Among my twenty-something friends, there seems to be a shared situation – when it comes to jobs, we are stuck in quicksand. It doesn’t seem to matter what area of the country or what experience they have – is this a cultural phenomenon or are we just hitting the harsh reality of the job market. Why didn’t the grownups mention this? Is it our fault?
By Natalie Miller
210 west Content Editor [send email]
It’s actually weird how often this comes up, but I hate when people categorize people my age as “Gen Xers” because it generally means “you no-account slackers” and “neohippies” and people who aren’t interested in getting a “real job.” I must beg to differ on our behalf. There is definitely a shift in the perceptions of people my age (26) as opposed to older folks, even only 5 or 10 years older because of cultural influences.
The late 90’s phenomenon of a soaring job market, where new college grads could hop right into a dot com job, spoiled many of us who graduated right after that. We think we deserve better, but can’t seem to find it. Are our expectations too high? Were we really sold the idea that all you needed was a digital get-rich-quick rocket to career success? Just prior to our touted slackerness, 1980s pop culture impressed into us the idea that you better get moving if you want to get a Beamer and make your first million by age 30. Previous generations married their job early and stuck by it steadfastly until time to retire with the pension and the golden watch. The eighties folks mostly burned out spectacularly, and we are seen as impatient and overly confident to the gold-watchers.
It seems that now, the echo of that dot-com job market has been in total recoil, where few can find a well-paying full-time job in their field. Many of my peers went back to grad school in despair over the job market. Some hopped from job to job. I ricocheted from low-paying in my field to better-paying out and back again. My peers in journalism take the salary they can get, or work two jobs or a patchwork of freelance. This is not the promise of the school of journalism college brochure.
Is this similar to how people are quick to divorce when they get dissatisfied or something better comes along? Are we programmed to go for the fast and brilliant opportunity, no matter what there is to lose? No doubt this is related to corporations giving people the shaft instead of honoring their long-term commitment -- just like the man who leaves his wife after she raised his kids. Now the people who’ve witnessed the carnage are wary. They’re out for themselves. Or, do they just believe that they deserve more? If things aren’t perfect, it’s very easy to let the eye wander.
Neither employers nor employees seem to have much loyalty to one another, and when they do, it’s noteworthy. How and when will that cycle end? Employees who are smart learn all they can, get as much training as possible and let themselves be headhunted away from their current jobs. They network and interview at every opportunity. There is no loyalty because they work under conditions like 38 hours a week so they don’t qualify for benefits, and try to squeeze as much out of work as possible. And the worse they feel their jobs treat them, the more they can justify personal stuff at work, like phone calls and Internet use.
What about the employer’s side? Whatever they can get away with in the marketplace seems to be the rule of thumb. They can offer a job with a low salary and no benefits as long as someone takes their offer, they continue that method despite the long-term effects. If they get no takers, they may reconsider their strategy. In the recession job market, that doesn’t seem likely.
One thing I’ve noticed is that employers are more savvy in leveraging their popular appeal to their advantage with their employees. There’s a certain cache that comes with certain jobs, like a job with a professional sports team. When you meet someone at a party, you will certainly get around to “so, what do you do?” The more familiarity the general public has with the organization, the better it sounds. Same with reports to grandma about what the kids are up to, regardless of whether the job is really an internship with no benefits. This cache is in part due to companies’ awareness of their reputation, and even companies that don’t sell directly to the public run ads to get increased name recognition.
So, certain industries can offer less to their employees because their organization is “more fun.” And it does quantifiably affect job satisfaction. Let’s say you were a reporter – what sounds better: “I’m a reporter with Exotic Travel and Leisure;” “I’m a reporter with Sanitation Weekly” or “I’m a reporter with the Pataskala Times-Courier-Register”? Name recognition counts for status. The job basics are the same, but there is a significant difference in the subject: from luxury spas to landfill space to local sports. And this generally gets made up in salary, at least in theory.
Those perks in travel expenses probably are cited by the employer when the ET & L employee asks for a raise. But, in the case of Sanitation Weekly, the employee probably just needs to go into the boss’ office after a hands-on visit to a burst sewage pipe to remind her that he needs a raise. In the case of the local weekly paper, it’s often a “pay your dues” situation. They don’t offer you anything but bare bones, and you write your butt off for clips to land you your next gig.
I once made the argument a former union organizer that union membership is down because our generation believes in fighting for themselves individually. Now, I’m not sure that I agree with my own argument. So many times people’s job choices are a matter of circumstance. I talked in another column about the triangle of decisions – relationship, location and job – and how rarely does the triangle have three optimal sides. I don’t think people are often in a strong position to negotiate, especially in the first years out of college, unless one of these factors are present: they are going into a field where there is a labor shortage, such as nursing; they are able to quantify their excellence through test scores or sales goals or awards; or they are extremely lucky to have the right connections to get them the job and know how to leverage it.
Many news accounts warn that the “baby boomers” mass retirement is going to rock the job market, and that younger workers will be at a distinct advantage in negotiating and selecting where they want to work. Although boomers are likely to continue working some during their retirement, the sheer numbers do indicate more jobs and fewer workers. This is bad for social security funding, which we’ve all heard, but it is a reassuring fact in the time of layoffs, increased automation and moving jobs offshore. I’ll be interested to see how it works out and if the so-called slackers of Gen X can prove naysayers wrong. The generation after Gen X, “Gen Y” is said to be much more optimistic, so that should help boost achievements for the babies of the 1970s and early 80s. (Actually, I’m on the cusp of the generations, but have been told too many times that I’m Gen X, so I just go with that.)
One more thing: much is being made of our generations return to balancing work and life, especially since 9/11. If there are less workers and more work, will we be strong enough to balance the current 24/7 work ethos or will we demand that jobs change to suit us? I can’t wait to find out.