So, I think that you are conflating several things. No doubt there are companies out there taking advantage of undergrads, including ironically the Brookings Institute which prepared this article. This thread you’ve repeatedly ranted against Netflix and “similarly run companies”. I think that according to the data, it seems like social sciences and humanities are treating their future replacements rather inhumanely (heh) while tech companies are doing a much better job.
Also, your 6% figure is for San Francisco, not Silicon Valley. And also your cite is a blog.
I think Japan is very difficult to compare with other countries when it comes to quality of life. Really, a lot of it has come down to the middle-aged and seniors grabbing everything for themselves and leaving nothing to the young. The birth rate is among the lowest in the world, so there are a lot of nonexistent young people whom they haven’t even needed to consider.
So yeah, people 45 and above do OK while the country is socially and economically stagnant. I don’t think it’s any kind of model to emulate.
I’d say the same thing about Japan as I would the US: If they/we could find a way to truly cooperate and work together, they/we could have true abundance while doing right by the environment and future generations. But they/we can’t seem to get it together. It’s sad. And in the case of Japan, they have absolutely nothing holding them back (crime, cross-generational poverty, illiteracy, etc.). It’s all due to a complete lack of vision.
What, in your version of reality, am I ranting about in particular? If you don’t mind me asking. I am actually very curious to hear what you think my stance on all of this is.
My point is not about whether or not companies are or are not taking advantage of workers so much as to highlight what the purpose of internships is and how this relates to the working environment and the problems inherent in a changing world where these structures exist. Do you have any real reason to believe that the figures are not accurate? Where did I say that companies are taking advantage of interns?
I think your arguments are pedantic and involve nothing but inconsequential nitpicking - so for me this is an agree to disagree situation.
There are inevitably going to be some skills that any company will need on an ongoing basis. My point is that Netflix won’t be able to keep the employees who have those skills even though it wants to keep them.
Netflix is going to end up in trouble if it finds the only people it can hire are people who can’t get a job anywhere else.
I see that a lot in the places I’ve worked, too. I call it being “New York Lazy” – calling a lot of meetings, sending a lot of email, tracking things in speadsheets, being seen in the office late into the night, &c. All stuff that gives the impression of “I’m working really hard” while relying on other people to actually accomplish things. When a group of people like that get on a project, the project suddenly becomes highly-visible, but then drags on for years with no significant progress being made.
So I can kind of see what the Netflix people are getting at. Basically, none of that.
2- what happens in 2055 when robots are used for all most everything
will our society really adjust to a service oriented society? or, will we have a few rich people and a lot of poor people and good jobs will be hard to find?
Sorry to chop apart your writing but why cant Frank be offered a settlement or incentive to get him to retire? Say an extra $100,000. I know Sprint did this with alot of their older engineers who came up in the company when it was called United Telephone and Telegraph and it was all wires and mechanical relays and every small town had its own telephone operator.
Also Sprint gave them a no holds barred, all expenses paid retirement party at the location of their choice. They cleared out whole blocks of workers this way.
Why not save money, just quickly load all of his stuff into a box and throw him out of the building? He is no longer useful or relevant. Plus, a millennial probably needs his job.
I was really disturbed by that woman’s callousness - it’s obvious she’s never faced financial difficulty and has no concept of what that situation is like. Her failure to understand why people would be upset when their income falls out from under them was completely lacking in empathy and decency.
Essentially, they’ve made all of their employees into temps. The people are only there for the length of the project and when the project is over, they’re out. That’s a perfectly reasonable business model - so long as everyone really understands what that means. It means that you cannot make medium and long term financial decisions based on your income, because the money could stop tomorrow. You have to make decisions like a freelancer and expect downtime. It means that you always have to be looking for your next gig in anticipation of this one ending. (Unlike the situation with contractors, it doesn’t seem like there’s any way to know that your time is about to be up, as there’s no contract and Netflix can change their mind about your project on a dime). You have a complete lack of stability in your workplace.
I know people who do contract work and love it. They charge more than they would for a “traditional” job in exchange for the lack of stability and in expectation of patches of unemployment. I personally prefer the security of expecting that if my company is doing reasonably well and I’m doing a good job, I’m probably going to be employed. Constantly worrying that the floor might drop out from under me would not make me more productive.
Yeah, people need to get it: meetings are bad unless you’re actually working in the meeting, which is close to never!
At another Japanese company I worked for, upper management would just be in meetings every day, all day long. My boss would hold these study and discussion meetings as a way to “add value,” even though there was no one to take up and act on anything he produced, since authority in the company was split between two brothers (each of which had his own fiefdom, natch). This company is publicly traded, but of course all this was done to “enhance shareholder value.” Uh huh.
Not to go on a rant, but this company was also highly competitive and highly profitable–management simply wasted a lot of money that could have gone elsewhere (dividends, stock buybacks, R&D, etc.). Though it was publicly traded, the brothers ran it as their own dominion, which of course happens quite a bit even in publicly traded companies.
Netflix was a case of needing to survive, so they cut and cut. Once a business is successful, there tends to be slush in the system, and then it’s time for the execs to play, since they always run companies first for themselves. It’s human nature. Even in companies that appear successful and “excellent” from the outside (remember “In Search of Excellence”? lol) and are in fact doing great things, a whole lotta of money wasting and bad things can be going on in the inside (top management and middle management at the company above tended to be absolutely toxic, though the average employee was great–it was just the corporate culture).
Apple, for example, is now sitting on a mountain of cash, like a billion bucks. If even 20, 25% of that gets blown on execs’ vanity projects and ego trips, is anyone even going to know so long as the company wisely spends the rest? Of course not.
Just because Frank is offered an incentive doesn’t mean he’ll take it. Remember , I’m talking about people who can afford to retire but want to keep working for other reasons. And good luck winning the age discrimination lawsuit when you fire 65 year old
Frank to keep Joe when it’s Joe’s position that’s disappearing and Joe who is no longer useful.
I’ve mostly worked for consulting firms and tech startups which, by their nature, tend to be very Darwinian. As long as there is a need for your skill set, you have a job. But if that need goes away, either because your skills are irrelevant, the direction of the company changes or the partners can’t close enough deals, you can quickly find yourself out of work.
In contrast, I look at how our clients typically operate - big, bureaucratic, massive companies full of idiotic office drones all waiting to be told what to do, biding their time until their next scheduled promotion - I can’t figure our how half of these firms stay in business.
The problem I have with this mentality is that it is just another example of the “Uberfication” of the workforce. Basically what that means is that the CEO and senior management generally never have to worry about justifying their existence. The people who do the actual work will get hired on a contractual basis and have to worry about keeping their skills sharp and delivering value in the most efficient way possible. But the actual “leadership” will mostly continue to hold meetings and pontificate about mission statements and goals.
Another thing to consider about this so-called “results driven” mindset. What happens when an employee is no longer “competitive” because they fall ill, or want to raise a family, or basically just want to do something other than spend their entire life in an office supporting the software and infrastructure that allows fat stupid Americans to waste even more time watching television? Is that what we want? A society where the only people who are competitive are single 20-something antisocial nerds with nothing better to do than spend 100 hours a week at the office?
[quote=octopus ]
Sure it does. After a certain point of expense with labor, robotics are justifiable.
The reason they don’t replace them with robots is because they haven’t been invented yet. But rest assured as soon as they can invent a robot who can do that job, that’s exactly what they will do.
I don’t understand. What kind of dataset can’t be provided to someone in less than 24 hours?
Also the OP is a bit misleading. It’s not a question as to whether “hard work” is irrelevant. The question is should other factors like loyalty, tenure, or simply putting in your time doing busywork should override basic economic and financial needs of the business or being good at or qualified for your job.
I personally don’t believe companies should keep a bunch of dead wood around or create layers of bullshit titles to give employees the sensation of advancing in their career.
OTOH, the mindset that you can just keep churning through employees is one that very few companies can entertain. It presumes you have an endless line of top talent willing to work for you AND will stick around long enough to make a positive impact (as opposed to jumping ship for the first sweater deal, knowing they can be let go any minute).
Uh…water quality data representing a six year period, collected by hundreds of citizen groups, for an entire state? It shouldn’t take him three months to get it all together. But I wouldn’t expect him to be able to do it in 24 hours.
Yeah, that doesn’t mean anything to me. For all I know, all he has to do is export a CSV file from a query SELECT * FROM WATER_DATA_QUALITY WHERE DATE > 9/22/2009 AND STATE=“This one”.
If he has to track down hundreds of raw data sets from their sources and then transform them into a consistent schema, that’s a different story.
Well, then I guess it’s a good thing that how the data have to be obtained isn’t at all relevant to my story. The point of my story is that the guy is taking entirely too long to do his job, despite the fact he’s a hard worker.
