grue 1 #76 April 8, 2014 kelpdiver*** Every time I see someone younger than me driving a nice car to his nice house (or a young jumper with brand new gear buying infinite jump tickets and infinite tunnel time), I die a little inside. I firmly believe that every single problem in my life could be fixed if my bank balance wasn't pathetic. Are you sure their's are better? Sure? No. Reasonably confident? Yes.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #77 April 8, 2014 quade ***I firmly believe that every single problem in my life could be fixed if my bank balance wasn't pathetic. Because, you know . . . "FIRST you get the money, THEN you get the power, THEN you get the woman." THEN she takes your money. THEN you lose your power. Chain, meet link. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #78 April 9, 2014 kelpdiverI see plenty of people who don't work very hard at all. In the dotcom boom, any monkey with a pulse could make great money in Silicon Valley. Waiters were quitting left and right to become "web designers." It was a glorious time full of undeserved wealth. And then the crash came. My experience in tech has been nearly the exact opposite. I've found it MUCH easier to get away with slacking off a bit during the bust years than during the boom years. During boom years, this illusory gold rush mentality seems to set in where everyone thinks if they just work hard for a couple of years they'll be able to cash in their stock options and become fabulously wealthy. The illusion really only comes true for a small number of people, but in that kind of environment there can be ridiculously high peer pressure to work impossibly long hours. But during bust years, no one is under any illusions that they are going to get rich any time soon--so they understand they need to pace themselves and not burn out too quickly. This, ironically, has resulted, at least for me, in a much more laid back work atmosphere during bust years. I don't have good memories of the workplace from 1997 - 2000. I had to work very long hours, under very intense pressure, and because I wasn't one of the lucky few, I ended up with little to show for it. By contrast, the workplace atmosphere has been more relaxed since 2000--although it seems to be at risk of overheating again soon in Silicon Valley. Now the political atmosphere in the country was more innocent in 1997 - 2000 because it was pre-9/11. But the overheated workplaces of those days I definitely don't miss."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 April 9, 2014 SivaGanesha My experience in tech has been nearly the exact opposite. I've found it MUCH easier to get away with slacking off a bit during the bust years than during the boom years. During boom years, this illusory gold rush mentality seems to set in where everyone thinks if they just work hard for a couple of years they'll be able to cash in their stock options and become fabulously wealthy. The illusion really only comes true for a small number of people, but in that kind of environment there can be ridiculously high peer pressure to work impossibly long hours. But during bust years, no one is under any illusions that they are going to get rich any time soon--so they understand they need to pace themselves and not burn out too quickly. This, ironically, has resulted, at least for me, in a much more laid back work atmosphere during bust years. having a hard time understanding this. In the busts, companies are down sizing. While salary considerations can come into play, it's easy to drop people who aren't delivering. In general, we see a large portion of Americans are afraid to even take their vacation time for this reason. In the boom when labor is in short supply, companies can't be nearly so discerning. They need people with a pulse. In the bust, they can choose to wait for the candidate with 10 years experience in a technology that has only existed for 7. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #80 April 10, 2014 kelpdiverhaving a hard time understanding this. In the busts, companies are down sizing. While salary considerations can come into play, it's easy to drop people who aren't delivering. In general, we see a large portion of Americans are afraid to even take their vacation time for this reason. In the boom when labor is in short supply, companies can't be nearly so discerning. They need people with a pulse. In the bust, they can choose to wait for the candidate with 10 years experience in a technology that has only existed for 7. Everything you say makes sense--it is just that it is not my personal experience. My experience has been that when labor is in short supply and they can't hire people fast enough, there is great pressure on the people they do have to work to put in incredibly long hours. It's done with a carrot (the potential of cashing in big) rather than a stick but the pressure is there nevertheless. By contrast when the company is laying people off, they have less leverage to persuade people to work long hours. The stick of possibly being laid off is present but people know they may be laid off from a dying company no matter what they do--so there are limits to the stick's power of persuasion. The more ambitious of the employees usually then put their efforts into dusting off the resume rather than putting extra hours into a dying company. Again, YMMV. But the above describes the dynamic at most companies I've worked in boom and bust times. Also, I've generally found Americans to be reluctant to take their full vacation time during both boom and bust times. I see that as more a rather sad comment on America than on the economic/business cycle. It's not that way in other countries."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #81 April 11, 2014 quade***Ok, so everybody basically hates crooks and respects hard workers. We all despise the Bernie Madoffs, but throughout history our culture seems to have a peculiar fascination with the the Bonnie and Clydes, the Mickey and Mallory Knoxes, the Gordon Gekkos, and the Frank Underwoods of the world. It seems as though we hate the reality of ill gotten gain, but deep down are infatuated with the idea of it, that somehow stirs our emotions with excitement, as if it's an innate desire yet to be fulfilled. I don't think so. If you look at 99% of crime stories you'll notice one very specific thing happens at the end; the criminal are ultimately brought to justice. That is the psychological basis of pretty much every crime story; reassurance that the "system" ultimately works. That's certainly true to an extent, but it all comes down to how the writers and directors want you to feel about particular characters. If the writer/director wants you despise the bad guys, then they will be portrayed in a manner that does not appeal to us in any way. If the writer/director wants you to like the bad guys then they'll be portrayed in a manner that seductively appeals to our deviance in an attractive way. Do you really think that people are binge watching Dexter and Frank Underwood anxiously awaiting for them to be brought to justice? These characters are portrayed as powerful, smart, cunning and manipulative men that can back themselves out of any corner. They are portrayed in an attractive manner that appeals to the darker side of our humanity and uncompromising pride. I suppose a good analogy would be how "good girls" seem to be attracted to "bad boys" in one way or another....but who knows, maybe I'm just over generalizing.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #82 April 13, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/fashion/hanley-mellon-clothing-line-fashion.html?_r=0 I don't hate all of them. But I really,really, really, really want to smack the smug off of these two rich twits."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #83 April 13, 2014 That's funny - those two clearly not inhabiting the same planet as the rest of us - they seem harmless enough though. Loved the comments about Africa.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #84 April 13, 2014 "I’ve never been to Africa, but I feel like I have this deep affinity for it. . . I’ve read every Hemingway, we collect Peter Beard, I’ve watched ‘Out of Africa.’ It touches your soul to visit and smell the smells, and you can’t recreate the experience without immersing yourself.” Imagine how much skydiving has touched her soul . . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boogers 0 #85 April 14, 2014 NWFlyerhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/fashion/hanley-mellon-clothing-line-fashion.html?_r=0 I don't hate all of them. But I really,really, really, really want to smack the smug off of these two rich twits. I see two people happy and in love, and starting a business together. I don't understand your desire to smack them for that... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
