OT - Dow plunges 1,175 - worst point decline in history

[Mzilliox]

Originally Posted by seanile

a lot of people can't afford to move

people move to cities because that's where the jobs, wages, and growth are. in order to do that, you have to save minimum of $3000 just to sign a lease when you have other roommates in the picture (first month, last month, deposit, broker's fee). my last apartment meant this was $3800, and i had 5 other housemates. $6k minimum if you want a 1 bedroom.

then add $1000 to move (truck & materials).

and maybe up to another $1000 if you have to pay an early-severance fee for cutting your current lease short.

kind of hard to gather up to $7000 when young folks who are making between $28k and $50k before taxes are also paying student debt off a $300/mo, and likely a car payment or transit pass at another $300/mo), and then just trying to live and eat, save a little for retirement, and socialize (need that network right?).

god forbid you have children and currently live near your parents and have been using them for free childcare. try and find the annual income that service requires now that you're giving up your network.


recall the aforementioned statistic about people not having $1000 of disposable income available for emergencies. now tell those same people to move.

Home Price to Income Ratios / HARVARD - http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios
The Barriers Stopping Poor People From Moving to Better Jobs / ATLANTIC - https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ousing/542439/
Why Don’t People Who Can’t Afford Housing Just Move Where It’s Cheaper? / NYTIMES - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/u...s-cheaper.html
Further Proof That Millennials Are, in Fact, The Brokest Generation / SLATE - https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...eneration.html

this is simple reality. maybe you moved, maybe that was easy for you, and maybe thats a useful tool. but its way harder than you cats all make it out to be. and it shouldnt be necessary. we are till not talking about inflated ceo salaries and the redundancy and inefficiency of consultants. this is where the common man loses ground.

[Dekonick]

Originally Posted by seanile

a lot of people can't afford to move

people move to cities because that's where the jobs, wages, and growth are. in order to do that, you have to save minimum of $3000 just to sign a lease when you have other roommates in the picture (first month, last month, deposit, broker's fee). my last apartment meant this was $3800, and i had 5 other housemates. $6k minimum if you want a 1 bedroom.

then add $1000 to move (truck & materials).

and maybe up to another $1000 if you have to pay an early-severance fee for cutting your current lease short.

kind of hard to gather up to $7000 when young folks who are making between $28k and $50k before taxes are also paying student debt off a $300/mo, and likely a car payment or transit pass at another $300/mo), and then just trying to live and eat, save a little for retirement, and socialize (need that network right?).

god forbid you have children and currently live near your parents and have been using them for free childcare. try and find the annual income that service requires now that you're giving up your network.


recall the aforementioned statistic about people not having $1000 of disposable income available for emergencies. now tell those same people to move.

Home Price to Income Ratios / HARVARD - http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios
The Barriers Stopping Poor People From Moving to Better Jobs / ATLANTIC - https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ousing/542439/
Why Don’t People Who Can’t Afford Housing Just Move Where It’s Cheaper? / NYTIMES - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/u...s-cheaper.html
Further Proof That Millennials Are, in Fact, The Brokest Generation / SLATE - https://slate.com/business/2018/12/m...eneration.html

Tell that to the pioneers of the nation that faced far worse. Sorry, it IS hard to move, but it isn't THAT hard... People don't move because they don't like change. Know who does move? The guy who is going to get ahead... Success takes risk. Often it takes failure - multiple times.

A simplistic view but worth reading is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-My-...dp/B004CR6AM4/

Related... and it just might be what you need... New cheese.

[jlwdm]

Moving is not easy and changing careers is not easy. On the other hand new challenges are what keep me going. Moving to a new city is a learning experience; starting a new career is a learning experience; staying in the same career and moving to another state and losing all of your clients is a learning experience. When the learning curve drops I am glad to try something new. Is it painful for a while? For sure. But in the long term I see nothing but benefits.

The one mistake I made career wise was returning to a previous job. The money was decent for the place I lived, but I was not learning anything new. I suppose another mistake was both times I left that job I cashed in my retirement. But the retirement funded my moves and career changes.

I think networking (means different things to different people), working hard, good values and common sense are important in developing new opportunities. My networking has been very informal. My parents did not got to college and I am not the fraternity type so I did not make those connections in college. But if you are good at your job and outside of your job do things you enjoy with others you will make connections. You did not need to force networking.

Jeff

[saab2000]

The term "Networking" to me is almost synonymous with nepotism. I've seen it in my business with internal job promotions though a bit less with getting hired from the outside because the industry in which I work has really tried to stamp it out. But internally it still happens.

My life's journey has been quite different than a lot of people and networking was never going to be a calling card for me and it's always bothered me to see less qualified people move up because of who they knew, not what they knew or what they could produce.

[seanile]

Originally Posted by Dekonick

Tell that to the pioneers of the nation that faced far worse. Sorry, it IS hard to move, but it isn't THAT hard... People don't move because they don't like change. Know who does move? The guy who is going to get ahead... Success takes risk. Often it takes failure - multiple times.

A simplistic view but worth reading is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-My-...dp/B004CR6AM4/

Related... and it just might be what you need... New cheese.

Are really comparing this to wagoneers with agricultural abilities and a train of people ready to barter with you who each have the skills that collectively make up a small town, and who were promised 350 acres per person to settle oregon?
Let’s keep it modern, because as has been pointed out, times have changed enough between the boomers’ job search to the millennials’ to ignore pilgrims and western settlers...

[Burnette]

Originally Posted by saab2000

The term "Networking" to me is almost synonymous with nepotism. I've seen it in my business with internal job promotions though a bit less with getting hired from the outside because the industry in which I work has really tried to stamp it out. But internally it still happens.

My life's journey has been quite different than a lot of people and networking was never going to be a calling card for me and it's always bothered me to see less qualified people move up because of who they knew, not what they knew or what they could produce.

I too have observed hiring and promotions of unqualified and even incompetent individuals due to "networking". As a group we are weaker for it as the jobs still have to get done those around have to do more to make up the deficit. And the number of such individuals might surprise many here. A group gets in positions of power and the gate opens to friends and family. The only thing that cleans that out is a downturn and financial squeeze where every position is scrutinized and performance is monitored.

Such a shedding is happening now at four locations here, early retirement packages and outright layoffs . With GM and now my immediate area there does seem to be some truth in the belief of an oncoming downturn.

Some if us have felt hardship of jobloss, in my current situation those with the most years of service are being targeted in a right to work state. It's not easy for people just to pick up and go, even harder when you're older. Good for the ones who did move and prospered but have some understanding for those that find it harder to do.

Looks like the bear market will roar next year.

[93KgBike]

Originally Posted by Dekonick

Tell that to the pioneers of the nation that faced far worse. Sorry, it IS hard to move, but it isn't THAT hard... People don't move because they don't like change. Know who does move? The guy who is going to get ahead... Success takes risk. Often it takes failure - multiple times.

How does that comparison compute?

The life expectancy in the 1840s (for white men in Massachusetts) was 40 years. By those standards you'd, I'm guessing, be dead. (And this forum would have 75% fewer curmudgeons.)

In the territories it was closer to 30 years.

Anthropology teaches that most risk taking individuals do fail, and die doing it, and thereby discourage the majority from taking certain risks.

We're a developed country, not a colony bordering wilderness. How does modern society benefit from demanding that workers assume all the risk in finding work?

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by Burnette

I too have observed hiring and promotions of unqualified and even incompetent individuals due to "networking". As a group we are weaker for it as the jobs still have to get done those around have to do more to make up the deficit. And the number of such individuals might surprise many here. A group gets in positions of power and the gate opens to friends and family. The only thing that cleans that out is a downturn and financial squeeze where every position is scrutinized and performance is monitored.

In an academic environment, that perspective (hiring due to proximity, or networking) is - or has been - traditionally frowned upon. Not so often do people receive 3 degrees and then are offered a tenure-track position at the same institution for the reason of avoiding 'inbreeding' and fostering scientific diversity. That said, sometimes that lets very good candidates go.....

[jlwdm]

Originally Posted by saab2000

The term "Networking" to me is almost synonymous with nepotism. I've seen it in my business with internal job promotions though a bit less with getting hired from the outside because the industry in which I work has really tried to stamp it out. But internally it still happens.

My life's journey has been quite different than a lot of people and networking was never going to be a calling card for me and it's always bothered me to see less qualified people move up because of who they knew, not what they knew or what they could produce.

I do not see networking being even close to nepotism. It is a way of learning about options that you might not be aware of otherwise. It is not about hiring a less qualified person.

Personally, I could never work in a job like yours where everyone gets paid the same. I want to be paid based on how I perform. I don't think employees should be paid based on seniority either. Disagree with most teacher pay systems.

Jeff

[saab2000]

Originally Posted by jlwdm

I do not see networking being even close to nepotism. It is a way of learning about options that you might not be aware of otherwise. It is not about hiring a less qualified person.

Personally, I could never work in a job like yours where everyone gets paid the same. I want to be paid based on how I perform. I don't think employees should be paid based on seniority either. Disagree with most teacher pay systems.

Jeff

In general, I agree. The problem is that in my work it’s essentially impossible to grade performance and it’s dangerous to incentivize it. We do have profit sharing. So a sort of group incentive. Also, seniority doesn’t bring raises, longevity does. Finally, we aren’t all paid the same, at least not really. I do get paid more if I work more. And folks who give away shifts lose that pay.

I am paid the same rate as someone with the same longevity but our paychecks might look quite different.

Again, as to performance, it’s essentially impossible to pay based on that in my work. Incentivizing it would cause people to take risks or shortcuts, something we actively discourage in my business.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by jlwdm

I do not see networking being even close to nepotism. It is a way of learning about options that you might not be aware of otherwise. It is not about hiring a less qualified person.

Personally, I could never work in a job like yours where everyone gets paid the same. I want to be paid based on how I perform. I don't think employees should be paid based on seniority either. Disagree with most teacher pay systems.

Jeff

It's a fine line. Another name for networking is connections. I can give you an extreme example - legacy applications for Harvard. You have 8x the probability of being accepted. it isn't nepotism, but it rhymes. And it doesn't mean you are more qualified.

Where this eventually brings us as a society is one with little or no social mobility. Historically, Europe scored poorer for social mobility than the US ,and its economy suffered for it. Now, I think the US is scoring poorer for social mobility and it surely will have impact down the line. For a increasing portion of the US population, the American dream is dead.

[fa63]

https://www.wabe.org/the-american-dr...yMWfmR-ZSwT4m4

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

For a increasing portion of the US population, the American dream is dead.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

I caution you that in the last quarter of 2008, the banking system was very close to collapsing. If people on both sides of the aisle had not worked together, we easily could have melted down.

I admit, part of the damage was self-inflicted when Hank Paulson thought the market was set up to handle Lehman's collapse. He greatly underestimated the interconnectedness of markets.

I think McCain hurt his chances to actually become president elect when he scuttled the first deal at the last moment.

If the market is just a little bad, it is an election issue. If the market is really bad, you do need a steady hand at the rudder. Mnuchin is no Paulson. I'd feel better if Gary Cohen was still in the administration. As more seasoned professionals leave the White House and are replaced with television commentators (Nikki Haley, etc)

Who will be the steady hand on the rudder? When markets get nervous, ill advised words can really have consequences.

His problem was Sarah..

Agree 100%..these next 2 years are going to be 'interesting'..buckle yer seat belt..
#muelleriscoming

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

His problem was Sarah..

Agree 100%..these next 2 years are going to be 'interesting'..buckle yer seat belt..
#muelleriscoming

As someone who lost a job in the last quarter of 2008, I can tell you how amazed I was at how myopic McCain was about the whole situation. Watching the whole thing unfold in real-time, he just didn't seem to get it or acknowledge it in any substantial way until the election was too far away from him. Yep - that, and that Sarah problem....

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by OtayBW

As someone who lost a job in the last quarter of 2008, I can tell you how amazed I was at how myopic McCain was about the whole situation. Watching the whole thing unfold in real-time, he just didn't seem to get it or acknowledge it in any substantial way until the election was too far away from him. Yep - that, and that Sarah problem....

I don't think anybody really knew completely what was unfolding, it was unraveling during the election..It's just that for the GOP, they were reluctant to paint it as 'end of the world' type stuff as it painted a poor, but deservedly so, picture of Bush and his policies. And sarah...