What Happened....

[ChiTownScion]

It wasn't really my choice. After my grandfather and uncle died toward the end of my junior year, my grandmother got very sick and couldn't run the station by herself. I was the only one left in the family who could, so I did. That lasted right up until Texaco abruptly shut us down a week before my graduation -- they were pulling out of this part of Maine and despite forty years at our location, we didn't even get the courtesy of written notice. I don't know what made me madder -- being out of a job or the way in which I ended up out of a job.

Wrong that a grown man or woman would ever have to face such a situation after giving years of their life to a corporation. Despicable and unconscionable that a seventeen year old kid would have to deal with it. I don't think that too many of us suffer the overindulged and entitled gladly, but having gone through that at such an early age you certainly have an air tight alibi for not doing so.

 

[BlueTrain]

That's an interesting observation, although I've never worked for a company that large. Nevertheless, some of the organizational and ownership changes I've been through created other difficult problems for a lot of people. Then on top of everything else, there were other changes in that particular industry that eventually all but destroyed the industry. It's rare that someone even mentions institutional memory.

I think the fear of someone being over-qualified is that they will quickly move on rather than stay long enough to be a valuable employee. Personally, I think an employee's most valuable characteristic is nothing more than being someone you like having around, in the broadest sense. True, they have to have basic skills, but you want someone to work with, not someone to fight with and make you dread going to work in the morning.

My bosses boss is the owner of the company where I work. Everything we do is for his benefit, mostly. In theory, everyone in a large corporation is there for the benefit for the owners of the corporation, the stockholders. That's what they teach in school at least. Eventually, though, it sometimes works out so that everything is for the benefit of upper management. Realistically, though, the first object of a corporation is to stay in business.

 

[BlueTrain]

This thread apparently touched a nerve with a few people. But stories like this have been told for the last two or three hundred years and not all of them had to do with a corporation. Instead, the players were crofters and tenant farmers and large landowners and plantation owners. The slightest wisp of an idea that anyone owes anything to anyone is socialism, or so some would have it. The little people have little say in the world. Sometimes the big people don't either, although when the big people get in trouble, they seem to have less of a problem getting help.

My hometown fell on hard times when the chief employer in town, which was a railroad that employed a thousand men (and maybe a few women) in their shops there. Railroads weren't what they used to be and they were merging left and right. The railroad that owned the operation there merged and the new corporation moved the operation to another city. I have no idea what had ever been promised to anyone. Hard times across the land mean no work for a railroad man.

I've also been employed in the savings & loan industry and the photofinishing industry, both shadows of what they used to be.

 

[Fading Fast]

^^^ My take is that there never is and never will be security. We have stability for a period time that we mistake as security - an industry grows and stabilizes, a business is successful for years and years, a company exists for decades, a profession, trade or skill provides a good income for a few generations - that's stability that, as we live through it, feels like / appears to be security: company X never has lay offs, a fill-in-the-blank trade always provides an income, getting into Z union is a job for life or get a job in Y industry as people will always need typewriters.

It's all the same mistake - temporary stability seen as life-time or longer security. And while the uber-rich usually survive (they've socked enough away), they don't always as England's landed gentry learned, many stock market movers and shakers learned in '29 and, more starkly, the Russian elite learned post 1917. We are all living in an insecure world with an unknown future. I can accept that - it's the fake narrative of "this is safe," "this is secure," etc. that I believe hurts people tremendously as they invest time, emotion, faith in something - a job, company, profession, union, trade, institution - that is as tenuous as everything else, but might, for a period of time, appear secure.

That faith or belief causes people to make life decision - take on debt, save less, spend more, not continue building new skills, not look for new opportunities - that can destroy a life when the "secure" edifice crumbles. If we didn't sell that "safe" narrative and promoted the real one, people could try to plan better.

 

[BlueTrain]

While that is all true, there are other ways to look at it. Living is sort of a gamble; there are lots of risks. But if you worried too much about the risks, about the possibility of bad things happening, you'd even hesitate to get married. You'd never buy a house. Knowing all the possible outcomes wouldn't make planning any easier.

We are also tempted to look back on our work history and think, because you spend almost fifteen years working at one location, that those were pretty good years. They were in the sense that you managed to stay in one place for that long but the reality was there were all sorts of crises every few years. There was a buyout of the plant; there was a flood (no kidding, I've been through a flood at work); and we lost major customer accounts. All you can say was it was good while it lasted.

 

[BlueTrain]

And hats had nothing to do with it!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Wrong that a grown man or woman would ever have to face such a situation after giving years of their life to a corporation. Despicable and unconscionable that a seventeen year old kid would have to deal with it. I don't think that too many of us suffer the overindulged and entitled gladly, but having gone through that at such an early age you certainly have an air tight alibi for not doing so.

You know the thing that still bothers me, even after all these years? They pulled the pumps on my eighteenth birthday. I'll never forget that.

 

[ChiTownScion]

You know the thing that still bothers me, even after all these years? They pulled the pumps on my eighteenth birthday. I'll never forget that.

It would bother me as well. Salt in the wound- literally.

 

[belfastboy]

It cost me several years of additional compensation and career advancement to unlearn the advice I got before working (and at my first company by an older gentleman) which was to keep your head down, work hard, don't make waves and you'll be recognized. What a bunch of BS. While that happened a few times, in the great majority of times, I had to be my own advocate - politely and professionally petitioning for fair compensation and advancement. You were fortunate to have been told the truth early on.

Yes, being young and naïve I believed the world fair and my employer and I shared the same interests. I did end up going into sales with the majority of my compensation derived from commission. It was all in the contract, the more I sold the more I made so in that sense my interests did begin to coincide with the employer. My job was to make us both wealthy. Easier for them as they got the lions share of the revenue but fair as they held the risk.

 

[BlueTrain]

It sort of depends on how you put it. Your interest was in your own wealth and your employer's interest was in his own wealth. Only in that sense did you have shared interests. A troubling thing, however, is that I believe that a small employer is no different from a large employer in how they see their employees. There are exceptions but that's generally how it works. The employer large and small have a different point of view of course.

 

[Paisley]

There does seem to be some sort of feedback loop between some parents and their kids with the parents wanting to be able to send their kids to "the school of their dreams" which gets in the kids' heads, "hey, I want to go to the school of my dreams," which must create more pressure on the parents and more expectations for the kids.

As we've discussed before, we know that 17 and 18 year olds aren't as mature decision makers as they will be, but a more pragmatic approach from above (their parents), along the lines of "let's discuss it all out, figure out what makes sense for you, for your future, for all of our finances - expenses, cashflow, debt, etc. - and try to make a joint rational decision would be a better approach than "let's get you to the school of your dreams."

The internet says room, board, fees and books are around $15,000 per year. The kinds of positions Mom has in mind for her daughter, like museum director, require an advanced degree. The daughter was offered other scholarships, and the mom has two or three other kids and a flaky ex. Under the circumstances, they really ought to forget about Boston University and develop a passion for being rational.

 

[Paisley]

... I had to be my own advocate - politely and professionally petitioning for fair compensation and advancement.

Correct--your employer isn't your advocate. Neither is your college advisor, your minister, your loan officer, your doctor* or anyone who is employed by someone who isn't you. As Joel Greenblatt put it, "Rule 1 is don't trust anyone over 30. Rule 2 is don't trust anyone 30 or under. Get it? You need to do your own homework."

When I interviewed for my current job, I let them know I was in a good financial position, had a job and was being choosy about my next position. In other words, I wasn't desperate. And nowadays, some employers look at your credit rating--they can see what kind of financial shape you're in. I got a much better offer than I expected from them.

*Some doctors make most of their money in kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies.

 

[ChiTownScion]

You know the thing that still bothers me, even after all these years? They pulled the pumps on my eighteenth birthday. I'll never forget that.

A new exhibit on American painters of the 1930's is opening up at the Art Institute in Chicago. I saw that this work of Edward Hopper is being featured: although it isn't a Texaco station I think that the theme touches a common chord with our subject here.

 

[ChiTownScion]

The internet says room, board, fees and books are around $15,000 per year. The kinds of positions Mom has in mind for her daughter, like museum director, require an advanced degree. The daughter was offered other scholarships, and the mom has two or three other kids and a flaky ex. Under the circumstances, they really ought to forget about Boston University and develop a passion for being rational.

$60K for an undergrad education at Boston U? Quite honestly, if there's any way she can swing it, I think that it could be money well spent. The city would be a great place for a highly motivated student of art to learn, and the school- unlike the podunk state university that I attended (and all I could afford, really) - has a stellar reputation. The attitude of the kid would be the litmus test for me. She needs to understand that others will be sacrificing a lot for her to make this happen, and that it isn't something to take lightly. If art is anything less than an all consuming passion for her, it isn't worth it.

 

[Paisley]

It's closer to $90,000 with interest, making a few assumptions. Maybe if the kid's family were swimming in money, it would be a good deal. If an undergraduate degree in art history didn't lead to a good-paying job, she could run out and get another degree or marry someone with some money.

However, the mom is an admin assistant and a single parent with two or three other kids to put through college. She'll probably have to retire in 15 or 20 years. If the daughter drops out after a couple of years, Mom will be out $30,000 plus interest for nothing, since nobody cares about half a degree. If the daughter graduates and the degree doesn't lead to a good-paying job, it could be very hard to repay the loans. "Very hard" meaning Mom might never be able to retire or the daughter might never get ahead. In any case, the mom said she couldn't get a loan and couldn't co-sign for her daughter to get one. If a bank won't make a loan, it's probably a high risk.

An analogy to this is me v. one of my cousins. We both got mechanical engineering degrees that didn't work out into careers. He went on to get a law degree, then an MD and finally practiced medicine. He was from a wealthy family. I thought about getting another degree. But since I had to shift for myself and ran some of the risks outlined above, I didn't. For me, it would have been high-risk; for my cousin, it was low-risk.

 

[Stearmen]

Extra extra, read all about it! The Curse Of The Forgotten Hat Thread!

 

[BlueTrain]

It was a dark and stormy night and the desperate art student pulled his mackintosh tightly around himself and pulled his tattered fedora low over his face, shielding his eyes from the bright lights of the newly opened service station on the new bypass. Bracing himself against the stiff wind, he gazed at the flickering lights in the distance that was his goal. There was a hot meal and a warm bed waiting in his little efficiency apartment above the shuttered hardware store that had been his first paying job after high school. When he finally reached the doorway, he turned and glanced at the "cute," as he always thought of it, gas station across the street. It was really small, without the snacks and sandwich shop all the new stations had. But he had always admired the look from an artists perspective, white, with a steep blue tile roof. He even liked the bright neon light that said "Phillips" which illuminated his room at night. Ah, those were the days, he thought, as he climbed the stairs, singing softly to himself, "Me and my shadow, all alone and feeling blue...."

Desperate art students are always dreaming and it might be all they have sometimes. But don't give up. A relative of my wife was a museum director in Hawaii. Within the family, however, as I've mentioned before, he wanted to move as far away from home as possible and he did.

 

[Fading Fast]

Re the Boston College situation. I thought Paisley and CTS both made excellent points which got me to thinking - the decision either way is a risk.

I went to Rutgers College in the early '80s and was fortunate to be able to work close to full time during school and more than full time when not in school and avoid debt. I took a quick look at an inflation calculator, and the fee for BC is only a bit above what I paid (but I lived off campus in an attic apartment and ate PB&J sandwiches, etc., which was less than room and board at the college).

I was a highly motivated student - loved learning and really got a lot out of my degree. I struggled at first in my career, but finally got it going and know that my college education helped me succeed and more than - eventually - paid for itself (even if I had taken on some debt).

Which gets me back to the young lady and her family. Is she a focused, matured young woman who would study hard, truly enrich her mind at college and, at least by her junior year, start looking for inroads to work (internships, jobs [even menial] in her chosen field, networking [fancy term for meeting people working in the field by asking for time to discuss her career even if no openings exist])? If so, my guess is the sacrifice would be worth it and the money eventually repaid.

But if she is only somewhat into it, will coast through, party too much and go-with-the-flow when looking for work, then the debt and family sacrifice is, IMHO, not worth it. As we've talked about before in this thread - we unfortunately ask 17 and 18 year olds to make / be part of big financial and life-changing decisions - fair or not.

Since that is a fact, then assessing her seriousness and commitment would, at least if I was part of her family and asked to help, be part of my thought process. Also, you don't commit for four years - everyone could commit to one semester and see how she does - the debt wouldn't be that great after one semester or year if it isn't working.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Aside from engineering or accounting, there are not a lot of undergrad degrees that, in and of themselves, provide nearly guaranteed access to a decent paying job upon graduation. Best bet is to avoid undergrad debt and save that option- if you must- for grad school.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Extra extra, read all about it! The Curse Of The Forgotten Hat Thread!

Hey... calm down! I was wearing my fedora as I typed.