Is the Recession Exaggerated
Posted by: Mick P on 31 July 2009
Chaps
I sometimes think that people like whinging for the sake of it and this so called recession has had people moaning in droves.
Some people must be a lot better off because inflation is peanuts and interest rates are low and housing is becoming cheaper to afford in real terms.
Then everyone bleats about the unemployed.
I have freelanced since 2004 as a Procurement Consultant and did pretty good out of it because times were good. My last contract expired in November last year and as I was just one month away from my sixtieth birthday, I decided to retire. My wife was going to retire in March this year. She has been constantly postponing her retirement and has now agreed to carry on working for another 12 months.
I therefore decided to re enter the job market. I am an old man of sixty so you would think I had no chance.
I put myself on the books of 3 agencies on the 30th June and had two interviews last week. I had two job offers as a result this week and am earning precisely the same as this time last year.
In other words it has taken exactly one month to land a choice of two jobs at last years rates and this confirms my belief that this country still has a load of opportunities and that getting on your bike is still valid.
Regards
Mick
I sometimes think that people like whinging for the sake of it and this so called recession has had people moaning in droves.
Some people must be a lot better off because inflation is peanuts and interest rates are low and housing is becoming cheaper to afford in real terms.
Then everyone bleats about the unemployed.
I have freelanced since 2004 as a Procurement Consultant and did pretty good out of it because times were good. My last contract expired in November last year and as I was just one month away from my sixtieth birthday, I decided to retire. My wife was going to retire in March this year. She has been constantly postponing her retirement and has now agreed to carry on working for another 12 months.
I therefore decided to re enter the job market. I am an old man of sixty so you would think I had no chance.
I put myself on the books of 3 agencies on the 30th June and had two interviews last week. I had two job offers as a result this week and am earning precisely the same as this time last year.
In other words it has taken exactly one month to land a choice of two jobs at last years rates and this confirms my belief that this country still has a load of opportunities and that getting on your bike is still valid.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 02 August 2009 by Mick P
George
Being successful does not make a person bad. Successful people drive this country along the road to prosperity.
However most unsuccessful people are unsuccessful because they lack any competitive urge.
Regards
Mick
Being successful does not make a person bad. Successful people drive this country along the road to prosperity.
However most unsuccessful people are unsuccessful because they lack any competitive urge.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 02 August 2009 by gone
OMG (google it Mick) is he still here? Is there an ignore function on this forum?
Posted on: 02 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
I cannot find anything to disagree with in your post!
The only thing is to remember that an unsuccessful person may not be lacking in energy or grit either but may have had the worst of luck at crucial moments in the progression through life.
I think it is possible to see that after a few set backs a person may settle for a line of less resistance - lower his ambition to something that appears more likely to be acheivable!
Not everyone ios destined to be a high flier, and provided that they don't scrounge and winge I don't think that is so very serious.
Being a relative failure in life [in the sense of not becoming rich or landing a plumb job] does not make the person any lesser of a human being.
ATB from George
The only thing is to remember that an unsuccessful person may not be lacking in energy or grit either but may have had the worst of luck at crucial moments in the progression through life.
I think it is possible to see that after a few set backs a person may settle for a line of less resistance - lower his ambition to something that appears more likely to be acheivable!
Not everyone ios destined to be a high flier, and provided that they don't scrounge and winge I don't think that is so very serious.
Being a relative failure in life [in the sense of not becoming rich or landing a plumb job] does not make the person any lesser of a human being.
ATB from George
Posted on: 02 August 2009 by Mick P
George
Learning from mistakes is essential but even more essential is turning disadavantages into opportunities.
That is how you make your own luck.
I agree that suffering from an incurable disease is one stroke too many but bankruptcy or temporary unemployment should be seized upon as a catalyst to stimulate that competitive urge that will drive anyone to rise above the herd.
Regards
Mick
Learning from mistakes is essential but even more essential is turning disadavantages into opportunities.
That is how you make your own luck.
I agree that suffering from an incurable disease is one stroke too many but bankruptcy or temporary unemployment should be seized upon as a catalyst to stimulate that competitive urge that will drive anyone to rise above the herd.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 02 August 2009 by Exiled Highlander
Nero
It would be a dull place if everyone agreed or there weren't extreme views from forum members.
Cheers
Jim
Yes, it's called choice....you can ignore it or rise to the bait.quote:Originally posted by Nero:
OMG (google it Mick) is he still here? Is there an ignore function on this forum?
It would be a dull place if everyone agreed or there weren't extreme views from forum members.
Cheers
Jim
Posted on: 02 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Mick,
We shall not have a fight about this, but I guess closing the gap between our views on it is unlikely.
In my view some things which seem immediately unfortunate can be turned to advantage, or be seen to have a good net result.
When I finally resigned from a job for a company which had never sought to do more than allow me to be one of their most reliable and productive shop floor workers [making food products], but treating me like a fool all too often, I ended up facing just over 12 months of job insecurity and quite a bit of financial difficulty [which was covered to a certain extent by selling CDS2, Nait 5i, SBLs], but now I am in a better job where my talents and work are well regarded, and at thge age of 47 I was rewarded unbidden for my work with a salary increase. The first time this had ever happened in my life.
I am happy in the job, but to get into it required the most immense stroke of good luck - being in the right place at the right time.
I really do not know where I would be today if that stroke of luck had not come along, but such experiences are indeed educational, and rarely understood by people who have not faced off such a situation.
I fancy that I would not understand it, had my father not gone out of business nearly thirty years ago, and I had landed a fully funded a profitable business of my own!
ATB from George
We shall not have a fight about this, but I guess closing the gap between our views on it is unlikely.
In my view some things which seem immediately unfortunate can be turned to advantage, or be seen to have a good net result.
When I finally resigned from a job for a company which had never sought to do more than allow me to be one of their most reliable and productive shop floor workers [making food products], but treating me like a fool all too often, I ended up facing just over 12 months of job insecurity and quite a bit of financial difficulty [which was covered to a certain extent by selling CDS2, Nait 5i, SBLs], but now I am in a better job where my talents and work are well regarded, and at thge age of 47 I was rewarded unbidden for my work with a salary increase. The first time this had ever happened in my life.
I am happy in the job, but to get into it required the most immense stroke of good luck - being in the right place at the right time.
I really do not know where I would be today if that stroke of luck had not come along, but such experiences are indeed educational, and rarely understood by people who have not faced off such a situation.
I fancy that I would not understand it, had my father not gone out of business nearly thirty years ago, and I had landed a fully funded a profitable business of my own!
ATB from George
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Jonathan Gorse
It's all about balance I think. All of us to some degree have to decide how much effort and energy we are prepared to expend on work, how much we need to earn to be happy with our lifestyle and what priority we give to spending quality time at home.
I don't doubt that Richard Branson for instance has had to sacrifice rather a lot of time with his family in pusuit of his amazing business success.
To my mind I have always felt that there's a certain level of household income that was required for me to be able to do the things I wanted to do, however earning more beyond that would not create any greater happiness and would probably in the end just create stress and take me away from my family too much.
I think that required earnings point is just higher for Mick than it is for some of us, maybe that makes us unambitious - it certainly puts a cap on our likely future earnings.
As an example a friend of mine with pretty much the same level of experience has now moved out to work for Qatar Airlines. He earns three times what I do but I wouldn't go there because I don't want to live in a desert, don't want to be away from my family, don't want to leave the country I love so much for all its faults.
It's all a matter of priorities. For what it's worth though I do think that some careers would be very interesting and seem to be in demand:
Train driver - £40k a year, lower stress than flying, great views, some nice machinery to operate.
Coach tour driver - always rather fancied taking coachloads of old biddies around Devon or whatever on a tour, having a laugh, radio on, bit of sightseeing, having afternoon tea in a stately home - £30k ish.
Trades - seems to me if you qualify in a trade you will never be out of work, earn £40-£100k a year, work when and where you like. A mate of mine left merchant banking for this - now makes £500 a day installing and servicing Agas. Works ten days a month in the UK and lives in France 20 days a month looking at the view from his beautiful house with a glass of wine in his hand.
Tree surgeon, Just you, your chainsaw and the elements, loads of fresh air, sometimes nice views - about £300 a day
There are definately lots of interesting jobs to do out there, seems to me many of those with the nicest lifestyle don't involve degrees. I just think it's a pity that education policy seems to be geared to steering everyone to go to University at present so they can get a dull office job when there's a whole world out there for the practically as well as academically minded.
Jonathan
I don't doubt that Richard Branson for instance has had to sacrifice rather a lot of time with his family in pusuit of his amazing business success.
To my mind I have always felt that there's a certain level of household income that was required for me to be able to do the things I wanted to do, however earning more beyond that would not create any greater happiness and would probably in the end just create stress and take me away from my family too much.
I think that required earnings point is just higher for Mick than it is for some of us, maybe that makes us unambitious - it certainly puts a cap on our likely future earnings.
As an example a friend of mine with pretty much the same level of experience has now moved out to work for Qatar Airlines. He earns three times what I do but I wouldn't go there because I don't want to live in a desert, don't want to be away from my family, don't want to leave the country I love so much for all its faults.
It's all a matter of priorities. For what it's worth though I do think that some careers would be very interesting and seem to be in demand:
Train driver - £40k a year, lower stress than flying, great views, some nice machinery to operate.
Coach tour driver - always rather fancied taking coachloads of old biddies around Devon or whatever on a tour, having a laugh, radio on, bit of sightseeing, having afternoon tea in a stately home - £30k ish.
Trades - seems to me if you qualify in a trade you will never be out of work, earn £40-£100k a year, work when and where you like. A mate of mine left merchant banking for this - now makes £500 a day installing and servicing Agas. Works ten days a month in the UK and lives in France 20 days a month looking at the view from his beautiful house with a glass of wine in his hand.
Tree surgeon, Just you, your chainsaw and the elements, loads of fresh air, sometimes nice views - about £300 a day
There are definately lots of interesting jobs to do out there, seems to me many of those with the nicest lifestyle don't involve degrees. I just think it's a pity that education policy seems to be geared to steering everyone to go to University at present so they can get a dull office job when there's a whole world out there for the practically as well as academically minded.
Jonathan
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by rodwsmith
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
will drive anyone to rise above the herd.
Regards
Mick
Of course there has to be a herd to rise above for this to be possible, and if everyone can or does rise above it, it simply alters the demographics of whatever the herd is in the first place. (As per the 'useless degree' example).
Extreme capitalism that entails person A's success coming at the price of person(or persons) B's relative failure is no more desirable than the kind of state communism that created/s a kind of national institutionalised torpor, and was/is always inately going to give rise to corruption. Nor does this extreme capitalism actually work - which is why we have this recession in the first place.
Pretty much anyone who lives in Britain, or most of Europe, is wealthy (usually fabulously) compared to the global average, but that doesn't stop there being poverty, a status usually judged against a localised average.
That Mick is doing well can only be - by definition - because someone in the herd, or the herd itself, is doing worse proportionately. Which is the reason for the reaction to the thread.
I agree with Jonathan. I choose to do something for a living that I love, and I get to live in a very enviable place in consequence. I could earn more by either doing something else, or doing what I do somewhere else. But money isn't everything - well not to me anyway. Nor, in my opinion is rising above the herd measurable only in fiscal terms, or necessarily desirable in the first place.
Cheers
Rod
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by u14378503097469928
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
George
Being successful does not make a person bad. Successful people drive this country along the road to prosperity.
However most unsuccessful people are unsuccessful because they lack any competitive urge.
Regards
Mick
Mick,
Could you define what you mean by"successful"
Thanks,
Andrew.
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Stephen Tate
Is the recession under exaggerated?
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Mick P
Posted Mon 03 August 2009 13:26 Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
George
Being successful does not make a person bad. Successful people drive this country along the road to prosperity.
However most unsuccessful people are unsuccessful because they lack any competitive urge.
Regards
Mick
Mick,
Could you define what you mean by"successful"
Thanks,
Andrew.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew
In the context of this discussion, I would define "successful" as being in the position where you have the job you want, at the salary you want.
My own benchmark since I left school was that "successful" means you are in the top 10% of the earnings league. For Dec 31st 2008 that figure was just under £47,000.00 pa. Therefore if my salary was say £45,000.00, I would be dissatisfied with myself but that is purely my own benchmark.
I made that personal benchmark at the age of 33. That did come at a price of being away from home an average of 2 nights a week for several years and many late nights and ruined weekends drafting reports. It was my choice and I have never regretted it because it has given me a relatively good lifestyle.
So if I can do it, anyone who is motivated can do it. There is no excuse for whinging.
Regards
Mick
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
George
Being successful does not make a person bad. Successful people drive this country along the road to prosperity.
However most unsuccessful people are unsuccessful because they lack any competitive urge.
Regards
Mick
Mick,
Could you define what you mean by"successful"
Thanks,
Andrew.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew
In the context of this discussion, I would define "successful" as being in the position where you have the job you want, at the salary you want.
My own benchmark since I left school was that "successful" means you are in the top 10% of the earnings league. For Dec 31st 2008 that figure was just under £47,000.00 pa. Therefore if my salary was say £45,000.00, I would be dissatisfied with myself but that is purely my own benchmark.
I made that personal benchmark at the age of 33. That did come at a price of being away from home an average of 2 nights a week for several years and many late nights and ruined weekends drafting reports. It was my choice and I have never regretted it because it has given me a relatively good lifestyle.
So if I can do it, anyone who is motivated can do it. There is no excuse for whinging.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by 555
Mick's self image?
How others see Mick?
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Bruce Woodhouse
I want to stand up for Mick here. Sort of.
I know he gets a bashing sometimes but he is, as ever, representing his views plainly and with explanations. His views on this are clearly askance with much of the posting on this thread but I respect him for representing himself, and not resorting to the more personal stuff either.
In the context of Mick's example (and it would appear his experience) he has seen a pure meritocracy in action. Hard work has been rewarded. My problem is that I believe that Mick does not genuinely appreciate that not all people start as equals. People are disadvantaged socially, educationally, geographically or by impaired health for example. Others are favoured by social status, patronage and all manner of opportunities.
Those who work bl@@@dy hard are not always rewarded in life.
I cannot sign up to his pure and simple philosophy; too many of the people I see being bashed about by life (and the recession) are victims. They are not whinging, they are solid and dilligent workers. They are still sufferring.
My main point is still this though; Mick is engaging in debate here. If you don't agree that is fine, but respect his right to represent his opinions.
Bruce
I know he gets a bashing sometimes but he is, as ever, representing his views plainly and with explanations. His views on this are clearly askance with much of the posting on this thread but I respect him for representing himself, and not resorting to the more personal stuff either.
In the context of Mick's example (and it would appear his experience) he has seen a pure meritocracy in action. Hard work has been rewarded. My problem is that I believe that Mick does not genuinely appreciate that not all people start as equals. People are disadvantaged socially, educationally, geographically or by impaired health for example. Others are favoured by social status, patronage and all manner of opportunities.
Those who work bl@@@dy hard are not always rewarded in life.
I cannot sign up to his pure and simple philosophy; too many of the people I see being bashed about by life (and the recession) are victims. They are not whinging, they are solid and dilligent workers. They are still sufferring.
My main point is still this though; Mick is engaging in debate here. If you don't agree that is fine, but respect his right to represent his opinions.
Bruce
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by u14378503097469928
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Posted Mon 03 August 2009 13:26 Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
George
Being successful does not make a person bad. Successful people drive this country along the road to prosperity.
However most unsuccessful people are unsuccessful because they lack any competitive urge.
Regards
Mick
Mick,
Could you define what you mean by"successful"
Thanks,
Andrew.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew
In the context of this discussion, I would define "successful" as being in the position where you have the job you want, at the salary you want.
My own benchmark since I left school was that "successful" means you are in the top 10% of the earnings league. For Dec 31st 2008 that figure was just under £47,000.00 pa. Therefore if my salary was say £45,000.00, I would be dissatisfied with myself but that is purely my own benchmark.
I made that personal benchmark at the age of 33. That did come at a price of being away from home an average of 2 nights a week for several years and many late nights and ruined weekends drafting reports. It was my choice and I have never regretted it because it has given me a relatively good lifestyle.
So if I can do it, anyone who is motivated can do it. There is no excuse for whinging.
Regards
Mick
Thanks Mick.
I'm fine with the idea of "successful" in the context of this thread at what you describe as " the job you want at the salary you want" .
But,
"However most unsuccessful people are unsuccessful because they lack any competitive urge"
So you could be earning a million pounds a year but be "unsuccessful" because you are not "in the job you want at the salary you want" And you are "lacking any competitive urge" because you are "unsuccessful". And a street cleaner may be "successful" because he may have the job he wants at the salary he wants. And yet he has more of the "competitive urge" because he is "successful" -more so than the "unsuccessful" one million pound earner who doesn't have the job he wants at the salary he wants. Ok - I get it.
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by 555
quote:... respect his right to represent his opinions.
I agree with everything you say Bruce, although IMO quid pro quo you have to respect others rights to respond to Mick's opinions.
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Stephen Tate
I believe that this country and other countries needs a good old fashioned kick up the backside and that we have had it easy for too long... But, and this is a big but, there is so much inequality in this country between classes(dosen't work in a modern world)that everyone has had enough!! (no incentive?) - not enough meat on the bone worth fighting for.
To make a quick buck and i know this is wrong (needs must)people will be forced to break the law (an incentive?) because trying to do it the honest way generally, you get stamped on with this unsustainable inequality!
No money injection or banks lending again or whatever, is ever going to fix these social divides.
These people at the top of the chain need to realize that they are nothing without the people at the bottom!
They need to stop snorting cocaine and pull their heads out of their arses.
Regards, steve
To make a quick buck and i know this is wrong (needs must)people will be forced to break the law (an incentive?) because trying to do it the honest way generally, you get stamped on with this unsustainable inequality!
No money injection or banks lending again or whatever, is ever going to fix these social divides.
These people at the top of the chain need to realize that they are nothing without the people at the bottom!
They need to stop snorting cocaine and pull their heads out of their arses.
Regards, steve
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Bruce Woodhouse
quote:Originally posted by 555:quote:... respect his right to represent his opinions.
I agree with everything you say Bruce, although IMO quid pro quo you have to respect others rights to respond to Mick's opinions.
Respond; not berate, abuse or ridicule.
Bruce
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Huwge
quote:Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:quote:Originally posted by 555:quote:... respect his right to represent his opinions.
I agree with everything you say Bruce, although IMO quid pro quo you have to respect others rights to respond to Mick's opinions.
Respond; not berate, abuse or ridicule.
Bruce
Bruce - just wanted to say thanks for your post.
Huw
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Howlinhounddog
quote:They need to stop snorting cocaine and pull their heads out of their arses.
OO-err the places people keep cocaine nowadays
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Malky
quote:My main point is still this though; Mick is engaging in debate here.
That's a rather spurious assumption. Debate suggests some sort of dialogue with a willingness to accede to evidence when that evidence contradicts your argument.
Mick has, over a number of years, merely continued to chant his Thatcherite mantra that he has done ok, so stuff everyone who hasn't as this is the result of sheer indolence on their part.
Furthermore, he plays to the gallery when his caricatured Daily Mail views are called out. He is also by no means reticent to inform his assailants exactly how low they rank in his opinion.
I think we needn't worry about him being overly sensitive to some of the responses his cartoon views solicit.
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Steve O
quote:Originally posted by Mick Parry:
This thread embraces the subject of negativity because some people would rather moan about their circumstances and blame others rather than getting off their bums and doing something about it themselves.
In this world you make your own luck .....
Regards
Mick
Wrong again Mick.
Luck by definition is chance and therefore cannot be made. If it could be made we would all be making some.
You have had the good fortune to have a skill that is required at this moment in time in your vicinity. It is entirely possible that someone more qualified than you missed out because of the bad luck of their geographical position.
As I wrote earlier, my life savings are at stake here. My job was wiped out by the stroke of a beaurocrats pen in Brussels. No similar opportunities in the field are available. I am taking course after course to diversify and hopefully increase my job prospects. At this moment in time employers pass me over because I am over qualified and they expect me to hightail it as soon as things pick up. Others overlook me as I lack experience in the field. How do you suggest I overcome this?
The local Asda recently advertised 16 part-time jobs and received 166 applications. In my area people who have lost jobs with salaries in excess of £30K are applying for jobs paying £12K to £14K. A far cry from your circumstances but possibly more representative of the current climate than your own.
I thought your views went out with Thatcher and Tebbit. It is a long time since I have read the opinions of somebody and become so enraged at the bullshit they subscribe to. You are in a priviliged position Mick and well out of touch with the unfortunate men and women of this country desperately seeking employment. You have offered plenty of advice to the unemployed so now here's a little in return. Think yourself lucky and lay off the preaching.
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by fatcat
quote:Originally posted by Steve O:
At this moment in time employers pass me over because I am over qualified and they expect me to hightail it as soon as things pick up.
Steve
Have you considered dumbing down your CV. Nothing wrong with omitting a few qualifications or managerial experience. I edit my CV to suit the job.
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by 555
That is very good advice FC. For each job I've applied for I created a custom CV.
Push the relevant things in to the spotlight, & the irrelevant (or in my case embarrassing) things in to the shadows.
Push the relevant things in to the spotlight, & the irrelevant (or in my case embarrassing) things in to the shadows.
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
Very true.
The only thing that is worse than under-qualified is over-qualified.
I omitted a few A-levels and so on to get taken onto the books of the agancy that placed me in what would become a permanent job, and a happy one.
It is not a very serious untruth to reduce your level of of apparent qualification ...
I did not refrain from claiming my O-level Maths [etc], but left out A-levels in Maths, Physics, and Electronics. This worked wonders in terms of getting interviewed ...
ATB from George
The only thing that is worse than under-qualified is over-qualified.
I omitted a few A-levels and so on to get taken onto the books of the agancy that placed me in what would become a permanent job, and a happy one.
It is not a very serious untruth to reduce your level of of apparent qualification ...
I did not refrain from claiming my O-level Maths [etc], but left out A-levels in Maths, Physics, and Electronics. This worked wonders in terms of getting interviewed ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 03 August 2009 by Stephen Tate
yes, but what a state of affairs. Having to de - qualify yourself and talk bullshit to get a job. I mean where has all the incentive gone?
On site you can pretty much make your own mind up wether someone is any good or not within their first teabreak, qualified or not. You can tell within the first two hours!
Common sense, discipline and a good upbeat working attitude can be seen in my line of work within a day. No twaddle C.V is needed.
This is probably why people who are known are much more likely to get the job than someone who is unknown. My local pub is my job centre for instance.
steve
On site you can pretty much make your own mind up wether someone is any good or not within their first teabreak, qualified or not. You can tell within the first two hours!
Common sense, discipline and a good upbeat working attitude can be seen in my line of work within a day. No twaddle C.V is needed.
This is probably why people who are known are much more likely to get the job than someone who is unknown. My local pub is my job centre for instance.
steve