babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » Generational Work Ethic or Priority Differences

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Generational Work Ethic or Priority Differences
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 August 2007 07:21 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have babblers noticed a difference in generational work ethics?

My older brother’s best friend is a physician in an area with a population of about 40,000. He has been practicing for about 35 years. He was telling us that new physicians coming out of med school are telling the existing physicians that they will not come to work with them if they have to take evening call or work on weekends. The new physicians simply refuse to do that because of “lifestyle choices”. So, the older docs end up working call and on weekends in order to cover the patients. It’s obviously not fair to the older docs but they have no choice if they want younger physicians to come to the area to practice.

It strikes me as being incredibly selfish to expect others to pick up the slack and particularly obnoxious to expect the older physicians to do the work they don’t want to do because that work would impinge on their free time (“we work to live, not live to work” kind of thing).

I have seen many young MBA graduates think that because they have graduated from a top school they have “made it”, not realizing that just because you have a degree from a top school, you haven’t earned a high salary until you actually start working and producing something worth the high salary. The degree is only the entrée into the profession and the degree, by itself, doesn’t earn the individual a lifetime high salary. It’s the ongoing work (usually very hard work) that justifies the salary.

We have a friend who has invested all that he has in a fitness club. He works very long hours and, for now, is not making much money. His biggest frustration? Young employees who simply don’t show up for work when they are supposed to!!

I get the feeling that many young people feel entitled to a good job and salary but they simply aren’t interested in working as hard as is required in order to justify the compensation.

Anyone else seeing this?

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 07:26 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We're saying that we're not going to take it anymore. There is more to life than work, and we reject 60 hour work weeks.

That's what's happening. Read Your Money Or Your Life. You'll get an idea about why people are finally saying "enough". People need balance in their lives. There is no virtue to a "work ethic" that forces people to put off other areas of their life in order to work overtime.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 August 2007 07:42 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Criticisms of the next generation by the previous one are as old as writing itself. If the regression of work ethic and intellectual pursuits were as claimed by each generation in regards to the younger one, humans would be amoebas by now.

After most of a life time wondering if I would have ever measured up in the circumstances my father had to face, ( growing up during the depression, volunteering for WWII, coming home to an economic depression coupled with his post traumatic stress syndrome) I have come to the conclusion that each generation is exactly as tough and brilliant as the circumstances demand.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 August 2007 08:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My anecdotal experience (I don't know that many doctors) is exactly the opposite of the OP. I see more people working at more jobs and longer hours, even though I also see lots of young workers preferring time off to overtime "winnings".

I think some of the studies say that Canadians are working more, not less:

Leisure Time on the Wane in Canada (PDF download):

quote:
Examining time-use surveys, including the most recent one carried out in 2005, author Gilles Pronovost (Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières) finds that the long-run trend of declining work hours and increasing leisure has reversed abruptly in the last eight years. In particular, working parents have seen their workloads increase significantly – by as much as five hours per week for mothers. [...]

From 1998 to 2005, the average work week in the active population increased from 44.6 to 46.3 hours, while leisure time declined from 31.5 hours to 29.5 hours, effectively erasing two decades of gains on that front.

Over the same period, fathers’ average work week increased from 49.1 to 53.2 hours and mothers’ from 39.4 to 44.1 hours.


Likewise, teens seem to be working more, not less (Statistics Canada report):

quote:
Despite the stereotypical image of nonchalant, lounging teenagers, many teens carry a heavier load than people give them credit for, according to a new study.

In fact, compared with nine other countries (with time-use surveys) from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canadian teens ranked first in terms of average hours spent on unpaid and paid labour during the school week.

Furthermore, averaged over the week, including school and non-school days, teens did an average of 7.1 hours of unpaid and paid labour per day in 2005. This 50-hour workweek was virtually the same as that of adult Canadians aged 20 to 64 doing the same activities.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 August 2007 08:17 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
We're saying that we're not going to take it anymore. There is more to life than work, and we reject 60 hour work weeks.

That decision is a legitimate one. But, for those making that decision, they should recognize that their economic standard of living will likely be less than what their economic standard of living would otherwise be. It’s a simple trade off. And, it's not just "things" that a higher standard of living will afford a person. Instead of retiring at 55 or 60, a person may need to work until they are 70, or later.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 06 August 2007 08:19 AM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I recall a book from my fourth-year Pop Culture class that examined the decline in organized leisure time, in the form of bowling leagues and other organized sports teams etc. etc. Though I can't for the life of me think of the book's title, I remember it was something along the lines of younger generations no longer taking the time away from their busy careers to enjoy such luxuries. Sure, it's thesis was far more indepth than this, but I think my vague memory of it might shed a bit of light on one of the schools of thought existing on the subject.

I think young professionals value their leisure time, as much as any generation has or will, but in my own experience I haven't seen such a divide. I've seen many young people working tirelessly to forge themselves in a career. Many working one job, but many more working multiple jobs, or furthering their studies on the side, or a multitude of other things. I wonder if these people who are rejecting the 60 hour work week, are doing so because their time is divided in so many other ways that they simply can't do it. (Though the medical fieldis probably a whole different story: those dedicated to that profession probably have it in their best interest to work long, long hours, to prove themselves.)

But I highly doubt we're talking about leisure time in the form of sitting around a pool with a bunch of friends and a bunch of beer, rather a youth culture of trying to be so well-rounded and stack a resume so high, that it's often burdensome to have so much pulling on your time. At least that's how I've seen many of my peers feeling.

It's an interesting discussion, because I'm sure in many circles and workplaces you're 100% right. It might be hard to group an entire generation into one work ethic.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 06 August 2007 08:45 AM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see this in the small business world.

Take a recent immigrant to SWOntario in the 40s-60s. They're first generation migrants, often had little to nothing other than their ability to work. Many became land owners, farmers, themselves, through sheer work and perseverance. Their children simply don't have to work as hard, even if they continue to farm. The business is established, and can either maintain or grow. The building phase is mostly over.

That being said, the business stresses are different now. I'll trade physical labour for mental stress and people managing any day. But running a modern business, even a smallish scale farming operation, necessitates otherwise.

Interesting point about the doctors. The rural issue is finding general practicioners who want to be in rural settings. The idea is that no young docs want to live and work somewhere in the countryside, in a smaller town, because it lacks amenities. I can't help but think it's a class issue, as well. That the docs want to be in a place where their status and income level allow them to exercise their entitlements.


From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 06 August 2007 08:53 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Men were obviously able to work longer hours at work when they diodn't need to worry about laundry, cooking, cleaning and the kids.

Additionally, the expectations on people are higher today. Everybody needs to be superman. Be cultured, be rich, be well-travelled, have lots of friends, a complicated dating life, a good career, be physically fit, take the kids to kumon, take the kids to karate practice, teach the kids the reading, writing and arithmetic the teachers can't teach them in school, maintain your garden and all the furniture in your bigger house, et cetera et cetera.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 August 2007 09:07 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Men were obviously able to work longer hours at work when they diodn't need to worry about laundry, cooking, cleaning and the kids.

Then how do you explain the trend whereby fathers (and mothers) are working longer hours, not shorter? As I mentioned above:

quote:
From 1998 to 2005, the average work week in the active population increased from 44.6 to 46.3 hours, while leisure time declined from 31.5 hours to 29.5 hours, effectively erasing two decades of gains on that front.

Over the same period, fathers’ average work week increased from 49.1 to 53.2 hours and mothers’ from 39.4 to 44.1 hours.


Canadians are spending more time at work - not less.

And I'll bet the average age of retirement is increasing, although I don't have any stats handy.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 August 2007 09:08 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Men were obviously able to work longer hours at work when they diodn't need to worry about laundry, cooking, cleaning and the kids.

So, someone else, namely the employer, was able to capitalize off of the hard work of women, who were unacknowledged, unappreciated and exploited for their homemaking roles, eh?

quote:
Additionally, the expectations on people are higher today. Everybody needs to be superman.

Individuals are actually the ones that impose those expectations upon themselves, not others imposing them.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 06 August 2007 09:17 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
So, someone else, namely the employer, was able to capitalize of off the hard work of women who were unacknowledged and unappreciated for their homemaking role, eh?

Absolutely.

quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Individuals are actually the ones that impose those expectations upon themselves, no others imposing them.

Yes and no. I'd say I agree with you 50% or so. Society creates these expectations. Take beauty standards for example. It's harder and more expensive to meet beauty standards in 2007 than it was in 1957. Magazine cover girls have gotten skinnier while little boys action figures have gotten more muscular. But if you make no effort to meet these beauty standards, you will be discriminated against by employers, by your peers; and have a harder time finding romance.

On the other hand, the part where I do agree with you, there's many things we don't need. Ipods, for example.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 August 2007 09:24 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Interesting point about the doctors. The rural issue is finding general practicioners who want to be in rural settings. The idea is that no young docs want to live and work somewhere in the countryside, in a smaller town, because it lacks amenities. I can't help but think it's a class issue, as well. That the docs want to be in a place where their status and income level allow them to exercise their entitlements.

I grew up in a truly small rural town (a remote town of 2,000 people in a sea of farms on the Canadian border). We had a lot of problems trying to recruit docs to our town. The docs interested in an area like that really needed to want that kind of community (a community that tends to focus on churches as the central social connection of the people and a community that focuses, recreationally, on fishing and hunting). There are no book stores or coffee shops ($4 for a fancy coffee?!?!) or theaters or sports teams (other than high school sports) or much else that urban areas offer. And, it’s not near anything (the closest “large” town is Grand Forks North Dakota—about 50,000 people—and that’s over two hours away; the Twin Cities are located about seven hours’ drive south of there). I couldn’t live there myself.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 August 2007 09:44 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
After most of a life time wondering if I would have ever measured up in the circumstances my father had to face, ( growing up during the depression, volunteering for WWII, coming home to an economic depression coupled with his post traumatic stress syndrome) I have come to the conclusion that each generation is exactly as tough and brilliant as the circumstances demand.

I think that touches on the labeling of the WWII/Great Depression generation as the “Greatest Generation”.

But, I’m thinking that so many kids (middle class and up) tend to have so much now provided for them by their parents. For example, it’s next to impossible to find a kid to mow a lawn nowadays. So many have their video games, their cell phones, their iPods, etc. all provided for them that they see no need to work. That expectation carries on into young adulthood. For example, there are more and more young people living at home with their parents—I’ve got a 30 year old nephew who still lives with his parents!! Another niece in her early 20s had to be kicked out of the house because she wanted to stay rent free, even though she’s gainfully employed because she wanted the extra money for “stuff”.

I put the blame on parents, not the kids. The University of Minnesota, for example, now employs several people as “parent liaisons”, whose job is to field questions and concerns from parents (“Jimmy got a bad grade and deserved a B” and that kind of crap). So, too many young people have inflated expectations of what they are entitled to and diminished (and unrealistic) expectations of the effort needed in order to actually earn what they expect.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 August 2007 09:48 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
For example, it’s next to impossible to find a kid to mow a lawn nowadays.

Obviously, there are exceptions. I have another nephew who started a lawn mowing service with a buddy and they have more work than they can handle right in his neighborhood.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 August 2007 09:55 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Longer work day cutting into family time

quote:
The Statistics Canada study found that workers in 1986 spent on average 4.2 hours, or 250 minutes, per day doing activities with their family members. In 2005, that time had dropped to 3.4 hours, or 205 minutes, a decline of 45 minutes.

According to the study, entitled "Time spent with family during a typical workday, 1986 to 2005," the decline can clearly be attributed to more time spent in the workplace.


Canadians working more hours, registering productivity gains

quote:
If it seems like you’re working longer hours, it might not be your imagination. Canadians are working more hours than they were in 2000, with Alberta and Nunavut showing the strongest growth in hours worked, according to a new Statistics Canada study. [...]

From 2000 to 2005, the number of hours worked by Canadians increased by about 1.5 per cent. [...[

At the same time, labour productivity increased by an average of 1.1 per cent nationally.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 10:04 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jrose:
I recall a book from my fourth-year Pop Culture class that examined the decline in organized leisure time, in the form of bowling leagues and other organized sports teams etc. etc. Though I can't for the life of me think of the book's title,

Bowling Alone?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 August 2007 10:35 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Yes and no. I'd say I agree with you 50% or so. Society creates these expectations.
What society and who exists in it?


quote:
Take beauty standards for example. It's harder and more expensive to meet beauty standards in 2007 than it was in 1957.
No, I do not believe so, unless you throw plastic surgery into the mix. But even if such things were done in 1957 at the levels they are today, it would have been on par monitarily.

Wages and costs have gone up, but everything has pretty much remained the same balance actually. When I bought my first bottle of perfume, for example, it was $8.00 for the eau du and $10 for the perfume. The wage was $1/hr, so I would have to work for a day to be able to purchase the cheaper one.

Nowadays, that same size $8 bottle is worth $110, and I have to work about 4-5 hrs to pay to for it.

quote:
Magazine cover girls have gotten skinnier while little boys action figures have gotten more muscular.

Yes, definitely more skinnier than the 50's but not the 60's and 70's, Twiggy was the first and all followed her. But you negating that magazine cover women back then had gorgeous breasts, and not many women could live up to that select body image either and spent money trying to.

I do not remember action figures other than GI Joe from back then, and he was pretty buff.
Back then, white collar men were fat and were portrayed in magazines as being fat and powerful and they died from heart attacks at a young age, while blue collar men and farmers were lean and buff, and were portrayed a such, but from working physically they lived longer.

I say that body image change for white collar men, is a good thing.

quote:
But if you make no effort to meet these beauty standards, you will be discriminated against by employers, by your peers; and have a harder time finding romance.

And thus it has always been, nothing different today than back to the 1950's. And romance is something that only recently, and perhaps only since the 1950's that has come into play, when one is getting married.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 06 August 2007 11:05 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well Remind, I'm open-minded, but for the time being I certainly disagree.

Take teeth for example. In recent decades, it's now accepted that nearly everyone needs braces (in north america). Those of us who don't have rich parents will either live with the competitive disadvantage, or will fork over many thousands of dollars. As another example, just a minor one, it's more and more common for men to wax their eyebrows these days. I do. My grandfather didn't. Once some men do it, that increases the pressur on other men.

But this is a tangent, so I'm going to stop there.


quote:
Originally posted by remind:

Yes, definitely more skinnier than the 50's but not the 60's and 70's, Twiggy was the first and all followed her. But you negating that magazine cover women back then had gorgeous breasts, and not many women could live up to that select body image either and spent money trying to.


You're older than I am, I can't speak for the 60s and 70s.

I can certainly compare the 1990s and 2000s. It seems obvious that Cindy Crawford, Stephanie Seymour and Rachel Hunter had very different bodytypes than do Heidi Klum and Gisele Bundchen. That difference is called five to ten pounds.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 06 August 2007 11:14 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do not remember action figures other than GI Joe from back then, and he was pretty buff.
What about this guy?


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 August 2007 11:25 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Well Remind, I'm open-minded, but for the time being I certainly disagree.

Take teeth for example. In recent decades, it's now accepted that nearly everyone needs braces (in north america). Those of us who don't have rich parents will either live with the competitive disadvantage, or will fork over many thousands of dollars. As another example, just a minor one, it's more and more common for men to wax their eyebrows these days. I do. My grandfather didn't. Once some men do it, that increases the pressur on other men.

But this is a tangent, so I'm going to stop there.


It is actually a dispelling of myths, such as unionist did with the presenting of facts on people working longer work weeks than ever, as opposed to Sven's ancedotal musing that people are not.

Men used have to wear hats as as part of their societal acceptance, no different than waxing brows expense, or image, wise in my view.

People who used to not take care of their teeth would have to buy dentures at a very young age in order to maintain their image and eating abilities and they were and are expensive. So you spend the money either way, teeth wise.

quote:
You're older than I am, I can't speak for the 60s and 70s.

I can certainly compare the 1990s and 2000s. It seems obvious that Cindy Crawford, Stephanie Seymour and Rachel Hunter had very different bodytypes than do Heidi Klum and Gisele Bundchen. That difference is called five to ten pounds.


The pressure to conform is no less than any other time is what I am saying. Sizes have fluctuated throughout history and each age feels exactly the same pressure to conform.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491

posted 06 August 2007 12:44 PM      Profile for Summer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There was an article in Canadian Lawyer about this issue a few months age. I can't find a link - but IIRC the article was talking about new lawyers expecting to work more reasonable hours and how this would change the profession. I believe it also talked about the higher attrition rate of women over men in the profession. In the same issue, was an article which could have been written by our very own Sven which basically said suck it up you young'ins and get back to work. We worked our butts off and had no time for a life. Why should things by different for the new generation.

To respond to Sven's points: I think most young professionals know they can't have their cake and eat it too. This is a discussion I've had with several people and we recognized that if we don't want to work 12 hour days and every weekend, we'll bill less and make less. I wouldn't say this an issue of work ethics, but priorities. There must be some young doctors out there who are wiling to work the occasional night/weekend. The hard part if finding one to do it all the time. It's not the young doctor's fault that there are not enough doctors to cover all the shifts. As I don't know how the economics of doctors' offices work, I'm not sure whether the young doctor is the employee of the older one, whether the older doctor owns the business and makes a larger share of the profits or whether both make the same based on hours worked or patients seen.

So the question is, will new workers continue to strive for balance, causing firms and hospitals etc. to hire more people, pay for more benefits and possibly more overhead? Or is this just passing youthful idealism?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 06 August 2007 12:53 PM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it's a good idea for people participating in this thread to identify what areas their family works in. I'm in software construction which, like manufacturing, has been 'globalized'.

Unlike the doctors, we have no professional association keeping immigrants away under the guise of maintaining standards, or lobbying the government and media for better conditions.

Instead, in the midst of a glut of software developers, I still heard programmes on CBC talking about our lack of high tech workers.

quote:
if we don't want to work 12 hour days and every weekend, we'll bill less and make less.

My feeling is that there are a lot of people in software who are expected to work this much, because many of their peers do.

I hope I don't sound as bitter as I actually am about the government's policies with regards to tech workers.

Cheers,


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 August 2007 01:25 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
To respond to Sven's points: I think most young professionals know they can't have their cake and eat it too. This is a discussion I've had with several people and we recognized that if we don't want to work 12 hour days and every weekend, we'll bill less and make less. I wouldn't say this an issue of work ethics, but priorities.

I think that’s a fair comment. If a person wants to work less and make less, that’s their decision. As a society, if we all work less, we’ll all have less (and not just less “things” but less healthcare and less government funds for all other varieties of spending and investment objectives—including schools, infrastructure, retirement funds, etc., etc., etc.). Money has to come from somewhere and that “somewhere” is work that increases social wealth.

I’m reminded of the law firm that I used to work at. It was a large firm with about 200 lawyers. There were several lawyers who wanted to work only half time and they wanted half of the compensation they otherwise would have received had they worked full time. But, in reality, they really were justified in getting significantly less than half of what they otherwise would have earned. Why? Each lawyer had about $140,000 in overhead to cover (the building rent; the law librarian’s salary, the human resource staff salaries, secretarial salaries, and other staff salaries; marketing funds; off-site storage rentals; research materials; and a long, long list of other fixed expenses). In other words, if every lawyer billed exactly $140,000 per year, each lawyer would make zero (because they would have bill just enough to cover the per-lawyer operating expenses. Let’s assume that all full-time lawyers billed $400,000 per year. They would each make $260,000 (after deducting $140,000, their allocated share of overhead). If a half-time lawyer only billed $200,000, they wouldn’t be entitled to $130,000 (half of $260,000) but, instead, $60,000 ($200,000 less each lawyer’s $140,000 share of overhead).

To put it another way, let’s say that all the attorneys worked full time and billed a total of $80 million (200 x $400,000 per lawyer). After deducting $140,000 per attorney for overhead ($28 million), that would leave a total of $52 million for the 200 attorneys, or $260,000 per lawyer.

Now, assume that half of the attorneys wanted to work half-time and they billed a total of $20 million (100 x $200,000) and the other half of the attorneys worked full-time and billed a total of $40 million (100 x $400,000), for a grand total of $60 million. After deducting $140,000 per attorney for overhead ($28 million), that would leave a total of $32 million for the attorneys. If the 100 attorneys who worked half-time earned half ($130,000) of what they would have earned had everyone worked full time ($260,000), they would take $13 million of that $32 million (100 x $130,000), leaving $19 million for the remaining 100 full-time lawyers (or $190,000 per full-time lawyer). In other words, each full-time lawyer would lose $70,000 of what they would otherwise have earned had all lawyers worked full time in order to ensure that the half-time lawyers got 50% of what they would have earned had they worked full time.

The only way to not penalize the full-time lawyers would be for the part-time lawyers to bear the true cost of working part time.

This is just an example of how cutting hours in order to have “a better quality of life” can mean something significantly different than what those people may expect.

quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
There must be some young doctors out there who are wiling to work the occasional night/weekend.

I’m sure there are but patient needs can be heavy in the evening hours and on weekends. So, if the young docs are only willing to work “the occasional night/weekend”, either the older docs have to do that work or patient care suffers.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 August 2007 02:22 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I think that touches on the labeling of the WWII/Great Depression generation as the “Greatest Generation”.

But, I’m thinking that so many kids (middle class and up) tend to have so much now provided for them by their parents. For example, it’s next to impossible to find a kid to mow a lawn nowadays. So many have their video games, their cell phones, their iPods, etc. all provided for them that they see no need to work. That expectation carries on into young adulthood. For example, there are more and more young people living at home with their parents—I’ve got a 30 year old nephew who still lives with his parents!! Another niece in her early 20s had to be kicked out of the house because she wanted to stay rent free, even though she’s gainfully employed because she wanted the extra money for “stuff”.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]


Yes, Rebecca West and I were talking about that a while ago. This protracted living at home thing seems to be something that distinguishes our generation from our children's. Happy home or otherwise, we couldn't wait to stretch our wings and fly.

But I don't think it has as much to do with "stuff" as it does the availability of decent paying secure entry level jobs. There are fewer of them today than there were in my day. In my day, one had one's choice of factory jobs that paid a wage that could support a family and permanent debt.

In the professional class, doctors are in such demand that they can name, if not their price, then their working conditions. So they do.

Lawyers, because we allow them to be elected and sit in legislatures, ensure that there will never be a lack of need for their services, so they to are in the driver's seat this way, also.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 August 2007 03:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My elderly mother can't find any kids period in her Northern Ontario town to cut the grass or shovel the driveway. And it's because there aren't any. What was once a large town filled with mostly Liberal and Conservative party support base, and bustling with cold war era prosperity, is now a retirement town that has fallen under the spell of the NDP!. The redcoats are coming, Sven.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9529

posted 06 August 2007 04:12 PM      Profile for jas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Teenagers get lessons in working in call centres

(from a link on current babble thread News From the Empire)


From: the world we want | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 07:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The whole kids living at home thing is a separate issue from the generational work ethic, in my opinion, although it does overlap to some degree, I agree.

The living at home thing can be a blessing and it can be a curse. I was one of those kids who couldn't wait to strike out on my own. Of course, I came back home a few times. But for the most part, when I came back home, it was temporary, and I wanted to get back on my own as soon as possible. And as Tommy says, it was always because of instability in my employment and finances (I was working for minimum wage) rather than because I wanted to sponge off of my parents while working.

That said...a lot of kids have lots of reasons for living at home. I had a boyfriend once who lived at home until he was 30. But his parents loved it. He was fine with it, they were fine with it, so what's the problem? I mean, I remember at the time thinking it was pretty codependent, but I've changed my mind now.

I've also known people who have had grown children sponging off them, not trying to find work, not attempting to pay their parents for rent or food, and the parents being at their wits' end at what to do about it. I think that's also a legitimate position on the part of parents who have a 28 year-old living in their basement.

I've also had friends who periodically live in their parents' basement when they're between jobs. One friend who worked her ass off at two jobs ended up burning out, losing both jobs, and winding up at home in her parents' basement with her boyfriend until they could get on their feet again.

Our parents' generation had it better than we did in several ways. First of all, they didn't start their lives with mortgages and no houses. Yes, I'm talking about gigantic student loans. Secondly, our parents had steady jobs available right out of high school or university, which actually paid the bills. The economy wasn't as filled with "McJobs". And companies invested more in their employees and made jobs more secure. "Downsizing" and "Rightsizing", or whatever bullshit name you want to give it, wasn't the defining feature of the job market when my parents left high school, and they were able to get jobs that could actually support them, to the tune of buying a house, having kids, and not having to move home between jobs - because every other job wasn't "contract" and subject to being "downsized".

Want to talk generational work ethic? Let's talk generational corporate ethic, and the fact that companies are no longer loyal to the people who work for them, but whine when their employees aren't loyal to them anymore. Companies who consider employees expendable.

People devote WAY more of their lives to work and hunting for work now than they did in the 50's, I'm betting. People often work overtime without pay in many jobs that are salaried, and they do it because it's the office culture and everyone else is doing it, and it shows "dedication" and gets you promoted so you can pay off your student loan. Remember the student loan? The reason you'll never have a house in this life or the next? Yeah.

Please don't talk to me about this lazy generation. It kind of makes me sick, you know?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 06 August 2007 08:11 PM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For example, there are more and more young people living at home with their parents—I’ve got a 30 year old nephew who still lives with his parents!! Another niece in her early 20s had to be kicked out of the house because she wanted to stay rent free, even though she’s gainfully employed because she wanted the extra money for “stuff”.

Many of my peers that are doing just this are doing so because they want to buy a home, instead of renting. I actually have a few of my close friends from high school who have chosen this path (living at home through college and saving for a down payment) and now they've successfully purchased their first home, doing so on just above minimum wage. I have a lot of respect for them, because I for one never had it in me. When I turned 19, I was out the door and six hours away. I have sinced moved back though, and couldn't be happier with my choice. Not because I'm "sponging" off my parents, but because I'm lucky enough to have the relationship with them that I can do so, while saving up money and further my career, without the burden of not knowing if I can make my next rent cheque.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2007 08:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly. If you and your parents are both happy with your living situation then who cares? Why are people so down on intergenerational families living together? In many cultures, this is quite normal, for grown kids to live at home until they either get married, or have saved enough to buy a house.

People expect this generation to move out the way my parents' generation did, despite the fact that today's generation doesn't have the same employment or financial opportunities that my parents' generation did.

If my son wants to live with me while he's in university, he can. If he wants to live at home as an adult while saving up to buy a house, he can. It's the least I can do for him, considering that I'll never have enough money to pay for his education. If he needs to stay at my place to save money or pay his student loans or whatever, then I'll be happy to help him out. That's what parents are for.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left Turn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8662

posted 07 August 2007 12:22 AM      Profile for Left Turn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I actually think there are two opposing sub-trends going on here within the overall trend of increased work hours.

The first trend is a decline in the percentage of full time jobs, and an increase in part-time jobs. This includes both true part-time jobs (20 hours/week or less), and jobs where the hours/week are just a little bit less than full time 32 hours/week, 35 hours/week ect. Many jobs have become part-time so employers can avoid paying benefits to employees. With the increase in part-time jobs, many workers are working 2 or 3 jobs, with total hours worked being in excess of 40.

The second trend is that an increasing number of full-time jobs require "mandatory overtime", and if you don't agree to mandatory overtime in the interview, you don't get the job. And there are increasing numbers of workplaces that though they don't technically require overtime, the organization culture is one where everyone puts in overtime and if you don't you are ostracized by your employer and your colleages and you don't advance within the organization.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 August 2007 03:23 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I grew up in a truly small rural town (a remote town of 2,000 people in a sea of farms on the Canadian border). We had a lot of problems trying to recruit docs to our town. The docs interested in an area like that really needed to want that kind of community

I could live there. But not if people expected me to work 24 hours a day. If I'm working 10 or 12 hour days, then that's when I'm going to want to be able to pick up convenience food on the way to and from work, unwind by going out to supper and a movie, etc. But if I'm working a leisurely 6 or 7 hours a day, then I'd be happy to to home to a nice quiet house in the country and cook myself some supper and relax with a book.

But most people who look at doing rural doctoring don't get that choice. Rural communities that are crying for doctors will overwork the doctor if they're lucky enough to get one.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 07 August 2007 06:22 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In northern BC,we have a revolving door of South African doctors who stay just long enough to meet whatever requirements they agreed to in order to access the Medical Services Plan.

CBC had an item recently about the only doctor on Texada Island who gave notice to his patients that he is discontinuing all on call services after years of being on call 24/7 (without the same relief that the health authority provides urban doctors).

In the resource sector,young people are quite content to work 15 hour days,7 days a week and never miss a day. Most of these younger folks are family oriented and come from the East. They are earning six figures and are on a mission to establish themselves. Obviously,it is the motivated ones that do this. The first year or two they come alone and then move the wife out.

As far as lifestyle choices,many young people have witnessed the effect of driven parents on family life and resolve not to live like that. Depression era grandparents pass the work ethic down to children who end up working for work's sake,not for survival as their parents did.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710

posted 07 August 2007 07:46 AM      Profile for bruce_the_vii     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi Sven:

I didn't find your original examples very compelling. Young Medical Doctors are prime and should be able to pick and chose. Really good MBAs as well. I suppose everyone is still living the rat race, especially if you have children.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 07 August 2007 07:56 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
Young Medical Doctors are prime and should be able to pick and chose.

I would imagine that they always have been in a position to pick and choose. The only difference is: They have a different attitude about work (and patients and older docs be damned).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 August 2007 11:50 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
CBC had an item recently about the only doctor on Texada Island who gave notice to his patients that he is discontinuing all on call services after years of being on call 24/7 (without the same relief that the health authority provides urban doctors).

Jeez, and ten years ago Ontario doctors whined about having to make house calls at $75 bucks a shot. They preferred to be in the hospitals and clinics and paid $12 dollars for every cursory examination, the more the merrier. House calls are more common in countries like Britain and Cuba than here in this Northern Puerto Rico where doctors are in short supply. And don't they know it, too. Let's jack up medical school tuition fees and defund post-secondary some more!.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca