#colleges #universities #CollegeDegrees #jobs #JobPromotions #CollegeDebt
“I was a human resources professional for 20 years. But, I reached a ceiling.”
That quote, from a lady in a TV ad for the University of Maryland Global Campus, tells the story of how she has been able to pursue a good career until recently, when, apparently, she no longer qualified for advancement without a college degree.
So, the ad says, she went to UMGC to get her degree, and it is paying off.
When you couple that story with a column by George Will of the Washington Post talking about the declining value of college degrees, as well as other ads about paper ceilings, it paints an interesting picture of today’s world.
As Will points out, some jobs today that don’t appear to require a college degree suddenly require them.
Will’s column was also published Aug. 31, 2025, in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
In the past few decades, we were all told that a college degree was essential to getting a good job – or, at least, one that would be more likely to put you in an office than outside doing hard physical labor.
But, over time, college degrees have become unaffordable for many – so much so that many students had to incur debt that they may spend a lifetime trying to pay.
If you are fortunate to go to law or medical school, you are more likely to be able to pay off that debt in a relatively short time, presuming you are successful in either of those professions.
But, the job market for other degrees can be a bit unpredictable. If you need debt to finish college, you had better have reasonable assurance of a good income afterward to pay it off.
The need for people in the trades, like plumbers or electricians, is much more acute in many places.
Those jobs do not require a four-year degree, but they do require trade school, certifications, licenses etc., that are much less costly than college.
And, of course, those jobs require sometimes hard physical labor.
But, if you are good at your trade and you are reliable to your customers, you can make a better living than a lot of people with four-year degrees.
When college degrees were rare among young people, companies hired those with degrees, regardless of what the degree was in, then trained them for the job(s) they wanted them to do.
But, on-the-job training is harder – and more costly – for companies these days. They expect their workers to know what they are doing on Day 1.
The lady in the UMGC ad probably was very capable of doing the job she was striving for without a college degree. But not having a degree made it much easier for the hiring manager to reject her for that job.
Also, colleges pride themselves on their “elite” status in society and community. In today’s milieu, politicians want to cut out that elite status colleges have by threatening their government grants. That’s way too extreme a reaction.
It may be best to let colleges and universities conduct business as usual by giving them their research grants etc. They perform a great function in society by doing that work.
But, the average student is getting priced out of the college market. The colleges will have to do something to find the balance between teaching and research.
The average student may want to rethink his or her life options as he or she decides how to make a living, and what he or she has to do to get there.
Peter
Tag Archives: jobs
BEING YOUNG IS NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE
#YoungMen #YoungPeople #women #minorities #AdaptingToChange #DifferencesInIncome
It’s tough to be young today.
It’s even tougher, it seems, to be a young man.
As a man, you were always taught to be a provider for your family. At the same time, there was a building movement to advance women and minorities in the work force.
Over time, young women became more educated than young men, in aggregate numbers.
As a young man with less education, your options became more limited. The strong-back, laborious jobs that once paid pretty well, were not paying well at all. On top of that, many of those jobs were being eliminated altogether because of technology.
Did it bother you, as a young man, that a woman that you might like to be with was better educated, and perhaps making more money than you? How can you “provide” for her?
Worse yet, would that well-educated woman you like even give you the time of day, because you are not as educated, and not making as much as she is?
First, the advancement of women and minorities in the work force has been a GOOD thing.
Before that, women, who were not necessarily guaranteed to find a “provider,” could not necessarily live on their own without help.
They were pigeon-holed into certain job categories with little opportunity for advancement. They were secretaries, teachers, nurses etc. Those are noble professions, to be sure, but moving up in those careers can be difficult.
If you were a woman who was able to find someone to provide for you, you may have gotten married and had children, which presented a whole new set of work-force challenges for you.
Now, the pendulum has swung a bit in the other direction, and young men, particularly those who did not go to college, are left with limited career options.
Even some with a good education may not be able to find a job that would make that education pay off. To complicate that, if you borrowed money to go to college, you may have debt that will keep you from advancing in life.
Moving back with mom and dad should only be a temporary solution. But, for more and more young men in particular, there is no other way to make it at the moment.
Apartments in New York City are going for $6,000 a month, yet are still being gobbled up. Young people have to find roommates to make it work, and, even then, they are still paying more than the 30 percent of their income that should go to housing.
Note here that certain places are more expensive to live in than others because they are more desirable. A young person on his or her own would rather be nearer a big city than a rural town, if only for the social life options.
Yes, it’s difficult to be young today, but resorting to vices – drugs, alcohol etc. – to ease your troubles is not the answer.
You may have to look harder for opportunities, but they are there. You may have to relocate to find them, but they are out there. So many employers are looking for good, hard workers. Many of them are willing to pay for the right people.
There are more opportunities to come as technology improves. (Warning: if you are in a job that will be eliminated by technology eventually, prepare for that now.)
You can’t stop the world from changing. You can’t go back to the way things were decades ago. You just have to find ways to adapt to the here and now. If you do, life, eventually, will treat you well.
Peter
It’s tough to be young today.
It’s even tougher, it seems, to be a young man.
As a man, you were always taught to be a provider for your family. At the same time, there was a building movement to advance women and minorities in the work force.
Over time, young women became more educated than young men, in aggregate numbers.
As a young man with less education, your options became more limited. The strong-back, laborious jobs that once paid pretty well, were not paying well at all. On top of that, many of those jobs were being eliminated altogether because of technology.
Did it bother you, as a young man, that a woman that you might like to be with was better educated, and perhaps making more money than you? How can you “provide” for her?
Worse yet, would that well-educated woman you like even give you the time of day, because you are not as educated, and not making as much as she is?
First, the advancement of women and minorities in the work force has been a GOOD thing.
Before that, women, who were not necessarily guaranteed to find a “provider,” could not necessarily live on their own without help.
They were pigeon-holed into certain job categories with little opportunity for advancement. They were secretaries, teachers, nurses etc. Those are noble professions, to be sure, but moving up in those careers can be difficult.
If you were a woman who was able to find someone to provide for you, you may have gotten married and had children, which presented a whole new set of work-force challenges for you.
Now, the pendulum has swung a bit in the other direction, and young men, particularly those who did not go to college, are left with limited career options.
Even some with a good education may not be able to find a job that would make that education pay off. To complicate that, if you borrowed money to go to college, you may have debt that will keep you from advancing in life.
Moving back with mom and dad should only be a temporary solution. But, for more and more young men in particular, there is no other way to make it at the moment.
Apartments in New York City are going for $6,000 a month, yet are still being gobbled up. Young people have to find roommates to make it work, and, even then, they are still paying more than the 30 percent of their income that should go to housing.
Note here that certain places are more expensive to live in than others because they are more desirable. A young person on his or her own would rather be nearer a big city than a rural town, if only for the social life options.
Yes, it’s difficult to be young today, but resorting to vices – drugs, alcohol etc. – to ease your troubles is not the answer.
You may have to look harder for opportunities, but they are there. You may have to relocate to find them, but they are out there. So many employers are looking for good, hard workers. Many of them are willing to pay for the right people.
There are more opportunities to come as technology improves. (Warning: if you are in a job that will be eliminated by technology eventually, prepare for that now.)
You can’t stop the world from changing. You can’t go back to the way things were decades ago. You just have to find ways to adapt to the here and now. If you do, life, eventually, will treat you well.
Peter
ARE YOUR PRINCIPLES MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR JOB?
#principles #ResigningOnPrinciples #ResigningOnPrinciple #jobs
Many government employees are resigning because their bosses want them to violate their principles.
Such behavior deserves admiration, but not everyone can afford to do it.
Many people so desperately need their jobs they can’t just say, “I quit.”
If the violation of principles is so extreme, it might be better to let the boss fire you without legitimate cause, because you’ll have better standing in court, should you go that route.
If you have a job that is in great demand, then quitting on principle is indeed the right thing to do.
The federal government is undergoing extreme turmoil. Many believe it is totally unnecessary.
People are being fired without going through the necessary process. Those doing the firing are just flying by the seat of their pants, without careful analysis and without regard for the consequences to the agencies they are cutting.
As a result, they are trying to rehire some of those employees after realizing they had made a mistake.
Certainly, everyone wants the government to be as efficient and as cost-effective as possible.
But, everyone also wants a government that works. Despite a lot of anti-government rhetoric, most people in the U.S. depend on their government for something, even if it’s just safety and security in their lives. We don’t live in a nation of hermits.
Frustration with government procedure is common, but few people who think about the issue want to see those services go away.
The principles come in when those doing the firing violate the way the agency(ies) they are cutting are supposed to work.
Many agencies operate independently, without favor to anyone and for the best results for everyone. It seems that those doing the firing want these agencies to be more selective about who they are serving.
If you have a relatively low-level job in these agencies, you may have little choice but to follow orders, even if those orders are coming from someone who may not be entitled to give them.
Or, you can say NO, or even HECK NO, and accept the consequences.
If you consider yourself a good, principled person, this may be difficult. Your principles may indeed be worth more to you than your livelihood.
But, you also must understand that not everyone can feel that way, even if they want to.
So, if you can, stick to your principles. They have served you well throughout your life and career.
If you can’t, you must do what you must to survive.
Will all this have a good result in the end? No one knows. But, for the short term, there will be chaos and personal disruption.
Here’s to hoping everyone lands on his or her feet, no matter what happens.
Peter
Many government employees are resigning because their bosses want them to violate their principles.
Such behavior deserves admiration, but not everyone can afford to do it.
Many people so desperately need their jobs they can’t just say, “I quit.”
If the violation of principles is so extreme, it might be better to let the boss fire you without legitimate cause, because you’ll have better standing in court, should you go that route.
If you have a job that is in great demand, then quitting on principle is indeed the right thing to do.
The federal government is undergoing extreme turmoil. Many believe it is totally unnecessary.
People are being fired without going through the necessary process. Those doing the firing are just flying by the seat of their pants, without careful analysis and without regard for the consequences to the agencies they are cutting.
As a result, they are trying to rehire some of those employees after realizing they had made a mistake.
Certainly, everyone wants the government to be as efficient and as cost-effective as possible.
But, everyone also wants a government that works. Despite a lot of anti-government rhetoric, most people in the U.S. depend on their government for something, even if it’s just safety and security in their lives. We don’t live in a nation of hermits.
Frustration with government procedure is common, but few people who think about the issue want to see those services go away.
The principles come in when those doing the firing violate the way the agency(ies) they are cutting are supposed to work.
Many agencies operate independently, without favor to anyone and for the best results for everyone. It seems that those doing the firing want these agencies to be more selective about who they are serving.
If you have a relatively low-level job in these agencies, you may have little choice but to follow orders, even if those orders are coming from someone who may not be entitled to give them.
Or, you can say NO, or even HECK NO, and accept the consequences.
If you consider yourself a good, principled person, this may be difficult. Your principles may indeed be worth more to you than your livelihood.
But, you also must understand that not everyone can feel that way, even if they want to.
So, if you can, stick to your principles. They have served you well throughout your life and career.
If you can’t, you must do what you must to survive.
Will all this have a good result in the end? No one knows. But, for the short term, there will be chaos and personal disruption.
Here’s to hoping everyone lands on his or her feet, no matter what happens.
Peter
RAISING RETIREMENT AGE HAS ITS PITFALLS
#RaiseRetirementAge #RetirementAge #retirement #jobs #work
Some who want to govern us have proposed raising the retirement age to, say, 70.
These ideas are forged as the country grapples with the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare and the deficit federal spending they cause.
At first blush, it looks like a good solution.
When Social Security was created (Medicare came later), it adopted 65 as the age one can begin collecting. Over time, Congress played with the Social Security fund until it merged with the entire federal budget.
Back when the retirement age was set at 65, many, if not most, people did not live much beyond that. Working life took a lot out of people, and untreatable diseases caused early deaths.
Today, however, people are living longer, because of advances in medical care, treatment and prevention. They are staying retired for decades. Many are healthy enough to work in some capacity.
So, for the financial good of the country, why not have people work a few more years?
Here’s the rub: employers, in many cases, want people gone as soon as possible.
Even though the “official” retirement age is 65, once people start approaching age 50, employers want to phase them out. In fact, they want them gone long before 65. There are laws preventing employees from age discrimination, but companies usually find other ways to phase people out.
If these companies provide health benefits for employees (fewer and fewer are doing that), they know older employees will use those benefits to a higher degree.
Older employees with seniority in the company also make a lot of money and, in some cases, are less productive than younger workers. They have more vacation time, in many cases.
There is a labor shortage in many industries, and older workers could help ease that. But, the extra costs older workers put on employers can negate the needed help they are providing.
Certainly, some older workers want to keep working. But, if they have a stressful job, that stress may not be good for them. Ideally, if employers could phase out older workers by putting them in less stressful jobs, that may ease the problem. But, most employers simply cannot do that.
Also, older employees often have old skills that are no longer needed, or have been replaced by machines.
Many don’t easily adapt to newer skills as companies evolve.
So, the idea of people working longer may have some appeal on paper, but, as a practical matter, may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
If you are a worker, are you going to regret on your death bed that you didn’t work more?
That would be unlikely.
We should have a system of labor in the U.S. that allows people to work as long as they want to, within reason.
But, that may not be practical.
As a worker, you need to plan correctly, presuming your job will go away at any time. It may not go away at a time of your choosing.
Peter
Some who want to govern us have proposed raising the retirement age to, say, 70.
These ideas are forged as the country grapples with the rising costs of Social Security, Medicare and the deficit federal spending they cause.
At first blush, it looks like a good solution.
When Social Security was created (Medicare came later), it adopted 65 as the age one can begin collecting. Over time, Congress played with the Social Security fund until it merged with the entire federal budget.
Back when the retirement age was set at 65, many, if not most, people did not live much beyond that. Working life took a lot out of people, and untreatable diseases caused early deaths.
Today, however, people are living longer, because of advances in medical care, treatment and prevention. They are staying retired for decades. Many are healthy enough to work in some capacity.
So, for the financial good of the country, why not have people work a few more years?
Here’s the rub: employers, in many cases, want people gone as soon as possible.
Even though the “official” retirement age is 65, once people start approaching age 50, employers want to phase them out. In fact, they want them gone long before 65. There are laws preventing employees from age discrimination, but companies usually find other ways to phase people out.
If these companies provide health benefits for employees (fewer and fewer are doing that), they know older employees will use those benefits to a higher degree.
Older employees with seniority in the company also make a lot of money and, in some cases, are less productive than younger workers. They have more vacation time, in many cases.
There is a labor shortage in many industries, and older workers could help ease that. But, the extra costs older workers put on employers can negate the needed help they are providing.
Certainly, some older workers want to keep working. But, if they have a stressful job, that stress may not be good for them. Ideally, if employers could phase out older workers by putting them in less stressful jobs, that may ease the problem. But, most employers simply cannot do that.
Also, older employees often have old skills that are no longer needed, or have been replaced by machines.
Many don’t easily adapt to newer skills as companies evolve.
So, the idea of people working longer may have some appeal on paper, but, as a practical matter, may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
If you are a worker, are you going to regret on your death bed that you didn’t work more?
That would be unlikely.
We should have a system of labor in the U.S. that allows people to work as long as they want to, within reason.
But, that may not be practical.
As a worker, you need to plan correctly, presuming your job will go away at any time. It may not go away at a time of your choosing.
Peter
LOVE AND ROBOTS
#robots #love #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #humans #emotions
“What does a robot know about love?”
That begins an Etsy TV ad, to make the point that Etsy conducts its commerce with more human activity than robot activity.
But, as time progresses, more robots and other non-human technology will be used in commerce, factories, research and many other endeavors now mostly conducted by humans.
That could have an effect on current jobs, and the jobs of the future.
For some workers, technology is moving too fast. More work that was previously done by humans is being done by machines.
] That means some good jobs are being eliminated, and those who’ve lost those jobs are having difficulty finding alternative jobs that pay as well.
It’s important to note here that no matter who is serving in the U.S. government, those jobs likely are not coming back.
With the advancement of artificial intelligence, many people who thought their jobs would never go away may have a rude awakening sometime in the future.
Make no mistake: machines and humans are not equivalent. That statement can have a good, or not so good, connotation.
For employers, machines have fewer needs – no vacations, no illness, no pensions etc. That can save them lots of money.
Machines, on the other hand, break down. If they can’t be fixed immediately, that can be a real cost to employers.
Also, customers and clients mostly prefer dealing with humans rather than machines. Though machines can try to talk back to customers, no real conversation takes place. Plus, machines have no power to actually solve problems, if a customer has one. With varying degrees of success, perhaps a machine can put a customer in touch with a human.
AI is attempting to be creative by compiling the past creativity of humans into a mechanically driven recitation.
There is no machine that can be as creative as a human. For human creativity is raw, original and direct.
Going back to the Etsy ad, robots have no ability for human emotion. Human emotion is something we all crave, no matter what type of interaction.
So, as useful as robots or AI can be in some instances, they are not human.
But, as humans, we still have to look over our shoulders lest robots or AI replace us in the workplace.
In many cases, it’s not a matter of whether that will happen. It’s a matter of when.
As humans, we have the raw, original and direct creativity to prepare for most eventualities. When replacement comes, we can, and should, be ready. Longing for the old days will not prevent the inevitable.
Peter
“What does a robot know about love?”
That begins an Etsy TV ad, to make the point that Etsy conducts its commerce with more human activity than robot activity.
But, as time progresses, more robots and other non-human technology will be used in commerce, factories, research and many other endeavors now mostly conducted by humans.
That could have an effect on current jobs, and the jobs of the future.
For some workers, technology is moving too fast. More work that was previously done by humans is being done by machines.
] That means some good jobs are being eliminated, and those who’ve lost those jobs are having difficulty finding alternative jobs that pay as well.
It’s important to note here that no matter who is serving in the U.S. government, those jobs likely are not coming back.
With the advancement of artificial intelligence, many people who thought their jobs would never go away may have a rude awakening sometime in the future.
Make no mistake: machines and humans are not equivalent. That statement can have a good, or not so good, connotation.
For employers, machines have fewer needs – no vacations, no illness, no pensions etc. That can save them lots of money.
Machines, on the other hand, break down. If they can’t be fixed immediately, that can be a real cost to employers.
Also, customers and clients mostly prefer dealing with humans rather than machines. Though machines can try to talk back to customers, no real conversation takes place. Plus, machines have no power to actually solve problems, if a customer has one. With varying degrees of success, perhaps a machine can put a customer in touch with a human.
AI is attempting to be creative by compiling the past creativity of humans into a mechanically driven recitation.
There is no machine that can be as creative as a human. For human creativity is raw, original and direct.
Going back to the Etsy ad, robots have no ability for human emotion. Human emotion is something we all crave, no matter what type of interaction.
So, as useful as robots or AI can be in some instances, they are not human.
But, as humans, we still have to look over our shoulders lest robots or AI replace us in the workplace.
In many cases, it’s not a matter of whether that will happen. It’s a matter of when.
As humans, we have the raw, original and direct creativity to prepare for most eventualities. When replacement comes, we can, and should, be ready. Longing for the old days will not prevent the inevitable.
Peter
SHOULD SCHOOL BE MORE FUN?
#FunAtSchool #fun #learning #work #reading
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
Some educators say children will learn better if you make school more fun.
Others say that learning the basics, like math, isn’t always fun. Even math experts say that.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, tackled this debate in her January 30, 2024, column.
Think about your days at school. Were they fun? Were they work? Were they a combination of both?
Excluding recess and volunteer extracurricular activities, did you have fun at school?
Chances are, if you went to a Catholic school, it was all work. Rigor is the best friend of most Catholic educators. Not that kids had NO fun at Catholic schools, but work, and the feeling of work, were the main motivators.
Many students, and people in general, read for pleasure. Some educators want to make reading seem like work. It’s doubtful that would encourage young students to read more.
There are those who wish to separate work from pleasure. But, wouldn’t you want young students to grow up learning to love, or, at least, like their work?
In today’s world, work is often as much a social activity as a job. Creating pleasant work environments helps attract and keep good, productive people.
Part of the purpose of schools is to train children to be good employees as adults. If learning in school were more fun, wouldn’t you likely be teaching children to be happier employees?
Of course, students must master the basics. They must also learn history, art, music and other creative pursuits. After all, encouraging creativity is the goal of many of today’s workplaces. Creative students ask more questions, and you really want students, and adults, to ask more questions. Then, as a result, find more correct answers.
Realistically, school can’t be all play and no work. But, just as employers strive to make their workplaces more enjoyable, thereby more productive, teachers try to find that perfect mix of work, fun and learning in school.
Getting students to want to learn is, or should be, as much of a goal for teachers as learning itself.
Curiosity is as commendable a characteristic in a student as ambition. What good employer would not want curious and ambitious employees?
In addition to curiosity and ambition, we all want students to have good humor – not necessarily be funny, but more to be able to take setbacks with a smile and humility.
No employer wants a bunch of angry and disgruntled employees.
In past decades, these characteristics were thought to come naturally to kids and, later, adults.
But curiosity, creativity, ambition, good humor and many other desirable personal traits can be learned – and taught.
Often, to do so, teachers must possess, or have learned those same traits and apply them appropriately to their lesson plans.
Sometimes, that involves making school more fun. Like putting medicine on a sugar cube, it may involve disguising work amid that fun.
It’s up to teachers, and their administrators, to encourage students not only to learn, but also to want to learn.
Peter
THE WORLD — AND WORK — ARE CHANGING
#jobs #ClimbingLadders #ClimbingCareerLadders #WorkLifeBalance
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
Most of us grew up thinking we had to have a career.
Start at the bottom, work our way up through the ranks and advance financially along the way.
Author Bruce Feiler, in his book, “The Search: Finding Meaningful Work in a Post-Career World,” turns the notion of a career on its head.
While some people set goals and stick with them, many others revise their passions, change direction and rethink priorities in the middle of “careers,” Feiler says.
People who are the happiest, Feiler says, are those that don’t climb. Instead, they dig, to look for their true selves.
Feiler is right in one sense. Not everyone has to, or wants to, climb career ladders.
And, people often change direction during their working lives, as he points out.
Some of these changes involve personal preference. For example, a person is hired for Job X, but observes someone doing Job Y and decides he or she would like to try that. The person may try Job Y until he or she observes someone doing Job Z, so they try that etc.
However, most changes in jobs, careers and work situations are foisted upon workers.
These changes are happening more frequently as technology and other advances reform workplaces.
These reforms are not always for the better, as far as workers are concerned.
There seems to be a constant desire among employers to want to replace people with machines. After all, machines don’t need benefits, vacations etc. And, they don’t complain.
You can already see more changes coming: driverless vehicles, artificial intelligence etc.
Perhaps at one or more of your academic graduations you heard someone tell you to follow your passion.
You later find that passion doesn’t always make you a living. Being good or knowledgeable at something is marvelous, as long as you realize that it may not help you pay bills.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon each worker to find the good thing(s) about a job, and focus on that (them). As one focuses on the good, always be thinking that all good things will come to an end.
Perhaps what makes a job good, or, at least, tolerable, could disappear suddenly. In fact, the job itself could go away.
Feiler is correct in saying that climbing, or trying to climb, a career ladder doesn’t work for everyone. Sometimes, a ceiling – justified or not – gets in the way. Sometimes, what’s at the top may not turn out to be worth the climb, and one doesn’t find that out until he or she reaches it. And, of course, the higher one climbs, the harder they can fall.
The point here is that lives are made not by happenstance, but by decisions and effort. Wise decisions may not always involve career advancement. It’s OK to decide not to climb. Regardless, whatever path you choose, give it all you have for as long as you are able, or for as long as you are allowed.
Remember, too, that your life outside of work can be more important than the job. Don’t let a job deprive you of that part of your life.
In other words, as Feiler says, it might be better to dig rather than climb. It might be better to be a chipmunk than a squirrel.
Peter
MULTIGENERATIONAL WORKERS OFFER CHALLENGES TO MANAGERS
#MultigenerationalWorkers #employers #employees #jobs
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
In decades past, people in workplaces had similar views of how to work.
Basically, you were given a job, and you did it based on how you were trained and what the boss expects of you.
Also back then, workers ranged in age from teens to the 60s in most cases, and they grew to adulthood in similar ways.
Today’s workplaces have multigenerational workers. There might be someone in his or her 80s, or even older, mixing with younger generations and middle-agers.
As technology advanced, each generation grew up differently. Not only is each generation different in technological knowledge and comfort, each generation has formed different attitudes about work in general.
The nose-to-the-grindstone middle-aged and older workers are mixing with generations that look for something else from their jobs.
It’s not laziness, in most cases. It’s that some may think work and the rest of their lives need more balance. Some may also believe they can find easier ways to complete tasks that differ from the usual training. Some may even think that some assignments are downright unnecessary.
These differing attitudes about work can confound managers. Managers thrive on conformity. They thrive on control. They thrive on workers meeting them where THEY are, not the other way around.
Worker X may not necessarily be wrong to think the way he or she does. But because his or her thinking may not be in line with the manager’s, problems can arise.
Add to that the difficulty in finding enough workers in many occupations, managers seem to be the ones who have to adapt more than the workers.
For the record, workers have to realize that jobs have expectations. You can’t just take a job and do what you want. There are some workplace rules that must be followed, to comply with laws, ethical and professional standards.
And, more importantly, the work must get done. Therefore, there must be SOME order in the workplace.
Most jobs are hard, in one form or another. They will take a toll on your life to varying degrees. If they did not, they wouldn’t pay you.
Employers in decades past had hard and fast rules about telephone use. One could not take personal calls at work unless it was urgent. With many generations today, taking one’s eyes off one’s phone is, well, difficult.
Yes, personal devices can be useful to communicate necessary workplace matter. But, spending one’s entire work shift on one’s phone doing non-workplace tasks is not advised.
The managers’ positions are dicey. How do you get the most from your workers, without interfering with their privacy? Work rules have to be carefully constructed, and obvious violations have to be dealt with.
But, some managerial flexibility may be in order in a diverse, multi-generational workforce.
Having a job is not easy. Keeping a job may be even more difficult. But, keeping good workers, no matter their age, may be the biggest challenge in today’s world.
Peter
IT CAN COST YOU TO GO TO WORK
#employers #employees #jobs #work #wages #salaries
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
You have a full-time job making, to use a number, $7 per hour.
Multiply that by 40 hours, and your weekly pay is $280.
If you live, to use a number, five miles from your job, you will travel 10 miles per day, back and forth to work.
If gasoline, to use a round number, costs $3 a gallon, you will spend $150 a week in gasoline to get back and forth to work. Subtracting that from your $280 salary, that leaves you with $130.
Multiply $130 by four weeks (a month), you’ll have $520 left for food, rent etc.
If your rent is $1,000 a month, you won’t make it.
We’ve not even figured in wear and tear on your car from commuting, any medical needs you may have – much less discretionary spending. If you have children who must be cared for while you work, you can’t afford that.
Politicians of many stripes make a big deal about people sitting home collecting government benefits while not working. Most everyone who is able would like to work – if not merely for the money, but to get out and about, meet people etc. But, most workers do not want to be taken advantage of by an employer.
The good news in today’s labor market is that hourly wages are going up because people are “choosing” – that’s the term many politicians use – not to work, and companies are trying to entice them back, or keep the workers they have.
The point of this discussion is that people, by and large, are not lazy. They want to work. But they also want that job to cover their necessities. When that doesn’t happen, people are less likely to want to work.
Chances are, if your job pays $7 an hour, you do not have the option to work from home. You have to go someplace to work.
Even in professions like teaching, salaries in some places make it difficult to work and otherwise take care of yourself and your family.
Regarding teaching, we won’t even discuss the harassment, political hassles etc., that add stress to an already undercompensated job.
In short, the economics of going to work are not cut and dried. Everything depends on what you make, where you live and whether you can meet your expenses with what you make.
Employers who long for the days when workers were plentiful, and would work for whatever they would pay them, keep dreaming. Those days are gone, particularly as the U.S. cracks down on immigrants.
Work is desirable for most people, and most employers like to have hiring options. But the math has to work not only for the employer, but also the employee.
It’s difficult to find the sweet spot, in which employees are paid appropriately to live, employers are making money and all is well with the world.
Today’s world is not that simple. For those who believe it is (some politicians believe that people will come back to work those menial jobs when their savings run out), you are living in a fantasy world.
Remember, if you are working at a $7 an hour job, you probably don’t have savings to rely on anyway.
Again, the good news is the job market is getting wise to the situation. More employers are offering more enticements to get workers back. Some assurance that paychecks won’t dry up if another pandemic, or some other disaster, hits, would also be helpful.
People want to work. Employers want workers. The numbers have to jibe on both ends to keep everyone happy.
Peter
WHO IS ALLOWED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX?
#ThinkOutsideTheBox #JobParameters #jobs #employers #employees
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter
Think outside the box.
Have you ever been encouraged to do that at, say, your work?
Did you then ask yourself: do they really want me to think outside the box?
Most employees are in a box called their job. Certain duties are prescribed within that box.
Your boss(es), in most cases, want you to stay within that box. If you go rogue, and do something outside that box, you may get punished.
As an employee, your goal may be to do the best job you can within your box, with the hope that you may be elevated to a different position that may allow more flexibility to think outside the box.
Of course, upper management wants managers to think outside the box and look for efficiencies or better ways to accomplish tasks that could add to the bottom line.
But as a low-level employee, in most companies, you are given a box (parameters) and not allowed in most cases to stray from it (them).
As employers, what do you think your company could be if everyone at every level were allowed to think outside the box?
Might you find a hidden gem of an employee deep in your organization? Does your business model allow for everyone to think outside the box? Do you and your managers have a monopoly on finding better ways to do the necessary tasks?
Some organizations certainly have a culture that allows creative thinking at all levels. Technology companies HAVE to have that to find the best ideas.
But those companies that make widgets, or simple things, might feel the need to put everyone who works there in a box for greater efficiency and attention to detail. If the employees are unionized, the contract may prescribe the box for each employee.
As an employee, you are astute to think about it when someone, say, your boss, encourages you to think outside the box.
Does he (she) really want me to do that? Does he (she) really want me to suggest better ways he (she) can better do his (her) job? Will those different ways be better for him (her) or me?
Certainly, if unsure about what the boss meant, it’s best to go about doing your job, within your box, to the best of your ability.
But, if you see a safe opportunity to offer a new idea, or to try something new that could be better, by all means go for it.
You may be surprised indeed at the reception you get, particularly if you feel your company’s culture would allow for it.
In summary, be wary when someone tells you to think outside the box at work. It could be a setup or ambush. Most companies have a competitive culture, in which managers are always looking over their shoulders. The words may sound encouraging, but try not to be fooled.
But, if employers really want their staffs to think outside the box, make sure the culture is clear and well established so that employees can feel safe doing so.
You may be surprised at the results you, and your employees, can achieve.
Peter