Bubble Warning from senior economist

PasturesNew

I worked for about 30 years .... and the longest job was for 15 months.

I've spent my life "starting again". If I lost my job on a Friday I was on the books of a temp agency by Monday and working again by the following Friday.

At first things were OK, then it got a bit tougher.... and the older you get, the harder it is to keep "starting again" as you're viewed with suspicion.

Every employer's asked me "why have you had so many jobs?" ... I've answered "I've always wanted a job for life...." they've taken me on, then a few months down the line they've done the same as the rest of them (downsized, closed, relocated, merged, sold off, whatever). And out I trudged to "start again" ... again ....

In 1997 I had a job at £17k, that was good money back then. Same company is currently paying people in that role £17k - and I suspect the entry requirements are higher.

1998-2000 I was on £40-50k. Market crash for what I did .... and since then I've been scrapping around for jobs and haven't earnt more than £19k (one job for four months)... most have been £13-16k.

As I get older, and the time since I "last worked in a proper/similar job" gets longer ..... it's unlikely I'll land on my feet now.

I've lost all confidence now in even applying for work to be honest. I've had enough knockbacks and have now gone into disillusioned mode.

TruckerT

TruckerT wrote: »

But the fact is that, in a 'civilised' society, the able will make sacrifices in order to assist the unable.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

This is a whole new topic isn't it? Doesn't mean very much until you define exactly the word "unable".

You might argue that we are already the most "civilised" country in the world as measured by the way we tax high to spend on "benefits" including giving people houses...

I think there is lots of room for argument about the meaning of the word 'civilised'. I would argue that 'civilisation' is not a fait accompli, it is a continuous process. It appears to work by replacing the 'laws of the jungle' with a man-made alternative (sorry girls - I don't wish to be sexist).

But, on the whole, it just leads to confusion. The strong continue to defeat the weak, but they no longer depend exclusively upon physical prowess. They use man-made alternatives. And when a marine sergeant, operating in a 'jungle' situation, reverts to the 'law' of the jungle (which is what his training has been all about), and kills his prey, the man-made (civilised) alternative responds by locking him up for the foreseeable future.

Another huge area of jungle behaviour is sexual instinct, and the process of civilisation is even more confused about how to repress our sexual instincts whilst continuing to recognise the need to further our species.

But I digress...

TruckerT