Recession's Mark on Millennials

[ugeauxgirl]

I have a BIL who was a CEO of a few smaller businesses. He got his start working for Chevron in the 80s. He's retired now. He told me once that in his early days there was a feeling of satisfaction and pride, from the upper echelons of management, over how well the employees were doing, including their chances for a decent retirement.

Agreed. A few years ago I tried to get a raise for my assistant who really deserved (and needed) it. Corporate told me me we weren't giving raises. When I asked why, I was told because we didn't have to- the employment market was terrible and no one else was giving them- so we didn't have to in order to be competitive. Wow. There is a company you can be proud to work for.

 

[razztazz]

Wow. There is a company you can be proud to work for.

Not new. If you read recruiting/employment material that big company recruiters show around, every one I have ever seen or heard of says essentially the same thing.

1) Some long winded chest thumping harangue about hiring the best and the brightest and how exceptional a career opportunity with this company is we are so great....blah... blah... blah

2) Our compensation package is "competitive" with others in the industry.

So no matter how good you are or we think you are you don't get paid any more than Joe Blow down the street doing the same thing

 

[ERD50]

... Corporate told me me we weren't giving raises. When I asked why, I was told because we didn't have to- the employment market was terrible and no one else was giving them- so we didn't have to in order to be competitive. Wow. There is a company you can be proud to work for.

So, to be proud of yourself, do you go to the grocery store, or gas station, and say " Hey, I'd like to pay you more than they charge at the nearby gas station/grocery, even though I don't have to!".

I bet you don't. Is that worth a "Wow"? Why do you expect a company to do otherwise?

-ERD50

 

[razztazz]

"Wow"? Why do you expect a company to do otherwise?

Because in that case it is is usually the employer stealing from or exploiting workers and lining their own pockets. Your case is non-sequitur non pareil

 

[RobbieB]

I'm a stockholder and I expect the companies I own to pay me first. If the job market doesn't merit raises for retention why pay them?

Pay me first, I'm the owner.

 

[NW-Bound]

...A few years ago I tried to get a raise for my assistant who really deserved (and needed) it...

If her performance was better than average, her pay should be better than average.

Sadly, sometimes one just has to find a new job if the employer does not see that his/her performance is worth that raise.

 

[txtig]

Because in that case it is is usually the employer stealing from or exploiting workers and lining their own pockets. Your case is non-sequitur non pareil

I don't see how paying a competitive rate (and not more) is stealing. I agree with Robbie that companies have an obligation to their shareholders to not overpay for any resources they need, including their employees.

 

[jane_sm1th73]

I paid most of my own way through college by working in high school, in college, and during the summers. My folks paid only 3 years of room & board, not including weekend meals. I worked in a restaurant in high school, so my folks didn't pay for my dinners for a year of high school, maybe that's why they gave me a break and paid some of my meals in college.

I have a child who graduated from college and a child now in college. I can write that college is relatively inexpensive and a student can pay for it by working summers, and part-time during college with help from Federal tax credits. Of course, if a student doesn't work, then college seems enormously expensive.

The idea that college is expensive seems to come from the NorthEast media where all the journalists want to send their kids to elite private universities. A public university in Texas is about $10,000 a year (not semester!) for tuition, fees, and books. Sure, room & board adds more to the cost, but one can live pretty cheaply either at home or with lots of roommates. Life is not meant to be a cake walk.

The idea that one can get a degree in engineering or any of the lab sciences, while working, is preposterous. In engineering grad school, if you missed one problem set you would pay for it on the mid-term and final. There was simply no time for do-overs or make-ups. "Pay for it" means you would be on academic probation and stood a real risk of not getting your degree. This was in a top 10 school. In case the event of curiosity, I have never been characterized as deficient in the IQ or work ethic department (with the exception of my children during their teen-aged and post-adolescent years).

Social science majors would whine about wasting a weekend doing the equivalent of a book report. We hard core subject matter types had problem sets due at midnight on Sunday. That was the equivalent of eight hours on Saturday and Sunday, and six hours Monday-Friday. Those hours were spent sweating bullets.

I want to scream when I hear that students in serious majors should have time to work 20+ hours a week to "put themselves through school". When you pursue a difficult course of study, it is one or the other.

With this assertion, I give no quarter (and take none).

 

[meierlde]

I have a BIL who was a CEO of a few smaller businesses. He got his start working for Chevron in the 80s. He's retired now. He told me once that in his early days there was a feeling of satisfaction and pride, from the upper echelons of management, over how well the employees were doing, including their chances for a decent retirement.

.

Having worked for Chevron for a couple of years after the Texaco Merger, I heard that in the 1970s a lot of managers had well lubicated lunches (when the HQ was in San Francisco, and were not good for two much after lunch.

Also when I started for Texaco in 1976 in the Research lab it cleared out at quitting time in less than a minute.

 

[meierlde]

We hard core subject matter types had problem sets due at midnight on Sunday. That was the equivalent of eight hours on Saturday and Sunday, and six hours Monday-Friday. .

Of course going to school in the late 1960s and early 1970s the buildings might not have been open at midnight, and of course to put that deadline in someone had to be there to timestamp the work. so it was more likley the first class of the week that was the deadline (because it was less trouble for the prof that way) It is actually hard to see the advantage of midnight to 8am the next day, which in the days of physical paper having to be handed in made life easier all around (all be it with less sleep in some cases)

 

[NW-Bound]

The idea that one can get a degree in engineering or any of the lab sciences, while working, is preposterous. In engineering grad school, if you missed one problem set you would pay for it on the mid-term and final...

I want to scream when I hear that students in serious majors should have time to work 20+ hours a week to "put themselves through school". When you pursue a difficult course of study, it is one or the other.

With this assertion, I give no quarter (and take none).

Maybe they let me off easy, but I got out of grad school in 4.5 years total, while working 20 hours a week. I wanted to be out of school ASAP, so did take summer school for those liberal and fine art classes that they required, and that helped cut down the time.

I went to a state university, so maybe it was easy, but the graduation rate then just for a BS degree was less than 1/5, maybe 1/10. Never attended a single weekend party. Never went on any spring-break trip. Work and study was all I did.

PS. I did not keep any statistics on the graduation rate, but estimated it based on the number of students in freshman classes like Calculus and Physics to the number of students in senior level classes that were required of all graduating students.

PPS. I attended none of the graduation ceremonies. I just wanted to stay home to relax. They mailed me my diplomas.

 

[Winemaker]

The idea that one can get a degree in engineering or any of the lab sciences, while working, is preposterous. In engineering grad school, if you missed one problem set you would pay for it on the mid-term and final. There was simply no time for do-overs or make-ups. "Pay for it" means you would be on academic probation and stood a real risk of not getting your degree. This was in a top 10 school. In case the event of curiosity, I have never been characterized as deficient in the IQ or work ethic department (with the exception of my children during their teen-aged and post-adolescent years).

I did it in the late '76-80 and my son did it '03-07. YMMV
Either one of us went to grad school. I can't speak for son but I wanted to get out and start making $ and getting on with my life. Later, I did half of the credits for an MBA, but life got in the way and I didn't finish.

 

[LOL!]

The idea that one can get a degree in engineering or any of the lab sciences, while working, is preposterous.
[...]
I want to scream when I hear that students in serious majors should have time to work 20+ hours a week to "put themselves through school". When you pursue a difficult course of study, it is one or the other.

With this assertion, I give no quarter (and take none).

Warning: Bragging follows, not humble bragging.
My undergrad degree was in a serious major: biochemistry. I have a PhD in the subject and had a career in it. I graduated in 3 years from an elite private university while working 20 hours a week mopping floors. I received a letter from my organic chem professor that said I was the top student in the course. I did undergrad research for which I was not paid and have my name on two published articles from that work. I went on to grad school and got a PhD. I have published cover articles in Nature and in Cell. Two people who took a course from me in separate years went on to become Nobel Laureates later in their lives.

My daughter got a M.S. in engineering and worked during her university days. She worked and graduated early, too. I paid for her education.

There's more, but I can hear you screaming all the way through the internet. LOL!

 

[Amethyst]

I was going to mention getting two master's degrees while working full-time (and shift work!) but the first was not STEM, and the second was "only" Systems Engineering so I figured I'd get pooh-poohed. LOL

 

[Nemo2]

I barely managed to grasp the alphabet, but DW's daughter, now coming up on 35, took two computer programs simultaneously, (one of which was co-op, so she had to juggle her time), while the rest of her cohort moaned about the workload for one program.

Nowadays, while working/raising three young kids, she still gets unsolicited job offers.

 

[ERD50]

"Wow"? Why do you expect a company to do otherwise?

Because in that case it is is usually the employer stealing from or exploiting workers and lining their own pockets. Your case is non-sequitur non pareil

I'm a stockholder and I expect the companies I own to pay me first. If the job market doesn't merit raises for retention why pay them?

Pay me first, I'm the owner.

If her performance was better than average, her pay should be better than average.

Sadly, sometimes one just has to find a new job if the employer does not see that his/her performance is worth that raise.

I don't see how paying a competitive rate (and not more) is stealing. I agree with Robbie that companies have an obligation to their shareholders to not overpay for any resources they need, including their employees.

It's not stealing, of course. Yet, that poster has to tag my post as a 'non starter'! Wow.

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

But that trend is for every cohort, not just millennials..... I could not get a job now paying more than I got 10 or so years ago... the market has changed... I took a big hit in 2008 when I was let go from mega... I could get a job paying about what I was earning on my last job, but the good old days are gone...

Agree, yet the hardest hit are those whose careers are just starting, no? In addition to crippling student debt (in the US) partially caused by reduced education funding.

Not to mention that those lucrative careers that still exist are occupied by old geezers who keep working well past 70, sometimes 80 years old now. They used to be dead on average by 60 ..

 

[Amethyst]

Why would companies keep the "geezers" on if they are not producing?

Is it fear of age discrimination? I'm curious, since I've always heard that AD is the hardest one to prove and the easiest to get away with.

those lucrative careers that still exist are occupied by old geezers who keep working well past 70, sometimes 80 years old now. ..

 

[Texas Proud]

Agree, yet the hardest hit are those whose careers are just starting, no? In addition to crippling student debt (in the US) partially caused by reduced education funding.

Not to mention that those lucrative careers that still exist are occupied by old geezers who keep working well past 70, sometimes 80 years old now. They used to be dead on average by 60 ..

Nope... I disagree....

In my old mega, they were pushing out older people every time there was a layoff... at a much higher rate than young people.... why? because they made more money!!! BTW, I was one of the older ones pushed out... and found out that the young person who took my place could not do the job... it has been passed on to a couple of others over the first 3 years... do not know what is happening now....


As an old person, go try and get a job at Facebook, Twitter, Google, probably Apple etc. etc.... there IS age discrimination going on and it is more so in the software industry IMO.... but, I think it is in other industries also...


I do agree that the relative cost of higher education has gone up... but from what I read etc. a decent pct. of these students really should not be going to school (think the for profit schools advertised on TV or the people taking degrees where there are no jobs)....


As I had mentioned before, when I graduated the number of people I knew that got a job offer was low... I never put a number to it but I would guess 5%... I would bet that more than 5% of the graduates today are getting job offers...

Also, the economy is still in recovery even though the unemployment rate is below 5%... wages have not yet adjusted due to the recession (and this is to everybody)... but should soon....


OH... another thought... how many of the older group who lost a job also lost their house, savings, 401s, etc etc.... remember they extended UI for 2 years... it is not like other cohorts did not suffer big time due to the recession.... some people are just getting out of debt.... some still are paying...

 

[Totoro]

Why would companies keep the "geezers" on if they are not producing?

Who says they aren't producing?

Some of them also own the place. Investment bankers, surgeons, CEOs, high profile lawyers, partners in management firms, professors, ..

 

[razztazz]

It's not stealing, of course. YWow.

-ERD50

Yes it is. It's weaponizing one's economic position to exploit the other actor. Not a free market transaction

 

[ownyourfuture]

Re: minimum wage and college costs- college cost has risen faster than nearly everything else- its not surprising that wages haven't kept up to that.

Great point, & I agree 100%
I wanted to go into more detail, but unfortunately, it's one of those subjects that you can't discuss without getting political.

 

[Winemaker]

Not a free market transaction

I disagree with you and agree with ERD50.

The front or back door of the establishment is not locked, and one is not chained to the desk. One can only be taken advantage of only if one let's them.

If one puts themselves in a economic bind because of purchase choices, choice of spouse, or choice of birth control, one cannot blame the employer to stay competitive. The individual must also stay competitive. For example, I had several opportunities to jump ship when raises got skimpy, but I wasn't giving up 4 or 5 weeks vacation to start over at 2.

When your employer takes away your health insurance just before you retire, like mine, it's an economic decision on their part. It was my choice to be prepared when and if I got screwed.

 

[jane_sm1th73]

Of course going to school in the late 1960s and early 1970s the buildings might not have been open at midnight, and of course to put that deadline in someone had to be there to timestamp the work. so it was more likley the first class of the week that was the deadline (because it was less trouble for the prof that way) It is actually hard to see the advantage of midnight to 8am the next day, which in the days of physical paper having to be handed in made life easier all around (all be it with less sleep in some cases)

I'm responding to the first reply, since there was an avalanche of dissenting opinion, lol! OK, OK - I cry uncle!

FWIW, I got my engr grad degree within the past five years, so the world was well into the wired age. I was also working full time. However, I was only taking one course at a time, year-round. Took me four years. If I had been taking two at a time, it would not have been possible.

I take nothing away from anybody who said "pshaw!', and recognize that my experience is anecdotal (N=1). However, I did witness 40% of my entering class drop out because of the circumstances I cited.

I was not exaggerating: one course at a time was a 45 hour weekly slog outside of class. Would not have been possible to do two classes at a time. The last 18 mos was totally consumed with the capstone project, which meant at least that classwork was over with.

Thanks to everybody for your give and take on my "throwing down the gauntlet" assertion - very valuable.

I will note that undergrad engr degrees are at least as bad for most. I read somewhere (no cite - apologies - don't have time to look it up) that the typical engineering undergrad degree in the 2010s era takes six years - not four. I attribute this entirely to the workload.

But, if you like knowing how things work, there's no getting away from getting that foundation.

Thanks to all! Cheerio, Jane

 

[CaptTom]

I don't see why this should be political. I'm quite sure there are good folks of every political persuasion who feel that it's morally wrong for MegaCorp to "screw" the employees just because it can.

As someone else mentioned above, my own company admitted as much; they cut benefits and pay not because they had to, but because they could get away with it. They were and still are a very profitable company. The amount they diddled the employees out of had very little impact on the bottom line. If anything, I'd say it is a long-term negative to demoralize employees.

It is very possible to run a company that looks out for all stakeholders - stock holders, customers AND employees. That used to be the way things were done, and there have been many times in history when profits and ROI were high at the same wages and benefits were rising, not falling.

There's been much talk by some very serious people about the negative impacts of today's severe income inequality on the overall economy.

Yes, there will always be leeches who make poor choices and are a drain on society. I have no more love for them than the next working stiff. But these larger issues can all be discussed without making those kinds of judgments.