SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-start-tomorrow...-and-finish-next-friday dept.
Over at the Harvard Business Review there's speculation that the paradigm of people working full-time for a single employer has outlived its usefulness:
Our vision is straightforward: most people will become independent contractors who have the flexibility to work part-time for several organizations at the same time, or do a series of short full-time gigs with different companies over the course of a year. Companies will maintain only a minimal full-time staff of executives, key managers, and professionals and bring in the rest of the required talent as needed in a targeted, flexible, and deliberate way.
There are two reasons such a flexible work system is now plausible. The first is societal values. Work-life balance and family-friendly scheduling are much more important to today's workers, and companies are increasingly willing to accommodate them. The second is technology. Advances in the last five years have greatly improved the ease with which people can work and collaborate remotely and companies and contract workers can find each other.
The opinion piece goes on to list how workers, employers and society in general will benefit from this shift. What seems to be missing is speculation on the down sides, both to employers and contractors. Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2015, @12:24AM
> It might actually be a good idea to read the cited American Enteprise Institute report. It does not say what you think it does.
Actually there were tons of articles to choose from, I picked that one specifically to test if you were more interested in railing against "left-wing talking points" than acknowledging the simple fact that upward mobility today is less than it was in the past. The fact that AEI attributes that fact to the welfare state is irrelevant to the point that it is a fact. But that sort of thing is bait to hyper-partisans who can only see the world through the lens of "left-wing agendas."
Meanwhile, what is especially ironic is that you are now arguing for the idea that your children will have a hard time being financially successful in the future, thus agreeing with runaway whom you were so eager to dispute earlier. Unless, that is, you instill in them good strong Trump values of being a winner and not being a loser. lol
(Score: 1) by mrsam on Monday September 07 2015, @01:51AM
Reviewing what I wrote, I do not really see where I argued any such thing. You're probably replying to the wrong post.
Furthermore, Mr. Trump didn't discover the novel idea of positive thinking, and self-confidence. You'd be shocked to learn that this concept has been in existence for a while. And this brings me back to the original topic at the beginning of this thread. I simply reject the notion that I'm "fucked" in any way, by greedy imperialitic American corporation, who stand ready at a moment's notice to replace me with some H1B who barely speaks King's English, as soon as he gets off the plane.
If someone chooses to believe that their future is doomed, and there's no hope, that's their choice to make. But I'm going to choose differently.