No demographic group killed the company man, it was a concerted effort by anti-labor forces lobbying for the dismantling of labor protections, organization rights, and corporate and financial...
No demographic group killed the company man, it was a concerted effort by anti-labor forces lobbying for the dismantling of labor protections, organization rights, and corporate and financial regulation that did it. Those asking why are either woefully out-of-touch or wilfully obtuse, possibly both.
Anyone who can look at the last fifty years of wage stagnation, the extinction of pensions, "at-will" employment regulation, off-the-chain predatory investment strategies and stock buybacks and still earnestly ask, "gee, I wonder why people don't stick around at companies anymore?" probably doesn't have opinions on the subject worth considering.
Agreed. I'm cynically amused when an article tries to pin nearly anything down to a singular cause/effect, purporting as some sort of essay defining a reason, yet ends up being a canard assigning...
Agreed. I'm cynically amused when an article tries to pin nearly anything down to a singular cause/effect, purporting as some sort of essay defining a reason, yet ends up being a canard assigning blame.
The inclination among humans to boil things down to one cause is so pervasive. Maybe it's the 'get clicks' push, idk. But for my part, problems tend to be more complicated than a singular origin can sufficiently attribute.
I agree with you, however, I also find that blaming the ownership class for many of society's issues is more often than not hitting the nail on the actual singular head.
I agree with you, however, I also find that blaming the ownership class for many of society's issues is more often than not hitting the nail on the actual singular head.
I always felt like this was the case, as a millennial, however this is some interesting data that paints a new picture. What do you guys think of this?
I always felt like this was the case, as a millennial, however this is some interesting data that paints a new picture. What do you guys think of this?
It seems to me like part of an overall trend or vibe that I've been seeing since forever: Everything is attributed to people who are actually 1-2 generations younger than the people who actually...
Exemplary
It seems to me like part of an overall trend or vibe that I've been seeing since forever: Everything is attributed to people who are actually 1-2 generations younger than the people who actually did it. It seems Baby Boomers get blamed/praised/associated with things that the Greatest/Silent Generation are more responsible for. Gen X get blamed/praised/associated with things that the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers are more responsible for. Millennials get blamed/praised/associated with things that the the Baby Boomers and Gen X are more responsible for. Now it's happening with Gen Z, even though they barely have any meaningful influence yet—certainly nowhere even close to Millennials.
For example, which generation do most of us think of when we imagine the development and evolution of computers? Millennials, right? But we were still kids when desktop computers suddenly dominated virtually every industry, when households got internet access en masse, when digital cameras killed film cameras, when mobile phones arose, when the last computer-less car was manufactured, etc., etc. We are not the computer generation; Boomers and Gen X are. Likewise, Gen Z is not the social media or mobile phone generation; we are.
Those in power rarely admit fault for a myriad of reasons to justify themselves. Another example of what you are describing is people complaining about participation trophies. The people in charge...
Those in power rarely admit fault for a myriad of reasons to justify themselves.
Another example of what you are describing is people complaining about participation trophies. The people in charge hand those things out, not the participants--yet everyone crticizes the kids like they were handing them out to themselves..
FWIW, as Gen X, I remember reading articles similar to this blaming us for having no "job loyalty" and being slackers ("quiet quitting" before it had a name). I see the same exact articles about...
FWIW, as Gen X, I remember reading articles similar to this blaming us for having no "job loyalty" and being slackers ("quiet quitting" before it had a name). I see the same exact articles about the Millenials today. It all smacked of propaganda to me back then too.
I don't think it is necessarily anything intentionally outright sinister and is much simpler than that--the "empty chair" phenomenon. Colloquially known as "shit rolls downhill." How many times have we seen or read about teams/departments/bosses blaming the "new person/empty chair" (or generation) instead of claiming responsibility? The people with the lowest power gets assigned the blame because they have the least power in their own mind.
Wait, did anyone think "current Gen" actually killed anything? There's no loyalty to any company because they all offer fuck all to make an employee loyal. They literally incentivize a lack of...
Wait, did anyone think "current Gen" actually killed anything? There's no loyalty to any company because they all offer fuck all to make an employee loyal. They literally incentivize a lack of loyalty.
And last I heard it was Millennials killing everything. Has Gen Z really gotten old enough to be blamed for thingicide by now?
YVW. And incidentally, IMO that's the major problem with paywalls; Some are Hard paywalls which are easy to notice, but most are Soft, or semi-permeable paywalls... some of which are...
YVW. And incidentally, IMO that's the major problem with paywalls; Some are Hard paywalls which are easy to notice, but most are Soft, or semi-permeable paywalls... some of which are geo-restricted, some metered, and some a mix of a whole bunch of different methods (like referrer tracking, only paywalling articles X hours/days after initial publication, etc). :/
That's why @mycketforvirrad and I try our best to keep track of which sites have paywalls, so we can tag the topics appropriately. And also why I try to provide mirrors to the content whenever possible.
I could be wrong, but I think Fortune is one of those sites like Boston Globe where they generally don't paywall their digital only articles, but do paywall their print articles that they also...
I could be wrong, but I think Fortune is one of those sites like Boston Globe where they generally don't paywall their digital only articles, but do paywall their print articles that they also happen to publish digitally. Clearly there is something else going on as well, either metering or a geo-retriction of some sort, based on the fact OP got past it but I didn't though.
My only issue with gifted articles is the fact that they all eventually expire. And I sure as shit ain't going to go back and change paywall.gifted to paywall after they do. :P
My only issue with gifted articles is the fact that they all eventually expire. And I sure as shit ain't going to go back and change paywall.gifted to paywall after they do. :P
Hah. I appreciate your thoroughness and the effort, but IMO you shouldn't bother. Most gift links last long enough that the topic should be long idle by the time they do expire. And if/when a...
Hah. I appreciate your thoroughness and the effort, but IMO you shouldn't bother. Most gift links last long enough that the topic should be long idle by the time they do expire. And if/when a gifted article gets necro'd past the expiry date we can always deal with it then.
No demographic group killed the company man, it was a concerted effort by anti-labor forces lobbying for the dismantling of labor protections, organization rights, and corporate and financial regulation that did it. Those asking why are either woefully out-of-touch or wilfully obtuse, possibly both.
Anyone who can look at the last fifty years of wage stagnation, the extinction of pensions, "at-will" employment regulation, off-the-chain predatory investment strategies and stock buybacks and still earnestly ask, "gee, I wonder why people don't stick around at companies anymore?" probably doesn't have opinions on the subject worth considering.
Agreed. I'm cynically amused when an article tries to pin nearly anything down to a singular cause/effect, purporting as some sort of essay defining a reason, yet ends up being a canard assigning blame.
The inclination among humans to boil things down to one cause is so pervasive. Maybe it's the 'get clicks' push, idk. But for my part, problems tend to be more complicated than a singular origin can sufficiently attribute.
I agree with you, however, I also find that blaming the ownership class for many of society's issues is more often than not hitting the nail on the actual singular head.
I always felt like this was the case, as a millennial, however this is some interesting data that paints a new picture. What do you guys think of this?
It seems to me like part of an overall trend or vibe that I've been seeing since forever: Everything is attributed to people who are actually 1-2 generations younger than the people who actually did it. It seems Baby Boomers get blamed/praised/associated with things that the Greatest/Silent Generation are more responsible for. Gen X get blamed/praised/associated with things that the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers are more responsible for. Millennials get blamed/praised/associated with things that the the Baby Boomers and Gen X are more responsible for. Now it's happening with Gen Z, even though they barely have any meaningful influence yet—certainly nowhere even close to Millennials.
For example, which generation do most of us think of when we imagine the development and evolution of computers? Millennials, right? But we were still kids when desktop computers suddenly dominated virtually every industry, when households got internet access en masse, when digital cameras killed film cameras, when mobile phones arose, when the last computer-less car was manufactured, etc., etc. We are not the computer generation; Boomers and Gen X are. Likewise, Gen Z is not the social media or mobile phone generation; we are.
Those in power rarely admit fault for a myriad of reasons to justify themselves.
Another example of what you are describing is people complaining about participation trophies. The people in charge hand those things out, not the participants--yet everyone crticizes the kids like they were handing them out to themselves..
FWIW, as Gen X, I remember reading articles similar to this blaming us for having no "job loyalty" and being slackers ("quiet quitting" before it had a name). I see the same exact articles about the Millenials today. It all smacked of propaganda to me back then too.
I don't think it is necessarily anything intentionally outright sinister and is much simpler than that--the "empty chair" phenomenon. Colloquially known as "shit rolls downhill." How many times have we seen or read about teams/departments/bosses blaming the "new person/empty chair" (or generation) instead of claiming responsibility? The people with the lowest power gets assigned the blame because they have the least power in their own mind.
Wait, did anyone think "current Gen" actually killed anything? There's no loyalty to any company because they all offer fuck all to make an employee loyal. They literally incentivize a lack of loyalty.
And last I heard it was Millennials killing everything. Has Gen Z really gotten old enough to be blamed for thingicide by now?
Mirror for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/Dt8kW
Thanks for posting this, for some reason I didn't get a pay wall when I first read it.
YVW. And incidentally, IMO that's the major problem with paywalls; Some are Hard paywalls which are easy to notice, but most are Soft, or semi-permeable paywalls... some of which are geo-restricted, some metered, and some a mix of a whole bunch of different methods (like referrer tracking, only paywalling articles X hours/days after initial publication, etc). :/
That's why @mycketforvirrad and I try our best to keep track of which sites have paywalls, so we can tag the topics appropriately. And also why I try to provide mirrors to the content whenever possible.
The Fortune paywall also seems to be a relatively new feature. I've gone back through and tagged accordingly.
I could be wrong, but I think Fortune is one of those sites like Boston Globe where they generally don't paywall their digital only articles, but do paywall their print articles that they also happen to publish digitally. Clearly there is something else going on as well, either metering or a geo-retriction of some sort, based on the fact OP got past it but I didn't though.
The paywall guessing game. My least favourite game. 🥴 Could be worse... Could be gifted links.
My only issue with gifted articles is the fact that they all eventually expire. And I sure as shit ain't going to go back and change
paywall.giftedtopaywallafter they do. :PI gotchu fam! My pet peeve is that the three publications with gifted links each have different expiry dates... 🙃
Hah. I appreciate your thoroughness and the effort, but IMO you shouldn't bother. Most gift links last long enough that the topic should be long idle by the time they do expire. And if/when a gifted article gets necro'd past the expiry date we can always deal with it then.
That still only counts as one!