Why do I hate the 1970s so much?

[jamespowers]

Bad yolk! Rotten egg!lol

Made sense to me. Damned hippies. :rage:

 

[jamespowers]

They aren't! So no one is loyal to anyone. For the most part, today's employees (rightfully) don't feel any sense of loyalty to corporations, beyond the effort that can win them the most money and benefits. Most of today's corporations (rightfully) don't have any sense of loyalty to employees, beyond the effort that can extract the most work out of the worker. And this is 'as it should be.' Individualism following its logical course.


I have no sympathy for most companies that complain about their workers' "disloyalty."

.

Luke, you have finally come to my side.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Yeah, my family learned it the hard way. Valuable lesson, though.

.

 

[jamespowers]

Yeah, my family learned it the hard way. Valuable lesson, though.

.

The only place you can work for forever without getting fired is the government. They might not even know you are there either.

 

[reetpleat]

There is a difference certainly between say a family run business and a corporation that is publicly traded. What takes place supposedly in the name of the stockholder can be truly shameful. But it is like a voracious machine for which the bottom line is the only thing when it comes to stockholders.

Part of the problem there is when corps started offering stock options as part of management packages, especially ceos. Since then, the ceo is less concerned with the long term well being of a company, which best serves the invoestors, and more concerned about a sharp rise in stock, followed by cashing them in nad moving on to the next company. OF course often the investors nad board also want to see that stock go up, not worried about the long term.

And as far as the wrong choice of jobs, this country's economy was built on many people getting a living wage for unskilled jobs. It doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Shall we vilify them for not shooting higher.

 

[jamespowers]

Part of the problem there is when corps started offering stock options as part of management packages, especially ceos. Since then, the ceo is less concerned with the long term well being of a company, which best serves the invoestors, and more concerned about a sharp rise in stock, followed by cashing them in nad moving on to the next company. OF course often the investors nad board also want to see that stock go up, not worried about the long term.

Gee, how about that? Investors want to make money. The nerve. :eusa_doh:

 

[Senator Jack]

Yes, at the expense of the workers. Who the hell should care about them?

 

[reetpleat]

**********
Upward mobility tends to be a matter of education. Most of the computer geeks that are making swell bucks today in a variety of corporations got college degrees in computer science from all sort of state colleges and are doing pretty good in spite of being from typically poor families. Education is often the key element that allows for rise in position in most coporate fields. Lack of education tends to keep the position low unless one personally goes out on their own to make their own company.

If one chooses the wrong job and expects it to support a family, it is not the job's fault or the company's fault. An employee always has to make his or her own needs their own consideration. Never expect a company to keep your well being first, that is your responsibility. When cars came on the scene and the buggy whip manufacturers were failing, it was the time as a worker to consider changing fields and maybe getting training or education to better ones self.

To remain in a field that is designed to be a stepping stone to other things is ones own limiting influence.

True, but these days it is getting more and more expensive to get an education and less government help. Not like the GI bill generation. YEs they went to war, but plenty of help after which built this country.

Also, it is hard to have sympathy for the car factory worker who is outsourced and does not get a better education, or did not, but is it really their fault. Free trade has resulted in that job loss for all but the highly skilled or motivated.

Many would say that protectionism and tarriffs preserved a full stratum of jobs for the benefit of the entire country. Now free trade only benefits the wealthy, the ones who supported the politicians who pushed ity through.

I am sure plenty of the more conservative here would argue, but I at least wish to acknowledge that plenty of people see it this way and I am sure plenty do not.

 

[jamespowers]

Yes, at the expense of the workers. Who the hell should care about them?

Let's see, if they have stock options then they have equity involved but in either case, the workers should care about themselves.

 

[Lincsong]

Since we're off topic anyway;fftopic: What I've found with working with corporations is that the only way to get ahead in a corporation is to constantly be moving around; 3 years in Des Moines, two years in St. Louis, 6 years in Los Angeles etc. Also, when working for a corporation and the boss is breathing down your neck ask for a transfer or promotion, he'll be more than happy to be rid of you.

 

[Lincsong]

Not everyone was in that situation--not that we ever wanted a cabin---although I still have the property that is useless now due to local government action. :rage: I think the main thing to remember is that you are specifying a significantly older population than we are talking about. Those people were the WWII generation and not hippies. They could actually budget money and earn a living without all the frills if they had to. They were also fairly well established. After living in the same house for 20 years there was significant equity built up an the payments were what $100 a month? :eusa_doh:
Housing was also laughably cheap in the 1950s around here. You could literally plunk down ten grand and buy a house. By the 70s houses had quadrupled in price and property tax was killing the property owners---thus the reason for the only single thing good that came out of the 1970s---Proposition 13. :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Regards,

J

It's not actually a matter of budgeting money, it's how to use the money to one's advantage and making it grow so that he is comfortable going out and buying a cabin or expensive furniture. It takes a lot of confidence in one's financial ability to go out and make those decisions. Some people feel that once savings are are spent the account will never be replenished. People today who had bought their homes 20 or 30 years ago are going out and doing the same thing as what was being done in 1975 by people who bought 20 and 30 years prior to that year. Then on the flip side of course we have some people who recently purchased (past 5-6 years) their house and went into an array of exotica mortgages and are now wondering how their going to refinance their house and keep up the $700 a month lease on the Yukon Denali.:eusa_doh: Dingbats will always be with us.

 

[Lincsong]

Now to get back on topic; The Osmonds

 

[reetpleat]

Let's see, if they have stock options then they have equity involved but in either case, the workers should care about themselves.

While certainly wishing ill upon no on one, when push comes to shove and certain people find themselves up against a brick wall with a bunch of workers on the other end of some guns, they better not come crying to me.

I am sure the czar and King Louis had very much the same attitude.

 

[reetpleat]

Gee, how about that? Investors want to make money. The nerve. :eusa_doh:

Gee, how do those investors feel when their stock tanks because a few high ups manipulated the company for a quick uptick at the expens of long term stability and then sold off, often before your average stock holder knew what was going on, and before the employees who have stock options that they are not allowed to sell yet get a chance to sell, thus watching their stock tank.

Besides that, so a few investors make a lot of money, and a bunch of employees end up on the dole, unable to buy anything or add to the economy in any way. And this is good for our country how?

 

[jamespowers]

While certainly wishing ill upon no on one, when push comes to shove and certain people find themselves up against a brick wall with a bunch of workers on the other end of some guns, they better not come crying to me.

I am sure the czar and King Louis had very much the same attitude.

 

[jamespowers]

Gee, how do those investors feel when their stock tanks because a few high ups manipulated the company for a quick uptick at the expens of long term stability and then sold off, often before your average stock holder knew what was going on, and before the employees who have stock options that they are not allowed to sell yet get a chance to sell, thus watching their stock tank.

Besides that, so a few investors make a lot of money, and a bunch of employees end up on the dole, unable to buy anything or add to the economy in any way. And this is good for our country how?

Investors are like employees---you take your chances. If you do the research, you are more than likely to find financial morasses quite quickly. Employees and investors should do their research on a company much the same way. That way they will be ahead of the curve in employment and investment.
People who are unable to add to the economy in any way are already on the dole. :eusa_doh: Which again brings us back to the irresponsible hippies in the 1970s and how the dole expanded like the waistline of a retired boxer. Gee, I wonder how my great grandparents made it without the dole. Hard work maybe?

Regards,

J

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Back on topic.

My favorite TV show from the 70's was M*A*S*H. Never missed it, couldn't tape it. It was a show about the 50's without all the Hot Rods, greasers and do wop. It was definitely a high point for that decade. You can't hate this too can you?

 

[jamespowers]

Back on topic.

My favorite TV show from the 70's was M*A*S*H. Never missed it, couldn't tape it. It was a show about the 50's without all the Hot Rods, greasers and do wop. It was definitely a high point for that decade. You can't hate this too can you?

Obviously you didn't read the previous posts about how the show was a bastardized version of the book and how it was not at all like the real experience. Veterans of the Korean War like my father hated the show. I dislike it because of the cast and the fantasy of it all. Alan Alda? Harry Morgan? Jamie Farr?! Yep, plenty of things to hate there. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Obviously you didn't read the previous posts about how the show was a bastardized version of the book and how it was not at all like the real experience. Veterans of the Korean War like my father hated the show. I dislike it because of the cast and the fantasy of it all. Alan Alda? Harry Morgan? Jamie Farr?! Yep, plenty of things to hate there. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

I guess I did miss some posts in the middle. Sorry to make you have to type extra today.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

This threads so long I can't even find that discussion. If only I could follow every thread from beginning to end all day long I might be able to keep up. Unfortunately I have to do things like work and eat and be with my family .