Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is exactly the reason, that the Millennials on these threads are complaining that they are turned down and no one wants to train them, instead the employer demands 5 or 10 years experience, and can find that kind of people. The Millennials that are not interested in really becoming part of the company on the long haul, so there is no advantage to the company to hire them. This type of employee ends up costing the company a lot of money. If an employee is going to cost you money and not give you a return, you don't hire them if you are a smart businessman/woman.
I keep seeing this over and over again on this forum, but with zero evidence to support it - this notion that the "real problem" is that Millennials just hop from job to job because they want to do so. In most industries there is little incentive to actively change jobs regularly, in the few fields where it is a good idea, the fault lies with the companies for not rewarding their current employees vs. hiring new ones instead. Can we really blame a person - regardless of age - for finding a new, far better paying job if years of hard work at his current one have produced little in return? Employees are not valued anymore - they are an expense to be minimized.
We all know the economy is terrible and there is no job security anymore, so looking at a young person's resume as scattered mess of jobs and just assuming "Oh, this guy's a job-hopper who won't become part of the company" is ridiculous. The person in question - like most of his generation - probably was never given a chance to become part of any company. Instead, he was hired on, used up, and tossed out time after time. How, exactly, is that his fault?
People have not been eagerly hopping from job to job with ever-increasing pay since the 1990's and the days of the Tech Bubble. These days, people are FORCED to change jobs regularly by a corporate culture that punishes commitment, rewards failure, and gladly throws out dedicated workers for short-term profits. Top it off with the absurd demands placed on would-be employees - the mythical "skills gap" for example - and you have a lost generation in the making.
I agree that companies that these days don't deserve loyalty. But whether companies these days deserve loyalty is irrelevant in discussing why overall millennial's make bad employees.
In GENERAL (as in the majority but not all) they are entitled, spoiled, know it all's and feel that they are owed the world. Its pathetic when I see one who thinks they know as much as someone with 20+ years of experience in the same field as they are just starting out in.
They mistake their intelligence for wisdom. They mistake the fact that they have a lot of knowledge with knowing how to apply that knowledge. They think they are rational and objective when in reality their "rational objective views" are shaped from their experience in the little world around them and not the world as a whole.
All in all a very pathetic excuse for a generation. And this is coming for a millennial just so you know I'm not some "biased older guy mad at todays kids." I'm truly ashamed to be part of arguably the worst generation the US has ever produced. Bring on the counter arguments, I'm sure it will be mostly from millennial's based on the typical traits I just listed.
Well I guess our generation, gen Y, has encourage more diversity and being open to gay rights and other cultures, but as you said we are the worse people in history
If you want my opinion every generation has flaws. The boomers were in charge of the financial collapse, shipped jobs overseas, created drug epidemics in the 70s and 80s, are in charge of congress which is the most dysfunctional congress in history. Now with them and Gen X they had a hard on for passive aggressive management and the spouting mission statements and saying, "Is this good for the company?"
Now with Gen X they are incredibly cynical. Don't get me wrong, you need to be wary of some things, but these guys act like it's the end of the world at times with everything. Interesting enough they started this counter culture of not listening to your elders, or the government, which has carried into gen Y. Heck, even the pseudo intellectuals discussing world affairs from their coffee shop kicked off in the 90s with them. Proudly as a millennial we have continued that tradition by upping the stakes with 4.95 lattes and reading the New York Times
My real point is we can find issues with every generation. Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y all share similar traits and have their own baggage which we hate. I see the Boomers as the reason we are in this financial mess. Seriously, I didn't see Gen Y pushing out these bad loans or running Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac. On top of that all these greedy companies we are seeing like Comcast trying to create a monopoly or providing crappy products like Walmart are run by boomers. I see the dysfunction in government by both Boomers and Gen X as only a handful of gen Y are eligible to a US congressmen due to our ages. I've seen more Gen X mid managers feeling scared of Gen Y as they are the young and go getters, and well when you have someone young below you that is showing to be ambitious means your job security is at risk all of a sudden. I've seen a few Gen X managers have the "I'm always right mentality", just as much as Gen Y managers, and that Gen X manager fired someone as he didn't meet eye to eye with her all the time. I do believe managing is an age issue, not a generation issue. That is my take as saying we are entitled is the biggest load of crap when I see Boomers complain about everything when it comes to young people and how they are in a financial mess in which they created. I see Gen X being entitled as they act like they are superior to younger people as they are 10 years older. Then I see Gen Y being entitled as we were promised this glorious future and college would make you a freaking CEO when we grew up.
Yep I am sure those employers just do not want to give raises, tight bastards. Or could it be that they are spending their budget on training, allowing inexperienced workers to grow into their positions, or are even struggling to earn enough revenue to justify giving raises? Regardless of what the media and certain segments of the population like to lead people to believe, corporations or any other business do not have unlimited money, they have a budget they must stick to if they want the company to survive.
Huh, maybe I'm out of the loop, but I swear the S&P 500 reach a new record this week. Also the Dow Jones is near record territory, and the Nasdaq is nearing an all time high. I guess that doesn't equate to companies being financially healthy according to wall street. Also when I see companies like Comcast ranking in huge profits and trying to create a monopoly must means those companies are barely getting by and have no money for training. Also it's safe to assume with your view that the budgets at these companies like JP Morgan who is laying off 8000 people needs to save money while their CEO gets a 74% raise as the company is barely getting by. Thanks for the enlightenment how bad these companies are struggling
Right. I'm a Millennial that would love to stay in a job. I've been employed by the same employer, in various roles, my entire adult life and am getting a master's degree paid for by my employer in addition to other professional courses that I have taken. That said, when we get excited that our annual raise pool is a WHOLE 2% and its like pulling teeth to get any other kind of professional opportunities (pathway for promotion, conferences, etc). I know the only way I will get promoted is if someone above me leaves - and since my boss has been here for 20 years, I know she won't be going. We also see staff members leave and not be replaced, adding onto our workloads without compensation.
I know that if I left, I could easily get 10-15K more a year elsewhere. I haven't yet because every time I've gotten close, I've found an internal opportunity to move up. But now there is literally nowhere else for me to go but out... and it's a shame that a lack of quality compensation is forcing my hand when I could have been a dedicated lifer.
2% annual raise is about standard. Mine was 2.5%. But because taxes and health insurance keep going up, my paycheck basically stayed the same. A year ago it even went down, after the Bush tax cuts ended.
Inflation is about 1.6% right now. If your company is making a lot of profits but not sharing it with the rank and file, then you might have a basis for asking for a bigger raise.
But if your company is just chugging along, then what's the basis for a raise? If you threaten to leave, or imply you'll leave, then they have to weigh the costs of losing your expertise + training up a replacement versus paying you more. They may very well decide that over 3-5 years it's cheaper to hire someone at half the salary and train them up.
My philosophy is, do the very best job I can and be grateful for the employment, but always keep my eyes open for better opportunities. All it takes is a new VP who decides to make his or her mark by cutting costs dramatically including getting rid of that Blisterpeanuts because "my predecessor hired him and I have to do everything different from my predecessor".
Sure, there's no loyalty or love lost between employee and employer. You might say, it's a marriage of convenience.
Huh, maybe I'm out of the loop, but I swear the S&P 500 reach a new record this week. Also the Dow Jones is near record territory, and the Nasdaq is nearing an all time high. I guess that doesn't equate to companies being financially healthy according to wall street. Also when I see companies like Comcast ranking in huge profits and trying to create a monopoly must means those companies are barely getting by and have no money for training. Also it's safe to assume with your view that the budgets at these companies like JP Morgan who is laying off 8000 people needs to save money while their CEO gets a 74% raise as the company is barely getting by. Thanks for the enlightenment how bad these companies are struggling
Oh the horror, companies are making a profit, does not change the fact that they are all working under a budget, the bigger the company is the harder it is to give one level of employee a raise without blowing up the bottom line.
Also last I checked the stock market is not a true indicator of company profitability, in fact Profit & Expense ratio is one of the most ignored indicators in the market and has been for a decade.
By the way you want to know why Bank of America can lay off 8000 people and give their CEO a raise, it is actually a simple reason, those people are no longer needed. With technology now allowing you to make a deposit with your phone, ATM allowing access to your cash they only need about half the teller they used to. If you look at the personal banker and loan officer type jobs it is even worse. You see when I got in the mortgage business in 1999 it was basically an industry standard that the average deal would take about 24 hours between talking to clients, structuring the deal to work for the clients, meeting with clients, chasing documents, packaging the paperwork together and mailing it to the lender, ordering appraisals and title. Now it takes a little over 8 hours to do the same work using email, sttp files, and the computer programs that do most of the paperwork for you. So they need 1/4 of the loan officers and personal bankers to produce the same results as it took 15 years ago. Now a good CEO, those are not easy to replace, and are still needed.
Last fact is that last time I checked there were over 30 million companies in the country, a few making record profits, especially when you do not know where their profitability lays when it comes to their actual percentage or profit versus expenses as compared to past results, does not make a true indicator of where all businesses are at. But keep pointing to a handful of the big evil corporations and ignoring facts.
2% annual raise is about standard. Mine was 2.5%. But because taxes and health insurance keep going up, my paycheck basically stayed the same. A year ago it even went down, after the Bush tax cuts ended.
Inflation is about 1.6% right now. If your company is making a lot of profits but not sharing it with the rank and file, then you might have a basis for asking for a bigger raise.
But if your company is just chugging along, then what's the basis for a raise? If you threaten to leave, or imply you'll leave, then they have to weigh the costs of losing your expertise + training up a replacement versus paying you more. They may very well decide that over 3-5 years it's cheaper to hire someone at half the salary and train them up.
My philosophy is, do the very best job I can and be grateful for the employment, but always keep my eyes open for better opportunities. All it takes is a new VP who decides to make his or her mark by cutting costs dramatically including getting rid of that Blisterpeanuts because "my predecessor hired him and I have to do everything different from my predecessor".
Sure, there's no loyalty or love lost between employee and employer. You might say, it's a marriage of convenience.
2% is the max in the pool - which means that only the top performers get 2%. Above average gets 1.5% and average gets 1%. Below average? Have fun with inflation! For a few years, the max was 1.5% - all a few years post-2008. Our compensation structure is such that you can't get a raise without a promotion, so no matter what great work you do or how much responsibility you take on, unless someone above you moves out or they're willing to create a position for you (which happened for me - but took over a year to get through red tape) then you are not going to be compensated for it.
For instance, I created, designed, and implemented a marketing campaign that got a lot of buzz in my industry, even though I was basically an empowered secretary. Due to my success in marketing, I was given more responsibility for marketing and digital content while still retaining a secretary's title and salary. Because there was no open spot above me, I had to wait over a year for HR and my higher-ups to agree on a new title and salary, all while still being required to do higher level work without compensation. This type of treatment seems to be normal in the workplace today. When that marketing campaign was nominated for the most prestigious award in my field, my own boss had to take her name off of the nomination because there was only room to recognize 5 people and my name was NOT going to be included because the VPs and SVPs insisted they get their time in the sun despite doing absolutely nothing for the honor. So not only was I not being paid for the work I was expected to do, but I also was almost forced out of formal recognition that was essential to my career. I was 23 at the time and thank goodness had a boss who had my back.
Obviously not all offices are run that way and it negatively impacts people of all generations. But why should we remain loyal to companies that treat us like crap? They do whatever minimal they can do to keep us while getting what they want, so why are they surprised when we get what we want and leave?
2% is the max in the pool - which means that only the top performers get 2%. Above average gets 1.5% and average gets 1%. Below average? Have fun with inflation! For a few years, the max was 1.5% - all a few years post-2008. Our compensation structure is such that you can't get a raise without a promotion, so no matter what great work you do or how much responsibility you take on, unless someone above you moves out or they're willing to create a position for you (which happened for me - but took over a year to get through red tape) then you are not going to be compensated for it.
For instance, I created, designed, and implemented a marketing campaign that got a lot of buzz in my industry, even though I was basically an empowered secretary. Due to my success in marketing, I was given more responsibility for marketing and digital content while still retaining a secretary's title and salary. Because there was no open spot above me, I had to wait over a year for HR and my higher-ups to agree on a new title and salary, all while still being required to do higher level work without compensation. This type of treatment seems to be normal in the workplace today. When that marketing campaign was nominated for the most prestigious award in my field, my own boss had to take her name off of the nomination because there was only room to recognize 5 people and my name was NOT going to be included because the VPs and SVPs insisted they get their time in the sun despite doing absolutely nothing for the honor. So not only was I not being paid for the work I was expected to do, but I also was almost forced out of formal recognition that was essential to my career. I was 23 at the time and thank goodness had a boss who had my back.
Obviously not all offices are run that way and it negatively impacts people of all generations. But why should we remain loyal to companies that treat us like crap? They do whatever minimal they can do to keep us while getting what they want, so why are they surprised when we get what we want and leave?
I hear what you're saying, but that's the way it is in corporate America. If you want a piece of the action, you have to start your own business, or go into business with a couple of colleagues where you have a bigger piece of the pie. Otherwise, it's their game, their rules.
The thing is, when you're the owner, you'll have people working for you and you'll need to pay them as little as possible, especially while you're not making a profit or barely making any profit, and they'll be getting on city-data and grumbling about how they're being treated like crap
In the private sector loyalty means nothing. Ford and Firestone had a relationship for a century but it ended when the Explorer recall happened. They pointed fingers at each other but in the end it had to break up.
IBM had one with Microsoft and Microsoft made windows while IBM tried OS/2. Where's IBM today? The Thinkpads were sold off to Lenovo. Where's Microsoft today? They are now a video game company trying to be relevant with computers.
Make no mistake venture capital is still down from where it was in 2000. Companies automate and outsource what they cannot automate.
They claim they want the government off their backs but yet at the same point cling to patents, trademarks, service marks and copyrights with an iron fist.
They no longer invest in research as research and development was replaced with merger and acquisition. Any patents just sit there anyway because the USA has a first to patent rather than first to invent process. Don't forget that US policy will use the WTO and GATT to pretty much edge its way into most markets or at least try. So despite what some MBA programs might say the average corporation is not really creating wealth it is only subsidizing it.
So why should they invest in training people? Well it's just basic logic.
Would you rather have employees be working up for YOUR standards of performance measurement or someone elses?
Consider this. Go any financial website (Google, yahoo etc) and go to any of the companies on the S&P 500. Type a ticker in. Now click on insiders (Board of directors etc). Guess what folks people serve on MULTIPLE boards all the time.
So to make the argument that somehow someone should ONLY be working or involved with one organization is largely foolish if not naive.
As for job hoppers the average duration at a job is under five years in the private sector. How does someone get experience if their employer will not provide it to them? Experience when compounded is no longer hiring the individual but practically hiring another company! If someone had 20 years experience working at Enron how are they doing now? How about 15 years at Adelphia? 10 years at Worldcom? Don't ever put all your eggs in one basket and hire someone that's only been at one place a really really long time. At least with government there's various training organizations but in the private sector they snipe and compete with each other all day long to the point where it looks more like a scene from the Warriors.
IBM had one with Microsoft and Microsoft made windows while IBM tried OS/2. Where's IBM today? The Thinkpads were sold off to Lenovo. Where's Microsoft today? They are now a video game company trying to be relevant with computers.
IBM is a lot more profitable today being a global service org than a mfg company like HP even HP is becoming more serving oriented than mfg they make less than 10% of the products they sell because all of it is outsourced overseas to companies like Foxconn.
I disagree that Microsoft is a game company, majority of today's PCs still run Windows and that's a fact. The only reason they are becoming less valuable because consumers like you don't need to refresh your PCs as often as needed and also dumber devices like tablets and smartphones can also do web and facebook. 90% of businesses still use Windows and license with Microsoft.
They are trying to become a more consumer friendly company than just business oriented since they dominate business computing and they can't grow anymore without consumer market which Apple and Google is rising fast.
One difference is that we boomers didn't have the luxury of changing jobs whenever the mood struck us. We had families to raise and mortgages to pay. Plus in our day, if you moved around very much you were quickly branded as unreliable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
