…..Rooms to rent, fifty cents. Well, it’s not that bad….yet. But, in another sign of how bad things are, and how much worse some people think they will get, many recession-pinched homeowners are looking for paying boarders to share their space.
Apartment sharing is not uncommon among the 20-something set, especially in cities like New York, Philadelphia and Boston, where the rent for a decent apartment can easily run well over $1,000 a month. But, homeowners needing and looking for paying guests is a recent occurrence and a repeat of the depression era of the 1920’s and 1930’s. Actually, renting out part of the family house was a very common practice in the late 19th century, but as more Americans moved into single-family homes, the arrangement became less popular, and by 1950, boarders and roomers were largely out of the picture. The current economic troubles seems now to have brought it back, and the whole process has of course been updated considerably through the use of Craigslist and other online web sites.
Listings for housemates on the various classified and house-sharing web sites have ballooned in the past year. On Craigslist alone in the Philadelphia area, roommate wanted ads have risen by 60% in the past year, according to company figures.
If you are thinking about possibly renting out part of your house to help meet expenses, needless to say, check out the persons very carefully. Unless you have completely separate living spaces, the boarder will have full access to your house and everything in it. Also, check with your local municipality for any special rules and regulations and licenses.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Put Me in Coach.....
In another sign of just how bad the economy and the job situation is, over 2,500 people recently applied for 150 jobs at a new supermarket which is scheduled to open in Collegeville, PA, in October. At one time I used to feel sorry for the checkers and baggers and produce stackers, but I guess not anymore. It’s steady, paying work!
In other employment news, or so I have been told…
Jeff Gordon fired his entire pit crew. This announcement
followed Gordon's decision to take advantage of
President Obama's scheme to employ Harlem youngsters.
The decision to hire them was brought about by a recent
documentary on how unemployed youths from Harlem
were able to remove a set of wheels in less than 6 seconds
without proper equipment, whereas Gordon's existing crew
could only do it in 8 seconds with millions of dollars worth
of high tech equipment. It was thought to be an excellent
and bold move by Gordon's management team as most races
are won or lost in the pits. However, Gordon got more than he bargained for!
At the crew's first practice session, not only was the
inexperienced crew able to change all 4 wheels in under 6
seconds, but within 12 seconds they had changed the paint
scheme, altered the Vin number, and sold the car to Dale
Earnhardt Jr. for 10 cases of Bud, a bag of weed, and some
photos of Jeff Gordon's wife in the shower.
In other employment news, or so I have been told…
Jeff Gordon fired his entire pit crew. This announcement
followed Gordon's decision to take advantage of
President Obama's scheme to employ Harlem youngsters.
The decision to hire them was brought about by a recent
documentary on how unemployed youths from Harlem
were able to remove a set of wheels in less than 6 seconds
without proper equipment, whereas Gordon's existing crew
could only do it in 8 seconds with millions of dollars worth
of high tech equipment. It was thought to be an excellent
and bold move by Gordon's management team as most races
are won or lost in the pits. However, Gordon got more than he bargained for!
At the crew's first practice session, not only was the
inexperienced crew able to change all 4 wheels in under 6
seconds, but within 12 seconds they had changed the paint
scheme, altered the Vin number, and sold the car to Dale
Earnhardt Jr. for 10 cases of Bud, a bag of weed, and some
photos of Jeff Gordon's wife in the shower.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Take this Job.....
In yesterday’s New York Times, Jake DeSantis, an AIG executive (or now former executive if the letter had the stated affect), boldly and publically resigned from his job. What a guy! What a ballsy move!
In his resignation letter, Mr. DeSantis said that he, and many of his colleagues, were tired of being unfairly and unjustly blamed and persecuted for the problems at AIG, and by extension, the rest of the country. Most past and present employees of AIG had nothing to do with it. They were just trying to do their jobs as best they could.
I must admit, that I was kind of impressed. He did make some true and valid points that I hadn’t really heard or seen made on the subject. AIG and most of it’s employees are being made the scapegoats of this economic crisis, not that the company didn’t have a big part of it, but it wasn’t all their doing as some would lead you to believe.
Even the now infamous “Retention Bonuses” were explained and put into some context. They are, as he explained, a normal part of doing business. When a company is in financial trouble or undergoing some other major changes, the first reaction of most employees is “I’m going to loose my job”, and their first instinct is to find another job. “Retention Bonuses” or payments are a perfectly normal way to keep employees around to keep the company running until either the doors are officially shut or the company is otherwise reorganized. They are intended to compensate employees for income they may have lost by not taking that other job at that other company.
My problem, however, with Mr. DeSantis’s letter is, if it was intended in anyway to gain the public support or sympathy of the middle Americans who have been calling for his and other’s heads at AIG, it may have had somewhat of the opposite affect. While most people might like to follow his lead and tell their bosses to “take this job and shove it”, most people are not in the financial position to voluntarily give up their jobs and still be able to afford their mortgages, car payments, health insurance, food, colleges tuitions, etc. I think it might actually further point out the disparity in incomes and lifestyles that people are complaining about, and even further enflame the situation.
Just a few pointers for Mr. DeSantis, from past and present experience, now that you are no longer working:
• Try to keep a schedule as close to your working schedule as possible. If you got up at say 5:00 am to go to the gym and then to the office, get up and go to the gym and then to your “home office”
• Don’t let yourself get sloppy and hang around in sweats. Get dressed reasonably well. You can leave off the tie; business casual is acceptable.
• Find a hobby or some kind of volunteer work to give yourself a break from job hunting and make yourself feel like you are making some kind of a meaningful contribution to society.
• A professional resume and cover letter is critical. In today’s climate, you might want to de-emphasize your AIG experience, or at least be well prepared to explain what you did and didn’t do there.
• At least in the beginning, be prepared to spend 6 – 8 hours a day job hunting. It is almost a full time job in itself going through all of the job boards and networking. Thanks to the internet and email you don’t have to get your hands dirty with news print from the classified, lick stamps and address envelopes!
• If you get really bored or lonely, let’s hang out! You can Twitter me at gridunplugged, and be sure to check my blog for more interesting and helpful tips!
In his resignation letter, Mr. DeSantis said that he, and many of his colleagues, were tired of being unfairly and unjustly blamed and persecuted for the problems at AIG, and by extension, the rest of the country. Most past and present employees of AIG had nothing to do with it. They were just trying to do their jobs as best they could.
I must admit, that I was kind of impressed. He did make some true and valid points that I hadn’t really heard or seen made on the subject. AIG and most of it’s employees are being made the scapegoats of this economic crisis, not that the company didn’t have a big part of it, but it wasn’t all their doing as some would lead you to believe.
Even the now infamous “Retention Bonuses” were explained and put into some context. They are, as he explained, a normal part of doing business. When a company is in financial trouble or undergoing some other major changes, the first reaction of most employees is “I’m going to loose my job”, and their first instinct is to find another job. “Retention Bonuses” or payments are a perfectly normal way to keep employees around to keep the company running until either the doors are officially shut or the company is otherwise reorganized. They are intended to compensate employees for income they may have lost by not taking that other job at that other company.
My problem, however, with Mr. DeSantis’s letter is, if it was intended in anyway to gain the public support or sympathy of the middle Americans who have been calling for his and other’s heads at AIG, it may have had somewhat of the opposite affect. While most people might like to follow his lead and tell their bosses to “take this job and shove it”, most people are not in the financial position to voluntarily give up their jobs and still be able to afford their mortgages, car payments, health insurance, food, colleges tuitions, etc. I think it might actually further point out the disparity in incomes and lifestyles that people are complaining about, and even further enflame the situation.
Just a few pointers for Mr. DeSantis, from past and present experience, now that you are no longer working:
• Try to keep a schedule as close to your working schedule as possible. If you got up at say 5:00 am to go to the gym and then to the office, get up and go to the gym and then to your “home office”
• Don’t let yourself get sloppy and hang around in sweats. Get dressed reasonably well. You can leave off the tie; business casual is acceptable.
• Find a hobby or some kind of volunteer work to give yourself a break from job hunting and make yourself feel like you are making some kind of a meaningful contribution to society.
• A professional resume and cover letter is critical. In today’s climate, you might want to de-emphasize your AIG experience, or at least be well prepared to explain what you did and didn’t do there.
• At least in the beginning, be prepared to spend 6 – 8 hours a day job hunting. It is almost a full time job in itself going through all of the job boards and networking. Thanks to the internet and email you don’t have to get your hands dirty with news print from the classified, lick stamps and address envelopes!
• If you get really bored or lonely, let’s hang out! You can Twitter me at gridunplugged, and be sure to check my blog for more interesting and helpful tips!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Buy Now...Pay Never.....
The latest marketing craze, in tune with the economy and people’s fears that it will get worse or at least not better in the near future, is buy our product now and if you loose your income, it’s free or close to free. What a concept! Where were these guys last fall and early winter when I could have used them?
I’ve seen credit card companies advertise forgiven missed payments and reduced payments and interest rates. I’ve seen car companies advertise 3 months free payments and then return the car with no penalty and no impact on your credit. Now, a men’s clothing store, Joseph A Banks, is advertising buy one of our suits at our discounted price, and if you loose your income, we’ll refund the price of the suit and you keep the suit.
I haven’t read the fine print in the ad or in the sales agreement to see what you need to do to qualify. I have plenty of suits, and most places where I have worked over the past 10 years or so, including financial service companies, insurance companies, software and consulting firms, have been “business casual” and some even weekend sloppy. I can imagine, though, that there has to be some kind of qualification or limitation to this offer.
Do you somehow have to show that your job, your company or even your industry is stable in order to qualify? If you work for the auto industry or a financially troubled bank, can you still get that car or suit? How long after buying that suit do you have to work before getting laid-off or getting your lay-off notice?
A car purchase usually takes some time, but a suit is much quicker, especially with no alterations. If you get a call from your boss to come to his office for one of “those” meetings, can you ask to postpone the meeting for an hour or two and run out and buy that new wardrobe? It could, after all, be essential for getting that next job!
And, again, back to the suits, how many men still regularly wear suits to work? I guess if you are a Lawyer, a Funeral Director, work in the White House, or are a career criminal who needs to look good appearing in court or before Congressional Committees, you need to wear suits. For better or worse, most other occupations these days are more casual. So, this may actually be an attempt by the clothing store to save itself and prevent its salesmen from qualifying for a free suit of their own!
I’ve seen credit card companies advertise forgiven missed payments and reduced payments and interest rates. I’ve seen car companies advertise 3 months free payments and then return the car with no penalty and no impact on your credit. Now, a men’s clothing store, Joseph A Banks, is advertising buy one of our suits at our discounted price, and if you loose your income, we’ll refund the price of the suit and you keep the suit.
I haven’t read the fine print in the ad or in the sales agreement to see what you need to do to qualify. I have plenty of suits, and most places where I have worked over the past 10 years or so, including financial service companies, insurance companies, software and consulting firms, have been “business casual” and some even weekend sloppy. I can imagine, though, that there has to be some kind of qualification or limitation to this offer.
Do you somehow have to show that your job, your company or even your industry is stable in order to qualify? If you work for the auto industry or a financially troubled bank, can you still get that car or suit? How long after buying that suit do you have to work before getting laid-off or getting your lay-off notice?
A car purchase usually takes some time, but a suit is much quicker, especially with no alterations. If you get a call from your boss to come to his office for one of “those” meetings, can you ask to postpone the meeting for an hour or two and run out and buy that new wardrobe? It could, after all, be essential for getting that next job!
And, again, back to the suits, how many men still regularly wear suits to work? I guess if you are a Lawyer, a Funeral Director, work in the White House, or are a career criminal who needs to look good appearing in court or before Congressional Committees, you need to wear suits. For better or worse, most other occupations these days are more casual. So, this may actually be an attempt by the clothing store to save itself and prevent its salesmen from qualifying for a free suit of their own!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Battle of the Ages.....
In today’s economy and job market, if you are out of work and looking for a job, is it better to be young and relatively inexperienced, or older and experienced? (Actually, I’ve always thought that the perfect combination would be to be 25 years old and have 20 years of experience!)
Seriously, though, it is tough today for everybody, and everybody thinks that the other guy/gal has the advantage. For one thing, people are living longer and need additional income to support their life styles, so many older workers, who at another time would have retired and thus created openings for younger workers, are continuing to work, or are out looking for work. Add to this the fact that people who want to work are being laid-off from their jobs and fewer and fewer new jobs are being created, and you have the pictures of hundreds of people waiting in line to apply for a handful of jobs.
But, when filling jobs, without overtly discriminating, do employers favor young or older workers? While each age group has strengths and weaknesses, one employment counselor observed that “many businesses do prefer older workers. They know they’re dependable and reliable. Older workers also take less sick days.” Older workers, however, are often not as technically savvy as their younger colleagues, so often find themselves edged out of higher paying technology jobs. Also, older workers are perhaps not as “glamorous” as their younger counterparts.
What about the older, experienced worker who is applying for a job a rung or two lower on the corporate ladder than he/she used to occupy? Are they looked at as “over-qualified”, or “too experienced”? And what does “over-qualified” or “too experienced” really mean in today’s world and job market?
As a one time hiring manager in a different place and economic time, sure you would look kind of suspiciously at the CPA and former VP of Corporate Audit who was applying for your bookkeeping job. What’s wrong with the guy? Does he have no ambition? Is he burned out, or worse? What’s going to happen if and when a more suitable job opens, is he just going to leave us? These were all true and valid questions during much better economic times.
Today, however, things are decidedly different. There are fewer jobs, fewer employees, and companies are trying to do more with less. As a result, it would seem that employees with that “extra” experience would be an asset. They would be able to do things quicker and more efficiently, and provide additional help and training to the rest of the staff. They might even be able to take on additional responsibilities which somebody with less experience couldn’t.
P.S. > In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I am one of those “older, experienced workers”!
Seriously, though, it is tough today for everybody, and everybody thinks that the other guy/gal has the advantage. For one thing, people are living longer and need additional income to support their life styles, so many older workers, who at another time would have retired and thus created openings for younger workers, are continuing to work, or are out looking for work. Add to this the fact that people who want to work are being laid-off from their jobs and fewer and fewer new jobs are being created, and you have the pictures of hundreds of people waiting in line to apply for a handful of jobs.
But, when filling jobs, without overtly discriminating, do employers favor young or older workers? While each age group has strengths and weaknesses, one employment counselor observed that “many businesses do prefer older workers. They know they’re dependable and reliable. Older workers also take less sick days.” Older workers, however, are often not as technically savvy as their younger colleagues, so often find themselves edged out of higher paying technology jobs. Also, older workers are perhaps not as “glamorous” as their younger counterparts.
What about the older, experienced worker who is applying for a job a rung or two lower on the corporate ladder than he/she used to occupy? Are they looked at as “over-qualified”, or “too experienced”? And what does “over-qualified” or “too experienced” really mean in today’s world and job market?
As a one time hiring manager in a different place and economic time, sure you would look kind of suspiciously at the CPA and former VP of Corporate Audit who was applying for your bookkeeping job. What’s wrong with the guy? Does he have no ambition? Is he burned out, or worse? What’s going to happen if and when a more suitable job opens, is he just going to leave us? These were all true and valid questions during much better economic times.
Today, however, things are decidedly different. There are fewer jobs, fewer employees, and companies are trying to do more with less. As a result, it would seem that employees with that “extra” experience would be an asset. They would be able to do things quicker and more efficiently, and provide additional help and training to the rest of the staff. They might even be able to take on additional responsibilities which somebody with less experience couldn’t.
P.S. > In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, I am one of those “older, experienced workers”!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Keeping Busy.....
With the rise in Unemployment has come a corresponding rise in the number of people interested in volunteering their time at various charitable and nonprofit organizations. According to a recent article in the New York Times, organizations like volunteernyc.org, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and even neighborhood soup kitchens have been experiencing a 25 – 30 percent increase in the number of people calling to volunteer their time and services.
Many who run nonprofits have marveled at the sudden flood of ex bankers, advertising copywriters, marketing managers, accountants, project managers (like me), and other professionals looking to do some good, maybe network a little, develop new skills, or simply fill the hours they used to be at the office. These are people that were typically used to working 50, 60 hours a week or more, and then suddenly found themselves with an abundance of time on their hands.
Most of the new volunteers, like myself (I’m volunteering at Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic…I always wanted to do broadcasting and announcing), are still seriously job-hunting. The volunteer work, though, does provide a pleasant and relieving break from the many solitary hours job-hunting in front of the computer screen or on the phone in my basement office with my cats and dog. It also at times can provide some much needed positive reinforcement and encouragement after receiving those “Thanks, but No Thanks” messages from employers, or no responses at all.
Another very positive thing about volunteering, according to many recruiters, is that it fills up those gaps in time on your resume and demonstrates to a prospective employer that you are not simply satisfied to sit around. You want to stay busy and make an impact. So, if at all possible, do volunteer work if you are out of “paid” work, and try to work it onto your resume, especially if you have been out of work for an extended period of time.
Many who run nonprofits have marveled at the sudden flood of ex bankers, advertising copywriters, marketing managers, accountants, project managers (like me), and other professionals looking to do some good, maybe network a little, develop new skills, or simply fill the hours they used to be at the office. These are people that were typically used to working 50, 60 hours a week or more, and then suddenly found themselves with an abundance of time on their hands.
Most of the new volunteers, like myself (I’m volunteering at Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic…I always wanted to do broadcasting and announcing), are still seriously job-hunting. The volunteer work, though, does provide a pleasant and relieving break from the many solitary hours job-hunting in front of the computer screen or on the phone in my basement office with my cats and dog. It also at times can provide some much needed positive reinforcement and encouragement after receiving those “Thanks, but No Thanks” messages from employers, or no responses at all.
Another very positive thing about volunteering, according to many recruiters, is that it fills up those gaps in time on your resume and demonstrates to a prospective employer that you are not simply satisfied to sit around. You want to stay busy and make an impact. So, if at all possible, do volunteer work if you are out of “paid” work, and try to work it onto your resume, especially if you have been out of work for an extended period of time.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Show me the Money.....
It’s probably safe to assume that most people reading this are currently in no danger of having their multi-million dollar salaries or bonuses rescinded or renegotiated by the government. It is, however, an interesting and, to say the least, controversial question and issue. What to do about the employees of companies like AIG which have accepted billions and billions of dollars from the government and, in AIG’s case, are now 80% owned by the government?
On the one hand, these are legally negotiated and signed contracts guaranteeing the employees certain salaries and benefits. The purpose of the contracts were to reward the employees for outstanding performance, and to protect the employees from the arbitrary whims of management which could result in the lose of these salaries and benefits. These contracts were all legally negotiated in good faith last year before the proverbial shit hit the fan. This was “business as usual”.
On the other hand, of course, today is no longer “business as usual”. “Business as usual” is making money the old fashioned way: earning it through sales and good investments, and generating profits from which bonuses and rewards are paid. The moment a company goes to the government and asks for and accepts money to stay in business, it can be said that “business as usual” stops. There is then a whole new game plan, a whole new business plan. At that point, it can be argued, it is totally fair to re-examine and renegotiate any and all existing agreements. Besides, the whole purpose behind bonuses is to reward outstanding performance, and AIG, and it’s employees, lost over $62 billion in just the fourth quarter of last year. That is certainly outstanding performance, but not in the usual, good sense of the term!
Andrew Ross Sorkin, a columnist for the New York Times, had a whole different, if not scarier, spin on the issue in the Times today. According to his reasoning, we need to pay the salaries and the bonuses to keep the employees right where they are. “AIG built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.”
“AIG employees”, he explained, “concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave—the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to—they might simply turn around and trade against AIG’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it. So as unpalatable as it seems, taxpayers need to keep some of these brainiacs in their seats, if only to prevent them from turning against the company.”
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)