The Job is the Thing

[TV and credit cards]

I pretty much worked for non-profits my entire life: US Navy, National Park Service, and the FAA. In the navy, without fear of termination, I had the luxury of learning how to manage people the right way. Now you'd think everyone in a leadership position would see this opportunity for what it was but no. I think it was pretty much just me. While everyone was laser focused on advancing their own careers, I enabled and empowered my people on the theory that their relative contentment in their jobs would reflect on me in a positive way. And you know what? It worked, by George. My people went about their work with little prodding from me save for that morning push out the door. But who am I to cast stones.
I think this is the biggest problem with management, with leadership positions. Everyone is worried about their own ass. And in the civilian world, it's probably justified. I'm guessing in large corporations, the powers that be likely don't care about anything below the department head level. But I never had to live in that world and I don't feel like I missed out.
In the federal service (non-military) management means little more than "I got out of the cube farm and get a bigger paycheck than you". In the FAA though I be the handyman, I was grouped in with the maintenance techs who took care of the voice recorders, radar, and fancy lighting systems. They did routine maintenance, signed off that it was complete and the supervising managers forwarded the report up to the area manager. No one ever spot checked the maintenance. I found out the supervising managers didn't even possess access badges that allowed them in the secured area to check maintenance. They could have had them. Should have had them. But didn't. All they cared about was the report.

In the navy people rotate from ship to shore. You were likely to see two different managers (chiefs/division officers) at any given duty station. From my experiences I came to the conclusion, it's not necessarily about the job. it's who you have to work for. A bad boss can make the best job a miserable experience and vice versa. When I started shore duty in the navy HR dept at Subic Bay as one of three people would helped folks with their passports and visas, I had what was to me one of the most satisfying jobs and my worst boss ever. That lieutenant was terrible. She was openly hostile toward the civilian Filipino workforce. Even tried to get them to stop speaking Tagalog in the office. Then the senior enlisted person read the navy reg to her at morning quarters that stated we are all allowed to speak whatever language we want. Whatever gets the job done. That shut her up. Luckily I only had to tolerate her for about six months before she transferred. Her replacement was great. Only then was it the best job I ever had.

 

[rousseau]

The revolution and whatever system it's supposed to usher in is like the messiah. It's coming but still not here so we have to make due with what we have.

It's not going to happen with that attitude.

If you want a revolution, you're going to have to get off your arse and revolt - take your lead from the French.

Whenever I hear tales of woe from Americans who are being abused, chewed up, and then chucked out with no means of support, by their hideous and evil employment and social systems, I'm amazed that this hasn't yet led to a bloody and vicious uprising by the downtrodden workers.

WTF is wrong with you guys? Why do you put up with this shit?

Occasionally someone gets smart, goes to their workplace, and shoots the joint up. But there's no organisation or planning, and the folks who get shot are usually just bit-part players and unfortunate bystanders, while the kingpins who coordinate the misery of the people remain unscathed and untouched.

Even the notoriously stoic and fatalistic Russians had a revolution against being treated like shit by their aristocracy. But Americans don't even seem to grasp that their aristocracy exists.

The first step to a solution is to admit that you have a problem.

The second step is to build some guillotines.

the problem is people don't want to change. Perversely many believe you have no right complain about mistreatment and it's actually wrong of you to do so. many really just want to be rich and abusive themselves. people where I live would kill advocates for universal health care if they could do it and get away with it.

Here ignorance is something be proud of or education not highly respected. The reasoning goes "I'm the manager of the local big box store and how dare you insinuate your better than me cause you went to college. And those PhDs really don't know anything that important. If it was important they would not have to depend on the government teat for their salaries. If I took the time and read fifty books I could know what they know in no time . I proved my self and my knowledge by making it with the market"

I hate to say it but the USA really needs another country to come and knock the shit out of it and throw it against a concrete wall a few times. then maybe, just maybe a lot of bad social myths would get dispelled.

this is what is so scary about Trump, de Santos and others like them. If they actually infiltrate and take over and keep power through sham elections no other country is going to come kick out butts and put us in our place like what happened to Germany in WWII

Politically, one of the big issues with revolution is that the U.S. is really a number of loosely connected states and regions, with different cultures. You could even call it a set of.. United States. It's a lot harder to change the entire country for the better when you have 10 different opinions on what that means.

The U.S. is more analogous to the Eurozone in terms of political units, than it is a country like France or Germany. Compare say, California and Alabama. They aren't really the same place in any meaningful way, beyond both existing in the same country.

You can't really speak about the U.S. as a homogenous place, because it's just not.

 

[Gospel]

I pretty much worked for non-profits my entire life: US Navy, National Park Service, and the FAA. In the navy, without fear of termination, I had the luxury of learning how to manage people the right way. Now you'd think everyone in a leadership position would see this opportunity for what it was but no. I think it was pretty much just me. While everyone was laser focused on advancing their own careers, I enabled and empowered my people on the theory that their relative contentment in their jobs would reflect on me in a positive way. And you know what? It worked, by George. My people went about their work with little prodding from me save for that morning push out the door. But who am I to cast stones.
I think this is the biggest problem with management, with leadership positions. Everyone is worried about their own ass. And in the civilian world, it's probably justified. I'm guessing in large corporations, the powers that be likely don't care about anything below the department head level. But I never had to live in that world and I don't feel like I missed out.
In the federal service (non-military) management means little more than "I got out of the cube farm and get a bigger paycheck than you". In the FAA though I be the handyman, I was grouped in with the maintenance techs who took care of the voice recorders, radar, and fancy lighting systems. They did routine maintenance, signed off that it was complete and the supervising managers forwarded the report up to the area manager. No one ever spot checked the maintenance. I found out the supervising managers didn't even possess access badges that allowed them in the secured area to check maintenance. They could have had them. Should have had them. But didn't. All they cared about was the report.

In the navy people rotate from ship to shore. You were likely to see two different managers (chiefs/division officers) at any given duty station. From my experiences I came to the conclusion, it's not necessarily about the job. it's who you have to work for. A bad boss can make the best job a miserable experience and vice versa. When I started shore duty in the navy HR dept at Subic Bay as one of three people would helped folks with their passports and visas, I had what was to me one of the most satisfying jobs and my worst boss ever. That lieutenant was terrible. She was openly hostile toward the civilian Filipino workforce. Even tried to get them to stop speaking Tagalog in the office. Then the senior enlisted person read the navy reg to her at morning quarters that stated we are all allowed to speak whatever language we want. Whatever gets the job done. That shut her up. Luckily I only had to tolerate her for about six months before she transferred. Her replacement was great. Only then was it the best job I ever had.

Facts! A good or bad boss makes all the difference in job satisfaction.

 

[BH]

The revolution and whatever system it's supposed to usher in is like the messiah. It's coming but still not here so we have to make due with what we have.

It's not going to happen with that attitude.

If you want a revolution, you're going to have to get off your arse and revolt - take your lead from the French.

Whenever I hear tales of woe from Americans who are being abused, chewed up, and then chucked out with no means of support, by their hideous and evil employment and social systems, I'm amazed that this hasn't yet led to a bloody and vicious uprising by the downtrodden workers.

WTF is wrong with you guys? Why do you put up with this shit?

Occasionally someone gets smart, goes to their workplace, and shoots the joint up. But there's no organisation or planning, and the folks who get shot are usually just bit-part players and unfortunate bystanders, while the kingpins who coordinate the misery of the people remain unscathed and untouched.

Even the notoriously stoic and fatalistic Russians had a revolution against being treated like shit by their aristocracy. But Americans don't even seem to grasp that their aristocracy exists.

The first step to a solution is to admit that you have a problem.

The second step is to build some guillotines.

the problem is people don't want to change. Perversely many believe you have no right complain about mistreatment and it's actually wrong of you to do so. many really just want to be rich and abusive themselves. people where I live would kill advocates for universal health care if they could do it and get away with it.

Here ignorance is something be proud of or education not highly respected. The reasoning goes "I'm the manager of the local big box store and how dare you insinuate your better than me cause you went to college. And those PhDs really don't know anything that important. If it was important they would not have to depend on the government teat for their salaries. If I took the time and read fifty books I could know what they know in no time . I proved my self and my knowledge by making it with the market"

I hate to say it but the USA really needs another country to come and knock the shit out of it and throw it against a concrete wall a few times. then maybe, just maybe a lot of bad social myths would get dispelled.

this is what is so scary about Trump, de Santos and others like them. If they actually infiltrate and take over and keep power through sham elections no other country is going to come kick out butts and put us in our place like what happened to Germany in WWII

Politically, one of the big issues with revolution is that the U.S. is really a number of loosely connected states and regions, with different cultures. You could even call it a set of.. United States. It's a lot harder to change the entire country for the better when you have 10 different opinions on what that means.

The U.S. is more analogous to the Eurozone in terms of political units, than it is a country like France or Germany. Compare say, California and Alabama. They aren't really the same place in any meaningful way, beyond both existing in the same country.

You can't really speak about the U.S. as a homogenous place, because it's just not.

Right, it's really a confederacy in a lot of ways.

 

[rousseau]

I think this is the biggest problem with management, with leadership positions. Everyone is worried about their own ass. And in the civilian world, it's probably justified. I'm guessing in large corporations, the powers that be likely don't care about anything below the department head level. But I never had to live in that world and I don't feel like I missed out.

It depends a lot on the corporation too. I've worked in software for one medium, and three large orgs, and my experience at all four was significantly different than the others, like way different. You can't really generalize corps in any meaningful way. And even in my current organization, some departments are better than others.

If someone wants a job they enjoy they need to go find it, and when they find it they need to stick to it. Luckily we have tools like Glassdoor now which let us see the interior before buying. I've now blacklisted a number of companies in my city because of what I know about them.

 

[Ruth Harris]

But nothing like the stress of starting/running a business with everything you own on the line along with the welfare of your team and everyone your team have been able to get to work.
Sure, you call your own shots, in theory. I’m reality you become slave to circumstances beyond your control, and your options are few or none - usually choices like work until midnight or get up at 4am knowing that a 14 hour day is going to be the best outcome you can hope for.

That sounds like absolute hell.

I backed out of running my own business full time - I wasn't prepared for it in multiple ways - but several small business owners have said to me that it has brought them some of the highest highs and the lowest lows. It makes entrepreneurship sound like self-inflicted bipolar disorder.

This is the closest thing to absolute truth that I have ever read. I was a small business owner for a few years, and it was the most exhilarating and simultaneously the most exhausting and depressing work I have ever done. That was when I decided that working for someone else was going to be my entire working future.

Ruth

 

[RVonse]

It is my opinion most people are able to do a whole lot more with their lives jobwise and position wise than they ever attain to. The reason for this is that there are not enough jobs to go around for everyone able to do one to have one. Same thing with owning a business. A whole lot of people could own and run one but the economy will only allow so many to exist at a given time.

Totally agree. IMO and for or better or worse, women entering the workforce did not help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying either. Nor were demographics good for baby boomers (myself included) in a global economy where goods consumed were not required to be produced by babyboomers. All else equal, whenever there is an excess of anything (including labor) it becomes worth less to society. And that's not good for the worker or the small entrepreneur. It basically means a "shit" job for low wages.....just one ladder step up from the Apple workers in China.

So, is it your contention that it was the purpose and duty of women to help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying?

Do you think that women were obligated to stay home and raise kids and keep house in order to help men feel more job satisfaction?
Do women's lives not have value other than how it benefits men's lives?

In many, many respects, as women of our generation (boomer here) entered the workforce in greater numbers and not merely to fill in for wartime labor shortages, standards of living increased as families could afford more consumer goods, at least by that measure. Women's lives also improved as they were more able to have real choices in their lives and not confined to marriages that they found unsatisfying or even abusive. Their lives had more value that was recognized by monetary benefits, not simply flowers on Mother's Day and if she was lucky, on her wedding anniversary.

In the above paragraph, you seem to regard workers as separate from women who work. Did I misunderstand that?

And while it is true that wages decreased is that not more a function of the decline of labor unions rather than the increase of women in the paid workforce?

Or are you blaming all of society's ills on women wanting to have jobs and careers? And if so, is it not really the fault of men for not being better husbands and fathers and providing enriched, fulfilling lives for women who made the men's careers and family lives possible by serving as uncompensated (and unrecognized) labor?

I'm not blaming women but I am claiming they were a huge economic driver that in fact caused a big reduction in wages and job enrichment for everyone in the labor market. And it had nothing to do with women except for the fact that their numbers increased the supply of labor which drove down what the labor market was worth to management.

As for the sad decline of unions today, I blame more on globalization then women because at least women were living in this country and were able to join the same unions as men did. Not the case for the workers in Asia competing with the west.

As for feminism, I would estimate that 25% of the workforce might be better off figuring that 1/2 were men and 1/2 of the other half were women who did not want families or anything other than singlehood. 99.9% of labor was much worse off because the only labor unaffected were the CEO's of large corporations. So would you say it was worth it to make 25% of the population better off so that 99.9% were much worse off? Personally, I would say not.

 

[laughing dog]

So would you say it was worth it to make 25% of the population better off so that 99.9% were much worse off? Personally, I would say not.

Your analysis is faulty. First, it is not possible to simultaneously make 25% of the population better off while making 99.9% of the same population worse off. Second, it ignores the effects of globalization on prices to consumers.

 

[Jarhyn]

So would you say it was worth it to make 25% of the population better off so that 99.9% were much worse off? Personally, I would say not.

It is not possible to simultaneously make 25% of the population better off while making 99.9% of the same population worse off.

It can be true, but only on different dimensions of what is made better and worse. Ex: Tom was 25% better off in his financials after screwing Bob with the contract, BUT both Tom and Bob were 99% worse off in the bedroom after Tom's wife left him for cheating her brother, and Bob's wife left him for being a idiot whose refusal to hire a lawyer got his house repossessed.

 

[Toni]

It is my opinion most people are able to do a whole lot more with their lives jobwise and position wise than they ever attain to. The reason for this is that there are not enough jobs to go around for everyone able to do one to have one. Same thing with owning a business. A whole lot of people could own and run one but the economy will only allow so many to exist at a given time.

Totally agree. IMO and for or better or worse, women entering the workforce did not help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying either. Nor were demographics good for baby boomers (myself included) in a global economy where goods consumed were not required to be produced by babyboomers. All else equal, whenever there is an excess of anything (including labor) it becomes worth less to society. And that's not good for the worker or the small entrepreneur. It basically means a "shit" job for low wages.....just one ladder step up from the Apple workers in China.

So, is it your contention that it was the purpose and duty of women to help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying?

Do you think that women were obligated to stay home and raise kids and keep house in order to help men feel more job satisfaction?
Do women's lives not have value other than how it benefits men's lives?

In many, many respects, as women of our generation (boomer here) entered the workforce in greater numbers and not merely to fill in for wartime labor shortages, standards of living increased as families could afford more consumer goods, at least by that measure. Women's lives also improved as they were more able to have real choices in their lives and not confined to marriages that they found unsatisfying or even abusive. Their lives had more value that was recognized by monetary benefits, not simply flowers on Mother's Day and if she was lucky, on her wedding anniversary.

In the above paragraph, you seem to regard workers as separate from women who work. Did I misunderstand that?

And while it is true that wages decreased is that not more a function of the decline of labor unions rather than the increase of women in the paid workforce?

Or are you blaming all of society's ills on women wanting to have jobs and careers? And if so, is it not really the fault of men for not being better husbands and fathers and providing enriched, fulfilling lives for women who made the men's careers and family lives possible by serving as uncompensated (and unrecognized) labor?

I'm not blaming women but I am claiming they were a huge economic driver that in fact caused a big reduction in wages and job enrichment for everyone in the labor market. And it had nothing to do with women except for the fact that their numbers increased the supply of labor which drove down what the labor market was worth to management.

As for the sad decline of unions today, I blame more on globalization then women because at least women were living in this country and were able to join the same unions as men did. Not the case for the workers in Asia competing with the west.

As for feminism, I would estimate that 25% of the workforce might be better off figuring that 1/2 were men and 1/2 of the other half were women who did not want families or anything other than singlehood. 99.9% of labor was much worse off because the only labor unaffected were the CEO's of large corporations. So would you say it was worth it to make 25% of the population better off so that 99.9% were much worse off? Personally, I would say not.

So, you are unable to see it as a good thing thst women might want a career and a family? It to conceive of the possibility that men , who are assumed to be able to handle both a career and a family ( thanks to women staying at home to raise children) might instead want to stay home to raise children? Or that workplaces could and probably should be much more family friendly?

It sounds as though you want a wholesale return to the 1950’s. Do we also need to bring back segregation by race? Jim Crow? Women being openly excluded from certain careers and openly being paid less than their male counterparts? Restricted neighborhoods and clubs?

You do know that Leave Or To Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days were all fiction, right? And also that June was smarter and better informed about the stock market than Ward?

 

[Ford]

I think this is the biggest problem with management, with leadership positions. Everyone is worried about their own ass. And in the civilian world, it's probably justified. I'm guessing in large corporations, the powers that be likely don't care about anything below the department head level. But I never had to live in that world and I don't feel like I missed out.

It depends a lot on the corporation too. I've worked in software for one medium, and three large orgs, and my experience at all four was significantly different than the others, like way different. You can't really generalize corps in any meaningful way. And even in my current organization, some departments are better than others.

It also depends on the people in charge of the division or department. When I started working for CBS back in 2000, the head of the radio division came to town to welcome us to the company. We were watching our friends over at Clear Channel being laid off and shackled with restrictions from "corporate," and so everyone was rightly concerned. In our meeting, the guy was getting peppered with questions like "what's corporate policy on this" or "how much does corporate have a say in local operations" and such. It was "well that's up to your local manager" or "ask your local leadership." He finally got a little frustrated and said something like "look...as long as you keep sending us checks, we don't care what you do here." It was very decentralized, and "corporate" didn't interfere.

When he left, new people came in and instituted more corporate and regional control. There was a "management structure" put into place, and local people had to report to regional vice presidents of important things and stuff. There was a huge top-down programming dictate that didn't go well. Then the previous guy came back and we were left to our own devices again. There were people who came in from other markets (Houston, Miami, etc) and things were so different they might as well have been from another company. But again, we were making money, so "corporate" left us alone.

Then they brought in a Wall Street exec for the top job, and he turned out to be the guy who set up the division to be spun off to another company. Budget cuts, "efficiencies," and more top-down control. I remember having a conversation with my assistant at the time. He was (rightfully) asking for a significant raise as he'd demonstrated his worth and was starting a family. I had to explain to him why that wasn't going to happen. I said "look, to corporate, you're not a person. You're an entry on a spreadsheet. If the number associated with your line goes up too much, it messes up their math and it's going to be rejected. What you need to do is get another job title so that you're on a different line." The HR director - who was part of the conversation - nodded. "Yep."

He eventually did move to another position, got his big raise, and then like me he was eventually laid off a few years after the company was sold to the new owners.

Anyway, the point is that a lot of times it comes down to the person at the top. The top of the entire company sets the tone (Twitter is in chaos now because of some guy) and that filters down and is flavored by people down the line. I'm watching this unfold at my job now. The head of our department came from outside of the business with a whole bunch of ideas and a "it must be this way" attitude. At first I did not like him, but he's come around to our way of thinking.

 

[RVonse]

So would you say it was worth it to make 25% of the population better off so that 99.9% were much worse off? Personally, I would say not.

Your analysis is faulty. First, it is not possible to simultaneously make 25% of the population better off while making 99.9% of the same population worse off. Second, it ignores the effects of globalization on prices to consumers.

It most certainly is possible to make 25% of the population better off while making 99.9% worse off because the 25% are better off in overall quality of life, yet worse off (sharing with the 99.9%) for being less in demand labor wise. While globalization was also a huge driver, it is not relevant to the discussion of feminism since globalization affected everyone in the west regardless of sex.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[RVonse]

It is my opinion most people are able to do a whole lot more with their lives jobwise and position wise than they ever attain to. The reason for this is that there are not enough jobs to go around for everyone able to do one to have one. Same thing with owning a business. A whole lot of people could own and run one but the economy will only allow so many to exist at a given time.

Totally agree. IMO and for or better or worse, women entering the workforce did not help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying either. Nor were demographics good for baby boomers (myself included) in a global economy where goods consumed were not required to be produced by babyboomers. All else equal, whenever there is an excess of anything (including labor) it becomes worth less to society. And that's not good for the worker or the small entrepreneur. It basically means a "shit" job for low wages.....just one ladder step up from the Apple workers in China.

So, is it your contention that it was the purpose and duty of women to help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying?

Do you think that women were obligated to stay home and raise kids and keep house in order to help men feel more job satisfaction?
Do women's lives not have value other than how it benefits men's lives?

In many, many respects, as women of our generation (boomer here) entered the workforce in greater numbers and not merely to fill in for wartime labor shortages, standards of living increased as families could afford more consumer goods, at least by that measure. Women's lives also improved as they were more able to have real choices in their lives and not confined to marriages that they found unsatisfying or even abusive. Their lives had more value that was recognized by monetary benefits, not simply flowers on Mother's Day and if she was lucky, on her wedding anniversary.

In the above paragraph, you seem to regard workers as separate from women who work. Did I misunderstand that?

And while it is true that wages decreased is that not more a function of the decline of labor unions rather than the increase of women in the paid workforce?

Or are you blaming all of society's ills on women wanting to have jobs and careers? And if so, is it not really the fault of men for not being better husbands and fathers and providing enriched, fulfilling lives for women who made the men's careers and family lives possible by serving as uncompensated (and unrecognized) labor?

I'm not blaming women but I am claiming they were a huge economic driver that in fact caused a big reduction in wages and job enrichment for everyone in the labor market. And it had nothing to do with women except for the fact that their numbers increased the supply of labor which drove down what the labor market was worth to management.

As for the sad decline of unions today, I blame more on globalization then women because at least women were living in this country and were able to join the same unions as men did. Not the case for the workers in Asia competing with the west.

As for feminism, I would estimate that 25% of the workforce might be better off figuring that 1/2 were men and 1/2 of the other half were women who did not want families or anything other than singlehood. 99.9% of labor was much worse off because the only labor unaffected were the CEO's of large corporations. So would you say it was worth it to make 25% of the population better off so that 99.9% were much worse off? Personally, I would say not.

So, you are unable to see it as a good thing thst women might want a career and a family? It to conceive of the possibility that men , who are assumed to be able to handle both a career and a family ( thanks to women staying at home to raise children) might instead want to stay home to raise children? Or that workplaces could and probably should be much more family friendly?

It sounds as though you want a wholesale return to the 1950’s. Do we also need to bring back segregation by race? Jim Crow? Women being openly excluded from certain careers and openly being paid less than their male counterparts? Restricted neighborhoods and clubs?

You do know that Leave Or To Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days were all fiction, right? And also that June was smarter and better informed about the stock market than Ward?

Comparing today with yesteryear. You would have to agree some were better off and some were worse off then? The only claim I make is the number of people better off versus worse off today only with regards to the labor market. Discounting all the other social problems having both parents working instead of raising their own children.

And I'm making this claim without watching television because I actually grew up in the 1960's. A time when my dad easily supported a middle class lifestyle and I rode my bike or walked to school without any concern.

 

[Toni]

It is my opinion most people are able to do a whole lot more with their lives jobwise and position wise than they ever attain to. The reason for this is that there are not enough jobs to go around for everyone able to do one to have one. Same thing with owning a business. A whole lot of people could own and run one but the economy will only allow so many to exist at a given time.

Totally agree. IMO and for or better or worse, women entering the workforce did not help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying either. Nor were demographics good for baby boomers (myself included) in a global economy where goods consumed were not required to be produced by babyboomers. All else equal, whenever there is an excess of anything (including labor) it becomes worth less to society. And that's not good for the worker or the small entrepreneur. It basically means a "shit" job for low wages.....just one ladder step up from the Apple workers in China.

So, is it your contention that it was the purpose and duty of women to help average jobs become more meaningful, enriched and/or satisfying?

Do you think that women were obligated to stay home and raise kids and keep house in order to help men feel more job satisfaction?
Do women's lives not have value other than how it benefits men's lives?

In many, many respects, as women of our generation (boomer here) entered the workforce in greater numbers and not merely to fill in for wartime labor shortages, standards of living increased as families could afford more consumer goods, at least by that measure. Women's lives also improved as they were more able to have real choices in their lives and not confined to marriages that they found unsatisfying or even abusive. Their lives had more value that was recognized by monetary benefits, not simply flowers on Mother's Day and if she was lucky, on her wedding anniversary.

In the above paragraph, you seem to regard workers as separate from women who work. Did I misunderstand that?

And while it is true that wages decreased is that not more a function of the decline of labor unions rather than the increase of women in the paid workforce?

Or are you blaming all of society's ills on women wanting to have jobs and careers? And if so, is it not really the fault of men for not being better husbands and fathers and providing enriched, fulfilling lives for women who made the men's careers and family lives possible by serving as uncompensated (and unrecognized) labor?

I'm not blaming women but I am claiming they were a huge economic driver that in fact caused a big reduction in wages and job enrichment for everyone in the labor market. And it had nothing to do with women except for the fact that their numbers increased the supply of labor which drove down what the labor market was worth to management.

As for the sad decline of unions today, I blame more on globalization then women because at least women were living in this country and were able to join the same unions as men did. Not the case for the workers in Asia competing with the west.

As for feminism, I would estimate that 25% of the workforce might be better off figuring that 1/2 were men and 1/2 of the other half were women who did not want families or anything other than singlehood. 99.9% of labor was much worse off because the only labor unaffected were the CEO's of large corporations. So would you say it was worth it to make 25% of the population better off so that 99.9% were much worse off? Personally, I would say not.

So, you are unable to see it as a good thing thst women might want a career and a family? It to conceive of the possibility that men , who are assumed to be able to handle both a career and a family ( thanks to women staying at home to raise children) might instead want to stay home to raise children? Or that workplaces could and probably should be much more family friendly?

It sounds as though you want a wholesale return to the 1950’s. Do we also need to bring back segregation by race? Jim Crow? Women being openly excluded from certain careers and openly being paid less than their male counterparts? Restricted neighborhoods and clubs?

You do know that Leave Or To Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show and Happy Days were all fiction, right? And also that June was smarter and better informed about the stock market than Ward?

Comparing today with yesteryear. You would have to agree some were better off and some were worse off then? The only claim I make is the number of people better off versus worse off today only with regards to the labor market. Discounting all the other social problems having both parents working instead of raising their own children.

And I'm making this claim without watching television because I actually grew up in the 1960's. A time when my dad easily supported a middle class lifestyle and I rode my bike or walked to school without any concern.

Take it from me: it is not a good thing to have a parent raising their kids when they really do need to have work that is satisfying to them in ways that keeping house and raising children is not---no matter how much they love their children.

I also grew up in the 1960's. Somehow, I had always imagined that you were a couple of decades younger than I am but I'd guess we are near the same age. That's the reason I mentioned the shows I did. Even as a child, I was very much aware that they were not a reflection of reality but were actually nostalgia based.

My father also was the sole wage earner in my family, something that neither he nor my mother were actually happy about. We lived what I thought was a middle class lifestyle back then. Today, the same lifestyle would have us categorized as poor, although as far as I know, there were never any issues with being able to pay rent or later, mortgage, utilities or for food, although our food budget was heavily subsidized by my father/uncle/grandfather's hunting and gardens/farming. My parents did an excellent job of never really making us feel poor--we just did not have much money. We frequently went camping and even traveled from the mid-West to Washington DC and to Florida--via car and cheap motels or tents, depending on when you are talking about. I was married and with a child before I ever got on an airplane.

They were less happy with how their lives were turning out. My father worked for the same corporation from the time he was 19 until he retired, moving up the ranks from warehouse to corporate and even gaining some patents. But he hated his job so much that we used to hear him vomiting every morning as my mother urged us to eat our breakfast before going to school. My siblings and I were not better off than the families that we grew up and raised--not financially and not emotionally, although some of us had some serious financial struggles and only one of us (me) is still married.

There is a large disparity in this country between the very wealthy and the next tier of income earners and of course between the very wealthy and the poor.

1. Trends in income and wealth inequality

Barely 10 years past the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the U.S. economy is doing well on several fronts. The labor market is on a job-creating

www.pewresearch.org

View attachment income inequality.webp

 

[bilby]

Comparing today with yesteryear. You would have to agree some were better off and some were worse off then?

Not really. People in general are FAR better off today, and very few are worse off.

Back in the '60s, even the richest people in the world couldn't have had a cellphone, a home computer, a widescreen HD TV, or any number of things that working class people today take completely for granted.

Life is objectively better today than at any time in the past, and that's true to such a massive and undeniable degree that even the people at the very bottom of the heap are generally able to do things today that they couldn't have dreamed of in the 1960s.

 

[Jarhyn]

Comparing today with yesteryear. You would have to agree some were better off and some were worse off then?

Not really. People in general are FAR better off today, and very few are worse off.

Back in the '60s, even the richest people in the world couldn't have had a cellphone, a home computer, a widescreen HD TV, or any number of things that working class people today take completely for granted.

Life is objectively better today than at any time in the past, and that's true to such a massive and undeniable degree that even the people at the very bottom of the heap are generally able to do things today that they couldn't have dreamed of in the 1960s.

It comes and goes for some people. Is life better for me to have a cellphone, or is life better for me to not worry the government is going to come and take away my kids*?

Many families didn't worry about that five years ago, even if they probably should have been concerned it was coming back.

*This is rhetorical, I have no children but the point stands, if I did.

 

[Toni]

Comparing today with yesteryear. You would have to agree some were better off and some were worse off then?

Not really. People in general are FAR better off today, and very few are worse off.

Back in the '60s, even the richest people in the world couldn't have had a cellphone, a home computer, a widescreen HD TV, or any number of things that working class people today take completely for granted.

Life is objectively better today than at any time in the past, and that's true to such a massive and undeniable degree that even the people at the very bottom of the heap are generally able to do things today that they couldn't have dreamed of in the 1960s.

It comes and goes for some people. Is life better for me to have a cellphone, or is life better for me to not worry the government is going to come and take away my kids*?

Many families didn't worry about that five years ago, even if they probably should have been concerned it was coming back.

*This is rhetorical, I have no children but the point stands, if I did.

When I was growing up, and where I grew up, people who were not obviously cis-heterosexual had a very difficult time and were mostly closeted. It was different in some places, especially in bigger cities but not that different. I was only vaguely aware of what it might mean to be homosexual when I was in high school, although a decent number of my friends were gay. Only one was gay and unable to hide or pretend to be anything else. His life was not easy--for many reasons aside from being a somewhat effeminate gay boy in small town midwest in the 70's. A family member was almost certainly a mostly closeted gay man his entire life although he married and raised a family. Another family member mentioned something at some point and....a lot of things fell into place. So, no, life would have been infinitely more difficult if you were unhappy about passing as straight. I've known people about my own age who did that: sometimes presented themselves as happily gay and then later, made a couple of very unhappy stabs at straight heterosexual marriage. I have a friend, a woman, who has been with her partner for over 20 years. They married last year. My friend does not see herself as gay. She just happens to love a woman.

So while it is still very difficult to not be what is commonly considered 'normal' that is straight cis and preferably white and male, it is easier for people of your generation than of mine. My generation found it easier to not be straight/cis. Not easy but easier. Some have severed ties with family who were unable or unwilling to accept them. Some have family that welcomes them with open arms. Which does not mean everything is easy. It's not. I know it's difficult in ways that I cannot imagine.

May generations that follow us all have a much easier time being themselves without fear and with love and acceptance.

 

[bilby]

The various governments of the twentieth century were more likely to come and take away your kids (or yourself) than those in the twenty-first.

My argument is not that things are perfect, nor even that they are good; But that they are, on average, over timescales of a few decades, generally improving.

And that the rate if improvement is such that the vast majority of people are far better off today than the vast majority were in the 1960s.

Nostalgia is a case of faulty and selective memory, coupled with the genuine fact that as individuals we were younger in the past, and young people typically have better health, fewer responsibilities, and more optimism than old people.

The sixties were great if you grew up in the sixties. Not because times were better back then, but because you were a better person back then.

 

[Jarhyn]

The various governments of the twentieth century were more likely to come and take away your kids (or yourself) than those in the twenty-first.

My argument is not that things are perfect, nor even that they are good; But that they are, on average, over timescales of a few decades, generally improving.

And that the rate if improvement is such that the vast majority of people are far better off today than the vast majority were in the 1960s.

Nostalgia is a case of faulty and selective memory, coupled with the genuine fact that as individuals we were younger in the past, and young people typically have better health, fewer responsibilities, and more optimism than old people.

The sixties were great if you grew up in the sixties. Not because times were better back then, but because you were a better person back then.

This is all true but should be offered with a cautionary warning at the head and foot:

This can never be used as an excuse to think that any individual thing must necessarily be better now than it was at some given time in the past.

Work and discernment over which is better in the present and for the future must continue.