Ender's Game: Apparently can get you fired...

[Lantyssa]

Or my boss and co-workers were lying to me.

[Merusk]

Yeah, you're going to lose your job even if you do it well if the budget numbers simply say "We've got to lose $x of salary. We can lose 15 at this rate or 5 at this one."   I've been through that 4 times in the last 10 years, including several where the entire divisional office was let-go.

The better way to approach it is just know you're going to lose your job at some point.  Gen X is supposedly going to have an average of 8 employers throughout their career, Gen Y is expected to have an average of 15. (if I remember the presentation we had a month ago right.)  

At that rate of turnover you're your own employer and your own brand.  With benefits and other perks of "permanent" employment going away more and more every year*   Why are you selling to only one client?

 *Not to mention fewer permanent employment gigs.  My dept. is 35 people, 15 of whom are contract, most of those in their 20's.

[Engels]

Right.  If you want to keep your job, do it well enough so your company doesn't want to lose you.  Plain and simple.

Real life is more complicated than that. I know, it doesn't fit the usual randian motif that permeates american business thought, but its time for people to grow up. At will employees rarely, if ever, have a skill set that 'needs improvement'. They are either doing their job or they aren't. The unfair dismissal of an 'at will' employee doesn't come from a lack of ability, or an inability to improve, or 'be the best'. Any job that requires that level of dedication is invariably a salaried position with all the legal protections that entails.

[RhyssaFireheart]

Right.  If you want to keep your job, do it well enough so your company doesn't want to lose you.  Plain and simple.

Real life is more complicated than that. I know, it doesn't fit the usual randian motif that permeates american business thought, but its time for people to grow up. At will employees rarely, if ever, have a skill set that 'needs improvement'. They are either doing their job or they aren't. The unfair dismissal of an 'at will' employee doesn't come from a lack of ability, or an inability to improve, or 'be the best'. Any job that requires that level of dedication is invariably a salaried position with all the legal protections that entails.

Really?  Then maybe that explains the sheer number of contractors working at the company I'm at, including all the ones working on critical software apps used for pharmaceutical regulatory affairs.   

I'm more of the opinion that corporations like to micro-manage their bottom line and if that means they can hire a bunch of skilled contractors to do the work under the over-site of 1-2 employees, that makes sense.  Doesn't matter how critical or not the role may be, but pushing costs such as benefits off the corp's books onto someone else (if there is someone else) is something they like to do.  Illinois is an at-will state, so no matter how skilled I may be, I can still be fired..oh, sorry... let go, because we need to cut head count.

And because of Microsoft's BS with their contractors years ago, I'm stuck with having to take 30-days off in order to "reset" my contract every two years.  Yeah, I'm loving the fact that I'm critical enough to the department to be hired here but the company hasn't allocated headcount for a position like mine. 

[Merusk]

Salaried protections, Engles?

Har!

All positions at the residential firms I worked were salaried and all those employers were at-will in at-will states.  I think you meant Professional, which is entirely different.

[Engels]

Salaried protections, Engles?

Har!

All positions at the residential firms I worked were salaried and all those employers were at-will in at-will states.  I think you meant Professional, which is entirely different.

Yes, actually, I did!

Rhyssa, you do bring up a good point, that of having essential positions staffed by contract workers. I forgot to add stupidity to the equation :) I've seen this happen a lot lately, especially at the university where I work. Positions normally taken by pro staff, or at least full time union protected staff, taken over by temp workers that somehow magically get their temp time extended ad-infinitum. A 40 hour a week job split into two 20 hour a week temp workers that are at will on minimal benefits.

[shiznitz]

A company wouldn't replace a single 40 hour worker with two 20 hour worker if the 40 hour worker was more productive.  At-wills wouldn't be replacing union labor if most union labor saw their job as a privilege to be earned and not a right to be waved in their employer's face.  The fact that you referred to union workers as "protected staff" says a lot about why companies go to such lengths to avoid adding them.

[UnsGub]

Then maybe that explains the sheer number of contractors working at the company I'm at, including all the ones working on critical software apps used for pharmaceutical regulatory affairs.

Yes, pharmaceutical companies are not software companies.

My sister is the in the business of placing software skills into non-software places.  Everyone uses software but not everyone can build it.  They are all contact position 6-12 months in the medical arena.  The jobs are there, her big challenge is people with the ability to do those jobs.  Way more open positions then people to fill them.

[Lantyssa]

A company wouldn't replace a single 40 hour worker with two 20 hour worker if the 40 hour worker was more productive.

Yes, they would.  They aren't looking at productivity, but at cost.  20 hour workers don't get health care or other benefits.

[shiznitz]

Cost is part of the productivity calculation.   A worker with long-term benefits might not consider those benefits as a cost of his employment but the company sure does.

[RhyssaFireheart]

Then maybe that explains the sheer number of contractors working at the company I'm at, including all the ones working on critical software apps used for pharmaceutical regulatory affairs.

Yes, pharmaceutical companies are not software companies.

My sister is the in the business of placing software skills into non-software places.  Everyone uses software but not everyone can build it.  They are all contact position 6-12 months in the medical arena.  The jobs are there, her big challenge is people with the ability to do those jobs.  Way more open positions then people to fill them.

Wut?  I never said this was a software company.  I said the devs/coders/BSAs/BSCs/etc. were working on the critical software we use at our company, all of which needs to meet regulatory compliance per government and FDA rules.  So they update and make changes to the software as needed.  Do they write it from scratch? No, never said that.  What I did say is that these folks are pretty critical to what goes on around here yet a huge amount are contractors.

[Paelos]

Industry plays a huge part in a lot of what yall are discussing. The IT industry is waaaaaaaay different than others in terms of contracted/salary/temp/full employment status and longevity.

[Selby]

Yes, they would.  They aren't looking at productivity, but at cost.  20 hour workers don't get health care or other benefits.

Exactly.  And if you can get a worker who has been there for 25-30-35 years to "retire" or lay them off, you get even more savings.

A company will put up with 3 semi-productive workers over 1 extremely productive worker if the cost of those 3 semi-productive workers is less than the 1 extremely productive one.  Even better if they can get that worker to train the others right before they send that worker out the door.

[Teleku]

Yes, they would.  They aren't looking at productivity, but at cost.  20 hour workers don't get health care or other benefits.

Exactly.  And if you can get a worker who has been there for 25-30-35 years to "retire" or lay them off, you get even more savings.

A company will put up with 3 semi-productive workers over 1 extremely productive worker if the cost of those 3 semi-productive workers is less than the 1 extremely productive one.  Even better if they can get that worker to train the others right before they send that worker out the door.

Not that I agree overall with shiznitz views on labor, but I think you guys are missing his point.  If those 3 semi-productive workers can do the same amount of work as the 1 very productive worker, but less money is spent on the 3 than the 1, then by definition they are more productive.  Your getting more production out of each dollar spent.

That is of course taking the very hardcore text book look at it, and not factoring in human and societal morals that real life is filled with.  Which say that if a man dedicates 20 years of his life to advancing your company, while still working hard every day, its probably not a good thing to just throw him out so you can squeeze a few extra dollars out of your human resources.  That if the system prioritizes what the end result is for buisness's, rather than what the end result is for the general population, then why the fuck should the general population support that system?

[Morat20]

Just as a personal anecdote, my father-in-law ran a small department of a sizeable chemical and shipping company. Less than a dozen people, but billions of dollars went through their hands a year.

Department full of guys in their fifties or sixties. Last buyout finally got them all eased out (through the usual bullshit of "we'll make it so you quit, because we don't want to offer an early retirement package"). Last I heard -- and my father-in-law's very plugged into the industry gossip network (it was, in a lot of ways, his job for thirty years to know what was what, who was who, and who needed what) they'd replaced the dozen old farts with a dozen young up-and-comers.

Who then had to hire half the old farts back as consultants and another 15 people to take up the slack. Meanwhile, given the rather personal, face-to-face nature of the work they did (not so much sales as something weirdly akin to customer service), they lost a lot of clients because the clients weren't happy at the guys they knew would solve their problems and generally make their life easier getting forced out in favor of people who didn't know their heads from their asses.

Comparatively.

Of course, my father-in-law sorta landed on his feet. Not everyone's an idiot, and there were a lot of job offers. Finally took one for what he calls "obscene money" (which says a lot, given how little he talks about salary or money. He worked his ass up from dirt poor Navy enlisted to upper middle class.) for five years, basically training up the guy they want to run the place but who didn't have the experience.

Which tracks with a lot of outsourcing and third-party contracting stories I've heard. It's the sort of thing that gives you immediate cost reductions...but then kills you long term. But hey, the modern engines of capitalism have sorta lost sight of the notion of 'penny wise, pound foolish' because are titans of industry's options vest before the pound foolish part comes in.

[Paelos]

The problem that many companies have when they evaluate cost-savings in the downsizing usually doesn't go the way of 2 people doing 1 person's job. It primarily goes the other direction. They fire the people who don't have skills or clients that can then be absorbed by the more productive people picking up their slack.

[Morat20]

The problem that many companies have when they evaluate cost-savings in the downsizing usually doesn't go the way of 2 people doing 1 person's job. It primarily goes the other direction. They fire the people who don't have skills or clients that can then be absorbed by the more productive people picking up their slack.

I blame the consultancy business that sprang up, oh, thirty years or so ago. Efficiency experts, downsizing or "rightsizing" experts -- people who'd charge your company a ridiculous amount to come in and make it "efficient".

Generally by firing a bunch of people.

Except they really only had the crudest sort of math -- "we can hire two guys to replace that one old guy and save money" -- and the attitude that that's "saving money" has just been absorbed into upper management. (Probably, once again, because CEO's and board members and VPs and the like make FUCKTONS on short-term changes in profitability, and if and when the downside hits, they're generally off doing it to another company).

My job? Me and another guy are the entire group on one aspect of a project. Some of what I do (and some of what he does) can be done parallel -- some isn't. You could replace me with two guys, but it'd be pointless -- the work I'm currently involved in is sequential. Adding another guy would just have him twiddling his thumbs.

Lots of these decisions are made, I get the feeling, over the objections of low-level management who are damn well aware that two college grads cannot produce the volume that one guy with 10 years experience, 5 of it with this product, can.

Nor can a team of cheap guys in India make it faster.

Boeing found that out with one of their latest aircraft designs. Outsourced practically everything, when they used to have it pretty much entirely under one roof. The end result ate not only all the cost savings from outsourcing, but ended up just bleeding money. They had to hire fire engineers back as contractors (who charged obscene rates, as they were pretty pissed at Boeing for laying them off) , they had to redesign or send back for remanufactoring multiple parts that simply didn't fit -- (stuff that would have been caught in shop, but none of the people making any of the bits talked to each other)...

Oh, and it turns out the lowest bidder from China or Pakistan or wherever? Turns out their quality wasn't exactly top-end, you know?

[Paelos]

There's been a backlash to the "move it overseas" outsourcing. I fully expect that mentality to shift once we get out of this recession. Part of the problem was that the typical American worker is spoiled when they get an actual job, and part of it was companies didn't value their people correctly at all. The shift will be back to more American labor, who in the absence of having a job have learned to be more productive when they get one, and the companies will value their inputs more because the overseas equivilant was shoddy.

[Ironwood]

Heh.  Silly Monkey.

[Morat20]

There's been a backlash to the "move it overseas" outsourcing. I fully expect that mentality to shift once we get out of this recession. Part of the problem was that the typical American worker is spoiled when they get an actual job, and part of it was companies didn't value their people correctly at all. The shift will be back to more American labor, who in the absence of having a job have learned to be more productive when they get one, and the companies will value their inputs more because the overseas equivilant was shoddy.

That sounds reasonable

[Teleku]

Paelos is correct.  There has been a shift of jobs back to the US as wages have dropped in the US, wages have risen in China/India, and complaints over quality and IP theft have grown.

The low wage states have even started to drain jobs from Canada.  Latest example was Caterpillar closing its plant in London (ON) and moving all the work to a new plant in Indiana, where they pay wages less than half of what they were in Canada (Indiana just became a 'right to work' state as well, so they can't unionize).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/02/06/canada-scowls-indiana-cheers-over-caterpillar-moves/

[Paelos]

Teleku's article points it out well. Chuckle all you want, but the recession has established a new breed of workers in the US that didn't exist in the early part of last decade. Many of the people that were displaced or unemployed in 2008 went back to school, got better degrees, got more skills, or simply are willing to work for less now due to longer unemployment. That creates more opportunities for employers in the US due to the shift in attitudes. Much of the boom we rode a decade ago, and the dot.bomb shit has been long gone by now. The housing markets are improving and should be back to normal by the end of this decade, probably seeing a small boom in five years.

[Morat20]

Any argument that starts with "The American worker is lazy" is bullshit from the get-go.

As anyone even vaguely familiar with the actual work practices in the first world could tell you. (Americans work harder, longer, and for less effective pay than pretty much any other first world country.) Shit we consider 'good benefits' that accrue to pretty much SOLELY degreed (or at least long-time employees) are considered standard everywhere that isn't "third world hellhole".

Shit, we're just now sorta getting to the point of offering health care to anyone. We long ago discarded the 40-hour work week in favor of off-the-books overtime (or sub-32 hours, so you can't get benefits).

What you're echoing there is basically the urge of big business to pay Americans third-world salaries to increase their already ridiculously high proifits. I'm sure your wanna-be fuedal overlords appreciate your enthusiasm to knuckle under.

[Paelos]

I said spoiled not lazy.

The rest of what you typed is just your own rage against the machine crap that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[Morat20]

I said spoiled not lazy.

The rest of what you typed is just your own rage against the machine crap that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Ah, spoiled.

How? With working longer and harder than the rest of the first world? Less vacation? Less reliable health care? Fewer retirement guaruntees?

How are they spoiled, Paelos? Is it because the American worker doesn't want to work for third world wages?

[Paelos]

The US is #1 in the world in average disposable wages, Morat. We are second to none in paying employees.

The American worker should be best in the world. We're paid as such. If we're not, and things are getting outsourced elsewhere, that's our baggage to deal with, and we as a workforce need to correct that. I'm not arguing politics or taxes or things like comparing ourselves to European countries. I'm all about comparing ourselves to ourselves, and we hit a period in the last decade where we got complacent.

Think about it this way. To you remember working in 2003-2007 when you could look around your office and notice people that had no business being there? People that were just drawing a paycheck, didn't really care about what they were doing, or simply couldn't get the things done they were supposed to? Hell, working in the real estate industry, with developers, I can assure you that those people were running rampant all over this city. Since then my old company has moved to a workforce of 40 down from 100. What I notice is that the people who I always knew got shit done are still there, and their getting paid more. The dead weight was gone, and the company is recovering.

[MahrinSkel]

The US is #1 in the world in average disposable wages, Morat. We are second to none in paying employees.

The American worker should be best in the world. We're paid as such. If we're not, and things are getting outsourced elsewhere, that's our baggage to deal with, and we as a workforce need to correct that. I'm not arguing politics or taxes or things like comparing ourselves to European countries. I'm all about comparing ourselves to ourselves, and we hit a period in the last decade where we got complacent.

That's a really good argument, Paelos.  Except for the little problem that it is completely untrue.  Productivity by every measure has been rising steadily in the US, but none of that productivity is winding up in the wages of the workers.

Average household income (inflation adjusted) has been more or less stalled since the late 60's, and average *individual* income has actually been declining since 1981 (except for a brief increase in the late 90's, long since reversed).

--Dave

[Paelos]

Um, nowhere did you address anything about how we are paid relative to the other parts of the world, which is my point. I also dispute your facts about the points in time I'm referencing which is 2003 to current.

I have a feeling that this might go into politics, because things that usually involve interpretation usually do, but the gross facts and numbers remain that the US wage being paid is the number one in the world.

Here is a list of countries by average wage

I guess that's about all I have to add on the subject before it spirals out of control, but I think the US resurgence is a coming, and it is important to learn some valuable lessons from this recession. My own example was to take the time when I was laid off in 2008 and use it go get my Masters and eventually my CPA. Now, I'm able to make 2 times what I was earning before in a matter of 4 years.

[MuffinMan]

I have a feeling that this might go into politics, because things that usually involve interpretation usually do, but the gross facts and numbers remain that the US wage being paid is the number one in the world.

Here is a list of countries by average wage

Isn't this metric pretty much worthless in this discussion if you don't also factor in income inequality?

[Engels]

Or cost of living, relative social benefits each society affords its citizens, such as health care and post-secondary education, etc. You can call the US citizen 'spoiled', but then you have to factor in what things the average US citizen is expected to take care of for themselves as compared to other first world nations, and I think you'll probably find that in that regard, the US is teetering on the edge of 1st world status.

[Paelos]

I get the feeling yall want to make this something it's not.

I think jobs will be coming back to America. You can go on arguing world social benefts, factoring numbers, adjusting whatever, in that other place I don't go.

[MahrinSkel]

I get the feeling yall want to make this something it's not.

I think jobs will be coming back to America. You can go on arguing world social benefts, factoring numbers, adjusting whatever, in that other place I don't go.

If you don't want to wind up in a political argument, don't dress up a political opinion in factual looking (but erroneous) language and act shocked when people call you on it.

You're saying that productivity is rising because people are working harder without them getting paid more for it, and assuming that is in and of itself a good thing and any other consequences are irrelevant.  So don't pretend you weren't trying to pick a fight.

--Dave

[Merusk]

He wasn't. That's a fairly common mindset among Americans, so don't be surprised he falls for it, too.

[shiznitz]

Productivity is highly correlated with specific demographic trends.  That means that regions with large populations of a certain age tend to have higher productivity than regions with lower growth rates in populations of that age.  That age seems to be 40-49 year olds, experienced but still able-bodied.

This quote is from a study of this out of Dartmouth:

Using a large panel of countries, this paper will show that changes in workforce de-
mographics have a strong and signi¯cant correlation with the growth rate of productivity.
Changes in the proportion of workers between the ages of 40 and 49 seem to be associated
with productivity growth. A 5% increase in the size of this cohort over a ten year period is
associated with a 1-2% higher productivity growth in each year of the decade. The results
are robust to speci¯cation changes and appear to have predictive power. An out of sample
prediction of output growth from 1990 to 1995 predicts almost 12% of the actual variation.

This is supported by other studies.  Productivity has little to do with "spoiled" or education.  Those might have small effects at the margin.  The bottom line is that the US is entering a period when our 40-49 population is going to have one of the fastest growth rates of the growth rate (second derivative).  It will be very good to be an American worker over the next 20 years.  China's 40-49 years old population is going to be shrinking while ours is growing again.  That means wages in China will rise faster than ours, most likely.  Wages there will still be lower in an absolute sense, but the relative attractiveness of "shipping jobs overseas" will be declining over the next few decades.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jfeyrer/demo.pdf