A story in Monday's Des Moines Register rings the too-small-workforce bell yet again. Appearing under the bizarre yet captivating headline "Say hello to big hole in Iowa's workforce," the story explains that our state already has at least 49,000 more jobs than it has workers, a gap that will grow to 150,000 over the next five years.
As someone who is (gainfully, I assure you) self-employed and therefore is always worried that one of these days he'll have to run out and get one of those "real jobs" he hears so much about, I found this to be heartening news. That is, until I got to the charts that ran with the jump. (They're available on the website, but only in teeny-tiny thumbnail JPEG form because the Register's online editors, I assume, are idiots.)
The most telling chart is the one that describes the level of education needed to fill the jobs that will come open over the next year. One-quarter of those jobs require no education whatsoever, and seventy percent of those jobs require no more than a high school education. In other words, Iowa is going to be needing a lot of fast-food clerks, discount store shelvers, prison orderlies and casino dealers over the next year. Wherever are we going to find them?
Iowa economic development officials frequently bemoan the "brain drain" -- the outflow of young people who get an education in Iowa, then move out of state to reap the financial rewards of that education. Those same officials also frequently point to Iowa's worker shortage as something the state can use to lure those young people back here. Just once it'd be nice to see them put two and two together.
Young, educated people move out of the state for two main reasons. The first is simply that they don't want to live in Iowa. There's nothing you can do about that, I'm afraid. If a kid is looking for excitement, he's going to go elsewhere. The second reason, the one germane to our discussion, is that they see opportunities elsewhere that they don't see here. When they look at the Iowa economy, and all they see is one service-sector job after another that pays $22,000 a year, they'd have to be stupid to stay. And they're not stupid.
You know what's pathetic? Utterly, hopelessly, dogshit pathetic? The scene we had a couple weeks back in which a number of Iowa communities went to the state Racing and Gaming Commission to beg and plead for more casino licenses. This is what passes for economic development in much of the state: casinos, prisons, hotels. No one dreams of growing up to be a blackjack dealer, a penitentiary food-service aide, or the night guy at the front desk. All of these jobs are honorable work, but you take these jobs because you have to, not because you want to. If I'm a young person with hopes and dreams and the only work I can see in Iowa is working the window at a slots casino, then I'm getting out of here. I'll go somewhere else. Because if I have to work the window at a casino, I'd rather do it in Las Vegas than What Cheer.
Nobody ever stops to ask: You want to build a casino in some small town in Iowa? Really? Who the hell do you think it's going to serve? You think the high rollers are going to fly in and drop 100 grand? No, your customers -- if you have any -- are going to be locals. Locals spending (we hope) their disposable income in the new casino rather than the restaurant down the street. The big difference being that the restaurant might be locally owned, while I can guarantee you that the casino will not be. So the casino cannibalizes the local economy for a while ... until a bigger and flashier casino opens down the road.
Or you really luck out, and the state decides to put a prison in your town! I told you rapists weren't good for nothing!
So, yes, say "hello" to the big hole in the workforce. Pray that we can scrape together enough illegal immigrants to fill it. Because I want my value meal now!
Showing posts with label des moines register. Show all posts
Showing posts with label des moines register. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Monday, August 27, 2007
Third Reich funnies
Let's hope there weren't any Holocaust survivors reading the Register's business section today. Because here's the main art from the front page:
Yes, that's what you think it is. A cartoon Nazi. (I think it may actually be "Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS.") It accompanied the latest installment of "Workbytes," the semiweekly column devoted to helping young people navigate the world of work. Today's topic was bad bosses. A sidebar included some workplace horror stories, including a truly hair-raising account by a waitress whose supervisor knowingly hired a man who had been stalking her. But none of the bad-boss tales was as shocking as the bathos with which this one was delivered:
Yes, that's what you think it is. A cartoon Nazi. (I think it may actually be "Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS.") It accompanied the latest installment of "Workbytes," the semiweekly column devoted to helping young people navigate the world of work. Today's topic was bad bosses. A sidebar included some workplace horror stories, including a truly hair-raising account by a waitress whose supervisor knowingly hired a man who had been stalking her. But none of the bad-boss tales was as shocking as the bathos with which this one was delivered:
"The boss runs the place like a concentration camp. It seems as if we are treated like second-class citizens, since we are on the lower end of the pay scale. For example, every department is entitled to a department outing. Not us. Our department hasn't had an outing for years. We also are to have all our time accounted for, even bathroom breaks. If you are scheduled to be in at 8 a.m. and get here at 8 a.m., you are late. You are supposed to be ready to work by 8, not here by 8. If you come in at 8:01, then you have to stay late a minute to make up your time."
Why, it's just like a concentration camp! At Hitler's concentration camps -- or Stalin's, or Mao's, or Pol Pot's -- people were just burned alive, or worked to death, or made to kill their own parents, or ordered to dig their own graves, or stripped of all their dignity and forced to endure hell on earth. But this guy's department didn't even get an outing. And everybody else's did! And if he comes in a minute late in the morning, he has to stay a minute late in the afternoon! He can't go home until 5:01 p.m.! No wonder the Jews were so traumatized at Auschwitz!
Look, I know hyperbole. I understand that this guy's boss was being unfair and unreasonable. I understand that someone, somewhere thinks it's funny to depict asshole bosses as "Nazis." But there's something deeply troubling about the combination of this pathetic story and the illustration.
I frequent a number of message boards for language professionals. Last year a young woman joined one of the boards with the username "Copy Nazi." When asked to explain herself, she said that she has very high standards, is very exacting, and demands strict adherence to rules. And I thought: Oh, that's what defined the Nazis? That they were just such sticklers? A bunch of anal-retentive obsessives hung up on rules? Good God. No, what defined the Nazis was the institutionalization of inhumanity. Strict adherence to petty rules was not their problem. To suggest as much just betrays ignorance. And also a lack of creativity: "Nazi" = "meticulous"? Yeah, haw haw haw, you dumbass.
There's a larger lesson here about comedy. When Jerry Seinfeld named a character the "Soup Nazi," he was deliberately going all the way over the top. The name was meant to reflect poorly not on the soup seller, but rather on Seinfeld himself, for so grossly overreacting to the man's strange behavior. Suppose the character had actually turned out to be a Nazi -- death's-head cap, Jodhpurs and all. It wouldn't have been funny; it would have been in terrible taste. It's only because the man wasn't a Nazi and wasn't depicted as one that calling him one made any comedic sense.
When the person quoted by "Workbytes" says his workplace was "like a concentration camp," it's clear he does so without any self-awareness. He just said something ridiculous, but he doesn't realize it. Because in his solipsistic little world, any workplace's adherence to silly rules is on par with the atrocities of Dachau. Probably because he has no idea what happened at Dachau. But you know? I think I could let that slide, too, if it weren't for the fucking cartoon. The combination of historical and rhetorical cluelessness makes the whole thing offensive.
(And yes, I know she's supposed to look like Col. Klink, but Hogan's Heroes went off the air 40 years ago. It's ancient history, and it's no defense.)
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Valley wins. Big surprise.
Perhaps you saw the story about Iowa high school athletics on the front of the Sports section in Friday's Des Moines Register. Here are the first couple sentences, edited for, um, clarity:
OK, technically, the honor is called the "All-Sports Award." As the story says, it has been given out every year since 2000 by the Register. The winning schools, the newspaper says, are determined "based on the performance of athletic teams in all sports." But when you stop and think about it, you realize that the award might as well be based on the demographics of the student body, because those demographics have helped hand the award to Valley every year since 2003.
Before we start, let me make clear that the case we will be building here is not against Valley High School. Valley athletics have an indisputable tradition of excellence. To piss on the school for winning championships is to suggest that the Valley kids should be taking a dive out there. They shouldn't. They're good kids. My wife is a Valley alumna, for pete's sake. No, the case we're building is against the Register's All-Sports Award itself.
First of all, let's talk about size. Valley has by far the largest enrollment of any Iowa high school, with about 1,950 students. That's about 15% larger (about 230 more students) than the next-closest competitor, Des Moines East. Does size matter? You bet it does. Because a huge student population allows a school's teams to draw from a significantly deeper talent pool.
Let's assume that athletic talent is fairly evenly distributed through the population (it isn't, obviously, but we're starting from the most basic concepts). For every 500 students, let's say there is maybe one player in a given sport who is a "10" on a ten-point scale. At progressively lower talent levels, there are more and more students. Out of 500 kids, there are, say, two 9s, three 8s, five 7s, eight 6s, twelve 5s, and so on. In putting together a 20-player team, then, Valley has access to four 10s, eight 9s, and enough 8s to fill out the roster. Valley's team average is 8.4, and the median player, the one in the middle of the team, talent-wise, is a 9.
Nearby Urbandale High School, meanwhile, is similar in a lot of respects to Valley but has fewer than half as many students. So it must make do with maybe one or two 10s, three 9s, five 8s, eight 7s and some 6s. Urbandale's team average is just a little lower at 8.2 -- but the median player is only a 7, two full levels below Valley's. Anyone who knows sports acutely would tell you that the median is more important that the average, which is distorted by extremes. You don't win championships with your stars. You win them with your role players.
So Valley's size alone gives it an advantage toward winning the Register award every single year. But demographics is more than just raw population numbers. The reason Valley is so large is that it's the only conventional public high school in the West Des Moines district, which covers more than 60,000 people in West Des Moines, Clive and portions of Urbandale and Windsor Heights. That territory also constitutes the greatest concentration of wealth in the state. Does money matter? You bet it does. Because an affluent student population also allows a school's teams to draw from a significantly deeper talent pool.
Simply put, rich kids (and upper-middle-class kids) have a leg up on poor kids (and working-class kids). In a richer school, students in the aggregate will have more free time to pursue sports of all kinds, far more opportunity to pursue niche sports such as tennis and golf, and more parks and recreational places in which to pursue them. In a poorer school, more students will have jobs (to help support the family, not just to get spending money), more will be unable to afford specialized sporting equipment, and more will be watching siblings before and after school. In those poorer schools, a certain portion of the student body couldn't play sports even if they wanted to, and many are limited in the sports they can participate in.
That's not to say poorer schools can't and don't field teams that compete at a high level. They do. The catch is: They can't do it in every sport. In any given school, rich or poor, the best basketball players will be playing basketball, the best football players will be playing football, because opportunities are present in those sports from a young age. It's the lesser sports -- the ones that colleges refer to as "non-revenue" sports -- where the competition between rich and poor schools breaks down completely. Thousands of kids in the western suburbs grow up exposed to golf, tennis, soccer, swimming, diving, volleyball. On Des Moines' east side ... not so much. Des Moines East can field a decent basketball team and a track team, of course, but how's their golf team? Their tennis team? Their swimming team?
This is key, you see, because the All-Sports Award depends on participation in "all sports." Friday's Register article includes a little sidebar about how Valley won the All-Sports title. In the past year's state tournaments, Valley teams were:
(The Register award, it should be noted, is given out for three categories of schools: "small," those with 1-349 students; "medium," or 350-799 students; and "large," 800 or more. At the lower levels, no school has dominated year after year like Valley has. But those categories have an upper bound, and no school in them has a combined enrollment/affluence edge as stark as Valley's.)
If the award itself is so skewed, why does the Register even give it out? To understand that, it helps to understand a couple things about the media.
First, when people who don't work in the news media see something irrelevant, trivial or otherwise questionable dressed up as "news," they shake their head and ask, "Slow news day?" The answer is usually: Yes. For sports news, you don't get much deader than August. All that's going on is baseball. If it weren't for Shawn Johnson of West Des Moines(!) slaughtering the opposition in international gymnastics, the Register wouldn't have anything to write about at all. (Besides another preview on the Hawkeyes' backup punter, of course.) So they fill column inches with a bogus award.
Second, you may or may not have noticed this, but community newspaper sports sections aren't exactly fonts of creativity. That's why every other sports headline is a brainless pun on someone's name: "Sabbatini has Tiger by the tail." Get it? Cuz his name is Tiger, and tigers have tails! I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that someone in the Register hierarchy saw that some other newspaper somewhere was giving out an annual high-school all-sports award and thought, "Hey, why don't we do that?" But they never stopped to think through the criteria. In California, or New York, or Illinois, or even Missouri, you have a lot of large schools from different population centers that can be measured against each other on a roughly equal basis. Iowa does not. Rating high schools according to the Register criteria is always going to be comparing apples to oranges to plums to cherries to grapes, because there are so few teams with apples.
Valley athletes deserve congratulations for a lot of things, but not this.
"West Des Moines Valley isn't the only team eligible for the 'Iowa's Largest and Wealthiest High School Award,' though it may seem like it. This marks the fifth consecutive year the Tigers have won, and no school has won more since the creation of the competition in 2000."
OK, technically, the honor is called the "All-Sports Award." As the story says, it has been given out every year since 2000 by the Register. The winning schools, the newspaper says, are determined "based on the performance of athletic teams in all sports." But when you stop and think about it, you realize that the award might as well be based on the demographics of the student body, because those demographics have helped hand the award to Valley every year since 2003.
Before we start, let me make clear that the case we will be building here is not against Valley High School. Valley athletics have an indisputable tradition of excellence. To piss on the school for winning championships is to suggest that the Valley kids should be taking a dive out there. They shouldn't. They're good kids. My wife is a Valley alumna, for pete's sake. No, the case we're building is against the Register's All-Sports Award itself.
First of all, let's talk about size. Valley has by far the largest enrollment of any Iowa high school, with about 1,950 students. That's about 15% larger (about 230 more students) than the next-closest competitor, Des Moines East. Does size matter? You bet it does. Because a huge student population allows a school's teams to draw from a significantly deeper talent pool.
Let's assume that athletic talent is fairly evenly distributed through the population (it isn't, obviously, but we're starting from the most basic concepts). For every 500 students, let's say there is maybe one player in a given sport who is a "10" on a ten-point scale. At progressively lower talent levels, there are more and more students. Out of 500 kids, there are, say, two 9s, three 8s, five 7s, eight 6s, twelve 5s, and so on. In putting together a 20-player team, then, Valley has access to four 10s, eight 9s, and enough 8s to fill out the roster. Valley's team average is 8.4, and the median player, the one in the middle of the team, talent-wise, is a 9.
Nearby Urbandale High School, meanwhile, is similar in a lot of respects to Valley but has fewer than half as many students. So it must make do with maybe one or two 10s, three 9s, five 8s, eight 7s and some 6s. Urbandale's team average is just a little lower at 8.2 -- but the median player is only a 7, two full levels below Valley's. Anyone who knows sports acutely would tell you that the median is more important that the average, which is distorted by extremes. You don't win championships with your stars. You win them with your role players.
So Valley's size alone gives it an advantage toward winning the Register award every single year. But demographics is more than just raw population numbers. The reason Valley is so large is that it's the only conventional public high school in the West Des Moines district, which covers more than 60,000 people in West Des Moines, Clive and portions of Urbandale and Windsor Heights. That territory also constitutes the greatest concentration of wealth in the state. Does money matter? You bet it does. Because an affluent student population also allows a school's teams to draw from a significantly deeper talent pool.
Simply put, rich kids (and upper-middle-class kids) have a leg up on poor kids (and working-class kids). In a richer school, students in the aggregate will have more free time to pursue sports of all kinds, far more opportunity to pursue niche sports such as tennis and golf, and more parks and recreational places in which to pursue them. In a poorer school, more students will have jobs (to help support the family, not just to get spending money), more will be unable to afford specialized sporting equipment, and more will be watching siblings before and after school. In those poorer schools, a certain portion of the student body couldn't play sports even if they wanted to, and many are limited in the sports they can participate in.
That's not to say poorer schools can't and don't field teams that compete at a high level. They do. The catch is: They can't do it in every sport. In any given school, rich or poor, the best basketball players will be playing basketball, the best football players will be playing football, because opportunities are present in those sports from a young age. It's the lesser sports -- the ones that colleges refer to as "non-revenue" sports -- where the competition between rich and poor schools breaks down completely. Thousands of kids in the western suburbs grow up exposed to golf, tennis, soccer, swimming, diving, volleyball. On Des Moines' east side ... not so much. Des Moines East can field a decent basketball team and a track team, of course, but how's their golf team? Their tennis team? Their swimming team?
This is key, you see, because the All-Sports Award depends on participation in "all sports." Friday's Register article includes a little sidebar about how Valley won the All-Sports title. In the past year's state tournaments, Valley teams were:
- First in girls' swimming
- First in girls' softball
- First in girls' soccer
- Second in boys' track
- Third in boys' tennis
- Third in boys' soccer
- Fourth in boys' swimming
- Fourth in girls' golf
- Fifth in boys' golf
- Seventh in girls' track
- Semifinalists (third/fourth) in football
- Semifinalists (third/fourth) in girls' basketball
(The Register award, it should be noted, is given out for three categories of schools: "small," those with 1-349 students; "medium," or 350-799 students; and "large," 800 or more. At the lower levels, no school has dominated year after year like Valley has. But those categories have an upper bound, and no school in them has a combined enrollment/affluence edge as stark as Valley's.)
If the award itself is so skewed, why does the Register even give it out? To understand that, it helps to understand a couple things about the media.
First, when people who don't work in the news media see something irrelevant, trivial or otherwise questionable dressed up as "news," they shake their head and ask, "Slow news day?" The answer is usually: Yes. For sports news, you don't get much deader than August. All that's going on is baseball. If it weren't for Shawn Johnson of West Des Moines(!) slaughtering the opposition in international gymnastics, the Register wouldn't have anything to write about at all. (Besides another preview on the Hawkeyes' backup punter, of course.) So they fill column inches with a bogus award.
Second, you may or may not have noticed this, but community newspaper sports sections aren't exactly fonts of creativity. That's why every other sports headline is a brainless pun on someone's name: "Sabbatini has Tiger by the tail." Get it? Cuz his name is Tiger, and tigers have tails! I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that someone in the Register hierarchy saw that some other newspaper somewhere was giving out an annual high-school all-sports award and thought, "Hey, why don't we do that?" But they never stopped to think through the criteria. In California, or New York, or Illinois, or even Missouri, you have a lot of large schools from different population centers that can be measured against each other on a roughly equal basis. Iowa does not. Rating high schools according to the Register criteria is always going to be comparing apples to oranges to plums to cherries to grapes, because there are so few teams with apples.
Valley athletes deserve congratulations for a lot of things, but not this.
Monday, July 30, 2007
The trouble with templates
They don't call it dummy type for nothing ...
A tip for print media designers everywhere. If you run David Broder's column -- or anyone else's -- regularly, invest the two minutes it will take to create a separate sig with his name on it.
A tip for print media designers everywhere. If you run David Broder's column -- or anyone else's -- regularly, invest the two minutes it will take to create a separate sig with his name on it.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Gen X makes a stand on wobbly knees
The name Karen Mracek might not mean anything to you now, but in the future, when all your friends have XIOA bookmarked on their browsers and you're bragging that you were there right at the beginning, you'll thank her. Because it was her recent column in The Des Moines Register about "Generation X" in the workplace that prompted us to set up shop.
(Disclosure: I worked at The Register once and bear it no more ill will than I do any other media outlet. This ain't Cityview, which constantly berates the local daily for being owned by an out-of-town concern, yet gives the local TV stations a free pass on their absentee ownership.)
Mracek is one of two writers of The Register's "Workbytes" column, which, according to the press kit, aims to address workplace issues of interest to young workers. (The other writer, Larry Ballard, frequently uses the space to audition for a coveted spot at The Onion.) In Monday's column, Mracek takes it upon herself to introduce Generation X to the baby boomers who may come across these odd creatures in the workplaces and unemployment offices of Iowa. Upon reading it, I naturally assumed that it was still 1992 and that my 15 years in the workplace, my wedding, my old cat, my bitchin 1996 Dodge pickup and the birth of my son were just events from a very long dream. But no, the newspaper page said July 23, 2007.
So let's take a look at what she has to say, hmm? Excerpts from the column are in italics:
We came up with some things you need to know about Generation X workers:
To which my wife would respond: "Well, one of them hogs the covers, that's for sure." Meanwhile, everybody in every workplace everywhere in Iowa is saying: "Thanks, but I've already learned enough from the Gen-Xers who have worked here the past 20 years."
1. We don't plan on being at this job for the next 30 years. It just ain't going to happen. If we don't win the Powerball and say "see ya" to this cube farm, then we'll probably find something else that strikes our fancy (a.k.a. when Heineken comes looking for a beer taster.)
I sure as shit hope we won't be in this job for the next 30 years. Demographers generally peg Gen-X as people born from 1961 to 1981. Those in the middle are in their late 30s to early 40s. Besides, when did the majority of people ever stay in a job 30 years? Hint: Never. This is a lie we'll revisit later.
Beyond that nit, however, are a few horrifying assertions. One is that everyone works in a "cube farm." Look, just because your workplace is a miserable shithole doesn't mean everybody else's is. Second is that we all hate our jobs and can't wait to quit. I've had jobs I hated. I've had jobs I loved. Sometimes on alternating days. You tell me how that makes Gen-X any different from every other generation. Third is that members of Generation X move from one job to the next not because it's what's best for us and our families but because something "strikes our fancy." Fuck you, lady. Some people have mortgages and kids. They'd love to go sell vibrators at the State Fair or something, but those hungry little mouths don't feed themselves. Lastly, she infantilizes an entire generation by offering as an example of our dream job "Heineken beer taster." Not only do we prize beer above all else; it isn't even good beer. Come to think of it, that's pretty much Juice's editorial philosophy, isn't it? Oh, and just because I'm in a mood, that "a.k.a." should be an "e.g."
Seriously, this probably won't be our last job. The average employee in his or her late twenties, for example, has already switched jobs five or six times. Disclaimer: I have had four since I graduated from college. (But I really like this one.)
How do you reconcile "it just ain't gonna happen" with "this probably won't be our last job"? You can't. Because it's not a message for the reader. It's a message for her own boss, one that earns bonus points with parenthetical ass-kissing. Also, that's not a disclaimer. It's a disclosure. But now I'm just being a dick.
Xers just don't see job-jumping as a bad thing. It doesn't mean that we aren't contributing while we're there. And many of us are happy living on the cheap. (I can't speak for the whole generation on that one. After all, I am a journalist.) We do pick up skills along the way and want to make a difference at the company we are working for, whether we work for three years or three decades. It doesn't mean we aren't loyal, but it does mean that we value different things. We prefer job satisfaction over job titles, work/life balance over tenure, and happy hour over making sure our boss sees us at our desk at 5 p.m., even if we are just watching the latest JibJab.
Guess what? Nobody really sees job-jumping as a bad thing anymore. The boomers' entire work experience taught them -- and us -- that loyalty is only as good as the checks it's printed on. No one believes in the company-loyalty model anymore -- except the companies that would benefit from it, and workers are wise to them. Really, It's disappointing that a workplace columnist is so out of touch with what's actually going on in the workforce. But cut her some slack: She's a member of Generation X, and they only just started working!
The business about being happy "working on the cheap" because she's a journalist is just depressing. One of the many scandals in America's J-schools is the way the faculty have convinced students that they will be making less money because they're involved in some sort of noble pursuit. I was told many times, "There isn't any money in journalism," which is a stone cold lie. There's tons of money in journalism -- even now. It's just that the money in most places isn't shared with the newsroom hoi polloi, who have been conditioned to think that ... there's no money in journalism.
Toward the end of the passage, she makes some good points about what Gen-Xers value, then pisses all over it, twice -- first with another boozy reference, and then with a caricature of Gen-X as slackers. (We're watching JibJab, though, so at least it's not 1992 anymore; it's 2005!)
2. We can listen to music and carry on a conversation at the same time. It's not that hard, really. We grew up with Walkmans and MTV and have spent the last 20-plus years only listening to what we think is relevant to us. ... What's that I hear? Lattes?!? Wait for me. OK, I'm back. More important, music usually helps us focus. It also makes us able to multitask. So as long as we aren't humming along to K-Fed, who cares?
Look, I don't know how to break this to her, but if you need music ("usually") to help you focus, maybe you should try Ritalin. I have absolutely no idea why so many people my age have chosen this particular hill as the one they want to die on. If your boss lets you wear headphones, then great. But if she doesn't, that's your problem, not hers. Maybe she doesn't want to have to shout to get your attention. Or maybe, because she's paying you for your time, she wants you to be listening to what's relevant to her, not "what we think is relevant to us," whatever that means. Nice K-Fed reference, though. Only eight months too late.
3. 9 to 5 is not part of our vocabulary.
This is the lead-in to a pretty reasonable discussion of flex-time, so good for Mracek. That still doesn't excuse this stupid opening line, though. Is she aware that tens of millions of people work in service positions that require them to be "on the job" even when there's no work to do? Not everyone works in an office. Even dirt-poor journalists can be elitists, it seems.
4. We're not all the same. Just like all generations, we can't be characterized as a homogeneous group.
Uh, OK. Maybe she should have made that No. 1, and stopped there. Because what she's been doing for far, far too many words now is trying to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush. You can't have it both ways. You can't say "Gen X does this" and "Gen X likes that," then turn around and tsk-tsk the world for trying to stuff us into a box. And as it turns out, saying "No one speaks for my generation" does not actually make you a spokesman for your generation.
The term "Generation X" was the title of a popular book written in 1991 by Douglas Coupland. It is a fictional work about three strangers who decide to distance themselves from society to get a better sense of who they are. He describes the characters as "underemployed, overeducated, intensely private and unpredictable." And those characteristics can describe 48 million people in United States? I don't think so.
Generation X was also the name of a late-1970s/early-1980s punk rock band that was fronted by Billy Idol and, more important, was the precursor to Sigue Sigue Sputnik. Idol's first hit, Dancing With Myself, was actually a Generation X song. I'd describe the music as "pop-inspired yet trending toward a harder edge." And those characteristics can describe 48 million people in the United States? I don't think so.
It's not clear what she's trying to accomplish with this. Yes, the Coupland book was where the media -- and, most influentially, marketers -- got the term. No one ever said the characters in the book stood in for an entire generation.
5. We do care. Having more than one job in a lifetime may be seen by older generations as disloyal, but I would beg to differ. We are loyal, it's just not a blind loyalty to a company. In a study released by Catalyst, a nonprofit corporate membership research and advisory organization, 47 percent of Generation X professionals say they would be happy spending the rest of their careers with their current organization; 85 percent care a great deal about the future of their organization, and 83 percent say they are willing to go beyond what is normally expected to ensure the success of that organization.
Why, that's a mighty big straw man you have there, dear. Again, I call bullshit on these hypothetical "older generations" sitting in their rockers somewhere wagging their gray heads at the disloyal ingrates of Generation X. Old people got fucked by their employers, too. A lot of them lived through the Depression, where they got fucked by the system as a whole. A lot of them continue to get fucked by having the pension and health care benefits they were promised yanked out from under them. They know exactly why we're free agents: Because we saw what happened to them.
The statistics she cites are interesting. Frankly, she should have led with them. But how interesting would it have been to lead her column with, "People of Generation X are pretty much just like everybody else"?
For me, if a company treats me well, I will do the same by it.
In case the boss missed it the first time around: I'm not talking about me! I'll eat your shit and smile, too!
Ultimately what's so disappointing about the column is that it's bleeding with the very solipsism that Generation X is so frequently accused of. Mracek enters a workforce that Gen-X has been demonstrating its abilities in for close to 20 years, and she takes it on herself to introduce the boomers to "her generation." She figures that because she hops from one job to the next, everybody does it -- and does it for the same reasons she does. She figures that because she makes shit wages, everybody does -- and is happy about it. She figures that because she needs music to help her think, everybody does -- and no one has a right to tell her otherwise. And she figures that because getting off in time for "happy hour" is more important to her than being taken seriously at work, everybody else has those same priorities.
Actually, I suspect she doesn't believe that last one, but that doesn't mean she isn't going to attribute it to everyone else in Generation X.
This column was hackneyed a dozen years ago. Where's Larry Ballard and his fart jokes?
Aw, man, thisisgonnabefun.
(Disclosure: I worked at The Register once and bear it no more ill will than I do any other media outlet. This ain't Cityview, which constantly berates the local daily for being owned by an out-of-town concern, yet gives the local TV stations a free pass on their absentee ownership.)
Mracek is one of two writers of The Register's "Workbytes" column, which, according to the press kit, aims to address workplace issues of interest to young workers. (The other writer, Larry Ballard, frequently uses the space to audition for a coveted spot at The Onion.) In Monday's column, Mracek takes it upon herself to introduce Generation X to the baby boomers who may come across these odd creatures in the workplaces and unemployment offices of Iowa. Upon reading it, I naturally assumed that it was still 1992 and that my 15 years in the workplace, my wedding, my old cat, my bitchin 1996 Dodge pickup and the birth of my son were just events from a very long dream. But no, the newspaper page said July 23, 2007.
So let's take a look at what she has to say, hmm? Excerpts from the column are in italics:
We came up with some things you need to know about Generation X workers:
To which my wife would respond: "Well, one of them hogs the covers, that's for sure." Meanwhile, everybody in every workplace everywhere in Iowa is saying: "Thanks, but I've already learned enough from the Gen-Xers who have worked here the past 20 years."
1. We don't plan on being at this job for the next 30 years. It just ain't going to happen. If we don't win the Powerball and say "see ya" to this cube farm, then we'll probably find something else that strikes our fancy (a.k.a. when Heineken comes looking for a beer taster.)
I sure as shit hope we won't be in this job for the next 30 years. Demographers generally peg Gen-X as people born from 1961 to 1981. Those in the middle are in their late 30s to early 40s. Besides, when did the majority of people ever stay in a job 30 years? Hint: Never. This is a lie we'll revisit later.
Beyond that nit, however, are a few horrifying assertions. One is that everyone works in a "cube farm." Look, just because your workplace is a miserable shithole doesn't mean everybody else's is. Second is that we all hate our jobs and can't wait to quit. I've had jobs I hated. I've had jobs I loved. Sometimes on alternating days. You tell me how that makes Gen-X any different from every other generation. Third is that members of Generation X move from one job to the next not because it's what's best for us and our families but because something "strikes our fancy." Fuck you, lady. Some people have mortgages and kids. They'd love to go sell vibrators at the State Fair or something, but those hungry little mouths don't feed themselves. Lastly, she infantilizes an entire generation by offering as an example of our dream job "Heineken beer taster." Not only do we prize beer above all else; it isn't even good beer. Come to think of it, that's pretty much Juice's editorial philosophy, isn't it? Oh, and just because I'm in a mood, that "a.k.a." should be an "e.g."
Seriously, this probably won't be our last job. The average employee in his or her late twenties, for example, has already switched jobs five or six times. Disclaimer: I have had four since I graduated from college. (But I really like this one.)
How do you reconcile "it just ain't gonna happen" with "this probably won't be our last job"? You can't. Because it's not a message for the reader. It's a message for her own boss, one that earns bonus points with parenthetical ass-kissing. Also, that's not a disclaimer. It's a disclosure. But now I'm just being a dick.
Xers just don't see job-jumping as a bad thing. It doesn't mean that we aren't contributing while we're there. And many of us are happy living on the cheap. (I can't speak for the whole generation on that one. After all, I am a journalist.) We do pick up skills along the way and want to make a difference at the company we are working for, whether we work for three years or three decades. It doesn't mean we aren't loyal, but it does mean that we value different things. We prefer job satisfaction over job titles, work/life balance over tenure, and happy hour over making sure our boss sees us at our desk at 5 p.m., even if we are just watching the latest JibJab.
Guess what? Nobody really sees job-jumping as a bad thing anymore. The boomers' entire work experience taught them -- and us -- that loyalty is only as good as the checks it's printed on. No one believes in the company-loyalty model anymore -- except the companies that would benefit from it, and workers are wise to them. Really, It's disappointing that a workplace columnist is so out of touch with what's actually going on in the workforce. But cut her some slack: She's a member of Generation X, and they only just started working!
The business about being happy "working on the cheap" because she's a journalist is just depressing. One of the many scandals in America's J-schools is the way the faculty have convinced students that they will be making less money because they're involved in some sort of noble pursuit. I was told many times, "There isn't any money in journalism," which is a stone cold lie. There's tons of money in journalism -- even now. It's just that the money in most places isn't shared with the newsroom hoi polloi, who have been conditioned to think that ... there's no money in journalism.
Toward the end of the passage, she makes some good points about what Gen-Xers value, then pisses all over it, twice -- first with another boozy reference, and then with a caricature of Gen-X as slackers. (We're watching JibJab, though, so at least it's not 1992 anymore; it's 2005!)
2. We can listen to music and carry on a conversation at the same time. It's not that hard, really. We grew up with Walkmans and MTV and have spent the last 20-plus years only listening to what we think is relevant to us. ... What's that I hear? Lattes?!? Wait for me. OK, I'm back. More important, music usually helps us focus. It also makes us able to multitask. So as long as we aren't humming along to K-Fed, who cares?
Look, I don't know how to break this to her, but if you need music ("usually") to help you focus, maybe you should try Ritalin. I have absolutely no idea why so many people my age have chosen this particular hill as the one they want to die on. If your boss lets you wear headphones, then great. But if she doesn't, that's your problem, not hers. Maybe she doesn't want to have to shout to get your attention. Or maybe, because she's paying you for your time, she wants you to be listening to what's relevant to her, not "what we think is relevant to us," whatever that means. Nice K-Fed reference, though. Only eight months too late.
3. 9 to 5 is not part of our vocabulary.
This is the lead-in to a pretty reasonable discussion of flex-time, so good for Mracek. That still doesn't excuse this stupid opening line, though. Is she aware that tens of millions of people work in service positions that require them to be "on the job" even when there's no work to do? Not everyone works in an office. Even dirt-poor journalists can be elitists, it seems.
4. We're not all the same. Just like all generations, we can't be characterized as a homogeneous group.
Uh, OK. Maybe she should have made that No. 1, and stopped there. Because what she's been doing for far, far too many words now is trying to paint an entire group of people with a broad brush. You can't have it both ways. You can't say "Gen X does this" and "Gen X likes that," then turn around and tsk-tsk the world for trying to stuff us into a box. And as it turns out, saying "No one speaks for my generation" does not actually make you a spokesman for your generation.
The term "Generation X" was the title of a popular book written in 1991 by Douglas Coupland. It is a fictional work about three strangers who decide to distance themselves from society to get a better sense of who they are. He describes the characters as "underemployed, overeducated, intensely private and unpredictable." And those characteristics can describe 48 million people in United States? I don't think so.
Generation X was also the name of a late-1970s/early-1980s punk rock band that was fronted by Billy Idol and, more important, was the precursor to Sigue Sigue Sputnik. Idol's first hit, Dancing With Myself, was actually a Generation X song. I'd describe the music as "pop-inspired yet trending toward a harder edge." And those characteristics can describe 48 million people in the United States? I don't think so.
It's not clear what she's trying to accomplish with this. Yes, the Coupland book was where the media -- and, most influentially, marketers -- got the term. No one ever said the characters in the book stood in for an entire generation.
5. We do care. Having more than one job in a lifetime may be seen by older generations as disloyal, but I would beg to differ. We are loyal, it's just not a blind loyalty to a company. In a study released by Catalyst, a nonprofit corporate membership research and advisory organization, 47 percent of Generation X professionals say they would be happy spending the rest of their careers with their current organization; 85 percent care a great deal about the future of their organization, and 83 percent say they are willing to go beyond what is normally expected to ensure the success of that organization.
Why, that's a mighty big straw man you have there, dear. Again, I call bullshit on these hypothetical "older generations" sitting in their rockers somewhere wagging their gray heads at the disloyal ingrates of Generation X. Old people got fucked by their employers, too. A lot of them lived through the Depression, where they got fucked by the system as a whole. A lot of them continue to get fucked by having the pension and health care benefits they were promised yanked out from under them. They know exactly why we're free agents: Because we saw what happened to them.
The statistics she cites are interesting. Frankly, she should have led with them. But how interesting would it have been to lead her column with, "People of Generation X are pretty much just like everybody else"?
For me, if a company treats me well, I will do the same by it.
In case the boss missed it the first time around: I'm not talking about me! I'll eat your shit and smile, too!
Ultimately what's so disappointing about the column is that it's bleeding with the very solipsism that Generation X is so frequently accused of. Mracek enters a workforce that Gen-X has been demonstrating its abilities in for close to 20 years, and she takes it on herself to introduce the boomers to "her generation." She figures that because she hops from one job to the next, everybody does it -- and does it for the same reasons she does. She figures that because she makes shit wages, everybody does -- and is happy about it. She figures that because she needs music to help her think, everybody does -- and no one has a right to tell her otherwise. And she figures that because getting off in time for "happy hour" is more important to her than being taken seriously at work, everybody else has those same priorities.
Actually, I suspect she doesn't believe that last one, but that doesn't mean she isn't going to attribute it to everyone else in Generation X.
This column was hackneyed a dozen years ago. Where's Larry Ballard and his fart jokes?
Aw, man, thisisgonnabefun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)