A Millennial Guide to Finding Work

[Bamelin]

I posted this over at GAF, but it's pretty much enraged me that EVERYONE needs to see this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRHBiM4gp9s&feature=player_embedded

I'm all for "paying your dues" but things are getting ridiculous.

In my parents (boomers) day part of the social contract was that you finished high school graduated and were guaranteed a good job,. My generation (Gen X) the social contract changed to graduating high school, going to college or university and then you would get a good job, The new social contract being marketed is, graduate from high school, get multiple degrees, work for free at a corporation to get marketable skills and then MAYBE you might get an entry level job to pay off your crushing student debt. This mentality is going to destroy what's made our nations great.

The video above makes it very clear what corporations think of the whole "internship" thing. I believe the number he tossed around was "30 percent of their workforce". If you look on indeed.com and indeed.ca you can see for yourself how many new "internship" opportunities are out there. (just type intern or internship into the search field). Many corporations are retooling entire new programs based around unpaid labour (they usually have a fancy name for it) -- Example: http://thepmp.ca/pmp/

edit:
Somebody posted it to reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/rue0k/the_best_thing_about_slave_labor_is_that_its_free/

 

[nasum]

ehh, it's just a matter of time as boomers retire in large numbers before semi-talented workers will have to start filling the empty desks. There's a theory being circulated around finance/investing sites that figures we'll be having very low unemployment but rather high underemployment by the end of this decade despite any policy initiatives from D.C.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='nasum']ehh, it's just a matter of time as boomers retire in large numbers before semi-talented workers will have to start filling the empty desks. There's a theory being circulated around finance/investing sites that figures we'll be having very low unemployment but rather high underemployment by the end of this decade despite any policy initiatives from D.C.[/QUOTE]
Aren't we starting to see that now?

Oh, and I can't help but LULZ at paying a company to work for. Not to mention the wanton abusive labor practices in that guy's industry. If there's one industry that needs a union, it's digital artists.

 

[nasum]

yes and no.
Positions are opening, but mainly in highly specified fields (high medicine/accounting/research/programming) that don't have the "trickle" effect as much as your regular old middle mgmt type deal.
The second problem is of course the shifting of jobs. We don't manufacture as much here as we used to. Some of those jobs are permanently gone. As much as I hate to agree with Rush and his ilk, their bashing of the OWS complaint that there aren't jobs available is valid when you consider the fields of study. There aren't many jobs available right now for an Art History major and the days of walking in anywhere and saying "I have degree XYZ" while assuming there are transferable skills are over.

The OP eludes to the social contract changing, while that's part of it the entire dichotomy has changed. Low skilled high paying jobs are a thing of the past due to an expanding population and a shift from production to service.

I could go on about this stuff for ages...

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='nasum']yes and no.
Positions are opening, but mainly in highly specified fields (high medicine/accounting/research/programming) that don't have the "trickle" effect as much as your regular old middle mgmt type deal.[/QUOTE]
Right and I'm assuming you're talking about jobs that pay well. The problem, as you allude to, is that there's a stratification going on in which there are very high paying jobs and jobs that pay shit.

The second problem is of course the shifting of jobs. We don't manufacture as much here as we used to. Some of those jobs are permanently gone. As much as I hate to agree with Rush and his ilk, their bashing of the OWS complaint that there aren't jobs available is valid when you consider the fields of study. There aren't many jobs available right now for an Art History major and the days of walking in anywhere and saying "I have degree XYZ" while assuming there are transferable skills are over.

I don't think that our lack of manufacturing is a problem as I've read in many places that we're manufacturing more than we've ever been, but you're correct in the nature of manufacturing jobs in itself that require lots of skill in itself such as in the machining industry.

The OP eludes to the social contract changing, while that's part of it the entire dichotomy has changed. Low skilled high paying jobs are a thing of the past due to an expanding population and a shift from production to service.

I could go on about this stuff for ages...

Would you agree that those low skill/high pay jobs are less the natural order of technological growth and more of a capital(as a powerful group, not monetary resourse) problem? These jobs haven't exactly ceased to exist as they've clearly been relocated.

edit: And just so I'm not too off topic...

Since we still have a strong manufacturing base in this country, regardless of it's form, wouldn't it make sense to have apprenticeship programs that pay if companies are seeing quantifiable gains from labor?

 

[mrspicytacoman]

unpaid internships are stupid lol. I'm pretty sure big business pays off my university to promote unpaid internships because their crazy about them

 

[nasum]

[quote name='dohdough']Right and I'm assuming you're talking about jobs that pay well. The problem, as you allude to, is that there's a stratification going on in which there are very high paying jobs and jobs that pay shit.[/quote]
Which has been going on since B.C.

I don't think that our lack of manufacturing is a problem as I've read in many places that we're manufacturing more than we've ever been, but you're correct in the nature of manufacturing jobs in itself that require lots of skill in itself such as in the machining industry.

Pay for said jobs is going down while demand has been relatively stable with a slight decline. More on that with your next statement.

Would you agree that those low skill/high pay jobs are less the natural order of technological growth and more of a capital(as a powerful group, not monetary resourse) problem? These jobs haven't exactly ceased to exist as they've clearly been relocated.

Can't have one without the other is what I'd agree to. Yes, offshoring has replaced domestic. No argument there. It's a combination of high technology being more expensive to produce domestically, thus the relocation. Part of that is a profit motive, but it also goes back to the "what are you willing to pay?" argument. Would you be willing to pay a 25% premium on a cheap Best Buy BF Laptop to have it built in the US with our higher labour prices and better environmental concerns? Beyond that personal choice, the further ramifications lead to your personal dollar buying less, that retailer eventually paying less, that manufacturer and so on and so forth.
We went back and forth on janitors and burger flippers quite some time ago in a conversation that really didn't go anywhere. But it does sort of fit here. While it'd be great if we were all $100k per year HENRYs, the labour inflation would make that $100k not much better than $25k today.
There's a balance between well paid consumers buying crap and the people employing them and producing the crap that is heavily shifted to the employers these days. This is something that can hopefully change (and must if the balance becomes so out of whack that consumers ultimately reduce their consumption) before long. This shift happened because of population growth, easier credit and a values shift as well (essentially profit > people).

edit: And just so I'm not too off topic...

Since we still have a strong manufacturing base in this country, regardless of it's form, wouldn't it make sense to have apprenticeship programs that pay if companies are seeing quantifiable gains from labor?

I've been advocating such a thing for ages in one form or another.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='nasum']Which has been going on since B.C.[/QUOTE]
Right, but it shouldn't be acceptable. This reminds me of a statement that someone made about the current state of the US. They said that the US has always been a horrible country and that the slight blip with the labor movement has been in the process of being corrected for the last 30 years and eventually, will go back to the Gilded Era before it was sidetracked.

Pay for said jobs is going down while demand has been relatively stable with a slight decline. More on that with your next statement.

Can't have one without the other is what I'd agree to. Yes, offshoring has replaced domestic. No argument there. It's a combination of high technology being more expensive to produce domestically, thus the relocation.

Part of that is a profit motive, but it also goes back to the "what are you willing to pay?" argument. Would you be willing to pay a 25% premium on a cheap Best Buy BF Laptop to have it built in the US with our higher labour prices and better environmental concerns? Beyond that personal choice, the further ramifications lead to your personal dollar buying less, that retailer eventually paying less, that manufacturer and so on and so forth.

Gonna address this after the next part.

We went back and forth on janitors and burger flippers quite some time ago in a conversation that really didn't go anywhere. But it does sort of fit here. While it'd be great if we were all $100k per year HENRYs, the labour inflation would make that $100k not much better than $25k today.

If I remember correctly, it was about a couple people that were making $100k related to the janitorial dept for the school district and I believe that the argument I was making was that someone working at BK should be able to make at least a living wage as well as those janitors not being actual janitors, but in upper management instead.

I don't think that everyone should be able to earn high wages, but at least have one that allows them to have more than a subsistence lifestyle.

There's a balance between well paid consumers buying crap and the people employing them and producing the crap that is heavily shifted to the employers these days. This is something that can hopefully change (and must if the balance becomes so out of whack that consumers ultimately reduce their consumption) before long. This shift happened because of population growth, easier credit and a values shift as well (essentially profit > people).

I don't believe that population growth is necessarily an issue, but I agree that easier credit and value shifts are, maybe with a different perspective than yours? In order to sell easy credit, there has to be a need for it and if we compare wage stagnation with wealth distribution over the last 30 years, we can see that there isn't a lack of capital. Values shifting is just a marketing tool to accomplish that end.

I've been advocating such a thing for ages in one form or another.

If only we could solve the problem of externalities, which I think is the crux of the problem the OP is trying to get at.

 

[nasum]

well that's just nitpicking now isn't it?

I don't think that everyone should be able to earn high wages, but at least have one that allows them to have more than a subsistence lifestyle.

And there inlies the problem that the "right" had with OWS. Their assumption was that the protestors were wanting equal pay (i.e. everyone makes $60k per year regardless of their job) and they used their fear mongering techniques to perpetuate that fabrication. Of course OWS didn't do themselves any favours in correcting that misnomer but that is neither here nor there.
Of course having more people make more money has a tendency to drive up consumerism. This turns into a chicken or the egg kind of thing in that profiteers have to decide if they want to adopt the console model (sell the PS3 at a loss until cheap manufacturing keeps up while reaping profit on the royalties) and have a low margin with high volume until it balances to medium volume and margin, or if they want to stick with the higher margin on lower volume as it suits their present needs.

Blah blah sounds like trickle down which we both know is a farce, but a farce only in that it didn't happen because everyone got their Gordon Gecko on.

I would posit that population growth is indeed an issue due to resource consumption vs. production (i.e. we didn't "need" industrial farming until population centers grew to the point where local food production became obsolete).

C'mon, you're a systems and functions kind of guy...

 

[kodave]

How is there going to be higher underemployment by the end of this decade? Social security is going bust. That's not a political statement, just a fact of life. Baby boomers are already working well past retirement age and will continue to in order to build up money reserves for their final years of life whenever they do retire. Especially in non-manual labor fields like finance, law, etc. where you don't have to break your back. You can sit in that desk chair and work until you die if you want. That's got to be stifling the whole chain of advancement in many career fields.

 

[Soodmeg]

Seeing that I work in the field that believes it has a RIGHT for unpaid labor (tv/film) I cant even start on this topic without flying into a rage.

I will say this, unpaid internships are great when its done from a company who isnt trying to rape you blind. I completed 3 years of internships and I choose the companies down to the details.

People need to have more balls and tell these people to off. Like I said, I completed 3 years of interning I probably quit 9 internships 5 min after I showed up. As soon as they asked me to get coffee I quit, as soon as they told me I was going to be doing the same work as a paid worker just for free, I quit. I was told a bunch of times I would never work in the industry again...blah blah blah..but who gives a shit? I was making nothing before and I am making nothing afterwards.

People have got to stop letting these jokers take advantage of them.

 

[soulvengeance]

[quote name='Soodmeg']

People have got to stop letting these jokers take advantage of them.[/QUOTE]

This.

 

[Clak]

[quote name='nasum']Which has been going on since B.C.



Pay for said jobs is going down while demand has been relatively stable with a slight decline. More on that with your next statement.



Can't have one without the other is what I'd agree to. Yes, offshoring has replaced domestic. No argument there. It's a combination of high technology being more expensive to produce domestically, thus the relocation. Part of that is a profit motive, but it also goes back to the "what are you willing to pay?" argument. Would you be willing to pay a 25% premium on a cheap Best Buy BF Laptop to have it built in the US with our higher labour prices and better environmental concerns? Beyond that personal choice, the further ramifications lead to your personal dollar buying less, that retailer eventually paying less, that manufacturer and so on and so forth.
We went back and forth on janitors and burger flippers quite some time ago in a conversation that really didn't go anywhere. But it does sort of fit here. While it'd be great if we were all $100k per year HENRYs, the labour inflation would make that $100k not much better than $25k today.
There's a balance between well paid consumers buying crap and the people employing them and producing the crap that is heavily shifted to the employers these days. This is something that can hopefully change (and must if the balance becomes so out of whack that consumers ultimately reduce their consumption) before long. This shift happened because of population growth, easier credit and a values shift as well (essentially profit > people).



I've been advocating such a thing for ages in one form or another.[/QUOTE]
I wish I could remember who it was on NPR yesterday saying all of this, but she was a business professor if I'm not mistaken. It was a simple mention, that in years past business students basically checked their "souls" at the door so to speak, there was no room for concerns of humanity. Now though, at least according to this overall piece, a lot of younger entrepreneurs are trying to fix that by melding social concerns with the concerns of their business. I'm skeptical of that, just given history, but we'll see in the coming decades I suppose.

 

[Clak]

[quote name='nasum']well that's just nitpicking now isn't it?


And there inlies the problem that the "right" had with OWS. Their assumption was that the protestors were wanting equal pay (i.e. everyone makes $60k per year regardless of their job) and they used their fear mongering techniques to perpetuate that fabrication. Of course OWS didn't do themselves any favours in correcting that misnomer but that is neither here nor there.
Of course having more people make more money has a tendency to drive up consumerism. This turns into a chicken or the egg kind of thing in that profiteers have to decide if they want to adopt the console model (sell the PS3 at a loss until cheap manufacturing keeps up while reaping profit on the royalties) and have a low margin with high volume until it balances to medium volume and margin, or if they want to stick with the higher margin on lower volume as it suits their present needs.

Blah blah sounds like trickle down which we both know is a farce, but a farce only in that it didn't happen because everyone got their Gordon Gecko on.

I would posit that population growth is indeed an issue due to resource consumption vs. production (i.e. we didn't "need" industrial farming until population centers grew to the point where local food production became obsolete).

C'mon, you're a systems and functions kind of guy...[/QUOTE]
Relevance.