This change in Dungeon Direction just made me wonder.
Can someone explain to me why people overthere seems changing Job positions so quickly?!?
To an Italian like I am, this seems pretty crazy.
Is there any hidden reason I cannot think of?
Is it just the way you guys live?
I need explanations for this behaviour... ;-)
Thanks!
We're a nation full of opportunists, Sven.
I don't know...
this doesn't really explain te situation.
Here, changing jobs so quickly is often seen as a bad sign.
On one side, why would an employer give you a position when you colud leave six months later? This would seem like wastd time on their part.
And on the other side, a person who changes many jobs is seen as someone who probably is a troublemaker and therefore cannot be trusted.
Well, for starters, remember that James was promoted within the same company. Surely folks there get the same sort of thing, right? You work hard for the company and they reward you by moving you into positions that demand more responsibility (and likely pay better).
Otherwise, Steve is right. We're opportunistic. That goes for employees and employers, of course. I'll give you an example. I have a skill that's in fairly high demand (Oracle Applications programmer). I get calls from recruiters regularly asking me if I'm interested in job opportunities elsewhere. I'd be a fool not to at least listen to some of them, because there's a chance to make more money, receive better benefits, and so on. Even if I don't take any of the opportunities, knowing what I'm worth in the market is worthwhile.
From an employers perspective, it works the same way. Why wouldn't a company who has an opening seek the best possible candidates to fill that position? And if you already have the best people, it's in your interests to keep their training and salary current, or else they'll seek opportunities elsewhere.
When I got out of college, I spent just over 2 years at each of my first two employers. By that time in each place, my salary was well below market value, and the only way I could get a decent raise was to change jobs. I spent the next 5 1/2 years with the same employer. They went out of their way every 18 months or so to determine what the market scale was, and then to give people in their IT department raises (most often through promotions) to keep them at the current rate. Turnover at that company was almost non-existant (at least until 7 of us got laid off a few years ago :( ).
Now I've been here for 3 years (this week, actually, is my anniversary). I could most definitely go out and find a new job that paid me more money; however, the benefits I have right now would be hard to match elsewhere, and that adds a lot of value. In addition to that, I get to work on some cutting edge stuff - and that is worth a ton.
So I think somewhere in there I lost the main point I was trying to make. There's little stigma involved with switching jobs, simply because it's part of the market over here.
When I got out of college, I spent just over 2 years at each of my first two employers. By that time in each place, my salary was well below market value, and the only way I could get a decent raise was to change jobs.
This is precisely the reason most Americans change jobs so quickly. Surveys have been performed in the past when this was identified as an increasing trend; I don't recall what the numbers were, but they were somewhere in the order of 3-5 years the average Amercian changes jobs.
In my case, I have a stable career with a comfortable income. That said, in my position I have no opportunity for dramatic pay increases. I would have to take a new job in the company or leave all-together to get a significant pay increase.
Another fold is the increasing rates at which American companies lay-off workers. When was the last time someone you knew retired from a private or public firm? Its happening less and less frequentlt - thus, 401K is born. You retire yourself when you've made a financial benchmark you've established.
There really is only one job, that if I got, I would keep for life.
Adventurer. ;)
Don't feel bad, you aren't the only one puzzled by this behaviour. More and more employers and employees are having to adapt to this new paradigm in business in order to get ahead. As long as you plan well as an employee I think it really works out in the employees favor overall with out having to use the strong arm tactics of the unions that dominated things so often here in America over the past century (and still does in many professions).
That said there are a lot of people who don't plan well for this type of thing and they certainly aren't teaching fiscal responsibility in schools around here so it likely will be hitting those people very hard when it comes time to retirement... which then pushes back the avg age of retirement, keeps more people in the workplace, and increases competition for postions... and that helps employers. It is all a crazy cycle.
For me it is working out well... I have gotten 7 promotions in the last 2 years in the same company and pay increases with each jump. As long as I keep rewarding my company with higher profits they will keep moving me up. On the other hand I fully expect to hit a ceiling that will only be broken by moving to another company in the next few years. And at that point I expect I will be making the biggest pay jump yet.
Sean Mahoney
Europeans whose countries feature government run pensions that are transferable to new jobs should know that U.S. social security is a very poor substitute for your own privately funded pension plan or (401k) employee/employer cooperative sponsored retirement fund.
Being largely responsible for your own retirement is another factor why so many Americans change jobs so often. Roll your 401(k) over to another plan, another company and off you go....the only one that's going to take care of you when you get old is you.
Of course, American society and the nature of business is the most important factor, as well as the many opportunities here and low unemployment rate (5% usually). If you want to work and are half-way intelligent, you can go far in the U.S., whereas other countries might stifle you. I have several college educated cousins in Germany who can't find a decent job and are very frustrated. I'm not saying life is better in the U.S. and I'm not denegrating other countries' social systems, but this is just my opinion on why Americans change jobs so often. Make your money while you can....
I've been in the same career field for 18 years, but I work in the public sector with a seperate pension fund and I don't even pay into social security, so if I lose my job, my pension is in the toilet and I'll be eating dog food when I retire, so that's why I haven't changed jobs yet and won't in the foreseeable future.
I used to be a German citizen so I have a little perspective on this topic, as my relatives over in Germany have asked me this same question before.
I live in Los Angeles and work in advertising and the biggest mistake I ever made [well, besides a)living in Los Angeles and b)working in advertising] was staying at the same company for almost 7 years. My income would have been much higher if I'd switched jobs sooner.
I live in Los Angeles and work in advertising and the biggest mistake I ever made [well, besides a)living in Los Angeles and b)working in advertising] was staying at the same company for almost 7 years. My income would have been much higher if I'd switched jobs sooner.
Ain't that the truth. I've learned some lessons about loyalty to an employer over a better paying job offer. The truth is, most employers are only loyal to YOU if it fits their budget and needs.
Which makes sense for a business, of course. But some of them are really good at creating an illusion of loyalty to their employees, which is all it really is when it comes down to it.
Yeah, and about 50% marriages are the same way. Ain't capitalism grand?
Sleepless (and penniless) in Detroit,
GGG
|
I live in Los Angeles and work in advertising and the biggest mistake I ever made [well, besides a)living in Los Angeles and b)working in advertising] was staying at the same company for almost 7 years. My income would have been much higher if I'd switched jobs sooner.Ain't that the truth. I've learned some lessons about loyalty to an employer over a better paying job offer. The truth is, most employers are only loyal to YOU if it fits their budget and needs.
Which makes sense for a business, of course. But some of them are really good at creating an illusion of loyalty to their employees, which is all it really is when it comes down to it.
I've been through so much crap along those same exact lines that I'm too bitter to even respond to this post. I even went so far as to type a few paragraphs, which my wife read and said, "don't say THAT! Well yes it's true, but say it better."
Steve, you said it better.
Thanks for the feedback, guys! ;-)
I can see your points, it probably has a lot to do with the overall job system overthere vs here.
Here people don't move too much, and that for sure means that there are less job vacancies - and therefore opportunities for other people.
As an example, the firm I work in ha probably at least half of the workforce who is here at least from 10 years.
Also, many people here (myself included) would not take a better job if it meant having to move away from your city or town. You know, friends, family and stuff are a big barrier to people moving around...
For sure, in the more technological and upper level jobs the situation is more like yours in the US, but I think that as a mind set, here companies tend to value stability over many other things.
Lastly, with the economic crisis wwe are facibng, with china and all that stuff, people who have a job - and italian laws are relly protective against lay offs - usually keep and guard it with care.
(Long Post)
Thanks for the interesting insights into the U.S. work system.
I will try to give some insights into the German system, perhaps it is of interest and explains something about the differences we have.
In Germany, you pay for a government guaranteed pension while you work. The amount is deducted from your salary automatically, and is a set quota (around 20% of your overall salary). The more you earn, the more you pay, but the more you get once you receive the pension. The money you pay is not invested for you, but immediately used to pay those who get the pension today. This is called the “generation agreement”. That’s the basic system.
Of course, there are variations. Certain job profiles fall out of the system, e.g. when you own a company, you have to see for this yourself, even if it is a one-man (or one-woman) company.
People here are generally very conservative and prefer to work in the field they received an education for, be it a craft or something they studied. Especially crafts have some strong rules and laws prohibiting someone from the “outside” to come into the field. This has historical reasons, in earlier times these rules should guarantee that the crafter knew his craft thoroughly and did a good job. These rules have loosened a bit in recent times, thanks to rulings from the European Union. A few years ago, it was not permissible to found a crafts company without having someone having a crafts master title in this field, which is time-consuming and expensive to get.
It is also nearly impossible to get a decent job without having some kind of education in the field the job is in. This is as much an point of view the companies have as the workers themselves. This loosened a bit in recent years, but it basically still is so.
This mindset perhaps explains why people over here are reluctant to change their jobs without a really strong incentive. The Workers Unions are very strong here, and the salaries are pretty much set, and only few companies pay more than they have to from the outset, so many workers don´t gain much by changing.
And there are companies like Volkswagen, who pay a lot more than average for their workers (at least they did in the past, it is changing due to competition). You earn more working on a Volkswagen assembly line than many people with a higher education. So, why change at all? There are stories of whole families working in several generations (grandfather, father and son) at Volkswagen, and working there for several decades. It is not unheard of workers being at Volkswagen for forty years or more, their whole working life.
These circumstances lead to a general unwillingness and even inability to change jobs easily and often, and this leads to an inability to comprehend the U.S. system of changing companies easily and often. All this is changing in the last few years, but slowly and somewhat painfully.
And the government pension is in trouble, due to demographic changes: Germans are becoming ever older, which is fortunate for the individual, but it means that those individuals get their pension much longer. Adding to this is the fact that we have a rather high unemployment rate (about 9-10% overall), and those without work of course don´t contribute. The long learning times in Universities let young people start working late. The pension system is based on the average worker contributing 45 years to the pension, a whole work life. But with long study times, and a work biography punctuated by sometimes long phases of unemployment lets few people reach those 45 years these days. So they gradually lift the retirement age and lessen the pension you get when you retire. I will have to work until I´m 67 to get the full pension (31 years to go…), and what the full pension will be then, no one knows. It will be much less than what you would get today, so I´m forced to pay doubly: For a government pension I don´t get much from, and a private retirement plan.
So, it is not all well over here. But I don´t have much reason to complain, as I´m working for the city government, and my job is very secure, even if the career options are very limited.
Sorry for the long post,
Stefan
Stefan,
95% of what you've said applies also for Italy...
Thanks for being much clearer than I had previously been.
I just want to add that many of our common working benefits don't come from wages but from other things, like, long vacations, paid healthcare and sickdays etc. etc.
Therefore, you usually think twice before changing your job.
Here joung people mainly change jobs to find the "secure job" that gives them the above mentioned benefits, as opposed from the now growing plethora of precarious, time limited jobs.
second, as I said above, if to get a better job you have to move to another city, many people won't do that.
|
Lastly, with the economic crisis wwe are facibng, with china and all that stuff, people who have a job - and italian laws are relly protective against lay offs - usually keep and guard it with care.
That's also a large part of why there aren't many vacancies - if an employer really can't easily get rid of staff, either because of their underperformance or for strategic reasons without incurring big penalties in the form of big redundancy payments and such-like, they don't actually take them on in the first place. That is why unemployment in Europe is quite high, as well-meaning job protection legislation leads to employers being reluctant to hire. And, of course, high unemployment means that people don't change jobs much, since jobs are harder to get.
By the way, the economic crisis in Italy has much more to do with domestic policies than it does with China. You have an employment mrket which functions poorly due to over-regulation (as above), high taxation due to previous government profligacy (and the massive debt payments that go with it) and a bankrupt pensions system, and high levels of corruption in government and business. I'm not picking on you personally, by the way - it's the little guy that gets squashed in the middle of all this who suffers. But I don't think you can blame the Chinese for wanting to develop their economy and enjoy the level of standrds of living we enjoy.
I'm British, by the way - we have a sort of half-way system between the European and American models. But we have much less job protection legislation here, and much lower unemployment (though Tony Blair is doing his best to ruin that). I have changes job, on average, once every three years. In our market, it is how you get ahead. Mrs Thatcher is considered a bogey figure by some in Europe (all this horror about the "Anglo-Saxon" way of doing things) but the reforms of the Conservative government mean that Britain has a better functioning labour market. Life is a bit tough, on occasions, but I personally think it is better than being long-term unemployed. And it keeps you on your toes and means you have to perform.
Anyway, the end of my right-wing economics lecture. Hey, let's talk about elf-babes!
Ahhh.... the Brits!
life would be so boring without them! ;-)
Now everybody thinks I come from some 5th world Banana Republic (no offense for bananas!)
Anyways, thanks for the feedback, I consider myself satisfied...
And for sure I don't want to start a geopolitical flamewar over our various economies.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But I'll take mine over yours any day of the week... Ha! ;-)
Well, Thatcher was and still is viewed as a bogeywoman in Europe for radical and painful changes to the british system.
It is nearly a religious and hotly debated question if her changes were the cause of the improvements or if other factors played a much more decisive role, but that is not for me to decide.
Is is obvious that the german government under Chancellor Helmut Kohl and still under Gerhard Schröder did nothing or at least not enough to reform the social systems to prepare for the demographic changes, which they have seen coming, but decided not to do anything about. Now the changes have to been made, and they will be much more painful than they could have been.
I frankly don´t care about right-wing or left-wing ideas or ideals, all that matters to me is the result. So perhaps the coalition between the two biggest politial parties we have at present is not the worst idea - they have the political power to change things, if they really want. And if they don´t really change things for the better, I (and probably many other germans) will lose what is left of trust in our political class...
Stefan
|
|
Ahhh.... the Brits!
life would be so boring without them! ;-)
Now everybody thinks I come from some 5th world Banana Republic (no offense for bananas!)Anyways, thanks for the feedback, I consider myself satisfied...
And for sure I don't want to start a geopolitical flamewar over our various economies.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.But I'll take mine over yours any day of the week... Ha! ;-)
:-) We are just talking economics. There are other compensations to being Italian, I'm sure.
hopefully soccer will be one of those... ;-)
With England and Germany's permission, of course!
I felt sorry for the poor socceroos on monday. Being on the recieving end of a penalty kick five minutes after the regular playing time is a nasty way to be kicked out of the tournament.
And, only one team has won the world championship in germany to date - and which one was it ? ;-))
Stefan
|
|
Well, Thatcher was and still is viewed as a bogeywoman in Europe for radical and painful changes to the british system.
It is nearly a religious and hotly debated question if her changes were the cause of the improvements or if other factors played a much more decisive role, but that is not for me to decide.
Is is obvious that the german government under Chancellor Helmut Kohl and still under Gerhard Schröder did nothing or at least not enough to reform the social systems to prepare for the demographic changes, which they have seen coming, but decided not to do anything about. Now the changes have to been made, and they will be much more painful than they could have been.
I frankly don´t care about right-wing or left-wing ideas or ideals, all that matters to me is the result. So perhaps the coalition between the two biggest politial parties we have at present is not the worst idea - they have the political power to change things, if they really want. And if they don´t really change things for the better, I (and probably many other germans) will lose what is left of trust in our political class...Stefan
Well, painful for some. I think the big difference between the "European" systems (a generalisation, but I'm fond of those anyway :-P) and the Anglo-Saxon systems are that the former beneftis "insiders" (people who have job tenure, bosses, union leaders, politicians, producers) due to legislative and regulatory restrictions, and the latter favours "outsiders" (those looking for jobs, either changing an existing one, or entering or re-entering the jobs market, consumers). So it's not a case of who you know, but what you know that matters in an Anglo-Saxon system.
This has two key ramifications. First, where you get is dependent upon your skill set, which is primarily a factor of your education. If you are highly skilled (fortunately for me, I am) then you benefit. If you are not, you don't. So the less skilled, or those with skills less in demand (like coal miners, for example) suffer a lot of job insecurity. That's a very unpleasant feeling.
Second, you are much less protected from the winds of economic change. The government won't guarantee your job, subsidise your industry or whatever. However, I would suggest that that comfort in more European suystems is largely illusory. No one is safe, ultimately, from economic change - you can't buck the market. So European economies suffer, and their citizen do too, through the way the problems are expressed. In the Anglo-Saxon system, arguably those with something to offer get laid off, move to a new job and get going again. In a European system, this doesn't happen so easily because government policies and legislation make it more difficult, so you get economic inefficiency (high unemployment, for example). Of course, the problems are much, much more complicated than that - this is such a gross generalisation I'm almost embarrassed by it. But hopefully it gets the point across.
The other point is that different societies differ in what they will tolerate in terms of what they will do about those with less to offer in cold, economic terms. To take a ridiculous extreme, someone with nothing to offer as an economic agent should, for the sake of economic efficiency, be left to starve. That is completely unacceptable to me and presumably everyone else. But it is a value judgement, not an economic one, as to where you draw that line. For me, the Anglo-Saxon system seems "fairer" to me, as it allows those with talent to use it to gretaer effect without recourse to insider status. An Italian or German might draw that line of acceptability somewhere else, based on their personal views and the prevailing culture. Ultimately, its more a question of values than anything else.
And..
Personally, I hate football. But yes, it is one of the compensation for not being British. :-)
If being in an "efficient" system means
1) working 60-hours weeks (39 for me...)
2) not daring taking sick days for fear of being laid off, and for the same reason not daring refusing overtime work
3)having to pay for pension (which can default without any responsability on your part - pension funds investing in ENRON anyone?
4) AND Health Care (like going to an hospital and 1st question asked being "Cash or Credit card?")
5) not mentioning the actual stress of doing your job well AND STILL FEARING THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAYOFF
6) getting two weeks of vacation a year (all considered, I get more or less 6 and my sector is stingy this weay...)
7) having to stay at work until you're ready to give birth - and gonig back right after! (italy sports a mighty 6 months payd maternity leave, wich can be augmented to one year plus another 6 months period at a reduced wage - of course, no one can fire you while you're at home breast feeding your child!)
Thanks, but no thanks!
;-)
|
|
If being in an "efficient" system means
1) working 60-hours weeks (39 for me...)
2) not daring taking sick days for fear of being laid off, and for the same reason not daring refusing overtime work
3)having to pay for pension (which can default without any responsability on your part - pension funds investing in ENRON anyone?
4) AND Health Care (like going to an hospital and 1st question asked being "Cash or Credit card?")
5) not mentioning the actual stress of doing your job well AND STILL FEARING THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAYOFF
6) getting two weeks of vacation a year (all considered, I get more or less 6 and my sector is stingy this weay...)
7) having to stay at work until you're ready to give birth - and gonig back right after! (italy sports a mighty 6 months payd maternity leave, wich can be augmented to one year plus another 6 months period at a reduced wage - of course, no one can fire you while you're at home breast feeding your child!)Thanks, but no thanks!
;-)
Personally, I work 35 hours a week.
I get SEVEN weeks holiday (though to be fair, I have paid for one of those weeks).
I get a state pension (though it isn't great) and an occupational pension (likewise) and I'm also saving (surely only prudent). But you are paying for your pension through taxes - and so will you children and grandchildren (I suggest you have lots and lots!). And I NEVER invest in the companies I am working for in any shape of form.
We have a National Health Service which is of variable quality, but basically OK.
Sick leave - well, it can be abused, but you can't easily be sacked if you are genuinely ill.
Maternity leave - well, yes, great for you (or your Mrs?) but for a small company it's a huge burden to have to train staff, then watch them disappear for ages, and then welcome them back a bit later. Self-control my friend (though that conflicts with my advice above). I think the standard here is about six months.
Stress - well, a bit. But actually it's not like the bosses walk through the office sacking poeple to "motivate" the others. And I was unemployed for 9 months a few years ago - that was very stressful (and before you ask, I resigned voluntarily). Having a job is much less stressful, and as I pointed out, it is easier to get a job here. So less stress. :-)
Hey, maybe I can convert you to being an "Anglo-Saxon" after all!
That said, you described what might be called the European view of American work experience. I don't know how true it is - we need to wait for the guys in the US to wake up and post.
|
Here's one of those US guys, awake and posting...
Anyway, I work for the military as a civilian engineer. I put in 40 hours a week. OT doesn't usually occur "in office" but can be common on travel (msotly just because of unforeseen delays). I make decent money, some of which goes into a retirement account and is matched by the feds. I get 6 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave every two week pay period (there's a limit on the annual, but not on the sick). There is some stress (especially around budget time), and I do have to deal with the bureaucracy on a daily basis. All in all, however, I enjoy my job and feel that I am making a direct contribution to the security of my country.
I think the big difference between the "European" systems (a generalisation, but I'm fond of those anyway :-P) and the Anglo-Saxon systems are that the former beneftis "insiders" (people who have job tenure, bosses, union leaders, politicians, producers) due to legislative and regulatory restrictions, and the latter favours "outsiders" (those looking for jobs, either changing an existing one, or entering or re-entering the jobs market, consumers). So it's not a case of who you know, but what you know that matters in an Anglo-Saxon system.
Interesting point of view, one I haven´t seen before, but there is some truth to the idea. Once you are outside of the system (most probably due to unemployment), it can get very difficult to get inside again. Unions don´t stand for those without a job. Companies bemoan the high costs their employees cause because of the social security systems - which get even higher with every worker laid off. And most companies rather let their employees work overtime than hiring more workers, due to the difficulties they have laying off workers. So we move in a vicious circle here.
On the other hand, there are big companies earning billions of euros and still laying off hundreds or thousands of employees, as one huge insurance company announced just a few days ago (Allianz, FYI). The employees are (understandably, I think) upset and cannot understand what is going on. At the same time, a company declaring a major layoff can be sure that the value of their shares rises, at least in germany...
This has two key ramifications. First, where you get is dependent upon your skill set, which is primarily a factor of your education. If you are highly skilled (fortunately for me, I am) then you benefit. If you are not, you don't. So the less skilled, or those with skills less in demand (like coal miners, for example) suffer a lot of job insecurity. That's a very unpleasant feeling.
Frankly, I don´t see the big difference to germany here.
Second, you are much less protected from the winds of economic change. The government won't guarantee your job, subsidise your industry or whatever. However, I would suggest that that comfort in more European suystems is largely illusory. No one is safe, ultimately, from economic change - you can't buck the market. So European economies suffer, and their citizen do too, through the way the problems are expressed. In the Anglo-Saxon system, arguably those with something to offer get laid off, move to a new job and get going again. In a European system, this doesn't happen so easily because government policies and legislation make it more difficult, so you get economic inefficiency (high unemployment, for example). Of course, the problems are much, much more complicated than that - this is such a gross generalisation I'm almost embarrassed by it. But hopefully it gets the point across.
And what about those who have not much or even nothing to offer in an economic sense ? Bad luck, sorry, and that´s it ?
You mentioned coal miners, the whole coal mining industry is heavily subsidized in germany. I read a while ago that every (!) coal miners work place is subsidized with about 60.000 Euros per year, to keep it economically interesting compared to imported coal and keep the jobs. WTF? Just sent them all on vacation for that money, or use it to re-school them, and close those coal mines for good.
The other point is that different societies differ in what they will tolerate in terms of what they will do about those with less to offer in cold, economic terms. To take a ridiculous extreme, someone with nothing to offer as an economic agent should, for the sake of economic efficiency, be left to starve. That is completely unacceptable to me and presumably everyone else. But it is a value judgement, not an economic one, as to where you draw that line. For me, the Anglo-Saxon system seems "fairer" to me, as it allows those with talent to use it to gretaer effect without recourse to insider status. An Italian or German might draw that line of acceptability somewhere else, based on their personal views and the prevailing culture. Ultimately, its more a question of values than anything else.
Well, germany has what is called a "social economy", which is meant to say that even with all economic considerations in mind, the social component is very important, too. This leads to different views than e.g. the U.S. economy, which is called a "free economy", where only the forces of the economy itself, with minimal intervention by the government, come into play. This was decided by the german politicians after the war, and it has led to less economic flexibility but more social security for the individual. The excesses of this system are corrected just in the last few years, as it was no longer possible to keep it up as it has been. But the idea is still one I subscribe to: those who are unfortunate enough to not be able to earn their living, through no fault of their own, should have payed their expenses within a low frame, and those who have worked all their live should be able to have an old age without too much financial troubles. There will always be the possibility of abuse, but better ten abusers than one starved child.
At least we seem to share the idea that there is no such thing as equality in life. This is one of the fundamental errors of modern thinking, IMHO. As you state, the anglo-saxon system allows the use of individual talent. If talents would not be different in each individual, this point would be moot.
Stefan
sorry for the rambling post...
I get 6 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave every two week pay period (there's a limit on the annual, but not on the sick).
So you have about 19 days leave annually ?
Stefan
Hey, I'm one of the few Americans following the World Cup!! I'm sorry the U.S. embarassed itself again this year, but maybe someday.....(hey Stefan, I remember the '74 World Cup--Uli Hoeness, Franz Beckenbauer, et. al)
Here's a weird demographic:
My job pays 34% above the average income in my city, which is one of the poorest in the country (U.S.). You don't have to have a college degree to get my job (45 hours of college required within 3 years of starting) and you can retire after 20 years and get 50% of your highest income paid for the rest of your life from my job's pension. (I can retire at age 41 and never work again and I'll get 50% of my income, plus a 3% cost of living adjustment, every year until I die)
I work 40 hours a week and any overtime I get is time and a half. I have great health insurance and all my family's medical bills are paid 100%. I contribute to a voluntary secondary retirement fund that I'll also get when I retire.
If I have to work graveyard or night hours, I get paid extra. If I have to answer a work related phone call or get asked to come back and testify in court for an hour on my days off, I get at least 3 hours overtime, even if I only showed up for a half hour.
I get 2 weeks sick leave per year, plus 4 weeks vacation leave. I can take 1 week of my two weeks sick leave as "personal time" so I can take off 5 weeks per year on vacation. Not bad for the U.S.
Having said all that--we are over 200 employees short of our authorized staffing level and we cannot get enough recruits to fill out or authorized slots. Of course, my job is very demanding and very dangerous, but still...many jobs are. We also have strict entrance requirements, background checks, etc. but I can't believe that more people don't want to do my job. 18 years ago when I started, I was lucky to get my position, the competition to get it was cut-throat and I counted my lucky stars when I got my job and I worked my ass off to make sure I kept it. What's changed??
BTW: If anyone is interested, here's our recruiting website...I personally would love to have another gamer around...especially you military guys and gals getting ready to get out....we have a low crime rate and great weather!! Recruiting page
|
|
US averages are around 3-4 weeks vacation time, 1-2 weeks sick time and maternity leave is 6 weeks unless you get a good company with extra benefits. My wife went back to work after 6 weeks, leaving me with frozen breastmilk to feed the kid. The US should be ashamed of its maternity leave system and there is no paternity leave at all (I have heard of some countries that do have Paternity Leave legislation). It is very much a "pop out the kid, stop bleeding and enroll them in a childcare facility so someone else can raise your kid for 8-10 hours a day" type of society, one of the reasons I elected to quit my lower paying job to stay home with the kids. My wife earns the equivilent of 2 good wages so we could afford to lose my $14hr wage with a few cutbacks (downgrade to one car, not eating out much, less gaming gear, etc.). Americans are forced to abandon their kids to a childcare service in order to survive due to the fact that families here NEED 2 wages to afford to buy a home + cars and stuff. In Delaware, in order to afford a one-bedroom apartment(rent) and all the other bills involved a person must earn around $14.00 an hour or 28,000 yearly on average. The average person makes around $10-14 hour. Now better education does = better pay but most recent grads have a huge student loan payment to make for 5-15 years in order to pay for their college education, so they aren't really getting the better pay until they get out from under the student loan burden.
My wife is a hard worker who has proven herself constantly to her employers since she started working. She has been with the same company for 7-8 years now and changes jobs within the company every 1-2 years, each time being asked by higher management to apply for the position because they want her to move into the new role and know that she is an incredible asset. Each move nets a great pay increase.
She is a high school grad with mediocre grades. She has tripled her salary in the last 9 years and when she started she was making a good salary.
I have drifted from my point but in the US hard work is rewarded but the concept of family importance seems to be suffering unless one can earn a great salary and afford to leave a parent at home.
Sorry for the long, rambling post.
FH
Hey, I'm one of the few Americans following the World Cup!! I'm sorry the U.S. embarassed itself again this year, but maybe someday.....(hey Stefan, I remember the '74 World Cup--Uli Hoeness, Franz Beckenbauer, et. al)
Hey Stefan, I´m sorry, but I was only four in ´74, so I don´t remember that one. Th U.S. has enough other sport events (american football, baseball, basketball), so soccer plays only a minor role. But I remember Beckenbauer playing for a short time for Cosmos New York after he ended his career in germany.
Here's a weird demographic:(snip)
Having said all that--we are over 200 employees short of our authorized staffing level and we cannot get enough recruits to fill out or authorized slots. Of course, my job is very demanding and very dangerous, but still...many jobs are. We also have strict entrance requirements, background checks, etc. but I can't believe that more people don't want to do my job. 18 years ago when I started, I was lucky to get my position, the competition to get it was cut-throat and I counted my lucky stars when I got my job and I worked my ass off to make sure I kept it. What's changed??
Hm, has the job become that much more dangerous ? Has the image of the job become so bad that nobody wants it anymore ? Are qualified folks (perhaps general fitness) so much harder to find these days ? Are there that many jobs being equally well paid and much less dangerous ? Or do folks simply don´t want a job being dangerous at all, no matter what ?
Strange, indeed.
Stefan
|
|
I have drifted from my point but in the US hard work is rewarded but the concept of family importance seems to be suffering unless one can earn a great salary and afford to leave a parent at home.
I certainly can agree with that. My mother wanted to be stay home and raise my brother and myself. My father worked three jobs, almost killing himself, and they still went bankrupt because they couldn't bring in enough money.
The only thing I've got going for me as far as that's all concerned is that I want to be a teacher. So, essentially, if I plan things right, the child can be born right at the beginning of the summer, or slightly before (taking whatever maternity leave they give me) and I'll have three months to be able to stay home and care for the child myself. I do hate that the American system almost forces us to let someone else raise our children most of the time if we want to afford anything in life.
Of course, being a teacher is somewhat different than other jobs anyway. I mean, a full-year salary for only 9-10 months work, but typically working nights and weekends grading assignments and such during those months, so it evens out. The unfortunate part is that you can't actually take a vacation during the school year at all (no ski trips unless they're over the winter break). Pennsylvania (where I intend to teach) has one of the best pension plans for teachers in the whole of the United States, though, from what I hear, the government is trying to get rid of some of that. Well, I won't start in on all of the bad things that the government is doing to American schools...
|
|
US averages are around 3-4 weeks vacation time, 1-2 weeks sick time and maternity leave is 6 weeks unless you get a good company with extra benefits. My wife went back to work after 6 weeks, leaving me with frozen breastmilk to feed the kid. The US should be ashamed of its maternity leave system and there is no paternity leave at all (I have heard of some countries that do have Paternity Leave legislation.)
I feel your pain, bro. I do the work thing, my wife takes care of the kids, and the bank account is a big flatline most of the time. She tried to go back to work, we tried daycare, 3 weeks later everyone was constantly sick, it wasn't doable. The second salary is direly missed.
And it's a pain, foregoing vacation to beef up your p.t.o. hours for cash trade whilst looking for extra weekend work.I feel like a dwarven defender at a hill giant ho-down mosh pit.
"knockin them down, knockin them down, knockin them down" ad nauseum.
And when you accumulate 150+ hours of pto, it's reeeeeeeeal tempting to go look for a new job and cash out.
I wish I could find a cave full of orcs, with 100 gold pieces. Man, I could use that kind of cash.
US averages are around 3-4 weeks vacation time, 1-2 weeks sick time and maternity leave is 6 weeks unless you get a good company with extra benefits.
That is really meager, compared to german laws regarding these areas. In germany, you get 5-6 weeks vacation, sick time is ruled that your company has to keep up the pay for six weeks (I think, I don´t know exactly, as I never needed this), afterwards, the health insurance takes over for another six weeks. And maternity time: you have a full year and two months more if the other parent takes leave as well, with a certain percentage of your wages paid from taxes (again I don´t know exactly, as it is of no concern for me).
In Delaware, in order to afford a one-bedroom apartment(rent) and all the other bills involved a person must earn around $14.00 an hour or 28,000 yearly on average. The average person makes around $10-14 hour.
That sounds really expensive. I earn about 30.000 Euro overall annually, and my girlfriend about half as much (she got only a part-time job). You take the Euro as being roughly equal to U.S. Dollars, and we can afford a big apartment and two cars (ahem, three if I count my ´72 Audi 100 into it, but I only use it half the year) without too much trouble. Big vacations are not in our budget at present, but we recently moved, so thats ok.
Now better education does = better pay but most recent grads have a huge student loan payment to make for 5-15 years in order to pay for their college education, so they aren't really getting the better pay until they get out from under the student loan burden.
I don´t know how high these students loans are, but the price for education is on the rise in germany also. I studied for four years and had to pay back a student loan afterwards also, at about 100 Euro a month, for several years, and I didn´t get a high loan to start with.
In general, the U.S. seem to be rather expensive if you live there. But fuel is cheap :-)
Stefan
US averages are around 3-4 weeks vacation time, 1-2 weeks sick time and maternity leave is 6 weeks unless you get a good company with extra benefits. My wife went back to work after 6 weeks, leaving me with frozen breastmilk to feed the kid. The US should be ashamed of its maternity leave system and there is no paternity leave at all (I have heard of some countries that do have Paternity Leave legislation.)I feel your pain, bro. I do the work thing, my wife takes care of the kids, and the bank account is a big flatline most of the time. She tried to go back to work, we tried daycare, 3 weeks later everyone was constantly sick, it wasn't doable. The second salary is direly missed.
And it's a pain, foregoing vacation to beef up your p.t.o. hours for cash trade whilst looking for extra weekend work.
I feel like a dwarven defender at a hill giant ho-down mosh pit.
"knockin them down, knockin them down, knockin them down" ad nauseum.
And when you accumulate 150+ hours of pto, it's reeeeeeeeal tempting to go look for a new job and cash out.
I wish I could find a cave full of orcs, with 100 gold pieces. Man, I could use that kind of cash.
man, this is bad...
you have all my sympathy!|
|
man, this is bad...
you have all my sympathy!
It's not that bad, though. I have to remember that we in the industrialized nations have a lot of things really good, and there are people in the world with real bad problems. I've been to places where home is an aluminum shed. What are my problems?
It's nice to gripe every once in a while, though.
I know that fuel in the U. S. is cheap compared to other places, but give it time. They're working on it.
In the moment, it is about 1,30 Euro per liter (95 octane). That would roughly be 4,90 Euro per gallon, or about 6 US$ at present excange rate. What does it cost in the US presently (just curious)?
Stefan
|
|
What does it cost in the US presently (just curious)?
Stefan
Well, I haven't been there for a few weeks, but when I left, it was about $3 a gallon. Of course, one of the reasons people here are willing to buy such gas guzzling cars is because the government is doing everything they can to keep gas prices as low as they are. If they would just use "true-cost" pricing, it should cost about $6 a gallon and then people would think twice before purchasing their new Hummer.
If they would just use "true-cost" pricing, it should cost about $6 a gallon and then people would think twice before purchasing their new Hummer.
I think those who can afford a Hummer probably don´t care much about the gas price...
|
|
I get 6 hours of annual leave and 4 hours of sick leave every two week pay period (there's a limit on the annual, but not on the sick).So you have about 19 days leave annually ?
Stefan
Yeah, about that. Of course, if you don't use them all up in one year, they carry over into the next (I think the limit is around 250 hours carry-over).
And let's not forget all those wonderful federal holidays. We get a gazillion of those. Also, whenever a former President dies, lke Ronald Reagan did not to long ago, we automatically get a day off.
|
|
I know that fuel in the U. S. is cheap compared to other places, but give it time. They're working on it.In the moment, it is about 1,30 Euro per liter (95 octane). That would roughly be 4,90 Euro per gallon, or about 6 US$ at present excange rate. What does it cost in the US presently (just curious)?
Stefan
$2.70-$2.90 in Texas, U.S. right now. So, I guess we should count our blessings and all, but I have an suv or two, and I'm really gonna get another honda rice burner real soon.
I have been at my same employer for 18 years. The main reason is that we have a pension plan here, something very rare in this day and age.
Sigh...
I live in a resort town. One of the common phrases around here is "Minimum Wage with a View" and "Great Place to Retire, Sucky Place to Live." The city is spread out, there is no public transportation, gas is a minimum of $3 a gallon (for el-cheapo AM/PM crap gas).
The per-credit cost for college is $63 - and that's if you live in-district. That's for the community college, mind you - we don't have a four-year college. Oh, and the $63 doesn't include fees and class materials, let alone textbooks.
Housing prices are outrageous, let alone rental costs. I rent a two-bedroom, one bathroom apartment that's old enough that I had to sign a "Hey, you've get lead paint" acknowledgement when we signed the lease. The windows aren't even double-paned - blocks of ice form up on the inside of the windows during the winter. No air conditioning (which sucks right now). The front door is old enough that it's drying out and cracking and I can see daylight through it. Rental cost for my apartment is $525 a month - and that doesn't include utilities, for which the costs of have skyrocketed. I can't move to a better place because most of the rental places require two to three times your rent for move-in costs, security deposit, blah-blah-blah. Between me & my other half, we make about $24 bucks an hour, which in this town, is barely above minimum wage. Can't get any government assistance if we had to - we make too much (heck, we couldn't get any when I was working and he wasn't - I made a whopping $7 an hour at the time). So, despite working in a technology field for which we're getting paid a third of what we should be, we're struggling from paycheck to paycheck to make ends meet. Mind you, we have no children, this is just two adults. According to the government though, if I was single and had a kid, I'd get all the welfare/benefits I'd need...but that's a rant for another thread. (Actual conversation when I tried to get food stamps: "So you're penalizing me for having a job?" Long pause, furtive eye-glancing from side to side by the worker. Grr.)
The only option to move out of our current residence is to move in with friends into a house, and though I like them and consider them my best friends, it still isn't a pleasant idea.
As far as vacation time, sick time, health insurance, and retirement benefits are concerned...2 weeks a year (despite the fact I've been with the company for 5 years), 10 days a year, $80 a month for just me (for crappy medical and dental - no vision coverage) and no retirement benefits.
There are days I hate my job... :(
|
|
Lilith, just going by the recreational work I've seen from you on the website and such, I have to tell ya....move. Someone with your experience and resume' would have a $50,000 a year job in Delaware without batting an eye. MBNA, DuPont, CSC, Astra-Zeneca, etc. all big companies with a large stake in Delaware, some are on the list of 500 best companies to work for. If your sig.other has even half the skillz you do, you guys really should consider looking into options in different states. 5yrs and eating crap doesn't sound that cool. Maybe you could look into headhunters in different areas to see what happens. Can't hurt and the sentimental feelings you may have towards a certain city or certain people in a city won't feed and clothe you.
I hate seeing talented people getting shafted.
FH
|
|
I will try to give some insights into the German system, perhaps it is of interest and explains something about the differences we have.
In Germany, you pay for a government guaranteed pension while you work. The amount is deducted from your salary automatically, and is a set quota (around 20% of your overall salary). The more you earn, the more you pay, but the more you get once you receive the pension. The money you pay is not invested for you, but immediately used to pay those who get the pension today. This is called the “generation agreement”. That’s the basic system.
That's essentially how the US Social Security system works as well. I'm not familiar enough with the details of either the US or German systems to say for sure, but the main difference is probably the amount, of both taxes and benefits (both much lower in the US). And like pretty much every other industrialized nation, the US is looking at the same problems ahead: increasing longevity, declining birth rate (having fewer children and having them later), later entry into the work force, etc., all mean fewer people in the work force paying for more people's retirement benefits. (Actually, calling these "problems" is kind of a misnomer. Most of them are good for individuals, families, and the environment, but they pose problems for many of the assumptions of our economic model.)
Also, it doesn't help that Congress has made a habit for decades of robbing money from the Social Security "trust fund" to prop up the government's discretionary spending.
It is also nearly impossible to get a decent job without having some kind of education in the field the job is in. This is as much an point of view the companies have as the workers themselves. This loosened a bit in recent years, but it basically still is so.
That's really no different in the US. During the boom a few years ago, the job market was so tight you were forced to hire people with very little experience who could learn quickly, but that was an aberration. Certainly things have swung back since then, with offshoring making it even more difficult for someone without significant education and/or experience to find a great job.
This mindset perhaps explains why people over here are reluctant to change their jobs without a really strong incentive. The Workers Unions are very strong here, and the salaries are pretty much set, and only few companies pay more than they have to from the outset, so many workers don´t gain much by changing.
And there are companies like Volkswagen, who pay a lot more than average for their workers (at least they did in the past, it is changing due to competition). You earn more working on a Volkswagen assembly line than many people with a higher education. So, why change at all? There are stories of whole families working in several generations (grandfather, father and son) at Volkswagen, and working there for several decades. It is not unheard of workers being at Volkswagen for forty years or more, their whole working life.
These circumstances lead to a general unwillingness and even inability to change jobs easily and often, and this leads to an inability to comprehend the U.S. system of changing companies easily and often. All this is changing in the last few years, but slowly and somewhat painfully.
Things weren't so different in the US some time ago, say, 20 or 30 years. People stayed in manufacturing positions for decades, unions were strong, companies were reluctant to lay people off and employees were reluctant to leave jobs, etc. Since then, the unions have been steadily weakening, and are only a significant labor force in certain industries and in certain areas of the country. Layoffs are part of the standard cost-cutting response by companies in financial distress, employees change jobs when it's in their interest, etc. But it wasn't always that way. I'd say the recent boom/bust really accelerated a lot of it, both the job-changing (during the boom) and the layoffs (during the bust).
And the government pension is in trouble, due to demographic changes: Germans are becoming ever older, which is fortunate for the individual, but it means that those individuals get their pension much longer. Adding to this is the fact that we have a rather high unemployment rate (about 9-10% overall), and those without work of course don´t contribute.
I think the unemployment rate has a lot to do with the job fluidity we're discussing. I know that during the bust, from 2000 to about last year, people who were hopping jobs at every opportunity in the late '90s tended to find a decent job and hunker down as long as they could. Low unemployment means companies get desperate to hire, offering higher pay and better benefits, and it's easy for employees to get ahead by switching jobs. It also means startups can hire experienced people relatively easily.
To illustrate, I've been working in IT in the US for the past 11 years. In that time, I've held positions with 10 different organizations. In the late '90s, when the job market was good (from an employee's perspective), I changed jobs about once a year, greatly increasing my pay, furnishing me with invaluable experience in different environments, and allowing me to move to any urban location I wanted. When the job market was bad, I lost two jobs in one year when the small companies I worked for collapsed. Yes, that sucked. OTOH, I've personally benefited a lot from job market fluidity at other times.
Moving around so much has meant I often need to explain things during job interviews. But I wouldn't have traded those first few years of experience, when the learning curve was as steep as I could make it. And I've made a point of passing up offers to deflect some of that, staying with my current employer for a while (a whole two-and-a-half years! :) ).
Sigh...
The per-credit cost for college is $63 ...
Housing prices are outrageous, let alone rental costs ...
I hear you Lilith.
I live in the tri-state area, NJ to be precise, and things here price-wise are horrible.
My school costs in the late 1990s (private university) were over $400 a credit! In my county, you cannot find a decent apartment (even in less desirable towns) for less than $800, period, unless you take a studio. Houses cost $400,000 and up, usually $550,000+ if the house has two bedrooms and is in a decent town, regardless of the yard (which is usually tiny). There are Open House signs on every block, but simply finding a house on sale below $500,000 is a major challenge -- I know, I've tried. There are no houses for sale for less than $350,000, regardless of size or fixer-upper status.
SIGH.
|
|
If being in an "efficient" system means
1) working 60-hours weeks (39 for me...)
I (a US IT worker) only work about 40 hours now. I've had jobs in the past where I worked much more, though, usually for startup companies. And I do have to carry a pager sometimes.
I think stories of 60-hour work weeks were largely a product of the go-go '90s, when everyone was supposed to be working on "Internet Time". That seems to be much less common now.
2) not daring taking sick days for fear of being laid off, and for the same reason not daring refusing overtime work
I wouldn't say most people worry much about taking sick time in the US if they need it.
3)having to pay for pension (which can default without any responsability on your part - pension funds investing in ENRON anyone?
Well, Enron was really a stock problem. The stock was greatly overvalued, but no one knew because the executives were shady. It just so happened that most employees unwisely left huge portions of their pensions invested in company stock (which seemed like a good bet, being unaware of the criminal actions of their employers).
Which is sidestepping the issue that many US companies have been defaulting on their pensions the last couple of years...
4) AND Health Care (like going to an hospital and 1st question asked being "Cash or Credit card?")
Nearly all salaried positions in the US include company-subsidized health care, that make the costs much easier to bear. My wife and I were shocked when we received the hospital bills for each of our daughters' births, and shocked again at how little we actually had to pay.
However, health costs in the US have been increasing rapidly the last few years (with a lot of finger-pointing about causes), so employees' monthly premiums have been going up.
And, there are a whole lot of people in the US either working hourly jobs or unemployed, or otherwise lacking company-sponsored health insurance. And paying for health insurance completely on your own is extremely expensive. On top of that, the current Congress wants to make it impossible for people with crushing health care debts to get relief by declaring bankruptcy. For people with good job benefits in the US, health care is good. The state of health care for others is a shame.
5) not mentioning the actual stress of doing your job well AND STILL FEARING THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAYOFF
Yeah, that can happen. But generally low unemployment means you can usually find another job if you put in the effort and have marketable skills.
6) getting two weeks of vacation a year (all considered, I get more or less 6 and my sector is stingy this way...)
Well, to be accurate, that's not all of it. Two weeks of vacation is pretty standard (unless you've been with one company for a number of years, in which you usually get more), but there's also about two weeks' worth of federal holidays spread throughout the year, and usually a week of sick days, so it comes to a total of about five weeks.
Still, I've worked for a British company before, and I'm working for a Dutch company now. And believe me, we are envious of our European colleagues when it comes to vacation time!
7) having to stay at work until you're ready to give birth - and gonig back right after! (italy sports a mighty 6 months payd maternity leave, wich can be augmented to one year plus another 6 months period at a reduced wage - of course, no one can fire you while you're at home breast feeding your child!)
You're pretty much spot on there. My wife worked until her last month of pregnancy with our first child, when the doctor ordered her on bed rest. (The company I worked for gave me 3 weeks paid time off, but they didn't have to.) Fortunately, I make enough money that she didn't have to go back to work, so she can stay home to raise our kids. But even so, without a second income we can't afford to buy a home, among other things.
|
|
Sigh...
The per-credit cost for college is $63 ...
Housing prices are outrageous, let alone rental costs ...
I hear you Lilith.
I live in the tri-state area, NJ to be precise......
SIGH.
Tri-state as in Pa,NJ,DE or Tri-state as in NY,NJ,PA. There are alot of areas around the country that go by the moniker "Tri-state area" just because 3 states are close together.
FH
Regarding the pension thing, I don't have all my eggs in the one basket. On top of my pension which I expect to get, I have been contributing anything I can spare into my 403(b) -- public sector equivilent of a 401(k).
I live in Los Angeles, let me tell you horror stories about real estate prices. I truely hope that greed/flipping cycle is going to end soon so that normal families like mine can buy something to live in. I despise the thought that we may be forced from our native state that we love so dearly because of this greed.
|
|
Another big difference between americans and germans in regard to jobs is, (please tell me if I am wrong) that americans don't care too much for long distances to get to work. In germany everybody, well, the majority, tries to life near their working place. I have to drive 40 minutes to get to work, and some of my friends say they would never do this. In america those things are a bit different, aren't they?!
Just wanted to pop in and say that I find this whole discussion really interesting. Keep it coming!
-James
(P.S: Lilith - I feel you on housing woes. Up here in Seattle I pay $518 a month for a single bedroom in a house with 6 other people...)