"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Genesis 1:1-2.
I saw a program on PBS the other night about the origin and development of telescopes, then on to a discourse about the the origin of the universe and its possible dimensions. It ocurred to me that this scientific analysis of the "universe" compared favorable with the above scripture citation.
"...God created the heavens and the earth." Science and scripture aagree on the order. In the PBS show, a scientist offered the opinion that the universe had a definite beginning, the Bible says the same. He further postulated that if the universe had a definite beginning, it must be headed to a definite end. Sounds like the apocolypse in the Revelation. Once the heavens were created, God proceeded to earth. The scientific explanation is that over time, the earth coalesced from gases, dust and other particles until it was solid (an over simplification but close). Seems to fit the Genesis account.
We argue between the Biblical account and scientific fact as uncovered by years and years of discovery. The more technologically advanced we become, the more the Biblical account seems plausible (although more general than observations by the Hubble telescope etc.). Is it possible that documents written thousands and thousands of years ago could be gradually proving to have truth in them? Could it be that science and faith accounts tend to converge?
If God created the heavens and the earth, in other words the universe, then does it not follow that he created the laws of physics and nature? If that's the case, does that include the concept of time? If God created time, should he not be able to see all the way to the end of time?
I think this is the pentrating part of the blog.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Between a Rock and a Time Piece
IF you're lucky like I was, your former employer will give you an advisor as part of the severance package. This person will be a practical professional who will guide you through the process of a job search. This can be a fleeting association or long relationship depending on the length of your severance package. It can also be a life line if you have not made any connections in the job market for a long time.
There are two general philosophies of job hunting in today's marketplace. One says networking is the primary focus. The other suggests an ever expanding contact process on the Internet hiring sites and specific company websites. Get on the merry go round and ride it until an employer picks you off. The first focuses on human contacts at the highest levels possible, the second focuses on volume contacts in venues many employers go to hire. They both take time, in this economy lots of time.
Either way you go, you need to know yourself first. Job loss is new territory psychologically. First, its a no fault situation. Whether you could have prevented it or not, performed better or not, been more valuable or not, its all in the past. Focus on finding a past time you enjoy. You now have enough spare time to take an emotional rest every day. Second, find an activity to get you out of the house each day. A volunteer effort, a service organization of some kind. Regular activity and the regular requirement of keeping an appointment sharpen or maintain the discipline required on the job.
In terms of time that leaves the job search itself. Whatever path you pursue, make regular appointments with people. Whether its headhunters, networking contacts, job fairs, keep getting connecting with people. Practice speaking to others. These efforts are similar to an interview. You stay in a comfort zone with people so the interview will not be a shock when it comes.
Searching for a job is as much about inside your head as whats on your resume. Getting in to the interview is a step, getting through it and out of it with a job envolves skills you have always had. Keeping them sharp for when you need them is a lot like keeping a fine time piece working, constant care and attention.
There are two general philosophies of job hunting in today's marketplace. One says networking is the primary focus. The other suggests an ever expanding contact process on the Internet hiring sites and specific company websites. Get on the merry go round and ride it until an employer picks you off. The first focuses on human contacts at the highest levels possible, the second focuses on volume contacts in venues many employers go to hire. They both take time, in this economy lots of time.
Either way you go, you need to know yourself first. Job loss is new territory psychologically. First, its a no fault situation. Whether you could have prevented it or not, performed better or not, been more valuable or not, its all in the past. Focus on finding a past time you enjoy. You now have enough spare time to take an emotional rest every day. Second, find an activity to get you out of the house each day. A volunteer effort, a service organization of some kind. Regular activity and the regular requirement of keeping an appointment sharpen or maintain the discipline required on the job.
In terms of time that leaves the job search itself. Whatever path you pursue, make regular appointments with people. Whether its headhunters, networking contacts, job fairs, keep getting connecting with people. Practice speaking to others. These efforts are similar to an interview. You stay in a comfort zone with people so the interview will not be a shock when it comes.
Searching for a job is as much about inside your head as whats on your resume. Getting in to the interview is a step, getting through it and out of it with a job envolves skills you have always had. Keeping them sharp for when you need them is a lot like keeping a fine time piece working, constant care and attention.
Arizona's Idea
The House of Representatives of Arizona has a novel idea. Let's copy the U.S. constitution. Let's not waste our time drafting, debating, editing, debating again, adjourning for a holiday, recessing, campaigning, then going home to hodl town hall meetings to here why the voters elected him or her, then reconvening and voting, ad nauseum. Let's just take one simple idea written in the 18th century and put it ours. What's the idea? In order to serve as President you must be an American citizen.
What does the United States Constitution say? Article 2, section 1 states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." In order to serve as President, you must be an American citizen. The Constitution does not prescribe how to prove such citizenship, nor who must judge such proof to be adequate.
The Arizona House has proposed the obvious solution. Require anyone entering the state's Presidential primary to show up with a valid birth certificate. Only with that proof can the Presidential hopeful be certified as a candidate. If not, under the state law propossed, he or she would be allowed on the ballot and also would be deprived of Arizona's delegates to any party convention. Presumably this would apply to any electoral votes the state has in the national election.
Why is this important at this stage of the O'bama presidency? Do we really want to go through the "after birther mess"? O'Bama's situation has shone a light on an omission. Up to this point, no official process to prove citizenship for Presidential candidates has been established. That has always been assumed. Since the consitution is silent on the process, it must fall to the states to fill the gap.
Arizona's solution is really the only practical way to go about plugging this hole. You simply can't run without proof. It should provide for consequences if citizenship documents are found to be fraudulent. Withholding electoral votes earned in the national election or delegate votes from primaries earned in should be part of that.
What does the United States Constitution say? Article 2, section 1 states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States." In order to serve as President, you must be an American citizen. The Constitution does not prescribe how to prove such citizenship, nor who must judge such proof to be adequate.
The Arizona House has proposed the obvious solution. Require anyone entering the state's Presidential primary to show up with a valid birth certificate. Only with that proof can the Presidential hopeful be certified as a candidate. If not, under the state law propossed, he or she would be allowed on the ballot and also would be deprived of Arizona's delegates to any party convention. Presumably this would apply to any electoral votes the state has in the national election.
Why is this important at this stage of the O'bama presidency? Do we really want to go through the "after birther mess"? O'Bama's situation has shone a light on an omission. Up to this point, no official process to prove citizenship for Presidential candidates has been established. That has always been assumed. Since the consitution is silent on the process, it must fall to the states to fill the gap.
Arizona's solution is really the only practical way to go about plugging this hole. You simply can't run without proof. It should provide for consequences if citizenship documents are found to be fraudulent. Withholding electoral votes earned in the national election or delegate votes from primaries earned in should be part of that.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The art of governance - Is there a price?
In Tom Brokaw's book "The Greatest Generation", he chronicles the the life of Dr. Charles Van Gorder. The good doctor participated in the D-Day Normandy invasion armed with a tent, medical supplies and a knowledge of surgery. His theatre of practice was the field of combat. Van Gorder had enlisted in the Army, served in North Africa as a combat surgeon, then was sent to the greater ferocity of combat on Normandy beach. The Germans, attempting to expand a fledgling empire, had a far different intensity in North Africa than when they made a last ditch to save their homeland and a dream of dominance in 1944. Van Gorder's efforts were in the embryonic field hospital later to be named field hospital/MASH unit. He was literally under fire while operating.
After the war Van Gorder returned to the U.S. to practice medicine in the small town of Andrews, North Carolina. He and a colleague, who fought the D-Day invasion in the same battlefield hospital as Van Gorder, opened the only medical practice in the town and also founded the first and only hospital there. After his retirement Van Gorder told Brokaw,refering to his life. " If I had my life to do all over again, I'd do it the same way. Go somewhere people have a need, contribute something to people who need it;help people."
Dr. Van Gorder and thousands more like him carried on and refined the "house call" in the medical profession. Those self same "thousands" built many rural hospitals and treated many rural families over their careers. These were the Lion's Club officers, the Rotarians, the Sunday School teachers of the generation of parents that gave birth to the baby boomers. They fought on D-Day and elsewhere on the planet, then came home to live and serve.
How will that ethic be affected if each step of the treatment process becomes a matter of regulation and not instinct? How will the medical profession attract people like Dr. Van Gorder if service involves sticking with a script? Work ethic is internal to the individual. Dedication flows from the individual through the sense of ownership of the outcome, availability of self determination. The first doctor that visited a patient at home did so in the name of taking the initiative to treat the patient. It was his decision to treat the patient that way. In today's world, the housecall is a dinosaur without a fossil record.
As we sail headlong in to some version of government controlled healthcare, costing some version of dozens of cost estimates let's take a moment to wonder aloud. How will this affect the character and structure of the profession that attracted Dr. Van Gorder and his contemporaries? Governing implies control, the authority to make decisions. Government is the sum total of enabling rules and those people designated to carry out the rules. Somewhere in all this governing is always one fallible human who has to make one of many final decisions that affect the citizens.
Is it better to have health care, the service provided and its resulting cost, governed by the fallible human being(s) who is/are "hired" or appointed, or the market place where all citizens vote with their pocket book and feet? Will the future Van Gorders be enthusiastic serving in a government system or a marketplace? Will those same Van Gorders be dedicated to the "system" and its rules for as long as they would be dedicated to the self determined treatment of the patient have the option of sitting with, talking to, and getting to know as a patient?
After the war Van Gorder returned to the U.S. to practice medicine in the small town of Andrews, North Carolina. He and a colleague, who fought the D-Day invasion in the same battlefield hospital as Van Gorder, opened the only medical practice in the town and also founded the first and only hospital there. After his retirement Van Gorder told Brokaw,refering to his life. " If I had my life to do all over again, I'd do it the same way. Go somewhere people have a need, contribute something to people who need it;help people."
Dr. Van Gorder and thousands more like him carried on and refined the "house call" in the medical profession. Those self same "thousands" built many rural hospitals and treated many rural families over their careers. These were the Lion's Club officers, the Rotarians, the Sunday School teachers of the generation of parents that gave birth to the baby boomers. They fought on D-Day and elsewhere on the planet, then came home to live and serve.
How will that ethic be affected if each step of the treatment process becomes a matter of regulation and not instinct? How will the medical profession attract people like Dr. Van Gorder if service involves sticking with a script? Work ethic is internal to the individual. Dedication flows from the individual through the sense of ownership of the outcome, availability of self determination. The first doctor that visited a patient at home did so in the name of taking the initiative to treat the patient. It was his decision to treat the patient that way. In today's world, the housecall is a dinosaur without a fossil record.
As we sail headlong in to some version of government controlled healthcare, costing some version of dozens of cost estimates let's take a moment to wonder aloud. How will this affect the character and structure of the profession that attracted Dr. Van Gorder and his contemporaries? Governing implies control, the authority to make decisions. Government is the sum total of enabling rules and those people designated to carry out the rules. Somewhere in all this governing is always one fallible human who has to make one of many final decisions that affect the citizens.
Is it better to have health care, the service provided and its resulting cost, governed by the fallible human being(s) who is/are "hired" or appointed, or the market place where all citizens vote with their pocket book and feet? Will the future Van Gorders be enthusiastic serving in a government system or a marketplace? Will those same Van Gorders be dedicated to the "system" and its rules for as long as they would be dedicated to the self determined treatment of the patient have the option of sitting with, talking to, and getting to know as a patient?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Idea of Unions
Labor unions and their forefathers, the guilds, have been part of the fabric of America throughout its history. Their roots go back as far as the craft guilds of the eastern America's seabord in the 1700's. These were organized along the lines of labor skills, there being guilds for cabinet makers, cordwainers, cobblers, and others. The Continental Congress did its historic work in the Carpenter's Hall (a guild meeting place). The Declaration of Independence was signed in this building.
As the nation evolved in the remainder of the 18th and throughout the 19th century as the fledgling national economy spread across the continent, all manner of businesses enterprises were founded. Ownership had a free hand to establish work rules and pay scales for their employees. No greater or deeper decision process existed than the employer looking at what needed to be done, offered the tasks to a willing labor force, and hired those accepting the offer (or challenge) in as few numbers as the employer could afford, the free market was at work.
The next generation of labor organization evolved in the second half of the 19th century. Terrance Powdery led the Knights of Labor, formed in 1869. Membership was open to all, skilled and unskilled, black and white, all who wanted to join. After reaching a peak membership estimated at 750,000 in the mid 1880's. Membership waned following the Haymarket Square riot and the Kinghts eventually ceased to exist. It was replaced by the American Federation of Labor, founded in 1880 by Samuel Gompers. Gompers' union was an umbrella for indivdual specific unions, defined by industries or trades.
January of 1890 gave birth to the UMW, formed with this statement as the preamble to their founding declaration "We have founded the United Mine Workers of America for the purpose of...educating all mine workers in America to realize the necessity of unity of action and purpose, in demanding and securing by lawful means the just fruits of our toil." Although the initial focus of this new group was safety in the mines, the phrase "just fruits" imnplied wages as a demand more clearly in to focus.
From here forward union demands often were in response to severe and dangerous working conditions and were often coupled with violent response. The Pullman strike of 1894 was over a relatively benign issue with management but brought a response from management that included 3,400 "special deputies". Later, President Grover Cleveland moved in federal troops to break the strike. The Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 killed 150 young women. This tragedy brought what was a criminal safety situation to light relating to the confinement of employees during their workday to a specific area secured by locked doors. Eventually much needed work rule changes were mandated by the Federal government, although it took until 1934 to get the laws enacted. The wheel of union, management and government cooperation was now grinding but slowly. Also imbedded in this time period was the Davis Bacon Act in which the Federal government mandated the wage rate on Federal projects. This bill was introduced and managed by two Repbulicans (Senator James J. Davis of Pennsylvania and Representative Robert L. Bacon of New York) and signed in 1931 by a Republican President (Herbert Hoover).
All this to lay some perspective groundwork. Unions in America today are a different breed than their trade related origins. They first evolved in to a supplement to market place competition with wages, benefits, and work rules mandated by multiyear contracts and renewal negotiations. Instead of a labor market made up of millions of individual units, those units combine in much smaller numbers of groups called unions, and that group of units (unions) negotiate for the masses. Sounds a lot like the represetative form of government our founders handed to to us. More on unions in the next installment.
As the nation evolved in the remainder of the 18th and throughout the 19th century as the fledgling national economy spread across the continent, all manner of businesses enterprises were founded. Ownership had a free hand to establish work rules and pay scales for their employees. No greater or deeper decision process existed than the employer looking at what needed to be done, offered the tasks to a willing labor force, and hired those accepting the offer (or challenge) in as few numbers as the employer could afford, the free market was at work.
The next generation of labor organization evolved in the second half of the 19th century. Terrance Powdery led the Knights of Labor, formed in 1869. Membership was open to all, skilled and unskilled, black and white, all who wanted to join. After reaching a peak membership estimated at 750,000 in the mid 1880's. Membership waned following the Haymarket Square riot and the Kinghts eventually ceased to exist. It was replaced by the American Federation of Labor, founded in 1880 by Samuel Gompers. Gompers' union was an umbrella for indivdual specific unions, defined by industries or trades.
January of 1890 gave birth to the UMW, formed with this statement as the preamble to their founding declaration "We have founded the United Mine Workers of America for the purpose of...educating all mine workers in America to realize the necessity of unity of action and purpose, in demanding and securing by lawful means the just fruits of our toil." Although the initial focus of this new group was safety in the mines, the phrase "just fruits" imnplied wages as a demand more clearly in to focus.
From here forward union demands often were in response to severe and dangerous working conditions and were often coupled with violent response. The Pullman strike of 1894 was over a relatively benign issue with management but brought a response from management that included 3,400 "special deputies". Later, President Grover Cleveland moved in federal troops to break the strike. The Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911 killed 150 young women. This tragedy brought what was a criminal safety situation to light relating to the confinement of employees during their workday to a specific area secured by locked doors. Eventually much needed work rule changes were mandated by the Federal government, although it took until 1934 to get the laws enacted. The wheel of union, management and government cooperation was now grinding but slowly. Also imbedded in this time period was the Davis Bacon Act in which the Federal government mandated the wage rate on Federal projects. This bill was introduced and managed by two Repbulicans (Senator James J. Davis of Pennsylvania and Representative Robert L. Bacon of New York) and signed in 1931 by a Republican President (Herbert Hoover).
All this to lay some perspective groundwork. Unions in America today are a different breed than their trade related origins. They first evolved in to a supplement to market place competition with wages, benefits, and work rules mandated by multiyear contracts and renewal negotiations. Instead of a labor market made up of millions of individual units, those units combine in much smaller numbers of groups called unions, and that group of units (unions) negotiate for the masses. Sounds a lot like the represetative form of government our founders handed to to us. More on unions in the next installment.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Almost 60 years ago
I ran across a gem in my closet the other day. It was a copy of "Life" magazine dated the day after my birth. On the front cover of the 14" by 10" tabloid, if the title doesn't give the age away the dimensions of the magazine should, was a picture of Michael V. DiSalle. At the time of publication DiSalle had just been appointed Director of Price Stabilization, a position he held until February 1952. Subsequent to that DiSalle served a term as governor of Ohio and also did time in the U.S. Senate.
Disalle was an interesting figure. He stood 5'5" tall and was well over 200 pounds. He was tasked in 1951 to monitor and hopefully control prices within the U.S. economy, a task left over from WW2. At a dinner in DiSalle's honor, President Harry S. Truman remarked "I have said to the kids that come to see me--the future farmers, the Boy Scouts-that I would give anything in the world if I were a 16-year-old boy now, because then I could live to see the next 50 years. We think we have done great things in the last 50 years, but it will be nothing compared with what will be done in the next 50 years........". Truman's words were spoken in 1951. Fifty nine years later (2010), we are a different country.
Inflation, which stood at a seasonally adjusted 7.9% in 1951, ended 2009 at nearly zero. Unemployment is at 9.7%, higher than any year since 1982, and up from 3.3% in 1951 though neither counts those who have given up looking for work or are "underemployed". A government that collected 51.6 billion dollars in revenue from its citizens in 1951, drained us of 2.57 trillion dollars in 2007, and incurred a deficit of 162,002,000,000 (page 21 of the "Budget of the United States Government"). I use 2007 because the numbers for 2008 and 2009 are still "estimates". It seems the government doesn't close the books on the same schedule it requires of major corporations filing tax returns. Although to be fair, the government is much bigger than any corporation. I don't believe Ford, General Motors, or Microsoft ever had their own defense departments, or responsibility that requires the government to have one of its own.
Life is different today to be sure. The leap from "The Lone Ranger and Tonto" and test patterns to cable TV, Twitter, and the internet brings a different set of risks and rewards. Bess Truman never had a life coach, Harry's cabinet was half the headcount of O'bama's. The task faced by the unemployed is daunting. The country does not create jobs like it did in the Truman's days due to the declne in the manufacturing sector. Job creation still occurs, but mostly in the technology area. Skill sets have been evolving, changing or disappearing.
The greatest asset available to the job seeking unemployed is the ability not to just think out of the box but to actually get out of the box. The box is first in your head, then in your daily schedule. Do the middle aged go to school? Do office workers and thinkers actually get out on the road and sell--------themselves? The great conundrum of unemployment is that the best job skill you have is the one you were using when you were severed. Skill and talent don't always coincide. For all the quantum leaps in technology and hardware in our daily lives, the current economy requires requires the kind of self reliance needed in the 50's (1850's or 1950's).
Today's economy spins off gloomy statistics, and our technology allows us to dine on them almost hour by hour via tweets, posts, and talk show calls. So we are edeucated, aware, and in some cases out of work. The same technology allows to us to reach geometrically more people that we used to. That's the nature of the job hunt. Michael V. Di Salle was handed a job that required him to get outside his box. He replaced two predecessors who were much more dynamic and forcefull than he. Yet he presided over the decline of inflation from 7.9% in 1951 to less than 1% in 1954.
Disalle was an interesting figure. He stood 5'5" tall and was well over 200 pounds. He was tasked in 1951 to monitor and hopefully control prices within the U.S. economy, a task left over from WW2. At a dinner in DiSalle's honor, President Harry S. Truman remarked "I have said to the kids that come to see me--the future farmers, the Boy Scouts-that I would give anything in the world if I were a 16-year-old boy now, because then I could live to see the next 50 years. We think we have done great things in the last 50 years, but it will be nothing compared with what will be done in the next 50 years........". Truman's words were spoken in 1951. Fifty nine years later (2010), we are a different country.
Inflation, which stood at a seasonally adjusted 7.9% in 1951, ended 2009 at nearly zero. Unemployment is at 9.7%, higher than any year since 1982, and up from 3.3% in 1951 though neither counts those who have given up looking for work or are "underemployed". A government that collected 51.6 billion dollars in revenue from its citizens in 1951, drained us of 2.57 trillion dollars in 2007, and incurred a deficit of 162,002,000,000 (page 21 of the "Budget of the United States Government"). I use 2007 because the numbers for 2008 and 2009 are still "estimates". It seems the government doesn't close the books on the same schedule it requires of major corporations filing tax returns. Although to be fair, the government is much bigger than any corporation. I don't believe Ford, General Motors, or Microsoft ever had their own defense departments, or responsibility that requires the government to have one of its own.
Life is different today to be sure. The leap from "The Lone Ranger and Tonto" and test patterns to cable TV, Twitter, and the internet brings a different set of risks and rewards. Bess Truman never had a life coach, Harry's cabinet was half the headcount of O'bama's. The task faced by the unemployed is daunting. The country does not create jobs like it did in the Truman's days due to the declne in the manufacturing sector. Job creation still occurs, but mostly in the technology area. Skill sets have been evolving, changing or disappearing.
The greatest asset available to the job seeking unemployed is the ability not to just think out of the box but to actually get out of the box. The box is first in your head, then in your daily schedule. Do the middle aged go to school? Do office workers and thinkers actually get out on the road and sell--------themselves? The great conundrum of unemployment is that the best job skill you have is the one you were using when you were severed. Skill and talent don't always coincide. For all the quantum leaps in technology and hardware in our daily lives, the current economy requires requires the kind of self reliance needed in the 50's (1850's or 1950's).
Today's economy spins off gloomy statistics, and our technology allows us to dine on them almost hour by hour via tweets, posts, and talk show calls. So we are edeucated, aware, and in some cases out of work. The same technology allows to us to reach geometrically more people that we used to. That's the nature of the job hunt. Michael V. Di Salle was handed a job that required him to get outside his box. He replaced two predecessors who were much more dynamic and forcefull than he. Yet he presided over the decline of inflation from 7.9% in 1951 to less than 1% in 1954.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
What's the point? - Its Opportunity Staring you in the Resume
With the published unemplyment rate at over 10% nationally and the practical unemployment rate standing at 17.3% nationwide, and Oklahoma's published rate at roughly 6.5% as of December 31, its easy to convince yourself things are hopeless. Tulsa published rate of 4.2% stands thirteenth out of the 50 largest cities in the nation. It's current budget upset has dominated local media, giving us a daily reminder of our own fiscal and emotional fragility. There is a difference between knowing its not your fault and you just have to stay with the effort over a long period of time, and giving up in the most literal sense of the act.
When exiting the consitutional convention, Ben Franklin was asked if we had a We live in an era when information is published by numerous sources and delivered on the internet. Think tanks have websites, government have websites, universities have websites, talk radio repeats the website information, and you can listen to all levels of education and information on call in shows. Such is the extent of our freedom that the river of facts and statistics flows in to an ocean of analysis and comment by literally everyone. Its good that we know these trends and factoids, but that freedom also demands that we have the emotional strength and self awareness to keep them in perspective. And its not easy.
If memory serves me correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin as he exited the constitutional convention who was asked by a bystander what we had in the way of a nation. Franklin's reply was a succinct, "A Republic, if you can keep it." As so much of Franklin's wisdom did, the reply inferred that the new nation would take work and vigilence. That short statement over 250 years ago describes what it takes to protect our freedom in general (work and vigilence), dealing with the freedom of information that flows from it (careful thought and evaluation), dealing with looking for a job in this economy (perserverance and direction), as well as dealing with ourselves during the search (perspective and more perspective).
There are three mental things to face during a layoff period, before we ever get to the job search. The blame game - Why me? The minimization game, consistency of effort - What good am I doing searching now? I'm simply pumping resumes in to cyberspeace and no one's seeing them? The end game - When am I ever going to find a job? There isn't any response to what I'm doing here.
The blame game is easy. It makes sense in a way. People of faith are fond of saying everything happens for a reason. Whatever your denomination, and none is a denomination unto itself, it's easy (human nature?) to get stuck on the reason being you. Layoffs are a numbers game. They are not a performance review. If you were truly incompetant, you would have been warned and fired if you did not respond, long before the layoff ocurred. Since the definition of profit is narrow and does not include all the costs of doing business, some level of profit is required to survive. Layoffs are an act forced on a business by external forces in the market place. When the market circumstances dictate and survival is a requirement, only then are names chosen. No one act of an individual employee caused a name to be put on a list at the time of a layoff.
The minimization game is more difficult. I am one person, my efforts are insignificant. If I'm insignificant, my efforts can have no meaningful effect. If these efforts have no meaningful effect I am lost in the job market. Although it sounds inconsistent to say, the individual needs to look backward. Experience is valuable, its a group of accomplishments to the credit of the individual. Its knowledge acquired through practical means. Its unique since all employees bring their own perspective to a job. Although its possible experience is duplicated in some way by numerous others in the market place, its a personal asset the employee offers and has value to someone.
Ah, the end game. A cliche searcing for a home, but in this case the end game means getting a job and therefore covering the house payment, groceries, utilities, et al. This is also an unknown unless you are independently wealthy, connected to people in high places, or simply in demand. Certainly everyone looking for a job could have gone after MBA's, CPA's, PhD's, MD's, and the rest of the alphabet. In many cases the cost would have been prohibitive, taken away from higher prioirty expenses, or resulted in a debt burden that was unwise (MD's excluded here). Not everyone can get in to grad school. Not everyone can get out of grad school. We are all unique with strengths in various areas of life and education. The time it takes to find and land the next job is governed by our effort. Hiring is a decision in control of others with input from us, the job seekers. We are engaged in providing the decision makers with the best information we can publish, not controlling their decisions.
All three above traps result in the job seeker assuming he or she is impotent and dilutes effort dedicated to finding a job. They result is the self fulfilling prophecy of continuing unemployment. No one is completely without skills, no employer will pass on a chance to hire an individual that can contribute to the organization. This aspect of life, is a merry go round. Get on it, stay on it, you will pass by the job eventually. But only if you stay on the ride and keep reaching out for the ring.
When exiting the consitutional convention, Ben Franklin was asked if we had a We live in an era when information is published by numerous sources and delivered on the internet. Think tanks have websites, government have websites, universities have websites, talk radio repeats the website information, and you can listen to all levels of education and information on call in shows. Such is the extent of our freedom that the river of facts and statistics flows in to an ocean of analysis and comment by literally everyone. Its good that we know these trends and factoids, but that freedom also demands that we have the emotional strength and self awareness to keep them in perspective. And its not easy.
If memory serves me correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin as he exited the constitutional convention who was asked by a bystander what we had in the way of a nation. Franklin's reply was a succinct, "A Republic, if you can keep it." As so much of Franklin's wisdom did, the reply inferred that the new nation would take work and vigilence. That short statement over 250 years ago describes what it takes to protect our freedom in general (work and vigilence), dealing with the freedom of information that flows from it (careful thought and evaluation), dealing with looking for a job in this economy (perserverance and direction), as well as dealing with ourselves during the search (perspective and more perspective).
There are three mental things to face during a layoff period, before we ever get to the job search. The blame game - Why me? The minimization game, consistency of effort - What good am I doing searching now? I'm simply pumping resumes in to cyberspeace and no one's seeing them? The end game - When am I ever going to find a job? There isn't any response to what I'm doing here.
The blame game is easy. It makes sense in a way. People of faith are fond of saying everything happens for a reason. Whatever your denomination, and none is a denomination unto itself, it's easy (human nature?) to get stuck on the reason being you. Layoffs are a numbers game. They are not a performance review. If you were truly incompetant, you would have been warned and fired if you did not respond, long before the layoff ocurred. Since the definition of profit is narrow and does not include all the costs of doing business, some level of profit is required to survive. Layoffs are an act forced on a business by external forces in the market place. When the market circumstances dictate and survival is a requirement, only then are names chosen. No one act of an individual employee caused a name to be put on a list at the time of a layoff.
The minimization game is more difficult. I am one person, my efforts are insignificant. If I'm insignificant, my efforts can have no meaningful effect. If these efforts have no meaningful effect I am lost in the job market. Although it sounds inconsistent to say, the individual needs to look backward. Experience is valuable, its a group of accomplishments to the credit of the individual. Its knowledge acquired through practical means. Its unique since all employees bring their own perspective to a job. Although its possible experience is duplicated in some way by numerous others in the market place, its a personal asset the employee offers and has value to someone.
Ah, the end game. A cliche searcing for a home, but in this case the end game means getting a job and therefore covering the house payment, groceries, utilities, et al. This is also an unknown unless you are independently wealthy, connected to people in high places, or simply in demand. Certainly everyone looking for a job could have gone after MBA's, CPA's, PhD's, MD's, and the rest of the alphabet. In many cases the cost would have been prohibitive, taken away from higher prioirty expenses, or resulted in a debt burden that was unwise (MD's excluded here). Not everyone can get in to grad school. Not everyone can get out of grad school. We are all unique with strengths in various areas of life and education. The time it takes to find and land the next job is governed by our effort. Hiring is a decision in control of others with input from us, the job seekers. We are engaged in providing the decision makers with the best information we can publish, not controlling their decisions.
All three above traps result in the job seeker assuming he or she is impotent and dilutes effort dedicated to finding a job. They result is the self fulfilling prophecy of continuing unemployment. No one is completely without skills, no employer will pass on a chance to hire an individual that can contribute to the organization. This aspect of life, is a merry go round. Get on it, stay on it, you will pass by the job eventually. But only if you stay on the ride and keep reaching out for the ring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)