January 4, 2017 at 1:37 pm
Eric M Russell (1/4/2017)
The key to job security is insuring that you're never just a cog in a process. If you're just a cog in a specific process, then your career lifespan is only as long as the lifespan of that process. However, if you build, fix, optimize, or integrate processes, then you'll always have a job somewhere where there is a process, which is just about anywhere.
Another way to put this would be make sure you're the person capable of creating not merely implementing.
January 16, 2017 at 6:08 pm
luke.warneminde - Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:46 PMthe original weavers in England destroyed the looms in protest of being replaced by unskilled machine operators.
Another story has the workers in the Netherlands throwing their sabots (shoes) into the gears of the looms, giving us...sabotage.I agree, I feel no guilt for improving efficiency. The more repetitive, simple jobs that get automated out of existence, the more new opportunities appear.
That deriation of "sabotage" is an amusing myth. Tying a French word to the Netherlands is quite strange too. See the etymology of "sabotage"
Generally, the improvement of worker productivity and of efficiency in general is good for everyone, so none of us should feel any guilt about it. If anything I feel a little guilty that I should maybe have improved things more than I did, maybe I should have worked full time for another five years and i,proved efficiency still further.
Tom
January 16, 2017 at 8:00 pm
Eric M Russell (1/4/2017)The key to job security is insuring that you're never just a cog in a process.
Excellent point. I doubt the existence of a 100% dream job. There is always a downside, be it unavoidable admin, form filling, politics, lack of work/life balance etc. However, the job should provide some measure of fulfllment to be desirable and inspire commitment
January 18, 2017 at 9:45 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Monday, January 2, 2017 9:39 AMTrue, but we have less jobs overall. The truck driver that has to sit in the passenger seat? Because he doesn't have to concentrate as much or drive, he can work more hours. Good for him, may keep his salary up, but net, across a large society, we have less of those people. Sales associates moving to call centers, in general, less pay, less of them (they can multi-task better), and are more easily replaceable. Again, net loss to society of employment.
Steve - I noticed you mentioned that there are less jobs overall a few times already. Are you talking within specific industries? Because in general from a raw numbers point of view the overall number of jobs is still very much growing, just perhaps not as fast as the population is. The fact that the ratio has been decreasing is more of a function of people living longer past retirement that a lot of other factors, but it is NOT based on there being net fewer jobs. At most you might have temporary drops (due to economic downturns or tech disruptions), but still the trend is very much on the increase overall.
http://cdn.cnsnews.com/record_employed-chart-1.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
January 18, 2017 at 1:08 pm
Matt Miller (#4) - Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:45 AMSteve Jones - SSC Editor - Monday, January 2, 2017 9:39 AMTrue, but we have less jobs overall. The truck driver that has to sit in the passenger seat? Because he doesn't have to concentrate as much or drive, he can work more hours. Good for him, may keep his salary up, but net, across a large society, we have less of those people. Sales associates moving to call centers, in general, less pay, less of them (they can multi-task better), and are more easily replaceable. Again, net loss to society of employment.Steve - I noticed you mentioned that there are less jobs overall a few times already. Are you talking within specific industries? Because in general from a raw numbers point of view the overall number of jobs is still very much growing, just perhaps not as fast as the population is. The fact that the ratio has been decreasing is more of a function of people living longer past retirement that a lot of other factors, but it is NOT based on there being net fewer jobs. At most you might have temporary drops (due to economic downturns or tech disruptions), but still the trend is very much on the increase overall.
I guess Steve has fallen for the usual trap on this one - because we no longer employ many people as buggy whip manufacturing executives there are now fewer management jobs in inductry than there were before the invention of the motor car. Or bcause the number of USA jobs crashed quite hard in 2007-2008 there are still less USA jobs than there were 10 years ago, despite the fact that the number of jobs in teh USA had fully recovered by some time in 2014 and has increased continuously since them, so that the number of jobs in the USA is now an all time record - and it's the technology advances that has enabled the US economy to pay that many people to work.
Tom
January 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
I'm convinced that for those who are chronically unemployed ( > 3 months ); their biggest handicap is their negative attitude and limited vision. I don't see how any able adult with a plan can go unemployed for an extended period of time. The fruit is rotting on the vine (literally), because no one is there willing to pick it.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 19, 2017 at 11:04 pm
Matt Miller (#4) - Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:45 AMSteve Jones - SSC Editor - Monday, January 2, 2017 9:39 AMTrue, but we have less jobs overall. The truck driver that has to sit in the passenger seat? Because he doesn't have to concentrate as much or drive, he can work more hours. Good for him, may keep his salary up, but net, across a large society, we have less of those people. Sales associates moving to call centers, in general, less pay, less of them (they can multi-task better), and are more easily replaceable. Again, net loss to society of employment.Steve - I noticed you mentioned that there are less jobs overall a few times already. Are you talking within specific industries? Because in general from a raw numbers point of view the overall number of jobs is still very much growing, just perhaps not as fast as the population is. The fact that the ratio has been decreasing is more of a function of people living longer past retirement that a lot of other factors, but it is NOT based on there being net fewer jobs. At most you might have temporary drops (due to economic downturns or tech disruptions), but still the trend is very much on the increase overall.
Within industries there are fewer jobs as the world changes. Some industries still expand, but I think when I was looking despite there being record employment, this is a deceiving number since the population also grows. So while more people work, because there are more people, we aren't necessarily keeping all of the people that would like to work employed.
I don't mean to make this political, but a potential problem that will grow as we have more technology that replaces people, and as many of our manufacturing gets better. Already we see some of this in that many goods we purchase last longer. Not in technology, but in other places. Some of this shifts manufacturing and employment to industries, some means a decline.
January 20, 2017 at 8:48 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor - Thursday, January 19, 2017 11:04 PMMatt Miller (#4) - Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:45 AMSteve Jones - SSC Editor - Monday, January 2, 2017 9:39 AMTrue, but we have less jobs overall. The truck driver that has to sit in the passenger seat? Because he doesn't have to concentrate as much or drive, he can work more hours. Good for him, may keep his salary up, but net, across a large society, we have less of those people. Sales associates moving to call centers, in general, less pay, less of them (they can multi-task better), and are more easily replaceable. Again, net loss to society of employment.Steve - I noticed you mentioned that there are less jobs overall a few times already. Are you talking within specific industries? Because in general from a raw numbers point of view the overall number of jobs is still very much growing, just perhaps not as fast as the population is. The fact that the ratio has been decreasing is more of a function of people living longer past retirement that a lot of other factors, but it is NOT based on there being net fewer jobs. At most you might have temporary drops (due to economic downturns or tech disruptions), but still the trend is very much on the increase overall.
Within industries there are fewer jobs as the world changes. Some industries still expand, but I think when I was looking despite there being record employment, this is a deceiving number since the population also grows. So while more people work, because there are more people, we aren't necessarily keeping all of the people that would like to work employed.
I don't mean to make this political, but a potential problem that will grow as we have more technology that replaces people, and as many of our manufacturing gets better. Already we see some of this in that many goods we purchase last longer. Not in technology, but in other places. Some of this shifts manufacturing and employment to industries, some means a decline.
Unemployment isn't just the result of existing jobs being displaced. The total employed workforce today is actually much higher than it was 20 years ago, total rate of workforce growth is outpacing the population growth rate. Consider that folks are retiring at an older age today, not for financial reasons, but because they actually like their careers and are in better health than their parents were at the same age. When the old timers stick around longer, it unfortunately puts downward pressure on the younger generation looking to break into the job market. Also consider that more household now have both spouses working, or at least they are aspiring for that double income. Now two jobs are needed to support that household instead of just one. There is nothing wrong with any of this (I myself will be an old timer in another 20 years, and my wife works), it's healthy for the national economy in the long run, however, it may take another decade for the economy to realign itself and fully utilize the total available workforce. I think these cultural shifts explain lags within the labor market more than does migrant workers, offshoring, or technology.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
Viewing 8 posts - 91 through 97 (of 97 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply
