Slashdot Mirror
How Technology Is Increasing the Number of Jobs We Have (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An article at The Guardian takes a look at the way in which we hold jobs as technology as changes. Its central thesis is this: "My father had one job in his life, I've had six in mine, my kids will have six at the same time." This may compress the generational changes a bit, but it's an interesting point; the average time people spend at one job has been trending downward for a long time. As technology enables the so-called "gig economy" (or "sharing economy," if you prefer), we're seeing many more people start to hold multiple jobs, working whichever one happens to give them something to do at a given time. Economist Jeremy Rifkin says, "This sharing economy is reestablishing the commons in a hi-tech landscape. Commons came about when people formed communities by taking the meager resources they had and sharing then to create more value. The method of regulation of these systems is also comparable. If people are trusted and vouched for they are accepted as part of the sharing economy group. If they behave badly they are excluded. Your social capital means everything in this new economy."
And at what point can we reevaluate this and say "six jobs at one time is not a job, it's being taken advantage of". If everyone is complicit in it then it's nothing but being taken advantage of by mob mentality.
I hardly find that reassuring.
I think you mean Increasing the Number of Jobs We Need
just to make ends meet etc
In which case vote for Bernie
At least thats what I've found in IT in the UK. Unless you're in management then you're generally ignored when it comes to above inflation pay rises (and sometimes ignored for WITH inflation rises). You may get a small end of year bonus but generally not unless you work in the financial arena and this IMO is why IT has such a high churn rate.
People who are working six jobs at once are unlikely to feel secure about their financial and social position. The people I actually know in the "gig economy" are doing it out of some combination of insecurity and desperation. If this is really the future, look for extreme political instability in our country.
Forget for a moment that the sharing economy is based upon some very wrong assumptions about human nature - things that any parent can tell you are not a normal part of human nature, and focus upon the inspiration for this new economic model - Feudal Europe, the village commons, the Great Depression. Nothing in the article is hopeful or progressive - it's all been done before by desperate people trying very hard not to starve to death. How many jobs did people have during the Great Depression? Lots. They just lumped them all together and said "We did what we had to do to survive." This is just another rich asshole's version of "you are poor because you are lazy - now get another low paying job." This goes completely away if wages are required to be livable.
The concept of the Sharing economy is stupid at its core. This "panacea" is ignoring the basic human territoriality regarding property. Children have to be FORCED to share. They will throw a temper tantrum when required to share. Adults are little different. Smoother, less prone to emotional outbursts and more prone to murder than toddlers. The idea of a "sharing" economy is as dumb as any other Utopian vision that makes assumptions contrary to human nature. Every sharing economy is based upon an outside requirement - men with weapons making unarmed peasants work the land in the Feudal "Sharing Economy." Starvation in the Great Depression. Otherwise, people revert to their nature of territoriality over property.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
The summary states "The average time people spend at one job has been trending downward for a long time.
but the site that is linked to this statement http://www.marketwatch.com/sto... shows the opposite: it says the average time people spend at one job has been slowly trending upward, rising from 3.5 years in 1983 to 4.6 years in 2012, the last year for which figures are available.
The article linked seems to think that the upward trend is significant, but I think it's easily explained. Younger workers change jobs more frequently, and hence the length of time spent at a job increases as a worker gets older (according to the same site, "Over half of workers age 55 to 64 and those age 65 and over had 10 years or more of tenure in 2012, compared with fewer than 10% of workers in their 20s and 30s."). So that upward trend is just the demographic bulge (the "baby boomers") getting older. I expect that number to drop when more of the baby boomers retire, and the people who started working in the 2000s start making up more of the workers surveyed.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This. Totally and absolutely this!
It's not technology which is driving people to having six jobs in a lifetime. It's greedy fucking corporations laying off loyal workers at the drop of a dime. "Oh no, quarterly profits are down a tenth of a percent. Lay off 25% of those bottom-line-sucking employees!".
In my dad's day, people kept jobs for decades if not for a lifetime. That just doesn't happen any more with the corporations getting more and more greedy.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/11/22/how-much-profit-does-bell-really-need.html
I've seen several negative comments already on here, and instead of replying to each of them, I thought I'd just share my experience.
For some of us, this way of doing things "scratches itches".
I think I've always done this. If something interested me, I learned more about it, or I'd learn something because I had a need for it. Then I'd find out someone I knew needed something based on what I'd learned, and suddenly, I was making money doing it. In fact, this has helped me greatly in my life, because now I can be a stay at home dad and still work and do things I enjoy and that fulfill me. Currently, if you include being a dad, I have 4 "jobs". I'm about to add on a 5th on the advice of someone.
Each of these jobs is enjoyable for the most part in different ways. I still work a few hours for my old job, so I keep up those skills. I have a totally creative design job which I love because I get to be creative, and I usually end up teaching students as well. I have a coding job that allows me to use those logic and problem solving aspects of my brain. I have my horde of kids, which is fulfilling in numerous ways. And I have the new job, which is filling a niche not many realize or know about. It's small scale, but that works for me.
The key to all these things is prioritization and time management, and keeping your customers expectations reasonable. Yes, there are bad weeks when EVERYTHING hits at once and you have some really late nights. But this is a rarity if you are up front with your clients and explain the situation. A little honest communication goes a long way.
Now, admittedly, I'm not the best by any means at any of these jobs. But honestly, even if I spent every hour of every day at that job, I still wouldn't be the best. And I'm ok with that. I don't feel this desperate need to be the ultimate, because there will always be someone better than me. However, if I make the lives of others better, give a good service that they need for a good price, get to stretch myself while still managing my family, and get to learn new things constantly, where is the negative here?
I'm not saying this is for anyone. And to the person who feels that someone is being taken advantage of, seeing as you often choose how many jobs you have (people with more than 3 are usually by choice, not need, because those people would be working double jobs most often), so if you are being taken advantage of, it's only because you are taking advantage of yourself.
If you DO decide to do this:
A. Use a really good time tracking program (I use Time Recording for Android).
B. Know how to get your todo list organized (learn getting things done can be very helpful, and I use todoist to sync so wherever I have a revelation, I can dump it into my inbox).
C. Learn the value of honesty and integrity. Be straightforward with people. Honestly goes a long way, and if someone knows where they stand, often they will be more reasonable. And if you screw up, just admit it. Mistakes happen. Own it.
D. Know your worth. Know what is a reasonable amount to be making. Yes, we often make less than we think we are worth. But know what you are willing to accept.
E. Be reasonable with billing if you can. IE: you will likely work more hours than you get paid for (research, etc), either because you quoted a price and are held to it, or you know how much they are willing/able to pay, or whatever. But try baking that extra time into your price, or your expectation of self worth.
F. Accept you will not get along with every customer. Be really, really, really good to the ones you click with.
G. Word of mouth is still the best marketing for most small things. So, get good word of mouth.
H. Try to have a sense of humor and smile.
I. Know that life is short, and enjoy it. And don't expect work to be your self worth. That is where the danger lies. Use it to expand your world, but get your self worth from who you are, not what you do. And take breaks. I can take a month off if I schedule things right.
This will not apply to ev
And at what point can we reevaluate this and say "six jobs at one time is not a job, it's being taken advantage of".
It's not being taken advantage of. It's called being a freelancer. There is lots of work in the world that does not require being in a single place for 40+ hours each week. Just because it is different doesn't mean it is worse or that you are being taken advantage of. I've held as many as 3-4 "jobs" at a given time. It's normal if you are a freelancer.
I don't pretend to know what the future will look like but the one thing I'm certain of is that it won't look like today. The job market your parents had isn't the one you will have and the one your kids will have will be different still. Get used to it.
The reason your dad (or grandfather) likely held the same job his entire life is because 50 years ago, employers were invested in, and took care of, their employees. My grandfather worked for GE his entire life (outside his time in WWII), and it wasn't because there weren't other jobs he could have gone to. They offered him a pension, which you just cannot find anymore. Today you get crappy health care, and if you're lucky a 3% pay raise every year, and if you are high enough on the ladder, a Christmas bonus that actually means anything. Employers just don't invest in employees like they used to.
Granted, it's not in person, but I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders. As for what he would do differently from Chavez? Well, for one he wouldn't abolish the US Constitution. He would have to work with Congress and within the confines set by the Supreme Court just the same as any other presidential candidate will have to. If you're asking about his specific policy stances, you should probably go to his website for those.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Followed by the executives saying "We've saved $10 million so let's give ourselves $11 million raises. Oh no, we're in the red again. Time for more layoffs!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
The thing is, unless you switch jobs, you are actually doing the same job. Why do you deserve more money simply for the fact that you have been doing the same thing longer than everybody else?
Because the cost of living has gone up (inflation), so paying you the same absolute amount of money to do that job is actually paying you a lower value. Why do you think that someone who remains in a job is worth less than someone with zero experience?
I realize that with people who do IT work such as programmers or system admins that there is an increased level of productivity you can get from those who have more knowledge of the code and/or systems that are dealt specifically at a single company, but after a point, you fail to actually provide more value than you did the previous year. Essentially, you plateau.
But again - you don't provide less value, which is what not giving you a pay raise in line with inflation reflects.
Well yes, that's because every time someone brings out "means testing", they don't mean "we're going to check for people fraudulently claiming this thing", because the actual rate of fraudulent claiming is very low (contrary to what your local/national news channels will tell you). Instead, what they mean is "we're going to make the test for being disabled harder to prove, and take disability benefits away from people who genuinely are disabled".
In the UK, more "means testing" was brought in for disability benefit a few years ago. They introduced the idea that you needed to prove to an independent doctor (not your own, regular GP), that you were disabled. If you didn't go to this brand new doctor, at a date and time of the governments choosing, then you did not qualify.
This meant that for certain disabilities, it was nearly impossible to successfully claim. For example, people with cystic fibrosis had two options. Either they had a day where they could barely move, and did not make it to the doctor (bam, no ability to claim now). Or they had a day where they could move, made it to the doctor, and the doctor said "well, you made it here, and you're talking to me, clearly you can do an office job" (bam, no ability to claim).
Outside of the hipster lifestyle in San Francisco and other tech hotbeds, the "gig economy" isn't being celebrated as a major achievement in labor economics. It's a major disruptor, and not in a good way. Doing freelance style work is fine for artists, performers and younger people with no responsibilities other than themselves. Try stitching together a living on 6 jobs at a time while being a parent. Hot internet startups are getting all the tech press lately, and I am worried that engineered PR for things like Uber, Airbnb, Etsy and other "sharing economy" companies is going to permanently shift companies' perception on their workforces. I worry that they're going to take the media's Millenial caricatures that are held up as being the new way forward, and conclude that people don't want to work stable jobs anymore. As a short aside, I'm seeing this in workplaces also; HR people are panicking that the image of a Millenial they've seen in the media (social, job hopper, entitled, etc.) isn't going to want to work for their stuffy old company, so they're slavishly copying Google and turning their office spaces into all-inclusive preschools. Our stuffy old company is doing this now and it's very humorous to watch them try to act like they cater to a bunch of hipsters -- it's like a life insurance salesman trying to market to a bunch of extreme snowboarder dudes.
Unless society reorganizes itself totally around people having a variable income, the resulting instability of more and more jobs being automated, outsourced or part-time "gigs" is going to have a major effect on economies. 30-year mortgages were developed when people had one or maybe two jobs in their entire career. Same thing with car loans and credit card lending -- all of these assume a steady stream of income to pay current obligations as well as a progression of income over a career. If things get to a point where unemployment or underemployment wipes enough people out, things are going to get pretty hairy. No one is going to want to buy a house, a car, or anything at all if they don't think they can pay for it. People will be moving their whole families around the country every few years military-style and whatever sense of community people have now is going to disappear.
I sound like a relic, I know, but I do miss employer/employee loyalty. I'm fortunate to work for a good employer, but know many people who are willingly being taken advantage of by bad ones. I know that for companies to be loyal to their employees, there has to be some give on the employee side also, and a lot of people don't understand that. I've worked under people who have had 20 and 25 year stints at the same employer in the past. IBM was pretty famous for this, and although their corporate culture was weird and you had to make some sacrifices, if you worked hard they would make sure you were taken care of. Same with big companies like GE, defense contractors and others. I just hope companies realize that not everyone is a Milennial living in their Mom's basement or in an apartment with 6 other people. Some of us have real world/family responsibilities and aren't looking to hop jobs every 6 months for a 10% pay raise.
I think that if employees did show a little more loyalty (which is a huge ask in the current climate, I know) then companies would respond by training people properly, not firing them every time the stock goes down a few percent, etc. The problem is shifting the public perception away from the "entitled job hoppers" that the media loves to portray as normal.
It means you have absolutely no security.
You can have plenty of job security as a freelancer just so long as you do something valuable. If what you are doing isn't very valuable then you won't have any job security no matter where you are working.
No benefits, no paid time off, etc. None of this is conducive to a proper work/life balance.
Welcome to being an entrepreneur. You want time off? You earn enough to take some time. You want work/life balance? You earn it. Sometimes getting there requires working pretty hard for a while. You talk about work/life balance as if it is something you are entitled to have rather than something you earn. There's nothing wrong with working for someone else but very few people can earn a substantial income without a lot of time, effort and risk.
This is fine when you are single and have a safety net to fall back on. But that doesn't work when hard times hit and you have no net and/or you have a family.
Working for a company won't protect you when hard times hit. In fact it tends to create a false sense of security. It's up to you to build a safety net. And having a family does not preclude starting a company or working for yourself. I've experienced all those things at various times.
The article defines the "commons" as sharing the meager resources available to the masses. But if we are one society, the commons are the property of the society as a whole. As technology increases productivity it also reduces the need for labor. So the wealth moves to the owners of the tech. Society can't survive unless there is a mechanism to re-distribute that wealth. It will happen by progressive taxation (like the 90% top marginal rate in the Eisenhower administration) or it will happen by revolution. I think everyone (including the rich) would prefer that it happen by taxation.
Our country does not exist to serve the theoretical construct of the "free market" (which of course is highly manipulated and not at all free). It exists to serve the people who live here.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
Essentially, you plateau. Once you plateau, you probably aren't worth getting paid significantly more than you were before.
If that were true, you wouldn't be able to leave for more pay since you'd already be making your market rate.
640 jobs oughta be enough for anyone
Table-ized A.I.