I got a new prospective on the antiwork movement

[Closet_Gamer]

On the topic of young people and work, i think like so many things in our society, this is becoming a bit bimodal.

I know many, many college age and just post college kids who's work ethic and drive I would put against anyone on this board or around me in the working world. These kids are work while getting truly difficult educations, keeping an eye on debt and living in the real world of managing their finances while developing their earning potential. They all have one job but many have 2 or even 3 along with school. These kids come from a range of socio-economic backgrounds.

I also know many who are on a very bad path. Poor skill development (even with massive formal education), poor work ethic, not a lot of grit, living at home because Mom and Dad make life easy, smoking weed and surfing the web. They are in deep trouble.

What's interesting is that I don't know many in the middle. Those working a job, C students who are mudding through. A few...but most of the people I know are closer to one end of the spectrum or the other.

 

[JoeWras]

I respectfully disagree. Labor is worth what someone will pay for it - just like "stuff." Suggesting otherwise denies supply and demand. Attempting to interfere with that is just like changing the course of a river. Yes, you can probably do it if you try hard enough, but eventually, the river will find a way around most any restriction - with potentially devastating results. Examples are rife throughout history (both with changing rivers and setting prices.)

Not looking for a food fight so willing to agree to disagree.

I accidentally used "/s" which is internet-speak for sarcasm. Not sure we use that here.

So, yeah, I agree with you Koolau and Gen-X. This job was well worth it for me in 1977 when teen jobs were damn near impossible to find where I lived.

Let me add meat to my discussion about 12x. The year was 1976 and I was offered a "job" down the street at a small office. The job was to empty trash cans after school. This job was off the books, which was common at the time. I was 14, and Mr. Moore, a kind man from whom I learned much, paid $1.35 per hour in cash. The minimum wage was $2.30. Meanwhile, Dad was a union plumber at $15 per hour. Keep in mind, however, being he was on a union contract, he had significant deductions per hour to pay for his retirement, medical and other insurance (except workman's comp which is paid by the contractor). His real hourly was something like $11 or $12. And then taxes. Also keep in mind that he got zero vacation. In the trades if you don't work, you don't get paid. Vacation days mean the boss lets you off.

So perhaps it wasn't 12x, although I didn't get vacation either. Ha ha. I didn't pay taxes though.

This job was something the owner did for a lot of young people. It wasn't all about the pay, it was learning to interact with adults in a work environment. I learned a lot from Mr. Moore, the owners and others. And making about $8 a week was incredible to me. That could pay for a lot of miniature golf and real golf (public courses were only a few bucks for 18 if you were a youth).

Since I showed up and wasn't a bum, they put me on the books at age 16 and I made the minimum at the time. I also learned the joy of social security and income tax deductions.

Edit: it occurs to me that some reading this thread are in horror that I had an off-the-books job in the 1970s. Yes, the employer was probably breaking the law. None of us kids who did the garbage can stuff cared. We loved the work and it was worth it to us. When I went on the books, I got more responsibilities including light maintenance. I eventually moved my way to the office and did office work.

 

[OldShooter]

I respectfully disagree. Labor is worth what someone will pay for it - just like "stuff." Suggesting otherwise denies supply and demand. Attempting to interfere with that is just like changing the course of a river. Yes, you can probably do it if you try hard enough, but eventually, the river will find a way around most any restriction - with potentially devastating results. Examples are rife throughout history (both with changing rivers and setting prices.)

Well, sometimes they dam rivers.

Seriously, though, the ideal labor market doesn't exist. "Prevailing wage" laws, for example, mean that high cost union labor must be used on public construction projects. We have minimum wage laws. Boards of Directors never want to hire a below-average CEO, so compensation consultants oblige by recommending higher and higher pay. Lack of mobility for labor is an old problem; serfs and slaves for example, also rust belt workers who can't or won't move to the SE where the jobs are.

Expecting the market to solve the missing worker problem is probably still a tenable idea. Both employers and workers will adapt and a new equilibrium will be established. It is happening now. But IMO it will not be a huge change. I think there are nowhere near the number of able but nonparticipating workers than some believe. That may be the real problem -- when they become motivated to rejoin the work force we will find that there are many fewer of them than we thought.

 

[Markola]

I wish there was a way to be long on the eternal truth that older people think “young people today don’t work.”

 

[Koolau]

Does this mean that hot air is in high demand because based on the compensation of many CEO’s that would be my conclusion.

I would agree that subjectively, many CEO's are "over paid" - whatever that means. BUT, difficult as it would be to do, stock holders could deal with this issue. As long as they're making money, they don't really care. When they lose money, the board fires the overpaid CEO. It's kinda baked in the cake unless folks really care about it. Everyone loves to complain about it, but they don't show up at stockholders meetings to complain, so what's gonna happen? Nothing.

Now, if you want to talk about hot air. Well, better not.

 

[Koolau]

What I tell my kids is that hard work is table stakes, but what they really want to find is scarcity.

Have unique/hard-to-attain skills in a market with strong demand for those skills. You don't need to be a unicorn but if there are a zillion people with your skills then prices for your labor (money and intangibles) will implode.

Being a private in the military, a sheet rocker, ditch digger or even relatively simple service oriented/brainy tasks will never pay well because almost anyone can do it without much on-boarding. They may work harder that most but they will also earn less than most. Life isn't fair.

Electrician or plumber? Real skills, harder to develop, high demand, good pay.
Software Engineer? More so.
Pharmacist? More so.
Brain surgeon? More so.
Underwater welder? More so.

I think this is very well stated. Good examples listed. YMMV

 

[Time2]

I had to w*rk for my dad for many years in the family business. It was one happy day when he actually started PAYING me - $0.25/hour. I was only 9 but I could keep up with any adult doing that piddly j*b. YMMV

Well then, I started out at a high wage of $0.60 an hour at 14 running small size circus rides at Kiddieland! Worked my way up to a dollar an hour by the time I was 16.

 

[Major Tom]

I wish there was a way to be long on the eternal truth that older people think “young people today don’t work.”

+1

Ain't that the truth! I have a friend who is convinced that younger people nowadays are lazy, entitled, and disrespectful - far more so than when she was young. She works at a retail outlet, and deals with rude people of all ages. For some reason though, she just focusses on the younger ones as "proof" of her conviction.

If I had a dollar, etc etc........

 

[Gumby]

At least young people still have a chance. The slackers my own age are hopeless (and they are legion).

 

[Bigdawg]

Is it time to break out the four Yorkshiremen?

 

[Markola]

Is it time to break out the four Yorkshiremen?

Well, would you look at who can afford YouTube? Must be nice.

 

[braumeister]

I have a friend who is convinced that younger people nowadays are lazy, entitled, and disrespectful

I know the perfect antidote to that.
Stop in at a fast food restaurant near a military base and strike up a conversation with a few of the young people in uniform.

I think back to the relatively primitive technologies that were common when I was their age and I am utterly in awe of what these folks are doing today.

 

[Willers]

Hard work doesn't pay sh!t and never has. Ever see a sheetrocker driving a new caddy?

The sheetrockers in our town drive brand new F250s, 2500HDs, etc. They seem to be doing just fine.

 

[Turbo29]

I would agree that subjectively, many CEO's are "over paid" - whatever that means. BUT, difficult as it would be to do, stock holders could deal with this issue. As long as they're making money, they don't really care. When they lose money, the board fires the overpaid CEO. It's kinda baked in the cake unless folks really care about it. Everyone loves to complain about it, but they don't show up at stockholders meetings to complain, so what's gonna happen? Nothing.

Now, if you want to talk about hot air. Well, better not.

Then again some of the largest shareholders in many companies are organizations such as Vanguard or Blackrock. Don't they usually just vote "yes" for whatever management wants?

 

[razztazz]

Hard work doesn't pay sh!t and never has. Ever see a sheetrocker driving a new caddy?

That's true. Growing up all the hard working people who really took the risks made peanuts. The Big Paycheck people always had easy jobs and a great deal of control over what they actually did. Hard working people have little to no control over any aspect of their work. And the big money types do no work. And I won't go into The Big Money Crowd here as it's off thread. Suffice it to say everyone likes to appeal to "hard work" but those who aren't forced to do it, relieve themselves of the responsibility.

 

[Koolau]

Then again some of the largest shareholders in many companies are organizations such as Vanguard or Blackrock. Don't they usually just vote "yes" for whatever management wants?

I didn't say it would be easy. But it is possible. YMMV

 

[sengsational]

I would agree that subjectively, many CEO's are "over paid" - whatever that means. BUT, difficult as it would be to do, stock holders could deal with this issue. As long as they're making money, they don't really care. When they lose money, the board fires the overpaid CEO. It's kinda baked in the cake unless folks really care about it. Everyone loves to complain about it, but they don't show up at stockholders meetings to complain, so what's gonna happen? Nothing.

Now, if you want to talk about hot air. Well, better not.

Then again some of the largest shareholders in many companies are organizations such as Vanguard or Blackrock. Don't they usually just vote "yes" for whatever management wants?

This annoys me. I'm not one to call for more laws, but I think American investors should have right to vote their fund shares.

I've held stock from scads of companies over the years, and so done a lot of voting. The questions are always the same. I go "yes" on whoever they want as the auditor, but they're always asking for more money, and that's always a "no". And I never vote for any of the current board. I could be voting against some good people, but it's so biased by the funds always supporting the good old boys, not much risk there. The shareholder proposals get a "yes", but, as above, they have a snowball's chance.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

This annoys me. I'm not one to call for more laws, but I think American investors should have right to vote their fund shares.

I've held stock from scads of companies over the years, and so done a lot of voting. The questions are always the same. I go "yes" on whoever they want as the auditor, but they're always asking for more money, and that's always a "no". And I never vote for any of the current board. I could be voting against some good people, but it's so biased by the funds always supporting the good old boys, not much risk there. The shareholder proposals get a "yes", but, as above, they have a snowball's chance.

I think this is a bigger issue than most people realize, and it is by design, not accident.

 

[Walt34]

At least young people still have a chance. The slackers my own age are hopeless (and they are legion).

But, but, ... I LIKE being a slacker! That's why I worked so hard all of those years.

 

[Irishgirlyc58]

I would agree that subjectively, many CEO's are "over paid" - whatever that means. BUT, difficult as it would be to do, stock holders could deal with this issue. As long as they're making money, they don't really care. When they lose money, the board fires the overpaid CEO. It's kinda baked in the cake unless folks really care about it. Everyone loves to complain about it, but they don't show up at stockholders meetings to complain, so what's gonna happen? Nothing.

Now, if you want to talk about hot air. Well, better not.

Oh, I know it’s a lot more complicated.
I was actually just poking fun at CEO’s and executives in general being seen as full of hot air.

I was an executive in local government. If you compared my salary with the lowest paid position there was a pretty big difference. You have to take into account all the positions in between.
I was the one holding the liability for everything that happened. People don’t take that on without compensation.

On the other hand I did want to attract competent staff so as to reduce my potential liability. So line staff pay scale was important to me as well. It’s a balancing act and I think both should be taken into account.

I know nothing about shareholders. [emoji23]

 

[Chuckanut]

Maybe a lot of people are Quiet Quitting. Exactly what that means seems to still be up in the air.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you...et-quitting-heres-what-that-means-11660260608

Not taking your job too seriously has a new name: quiet quitting.
The phrase is generating millions of views on TikTok as some young professionals reject the idea of going above and beyond in their careers, labeling their lesser enthusiasm a form of “quitting.”It isn’t about getting off the company payroll, these employees say. In fact, the idea is to stay on it—but focus your time on the things you do outside of the office.

Paige West, 24, said she stopped overextending herself at a former position as a transportation analyst in Washington, D.C., less than a year into the job. Work stress had gotten so intense that, she said, her hair was falling out and she couldn’t sleep. While looking for a new role, she no longer worked beyond 40 hours each week, didn’t sign up for extra training and stopped trying to socialize withcolleagues.
“I took a step back and said, ‘I’m just going to work the hours I’m supposed to work, that I’m really getting paid to work,’” she said. “Besides that, I’m not going to go extra.”

Josh Bittinger, a 32-year-old market-research director at a management-consulting company, said people who stumble on the phrase “quiet quitting” may assume it encourages people to be lazy, when it actually reminds them to not work to the point of burnout.

 

[Koolau]

I guess I sort of "quiet quit" after FI. It was abundantly clear that megacorp had little use for those over 50 (coinciding with FI for me and most.) W*rking toward that "next" promotion was futile and raises were minimal. I always gave my best, but just a bit less of it during my last few years. YMMV

 

[GravitySucks]

But, but, ... I LIKE being a slacker! That's why I worked so hard all of those years.

Always hilarious that a forum devoted to not working has members complaining about those lazy people.

I'm off to do some day time people watching.

 

[Chuckanut]

I got my first job out of college at a major oil company (You know the rich and powerful Oyll Companeees). A few years before I joined them they had complete a [-]takeover[/-] merger of two other companies into the one. And management placed the new headquarters across the country so it would be nearer to the CEO's ranch in New Mexico.

There were a lot of extra people, many with 20, 30 or more years of service. We young go-getters would comment about the number of people on our floor who were 'retired at full pay'. All they had to do was show up for 7.5 hours each day, take a long lunch, push a few papers around, then go home. They all easily earned four times what I was making and got three times the paid vacation. Many a young go-getter saw this and it ruined their work ethic for decades.

 

[PatrickA5]

Maybe a lot of people are Quiet Quitting. Exactly what that means seems to still be up in the air.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you...et-quitting-heres-what-that-means-11660260608

I kind of like that term - Quiet Quitting. It described my last 10 or so years at megacorp. Actually, it pretty much describes my entire career.

While I did have to work OT, I always kept it to the minimum I could get away with and still do a well-above-average job. I never missed family events due to work - something I'm proud of. I never played the "show time" game of coming in before the boss, leaving after and showing up on weekends - just to be seen. Of course, not doing this probably cost me a promotion or two. That's OK. I still retired early and have no regrets.