Quote
The Newsweek article is terrible of course. A stupid,
fannish essay banged out in maybe thirty minutes, most of it filled with
repetitive superlatives and summaries and to be sure's. The second half of the
article is a limp justification for worshipping effeminate ciphers like Barack
Cornball Obama, the third president in a row with daddy issues and a crippled
psyche. Women who consider themselves "professionals" (i.e. have a
libarts or business-lite degree and do practically nothing of value) will
always prefer an office filled with beta males they can dun into taking them
seriously.
Of course when you look at the modern office, even the alphas are betas--weak men who gained power through a mysterious consensus after years of expertly sucking management dick and creating new synergies in risk aversion, men who are in fact the creatures of a workplace that is 50% female (and suffers for it). I don't know that today's manchildren will ever snap out of it and change this, but all it will take is men grabbing what they want and never apologizing for offending some useless libarts shrew and the she-male faggot who cries after sex.
Of course when you look at the modern office, even the alphas are betas--weak men who gained power through a mysterious consensus after years of expertly sucking management dick and creating new synergies in risk aversion, men who are in fact the creatures of a workplace that is 50% female (and suffers for it). I don't know that today's manchildren will ever snap out of it and change this, but all it will take is men grabbing what they want and never apologizing for offending some useless libarts shrew and the she-male faggot who cries after sex.
Telecommuting will only be accepted by business as a tightly
controlled benefit distributed where managers think they can get more hours out
of salaried workers, or in other special circumstances. In my last
job I was an unusual case in that company offices relocated and I would have
quit otherwise. Also my job was not easy to fill as it requires
specialized experience (is still vacant from what I hear). So I actually
telecommuted full time. But for the other people allowed to use
telecommuting it was a special one day a week thing bestowed as a goody for
doing something stupid like working 60-70 hour weeks on a regular basis or
making the manager look good.
Getting back to the thread topic, I rank the managerial revolution and the influx of women as the two biggest disasters to befall the workplace. That a handful of pseudo-intellectual Jewish women managed to sell the rest of their sex on the ideal of soul-deadening careers is quite remarkable, especially because it upended the traditional vocation of women for which they had been fitted over thousands of years. As far as I can tell, pursuing a career makes most women unhappy and they bring their unhappiness into the workplace and the home. The office becomes a cesspool of gossip, cliques, oversensitivity, and mediocrity aspiring to "professionalism" (with enough structure and process no one can tell if you are truly incompetent). The home becomes a joyless, loveless rat race of its own.
Much of this has been to further the concept that human beings are basically sexless, hence men and women today regard themselves as "partners" in a relationship, "spouses" once they get married, sexless, interchangeable units not unlike back at the office. Men and women seem to behave like co-workers in their own marriages, which is so ridiculous that you have to be careful not to laugh at them when they are mid-sentence telling you about their hellish lives. This is also the real impetus behind recognizing gay marriage and regarding trannies as other than mentally disabled freaks. Many men and women have already internalized warped ideas about the sexes and are therefore helpless to rebut further crazy ideas.
It is a great boon though to the managerial elite to have men (especially white collar men) behave like castrates, think what could happen if these men started to see themselves as heads of households responsible for the defense and prosperity of their own families. That is why it helps to have women set the rules in the office, so the dickless male can learn how to behave. In fact at work women tend to act as retarded mommy figures, which signals to men that childish and obedient behavior is still appropriate.
It takes a lot of work to get people to willingly make themselves unhappy, but it can be done as we see.
Getting back to the thread topic, I rank the managerial revolution and the influx of women as the two biggest disasters to befall the workplace. That a handful of pseudo-intellectual Jewish women managed to sell the rest of their sex on the ideal of soul-deadening careers is quite remarkable, especially because it upended the traditional vocation of women for which they had been fitted over thousands of years. As far as I can tell, pursuing a career makes most women unhappy and they bring their unhappiness into the workplace and the home. The office becomes a cesspool of gossip, cliques, oversensitivity, and mediocrity aspiring to "professionalism" (with enough structure and process no one can tell if you are truly incompetent). The home becomes a joyless, loveless rat race of its own.
Much of this has been to further the concept that human beings are basically sexless, hence men and women today regard themselves as "partners" in a relationship, "spouses" once they get married, sexless, interchangeable units not unlike back at the office. Men and women seem to behave like co-workers in their own marriages, which is so ridiculous that you have to be careful not to laugh at them when they are mid-sentence telling you about their hellish lives. This is also the real impetus behind recognizing gay marriage and regarding trannies as other than mentally disabled freaks. Many men and women have already internalized warped ideas about the sexes and are therefore helpless to rebut further crazy ideas.
It is a great boon though to the managerial elite to have men (especially white collar men) behave like castrates, think what could happen if these men started to see themselves as heads of households responsible for the defense and prosperity of their own families. That is why it helps to have women set the rules in the office, so the dickless male can learn how to behave. In fact at work women tend to act as retarded mommy figures, which signals to men that childish and obedient behavior is still appropriate.
It takes a lot of work to get people to willingly make themselves unhappy, but it can be done as we see.
Quote
Getting back to the thread topic, I rank the managerial
revolution and the influx of women as the two biggest disasters to befall the
workplace. That a handful of pseudo-intellectual Jewish women managed to sell
the rest of their sex on the ideal of soul-deadening careers is quite
remarkable, especially because it upended the traditional vocation of women for
which they had been fitted over thousands of years. As far as I can tell,
pursuing a career makes most women unhappy and they bring their unhappiness
into the workplace and the home. The office becomes a cesspool of gossip,
cliques, oversensitivity, and mediocrity aspiring to
"professionalism" (with enough structure and process no one can tell
if you are truly incompetent). The home becomes a joyless, loveless rat race of
its own.
Agreed. Male conversation is impossible because fat hens in the office are constantly clucking on about "he said/she said" and looking to be offended. The misery of these women is obvious just by inspection: their hair is usually unkempt, they are overweight, their clothes are not feminine due to their weight. They also want male attention but know they aren't deserving of it and this grinds on them even more.
Quote
Much of this has been to further the concept that human
beings are basically sexless, hence men and women today regard themselves as
"partners" in a relationship, "spouses" once they get
married, sexless, interchangeable units not unlike back at the office. Men and
women seem to behave like co-workers in their own marriages, which is so
ridiculous that you have to be careful not to laugh at them when they are
mid-sentence telling you about their hellish lives.
Agreed. I tend to refrain from discussing marriage with any of my coworkers because I actually like my wife and we have a traditional marriage with traditional gender roles and division of responsibilities. Most men end up miserable in marriage because, as you said, they refuse to actually behave like they have natural authority. Hilariously, some recently-married evangelical in my office has made "working on the relationship" his entire life and some of the stories he tells already indicate to me that he's unhappy with how his wife talks to him. His response, of course, is to get involved in still more marriage groups, seminars, and whatever else comes to mind or that his "church" throws at him. Even more hilariously, he's a marriage counselor at his church. He hasn't been married a year yet.
Quote
It is a great boon though to the managerial elite to have
men (especially white collar men) behave like castrates, think what could
happen if these men started to see themselves as heads of households
responsible for the defense and prosperity of their own families. That is why
it helps to have women set the rules in the office, so the dickless male can
learn how to behave. In fact at work women tend to act as retarded mommy
figures, which signals to men that childish and obedient behavior is still
appropriate.
I've noticed this also. You'd think half the men were gay. Some woman tried to chastise me yesterday because I made some joke about how my wife was the maid (thinking she'd just laugh it off). Of course she got genuinely offended. But in the very instant before I made the joke I was talking about vacuuming with some other dude. If she had anything but a hen brain, she would have put 2 and 2 together and realized I was kidding because I do housework also.
We need to learn how to de-couple our incomes from these emasculating corporations. We have to.
PRCalDude,
on 22 January 2010 - 08:44 PM, said:
We need to learn how to de-couple our incomes from these
emasculating corporations. We have to.
Your best bet is to work for a small business, where the
atmosphere is usually more productive. The trade-off is
security. Self-employment can work for some, but it's tougher and
riskier.
PLEASUREMAN, on 22 January 2010 - 09:51 PM, said:
PRCalDude,
on 22 January 2010 - 08:44 PM, said:
We need to learn how to de-couple our incomes from these
emasculating corporations. We have to.
Your best bet is to work for a small business, where the
atmosphere is usually more productive. The trade-off is
security. Self-employment can work for some, but it's tougher and
riskier.
Small businesses are still suffering GDII and will be for quite some time. Small business lending is still contracting. I don't think it'll be back for a good 10 years.
I think this is all going to be taken out of our hands anyway. Companies now consider employees to be temps, basically, so we'll have to figure out how to make our own living:
http://www.businessw...63032935448.htm
I kind of want to read this book, but a lot of these "entrepenuers" just make money by telling people to become entrepeneurs:
http://www.amazon.co...64221522&sr=8-1
PRCalDude, on 22 January 2010 - 10:39 PM, said:
Small businesses are still suffering GDII and will be for
quite some time. Small business lending is still
contracting. I don't think it'll be back for a good 10 years.
I think this is all going to be taken out of our hands anyway. Companies now consider employees to be temps, basically, so we'll have to figure out how to make our own living:
http://www.businessw...63032935448.htm
I kind of want to read this book, but a lot of these "entrepenuers" just make money by telling people to become entrepeneurs:
http://www.amazon.co...64221522&sr=8-1
I think this is all going to be taken out of our hands anyway. Companies now consider employees to be temps, basically, so we'll have to figure out how to make our own living:
http://www.businessw...63032935448.htm
I kind of want to read this book, but a lot of these "entrepenuers" just make money by telling people to become entrepeneurs:
http://www.amazon.co...64221522&sr=8-1
The entrepreneur book looks suspect--based on a
blog! The key for me was establishing strong partnerships with other
entrepreneurs over several years, I could not have done it
overnight. And most people just won't have the temperament or luck
to join self-employment or start their own business. But I will
never work for a big corporation again.
The Business Weak [sic] article should be eye-opening for people. This is the final accomplishment of the managerial revolution--the complete exploitation of the non-managerial workforce. You might say it has relied on strategies similar to those discussed in The Culture of Critique. It has greatly benefited from periods of economic upheaval to repeatedly reset the standards of employment lower each time, then inhibited their rise during periods of prosperity through use of immigrant laborers, new business practices (temp employment), and an authoritarian corporate culture. What is coming next is the abandonment of any pretense of fair hiring practices related to age--this stage of management relies on a young, credulous workforce that will work hard with little prospects (a few will win the lottery and become managers) until it is completely burned out.
I still keep in touch with some of the people from my last job. They are still working 60+ hour weeks with the knowledge that they have little hope for advancement or even a decent raise (raises have been COLA and lower for years for those not seen to be on a management track). It is astonishing behavior.
Managers also work hard--attending meetings. For all the hours some put in, I have never seen a manager do real work--whether intellectually challenging or time-consuming drudgery. The business culture of endless meetings disguises the fact that many of these people are just socializing and typing meeting notes for 8-12 hours. And of course pressure is put on the lower track managers to exploit their reports to the full--it's what makes the system work.
The Business Weak [sic] article should be eye-opening for people. This is the final accomplishment of the managerial revolution--the complete exploitation of the non-managerial workforce. You might say it has relied on strategies similar to those discussed in The Culture of Critique. It has greatly benefited from periods of economic upheaval to repeatedly reset the standards of employment lower each time, then inhibited their rise during periods of prosperity through use of immigrant laborers, new business practices (temp employment), and an authoritarian corporate culture. What is coming next is the abandonment of any pretense of fair hiring practices related to age--this stage of management relies on a young, credulous workforce that will work hard with little prospects (a few will win the lottery and become managers) until it is completely burned out.
I still keep in touch with some of the people from my last job. They are still working 60+ hour weeks with the knowledge that they have little hope for advancement or even a decent raise (raises have been COLA and lower for years for those not seen to be on a management track). It is astonishing behavior.
Managers also work hard--attending meetings. For all the hours some put in, I have never seen a manager do real work--whether intellectually challenging or time-consuming drudgery. The business culture of endless meetings disguises the fact that many of these people are just socializing and typing meeting notes for 8-12 hours. And of course pressure is put on the lower track managers to exploit their reports to the full--it's what makes the system work.
The end result of the zero-sum gaming you describe is
permanent economic contraction. Sure, you can make employees temps,
but it takes time and effort to train people and make them productive beyond
what automation and software can accomplish. Temp workers can and
will eventually be replaced by good code and machinery.
I agree with all you've said about mgmt, but we've got to come up with a solution. Yours is good, but it takes (as you said), time, expertise, and contacts to get out on your own. How do younger guys develop expertise without time in rate and how do we develop time in rate in our grorious new temp/Walmart check-cashing economy? Sure, people with IQs of 130+ will develop the expertise on their own and may be able to translate that into a start-up of some type (look at Google and Yahoo!, for instance). But the rest of us mere mortals need an escape plan.
I've often thought that the best plan would be to simply buy cheap land in the rust belt and just live extremely cheaply. Food can be grown. If you own land, at least you won't starve. You won't make much money, but I'm not sure there is much money to be made until wages reset to the global mean, which is somewhere around $25k/year for an electrical engineer.
The plan is not without drawbacks, but - hey! - at least you're not paying any federal income taxes once you're below a certain threshold. No sense in continuing to pay into an illegitimate and dying system.
I agree with all you've said about mgmt, but we've got to come up with a solution. Yours is good, but it takes (as you said), time, expertise, and contacts to get out on your own. How do younger guys develop expertise without time in rate and how do we develop time in rate in our grorious new temp/Walmart check-cashing economy? Sure, people with IQs of 130+ will develop the expertise on their own and may be able to translate that into a start-up of some type (look at Google and Yahoo!, for instance). But the rest of us mere mortals need an escape plan.
I've often thought that the best plan would be to simply buy cheap land in the rust belt and just live extremely cheaply. Food can be grown. If you own land, at least you won't starve. You won't make much money, but I'm not sure there is much money to be made until wages reset to the global mean, which is somewhere around $25k/year for an electrical engineer.
The plan is not without drawbacks, but - hey! - at least you're not paying any federal income taxes once you're below a certain threshold. No sense in continuing to pay into an illegitimate and dying system.
The managerial state's genius
solution to driving everyone into low paying jobs was the endless extension of
credit. Apparently this has not worked out well! So yes
we are presumably stuck in a lost decade of little to no growth and 10% nominal
unemployment, or can these fools successfully pull off that trick
twice? It seems like the world may not let them.
PLEASUREMAN, on 24 January 2010 - 12:26 PM, said:
The managerial state's genius solution to driving everyone
into low paying jobs was the endless extension of credit. Apparently
this has not worked out well! So yes we are presumably stuck in a
lost decade of little to no growth and 10% nominal unemployment, or can these
fools successfully pull off that trick twice? It seems like the
world may not let them.
I think the Fed will have to raise interest rates to entice purchasers for its treasuries sooner or later. I read somewhere that the last treasury auction didn't go well and countries are looking for other currencies to hold besides the dollar.
The 10% unemployment number is bogus, of course. The U-6 statistic is up around 17%. If we used the GDI metric, it would be over 20%. It's probably 25% here in CA.
We've reached peak credit. When the Fed raises interest rates, demand for credit will only go lower. Still, though, the banks are ill-positioned to loan anyways. My in-laws just bought a house and, despite their excellent credit, income, and downpayment (50%), the banks went through their background with a fine-toothed comb and the process took quite awhile.
The job I'm at right now will not build my technical skills. It's a bridge job. I'm doing a lot of reading on my own to try to position myself to freelance later, but let's face it, most of us will not be able to do this. Corporations stay in business because increasing economies of scale make their goods and services cheaper and better.
They will offshore and permatemp absolutely every job they
can, I don't think they even care if this results in substandard work as long
as the balance sheets look good. I have seen offshoring implemented
in a completely reckless manner from up close (and needless to say following
months of lies and evasions--standard operating procedure these days).
The idea that the managerial class at American businesses has any clue at all is the unshakable myth of modern business, just as the idea that electing a likable president will cure massive foundational problems in society is the unshakable myth of politics. I think most of these guys just trust to luck that things will work out during their tenure, because only a small handful have anything to do with the fortunes of their companies.
Of course in an economy as large as ours there will always be relatively safe businesses to work for, but in this environment I think smaller is better. Maybe I'm wrong.
The idea that the managerial class at American businesses has any clue at all is the unshakable myth of modern business, just as the idea that electing a likable president will cure massive foundational problems in society is the unshakable myth of politics. I think most of these guys just trust to luck that things will work out during their tenure, because only a small handful have anything to do with the fortunes of their companies.
Of course in an economy as large as ours there will always be relatively safe businesses to work for, but in this environment I think smaller is better. Maybe I'm wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment