![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In my parents’ day, chances were good that once you got your first ‘real’ job, you stayed with that company until the day you retired. My Dad did it with P&G, spending 3+ decades on the job there before he retired, with a decent retirement package and health care for him and my mother that would continue on. Even in my own generation, that was still not unknown; Denise retired from Western & Southern after four decades, with a pension and continuing health care coverage, though I didn’t follow that pattern: the longest I worked at one place full-time was twelve years, and even then, the generally-accepted business axiom was that one shouldn’t work at a place for more than five years before moving on somewhere else, presumably for a better and more highly-paid position. Those decades at one place supposedly looked bad on your resume -- it showed you didn’t possess ‘ambition.’
Then came the crash and the deep recession…
From what I can see, the current generation is more inclined to pursue a ‘combination’ career than the standard ‘forever’ job of previous generations. This echoes the European style, where what’s valued more than high pay is having more free time and a shorter work week, and where the existence of national health care (as opposed to having your health insurance that is tied to your job) makes that a viable option.
And here in the US, even though we don’t have national health care (sadly), with the advent of the somewhat more open system of Obamacare, more people can move in that direction. You can now conceivably afford to make a living from a portfolio of smaller jobs, because you don’t necessarily need the health care offered by a corporation which is going to require you to work a 50 or 60 hour work week in exchange for that coverage. I’m seeing that more and more with younger people (anymore, ‘younger people’ = most people): ten hours of work here, fifteen hours there, another fifteen over there, exchanging what might be a more lucrative path for one that, at least potentially, offers more freedom and more personal satisfaction.
Honestly, that seems to me to be a decent choice. I know that the primary reason I ever held a full-time job was to pay the bills—especially once we started a family. Music (first), then writing were far more important and fulfilling to me, even if those careers didn’t pay as much or as steadily. I can see where trading some financial stability for personal satisfaction can be a better balance.
And I suspect, going forward, that we’ll see more of that. Corporations (as I discovered myself) rarely have any actual loyalty toward their employees — if getting rid of you will help their precious bottom line, they’ll do so without hesitation— so giving the company you’re working for anything resembling ‘loyalty’ is generally a mistake. Corporations and big companies rarely reward longevity, and too many of them artificially keep workers from reaching their full-time requirements so that they’re not required to offer those workers health care. Corporations worry about profit; the only one who cares about you... is you. If you can find affordable health care coverage on your own, then maybe the need for that forty-hour-a-week-or-more job isn’t quite as critical. Flexibility has its rewards, too.
Is this a choice you’d make? Would you prefer to work less, or to work at two or three part-time jobs rather than just one place in one position, or to have the opportunity to pursue a career doing something you love rather than something you dislike or even hate? Are we moving toward the point where more people will be doing exactly that? Could the advantages of that approach outweigh the disadvantages? Tell us...
Then came the crash and the deep recession…
From what I can see, the current generation is more inclined to pursue a ‘combination’ career than the standard ‘forever’ job of previous generations. This echoes the European style, where what’s valued more than high pay is having more free time and a shorter work week, and where the existence of national health care (as opposed to having your health insurance that is tied to your job) makes that a viable option.
And here in the US, even though we don’t have national health care (sadly), with the advent of the somewhat more open system of Obamacare, more people can move in that direction. You can now conceivably afford to make a living from a portfolio of smaller jobs, because you don’t necessarily need the health care offered by a corporation which is going to require you to work a 50 or 60 hour work week in exchange for that coverage. I’m seeing that more and more with younger people (anymore, ‘younger people’ = most people): ten hours of work here, fifteen hours there, another fifteen over there, exchanging what might be a more lucrative path for one that, at least potentially, offers more freedom and more personal satisfaction.
Honestly, that seems to me to be a decent choice. I know that the primary reason I ever held a full-time job was to pay the bills—especially once we started a family. Music (first), then writing were far more important and fulfilling to me, even if those careers didn’t pay as much or as steadily. I can see where trading some financial stability for personal satisfaction can be a better balance.
And I suspect, going forward, that we’ll see more of that. Corporations (as I discovered myself) rarely have any actual loyalty toward their employees — if getting rid of you will help their precious bottom line, they’ll do so without hesitation— so giving the company you’re working for anything resembling ‘loyalty’ is generally a mistake. Corporations and big companies rarely reward longevity, and too many of them artificially keep workers from reaching their full-time requirements so that they’re not required to offer those workers health care. Corporations worry about profit; the only one who cares about you... is you. If you can find affordable health care coverage on your own, then maybe the need for that forty-hour-a-week-or-more job isn’t quite as critical. Flexibility has its rewards, too.
Is this a choice you’d make? Would you prefer to work less, or to work at two or three part-time jobs rather than just one place in one position, or to have the opportunity to pursue a career doing something you love rather than something you dislike or even hate? Are we moving toward the point where more people will be doing exactly that? Could the advantages of that approach outweigh the disadvantages? Tell us...