A couple of days ago, I blogged about how my grandmother didn't have a pension from her job. The employer offered one, but the vast majority of the workers didn't want one because, in my grandmother's words, "they all had husbands." I didn't see the cause and effect there so I had to ask my grandmother a whole bunch more questions, but it turns out that each of the husbands had a job, each of those jobs came with a pension, and job security was so great in those days that they had literally no reason to believe that he would ever be without a pension. Even on the off chance he lost his job, he could totally find another job with a pension.
This got me thinking about happiness studies. There was one a few months ago that suggested women are becoming less and less happy (and I think there have been others to this effect too, about various demographics of people). All the commentary I saw on this was interpreting it as the influence of feminism (perhaps because I read about it in the feminist blogosphere), but what if it isn't about feminism at all? What if it's about employment conditions?
In my grandmother's day, when people had a pension, they had a pension. Imagine a world where getting a job with a pension means you will be able to retire and you no longer have to worry about it! I woke up this morning to Michael Hlinka saying interest rates on safe investments will likely be extremely low for a decade, so I lay there in bed wondering how earth do I save for retirement when I not going to be able to get the kinds of returns financial planning strategies are based on until I'm in my 40s. That's something my grandmother's cohort never had to worry about. They also never had to worry about what they'll do if their pension plan goes bankrupt and they're 80 years old and have been out of the workforce for nearly two decades. Nor did they have to worry about very loud people, likely embittered by years of contract hell, dissing people who have pensions and calling for them to be fired and/or pensions to be eliminated. All my grandmother's cohort had to do was get a job that has a pension, work hard, and they were fine.
Imagine a world where working hard is enough! My grandmother's job was typing! Just typing! Imagine being able to make a living just by being able to type! I would love to live in a world where that's even an option, where if I lose my awesome job, I could earn a living by typing or working on an assembly line or even collecting garbage. The problem is that, in my experience, employers aren't willing to give jobs to people who have had or that the employers perceive to be overqualified. So I can't assume I'd have the safety net of being able to serve coffee or answer phones or work a cash register. My grandmother never had to worry about that!
My grandmother has also told me stories about how to instill in her kids the value of education, she "got them" menial jobs, serving food or shoveling coke, so they'd get the sense that if they don't stay in school, they'll be doing that the rest of their lives. Imagine a world where a parent can just get a job for their kid! I have never known anyone in my own lifetime who could do that. It took me years to get a minimum wage fast food job because employers didn't want to hire someone who had never had a job before. My grandmother's generation (and my parents' generation) never had to worry about that, because the plant could always use another pair of hands somewhere.
So if I would in fact have been happier in another decade, I think it isn't because I'd be taking care of the house (and kids?) instead of being in the workplace (if I am in fact married in this alternate decade). Maybe it's because if I (or my spouse) was able to get a job with a pension I'd have no reason to believe the pension wouldn't always be there, so I wouldn't have to worry about long-term investment strategies or the possibility of having to work well into my 80s. If was good at something and worked hard - hell, I could type - I would never have to worry about unemployment. If I knew a person who had a job, they could probably get me a job. Whole categories of worries - probably 80% of the worries that I've been carrying around since I first became economically aware - were completely nonexistent. Even if they did have less money in the bank and fewer home electronics, who wouldn't be happier under those circumstances?
8 comments:
This reminds me of another cause I forgot in my earlier comment: real estate prices being allowed to soar over income levels. My working-class parents were able to buy a small house and pay off the mortgage in under 10 years.
This also falls under the category of unchecked capitalism.
* * * *
I am in the same boat as you, but much closer to the supposed age of retirement. I just assume I will never be able to retire. The only thing I worry about is wanting to spend my RRSP savings on travel. Other than that, I assume I will work until I am physically unable to, and then be poor. I'd like to think in Canada I'd have a better chance at not being completely destitue and homeless, but who knows.
Also: I seriously doubt women are less happy because of feminism!
lets see lgirl, youre almost 50, have an ivy league education yet are a part-time clerical worker. sweetheart your postition in life has nothing to do with "unchecked capitalism" but in a complete lack of work ethic on your part. you're a smart gal and could chosen a career when you were young that would have earned you good money and a good retirement and you could be well on your way to having a paid off house but you CHOSE another path of living life day to day on a shoestring never holding down a substantive job. too bad being a professional protester doesn't earn any money. you my dear are responsible for your own sorry financial state. no on else.
as for impudent..good on you for at least thinking and working on your retirement while you are still young. of course marrying a stable man who could take care of things would be your best path.
look at lgirl she might have been able to get away with her irresponsible life if she had managed to find a man who could make her a living. unfortunately her boyfriend is also a secretary. i'm sure neither one of them have an rrsp.
There was an article in Salon a while back (I can't seem to find it at the moment because I can't remember the exact key words they used) that said that necessities (housing, childcare) are more relatively expensive than they were in past decades, while non-necessities, (i.e things you can put off purchasing like clothes and furniture) are cheaper relatively than in past decades. I once asked my grandmothers how much their houses (bungalows in working-class residential neighbourhoods in outer 905, not brand-new but younger than my grandparents at the time they bought them) had cost when they first bought them, then I ran the numbers through an inflation calculators. In today's dollars, in the range of $75,000. For a HOUSE!
I really, really wish I could genuinely assume I'll never be able to retire. I try very, very hard not to be optimistic. Unfortunately, I accidentally convinced myself I will be able to retire. A couple of years back, I was translating a text that included some retirement planning scenarios, and to understand what was going on I ran my own numbers through it. And it turns out that if I can keep my current job (or be employed in a commensurate job without any massive periods of unemployment) and work full-time all the way through, I'll be able to retire comfortably. (In the literal sense of comfortably, not the posh sense.) And I haven't been able to get that idea out of my head. I have centenarian ancestors, and the idea of having work for another 7 decades is just too scary to even begin to contemplate. The idea of putting in 30 years and then getting 30 years off is much more bearable.
marrying a stable man who could take care of things would be your best path.
Heh, I'm flattered that you think I have enough relationship skills that I'd be more likely to be able to sustain a marriage than to sustain a job.
But I'm intrigued you think this is any option because, as I've blogged about before, I've never in my life met anyone who would make a remotely compatible partner (by amicable arranged-marriage standards of compatibility) who makes enough money to support two people, to say nothing of long-term sustainability over decades. Do you know anyone who meets this description? If so, what kinds of jobs to they have?
the gta is full of rich and well-employed men. just put yourself out there. i say if we can put a man on the moon we can put a man on you.
Oh, the existence of people who are currently rich and well-employed isn't in question at all. What I'm more interested in is the specific types of employment that are sustainable enough to guarantee that not just one person but a couple would be secure for seven decades. You suggested that you know of people who meet this description. What jobs do they have? I'm badly in the market for a career change plan (my profession is always moving increasingly towards freelancing) and I'd love to have some ideas for specific careers that would be sustainable over decades rather than just having to eenie meenie miney moe it through college catalogues.
Post a Comment