it seems like the issue in the NYT article is more about getting a job rather than keeping one.

as for job security, it seems really straightforward to me: show up for work and pull your weight. i don't see how this has changed, outside of these profoundly shitty economic conditions we're in. maybe it's a Millennials thing?

i love the idea of making new paths for jobs/development. but i have a problem with a lot of the modern "entrepreneurship." all the examples in the article are for digital "products" or "services" that are really not products or services. for example, mint (the most successful) does not MAKE or PRODUCE anything. it is something i can do myself, it is simply SLIGHTLY more convenient (i myself am a user). but they rely solely on advertising to raise revenue, (because i have a feeling people would not pay for the service, since you could do it for free with a combination of a couple apps/browsers and a spreadsheet). but my point is, this business model seems very nebulous. like myspace, as soon as the next one (facebook) comes along, the business model crashes and the first go bankrupt. then all the stock options they have (which is where the PERCEPTION of their wealth comes from) go to zero. if they are smart enough to sell the options, they may pass that debt/loss onto someone else. but my point is that it is very similar to the tech bubble in the 90's. this type of "entrepreneurship" just seems like pushing money around while you play musical chairs. if you happen to get a chair, you make out big. but the much bigger number of people who invest end up losing the farm. how long will people continue to fall for that business model?

what happened to entrepreneurship that involves actually MAKING something? did anyone see the news that apple and samsung just invested 2 BILLION dollars in japan to build the glass screens for the iPhone/iPad etc? why didn't that happen HERE?!?! americans seem to like the game of pushing money around now rather than devising a sustainable, expnadable, business. this is not "old school" talk. i am seriously wondering where all the tech "entrepreneurship" will lead us? the model relies on a TON of people (or companies) willing to KEEP paying essentially for nothing. without the continued investment of money ACTUALLY generated by the goods the advertisers MAKE, the "entrepreneurs" go under. it is like a pyramid scheme, because it only leaves space for a VERY few wealthy people. we can't ALL come up with mint!

maybe i am too pessimistic, but i don't think the future for our work force is in creating databases for out of work college kids to send their resumes to. i think these are niche companies that relied on a LOT of luck/outside funding/(and maybe naivete)

it's changed a lot, in that the definition of 'pulling your weight' is quite different. my parents worked 9-5 with benefits and vacations, and this was hardly ever challenged by their employers. there were no weekend deadlines and there were periodic raises, etc... my friends/contemporaries are expected to go above-and-beyond in terms of working hours, dedication to work, availability, willingness to travel and relocate, etc. etc. and can expect much less in terms of overtime pay, health insurance, and accommodation of family and personal time. and i see that in most professional fields, not only architecture.

i think it is still possible to find jobs where there is this kind of security, but they are fewer and farther between. personally i think it's better not to expect it, and to keep an entrepreneurial mindset. it just gives you more options in the end.

i agree, elinor. the "job" has changed for the worse in order for those in charge to have better profit margins. so less security is not really a surprise.

^ boom.

having that massive debt hang over you totally changes how you pursue your education - it becomes mostly about doing what you're "supposed" to do to get the good grades and that job instead of figuring out how to use your education to do what you love and/or to be entrepreneurial. We're graduating a lot of good gophers/hard workers, but not enough thinkers and creative geniuses.

the old folks at my old firm had pensions.............!

Is there more security in entrepreneurship than a salaried position? For me, yes.

perhaps i'm missing something here, but the responses seem to be more about compensation (as compared to earlier generations) instead of the security of a salaried position versus entrepreneurship.

not compensation, but rewards for longevity/continued service. when those are missing, there is no incentive for either party to contribute past the initial pay-for-work-performed transaction.

I like toaster's response.

In response to this "enough thinkers and creative geniuses..."

I think the 'risk' game has gotten out of hand. Playing a game of cat-and-mouse can be thrilling but the punishment of losing far outpaces the success of winning.

We live in a one-chance society these days. With the birth of the information age, we've lost our "reset" button-- there's no more moving across town, to the town over or across state lines. You fail once and that's it.

Younger people see one failure as a ticket to homelessness, extreme poverty or jail time. Why try to excel at something if there's no forgiveness for failure?

We need people to succeed but we can't even gaurantee that they'll be O.K. if they fail.

"not compensation, but rewards for longevity/continued service."

can you give any examples of these rewards? (it still sounds like compensation to me.)

and i would say there are benefits to both employer and employee for loyalty and continued service, above and beyond direct compensation.

yes, but the point is that working for a salary is no longer free of risk. how many people are unemployed because their firms/companies folded? even people in government jobs are getting laid off. so, you're most likely working for someone else with no control over the future of the operation, no benefits, etc. at that point strawbeary's right...entrepreneurship is more secure because you're less likely to let YOURSELF down....

that said, it is true that there i absolutely no safety net for people who try and fail, or who leave intolerable situations on their own...even basic short-term unemployment insurance would be great in these cases. i get unemployment insurance if my boss can't hack it, and usually even if i get fired with cause (i know you're not supposed to, but many people do...) but not if i give it a good solid shot on my own and it doesn't work out...

I disagree on the risk game and believe opportunities are abundant if you don't limit yourself with unwarranted debt or unrealistic expectations. It is a different game for sure, but you still have unlimited chances. The article in the NYT even talks about the tools that are at your disposal that previously weren't so easy to get.

Ignore first part of first sentence, I am not really disagreeing w/ anyone.

well yes, most of the rewards are some form of compensation...we are talking about employment after all...but it's also about a relationship between employer and employee that is based on mutual respect and presumes both can help EACH OTHER prosper...you hire me, you make a continued investment in me, i stick around and help your business grow. if employers are trying to get as much as they can out of their employees for as little as possible (see 27k thread) then this relationship does not really exist, and it's a fundamentally insecure, unstable situation.

unless the market is unnaturally skewed (ie. starchitects and starfuckers), employers who are trying to get as much as they can out of their employees for as little as possible will ultimately lose out in the long run to employers who understand that their employees are their greatest asset.

there might be cases of employers putting the squeeze on employees in these economic times (again, 27k thread) or of increased production demands of employees, but i don't see how job security in a salaried position has gotten any less secure than it was a generation ago.

To huh:

After modeling this selection, we find that workers feel most secure in permanent public sector jobs, least secure in temporary jobs, with permanent private sector jobs occupying an intermediate position. We also find that perceived job security in both permanent private and temporary jobs is positively correlated with UIB generosity, while the relationship with EPL strictness is negative: workers feel less secure in countries where jobs are more protected. These correlations are absent for permanent public jobs, suggesting that such jobs are perceived to be by and large insulated from labor market fluctuations.

Via Job security and job protection Clark and Vinay, 2008-2009

This highlights an overall trend seen in the job market.

Specialization increases at the same time specializations become obsolete. More and more jobs once thought secure are also disappearing at a rate similar to their creation.

Let's just say tomorrow someone comes out with a SketchUp version of Revit and Project Management with push button rendering that's extremely easy to use. Let's make a huge assumption that this software also has thousands of predefined materials, specs et cetera that are updated automatically through a central server by various vendors. At this point... who needs BIM managers, spec writers, technical architects or project managers? Now, let's say this SketchUp-on-crack can also order the materials, generate labor contracts and do cost estimation nearly instantaneously?

The AEC industry is literally a few clicks away from obsolescence if some programmers really put some muscle into it. While Sketchup-on-crack is only just a fantasy, scenarios like this have been happening all over other industries.

Combine growing obsolescence with shrinking public jobs... and well, the picture is pretty bleak. The 'fall back' jobs-- from mail room clerks to file clerks to assistants-- are no longer present as well. Even if one wanted to work their way up from the bottom, their maybe not even a bottom. And the gutting of government on all levels has left little in the way alternative routes.

i don't want to dominate this thread, but since i'm an entrepreneur who worked really hard the past few days, i'm rewarding my continued service by giving myself the day off...so...

what about the other side of this issue...do young people really want job security? i know they probably do in this economy, but if the market were to improve, i think most of us would job-hop like crazy if it was in our interest to do so. are there a lot of people who would forgo higher pay, etc. to stay in one place because it's more secure? one thing i've learned since leaving my job (people don't really discuss such things with their coworkers) is that EVERYONE out there is looking for a job. people without jobs are looking for a job, and people WITH jobs are looking for a job. some of this is probably because everyone's been working without proper raises for years and they all feel unappreciated, but it also tells me that most of us function as free agents anyway. the world of loyalty-for-security is going fast, and i don't think it's coming back...

elinor, in the post directly above you answered you own question: in booming economic times (five years ago), young architects were in demand and job hopping like crazy. Each lateral move meant a pay uptick. Where was the loyalty on the employee side then? It's a shifting market, yes.

I'm not saying good business relationships can't last - my old firm was a great example of a firm that fostered and helped young architects and rewarded them very generously, receiving amazing loyalty in return.

But to go to outed's original question: I don't think job security exists for anyone anymore - even tenure is (correctly, IMO) under threat right now - except on very small scale, or within public organizations where nepotism and the like is in play. Jeez, I'll bet a toll collector in New Jersey NEVER lost a job!

And CMDCNRTL, I enjoyed your post re: making something tangible. I too don't understand why there isn't more interest in producing tangible goods in the US. A s I've ranted elsewhere, I'd happily pay $50 for a lawn sprinkler made in the US if it will last for a decade or more. Right now my only option is a $9.99 model made in China that breaks within a summer - so I buy 5 of them in 3 years.

to someone above; yes, my personal intent was to try and get a discussion going about the general notion of job 'security' vs. salary or other concerns. i'm really convinced that there's a kind of social compact/thread that was developed post wwii that peaked in the early 60's. the plus side of that compact said that a good education and hard work resulted in a 'place' in society (yeah, there's always exceptions, but they were that).

i'm not a social scientist but what my observations tell me is that this kind of prolonged downturn, affecting so many white collar workers, is going to haunt an entire generation the way it did for my grandfather's era. with one key exception: we know more now about the causes of this meltdown - who the players were, their actions, and how they've largely escaped intact. loyalty (as donna notes) will always have a place on the more localized scale. however, on the long view, we're turning more into a society of every man for himself. that kind of unraveling, in turn, makes political discourse more difficult, creates more fear and more us vs. them, etc. and i'm really curious if it will take another world war to galvanize us around a set of common values again (and hoping it won't take a civil war).

World war, mass fatal pandemic, or alien attack.

Dan Pink's first book, Free Agent Nation, covers very engagingly the massive shift away from employment towards free agency, and the parallel blurring of the line between work and life. For better or worse, what we do is becoming who we are for more and more people, and 9-5 employment doesn't always square with that combination.

outed... I've heard several historians argue WWII helped get us out of the Great Depression and I wonder too if this is the only way to get ourselves out of this recession. I personally think one of our greatest blunders was shipping a vast majority of our production/manufacturing overseas. We're becoming a "service only" but even then we're beginning to ship those jobs abroad. I remember hearing a friend talking about how he was going over to China to train them to do his job. We all laughed at his comment, despite the uneasy truth to his statement. Are we making ourselves obsolete? I really hope not.

It doesn't have to be every man for himself, after all, the best thing this 'entrepreneur' has is a good partner, someone who can do the things I can't and vice versa.

"what we do is becoming who we are for more and more people"

Actually, this isn't new. Guess what people's English ancestors with the last names of Smith, Wright and Taylor used to do?!

Chapmans are shop keepers. Barkers are tanners.

Also... while not related to occupations, some other hilarious names are Attwood (lived by the woods), Bush (self-explanatory) and Sykes (lived in a marsh or swamp).

"We're becoming a "service only" but even then we're beginning to ship those jobs abroad. "

If you search around, many fast food companies are now outsourcing their order takers. Here is a recent example-- Jack In The Box Drive Thru Outsourcing To The Philippines.

I thought I might add a little to this discussion as I have spent several decades employed.

College is still the way to go for better pay and job security. During this recession, only about 5% of college grads are unemployed while about 14% of non-graduates are unemployed (heard this on 60 Minutes last week).

You can still get an inexpensive college education starting at a community college and finishing at a 4 year school. Or you can go to a major school and spend more and probably get a slightly better education. Or you can go ivy league and spend a lot more. With all, you end up with an accredited degree. What you get with the higher end schools is the social contacts that can lead you to much higher income!

The majority of people with high incomes in the US are small business owners or entrepreneurs. They create products and employ lots of people. But, the US needs more of these and we need to retain our manufacturing base.

There is NO job security in working for a large corporation on any level! You are simply a number. If they need to stay profitable, the easiest way is to cut jobs. It does not matter at all how good a job you do or how reliable an employee you are. They Don’t Care! Often, the bean counters will analyze tenure and pay and determine who gets laid off, giving no choice to the local manager nor taking into account the quality of the employee. (seen this happen too many times)

The best way to ensure some kind of job security in a corporation is to specialize and develop a skill that very, very few others have. This does set you apart from the crowd and also makes you employable with their competitors.

Also, toot your own horn. Make a point of shameless self-promotion. Write a white paper, write a book, volunteer for projects that interest you. And, make sure your manager and his manager know about it.

Just my observations.

there's going to be a need for people to make, program, and operate robots that make buildings and building components. you guys think I'm joking? we're getting really close to this actually happening. it's kind of scary.

modjohn - i heard the same statistic, but then read this today: "A college education is better than no college education and correlates with higher pay. But as a cure for unemployment or as a way to narrow the chasm between the rich and everyone else, “more college” is a too-easy answer. Over the past year, for example, the unemployment rate for college grads under age 25 has averaged 9.2 percent, up from 8.8 percent a year earlier and 5.8 percent in the first year of the recession that began in December 2007. That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population."


donna - i've got to read that book. i'm not really opposed to the idea of 'free agents' (at least from a sports perspective). from that angle, one thing that's always puzzled me some is how infrequently architects partner up to chase work. perhaps it's coming from a musical background, where you wouldn't think twice about hooking up with other people just to jam, record, etc. (and rap is way ahead in that regard). in that sense, there's both loyalty - you have your band in a lot of cases - but there's also a framework of sorts that allows you to go out and explore these other areas (be it a solo album, guesting on other's work, or truly collaborating on a specific record).

I've heard the figure too... but the jobless rate for college graduates is in the high twenties and for the entire age group overall is nearly 45%.

There's a lot of recent college graduates (from the last 4 years or so) who don't work, work illegally (loan collectors can't investigate cash economies!) or never got the chance to work for any lengthy period of time to be considered unemployed.

cmndctrl - in your first reply, there's a couple interesting threads of thought (and i'm surprised you didn't bring up groupon's attempted buyout in relation to the apple plant - is groupon really worth 3x what that plant will do? i'm saying no as well. for that matter, does anyone really think mark zuckerberg has contributed more to the world than steve jobs? if you look at their net worth via forbes, mark's actually 'worth' more. crazy world. i digress, in stark violation of the law...)

where i see the role of the new entrepreneurship leading is less into a realm where we're all only making apps - that vein will shake itself out over time. where it will be good is that it might help 3 things: first, if it helps generate an idea soup with a lot in it, some of that will be good and it may lead towards building real companies that do or make real things. i think a large part of the last 20 years was spent either coasting (most of the middle management world) or fiddling on useless things (hard to believe but pets.com was once worth more than probably the 40 biggest 'star firms' combined at the time). second, i think it will help those people taking the leap to better understand the internal mechanics of running a business. if consolidation happens or people decide to go back, they may help make firms sharper, more efficient, and more competitive. third, it may help create a class of smaller companies that, if they live long enough (so many fail in the first 5 years), can help create a more diverse business ecology which might be a key to having the economy as a whole survive economic shocks in the future (meaning, if too much consolidation happens, when the biggest get a cold, everyone else gets the flu from the repercussions. if that economic output is spread out into more companies, it's less likely any single event would take down too much.)

again, i could be overly optimistic...

Damn, outed, thanks for reminding us of what archinect CAN be. Must run to the temp service to see if I qualify for assembling electrical panels right now, but I'll be back with my response later today.

I think the problem with prescribing that many, many more people are going to have to assume the mantle (or yoke, as it were) of the entrepreneur, is more or less like assuming that all these people could be Donald Trump, if they would only put their minds to it.

Some people's mind set (which is then reflected in their skill set), is to produce the world's finest, say, bamboo fly rod. And maybe that skill set doesn't include being able to sell that fly rod. So, in the opinion of the marketing Gods, that rod builder should go by the wayside.

Such it is that no one makes anything here in the US anymore. In discussing this with a distinguished regional poet at our neighborhood watering hole recently, not one of us could point to any article of clothing or personal accessory (watch, notebook, sketchpad, glasses, pen, phone, computer) that was actually made here. As far as entreprenuership goes, let's just say that he was much better at writing than marketing his material. Should he go by the wayside, too?

Poets are born, not made. Same with entreprenuers.

There's a lot of noise about the superiority of the market these days. What if we just let it operate unfettered and let all those poets and bamboo flyrodders go by the wayside?

Now, hypothetically, let's lock that rule up, AIRTIGHT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

What would all those NY capitalists do without their beloved Metropolitan Opera?

After reconsidering, I didn't address the security of white collar jobs. Maybe we should be addressing the elimination of gold collar jobs?

I think the lack of white collar job security (in addition to a lot of other problems with our economy) leads back to the desire of investors to see a unrealistic performance of stock price. So many of the basic business model decisions in publicly traded corporations are based on showing continual "higher than expected" earnings and profit growth. This earnings and profit growth serves as the basis for the stock price, which serves for the basis of upper echelon executive compensation, by the method of stock options. In order to increase the value of their stock options, executives make business decisions designed to juice the earnings and profits (many times in the short term).

It is no longer ok to have a sucessful business that earns a consistent healthy profit year after year (like it used to be). You have to show that continual growth.

Solid cadres of white collar workers are what keeps the business on that consistent path that is no longer viable (apparently). When things are functioning smoothly, its easy to say "lets cut 10% of them for better profits". You do that and slowly things start to not be done as well, and you have to fight harder for market share because your product is not as good as it was before. So you cut another 10% to save more money. And now you are in a vicious cycle....

Some of these cuts have been offset by increases in productivity over the last couple of decades, for example widespread use of personal computers. I think though that its starting to catch up with us. But the people at the top have since been conditioned to not respect the value of their workers. The model of cutting skilled workers across the economy, just for the sake of short term profits, is leading us into a situation where we simply are not as competitive as other countries.

current article on the rise of the temporary worker (hint - it's the fastest growing sector of the employment numbers and it's only projected to keep rising):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/business/economy/20temp.html?_r=1&hp

anyone want to guess how long it will be before the labor laws are rewritten to allow temporary workers, without benefits, and treat them the same as regular employees?

I imagine those laws are already written. They're just waiting for the right time to ink the signatures.

druf - you are talking about publicly traded companies. How is now any different than past recessions? They have to answer to Wall Street, which is about their earnings. They have to continue to show good numbers or the companies suffer, which means no new jobs or recovery. Round and round viscous cycle.

The difference this time is that they've done a superb job of making huge profits while we are still in an economic mess. Amazing, really, that they could make productivity that much greater in such a short time.

This, of course, leads to the "jobless recovery" we face now (and did after the dot com bust). The only thing that will get jobs back is actual demand - supply and demand.




For non publicly traded companies, you can do whatever you want. You don't have to grow, you can keep a steady pace if you want. Before the bust, I debate this all the time - grow and take on more risk, or stay reasonably small and maintain some stability. I chose the latter and am thankful I did.



Security - the only security is your own bank account. With the world becoming more and more global, it is more and more likely we'll face uncertain times again soon. There is no isolation like there was 10 years ago, no "Europe is doing well, let's focus there".

So put that money away for a rainy day. As they say, the only person you can rely on is yourself.