Millennials and Work.

[Chuckanut]

+1

Ultimately, our economy will benefit from employees moving freely from employer to employer to meet employers' demands for their skills. It's inefficient to handcuff employees and employers together with seniority based pension plans, employer provided medical insurance, etc.

Maybe all we need is more good karma

 

[RISP]

Hey, as a bona fide Gen X or Gen Y -er, I finally have a younger generation at which to scoff, shake my head, and generally act like Clint Eastwood.

Huh? We need to get our definitions straight: Generation Y = Millennials. Source: Millennials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[purplesky]

+1000

I'm in Gen X, and after a few years in the work force, I learned there is no loyalty in corporate America anymore. I operate under the principle that my employer buys my loyalty only two weeks at a time, with every paycheck. No more than that.

And I've never given a second thought to "firing" an employer when a better offer somewhere else came around. And I've fired more employers than have fired me (or RIF'd me).

An employer can tap me on the shoulder and walk me out on a moment's notice. I have no problem doing the same to them.

I am a old genx or a young baby boomer. This whole loyalty thing on the corporate America side really started about 30 years ago.

Sadly this is the employment structure that corporate America has been creating for decades. And now they have it.

Guess who wins in this loyalty game. In most cases it will not be the employee in the long run.

 

[bUU]

So it all boils down to what kind of society you want to live in: One where efficiency is more important than people or one where people are more important than efficiency.

 

[marko]

So it all boils down to what kind of society you want to live in: One where efficiency is more important than people or one where people are more important than efficiency.

The future belongs to the efficient. But I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

The posts here have focused mainly on companies who are NOT efficient by virtue of not fostering and rewarding loyalty (however one may define it) and hard work.

The (few) truly efficient companies who do end up the winners.

When a company offers to freeze your eggs, (along with providing dry cleaning, unlimited time off, free cafeteria, day care, shuttle service, etc) they are rewarded with employees who will do whatever it takes for that company to succeed.

These companies expect a lot from their employees, but they have also been identified as the 'best places to work'.

 

[donheff]

+1

Ultimately, our economy will benefit from employees moving freely from employer to employer to meet employers' demands for their skills. It's inefficient to handcuff employees and employers together with seniority based pension plans, employer provided medical insurance, etc.

+1 And this new freedom will express itself across the economy and sensibly so. But there are still a wide spectrum of employers and millenials, like many of us before them, still like employers (or just supervisors) who value them as people, not just disposable tools. There are actually quite a few of them still around, usually small and mid size companies - e.g. the private grocery chain that recently dumped it's employee focused CEO. Publicly held companies reacting to limited demands for the immediate bottom line and paying CEOs 300-400x their line employees are a different animal. People recognize when they work in those environments and react accordingly if they have good sense.

 

[Amethyst]

So did mine. I submit that "that's just how everyone does things" is seldom universal.

The closest thing for Dad was his Union, which ran a pension plan into which Dad paid (but it wasn't COLAd, and was soon worth very little). If work was plentiful, Dad worked overtime, and we bought stuff. If work was scarce, the Union shared it out, and Dad could get laid off for 2 months at a time. He used the time to fix up the house.

Mr. A's father and relatives worked for a Railroad during the first half of the 20th century. That "guaranteed" career went away after long-haul trucking put the railcars onto 18-wheelers. Mr. A. tells sad stories about family members who became unemployed after a lifetime of believing that the Railroads would Always Be There.

I believe the notion of distinctive human "generations" is fairly new: as if, every 20 years, a new label must be invented and a set of myths and folkways constructed around it. I think the notion was engendered when the label "baby boom" started being used in broadcast media. The notion became entrenched once workplace consultants and pop psychologists figured out how to make money from preaching about it. I realize that some people are very attached to the notion, but I myself don't see much difference in human beings throughout history.

Amethyst

You'd be surprised. My Mom and Dad grew up during the Great Depression,
.

 

[dallas27]

Every generation is worse than the last, yet the world in continually a better place, century after century.




Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[photoguy]

When a company offers to freeze your eggs, (along with providing dry cleaning, unlimited time off, free cafeteria, day care, shuttle service, etc) they are rewarded with employees who will do whatever it takes for that company to succeed.

These companies expect a lot from their employees, but they have also been identified as the 'best places to work'.

Um, these are the same companies that made back room deals to drives salaries below free market rates.



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[RISP]

Mr. A's father and relatives worked for a Railroad during the first half of the 20th century. That "guaranteed" career went away after long-haul trucking put the railcars onto 18-wheelers. Mr. A. tells sad stories about family members who became unemployed after a lifetime of believing that the Railroads would Always Be There.

This is totally not what LoneAspen, I & others are referring to. I'm not sure if you are deliberately trying to misunderstand us, or whether I failed to make myself clear. It's probably the latter. So I'll try once more:

- Nobody is arguing that everybody should have a "guaranteed career".
- Of course industries change over time. They shrink or grow, and some vanish altogether. You need to be flexible and adapt if necessary. That's cool.
- Nobody is asking for handouts. At least I am not.
- The point is, many corporations today are ever trying to squeeze more and more out of their employees, reducing headcount, forcing the rest of the staff to do more with less, and not offering better compensation to the lucky ones that are not laid off either. All that while making ample profits. That is not cool.

Now, I haven't been around for the old days, so maybe I'm just nostalgic for a time I never experienced (is that even possible?). Still, I feel that what I described above is a fairly new development. But if you think that it was always that way, I respect your opinion, and we should just agree to disagree.

I believe this is mainly a consequence of (a) relatively high unemployment and (b) globalization, both of which put labour as a whole under pressure and have led to a downwards spiral of worsening working conditions for many (though not all, of course. Yes, there are people who are doing great). Think lower real wages, unpaid overtime becoming pretty standard practice, company pensions and other perks being reduced or eliminated etc. etc.

I'm obviously biased by my own limited experiences, but there is no doubt to me that some working conditions 20 or 30 years ago were better than today. I'm on friendly terms with one or two older managers at my megacorp, and those folks just laugh at the current company pension plan. One of them has been around for decades, and he can basically expect to retire soon at 63, with his company pension and the German equivalent of SS fully replacing his net salary. No one hired in this millennium will ever get anywhere close to that, unless they make it to senior management. That includes me, though I have a higher education than my older colleague and certainly don't work any less hard. And I'm already in a privileged position.

You, Amethyst, are dismissing these arguments by simply saying "life was always tough, get used to it". IMHO, that's too simplistic.

Sorry for the wall of text.

 

[Amethyst]

Neither one. I found the topic at hand to be interesting, and thought I'd [-]put in my oar [/-]contribute. I don't think cultural trends, perceived over a few decades, necessarily constitute major changes in human history or culture.

By the way, I'm not even sure how to "deliberately misunderstand" someone - why would anyone bother? - seems to me that understanding people takes enough effort, as it is.

A.

This is totally not what LoneAspen, I & others are referring to. I'm not sure if you are deliberately trying to misunderstand us, or whether I failed to make myself clear. It's probably the latter. So I'll try once more:

 

[youbet]

there is no doubt to me that some working conditions 20 or 30 years ago were better than today.

And some working conditions today are better than 20 or 30 years ago. In some cases, far better.

If you're trying to sell you time to someone else and aren't satisfied with the offers you're getting, it's time to analyze what you're bringing to the table vs what the buyers want. Lots of folks today are able to sell their services for what they consider adequate prices.

With the arrival of the ACA and portable pension plans such as 401k's, there's nothing to hold you back from shopping for the highest bidder and in that way determining what your worth actually is in the free market. If you're not satisfied, consider assuming the risk of going into business for yourself. Self-employment isn't for everyone but it's a way of truly testing the market for your skills and abilities.

 

[bUU]

So it all boils down to what kind of society you want to live in: One where efficiency is more important than people or one where people are more important than efficiency.

The future belongs to the efficient. But I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

By definition, the two options I listed are mutually exclusive. Two objects cannot occupy the same space. What you probably meant to say is that you prefer a third choice, i.e., a system where efficiency and people are equally important. I still consider that morally inferior to one that places a higher priority on people, but not as morally inferior to one that places a higher priority on efficiency.

 

[marko]

Um, these are the same companies that made back room deals to drives salaries below free market rates.



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

I was talking about places like Apple, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft. Not aware of low salaries below free market rates.

Please enlighten me.

 

[marko]

By definition, the two options I listed are mutually exclusive. Two objects cannot occupy the same space. What you probably meant to say is that you prefer a third choice, i.e., a system where efficiency and people are equally important. I still consider that morally inferior to one that places a higher priority on people, but not as morally inferior to one that places a higher priority on efficiency.

Well, as it is your statement, I suppose it becomes your definition.

My point was that there are companies that, in placing value on their employees ARE more efficient.

I look at accommodating companies like Apple, Google and so on who value their employees with enviable wage and benefit packages but who also demand a lot in return. You don't have to work there if you don't want to, but it seems a lot of people are clamoring to get in.

My own company highly valued the individual and provided unheard of benefits and we had an incredible profitability go along with it based mostly upon our people's willingness to go the extra mile.

 

[photoguy]

I was talking about places like Apple, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft. Not aware of low salaries below free market rates.

Please enlighten me.

Search for "silicon valley wage collusion" or "anti poaching" on google. Here's one link

Apple, Google, Intel face setback after judge tosses settlement in tech 'no-poaching' case - San Jose Mercury News

The case has rocked Silicon Valley with revelations that the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs played a central role in a scheme involving top executives at leading companies, including former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Intel's former chief, Paul Otellini. Tech workers who brought the suit had asked for $3 billion in damages, arguing that the no-poaching deals were anti-competitive and made it harder for them to negotiate raises or get better jobs.

Schmidt, who also sat on Apple's board, fired at least two Google recruiters when Jobs complained they were contacting Apple employees, Koh wrote. Google also dropped plans to hire several former Apple engineers after Jobs objected.

I think in bUU's terms they are certainly going for efficiency not people despite what they say.

 

[marko]

Search for "silicon valley wage collusion" or "anti poaching" on google. Here's one link



I think in bUU's terms they are certainly going for efficiency not people despite what they say.

Thanks. Maybe we can get back to the original thread subject on how Millennials have different expectations regarding work.

 

[RISP]

Lots of folks today are able to sell their services for what they consider adequate prices.

Exactly. That's the point that I phrased "(a) relatively high unemployment and (b) globalization, both of which put labour as a whole under pressure and have led to a downwards spiral of worsening working conditions for many". In other words, a growing supply of skilled labour (resulting from globalization and modern communication) meets a shrinking demand (because of growing efficiency, computers, slower economic growth in developed countries, etc).

Your advice to "shop for the highest bidder" and "consider going into business for yourself" is useful. It just doesn't necessarily help much when you are trying to sell the same service as a bunch of people in third world countries who are willing to provide it for a lot less. Many people in Finance or IT have learned this the hard way, and their jobs are now in Kolkata. And I'm not talking about unskilled labour.
(Please note that I'm not saying folks in Kolkata shouldn't be allowed to offer these kinds of services. They should, and more power to them if they can do it cheaper than us.)

You are of course free to shrug this off, but you cannot reasonable deny that this effect exists, and is creating challenges for today's young workforce that earlier generations never faced.

Thanks. Maybe we can get back to the original thread subject on how Millennials have different expectations regarding work.

OK. I think they (we? ) have the reasonable expectation that slaving for the man like crazy is less likely to provide them the comfy middle class lifestyle that their boomer parents have gotten accustomed to. Consequently, millennials are less motivated to go the corporate route, and more willing to look into other employment models. In other words, Generation Y is adapting to a changing situation. That's what everyone wants them to do, right?

 

[nash031]

Huh? We need to get our definitions straight: Generation Y = Millennials. Source: Millennials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the previous definition post, Gen Y started in 1980ish. Either way, I am a Gen Xer.

 

[RISP]

According to the previous definition post, Gen Y started in 1980ish. Either way, I am a Gen Xer.

In that case, you are of course entitled to go full "Dirty Harry" on us young punks.

You wrote earlier "as a bona fide Gen X or Gen Y -er" (emphasis mine), so I thought, "Hey, this guy can't be his cake and hate it, too!"

 

[nash031]

In that case, you are of course entitled to go full "Dirty Harry" on us young punks.

You wrote earlier "as a bona fide Gen X or Gen Y -er" (emphasis mine), so I thought, "Hey, this guy can't be his cake and hate it, too!"

Interestingly, it means I hate my wife. When I get home tomorrow, I plan to open a beer, sit in a plastic chair until she gets home and yell at her to "Get off my lawn, millennial!" If only she were born a few months earlier...

I wonder how that will go...

 

[Sarah in SC]

nash, that should work just fine, as long as you don't plan to go to sleep anywhere within hatchet range of her this weekend.

 

[nash031]

We don't own a hatchet, however we do own a sword and lots of kitchen knives.

 

[gauss]

Interestingly, it means I hate my wife. When I get home tomorrow, I plan to open a beer, sit in a plastic chair until she gets home and yell at her to "Get off my lawn, millennial!" If only she were born a few months earlier...

I wonder how that will go...

Sounds like something you would hear out of the Cartman character on Southpark. LOL.

Haven't watched the show in years but DW was viewing a youtube collage yesterday.

-gauss

 

[nash031]

Sounds like something you would hear out of the Cartman character on Southpark. LOL.

Haven't watched the show in years but DW was viewing a youtube collage yesterday.

-gauss

Doing this in a Cartman voice will make it much funnier... For me...Thanks for the suggestion!

"GET OFF MY LAWN, YOU DIRTY MILLENIAL!!"