Which time period would you rather live in based off of career opportunities?...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:32 pm

Which time period would you rather live in based off of career opportunities?...

1930-1970

or

1970-2008

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:33 pm

Well I was born in 1947 so I have worked in both and I would say the opportunities were great after the 70's.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:55 pm

It's better now.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:35 pm

No votes girls?...

You're going to make me cwy!...:-1...

Hehe...

:yh_wink...

:yh_kiss...

:wah:...

<------God, I'm hopeless...:wah:...

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:07 pm

I have followed your posts KC re: which time periods were the best to work, live, marry etc. and gotta say that there are opportunities galore in all the time frames, they just present themselves differently and present different challenges to those seeking opportunity. If I were starting out today and was in my 20's, I am absolutely certain that I could do just as well and perhaps better than my time period. It's never really been easy to be happy and successful. It takes motivation and determination and the willingness to move to where the opportunities are, rather than to wait for opportunity to come bite you in the ass.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:09 pm

The answer depends entirely on your social class, your education, your race and your sex. One set of answers had it better before the 1970s and another set after.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:21 pm

Fair enough...

Perhaps we can go from my personal opinion that I think I myself personally, given my education(I'm a high school drop out who never did my homework when I did go to school but I'm quite comfortable with my intellect so bring on the jokes!!!!!!...:wah:) and both economies within the US during both time frames, I would have had much more opportunities to become successful between the time periods of 1930-1970...

Successful in this sense would be defined as making over $80,000/yr...

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:30 pm

That's because there are now Human Resources departments which run these corporations, and they have recruitment and promotion policies based on paper qualifications, and back before 1970 the most those things ever meant, at most, was whether you could get recruited. The first firm I worked for had a policy that no graduate would be recruited in certain areas. Right into the 1980s that was true if you were recruited as a stock exchange jobber in London, you had to be an East End Wide Boy in the firm I was at.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:51 pm

spot;1044767 wrote: That's because there are now Human Resources departments which run these corporations, and they have recruitment and promotion policies based on paper qualifications, and back before 1970 the most those things ever meant, at most, was whether you could get recruited. The first firm I worked for had a policy that no graduate would be recruited in certain areas. Right into the 1980s that was true if you were recruited as a stock exchange jobber in London, you had to be an East End Wide Boy in the firm I was at.

There you have it...

Capitalism benefits arbitration to the point people have to spend money to make money. Spending money for a college education that not only does not guarantee the competence of the newly appointed but renders their efforts overpaid. Much in the same sense, that in history real estate was the only primary source for capitalist entity as opposed to not being subjected to patents and other laws limiting the efforts of the majority whereas today you need money to make money more so than you had in the past.

All you see is a population increase giving you the impression that more are "lazy" when in fact all of the damn real estate has run out.

It's fitting to my argument.

Post by **spot** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:01 pm

The answer's so simple.

Refuse to work for any corporation or company that has a Human Resources department.

Start your own corporation and refuse to employ anyone with Human Resources qualifications.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:23 pm

spot;1044775 wrote: The answer's so simple.

Refuse to work for any corporation or company that has a Human Resources department.

Start your own corporation and refuse to employ anyone with Human Resources qualifications.

I already have.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:04 am

I picked the earlier ones. I could be barefoot and pregnant my whole life!

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:43 am

I would like to have run with Dillinger back in the day.

Jenn1980 · Post by **Jenn1980** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:56 am

I voted 1970-2008. But not so much presently, the big 3 crisis is a huge deal, and could impact our community especially.:-1

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:58 am

Jenn1980;1084541 wrote: I voted 1970-2008. But not so much presently, the big 3 crisis is a huge deal, and could impact our community especially.:-1

Hi Jenn.. Welcome to forum garden. I hope you enjoy your time here.