The Viral Economy

[LawBeefaroni]

Keep in mind, just as we can call millennials a generational failure for being lazy or selfish entry level workers, we can call Gen X a generational failure for being greedy, low substance CEOs.

Wait, we can condemn an entire generation because of a percent of a percent of a percent of them are crappy CEO's?

Excellent.

Should read "Gen Xers" but sure, in the same way we can condemn an entire generation because a small percent are lazy and selfish.

[Madmarcus]

Expect lots of "retired from what?" follow up questions.

Huh, even though I've moved after retiring I haven't had that question come up very often. Even so it seems like it would be easy to name a job even if it was long ago.

As I said at first I'm mostly throwing out a silly suggestion that might work. Your mileage may vary!

[Blackhawk]

One of the first questions people always ask each other is, "What do you do?"

I know that retired isn't technically true in your case but you have reached an age that early retirement is a thing and it seems like a small jump. Some people give you the side eye but the biggest feeling seems to be a little jealousy with comments about how they wish they could do that. The biggest problem I find is that people ask how I spend my time and my answer of cooking, reading, video games, and walking doesn't seem exciting enough of an answer but I'm used to that because it has been my answer all of my life.

Expect lots of "retired from what?" follow up questions.

At which point I have to lie. I'd probably have to go with 'corporate security' , or 'security contractor' (if I want the person to back off, despite it not being anything like what people tend to assume.) And lying is something that I go to great pains to avoid. It's the reason I don't use 'retired.'

I could always use 'retired homemaker', but these days? I'd likely just go with 'disabled.' I'm past the point in my life where I'm worried about trying to impress people (or women), and I meet new people so rarely that it practically never comes up. The last time I sat face to face with a stranger for more than a casual greeting was... last spring. And before that? I have no idea at all.

[Max Peck]

I identify as a professional slacker.

[Isgrimnur]

. . . "Bob"?

[LawBeefaroni]

What someone "does" isn't limited to their job. If someone asks "What do you do?", you can always say "play video games" or "hang with my kids" or whatever. If they follow up with, "No, I mean, what do you do for a living?" you can always say, "nothing...anymore," preferably in an ominous tone.

[Smoove_B]

I just tell people I'm an international man of leisure - which is technically true. If they persist, I clarify that I'm a Daywalker. That usually ends it.

[coopasonic]

I was going to say that I don't really get people asking me what I do for a living, but then I realized my social circle is basically people i work with or used to work with and anyone new I meet is generally at work, so it doesn't really come up much.

On the topic of younger generations all being slackers, my thoughts are along the lines of with various forms of social media and online content, it is much more well understood that no corporation actually gives a shit about anyone but their board and shareholders. It used to take people years to figure that out on their own. Now it takes three minutes on reddit. Once we establish the company doesn't give a shit about you, how motivated are you to make sacrifices for your career? Yeah, we still need to keep the job to pay the bills and hell I'd love to make more money btu when that takes more time and causes more stress... well let me see what else is out there.

I work with fresh college grads all the time. Half our team graduated in the past 5 years. Our selection process is pretty solid and we recruit generally pretty good talent. There are people that are driven and fly up the ladder, matching my level in 6 years and there are people that do the bare minimum and get frustrated that they aren't moving up the ranks. The recruitment process may drive some positive selection, but there's still a decent distribution of talent and effort levels and many of them make me look like a slacker and, as a total slacker, I appreciate that.

My point? Sorry, I forgot.

[Jaymon]

Those who put in the extra time and effort will always rise to the top. If someone wants to work to contract and is satisfied with their base salary, more power to them. Drudgery makes the world go 'round. Just don't complain about how unfair it all is when you can't have nice things.

The point of many recent articles is that, the above is no longer true. Demonstrating excellence, working your ass off, putting in extra. All of that no longer means anything. Doing a good job is rewarded with more work. If you prove to be a good worker, all that means is they will lay off you co-workers first, and expect you to do double the job. Performance bonuses, merit increases, those are all things of the past.

The aqeaky wheel no longer gets the grease. it gets replaced by a cheaper wheel. Keep your head down, perform your job expectations, don't expect anything. Thats what the youngr workers are doing coming into the job market now.

Because the companies have shown their true colors during covid. They do not have any loyalty, they do not care about employees, they can and will sacrfice jobs and lives for the sake of a few dollors profit. they take absolutely no extra effort at all that is not specificlly mndate by government. So there is no reason at all for employees to offer any loyalty or extra effort in return.

[ImLawBoy]

Because the companies have shown their true colors during covid. They do not have any loyalty, they do not care about employees, they can and will sacrfice jobs and lives for the sake of a few dollors profit. they take absolutely no extra effort at all that is not specificlly mndate by government. So there is no reason at all for employees to offer any loyalty or extra effort in return.

None of this is remotely new. This was the mantra 30 years ago.

[Jaymon]

Ahh, but the new generation of workers have decided to not buy into the lie that it might be true. Thus the change in attitudes, and the seeming change in working practice.

[ImLawBoy]

They didn't buy into it 30 years ago. It was the justification everyone used to jump jobs during the dot com era.

[GreenGoo]

They didn't buy into it 30 years ago. It was the justification everyone used to jump jobs during the dot com era.

Well then the media is a bit slow noticing, otherwise why are they focused on this now?

You might be right, in that 30 years ago pensions went poof, but if you think today is the same as 30 years ago, I don't know what to tell you. I don't find it to be the case.

edit: And by now, I mean the last 5 years or so. Or even 10.

[ImLawBoy]

Of course it's not exactly the same. That would be absurd.

But let's not play the game that everything that is happening now is so much worse than it was 30 (or 50 or 70) years ago. There was media coverage of this type of thing way back then (I specifically recall something on 60 Minutes about layoffs and lack of employer loyalty), and there will be media coverage of it the next time it bubbles up to the surface.

It might not be exactly the same as it was, but it's not exactly new either.

[Blackhawk]

New? No.

As with much, though, we're in an age where things like this are communicated more. 30 years ago kids weren't seeing or hearing about this before they were in college (and many not even then.) 30 years ago most young people didn't go into their first professional job already knowing all of this to be true. And 30 years ago people didn't primarily socialize in a way that let them hear the stories and compare notes with people all over the country.

[ImLawBoy]

They absolutely were hearing about that kind of stuff 30 years ago, just in different formats. I truly entered the workforce about that time (i.e., charting a career path), and I sure as hell knew about it. There was media about it. There was a clear message of make sure you take care of yourself because your employer is not looking out for you.

[LordMortis]

They absolutely were hearing about that kind of stuff 30 years ago, just in different formats. I truly entered the workforce about that time (i.e., charting a career path), and I sure as hell knew about it. There was media about it. There was a clear message of make sure you take care of yourself because your employer is not looking out for you.

I don't remember much media about it but it was at the forefront of my mind as I was moving from the service industry toward a career path. It was discussed and shrugged by most but it was enduring for me, with nothing I could do about it, except try to find a network into a union or government job, which I had no urge to do.

[Blackhawk]

They absolutely were hearing about that kind of stuff 30 years ago, just in different formats. I truly entered the workforce about that time (i.e., charting a career path), and I sure as hell knew about it. There was media about it. There was a clear message of make sure you take care of yourself because your employer is not looking out for you.

How many 12-18 year olds ever watched that kind of media? How many kids in 80s/early 90s watched anything that didn't center around humor, sex, violence, or sports? No teacher ever spoke about it. I don't remember many kids sitting around having discussions about corporate work culture.

Some people absolutely knew about it. Maybe they had a parent who taught them. Maybe it was a professor once they moved into college and had a more focused curriculum. But the majority of young people had absolutely no clue - it wasn't something anyone not dedicated to a particular field paid any attention to at all.

[ImLawBoy]

I'm honestly not sure we'll get past this. I think you're flat-out wrong, and have my personal recollections to fall back on. You think I'm flat-out wrong and have your personal recollections to fall back on.

I'll just end my part of this discussion by pointing out that this entire discussion is yet another example (in my opinion, of course) of the "Everything was better 50 years ago" Syndrome.

[YellowKing]

I think there's a difference between "things were better decades ago" and "nothing has changed from decades ago." The first is subjective, the second is demonstrably false, depending on what factors you're looking at.

I don't think an argument can be made that young people these days don't have more access to information than they did 30 years ago.

[ImLawBoy]

Of course it's not exactly the same. That would be absurd.

But let's not play the game that everything that is happening now is so much worse than it was 30 (or 50 or 70) years ago. There was media coverage of this type of thing way back then (I specifically recall something on 60 Minutes about layoffs and lack of employer loyalty), and there will be media coverage of it the next time it bubbles up to the surface.

It might not be exactly the same as it was, but it's not exactly new either.

[YellowKing]

I don't really have a dog in the fight, it just seemed weird that the argument was whether someone 30 years ago would understand toxic corporate culture or not. Clearly some would, some wouldn't, depending on their personal experience. And clearly kids these days have a much higher opportunity to learn about it than they did 30 years ago. So even if it's not technically new, you have a generation more aware of it.

[ImLawBoy]

I think we're underestimating the awareness of it that existed 30 years ago. I don't think I'm a special snowflake who inherently understood this more than most people.

[Smoove_B]

I think it absolutely existed (and was more accepted) 30+ years ago but that it's also more prominent now (and less openly accepted).

I wonder what happened in Germany last year?

In 2023, the sick leave of 2022 exceeded the record level of 2022, which put the German economy into recession. This is reported by the "Rheinische Post" with reference to a study by the Association of Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA): "Significant losses of work led to considerable losses in production - without the above-average sick days, the German economy would have grown by almost 0.5 percent," says the still unpublished study. But the economy has shrunk by 0.3 percent. "If the sick leave had not been so high again, some 26 billion euros would have been generated by an additional EUR in 2023. Instead of a mild recession, there would have been an increase of just under half a percent in 2023," write the authors Claus Michelsen and Simon Junker, according to the report.

Details:

According to a notice from the health insurance company DAK-Gesundheit, 2023 every employee lacked an average of 20 days in the job. After the evaluation of their own insured data, the cash register came to a sick leave of 5.2 percent. The DAK explained that the many illness failures were primarily decisive for respiratory diseases such as colds, bronchitis and flu. In addition, there has been an increase in mental illness. Overall, the sickness rate among the insured persons of the cash register was already sharp to 5.5 percent in 2022. This is the highest figure since the analyses began 25 years ago. For employers, the development is "alarming". In previous years, the sick leave each had been in the range of 4 percent.

Colds, bronchitis and flu, eh? I guess we'll go with that.

[LawBeefaroni]

Anyone who lived through the 70s (or the aftermath in the 80s) knew for sure that corporations were not looking out for the workers. At least no more than was needed to maintain productivity. As a kid I knew this. When I entered the corporate work force in the 90s it was old hat.

Considering that history is full of corporations treating their workers like shit (in several cases, committing genocide on the workforce), none of this is new or some kind of revelation. Nor is worker dissatisfaction a new thing. Look at the history of labor unions.

[Isgrimnur]

Anyone who lived through the 70s (or the aftermath in the 80s) knew for sure that corporations were not looking out for the workers.

Mr. Mom, Gung Ho, ... Batman.

[Pyperkub]

Anyone who lived through the 70s (or the aftermath in the 80s) knew for sure that corporations were not looking out for the workers.

Mr. Mom, Gung Ho, ... Batman.

Alien, Aliens...

[GreenGoo]

Anyone who lived through the 70s (or the aftermath in the 80s) knew for sure that corporations were not looking out for the workers. At least no more than was needed to maintain productivity. As a kid I knew this. When I entered the corporate work force in the 90s it was old hat.

Pensions didn't go poof until the 80's. In the 70's you still had a pension that would keep paying you until you were dead, long after you stopped working for said corporation.

Of course if you think corporations paying pensions were just as removed from their workforce as they are today, then agree to disagree I guess.

It took over a decade for *everyone* to drop pensions, and in the meantime tried to replace that benefit with other things that employees might find attractive. Even then, the disappearance of pensions was not the final end to corporations taking better care of their workforces than they do today, but if your cut off is 30 years ago, great. North America in general was more obtuse than you.

And sure, child labour and owing your soul to the company store was a thing. It's not a straight line from then to now though.

Lastly, let's face it. The US is an anomaly of western civilization as far as workforce expectations, worker rights and societal viewpoint is concerned. Europe is constantly appalled at the way you treat your workforce.

[Zenn7]

Not getting into the overall discussion, just wanted to add a note that pensions went for a while longer at some places.

I started a job in 2000 that didn't end their pension plan until 2009, so I will actually have a small pension (assuming I live long enough to collect) when the time comes.

[LordMortis]

Looks like the spiral began around 1978

https://www.guideline.com/blog/evolution-of-401k/

[Carpet_pissr]

Interesting timing. I was in my mom’s ‘abandoned’ hoarder house a couple weeks ago and happened to look down and saw an envelope with my Dad’s previous employer’s logo on it. Marked ‘confidential’

It was his pension letter from 1991 saying that he would get $1382 a month for the rest of his life (he’s still alive).

That just blows my mind, and he doesn’t think anything of it, except ‘it should have been more but there were some complications, etc’

[LawBeefaroni]

Not getting into the overall discussion, just wanted to add a note that pensions went for a while longer at some places.

I started a job in 2000 that didn't end their pension plan until 2009, so I will actually have a small pension (assuming I live long enough to collect) when the time comes.

Same. I have a small pension from the 2 years or so that my old employer still offered it. I'll stand to get a few hundred a month. Which, incidentally, is probably less the the amount of my property and state income taxes that go to fund underfunded public pensions.

Anyone who lived through the 70s (or the aftermath in the 80s) knew for sure that corporations were not looking out for the workers. At least no more than was needed to maintain productivity. As a kid I knew this. When I entered the corporate work force in the 90s it was old hat.

Pensions didn't go poof until the 80's. In the 70's you still had a pension that would keep paying you until you were dead, long after you stopped working for said corporation.

Of course if you think corporations paying pensions were just as removed from their workforce as they are today, then agree to disagree I guess.


And sure, child labour and owing your soul to the company store was a thing. It's not a straight line from then to now though.

Pensions aren't the only measure and I'm not saying there was a firm demarcation between "we love workers" and "we hate workers". Nevertheless, there was plenty of discontent in the workforce in the 70s and 80s, even if pensions were more prevalent. There were plenty of mass layoffs as the result of corporate takeovers and resulting "efficiencies". I remember the late 70s and early 80s well. My dad went through several phases of corporate takeovers during that period and saw several colleagues laid off unceremoniously. He eventually quit to be his own boss because of that treatment.

It took over a decade for *everyone* to drop pensions, and in the meantime tried to replace that benefit with other things that employees might find attractive. Even then, the disappearance of pensions was not the final end to corporations taking better care of their workforces than they do today, but if your cut off is 30 years ago, great. North America in general was more obtuse than you.

What was the "final end"?

It's hard to view the workforce isolated from society. What we may see as employers treating their workers better isn't so one sided. Workers put in long hours, a majority of socialization was done with co-workers. You bowled on your company's bowling team, you went for drinks with the work crew. It was almost a social compact. Now? It's rare. I'm not saying it's exactly a two way street but there's been a mutual breakdown of loyalty. Sure, employers need to earn it, but in today's climate it's rare that they can get it back. Workers are over it.

Free meals and foosball tables are a productivity calculation, not a generous giveaways.

Lastly, let's face it. The US is an anomaly of western civilization as far as workforce expectations, worker rights and societal viewpoint is concerned. Europe is constantly appalled at the way you treat your workforce.

Agreed, Europe generally treats workers better today. But Europe also pioneered the corporation and employed corporate-run mass genocide as a wealth extraction technique so, eh.

And I'm not really arguing a point here, just thinking out loud. I'm actually pretty happy at my job despite a pretty insane workload. I work with good people, I get paid OK and I have good benefits.

[Blackhawk]

All I can say is that I don't know what source of information about corporate culture some of you think most under-18 were exposed to back then. And yes, it's anecdotal, but not one person I knew watched the news, read the paper, or had any real interest in the corporate/business world at all. Unless you had a specific investment/interest in it or a family member who did and put it in front of you, this was information you rarely saw, and if you did, you probably paid zero attention to it. Wall Street, business dealings, and politics weren't high on the list for most junior high and high school students. Those topics weren't in their sphere of interest.

I think it's absurd to say that it hasn't changed now, when when every corporate misdeed, including from companies that young people follow pay attention to (gaming, entertainment), is discussed (and loudly) on social media.

Then: You had to go looking for the information or have someone put it in front of you.
Now: It's impossible to miss, and relevant to your interests.

[LawBeefaroni]

Maybe it was proximity to both Detroit (auto industry) and U of M (academics) but I knew more about Lee Iococca in 1982 than I did about Michael Jackson. And I wasn't some weird corporate nerd child. Playground talk was about Iococca and Jimmy Carter. Of course we talked about Star Wars and Dukes of Hazard (or whatever was hot at the time) and sports but what people did for a living got equal time.

Yes, things have changed but not the basic truth that corporations view the worker as a resource to be exploited. Are people wise to that more now? Maybe, but it's more a refrain of "all companies suck, what'ya gonna do?" than actually trying to hold the bad actors accountable. Everyone wants to get their grift and side hustle on instead of going to work for anyone. Great, but how can someone bitch about the plight of the worker and then buy all their shit at Amazon and Costco and Walmart?

[Blackhawk]

The bad actors have spent decades stacking the deck so that they can't be held accountable. People aren't just angry, they're feeling helpless.

Great, but how can someone bitch about the plight of the worker and then buy all their shit at Amazon and Costco and Walmart?

Because if you're poor, they've taken great effort to ensure that you can't afford to shop anywhere else. You shop at Walmart and get enough, or you shop somewhere more expensive, feel better about yourself, and end up running out of food.

[Blackhawk]

Since this is all warring anecdotes, here's a question to those who knew about how awful things were going into that world:

How did you find out prior to starting work? What was the source of this knowledge?

[LawBeefaroni]

The bad actors have spent decades stacking the deck so that they can't be held accountable. People aren't just angry, they're feeling helpless.

Great, but how can someone bitch about the plight of the worker and then buy all their shit at Amazon and Costco and Walmart?

Because if you're poor, they've taken great effort to ensure that you can't afford to shop anywhere else. You shop at Walmart and get enough, or you shop somewhere more expensive, feel better about yourself, and end up running out of food.

It's not limited by economic strata. Seemingly everyone shops at Amazon or Costco (or Walmart or Meijer). I can't turn onto Clybourn for the endless stream of Teslas and BMWs pouring out of the Costco lot. The point is that with one side of the mouth, we're saying that the megacorporations are horrible and exploit workers and we have now we finally figured it out and with the other side we are saying, "take my money!"

[Blackhawk]

The bad actors have spent decades stacking the deck so that they can't be held accountable. People aren't just angry, they're feeling helpless.

Great, but how can someone bitch about the plight of the worker and then buy all their shit at Amazon and Costco and Walmart?

Because if you're poor, they've taken great effort to ensure that you can't afford to shop anywhere else. You shop at Walmart and get enough, or you shop somewhere more expensive, feel better about yourself, and end up running out of food.

It's not limited by economic strata. Seemingly everyone shops at Amazon or Costco (or Walmart or Meijer). I can't turn onto Clybourn for the endless stream of Teslas and BMWs pouring out of the Costco lot. The point is that with one side of the mouth, we're saying that the megacorporations are horrible and exploit workers and we have now we finally figured it out and with the other side we are saying, "take my money!"

In that case, short of actually spending days researching it, my guess would be because the "Workers are being mistreated!" contingent is a small, vocal subset of the whole.

FWIW (and just speaking for myself), I avoid both Walmart and Amazon as much as I can because of the way they treat both customers and workers, but at the end of the day, I have to buy things somewhere, and often those are either the only options (Walmart is literally the only non-grocery option in town), or they're the only thing I can afford (I couldn't afford to get groceries at any of Walmart's competitors right now.)

[LawBeefaroni]

I often have conversations that go like this:
"Hey, did you see that Costco has [consumer good] for [cheap price]?"
"No, I don't have a membership."
"Yeah, it's a really good deal. You should get one."
"Nah, we really don't have the space [me making excuses] and I'm not a fan of their business model."
"Oh yeah, me either. I don't shop there all the time but sometimes they really have the best deals..."


It always ends with me saying I'll check it out and them saying they really don't want to shop there. We both know it's all bullshit but no one wants to break up a friendship or acquaintance over it.


Another thing I've noticed Costco doing. They sell gold and silver at prices just above spot. For anyone who buys gold or silver, it's great deal. But it's really just a way for them to pump up revenues at will as well as getting new members, and it's a brilliant scheme. Need to add a few dozen $M at the end of a quarter? Open up the vault and sell 10K Gold Eagles. People will join just to get the deal.

[LordMortis]

Everyone wants to get their grift and side hustle on instead of going to work for anyone. Great, but how can someone bitch about the plight of the worker and then buy all their shit at Amazon and Costco and Walmart?

Yup. They also want to evade taxes, get subsidized for not having income, and bitch about the government spending. Of course, everyone is more than a bit hyperbolic but, yup.

How did you find out prior to starting work? What was the source of this knowledge?

Newspaper, radio, and evening news, to say nothing of family trying to prep you for the world while also trying to figure out how work these new things called IRAs into their taxes.

WRT to WalMart, they've always had better competition around here to make them easy to avoid. However, their competition are losing their way and I'm beginning to rethink my "it's easy to not shop there when I'd rather shop everywhere else anyway" lifestyle. My local Meijer and Kroger are both becoming filthy, disorganized, with unreliable pricing that put the onus on me to walk around with an app to look up everything in store just to make sure the price is accurate. Amazon lost their way for my money a long long time ago. Their pricing is at best average and I have to roll the dice on delivery dates. I get stuff there when I can't get it reasonably easy just about anywhere else. Oddly enough, Home Depot seems to be how I get most delivered stuff.

I don't know what's horrible about Costco. I let my membership expire because BJs was better suited for my needs. I miss Costco cheap clothes and 505 chilies but not enough to renew my membership. I was under the impression Costco is employee friendly as far as retailers go. I dunno about leveraging supply chains. I don't find their pricing to be better than sale shopping.