I talked to Jay Marvin today!

[MonteLukast]

I called in on his show this morning when I heard him talking about the disparity between economic growth and job growth. I wanted to ask him some questions about the job market, and this is what I didn't have time to say to him:

Hi Jay, this is <<MonteLukast>>, who called you on your show this morning.

I want to start by saying that I'm a liberal primarily because I feel keenly the importance of the *pathway* a life takes.

That's also why I have such concerns about the American job market. The increased choosiness of employers… the cost of hiring the wrong person is just too high, for health insurance and other reasons you mentioned; and across the board companies are taking their time, waiting until they find precisely the person they're looking for.

How do you become precisely the right person they're looking for? How do you become the best possible candidate? No one has ever been able to answer those for me.

And no one has ever been able to answer the more important question: if you have an imperfect past, can you still become one of these "right people"? Or are you doomed?

Because it takes a lifetime to build up a pathway. And whatever experiences you get or don’t get along that pathway, add up to the person you are today.
The person who is, today, applying for a new job, or trying to put their best foot forward.

I brought up "Bait And Switch" and "will I need to be in church to have a good job in the Deep South", because of the concept of degrees-of-separation.

I can completely see employers screening applicants for happiness, in the interest of keeping their health care costs down—you can’t ignore the reams of documented research linking emotional stress to illness. And you can’t deny that attitudes, positive or negative, are contagious.

The degree of separation between happiness and intimacy, for instance, makes me concerned that the single, the unhappily-coupled, and the unhappily-familied, no matter their qualifications and ethics, will find themselves at a disadvantage in the workplace and in hiring.

And while we’re on the subject of health care costs: might we ever get to the point where a person who espouses their love of fatty foods, or of extreme sports, on the job is putting themselves at risk of censure or even termination?

“Just be personable and get along” is terrific, broad-based advice.
My concern is that many employers are trying to narrow the definition of personable.

I rank myself as moderately outgoing. I’m highly civic-minded and conversational, though, and I’m very proud of that.
But I do not have much official evidence of likability. No life partner, little group involvement, no team athletic involvement, virtually no churchgoing. A mood disorder, and in general a lot of internal conflict, that realistically I will probably never be able to mask.
Yes. Sanders, the author of that book, “The Likability Factor”, actually implied that having too much internal conflict, or letting that conflict show, makes you less likable.

Especially for customer service jobs—the majority of new jobs being created in America now—I can definitely see employers watching for those outward signs of likability. It’s already happened with pharmaceutical companies—many of their sales reps are former cheerleaders. And yes, good looks enter into that equation as well: you probably already know that sometimes, the workday of a pharma sales rep involves behavior bordering on sexual harassment.

I once read an article in Jane Magazine about one of those reps. She was outraged, asking why she got a 3.9 GPA and took a lot of hard science courses to sweet-talk doctors into buying prescriptions.
But of course, that’s her job. It’s a *requirement* that she sweet-talk or even seduce the doctor, do whatever is necessary, to get those sales figures.

And that brings me to my second point. Bad company policies that basically enforce boredom, inertia, and sometimes outright humiliation, on American workers.

For too many Americans, it’s a *job requirement* to stand around and focus on nothing, or stand around with a smile perpetually plastered on, or endlessly repeat the same task, or do whatever the CEO says without question, or fit in to rigid cultural standards (as is the case in too many “creative” jobs)… in short, how often does the average American worker actually feel free to act creative and exert some personal control on their job? Nay—actually take some real pleasure in their job?
I once said, it’s no wonder China and India are surpassing us, because American workers are required to *not* use their full mental capabilities.

Policies like ones that are aimed at “time theft”, to use another Ehrenreich term. Cameras that start out as being theft deterrents, but end up as productivity monitors. A wholesale “follow the policy or find another job” mind-set.

Your time on the job is strictly for the job, right? Save your personal stuff for your own time, right?
In practice, I’m not sure this is feasible anymore.
I have only one 40-hour-a-week job, and no children. I’m lucky to actually have some of my own time in which to relegate my personal doings.

And the other day, you mentioned the average American not having time or energy to get much involved in civics or politics… is this the plan of the corporations all along? Require so much of our time that we stay out of the political process, perhaps permanently?
Require so much of our time, that we cannot without great hardship step off our pathway and create a better one?
Require so much of our time, that we cannot become highly accomplished in more than one or two fields?

I confess to having a huge weakness for Renaissance people! I aspire to being one myself. I have many interests, including medicine, music, politics, writing, theater and yes, local radio. And I dare to be proud of that.
How does one spin that to an employer, without coming off as unfocused?

Pathways are why Roe V. Wade is so important. It highlights what happens when you throw a big monkey wrench-- an unwanted pregnancy-- into a woman's plans for her personal pathway. It potentially turns a would-be doctor, Senator, independent woman in general into an unhappy, dependent, financially strapped mother.

I'd always counted on being able to recover from a bad pathway in this country, to get back on my horse after I've fallen and still be a success.
The ability to do that in this country, I'm afraid, is fading.
Especially with Alito seeming to be a shoo-in by now.

Being unable-- or it being prohibitively difficult-- to change your pathway is, to my mind, un-American. In fact, isn't that what we felt superior to the Europeans for? -- we weren't shackled by their fatalism and determinism?

I’ll close out by mentioning John Edwards again. Because he’s probably the best example I know, of someone who lives by his principles and makes the money at the same time.

I just hope I don’t, practically speaking, have to be exactly like him to achieve his level of success.


Thank you.
<<MonteLukast>>

[Donkeykick]

1. Man, Do You Ever Have This Right!

And the other day, you mentioned the average American not having time or energy to get much involved in civics or politics… is this the plan of the corporations all along? Require so much of our time that we stay out of the political process, perhaps permanently?
Require so much of our time, that we cannot without great hardship step off our pathway and create a better one?
Require so much of our time, that we cannot become highly accomplished in more than one or two fields?

Never give them this! No matter what!:headbang:

[newyawker99]

2. Hi MonteLukast!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: