The Eld versus The Young
I've been thinking a lot lately about the workforce, salaries, and technology. Specifically, old people and young people.
Now this isn't meant to offend anyone, though just by saying that you know that it is going to. Oh well, such is life.
You see, elder employees make a lot more money than younger ones do. Why? The answer is experience. They are the experienced, savvy veterans, and said experience is worth more money than the impertinence and folly of youth.
I totally agree with this logic. There is nothing more satisfying to me than watching a savvy veteran who's good at what he does--and knows it--go about his work, whether it be an NBA player, a waiter, a cop, or an office employee. I think it's fascinating to watch someone who's been there, done that, and got the free shirt go do their thing with the confidence of knowing that they have done this task before successfully, and will go do it again.
However, in today's workplace, I've come to the somewhat startling conclusion that experience does not carry the premium value that it used to. In fact, it's almost a detriment at times.
The reason, of course, is technology. Technology has rewritten almost everyone's lives in the last 20 years. No job is the same as it was 20 years ago. We are literally working through a paradigm shift in the way our jobs are done. On top of that, technology continues to evolve at a breakneck pace. It's not like there was a major shift, and we've all had time to sit back, learn the new way of doing things, and settle into a routine. Oh no. As soon as you learn to program in Visual Basic...Microsoft releases C++. As soon as you learn to program in C++...here comes .Net. As soon as you are comfortable with a new operating system, a newer, more advanced model is released that everyone must have to communicate with each other. As soon as you learn the ins and outs with an accounting system your office uses, either a new version is released, or an entirely new system is purchases, again for all the necessary upgrades.
It's literally breathtaking how much and how quickly technology has changed around us. And, unfortunately, the older generation has a hard time keeping up.
Part of it is familiarity. I'm in a unique position to observe, as the PC was introduced to schools while I was in them. So I ride the line between the old and the new: I didn't have access to computers in my youth (birth through about 6th grade), but did learn a lot with them through school (7th grade on). Many people younger than I am--and by younger I mean 2-4 years--have literally grown up with computers their entire lives. They're comfortable with them. They can roll with the punches. They are used to technology changing rapidly; that is how it is been their entire life. They don't know it any other way.
A 50 year old, however, is not comfortable with computers, as they were introduced late in his life. He's probably not as versatile with technological changes, as the world was more stable before the introduction of the PC. And thus, he has a harder time adapting. Is it impossible for him to adapt? No. It's just harder, and for many, the comfort level that the younger generation has with these machines is impossible for them to reach. They simply haven't grown up with them, and nothing will ever change that.
So suddenly experience isn't as valuable as it used to be. Suddenly being flexible, living in the moment, being able to adapt quickly, and being technologically sound is as--if not more--valuable than a lifetime's worth of experience. It doesn't matter how things were done 20 years ago, because that was literally a different world.
So what does that mean to the modern workforce? It means the modern generation is carrying more responsibility than their pay indicates. Introductory salaries have not increased very much, if at all. Additional raises are not given to younger employees as compared to older; can you imagine the reaction? We are still outnumbered, remember. The Baby Boomers have not all retired yet. Imagine a company not even saying, but going out and giving their younger employees 5% raises while only giving their older employees 3%. Can you imagine the outcry? The morale damage? The turnover? It's almost impossible for them to do.
But...they're not doing as much of the work. I'd be curious to see productivity studies based on age. There's no way they can compete. I have bosses who go to File/Close/File/Exit every single time they close out of Word or Excel. Sure, that's maybe adding 10 seconds to every job. Now do that 20 times a day. Now realize that if they are struggling to figure out, "Hey, all I have to do is click this 'X' in the upper right hand corner", how would they be fairing in more complicated tasks? How would they do with a Pivot Table? A Macro? Designing an Access Database (the simplest kind)?
They can't.
It makes me wonder. Am I overrating experience? Has it always been this way? Has the elder generation always done less of the work, but simply because of their age and time to accrue raises (there is much truth to the phrase, "Nothing makes money like time") been paid more? Has it always been this way, and I just don't realize it since my age makes me the first of the new age of workers?
So will it switch back? What happens when the Baby Boomers retire, and the workforce is entirely populated with employees who grew up with computers, are familiar with them, and familiar with the speed with which technology changes? Will it slow down? Will experience once again become the most valuable tool?
To answer: no, I don't think I'm overrating experience. I think it is truly the chaos created by the latest and possibly greatest paradigm shift. I think the elder generation in the past did earn more of their share of the pie, as their experience was the most valuable thing an employee could bring to the table, and technology didn't play as much of a role as it does now. And I do think it will calm down, and experience will once again become the most valuable tool when the workforce is entirely populated with children of the Computer Age.
I find it fascinating. If I were a business professor, I would study this intently. But I'm not, and as such, I'll just write a blog about it, and laugh every time a boss who makes twice as much as I do does File/Close/File/Exit to get out of Excel.
Besides, it won't be long until SkyNet takes over anyway ;-P
Now this isn't meant to offend anyone, though just by saying that you know that it is going to. Oh well, such is life.
You see, elder employees make a lot more money than younger ones do. Why? The answer is experience. They are the experienced, savvy veterans, and said experience is worth more money than the impertinence and folly of youth.
I totally agree with this logic. There is nothing more satisfying to me than watching a savvy veteran who's good at what he does--and knows it--go about his work, whether it be an NBA player, a waiter, a cop, or an office employee. I think it's fascinating to watch someone who's been there, done that, and got the free shirt go do their thing with the confidence of knowing that they have done this task before successfully, and will go do it again.
However, in today's workplace, I've come to the somewhat startling conclusion that experience does not carry the premium value that it used to. In fact, it's almost a detriment at times.
The reason, of course, is technology. Technology has rewritten almost everyone's lives in the last 20 years. No job is the same as it was 20 years ago. We are literally working through a paradigm shift in the way our jobs are done. On top of that, technology continues to evolve at a breakneck pace. It's not like there was a major shift, and we've all had time to sit back, learn the new way of doing things, and settle into a routine. Oh no. As soon as you learn to program in Visual Basic...Microsoft releases C++. As soon as you learn to program in C++...here comes .Net. As soon as you are comfortable with a new operating system, a newer, more advanced model is released that everyone must have to communicate with each other. As soon as you learn the ins and outs with an accounting system your office uses, either a new version is released, or an entirely new system is purchases, again for all the necessary upgrades.
It's literally breathtaking how much and how quickly technology has changed around us. And, unfortunately, the older generation has a hard time keeping up.
Part of it is familiarity. I'm in a unique position to observe, as the PC was introduced to schools while I was in them. So I ride the line between the old and the new: I didn't have access to computers in my youth (birth through about 6th grade), but did learn a lot with them through school (7th grade on). Many people younger than I am--and by younger I mean 2-4 years--have literally grown up with computers their entire lives. They're comfortable with them. They can roll with the punches. They are used to technology changing rapidly; that is how it is been their entire life. They don't know it any other way.
A 50 year old, however, is not comfortable with computers, as they were introduced late in his life. He's probably not as versatile with technological changes, as the world was more stable before the introduction of the PC. And thus, he has a harder time adapting. Is it impossible for him to adapt? No. It's just harder, and for many, the comfort level that the younger generation has with these machines is impossible for them to reach. They simply haven't grown up with them, and nothing will ever change that.
So suddenly experience isn't as valuable as it used to be. Suddenly being flexible, living in the moment, being able to adapt quickly, and being technologically sound is as--if not more--valuable than a lifetime's worth of experience. It doesn't matter how things were done 20 years ago, because that was literally a different world.
So what does that mean to the modern workforce? It means the modern generation is carrying more responsibility than their pay indicates. Introductory salaries have not increased very much, if at all. Additional raises are not given to younger employees as compared to older; can you imagine the reaction? We are still outnumbered, remember. The Baby Boomers have not all retired yet. Imagine a company not even saying, but going out and giving their younger employees 5% raises while only giving their older employees 3%. Can you imagine the outcry? The morale damage? The turnover? It's almost impossible for them to do.
But...they're not doing as much of the work. I'd be curious to see productivity studies based on age. There's no way they can compete. I have bosses who go to File/Close/File/Exit every single time they close out of Word or Excel. Sure, that's maybe adding 10 seconds to every job. Now do that 20 times a day. Now realize that if they are struggling to figure out, "Hey, all I have to do is click this 'X' in the upper right hand corner", how would they be fairing in more complicated tasks? How would they do with a Pivot Table? A Macro? Designing an Access Database (the simplest kind)?
They can't.
It makes me wonder. Am I overrating experience? Has it always been this way? Has the elder generation always done less of the work, but simply because of their age and time to accrue raises (there is much truth to the phrase, "Nothing makes money like time") been paid more? Has it always been this way, and I just don't realize it since my age makes me the first of the new age of workers?
So will it switch back? What happens when the Baby Boomers retire, and the workforce is entirely populated with employees who grew up with computers, are familiar with them, and familiar with the speed with which technology changes? Will it slow down? Will experience once again become the most valuable tool?
To answer: no, I don't think I'm overrating experience. I think it is truly the chaos created by the latest and possibly greatest paradigm shift. I think the elder generation in the past did earn more of their share of the pie, as their experience was the most valuable thing an employee could bring to the table, and technology didn't play as much of a role as it does now. And I do think it will calm down, and experience will once again become the most valuable tool when the workforce is entirely populated with children of the Computer Age.
I find it fascinating. If I were a business professor, I would study this intently. But I'm not, and as such, I'll just write a blog about it, and laugh every time a boss who makes twice as much as I do does File/Close/File/Exit to get out of Excel.
Besides, it won't be long until SkyNet takes over anyway ;-P
posted by Michael Pondrom at 9:03 PM
3 Comments:
How many raises are truly performance based and how many are just rewards for loyalty (years of service)?
I don't know. I would think they should be more performance based. But now I would say that they are for years of service, since those getting more money out of raises aren't putting up the same perfromance.
Michael
Great post!
One aspect I think you need to consider is the role technology plays in the industry and jobs of "the elder generation". In industries that have high levels of technology use (be it programming or intensive use of Office's more complex features) I think you are on the money (full pun intended).
However, in industries that are more service based and the elder generation fills roles that are primarily concerned with oversight, management, and relationship development/maintenence I'm not sure your theory holds.
In any industry there is an aspect of "getting work done" when it comes to busting out tasks. We (the younger) are great at that, and it's likely in their day they were too. Call it the advantage of youth (not even considering tech prowess, though that is certainly a factor in many cases). But I see lots of veterans who could not compete with younger people in getting tasks done, but are outstanding leaders and managers in ways that 99.9% of much younger people could not handle at this stage of their career (i.e. experience required).
When experience is paid more because of the overall level of responsibility I think that makes sense. However, if you have two people who are doing the same job but are 10 years apart in experience I don't think it makes sense to pay the older a great deal more when task accomplishment is the fundemental component (manufacturing jobs come to mind here - blame the unions!).
This is a great topic and there's no perfect answer. I would argue that we'll be in similar situations in 20 years because I think technology will continue to change and we'll eventually be obsolete as well. At that point, better to be the boss so adapting to technology and task accomplishment isn't the way you're measured.
-RC
Post a Comment
<< Home