In contrast to my parents, I felt uncomfortable for having worked at my last employer for more than 5 years, and I left after 7. And my disomfort came from worrying about the impression I might give future employeers if I'd stuck with my last job too long because it might be a sign of stagnation. (and I live in the midwest, so maybe the job lifespan is longer than out west.) I might be endangering my livelihood by sticking with a job for too long.
I don't know how widespread that attitude is. perhaps it depends on the technology field (for me, it was ecommerce). I know that people seem to lionize the priviledged dudebro programmers who skip from job to job and who've had a lot of successful failures at startups. It's our version of conspicuous consumption. If I don't keep up with that, maybe I don't get hired.
aside from generational differences about jobs -- I've also seen some groups of people who tune out that kind of status programmer crap. And maybe this happens with other disciplines too.
I've seen a recruiter pass up a friend because he didn't broadcast the emotional signals that he'd treat everyone in the office like afterhours friends who'd chat about the technical challenges at company foo... and what the hell, you aren't my friend merely because I've joined your company. and I'm not going to spend as much of my brain time as possible on your company. you want that, it better be an exceptional place where I can't help but be thinking about these things on my own time.
I don't think that is a generatinal thing. maybe more like a socioeconomic thing. something might give a person the gumption to realize they have the freedom to drop out and pretend like work is not work and that their freetime is actually their "work".
]]>Of course not; American history starts when Christopher Columbus discovers The IndiesAmerica. Then we're on to Jamestown and the Pilgrims, with a quick stop at the First Thanksgiving (hey, look, Indians). Only then do we get to the Revolution (and if you've noticed we just skipped forward 150 years, you're paying more attention than most schoolchildren). The Revolution is heavy on various causes, half-legendary moments like Paul Revere's ride, and a bunch of battles. Don't expect to hear anything about why England might be distracted or about history happening in Europe at the time; that'll be covered separately, if you're lucky.
Several weeks later, after the class takes its death march through the Civil War (like the Revolution, but with only one cause and lots and lots of battles), then we get to the old western era; here are some Indians again. Don't expect to see them again.
History ends at the last chapter of the book, after WWII and if you're lucky after the Cold War ended. If the school is in a southern region you'll hear about Spaniards; if it's in the north, not so much.
As a slightly more serious historical note, I was surprised a while back to see a mention of the Lewis & Clark Expedition here; I'm well aware of it (I live near the site of Fort Clatsop), but it's not something I'd expect anyone in Britain to know about.
]]>Although it's not something I know much about, and while I'd be unsurprised at a randomly-picked Brit not knowing about it, it's not that obscure.
US history diffuses across the Atlantic.
]]>So I tend to notice and be aware of details that are entirely overlooked. And I'm OLD, I need to write a blog entry about how much higher quality historical information was available to me forty years ago (gah) than today, was just looking at an old Ballantine War book (original cover price, 1971, $1, ebay swag, $.99), publication date 1971. There simply is nothing like that out in the marketplace for a bright middle or high school student to stumble on.
And it has become a political issue, including Standards on how Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrinch are IMPORTANT, significant figures who started WONDERFUL changes to our society. (Not, but that is merely my personal opinion). Oh, and FDR caused the Great Depression.
Er, maybe we really are in trouble, since the above is a sample of what is taught by Charter Schools (Free Enterprise) and Christian Home Schoolers.
At least they mostly know Nazi's were evil, except when they had Tiger Tanks, which are Kewl. Government is Evil by definition, but The Corporation is merely an expression of the Free Market.
We are in trouble.
]]>I recently found myself making excuses for still working for the same company that hired me in 1989. I explained that I'd actually been laid off twice in that time, and quit of my own accord once. So I've been hired by the same company four times. And it isn't even really the same company; it was acquired in the late 90s -- even the name of the old company was retired a few years ago. And I've moved between several different business units, doing somewhat different things at each (although all under the broad umbrella of "technology journalism").
So it's really like I've had at least a half-dozen different jobs in those times!
Really!
]]>I'd like to take a moment to point out that part of the problem may have been pointed out by one of your fellow authors, specifically Norman Spinrad in "Little Heroes."
Why, so many upper level types ask themselves, should we treat the common man with any respect, as machines seem able to do the job of everything BUT management?
With each passing year - each passing MONTH, for that matter - it becomes that much easier to put another job on the "We can program a chip to do this" pile, and arrange things so that the only part of a human that's needed are his arms and legs. And even then, only when those arms and legs are paid a starvation wage.
Management, of course, sees themselves as unique and not subject to being reduced to a set of algorithms.
Of course, when THEIR jobs begin to be RIFFed, then they'll howl just as loudly.
Though I suspect we'll have little sympathy for them by then.
Ed Becerra
]]>