Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Generational Issue

1111213141517»

Posts

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    To put it in terms of Entourage (A show I hate, but has a few good examples)

    Drama is Nepotism
    Turtle is Cronyism
    Ari is a professional contact that they develop a personal relationship with.

    Deebaser on
    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    I don't have a personal connection with my recruiter, but he calls me every few months all the same. He's just checking in, very light small talk, usually with a job. I'm very happy where I am and he knows that (I'm sure he has that in the comment field of the database). However, I'll tell him that I'm not interested and have given him the names/numbers/email address of people that I think might be interested. For example there was a contract guy that I worked with for a few months.

    The contractor is a facebook/linkedin friend. I don't have a real personal connection to him. I don't write on his wall for his birthday, or call him when I'm having people over.

    I just know that he's does good work, he's a nice enough dude, and he has the skill set to do the job. He and the recruiter are professional connections of mine.

    On the reverse, I have very close friends I would not recommend for an internal posting at my company and I have a personal connection to them. I'm personally vested in their success, but would not stake my reputation on their work ethic. If I ran the show, I'd probably find SOMETHING for them, but that would be favoritism, not networking.

    So you're saying that connections can only be personal if you're close friends?

    I guess that works, but I got plenty of connections that aren't professional since I'm not looking for a job and it's unlikely that I'd find a job through them anyway. I'm also not really friends with them, I just engage in a bit of small talk when I see them.

    I think it's rather hard to call people you know not actually personal connections just because you're not friends with them. The fact that they're professional does not mean they aren't a personal connection.




    Besides even if we allow the distinction you made it doesn't make the line any less arbitrary. You're still using a connection to gain an advantage.

  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Besides even if we allow the distinction you made it doesn't make the line any less arbitrary. You're still using a connection to gain an advantage.

    Why is this a bad thing? I don't think anyone would disagree that in a perfect world you'd have a way to find the best employee for every job, but that's just not possible. Someone earlier in this thread said that looking through everyone's resume is fair, but that's just not true since your ability to write a good resume is just as disconnected from most jobs as is the ability to be social and network. There can obviously be problems if taken to an extreme where a person is hired based solely on his connections, but in my experience networking and knowing people just fast tracks you to the interview process where you still need to prove that you can do the job.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    khain wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Besides even if we allow the distinction you made it doesn't make the line any less arbitrary. You're still using a connection to gain an advantage.

    Why is this a bad thing? I don't think anyone would disagree that in a perfect world you'd have a way to find the best employee for every job, but that's just not possible. Someone earlier in this thread said that looking through everyone's resume is fair, but that's just not true since your ability to write a good resume is just as disconnected from most jobs as is the ability to be social and network. There can obviously be problems if taken to an extreme where a person is hired based solely on his connections, but in my experience networking and knowing people just fast tracks you to the interview process where you still need to prove that you can do the job.

    I wasn't saying it's a bad thing, but the idea seems to be that some connections are totally ok to use while others aren't.

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    I'm not disagreeing. Professional and Personal connections aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a definite difference.

    Also, there is nothing inherently "unfair" in using a connection to gain an advantage. If you get a reference from someone whose opinion you respect, would you ignore it?

    Hell, that recruiter I mentioned, his paycheck relies on his ability to connect people he knows professionally.

    YOLO. Swag. Whatever. Fuck it. Lets do this.
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    I think this discussion has reached an impasse. We're at the point now where the disagreement seems to be arguing the exact size and shape of a moral grey area.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    At that point assuming their inability to be rational users of discourse is only natural. If they've been incapable several times before, why is the next time any different? I admire your stance of loving your fellow man, or whatever it is you seem to hold dear, but I'm a bit more pragmatic. Not everyone need be at the round table. I know that's the current trend, but its not very productive must times. Congress is proof of that!

    Natural to you is relative, and not a concern really. The so called incapability is merely an accusation on your part, something you're seemingly unwilling to debate(not that I want to, but it's not really a concern of mine as it seems to be with you). I wouldn't really say pragmatism is an appropriate term for your behaviour here, as you once again display passive aggressive hostility in your response. If you were truly pragmatic, then it shouldn't be too difficult to see the efficiency in positive communication in terms of achieving your ends when it comes to socializing here. This is what the discussed networking is about(at least in part), and what people in this very thread have been describing.

    I mean, even feigning that positive socialization will usually help more than cynical arrogance in terms of getting people to see things the way you do.


    Lucid on
  • LilnoobsLilnoobs Alpha Queue Registered User regular
    Congress is NOT an example of round table discussions. Congress is the exact opposite of that so please don't bring that shit into this thread.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    Yeah I've tried to put myself out there, but I'm really bad at it. Also I can't stand sports, bars and a lot of other popular social things.

    All sports? There's not one thing you can point to? Curling?


    A lot of times, these kinds of people aren't looking for deep involvement. You ask a room of ten people who their favorite baseball team is, you'll get ten different answers.

    None that I've seen. The entire process just bores me to tears.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    To put it in terms of Entourage (A show I hate, but has a few good examples)

    Drama is Nepotism
    Turtle is Cronyism
    Ari is a professional contact that they develop a personal relationship with.
    What would you have called the reason why Ari got promoted to replacing a friend of his who was the president of a film studio in the later seasons?

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Lucid wrote: »
    At that point assuming their inability to be rational users of discourse is only natural. If they've been incapable several times before, why is the next time any different? I admire your stance of loving your fellow man, or whatever it is you seem to hold dear, but I'm a bit more pragmatic. Not everyone need be at the round table. I know that's the current trend, but its not very productive must times. Congress is proof of that!

    Natural to you is relative, and not a concern really. The so called incapability is merely an accusation on your part, something you're seemingly unwilling to debate(not that I want to, but it's not really a concern of mine as it seems to be with you). I wouldn't really say pragmatism is an appropriate term for your behaviour here, as you once again display passive aggressive hostility in your response. If you were truly pragmatic, then it shouldn't be too difficult to see the efficiency in positive communication in terms of achieving your ends when it comes to socializing here. This is what the discussed networking is about(at least in part), and what people in this very thread have been describing.

    I mean, even feigning that positive socialization will usually help more than cynical arrogance in terms of getting people to see things the way you do.


    Your ability to see what you call passive aggressive behavior in everything is admirable. Observational bias aside, your opinion on efficiency is just that, also an opinion. What you consider useful or efficient would differ greatly from what I, or others, would consider the same.

    I don't really want to make anyone see anything. This is a misconception on your part. I made a observation only. stone people even commented on it, only to amusing get drowned out by the semantic goosery.

    Which actually might even prove a point somewhere, but I don't really care to look into it that deeply.

    If you want to continue I'd be happy to take this to pm since we are simply talking to each other anyway.

    chocobolicious on
    steam_sig.png
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited April 2012

    If you want to continue I'd be happy to take this to pm since we are simply talking to each other anyway.

    My remaining suggestion is simply that perhaps reading over the words you've typed would prove beneficial in terms of message control on your part. Regardless of your stated desire to not have anyone 'see anything'(which makes one question the point of posting at all), the language you chose to employ is more effective the more aware you are. That you question the efficiency in positive communication is odd, considering your seeming willingness to accept the use of networking. It's not exactly controversial that people will listen to you the less you're condescending and the more you're willing to positively engage with them. Not that I don't understand the desire to be provocative interacting with others, but it can often end up self defeating.

    Lucid on
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/opinion/krugman-wasting-our-minds.html

    Our economy is awful, especially if you're a youngun or woman. And Romney is awful. Or how I learned to love indentured servitude.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Here is another interesting article that made me think of this thread.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17855240

    Even more interesting is the comments section, full of boomers bleating about how it's a stupid article and life is far harder for the old in our ageist society.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Here is another interesting article that made me think of this thread.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17855240
    I agree with that article. This is why the current calls to raise the retirement age are so totally insane.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Here is another interesting article that made me think of this thread.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17855240
    I agree with that article. This is why the current calls to raise the retirement age are so totally insane.

    Agreed. The last thing the boomers need is yet more legal protection in the job market.

    It also blows my mind that the boomers can complain about loosing their jobs to "young managers" when the employment statistics blatantly show the lie in that. I personally have never met a manager under 35. I'm 24 and both the department heads where I work are old enough to be my grandfather. So yeah, excuse me if I don't cry for all the poor boomers being deposed by us whippersnappers, because frankly, I'm yet to see it happen.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Casual wrote: »
    Here is another interesting article that made me think of this thread.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17855240

    Even more interesting is the comments section, full of boomers bleating about how it's a stupid article and life is far harder for the old in our ageist society.

    I think this is my favorite comment:
    This sort of thing is already happening in the work place. Young over-promoted "look-at-me" bully managers don't want older people in their team, often because they know too much and are a potential source of ego-harm. Young staff are cheap and generally won't question dubious decision making.

    Although this one is a close second:
    The 'older generation' on the whole [in no particular order]: better educated under the old school system, better mannered, punctual, have a better work ethic, aren't full of a sense of entitlement, experienced, I could go on......I am 44 and guarantee I could knock spots off of most young people because of these things. Society has kidded the young that they are somehow worth more.

    In her defense, when I first read her comment my initial reaction was "hey, fuck you buddy" so maybe shes on to something.

    emp123 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Except she sounds like just as much a piece of shit if it reads:

    "The 'younger generation' on the whole [in no particular order]: better educated under the new school system, more adaptable, have a better grasp of technology, aren't full of a sense of nostalgia, ambitious, I could go on......I am 24 and guarantee I could knock spots off of most old people because of these things. Society has kidded the old that they are somehow worth more."

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    I have no doubt that the younger generation would look after the older generation if the world wasn't set against us. Unfortunately the boomers have spent their lives making sure they'll be taken care of at the cost of their children's future. I would (and am) doing everything in my power to make sure my parents are taken care of well into their sunset years. Even doing so, they don't give me the benefit of the doubt when telling them that their advice as far as my career don't work in today's world. That I can't just go out, find a good job, and move on with my life. Hell, they don't even understand that for the most part, there is no going out to find a job. Even the local IGA makes you apply online.

    No I don't.
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    My mom was weeping one day after a phone conversation when she heard her friend was damn near homeless, but too proud to be a burden on her grown-up children. I don't know how prevalent this culture is.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I find complaints about "ageism" against older people vaguely similar to complaints about "reverse discrimination" against white males.

    I'm sure it happens, and it's wrong when it does, but anecdotal accounts don't disprove a position of privilege.

    Average salaries are higher for 55-65 year olds than they are for 25-35 year olds; unemployment is lower for 55-65 year olds than for 25-35 year olds. The former trend is somewhat excusable due to the value of experience (though this just means it's a justifiable form of age discrimination); the latter is absolutely not. Neither is the widening gap excusable.

    The youngest generation of workers are objectively getting the shaft.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    In kind of related news, on my way out the door to work this morning my mom revealed to me that it just dawned on her that us (our generation and especially her kids) are pretty much fucked.
    Most of us are unemployed, or under employed. We don't make any money, so we're not getting any houses any time soon.

  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    It really seems like an American aristocracy is being born, where the only thing that will determine a person's well being in the future is who their parents were. Home ownership, getting a good job through connections, etc.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    In kind of related news, on my way out the door to work this morning my mom revealed to me that it just dawned on her that us (our generation and especially her kids) are pretty much fucked.
    Most of us are unemployed, or under employed. We don't make any money, so we're not getting any houses any time soon.

    The other problem of course is that the work practices set up by the boomers which led to big stock, pay, and promotion rewards for them are now the expected norms. Hours worldwide have gone up drastically for those people who do have a 'good' job and internal competition against arbitrary metrics is also stronger than ever. Whereas the boomers could work hard and long hours, and then expect to be rewarded above the norm, the current generation finds that that is simply the expected situation for retention. In addition the always connected society means that weekends and evenings have simply become more time to pile you up with surrounding prep work, it's a race to the bottom in terms of quality of life.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    In kind of related news, on my way out the door to work this morning my mom revealed to me that it just dawned on her that us (our generation and especially her kids) are pretty much fucked.
    Most of us are unemployed, or under employed. We don't make any money, so we're not getting any houses any time soon.

    The other problem of course is that the work practices set up by the boomers which led to big stock, pay, and promotion rewards for them are now the expected norms. Hours worldwide have gone up drastically for those people who do have a 'good' job and internal competition against arbitrary metrics is also stronger than ever. Whereas the boomers could work hard and long hours, and then expect to be rewarded above the norm, the current generation finds that that is simply the expected situation for retention. In addition the always connected society means that weekends and evenings have simply become more time to pile you up with surrounding prep work, it's a race to the bottom in terms of quality of life.

    Decent working conditions are for commie socialist foreigners. Are you a commie socialist foreigner? This is Amurica, we work hard and then work harder. Fuck yeah!

    camo_sig2.png
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Here is another interesting article that made me think of this thread.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17855240

    Even more interesting is the comments section, full of boomers bleating about how it's a stupid article and life is far harder for the old in our ageist society.

    I think this is my favorite comment:
    This sort of thing is already happening in the work place. Young over-promoted "look-at-me" bully managers don't want older people in their team, often because they know too much and are a potential source of ego-harm. Young staff are cheap and generally won't question dubious decision making.

    Although this one is a close second:
    The 'older generation' on the whole [in no particular order]: better educated under the old school system, better mannered, punctual, have a better work ethic, aren't full of a sense of entitlement, experienced, I could go on......I am 44 and guarantee I could knock spots off of most young people because of these things. Society has kidded the young that they are somehow worth more.

    In her defense, when I first read her comment my initial reaction was "hey, fuck you buddy" so maybe shes on to something.

    In all fairness there is no other way to react to that. Anybody reading that knows on a deep instinctual level that she was born into privilege and never had to work for a fucking thing in her life. It's the only way to be that delusional and self entitled.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
  • EuphoriacEuphoriac Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    My first ever double post, whooo.

    Euphoriac on
    steam_sig.png
  • EuphoriacEuphoriac Registered User regular
    At my work, we've been getting our bi-annual reviews.

    The final marks are; 1) terrible (about to get fired), 2) Could do better, 3) Meeting expectations 4) Exceeds expectations 5) Perfection (or thereabouts). And i've been told by 3 seperate team-leaders (the people doing the reviews) that it's impossible to be given a 4 or higher.

    In other words; this will be the 4th year in a row with no wage increase (which a 4 would pretty much guarantee). I've not been on holiday in roughly that long. My time off is spent doing not much at all as my real take-home pay goes down and down.

    So no, hard work and long hours are NOT going to lead to any kind of reward. Did I mention we can't even do overtime?

    steam_sig.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Young people to vote Dem every two years instead of four, and never stop.

    They've got the voting part down, but they have this crazy notion we only vote every four years. Odd.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
Sign In or Register to comment.