You're OK! I promise you WILL work again. Good people always do. In the meantime, if you are still without job, get work doing anything. It will be good for you psychologically and emotionally.
This isn't a personal attack on your comment - you have some very valid points. My take on this is - "Well, what did you expect?"
Let me explain. Every cycle in the job market is basically a "game" with new rules being laid down each time a new, "hot" thing comes along. For instance, college degrees were the thing about 20 years ago - ANY college degree in ANY subject to get a "good" job. Bam! People reacted and a glut emerged! Then only CERTAIN college degrees guaranteed jobs. Then, came the technical school craze - and, BAM! - techno-glut.
In this latest craze, it started with computer certifications only a handful of years ago - $50,000 for an MCSE with 0 to 6 months experience! Well, what did you expect? People react - if you put such a high price on so little training, you'll get the market glutted in no time. It's not THEIR fault that YOU changed the rules. It's just a game employers play. People aren't bad, stupid or even LAZY! They're just playing by the "rules"! If employers would hire people for "character" reasons and train them rather than hire them to fill their latest "techno-angst", we'd have a lot less people changing careers every couple years. Now that the rules have changed, this new generation of "cookbook" 20-somethings, who were promised big salaries for little training, have to drop back and regroup. This was referenced in a FORTUNE magazine article: "The Humbled Generation".
Employers are not philanthropic enterprises, they are in business to make money - period. My gripe about that is the "H/R" departments. Who's hired and WHY? The basic HR department philosophy has not changed in over 20 years. This has FORCED people to take every shortcut imaginable in order to get the highest-paying job with the least training in the shortest amount of time. Unfortunately, this does NOT lend itself to long-term, stable workplaces. It's "get rich quick" - or - "Everybody ELSE is getting a piece of the pie with a little training, why not ME!". Something has to change - or else, people will adapt again to next "hot" thing once they understand the NEW RULES of employment and we will have gluts and layoffs again eventually with that also. What ever happened to working for the same employer for 30 years - those days are gone! This current glut of I.T. sector, cookbook techies is only a symptom of the overall employment culture in the U.S.A. My point is that we need a change in employer/employee philosophy. People aren't happy in their work - they just got enough training to get a reasonably well-paying job, NOT because they wanted to DO that job! What did you expect, afterall, YOU put so much emphasis on IMAGE ("I'm successful because I'm making a lot of money") or SUV's ("You ARE what you drive") or material posessions ("I've bought ALL the right THINGS - Why aren't I happy???"). In a few decades, we will be able to objectively state that we really DO need character, that T.V. advertising WAS harmful in promoting unnatural acquisition of "things" and that people should work at things they LOVE to do, not because it makes a lot of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Derek,
You're OK! I promise you WILL work again. Good people always do. In the meantime, if you are still without job, get work doing anything. It will be good for you psychologically and emotionally.
This isn't a personal attack on your comment - you have some very valid points. My take on this is - "Well, what did you expect?" Let me explain. Every cycle in the job market is basically a "game" with new rules being laid down each time a new, "hot" thing comes along. For instance, college degrees were the thing about 20 years ago - ANY college degree in ANY subject to get a "good" job. Bam! People reacted and a glut emerged! Then only CERTAIN college degrees guaranteed jobs. Then, came the technical school craze - and, BAM! - techno-glut. In this latest craze, it started with computer certifications only a handful of years ago - $50,000 for an MCSE with 0 to 6 months experience! Well, what did you expect? People react - if you put such a high price on so little training, you'll get the market glutted in no time. It's not THEIR fault that YOU changed the rules. It's just a game employers play. People aren't bad, stupid or even LAZY! They're just playing by the "rules"! If employers would hire people for "character" reasons and train them rather than hire them to fill their latest "techno-angst", we'd have a lot less people changing careers every couple years. Now that the rules have changed, this new generation of "cookbook" 20-somethings, who were promised big salaries for little training, have to drop back and regroup. This was referenced in a FORTUNE magazine article: "The Humbled Generation". Employers are not philanthropic enterprises, they are in business to make money - period. My gripe about that is the "H/R" departments. Who's hired and WHY? The basic HR department philosophy has not changed in over 20 years. This has FORCED people to take every shortcut imaginable in order to get the highest-paying job with the least training in the shortest amount of time. Unfortunately, this does NOT lend itself to long-term, stable workplaces. It's "get rich quick" - or - "Everybody ELSE is getting a piece of the pie with a little training, why not ME!". Something has to change - or else, people will adapt again to next "hot" thing once they understand the NEW RULES of employment and we will have gluts and layoffs again eventually with that also. What ever happened to working for the same employer for 30 years - those days are gone! This current glut of I.T. sector, cookbook techies is only a symptom of the overall employment culture in the U.S.A. My point is that we need a change in employer/employee philosophy. People aren't happy in their work - they just got enough training to get a reasonably well-paying job, NOT because they wanted to DO that job! What did you expect, afterall, YOU put so much emphasis on IMAGE ("I'm successful because I'm making a lot of money") or SUV's ("You ARE what you drive") or material posessions ("I've bought ALL the right THINGS - Why aren't I happy???"). In a few decades, we will be able to objectively state that we really DO need character, that T.V. advertising WAS harmful in promoting unnatural acquisition of "things" and that people should work at things they LOVE to do, not because it makes a lot of money.