash it goes.
(2) Late for your interview? No deal.I have absolutely noticed that candidates over 40 fall into the "no typos, right on time" variety, and those under 35 are definitely the, "Whatever. You know what I meant, and I was there no more than 10 minutes late. What's the big deal?" variety.
Really interesting when our job is for developing technical training, where a single typo can result in a massive system crash...
I'm under 40, and I'm always 15 or more minutes early. As well, my resume contains words many hiring managers only pretend to know (until they have a chance to Google them), and yes they're all spelled correctly. :P
It's not an age thing.
Or... you're just the exception that proves the rule!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
(That should come across as an evil laugh, and not a come-on to a banana. Though I suspect the latter will result in yet another Captain Yesterday alias...)
EDIT: More seriously, KC was asking for generalizations of generations, and the always late/many typos has, for me at least, had a stronger association than most I've heard. I have a friend who's 51, averages two typos a sentence, and who will be late to his own funeral.
Banana!!!
OK, here's one that baffles me, that seems to afflict Gen Xers and beyond:
We're interviewing people for a plush technical job: Pays roughly $80k/year, you get to work from home, good benefits, etc., etc.
So we get a candidate, and her resume has typos on it, and she shows up late to her own REMOTE interview! It's not like she can claim there were traffic issues, or she didn't know she'd need network connectivity, or whatever.
In my (non) generation, there were two simple rules of job-seeking:
(1) Typos in your resume? Into the trash it goes.
(2) Late for your interview? No deal.I have absolutely noticed that candidates over 40 fall into the "no typos, right on time" variety, and those under 35 are definitely the, "Whatever. You know what I meant, and I was there no more than 10 minutes late. What's the big deal?" variety.
Really interesting when our job is for developing technical training, where a single typo can result in a massive system crash...
I'm under 40, and I'm always 15 or more minutes early. As well, my resume contains words many hiring managers only pretend to know (until they have a chance to Google them), and yes they're all spelled correctly. :P
It's not an age thing.
Or... you're just the exception that proves the rule!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
(That should come across as an evil laugh, and not a come-on to a banana. Though I suspect the latter will result in yet another Captain Yesterday alias...)
EDIT: More seriously, KC was asking for generalizations of generations, and the always late/many typos has, for me at least, had a stronger association than most I've heard. I have a friend who's 51, averages two typos a sentence, and who will be late to his own funeral.
My housemate has a boss that is the same way in regards to typos (said housemate is usually asked to proofread anything the boss types), and even worse this boss also serves on a local school board.
|
I'm in the back nine months of the millenial generation (I turn 17 this March). Yeah, self-effacing and all that (after all, every generation has its annoying people), but I'm sick of folks refusing to take my arguments seriously. I strive to be respectable and professional, and it's disheartening to have people shut me down over what they believe I am, so I try to avoid using generational labels whenever I can.
As for college...I'm going this year, and I'm scared about having to pay for it AND law school afterward, even with the scholarships I've already earned.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lucky7 I hope you have done your homework about lawschool. Depending on your location law schools have been expanding at an unsustainable rate. Doesn't stop schools from gladly allowing their students to take on 100+K in debt. I strongly suggest you speak to a handful of attorneys for their perspective. My fiancé went and probably wouldn't do it again. She is finally getting into a career she likes, but its been a long road and she has a ton of debt. Her advice is only the passionate should enter the law field. Law is a total hustle which can energize some and complete wipe out others.
As for folks taking your arguments seriously, hang in there things will get better. Right now you have millennial generalizations and youth working against you. Things will get better once you are into college. I think its a shame that older and younger generations often miss the opportunity for discussion with one another. I don't think that's a boomer/Xer vs. Millenial thing its been this way as long as I can remember.
Good luck!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Baby boomers: Work hard, you can get a decent job that pays well. Crashed the economy.
Gen X: Work hard to get to college, then work hard , and you can get a decent job that pays well. Weren't enough of them to stop the baby boomers from crashing the economy.
Millenials: Work hard to get to college, then work hard, and we'll pay you in exposure and maybe someday that internship will start to pay you part time with no benefits, it'll be awesome!...
huh.. why are you still living at home? Why so cynical?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Solidly gen X but waiting to get into the peace corps, followed by a few years putting my intestines back together after a brief stint in the peace corps put me in a millenial marketplace.
|
|
Lucky7 I hope you have done your homework about lawschool. Depending on your location law schools have been expanding at an unsustainable rate. Doesn't stop schools from gladly allowing their students to take on 100+K in debt. I strongly suggest you speak to a handful of attorneys for their perspective. My fiancé went and probably wouldn't do it again. She is finally getting into a career she likes, but its been a long road and she has a ton of debt. Her advice is only the passionate should enter the law field. Law is a total hustle which can energize some and complete wipe out others.
As for folks taking your arguments seriously, hang in there things will get better. Right now you have millennial generalizations and youth working against you. Things will get better once you are into college. I think its a shame that older and younger generations often miss the opportunity for discussion with one another. I don't think that's a boomer/Xer vs. Millenial thing its been this way as long as I can remember.
Good luck!
Thanks. To put the debt thing in perspective, I originally wanted to be a teacher. :)
I'll admit I'm more advantaged than the average kid my age in term of contacts, UCONN Law seems very affordable, and the idea of that sort of challenge and work is...incredibly exciting.
At the risk of derailing, I'm optimistic about my future. Thanks again for your advice. I appreciate it.
I'm in the back nine months of the millenial generation (I turn 17 this March). Yeah, self-effacing and all that (after all, every generation has its annoying people), but I'm sick of folks refusing to take my arguments seriously. I strive to be respectable and professional, and it's disheartening to have people shut me down over what they believe I am, so I try to avoid using generational labels whenever I can.
As for college...I'm going this year, and I'm scared about having to pay for it AND law school afterward, even with the scholarships I've already earned.
Oh boy law school eh? PM me and we can chat about that Lucky!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW: Oh, yeah. I mean, quite frankly, there are a lot of places that seem to see workers as a liability to be tolerated only out of necessity. Companies do not want to pay workers, as evidenced by the flat actual wages for the last, oh, four decades or so. Meanwhile, Millennials also see things like CEO pay rates rising far faster than everyone else's, from I think it was... ~20x the average worker a few decades ago to over 300x today. Workers are more productive, but they're not seeing an increase in benefits to go with that - rather, in many cases, all their hard work seems to be going straight to the pockets of the company executives while many of them are struggling just to make ends meet because of rising costs.
So, are Millennials cynical about business? Yeah, I think they are. Honestly, I think that's one of the driving forces behind their desire for a better work-life balance - they don't want to work quite so hard for people who don't seem to care about them. Especially when executives' pay is broadly tied to the stock market, so they can get paid better when the company as a whole is successful, a fact that is not true for most workers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Age group? Venerable. And let me tell you, the penalties to the physical ability scores are real, but the bonuses to the mental scores are b&(($%|+.
Her advice is only the passionate should enter the law field. Law is a total hustle which can energize some and complete wipe out others.
Is there a field that isn't like that?
Her advice is only the passionate should enter the law field. Law is a total hustle which can energize some and complete wipe out others.Is there a field that isn't like that?
Business.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW: Oh, yeah. I mean, quite frankly, there are a lot of places that seem to see workers as a liability to be tolerated only out of necessity. Companies do not want to pay workers, as evidenced by the flat actual wages for the last, oh, four decades or so. Meanwhile, Millennials also see things like CEO pay rates rising far faster than everyone else's, from I think it was... ~20x the average worker a few decades ago to over 300x today. Workers are more productive, but they're not seeing an increase in benefits to go with that - rather, in many cases, all their hard work seems to be going straight to the pockets of the company executives while many of them are struggling just to make ends meet because of rising costs.
So, are Millennials cynical about business? Yeah, I think they are. Honestly, I think that's one of the driving forces behind their desire for a better work-life balance - they don't want to work quite so hard for people who don't seem to care about them. Especially when executives' pay is broadly tied to the stock market, so they can get paid better when the company as a whole is successful, a fact that is not true for most workers.
I think that we could address some of the wage disparity with some legislation
Which actually replaces the minimum wage with a simple law that requires any entity who reports to the IRS as an employer cannot dispense compensation (total, including maximum potential capitalization of any options, stocks, or other assets) to any employee or contractor that is 50x greater than like compensation to any other employee or contractor of the organization on a per hour basis. Additionally, contractors or employees of 3rd (or 4th, 5th etc) party outsourced services providers (Janitorial, Technical, HR, etc) who directly provide service to the entity must also receive compensation commensurate with an employee or contractor of the entity.
Basically, you can't pay the guy at the top more than 50x the guy at the bottom, and no shady tricks to skate by the restriction.
No more minimum wages, but if the worst paid person in your company only makes $10 an hour, that caps executive level pay at around $1M a year. Assuming the exec actually puts in 40 hours a week at that company. Otherwise less.
You want a raise? You need to give everyone a raise.
Sell it to republicans as abolishment of minimum wage.
|
|
Late Boomer here (b. 1960). As may have already been pointed out, the idea of the Baby Boom was initially a purely demographic one; it was the postwar deviation from something like an average birthrate in the US (& probably elsewhere), which is a thing that can be measured. Making behavioral generalizations about a cohort whose youngest members were less than a year old when the oldest were entering college is at best problematic, though. (Coming on the tail end of the Baby Boom, I sure felt like I was about eight or ten years behind the focus of pop culture--when thirtysomething came out, e.g., I was in my mid-20s.)
That said, it's an obvious observation that the societal milieu that shapes a person's experiences will be fairly similar to that of people of similar race and social class, and with ages within a few years' either direction from them. The trap to avoid falling into is the assumption that the way the world was when you were brought up is the way it still is, so any decisions made by Millenials, e.g., that differ from the way you would choose are the result of moral failings on their part.
One other observation re college, degrees, and career paths--up until maybe ten years ago, a four-year degree in some flavor of liberal arts had a pretty good chance of landing you in a fairly decent job. It might not be in what you got the degree in, but employers took your degree in English, Philosophy, or whatever as an indication that you had a decent level of smarts, critical thinking skills, and persistence, and would hire accordingly. That state of affairs didn't survive the collapse of the housing bubble. But high school counselors generally go by lagging indicators, so it took some time for that change to percolate into career advice. (Considering how long it took HS guidance counselors to figure out that the cost of a four-year degree is far higher than it was when they went to school, this is not surprising. A whole lot of the people in my HS graduating class haven't figured that one out yet, at least if their Facebook posts are any indication.)
so what generation would immortals go in? Just curious, not that I am, or am claiming to be, but you know, if someone actually were immortal ...
Generation Highlander.
And they are only immortal... so far...
I can already hear the screams of socialist being made in BigDTbone's direction......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that we could address some of the wage disparity with some legislation
Which actually replaces the minimum wage with a simple law that requires any entity who reports to the IRS as an employer cannot dispense compensation (total, including maximum potential capitalization of any options, stocks, or other assets) to any employee or contractor that is 50x greater than like compensation to any other employee or contractor of the organization on a per hour basis. Additionally, contractors or employees of 3rd (or 4th, 5th etc) party outsourced services providers (Janitorial, Technical, HR, etc) who directly provide service to the entity must also receive compensation commensurate with an employee or contractor of the entity.
Basically, you can't pay the guy at the top more than 50x the guy at the bottom, and no shady tricks to skate by the restriction.
No more minimum wages, but if the worst paid person in your company only makes $10 an hour, that caps executive level pay at around $1M a year. Assuming the exec actually puts in 40 hours a week at that company. Otherwise less.
You want a raise? You need to give everyone a raise.
As a socialist libertarian environmentalist (huh?), I think this is one of two steps needed to fix the entire wage/tax system:
(1) As you said, execs' total compensation under GAAP cannot exceed 50x any single employee's total compensation. As always, TheJeff makes the excellent point that execs will spend eternity figuring out how to implement revolving-door employment, part-time work, non-monetary compensation, and anything else they can dream up to circumvent this. But a stake in the sand is at least a worthwhile initial goal.
(2) A Ross Perot-style flat tax. "Consider your personal gross income according to GAAP. Send the U.S. government 13% of that. You're done."
People hate flat taxes because they are unduly burdensome on the poor. 13% of someone making $20k per year is MUCH more significant than 13% on someone making $1000k per year. But at the moment, they've written in so many tax breaks that the poor are being hosed anyway. At a gross income of nearly $150k/year, I'm paying under 6% of my gross income in federal taxes, and under 8% overall. Why? Tax breaks for having kids, owning a home, donating to charity, yadda yadda yadda. I get so many tax breaks it's stupid. I'm paying less gross tax now than I was when I was a grad student pulling in a whopping combined $29k a year. That is fundamentally unfair and wrong.
Let's get a flat tax in to fix the immediate inequities.
If people then want to argue that the rich should pay even more because they have more disposable income, I'll at least listen to the argument.
But at the moment, the tax system is so skewed in favor of the rich that something needs to be done... fast!!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was born in 1980, which apparently is the last year for Gen Y (I think) and the first year for milinneal. Also, i got called Daddy the other day.
Honestly, I just dont know what to think anymore.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW: Oh, yeah. I mean, quite frankly, there are a lot of places that seem to see workers as a liability to be tolerated only out of necessity. Companies do not want to pay workers, as evidenced by the flat actual wages for the last, oh, four decades or so. Meanwhile, Millennials also see things like CEO pay rates rising far faster than everyone else's, from I think it was... ~20x the average worker a few decades ago to over 300x today. Workers are more productive, but they're not seeing an increase in benefits to go with that - rather, in many cases, all their hard work seems to be going straight to the pockets of the company executives while many of them are struggling just to make ends meet because of rising costs.
So, are Millennials cynical about business? Yeah, I think they are. Honestly, I think that's one of the driving forces behind their desire for a better work-life balance - they don't want to work quite so hard for people who don't seem to care about them. Especially when executives' pay is broadly tied to the stock market, so they can get paid better when the company as a whole is successful, a fact that is not true for most workers.
oh it's not just millennials who are cynical on this front. i'm gen x and have been cynical about the entire corporate/business mindset for 25+ years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure that immortals came from very different generations...
Generation Walk Like An Egyptian.
Generation Born To Be Wild (Nomad)
Generation They Can Take Our Lives But Not Our Freedom...
Among the others...
I think that we could address some of the wage disparity with some legislation
Which actually replaces the minimum wage with a simple law that requires any entity who reports to the IRS as an employer cannot dispense compensation (total, including maximum potential capitalization of any options, stocks, or other assets) to any employee or contractor that is 50x greater than like compensation to any other employee or contractor of the organization on a per hour basis. Additionally, contractors or employees of 3rd (or 4th, 5th etc) party outsourced services providers (Janitorial, Technical, HR, etc) who directly provide service to the entity must also receive compensation commensurate with an employee or contractor of the entity.
Basically, you can't pay the guy at the top more than 50x the guy at the bottom, and no shady tricks to skate by the restriction.
No more minimum wages, but if the worst paid person in your company only makes $10 an hour, that caps executive level pay at around $1M a year. Assuming the exec actually puts in 40 hours a week at that company. Otherwise less.
You want a raise? You need to give everyone a raise.
Sell it to republicans as abolishment of minimum wage.
I like the basic idea, but find this kind of clever and very complicated approach problematic. There's likely to be shady tricks I can't see now and gotchas that no one expects until they've accidentally violated them. You're now legally liable for the wage structure of nearly any company you do business with. (Do goods count? Or only services? Can I still buy my parts from an allegedly unrelated company that pays rock bottom wages, then resell them at a huge profit and take most of that for myself?)
The nice thing about minimum wage laws is that they're simple. It's easy to know when they're violated and easy to prosecute.
The idea is that anyone who actually provides a service for you gets paid inside your scale.
Buying cheap parts from foreign entities would definitely still pose a problem in many industries. But that could partially be addressed via import taxation. Buying cheap parts from domestic sources could still have a situation where employees at the providing company may not get paid as well, but that would also be mitigated by that company's executive pay.
At the end of the day, the idea is that you shouldn't be able to hire a "cleaning service" with 20 employees including the owner and pay them less than you would be required to if they were your employees.
@BNW: Oh, yeah. I mean, quite frankly, there are a lot of places that seem to see workers as a liability to be tolerated only out of necessity. Companies do not want to pay workers, as evidenced by the flat actual wages for the last, oh, four decades or so. Meanwhile, Millennials also see things like CEO pay rates rising far faster than everyone else's, from I think it was... ~20x the average worker a few decades ago to over 300x today. Workers are more productive, but they're not seeing an increase in benefits to go with that - rather, in many cases, all their hard work seems to be going straight to the pockets of the company executives while many of them are struggling just to make ends meet because of rising costs.
So, are Millennials cynical about business? Yeah, I think they are. Honestly, I think that's one of the driving forces behind their desire for a better work-life balance - they don't want to work quite so hard for people who don't seem to care about them. Especially when executives' pay is broadly tied to the stock market, so they can get paid better when the company as a whole is successful, a fact that is not true for most workers.
I think that we could address some of the wage disparity with some legislation
Which actually replaces the minimum wage with a simple law that requires any entity who reports to the IRS as an employer cannot dispense compensation (total, including maximum potential capitalization of any options, stocks, or other assets) to any employee or contractor that is 50x greater than like compensation to any other employee or contractor of the organization on a per hour basis. Additionally, contractors or employees of 3rd (or 4th, 5th etc) party outsourced services providers (Janitorial, Technical, HR, etc) who directly provide service to the entity must also receive compensation commensurate with an employee or contractor of the entity.
Basically, you can't pay the guy at the top more than 50x the guy at the bottom, and no...
What is this Japan? :-)
This is a good start but unlikely to happen BigTD. :-(
@BNW: Oh, yeah. I mean, quite frankly, there are a lot of places that seem to see workers as a liability to be tolerated only out of necessity. Companies do not want to pay workers, as evidenced by the flat actual wages for the last, oh, four decades or so. Meanwhile, Millennials also see things like CEO pay rates rising far faster than everyone else's, from I think it was... ~20x the average worker a few decades ago to over 300x today. Workers are more productive, but they're not seeing an increase in benefits to go with that - rather, in many cases, all their hard work seems to be going straight to the pockets of the company executives while many of them are struggling just to make ends meet because of rising costs.
So, are Millennials cynical about business? Yeah, I think they are. Honestly, I think that's one of the driving forces behind their desire for a better work-life balance - they don't want to work quite so hard for people who don't seem to care about them. Especially when executives' pay is broadly tied to the stock market, so they can get paid better when the company as a whole is successful, a fact that is not true for most workers.
I think that we could address some of the wage disparity with some legislation
Which actually replaces the minimum wage with a simple law that requires any entity who reports to the IRS as an employer cannot dispense compensation (total, including maximum potential capitalization of any options, stocks, or other assets) to any employee or contractor that is 50x greater than like compensation to any other employee or contractor of the organization on a per hour basis. Additionally, contractors or employees of 3rd (or 4th, 5th etc) party outsourced services providers (Janitorial, Technical, HR, etc) who directly provide service to the entity must also receive compensation commensurate with an employee or contractor of the entity.
Basically, you can't pay the guy at the top more than 50x the guy at the bottom, and no...
That sounds familiar. :P
|
Well, while I agree that how it divides us with people saying "I hate millenials" and such, the overall concept I agree with, which is explained in the Strauss-Howe Generation Theory...
Turnings
While writing Generations, Strauss and Howe described a pattern in the historical generations they examined which they say revolved around generational events which they call turnings. In Generations, and in greater detail in The Fourth Turning, they identify the four-stage cycle of social or mood eras (i.e. turnings).High
According to Strauss and Howe, the First Turning is a High. This is a post-Crisis era when institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, though those outside the majoritarian center often feel stifled by the conformity.
According to the authors, the most recent First Turning in the US was the post-World War II American High, beginning in 1946 and ending with the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
Awakening
According to the theory, the Second Turning is an Awakening. This is an era when institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy. Just when society is reaching its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of social discipline and want to recapture a sense of self-awareness, spirituality and personal authenticity. Young activists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural and spiritual poverty.
Strauss & Howe say the US's most recent Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution,” which spanned from the campus and inner-city revolts of the mid-1960s to the tax revolts of the early 1980s.
Unraveling
According to Strauss and Howe, the Third Turning is an Unraveling. The mood of this era they say is in many ways the opposite of a High: Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing. The authors say Highs come after Crises, when society wants to coalesce and build. Unravelings come after Awakenings, when society wants to atomize and enjoy. They declare that the most recent Unraveling in the US was the Long Boom and Culture War, beginning in the 1980s and ending in the late 2000s.
CrisisAccording to the authors, the Fourth Turning is a Crisis. This is an era in which institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation's survival. Civic authority revives, cultural expression redirects towards community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group. The authors say the most recent completed Fourth Turning in the US began with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and climaxed with the end of World War II. The G.I. Generation (a Hero archetype, born 1901 to 1924) came of age during this era. Their confidence, optimism, and collective outlook epitomized the mood of the era. The authors assert the Millennial Generation (Hero archetype, born 1982 to 2004), show many similar traits to those of the G.I. youth, which they describe as including: rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence.
So, if you subscribe to the theory, then... well, it's time for chaos. *cough*2016election*cough*
Items 1 and 2 don't really resonate with me (yet?) but as for 3, we are hopelessly addicted to our phones. I asked one of my professors just this week (who, I'm guessing has been teaching for 20+ years) what it was like in the classroom before the onset of smart phones. The short answer was, "Better. Teaching is what I do and the iPhone lead a trend that makes it now much harder to teach effectively."
Which sounds like a load of horse s!+~ to me. The people who didn't want to learn would always find ways not to learn in class. He just didn't notice as much because they'd be doodling on their "notes" or something instead of looking at a phone.
Which sounds like a load of horse s~*$ to me. The people who didn't want to learn would always find ways not to learn in class. He just didn't notice as much because they'd be doodling on their "notes" or something instead of looking at a phone.
Items 1 and 2 don't really resonate with me (yet?) but as for 3, we are hopelessly addicted to our phones. I asked one of my professors just this week (who, I'm guessing has been teaching for 20+ years) what it was like in the classroom before the onset of smart phones. The short answer was, "Better. Teaching is what I do and the iPhone lead a trend that makes it now much harder to teach effectively."
Also, lecturing is an out-dated method pedagogically speaking. The best methods for live classroom instruction are usually something like; read a section and take a quiz before class, clarifying explanations based on troubled areas from the quiz, reinforcing activity, homework quiz assignment. This forces students to engage the material 3 times before they study for an exam and gets them indoctrinated on the topic before you do face-to-face time. This greatly increases the impact of in-class time and multiple passes on the info increases retention.
PhD in any field qualifies him for many jobs in academia. Tell him to look into being an instructional designer. Entry level starts around $50k in major university systems. Advancement opportunities go all the way up into the top levels of administration. Also puts him in a preferred position to adjunct.
Unfortunately academic jobs are on the decline...its not uncommon for for any open position to receive 200 applications. Currently, in the sciences the general phenomena is that for every 4 applications you put in for a job, you will get one interview, and for every 4 interviews, you might get a single job offer. This is for the sciences too...I would imagine the humanities have it worse.
A lot of PhD level jobs just are not coming online fast enough for my quasi-millenial generation. Departments are either relying increasingly on graduate students to cover courses, or adjuncts, who are very underpaid, barely making above minimum wage and with no job security or benefits. NSF/NIH budget cuts (which are not likely to increase in the next administration) further worsen things by tightening budgets and reducing postdoc and research science positions.
Which sounds like a load of horse s!#% to me. The people who didn't want to learn would always find ways not to learn in class. He just didn't notice as much because they'd be doodling on their "notes" or something instead of looking at a phone.
Items 1 and 2 don't really resonate with me (yet?) but as for 3, we are hopelessly addicted to our phones. I asked one of my professors just this week (who, I'm guessing has been teaching for 20+ years) what it was like in the classroom before the onset of smart phones. The short answer was, "Better. Teaching is what I do and the iPhone lead a trend that makes it now much harder to teach effectively."
The bigger issue is that phones can be a distraction for the prof or students around the person using the phone. At least from my experience.