The I'm-too-good-for-this-job Attitude

Slicksuit · May 29, 2007

Paisley said:
I think the answer is to be realistic. If you want great success, all of the above is more or less what you have to do. If you don't want to do all of that, you'll probably have to be content with less material success in life.

Wow! This is truly an interesting thread, with lots of good points from many contributors. I'm particularly drawn with what you've said, Paisley. No matter what field, it seems to me that the people who rise to the top have a tendency to keep up with advances in the field, delegate responsibility, work long hours, and have an affable/approcable demeanor, while still commanding respect.

Still, I have to agree that success in many instances it either comes down to who you know, or being in the right place at the right time. Knowing the right person doesn't necessarily mean being in privliged circles, either. It's all about connections and acquaintances.

Let's face it. In America, we have this "Horatio Alger" mentality that anyone who works hard can have a modest degree of success. While that spirit persists, the statistical truth is that not everybody can be above average, despite their belief to the contrary. Hard work is a requisite to success, but it isn't sufficient alone, especially in a knowlege economy.

Slicksuit · May 29, 2007

Rosie said:
I didn't want to take it here but, America was NOT founded on hard-nosed industriousness. It was founded on the destruction and partial destruction of two races. One through murder and one through free slave labor. Whoever thinks otherwise is themselves living in a pipe dream.

True, but with one caveat: it wasn't founded on industriousness, but it sure as hell runs on it. It's always been a dichotomy of the haves and the have-nots...that's capitalism (for better or for worse). This country does owe its standing from the treatment in the past of certain races - Native Americans in the realization of America's "manifest destiny", African American slave trade and it's usefulness to the US textile and agriculture economy,

warbird · May 29, 2007

Rosie said:
I didn't want to take it here but, America was NOT founded on hard-nosed industriousness. It was founded on the destruction and partial destruction of two races. One through murder and one through free slave labor. Whoever thinks otherwise is themselves living in a pipe dream.

I have not the time currently to explain why I certainly do not live in a pipe dream. Your obfuscation of the facts, wide sweeping generalities and complete disregard for one set of truths, in order to meet your ends cleanly, makes your assertion incorrect.

I will only say one set of fact does not mutually exclude the other simply because one set of facts was a sad facet of part of American history. Anybody who thinks all of America was all about that, or who thinks for instance that Indigenous Americans were all peace loving peoples who never started any wars of their own or enslaved others, or the Tribal kings of Africa themselves for that matter, must be living with their head stuck in the sand.

History is full of unfortunate treatment of others, this does not mutually exclude other accomplishments, it simply says there was good and bad.

Paisley · May 29, 2007

Rosie said:
I didn't want to take it here...

...and neither do I.

fftopic:

warbird · May 29, 2007

Paisley said:
...and neither do I. fftopic:

I like how some people say I'm not going there, and then say it anyway, essentially in order to inflame and challenge that no one respond to their flame. Classic tactic. Some people don't fall for that crap.

Oh now you can get back on topic,

Fletch · May 29, 2007

Bebop said:
The reason any of these attitudes exist is because there are no real consequences. Society is a very enjoyable place to live even while not employed. The internet, T.V., so called creative urges and the like make not working, not as bad as it used to be. Having an employer not want you for the job has less consequences. The government gives you money for not working, a lot of nice things take place while others are at work,

All generally true. There is no social stigma to being unemployed, at least temporarily and at least for most of us.

After this, however, you seem to be turning from generalities to a specific type of person: what we used to call the "no-account":

it is almost impossible to evict anyone from their rental unit when they don't pay rent and if you get canned from your job, it seems to be some sort of badge of honor to some people. It includes the "They-can't-tell-me-what-to-do-just-because-I-work-for-them" attitude.

Forgive me here, but you seem to be running two very different kinds of people together - the average person having trouble getting started (or restarted), and the habitual deadbeat.

Are you suggesting it would be a good thing if everyone were made to feel ashamed of lacking steady work for any length of time?

We are part of a global economy nowadays, friends. Yes, self-reliance and self-sufficiency are damned fine things. But do we have to put the whole burden on the individual for whatever social and economic conditions, maybe half a continent or world away, may do to them?

Whenever you hear people criticizing the modern character, there seems to be this cold, vinegary flavor of Puritanism behind it, implying that we're too kind to each other in all the wrong ways. You know what? If we're to approach the problem that way, I don't trust us to be kind to each other at all. And that would be a damned shame.

RedPop4 · May 29, 2007

Are you suggesting it would be a good thing if everyone were made to feel ashamed of lacking steady work for any length of time?

We are part of a global economy nowadays, friends. Yes, self-reliance and self-sufficiency are damned fine things. But do we have to put the whole burden on the individual for whatever social and economic conditions, maybe half a continent or world away, may do to them?

Whenever you hear people criticizing the modern character, there seems to be this cold, vinegary flavor of Puritanism behind it, implying that we're too kind to each other in all the wrong ways. You know what? If we're to approach the problem that way, I don't trust us to be kind to each other at all. And that would be a damned shame.

The burden doesn't have to be on the individual per se. However, it shouldn't be imposed on everyone by the government, either. Charity should begin with good will and giving, not demanded through taxation.

I'm sorry. That's dancing on the edge of the line. I'm sorry if this inflames, I'm not intending that, at all.

Fletch · May 29, 2007

let's prune it back a bit, then...

RedPop4 said:
Charity should begin with good will and giving

But we've got cultural blocks to charity, too. A lot don't believe in taking it. A lot more don't believe in giving it.

Besides, we think of it as only giving material goods or money to the destitute. "Charity," in most people's minds, really does end there. We don't think of making things a little easier for people just barely getting by. We don't think of cutting everyone a little slack here and there. We don't think of living with a little more care and dignity, and helping others do the same.

Shimmy Sally · May 29, 2007

No one can be refered to as a secretary anymore either. Titles like Administrative Assistant have taken it's place. Receptionists usually get all the menial tasks now. Nobody wants to be the bottom rung of the office. It's too bad that all positions aren't viewed as important, but it just isn't like that.

RedPop4 · May 29, 2007

Fletch said:
But we've got cultural blocks to charity, too. A lot don't believe in taking it. A lot more don't believe in giving it.

Besides, we think of it as only giving material goods or money to the destitute. "Charity," in most people's minds, really does end there. We don't think of making things a little easier for people just barely getting by. We don't think of cutting everyone a little slack here and there. We don't think of living with a little more care and dignity, and helping others do the same.

If they choose not to take it, then who's fault is that? It shouldn't be forced on them, either. Many DO believe in giving it, and that, too, should not be forced.
As much as we would like for everyone to be nice, kind, chivalrous, etc. You can't force people to be that way. It's always been that way, and always will be, it's called "human nature."

Yes, we'd all like the perfect world, but it will never happen we're human, and with that comes failing which many recognize in themselves and work to beter. Some however, like their failings just fine, and wish to live and project their negatives onto the rest of us. The best we can do is to cut people slack when we can, and conduct ourselves with "a little more care and dignity." We can "help others to do the same" by our example but by no means will it always be able to happen.

Paisley · May 29, 2007

Fletch said:
But we've got cultural blocks to charity, too. A lot don't believe in taking it. A lot more don't believe in giving it.

Besides, we think of it as only giving material goods or money to the destitute. "Charity," in most people's minds, really does end there. We don't think of making things a little easier for people just barely getting by. We don't think of cutting everyone a little slack here and there. We don't think of living with a little more care and dignity, and helping others do the same.

I would call this kindness, not charity. I think a lot of people feel entitled to charity; being too proud to take it is old fashioned. My relatives who availed themselves of public and familial charity were (are) unwilling to wean themselves from it. They seemed to think they were entitled to it--and nobody is thankful for that to which he is entitled.

I, myself, despite being laid off many times, never took unemployment. I didn't see any reason why a healthy, educated young woman should be on public assistance. I got temp jobs and also worked at a warehouse. Vinegary, Puritan and unpleasant? Not really. I didn't brood over problems as much because I was working, and I even enjoyed those jobs. I met some cool people and found I had skills that former bosses said I lacked. I got satisfaction from being self-sufficient and useful. I also found out that some managers won't hire people who have done nothing for the past six months but collect unemployment.

Marty M. · May 29, 2007

A Zanger for the Zinger.

warbird said:
I have not the time currently to explain why I certainly do not live in a pipe dream. Your obfuscation of the facts, wide sweeping generalities and complete disregard for one set of truths, in order to meet your ends cleanly, makes your assertion incorrect.

I will only say one set of fact does not mutually exclude the other simply because one set of facts was a sad facet of part of American history. Anybody who thinks all of America was all about that, or who thinks for instance that Indigenous Americans were all peace loving peoples who never started any wars of their own or enslaved others, or the Tribal kings of Africa themselves for that matter, must be living with their head stuck in the sand.

History is full of unfortunate treatment of others, this does not mutually exclude other accomplishments, it simply says there was good and bad.

There's a cold beer with your name on it up here in Northland, my friend.:eusa_clap :eusa_clap
Marty Mathis

Pilotguy299 · May 29, 2007

Fletch said:
You know you're exaggerating like crazy here, don't you?

No, I don't think I am. I'm not saying that people should just take any job and be happy with it. Nor am I suggesting that we should start "training kids to be survivors in a mean and nasty world."

We dont need to replace school counselors with drill instructors as you tongue in cheek suggest. As far as proposing a positive alternative to coddling? How about not trying to shield them from everything? How about fostering community involvement by volunteering to help the elderly or disadvantaged?

Fletch said:
... But...how entitled do you really think young people are? And how un-entitled would you prefer they be? Would it be better if kids came out of college asking nothing more than a $5 an hour dead end job any half-wit could do, and feeling grateful for every fin no matter if they were treated like dirt?

Now that's just silly and I'm not suggesting that at all. But they shouldn't expect to be at the top of the pay scale either coming right out of college.

Bebop · May 29, 2007

Fletch said:
All generally true. There is no social stigma to being unemployed, at least temporarily and at least for most of us.

After this, however, you seem to be turning from generalities to a specific type of person: what we used to call the "no-account":

Forgive me here, but you seem to be running two very different kinds of people together - the average person having trouble getting started (or restarted), and the habitual deadbeat.

Are you suggesting it would be a good thing if everyone were made to feel ashamed of lacking steady work for any length of time?

We are part of a global economy nowadays, friends. Yes, self-reliance and self-sufficiency are damned fine things. But do we have to put the whole burden on the individual for whatever social and economic conditions, maybe half a continent or world away, may do to them?

Whenever you hear people criticizing the modern character, there seems to be this cold, vinegary flavor of Puritanism behind it, implying that we're too kind to each other in all the wrong ways. You know what? If we're to approach the problem that way, I don't trust us to be kind to each other at all. And that would be a damned shame.

I am not quite sure how you derived what you did from my post and for the most part, I don't understand your reply at all

. I don't think I said anything about people that are having a rough time being made to feel ashamed of anything. We are talking attitude not deadbeat vs. down on their luck. If the person having a rough time has the bad attitude towards working, they deserve to be made aware of that just as the deadbeat. If criticizing someone that refuses to work because they are way too comfortable with their situation is Puritanical, I suppose I deserve the lable and would be quite proud of it. Being down on your luck and fighting to stay above water is a totally different being than the person that thinks they are too good for a job or thinks that they have a right to be kept at that job when they refuse to do work that they believe is beneath them. My only point is that not having the job may not be as horrible for some as it may be for others. I am sure there are millions of reasons why somone would be unemployed for a long time or could not pay their rent. [huh]

panamag8or · May 30, 2007

I just read this article today, and it seems quite relevant. It's kind of long, though.

Attracting the twentysomething worker

Fletch · May 30, 2007

Thank you for the link panamag8or...seems there's some hope, at least till the Gen Y-ers team off into management and labor. That may create some tensions. Also, the culture clash between these guys and the blue-collar or military vets of the same age is potentially going to be vast.

Feng_Li · May 30, 2007

Fletch said:
We are part of a global economy nowadays, friends. Yes, self-reliance and self-sufficiency are damned fine things. But do we have to put the whole burden on the individual for whatever social and economic conditions, maybe half a continent or world away, may do to them?

The individual may not be responsible for changing conditions, but he is darn well responsible for how he adapts to them. Sadly, many people adapt poorly, or not at all. That doesn't mean anyone is supposed to step in and shield them from the world.

Rosie · May 30, 2007

warbird said:
I like how some people say I'm not going there, and then say it anyway, essentially in order to inflame and challenge that no one respond to their flame. Classic tactic. Some people don't fall for that crap.

Oh now you can get back on topic,

I never said I WASN'T going there. I said didn't WANT to go there.

And Sir, there was no "tactic" used. I've been on this board long enough for people to know that I'm not a baiter, for you to insinuate such a thing is just ridiculous. I am not daring anyone to respond or not respond. We were not speaking of the indigenous peoples of America or so called "Kings" of Africa. As a decendent of these peoples, I was merely stating what I felt. And as for you calling someone's opinions or thoughts "crap", seems as though you are the one inflaming.

Fletch · May 30, 2007

Feng_Li said:
The individual may not be responsible for changing conditions, but he is darn well responsible for how he adapts to them. Sadly, many people adapt poorly, or not at all. That doesn't mean anyone is supposed to step in and shield them from the world.

Where did I suggest that? All I suggested was that we could stand to be a little more caring as a society. Don't worry, it won't necessarily raise your taxes.

Paisley · May 30, 2007

panamag8or said:
I just read this article today, and it seems quite relevant. It's kind of long, though.

Attracting the twentysomething worker

Hmmm. I remember reading some of the same things about Gen Xers ten years ago (with the exception of the helicoptor parents). It sounds pretty much like the attitude of privates who are going to whip the mongrel hordes over the summer, newlyweds who are going to raise model children, and those 22-year-old computer whizzes who were going to take over the industry in between getting massages and riding their skateboards through the office. Most people eventually adapt themselves to reality.

The I'm-too-good-for-this-job Attitude

One of the Regulars

One of the Regulars

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

Registered User

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

Vendor

One of the Regulars

Practically Family

Practically Family

I'll Lock Up

A-List Customer

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics