From the Economist:
ONE of the perks of getting old is that you are allowed to talk nonsense about the young. Plato was said to have complained that young people “disrespect their elders” and “ignore the law”. Peter the Hermit griped that they “think of nothing but themselves” and are “impatient of all restraint”. Today, grizzled business pundits tend to mix in some praise with their gripes. But they abuse the privilege of age as much as anyone ever did.
Such modern-day sages tell employers they must adjust their management styles to meet the expectations of millennials—those born between 1980 and 2000, also known as generation Y. These people are now the largest group in America’s workforce, making up 37% of the total, compared with 34% for the baby-boomers—those born up to the mid-1960s, now retiring in droves. It is often pointed out that millennials are the first generation to have grown up in the digital era. That is true, but much else that is said about them is conjecture. They are said to be natural collaborators. Everything from their education in kindergartens to their participation in social media has turned them into team players. But at the same time they reject careerism and are allergic to being managed. Tamara Erickson, a consultant and author of “Plugged In: The Generation Y Guide to Thriving at Work”, says millennials “think in terms of how to make the most out of today and make sure that what they are doing is meaningful, interesting and challenging.” Andrew Swinand of Abundant Venture Partners, a venture-capital firm, says that doing business responsibly is the millennials’ “new religion”. The only way to attract and retain these highly strung creatures is to turn your offices into open-plan playpens and boost the corporate social responsibility (CSR) budget.
Finding evidence that contradicts all this is not hard. CEB, a consulting firm, polls 90,000 American employees each quarter. It finds that the millennials among them are in fact the most competitive: 59% of them, in the latest poll, said competition is “what gets them up in the morning”, compared with 50% of baby-boomers. Some 58% of millennials said they compare their performance with their peers’, as against 48% for other generations. They may spend much time messaging with other millennials on their smartphones, but they do not have much faith in them. Fully 37% of millennials say they don’t trust their peers’ input at work; for other generations the average was 26%. This is a generation of individualists, not collaborators. As for the idea that they are anti-careerist, CEB’s poll finds that 33% of millennials put “future career opportunity” among their top five reasons for choosing a job, compared with 21% for other generations. Likewise for corporate do-goodery: only 35% of millennials put a high emphasis on CSR, compared with 41% of baby-boomers.
…
Jennifer Deal of the Centre for Creative Leadership, an executive-training outfit, and Alec Levenson of the University of Southern California studied 25,000 people in 22 countries and concluded that most generalisations about millennials as employees are “inconsistent at best and destructive at worst.”
…
It would be going too far to say that there are no differences between the generations. There are variations in consumption patterns. Young people are much more likely to get their news from BuzzFeed than baby-boomers are. But these do not necessarily translate into different attitudes to work. Ms Deal notes that millennials who have been in a job for a couple of years have much more conventional attitudes to work than those of the same age who are still at university. Some differences in attitudes cross the generations. In CEB’s recent poll, 51% of millennials said they would look for a job at another organisation within the coming year compared with 37% of generation X-ers and 18% of baby-boomers.
…
The most striking thing about the research data compiled by the likes of CEB and the Centre for Creative Leadership is how much workers of different generations have in common. They want roughly the same things regardless of when they were born: to be given interesting work to do, to be rewarded on the basis of their contributions and to be given the chance to work hard and get ahead.
Frist!
From yesterday below – To this I say, “So what??” Is there really any morality in being a martyr to the church of NJ and its taxation? True, we can generalize that many of the people described below are leaving their state (town/country/etc) in worse shape then they received it. But they are acting in a very predictable and rational way based on the incentives.
If you want to point fingers and place blame. Congrats, your paragraph below succeeded in accomplishing just that. But you also lay out the exact argument for eliminating out-of-state pensions and benefits for all those that currently receive them and for future generations as well. Cut off the spigot and generate change. You have identified the problem and placed blame where you see it, that is the VERY easy and in the case of blame useless part of the job. Now let’s discuss fixing it. Those people that leave the state can no longer vote, they rely on the status quo remaining. Let’s change that for them.
Price of housing did not go up overnight. So 1960′s new house sells for 25k and sells for 425k old, beat up with original kitchen and bathroom.
Sell house and move to FL, or NC like Marilyn.
Take your real pension with you, private or public, still REAL pension.
Take real Social Security with you.
Take real Medicare with you.
Profit.
Then vote against anyone getting the same thing you are receiving.
Let the new guy get a 401k, don’t touch my pension.
Social Security and Medicare for anyone over 55 (me), voucher for younger group (you)
Not only that, I am leaving you with my debt (underfunded pension, social security and medicare, old beat up bridges, roads, infrastructure that I abused for years and did not maintain as that would have required higher taxes which I voted against for years and years. Hey, I have to save for my retirement you know.
You can have my old beat up house, my old beat up car, my old beat up bridge,
my old beat up tunnel, etc.
I’m out of here. You fool!! You paid top dollar for my old beat up house, and I stuffed you with the debt I refuse to pay for. I chose some great politicians over the years didn’t I !!!
I’m Grandfathered!!
So for those that complain about high taxes and high housing prices, one need not look farther than what is listed above……
Whoops
Garland, TX Muhammad Cartoon Shooter Bought Fast & Furious Gun
By Dan Zimmerman on August 1, 2015
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/daniel-zimmerman/garland-tx-muhammad-cartoon-shooter-bought-fast-furious-gun/
Homeboken,
I don’t believe the pensions, Social Security, or Medicare have to be eliminated at all.
Don’t think you need to cut up all of your credit cards either when you overspend, you just budget. Cut on the spending end and tax to shore it up. Eliminate waste and get everyone off that does not belong.
“But they are acting in a very predictable and rational way based on the incentives.”- Sure they were. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt, and they are asking for cost of living wage increases. Predictable, yes, rational?? I guess, in sort of a child in a toy store type of way. I’m sure some actuary can find a number to cut and a number to increase that will balance the system and keep it solvent. It’s all a matter of “who should feel the pain.”
“But you also lay out the exact argument for eliminating out-of-state pensions and benefits for all those that currently receive them and for future generations as well. Cut off the spigot and generate change. You have identified the problem and placed blame where you see it, that is the VERY easy and in the case of blame useless part of the job. Now let’s discuss fixing it. Those people that leave the state can no longer vote, they rely on the status quo remaining. Let’s change that for them. “
>snicker<
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/30/la-union-wants-to-be-exempt-from-15-minimum-wage.html
Biden considering getting into the race. God, I hope so.
From yesterday:
Wait, what, can’t be? No way. You mean Pumpkinomics trickle up theory whereby one (over)pays employees based on need and they then ‘spend it up’ to make everyone better off doesn’t work? Whoda thunk……….
“A CEO from Seattle has been forced to rent out his home after his business suffered when he raised the minimum wage to $70,000. Dan Price, 31, made headlines in the US three months ago when he made the decision to increase the salaries of all 120 staff members at his Gravity Payments credit card processing firm. However, the move, which included Mr Price taking a pay cut, has not ended well, with two employees resigning and several customers walking away as well as part of a backlash against the payrises.”
A little quick to jump to conclusions. How was their business doing before the changes to the pay? How much did the rise in pay impact prices? What was the competitors pricing before and after the raise in pay? I can go on and on.
Another thing, I don’t advocate raising pay as a winning business strategy. Why do you make it sound like that? I’m advocating for bringing balance to share of profits between worker and owner, so it’s more in line with what it was during our golden era(1950’s -1960’s). This has nothing to do with China or any of our competition. This has to do with solely bringing back balance to the profit sharing based on the profit made. As simple as that. 99% of the gains going to one percent of the population is not profit sharing, it’s stealing. Balance that pie a little bit.
So why do you make it sound like I’m advocating that we pay everyone a million dollars and we all will be rich? Yes, you don’t directly say that, but this is what you imply. (Don’t want to be accused of putting words in your mouth)
leftwing says:
August 2, 2015 at 11:08 am
From yesterday:
Wait, what, can’t be? No way. You mean Pumpkinomics trickle up theory whereby one (over)pays employees based on need and they then ‘spend it up’ to make everyone better off doesn’t work? Whoda thunk……….
“A CEO from Seattle has been forced to rent out his home after his business suffered when he raised the minimum wage to $70,000. Dan Price, 31, made headlines in the US three months ago when he made the decision to increase the salaries of all 120 staff members at his Gravity Payments credit card processing firm. However, the move, which included Mr Price taking a pay cut, has not ended well, with two employees resigning and several customers walking away as well as part of a backlash against the payrises.”
I know a lot of retired people who do not want to leave the State too! They love their doctors, have way too much shit and are too overwhelmed to leave and DONT want to leave little grandkids. I don’t think I fit the mold because of age. Im 48 and husband is 51 and retired. I think people who have family here will never leave. They may downscale to a townhouse but wont leave. Some people LOVE IT HERE. I hear all the time if you don’t like the taxes get the hell out. Stop complaining and just leave. Then the light bulb went off, yeah maybe its time. It was hard to find a place that I liked. I hated so many places we went too. This is the only fit for me, and if sucks in time, I will be back here in NJ happy for about 5 years and then the complaining will start all over again!! HAHA! 2 time leaving and I came back. Just picked the wrong place the first time I left the State. There are tons of places that suck and NJ is heaven compared to them. We shall see, closing date August 17th on my house in NJ, and closing date in Raleigh August 27th.
“A CEO from Seattle has been forced to rent out his home after his business suffered when he raised the minimum wage to $70,000. Dan Price, 31, made headlines in the US three months ago when he made the decision to increase the salaries of all 120 staff members at his Gravity Payments credit card processing firm. However, the move, which included Mr Price taking a pay cut, has not ended well, with two employees resigning and several customers walking away as well as part of a backlash against the payrises.”
This is f’in fantastic and shows what happens when one tries to manipulate the market. Unintended consequences always rear their ugly head.
Just wait for the fast food kiosks!
“I can go on and on” We know that.
“I’m advocating for bringing balance to share of profits between worker and owner so it’s more in line with what it was during our golden era(1950′s -1960′s)”
Workers never had a share in profits. Workers are salaried and compensated. The risk (and reward) of equity ownership goes to the shareholders. Unless to balance out the ‘sharing’ of profits you are advocating to share losses as well? Where should the Revel employees send their ‘make whole’ equity checks to accommodate their share of the losses?
You have always stated how increasing low end salaries and your presumed commensurate increase in spending would lead to overall prosperity. Four millennia of economic history has yet to produce an economy that spends its way to prosperity.
Well that didn’t take long!
The Great Pumpkin says:
April 15, 2015 at 12:09 pm
Yup!!! Finally, a reasonable ceo not overcome with greed.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/15/seattle-boss-raises-entire-company-minimum-wage-to-70000/
Libturd in Union says:
April 15, 2015 at 12:43 pm
“Yup!!! Finally, a reasonable ceo not overcome with greed. ”
I excitingly await the CEO’s about face.
Nice call. 10 weeks?
Said it before….
Economics may be a ‘soft’ science but its laws are as immutable as the laws of physics.
It Could Be Time to Say Bye-Bye to Medicare.. Hmm, it appears grandma and grandpa did not fund their “entitlement” plan correctly. I did not choose that word, it was from the article. Who gets to decide where the cutoff will be?
However, according to one presidential candidate, one of these entitlements needs to be “phased out.”
“We need to make sure we fulfill the commitment to people that have already received the benefits, that are receiving the benefits. But, we need to figure out a way to phase out this program [Medicare] for others and move to a new system”
By 2015, a 65-year-old male earning an average wage ($44,800 in 2013 dollars) will have paid just $70,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes, but is expected to net $197,000 in lifetime Medicare benefits. For females turning 65 in 2015 and earning the same wage, they, too, will have contributed $70,000 in taxes toward Medicare, but will receive an estimated $230,000 in lifetime benefits.
http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/08/02/it-could-be-time-to-say-bye-bye-to-medicare.aspx
14.
Best part…
Price said he will cut his nearly $1 million salary to $70,000 and use about 80 percent of the business’ anticipated profit.
Anticipated…. get him a job at one of these rating agencies that “anticipated” the price of housing.
What he could have done is given a percentage of current profit and shared that, if there is a downturn they could adjust.
Bought a sandwich at quick chek or any competing convenience store lately? They’re already here.
Libturd at home says:
August 2, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Just wait for the fast food kiosks!
#14 I love you!! I find you and some others here so smart and funny! He is right Pumpkin you know that!! Does not do too much good for workers when the company is out of business.
Imagine the rage that the junior financial analysts feel when they discover that pumpkin pie is making more than them, despite wasting his time promoting his idiotic leftist economic theories online, and not actually understanding business or finance.
Of course you didn’t read a word I said in the response. What does sharing in the profits have to do with competition from other businesses? It’s all coming from the exact profit, instead of the top taking 99% of the gains you spread it out. Instead, you want all the gains going to the executives and shareholders because they took a risk? How come he had to raise prices is the question I’m asking. Why did a larger percentage of the profit going to the workers lead to price increases? How do you lose customers, when a price increase has nothing to do with a more balanced share of the profits?
What kind of risk dictates 99% of the gains going to 1% when the majority of the labor was performed by the 99%. Without those 99%, there would be no product due to no demand, therefore there would be no need for a business, therefore no profit. It’s in everyone’s best interest (IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING PAST ECONOMICS 101) that the pie be a little more evenly divided. It’s impact on society is powerful. When the balance is this unevenly balanced it really screws up the demand compenant of the economy. This is what you want?
Easy to discount the risk component when you haven’t put everything you have on the line to start something up.
Clintons earned $140 million in the last 7 years? Good grief.
That could buy a lot of Monte Cristos.
yes and the article continued to say that they do give a lot to charity. The Clintons donate to the Clinton Foundation. about 3 million I think the article said. How wonderful to donate to your own foundation!
21.
Agreed.
“Clintons earned $140 million in the last 7 years? Good grief.”
It’s crazy that there are people with that much money, power and influence who remain unsatisfied and scheme for more. If you were to gimme six million bucks, I would walk into the woods, change my name, and vanish.
Seems like a highly suspect character trait… maybe term limits should apply to your whole family. It’s too banana republic-ish to swap the presidency with your wife or your kids. Between that and the paramilitaries with AK-47s in every transit terminal, America is starting to look like a real trashy country.
[20] punk in
I don’t quibble with his decision. The beauty of free markets is that he is free to experiment and if his idea was worthy, it would succeed.
The market has spoken. He was foolish and we know what happens to a fool and his money.
I wonder how many janitors and file clerks who got the 70k salaries will invest and bail him out?
Great. Now I have to avoid Memphis because of the demonstrations Al Sharpton will be leading . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/02/us/memphis-officer-killed-traffic-stop/index.html
Hillary Clinton’s problem is that she was never anybody to care about. As of now, 50 years from now, no one will remember her. She probably won’t even get a single mention in a high school history book. If she gets the presidency, that all changes and she’s immortal. She’s an egomaniac. Kind of ironic that I’m pretty sure she’s never had any accomplishments to truly be proud of.
Fair enough. So what do we do about the income inequality issue then, if throwing money at the workers doesn’t work?
Comrade Nom Deplume says:
August 2, 2015 at 8:31 pm
[20] punk in
I don’t quibble with his decision. The beauty of free markets is that he is free to experiment and if his idea was worthy, it would succeed.
The market has spoken. He was foolish and we know what happens to a fool and his money.
I wonder how many janitors and file clerks who got the 70k salaries will invest and bail him out?
Fix the tax laws and close the loopholes. This can and never will happen. Not when our government continues to be sold to the highest bidder.
Let people associate freely with each other in the personal as well as commercial realms. End all direct and indirect subsidies. Stop giving free money to banks and government; stop bailing out people / entities. Prosecute fraud. Term limits.
That’s how.
Remove the power that the govt has which is auctioned off.
Joyce you could probably write for Reason Magazine. Very sensible
32. Yes I would say you summed it up well and easy! That would have taken me 3 full pages to write!