Amazon's workplace culture doesn't bother most customers and investors

We previously talked about the questionable labor practices at AMZN's DCs, and here is the corporate/tech perspective:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?referrer=&_r=0
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/3ce0s8/dear_amazon_interns_some_advice_from_an_old_man/

After 9/11, we empowered sociopaths in the military-industrial complex to keep us safe and didn't want to know the details - so of course abuses like torture and extra-judicial murder/snooping were bound to occur. Similarly with AMZN, I don't think we should be surprised to hear about allegations of their perverse culture/practices. Our society prioritizes ubiquitous, limitless, instant-gratification consumerism, and AMZN delivers that better than anyone else in the US. Wall Street rewards huge growth and exceeding expectations, even if AMZN never turned a profit until 2015. But we customers and investors never bothered to ask the tough questions about the details - how exactly is AMZN able to deliver such "magic" to us? Eh doesn't matter, I can get my Coach handbag with free overnight shipping! It's also not surprising that AMZN is among the best for customer sat. and brand image.

The sick culture (though it's not a horrible company for everyone, too many independent sources have corroborated it, making it highly unlikely that it was just a few "bad apples") is not unique to AMZN though. Apple is almost as rotten if you forgive the pun (you should see how they treat their vendors). The coolness of their products/brand and corporate mythos make a lot of employees/public see them with rose-colored lenses. Their amazing profits and appreciation doesn't hurt either. Like the NFL and military, Apple is now a cultural fixture, and some sins are given a pass because of the prevailing positive sentiment. Other tech companies work you to the bone too, but at least they give a lot of comp and cash-free gourmet food (AMZN's culture is "frugal"). Also, mgmt. consulting, some law/medicine, and Wall St. are just as bad if not worse - but tech is in the spotlight now and "changing the world" faster than ever before. You kind of expect Wall St. and corporate lawyers to be a-holes, but tech is ostensibly benevolent (and almost omnipotent), so shouldn't they hold themselves to a higher standard?

The scammy, cultish nature of AMZN's employee policies (heavily rear-loading equity grants, putting company over health/family) are fairly extreme... I guess like Scientology? Why don't the complainers just quit? Similar to a cult, it can be hard for some Amazonians to leave because SEA doesn't have a lot of tech employers (until recently), and maybe they are able to indoctrinate the psychology that type-A high achievers have to survive and thrive at AMZN, so they don't feel like failures. They've been winners all their lives and they won't let a few workplace challenges stop them now (even if it costs their marriage or health). Everyone else seems to handle it or even love it (survivor bias), so they can't come up short. Yes, employment is at-will, but it's not so simple in many cases. I just wonder what will be the next chapter of this opera.

Happy Thanksgiving and happy Buy Nothing Day

http://www.zapaday.com/event/472181/2/Buy+Nothing+Day.html

This weekend, we can expect the usual parking lot & store fights, stampedes, cold/fatigue related injuries, debt spending, and such. All this to keep our consumer economy humming and shore up retailers' financials. Or we can boycott the insane, unnecessary, perverted-capitalism process.

If you are troubled by the recent trend that some retailers are opening on Thanksgiving (and staying open like 40 straight hours into Black Friday), you can also boycott them all year-round, divest from their stocks, and let their management know that you disapprove of their operating decisions and worker treatment. These employees deserve (hopefully paid) time off just like the white collar workers and others who are their customers - esp. because they will have to suffer through the longer, uglier hours in Dec anyway.



It's not just retailers, but also the public services, entertainment, food, and convenience industries. If workers must/choose to work (i.e. we need some gas stations and hospitals open), they should get OT/bonus pay. SD is trying to enact a law that would require 2X pay during TG and Xmas - not sure how it will pan out and there is no federal bill of course. Retailers may claim that they are just responding to customer demand; maybe so but that is also what a drug dealer would say. Sure, no one is expecting us to spend 24-7 with our families without going crazy, but there are other things to do besides consuming with the herd: enjoy the outdoors, catch up on chores/studies/sleep, volunteer at a kitchen, etc.



It's all especially sad/ironic because TG/Xmas are holidays where we are supposed to be good to each other and reflect on our blessings (usually blessings that can't be bought in a mall). Do we still have or remember what people gave us 3 years ago? We are the best shoppers for ourselves anyway. Holiday gifts are not that important, so why do we continue to stress and waste effort over gift buying year after year? Unless it's a Lexus with a big red bow on it (who actually does that?), or you need to impress someone with a gift, what's the point? And even still, if you need to give gifts to make someone like/accept/remember you, then maybe that relationship isn't meant to be. There are plenty of other ways to express your feelings, and the most precious gifts can't be bought anyway (sharing special moments together). Many Americans' homes are overflowing with stuff already; why not celebrate Buy Nothing Day instead?



Not sure if it's just a few stores or company-wide, but struggling chain Kmart, as well as Wal-mart, are mandating that its staff work on TG (no time off requests will be honored). I guess those mgmt teams think their workers should be thankful to even have crappy minimum-wage retail jobs.

Here is a list of retailers that will be open and closed on Turkey Day:


http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/193996-big-retailers-open-thanksgiving-good-bad-thing/

Sacre bleu! Stop checking your Blackberry at night!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/10/301418591/mon-dieu-no-more-work-email-at-home-for-some-french-workers?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140410

 

Earlier The Guardian and BBC reported that France passed a law barring tech and consulting workers from using their work devices after hours (and for them, after hours means 6PM-9AM), affecting up to 1M employees. But it turns out the law only applies to hourly contractors (~200K workers) and amends a previous law that workers must have at least 11 hrs of free time per day, which is not exactly super generous.

This story was probably a Brit attempt to mock "the lazy, hedonistic frogs", but really - is it so admirable to be plugged into work almost 24-7 at the expense of your loved ones, personal interests, and health? Even if we love our job and want to work more (or are we just addicted, pressured, or socialized to think that?), you have to stop sometime! Even too much of a "good thing" is unhealthy; what happened to balance? Some managers have to force US workers to take vacation... that is kind of pathological right?

Well, despite having a 35-hour work week, at least 6 weeks of yearly vacation, and shall we say, "different" union laws, French worker productivity is similar to that of Germans AND Americans. So they are just a lot more efficient than us? Maybe knowing that you have under 9 hours a day to get your stuff done, it is motivating and clarifying? Instead in the US, it's always "let's see how much more we can pile on." But is that stuff really value-added? I think you would agree, but I have never read a brilliant late-night email and definitely don't do my best work late when I'm tired/distracted. If the late night stuff was so important, you would have worked on it at 10AM. Unless you need to respond to a 4-alarm fire at midnight, but in that case you may be hourly with a pension.

So, F-U GM and your macho, consumerist, Europe-mocking work ethic. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (don't make deadly ignition switches and don't beg for a gov't bailout). Sorry, but I think truly successful people would be ashamed to have a Caddy in their driveway these days. So you get the posers like that B-list blond actor you hired on the cheap. I'll take a Renault, and use the leftover cash to have a nice vacation... IN FRANCE (well, Tahiti and Martinique are still technically France right?).

"The price of incivility [at work]"

http://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility/ar/1

This builds on our past discussion on stress and health. These authors suggest that a disrespectful culture at work (often promulgated by a manager, who learned it from his boss, and so on and so forth...) can infect an entire dept of previously nice people, and cause health issues. We follow our leaders, right?

And here are the costs to employers and the economy: intentionally lower effort/output/creativity, reduced productivity worrying about the issue, complaining, and avoiding the culprit, HR costs of turnover (firings, recruiting costs, etc. can be $10K's per head), taking frustrations out on customers/clients, and of course the intangible reduction in team spirit and camaraderie. The effects of bad behavior may eat up 13% of a manager's time, which is also $10K's of costs per head. Cisco (generally regarded as a good place to work) did a conservative analysis and the total ran up to $12M/year. This led them to start a global workplace civility program. But of course many employers don't, and even pretend the issue isn't there. Maybe they will send out some BS employee satisfaction survey, but not act on the responses. That is even more demoralizing.

Simple fixes for bosses (though problem bosses are unlikely to try): walk the talk, show appreciation (so feedback is not always negative), ASK for feedback in a way that the worker is protected and comfortable to be honest, and change hiring/training practices to encourage civil behavior and keep out jerks (but of course asshole bosses may hire assholes who are like them). Also everyone is responsible to speak out when they see bad behavior, but often we keep our heads down for fear of retaliation. Changing culture takes time (if it ever happens), but when people see the "right way" to behave and people getting rewarded for it, they may follow. And similarly, bad apples have to be called out just like any other form of underperformance - even if the culprits are your rainmakers. In this sense, a jerk can be even more costly to your org than an underperformer, because at least others can cover for a slacker. A jerk often affects everyone, and in hard-to-measure ways.

Lastly, monitor that things are getting better (or if not, why?). Google does this fairly successfully with its manager metrics program where they have gotten horrible bosses to improve, but of course they are more data-driven and cutting-edge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Worker disengagment and poor management are very costly

Here's another doozy about workplace dysfunction from the NYT:




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/do-happier-people-work-harder.html?_r=1



"Since January 2008, ...Americans now feel worse about their jobs — and work environments — than ever before. People of all ages, and across income levels, are unhappy with their supervisors, apathetic about their organizations and detached from what they do. And there’s no reason to think things will soon improve... Gallup estimates the cost of America’s disengagement crisis at a staggering $300 billion in lost productivity annually."



Wow, that is bigger than the GDPs of most nations.



I don't get why firms seem to just accept this. This is big money. Even if the "touchy-feely" worker motivation stuff is probably beneath most execs, the middle and lower managers just don't ask the necessary questions (or are too busy to pay attention), and no one is holding them accountable if they don't. No one likes the "adult babysitting" part of management, but if you want productivity, loyalty, and high-functioning groups, this is probably the most direct and effective route. Corny rah-rah speeches at all-hands meetings (that usually do not resemble reality) and sending out cliched worker satisfaction surveys (yet not acting on the findings) only hurts morale further. Are leaders smoking something, imagining that their departments are perfect utopias where workers always come pumped up to give their best (because of their brilliant leadership, of course)? And obviously it's about more than compensation.



Some managers are awesome, but others seem generally clueless when it comes to knowing their workers. They make threats, falsely promise or delay rewards, and set unrealistic goals, and as they watch their people scramble to meet them, they think it's validation of their good leadership. Wow, look at them go for me, and I didn't even need to bribe them! Some managers think (or make it appear) that their groups are high performing despite heavier burdens on them, but they never ponder if that is the best way. And I don't mean, "Can I squeeze even more out of them?" It's a tough climate for job-seekers now, but that shouldn't be a green light for managers to abuse captive employees and impose unreasonable expectations. "It's dog-eat-dog out there and we have to get tough to survive." Well a lot of sick, immoral stuff has been justified that way over the centuries.



I think especially in the tech fields, emotional IQ is so lacking and there isn't a serious effort at manager training/improvement monitoring. Sure it's a two-way street and workers share some blame for not speaking up and proposing solutions, but due to asymmetric communication and reputation implications, this can be nearly impossible to pull off. Basically, bad managers and management systems aren't getting fixed because (a) workplace culture from the top down doesn't take employee satisfaction seriously, (b) the higher bosses don't collect the right data to evaluate management skills and incentivize improvement, and (c) it is too risky or difficult for workers to inform the proper parties on their managers' shortcomings. Blind leading the blind kind of stuff.



Management seems to prefer to reorganize, rotate VPs, and alter budgets (to make it look like they've got a plan), instead of getting to the roots of employee dissatisfaction - which seem to be plainly obvious and intuitive, so it's not like a Herculean feat. They just aren't willing to give what the workers need. Or maybe some managers are more concerned with their own career advancement, politics, and other BS, so they want to hoard credit/attention and don't allow their workers a chance to take on more responsibilities, feel more engaged, and get noticed, all of which strongly correlates with job satisfaction and productivity (workplace creativity, a critical part of business success, is highly correlated with positive mood as well). Maybe it's some subconscious, antisocial behavior where managers can't help but keep their people down to satisfy their insecurities, like frat hazing or abusive parenting.



Maybe firms like Google (with plenty of super-smart but bad managers I'm sure) are trying to get on the right track. Use data-driven methods to improve management and worker engagement. Try to close the gap between a manager's false assumptions and what workers truly feel (and what is actually happening on the ground).



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html

Jerks make more money, nice guys finish last?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/16/nice-women-finish-last-work_n_928207.html


http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201108190900



Most of us implicitly feel or observe this, but a team of business professors recent published a paper showing data that being more disagreeable at work is correlated with higher pay (especially for males, supposedly in order to fit the dominant, aggressive gender role), when controlling for industry, worker age, timing, and job level. "Agreeable" people are characterized by 6 facets: trust, compliance, altruism, straightforwardness, modesty, tender-mindedness, so I guess disagreeble would be opposite. A person 1 SD more disagreeable than the mean of their data set made on average $10K/18% more than a person 1 SD more agreeable than the mean. I believe the data was collected by self and peer reported surveys, so they're not fully objective and quantitative.



But this type of disagreeable personality is also correlated with less success in relationships, more stress, and generally less life satisfaction. And as you would expect, the "jerks" are less likely to manage others and receive promotions they are qualified for; they only seem good at negotiating raises. They are also fired more often, but find new jobs quicker. We know that women and minorities unfairly trail white men in terms of compensation, and the "advantage" for being disagreeable is diminished for them (probably due to backlash over the stereotypes of being a bitch or an uppity minority).



But this is a paradox. Jerks only succeed if they can differentiate themselves from and take advantage of nicer, more submissive coworkers. A company entirely staffed by jerks would likely fail. And if a nice guy reads this study and wants to get meaner in order to make more money, the rapid temperament change would probably be met with negative reactions. That person would lose the capital he has accumulated from being nice, and his "forced jerkiness" would probably be interpreted as phony or weak by his true jerk peers. And of course there are many other ways to try to get recognized and make more money at work besides being meaner. Though there's no guarantee that any of these measures will bear fruit; it depends on your org, bosses, economy, etc.



One hybrid solution is to be a jerk at work and nice in your personal life, but most of us know that it's hard to wear multiple hats and keep separate personalities totally separate. Plus salary is not the only measure of a person's worth and life satisfaction. We would probably agree that the most talented actors and artists are not the highest paid, and being a jerk and "winning" all the time isn't the last word for life (and clearly it costs you in other areas). Or if that is all you need to be happy, you probably have bigger problems.



Of course this stuff is just the tip of the iceberg and it's an age-old labor issue, or human social issue in general. We know that the workplace is generally a harsh, soul-crushing hell, and getting more so with time and economic pressures. We have to get mean at times to avoid being a doormat. Maybe it's all about picking our spots, and fighting when it will pay off most.

The American work-family conflict

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/three_faces_report.html

A recent study from the Center for Am. Progress and UC Hastings College of Law recently published a study demonstrating that the US is the most difficult nation for working families in all of the industrialized world. Comparing US families from today and 30 years ago, it shows that we now work 11 more hours per week vs. 1979, which is now longer hours than any other nation, even Japan and South Korea. The modern workplace is still designed for the 1960 worker (males who can work longer hours freely, since his stay-home spouse attends to nearly all the child and home care), even though the US workforce is demographically much different today. 70% of moms work today vs. 20% in 1960.

The US is the only OECD nation without mandatory paid sick and maternity leave laws. I believe CA has progressive paid maternity laws, and federal employees are also covered, so why wouldn't Congress pass a law for all workers? Corporate resistance? In addition, the US has much less part-time "good employment" opportunities (white-collar work, not just Taco Bell), overtime compensation for salaried workers, and flex-time schedules available for parents. Here, we spend much more time working than we do with our spouses and kids. Think about how obscene that is. Why must we have our Blackberries on at 11PM to put out some fire at the Singapore office (thankless too, since such "dedication" is expected in some jobs), but we get a dirty look from the boss if our kid gets sick and needs to be picked up from day care? These pressures on working families are compounded even further by elderly care, as the grandparents are living longer.

Dual-income working professionals who "take shifts" to cover morning and evening childcare are 3-6X more likely to divorce. I guess they are too exhausted to work out problems, and have less couple time. For lower income parents (who are more often single parents), child care and health care costs are consuming most of their pay. "Unofficial" discrimination against mothers is higher than with most other minority groups. If your employer's HR is good, they will caution you to never ask about kids or pregnancy if you are interviewing a female. But statistics show that employer disapproval of a working mother's time commitments for her kids is manifested in poorer performance reviews for her and even firings. The US is the most gender-friendly workplace for a woman to reach the top, but very hard if that female professional wants to have a happy family too. It's even harder for single professional-managerial women too. Since staying home is not possible and their kids depend on their salary, they may feel more pressure to advance. They tend to work over 50 hours/week at a rate of 32%, vs. 14% for married women. That is insane for single moms to have more parenting responsibilities and also work longer (voluntarily or not).

These conditions also impair US workforce productivity, because good workers are "forced" to quit and stay home if they feel they are neglecting their kids, absenteeism/attrition rates are terrible, and most working parents are not operating at peak performance due to distractions and stress from the unsustainable juggling act. But like PTSD in the military, no one wants to acknowledge this for fear of appearing weak to coworkers.

The last pro-working-family legislation passed was in 1993. Currently there is a bill to provide paid paternity leave for federal workers (benefiting Congress of course), but it hasn't passed the Senate. Childcare tax credits and subsidies are meager help. There is also class hypocrisy. Professional mothers are praised for leaving the workplace to put their kids first, yet lower income moms are labeled as deadbeats if they do the same. It is true that a higher percentage of lower income parents don't work, but this is not due to laziness. Their take-home pay is often less than child care costs, so it doesn't make financial sense for them to work. And since more middle and upper class mothers are working vs. last generation, the household incomes of those classes are rising (and contributing to the widening wealth gap) and making lower class single-income households appear even poorer. Poor mothers have a harder time finding and keeping jobs, especially good stable jobs in this recession, due to their reduced skill sets and social factors. So there is a paradox that richer moms want to work less but can't (unless they quit completely), yet poorer moms want to work more but can't.

If the family unit is the building block of society, and labor is the force sustaining the economy, then how can we and our leaders tolerate this unacceptable situation that compromises both?

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201001260900

Growing up

Regarding aging, it's too bad that people on the post-graduate education route need to devote so many years (and money) towards that cause, while not really being able to set down roots due to student loan repayments, less-than-secure employment, high cost of housing, etc. So when all is said and done, people are almost "starting adult life" at 30, when a generation ago they would have 2 kids and the white picket fence by then. And for those who want a family these days (I'm still on the fence, but my wife wants kids, so I guess it would be selfish of me to deprive her of that), they have to navigate that social maze while also working long hours as a junior-level employee hoping to advance. There just doesn't seem to be enough time for all the stuff that adults said we were entitiled to growing up. And like your friend working for the foreign service in Asia, I think there are many really interesting, rewarding international jobs out there where one could learn a lot and grow as a person, but it seems fairly incompatible with relationships/family. Plus our parents are getting older and we may need to support them more and more with our time and resources.

So I guess I am feeling some trepidation about the future after all, and how to balance these various commitments and choices. After visiting some friends in France/Holland recently, and seeing how their way of life is becoming more and more "American" (i.e. competitive, stressful, hurried, individualistic, unhealthy), I can't help but feel a bit sad. Their postwar governments and companies made strong efforts to maintain a decent quality of life for people (immigrants and the poor still falling through the cracks of course) through universal health care, generous unemployment insurance, free or heavily subsidized child care and university, as well as the 35-hour week and 5 weeks vacation. Maybe such a paradigm is foolish and unsustainable in the cost-cutting globalized economy, but I respect them for trying. It's not like Europe is Utopia, but their health and happiness metrics are higher than ours, even though they are less rich by some measures.

All the young American parents I know are stressed as hell. I am not sure if your relatives and circle of friends are the same. I know they say their kids give them so much joy (would any parent admit that they regret having kids though?), but they're always running around, behind on work, mostly eating fast food, and getting ill more often. They don't follow the news much and seem "out of touch". I know it's just qualitative and anecdotal, but their bodies look worn and their lives seem to revolve around kid stuff (like they don't do their hobbies anymore, and if they are lucky enough to have a night out to the cinema, it's to see "Finding Nemo"). I think parents should spend a lot of time with their kids of course, but maybe more balance is healthier? Of course if we had to work less, and wasted less time in traffic or at the mall, there would be more time for recreation and self-maintenance. And then there are those freaky "super-parents" who run 5 miles a day, have great, well-behaved kids, and kick butt at their jobs. Maybe it's the cocaine! But seriously, it's a sad reflection on our society that moms are a surprisingly prominent demographic for meth use. There's just too much for them to do to be "good moms", trying to live up to the impossible expectations that the jerks in media, marketing, etc. place on women.

I don't know. There are many ways to live life happily, and it's not required for everyone to have kids (actually if we did, it would be really bad for the Earth). Many people find great satisfaction with their spouses, jobs, or life callings and that seems to be enough. I just know that I will never love my job on my current path, and probably jobs I could love are now out of reach due to my life choices. Lauren and I just adopted a dog, and I think my plate is plenty full with taking care of the dog, condo, and trying to be a good husband/son. I am sure you, Mark, and most everyone else feels pressed for time too. I guess I am mostly content with my life at present, but I am not thrilled with the possible paths ahead of me.

Quality of Life

Now that we're all "adults" and have to fend for ourselves in the "real world", I was thinking about the American Dream and what opportunities are available for people like us. I address you guys since we had fairly similar upbringings.

As far as I can tell, all of us did what was expected of us by our parents, teachers, and mentors. We studied hard, mostly stayed out of trouble (or avoided Johnny Law at least), did fine in college, and maybe even pursued additional education/credentials. Growing up, I think there was the assumption that if we jumped through those hoops, we would be "entitled" to some job security, summer holidays, the picket fence, station wagon + 2.5 kids, and comfortable retirement. Maybe some of us expected to conquer the world and have the mansion, stock options, and Benz, but at minimum I think we considered ourselves middle class. But I guess that is really an antiquated myth and nothing is guaranteed. I mean... I know we weren't Paris Hilton, but we grew up mostly without want or worry. Our parents provided for us and we hit the real world with a lot of advantages vs. other people. It's not like we're recent immigrants having to battle culture shock, language barrier, green card paperwork, and support relatives back home.

But for most of us, rent is kicking our ass (and it's not like we live luxuriously; many of us in old, small apts or just renting a room) and saving is pretty hard considering the rising costs of basic living essentials, car/student loan payments, etc. Maybe we can move farther away for cheaper rent, but then commute is a killer. We come home fairly drained, maybe getting a simple meal together and watching TV for a bit before bed and repeating the cycle. Maybe some of us have to study at night or attend evening classes to try to better our situations. I can't imagine how much time proper parenting would require on top of our current commitments. I know we're lucky that we don't have to work 3 minimum-wage jobs to even hope to make ends meet, but that's what education supposedly bought us - though what has it really gotten us so far? I know we're still young and our earning power will increase with time, but really - do you expect your salaries to increase 10% annually and get promoted on a regular basis, without some major luck, achievements, or extra education? Some white-collar salaries aren't even keeping up with inflation, even though worker productivity and business efficiency have steadily climbed since the 1980's. Though operating costs and employee benefits have also become much more expensive.

Our career counselors in high school basically told us to find something we enjoy, study that in college, and we'll be fine. Great in theory. But if we don't have a medical degree, JD, software engineer, or MBA/finance, how the heck are we supposed to save up a nest egg for a small house or even a condo ($500,000+ in some parts of the US), and future tuition for our kids (probably will be 50% higher than our day)? Some of our high-achieving friends already have homes and nice cars, but it's not easy street for professionals either; they have huge school debt and may work grueling hours to earn the bucks (they don't throw money at you for nothing). And the extra time/stress you need for higher degrees takes away from your personal life, and you may not even be able to start thinking about spouse/family until you're balding and need Viagra. There isn't enough time for everything. Many scientists and engineers don't make great money either, unless they have 10 years experience or become managers (it also depends a lot on Wall St. and the company/institution you decide to peg your future to). I guess some of us may happen to excel in a niche talent (dunk a basketball, entertainment, art, etc.), so we can be well compensated for a more recreational career. Of course I'm being cynical, and plenty of people make a good living in other jobs like accounting or retail. Even less-educated folks can do well in construction, real estate, etc. But it's a riskier proposition, and many more fail than succeed.

Like those "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" books, I guess we can't count on salary to provide for us and our loved ones. The theory goes that we should invest in real estate, bonds, and the market too, but when do we have the time to learn those skills or the capital necessary for substantial investing? Instead we have to place our money and trust with a corrupt mutual fund manager and pay the annual "account maintenance fee", even if we're losing money. Plus plenty of people lose their shirts playing with fire and not knowing what they're doing. Or others just get lucky with high-risk speculation, or being at Google at the right time (but how many other startups failed and their millions of options worth zilch?). Then there are those who were honest and worked hard, yet saw their 401(k)'s dissolve at Enron or Worldcom. The Baby Boomers in CA were so lucky and saw the Dow quadruple and home prices rise 3X during their mid-to-late careers when they actually had job security and money to invest. No wonder why all of our folks are getting their homes remodeled, buying luxury cars, and taking more vacations now. Well, they earned it. Though I doubt any of us are expecting the Dow to similarly reach 48,000 and homes to appreciate so much in our lifetimes.

The frustrating part is I hate thinking about all this money and job stuff, but we almost have no choice. If you're not improving, you're falling behind (or so it feels). I just want to be left alone and make an honest living not beholden to anything or anyone (isn't that freedom and liberty?). I was this close to living in a hut in Africa for F sakes. I still wear clothes from the '90s, and I LIKE it that way. I don't need much. Unfortunately I wasted a lot of money after my dad died, as an immature, self-destructive way of dealing with my grief, which I regret a lot. I also spent too much on my wedding, but my excuse was the missus had expensive tastes haha. However, now I would like a small, safe 2BR/2BA cottage a decent distance from work, with a small garden and a dog running around. So far, I can only afford that in East Palo Alto or the bad part of Oakland/Hayward (which are not close to work either). I would like to provide for my wife so maybe she doesn't have to work full time if she doesn't want to, or maybe can raise our kids instead of relying on the TV babysitter. I would like to pursue side interests and do other things with my life besides work, eat, and sleep. Most days I just put my head down and get through it, but I guess I felt like venting now. I know I am just being a whining baby and should sack it up like everyone else (plus I don't have it that bad), but I bet you guys feel similarly sometimes. Our lives have challenges, but it could be a lot worse. Though we supposedly did "everything right" in our childhoods and now we are supposed to reap the rewards of a more comfortable adult existence, right? But one challenge just seems to lead to a new, larger one.

So I really wish someone would have better prepared us for this reality. I guess there's no way a suburban parent or underpaid public employee could have predicted $5 gas and the effects of globalization when we were kids, but still. Or maybe you guys knew it all along and I was the only naive one? I almost wish someone told us to forget about finding a job that we like and just get proficient at boring, marketable skills. Now I understand why my doctor relatives force their kids to go to medical school (if they can get accepted), because they think it gives them a good shot at a better life over most other careers (though it takes a lot of sacrifice too). I guess it seems that we don't have access to the time or resources that we thought we would as part of the white-collar middle class existence. Our American existence is greedier, more expensive, more complicated, faster, and more unstable than when we were in high school, and the trend won't reverse any time soon. And we're not even at the point yet when a sibling may get in deep debt, we have to care for our kids AND aging parents, and we're always one car accident or medical crisis away from fiancial ruin. We also have our own retirements to worry about. Well, somehow in Western Europe most "common folk" like us get paid less in their jobs, yet enjoy free or very cheap health care/university/pension, more vacation and a higher quality of life. Their societies aren't falling apart and their companies aren't kaput either.

All in all, I'd hope that we're happy and comfortable with our living situations. I know many people have it much harder than us. But supposedly we did everything "right" in our youth and got a head start in the rat race. I am sure many of our parents were able to afford a mortgage for a small home after 5 years of working or so. I don't think that will be the case for us, though of course the world is very different now. Work sucks, but I guess there are some redeeming and enjoyable aspects of it. And once in a while, we can save up for a vacation or new toy. But is that all there is to it?