watercooler

Clearly, the Washington Post and the economy in general did not get my memo about optimism in 09.

Yesterday, the Post led with a story about how having a college degree doesn’t automatically equal job security like it used to. In fact, the article points out that compared to previous recessions (90-91, and 01), this one is reaching farther, into more industries and effecting more workers.

Some Princeton economist even says that the job market for degree-holders is even worse than the unemployment rate suggests because to be unemployed means you’re actively looking for a work. Unemployed people could be doing any number of things other than looking for a job, from volunteering to simply giving up the search.

When it comes down to who are getting what few jobs are out there, contrary to what the Oprah of Gen Y careers, Penelope Trunk, said earlier in the fall about how there’s no job shortage for us young folk, the Post concludes the opposite: this shaky market prefers experienced people.

Really, it’s probably whatever cool-aid helps you sleep at night. You’re older? You have the recommendations, the network, the wisdom. You’re younger? You’re cheaper and fresh.

Though, to be fair (and not remotely bias based on my own age), Trunk does use numbers to back up her point:

In October 2008, jobs for candidates with 0-3 years of experience increased by 3.68% when compared to jobs posted in September 2008. This was the only category of jobs by experience level that did not decrease over the previous month.

Trunk also points out that level-entry jobs are plentiful and recent grads have an exceptional unemployment rate. Then again, one of the people she sourced on this point commented that level-entry jobs stood to be challenged by the weakening retail and hospitality industries.

Still, I’m saying to hell with all the bad news, let’s focus on the good:

It seems the one area where you can put boom and economy together is in the green jobs market sector. The LA times reports that solar energy and other Obama-seal-of-approval green industries are poised to great a mountain of jobs.

Although most of those jobs aren’t really BA-designed (mainly construction and engineering from the looks of it), the principle is what I chose to get behind: forget where the jobs aren’t, and look for where they are.

Having said that: here’s a listing of green job opportunities in Canada.

Get this: Insomnia takes $20 billion out of Canada’s economy every year. Chalk that figure up to loss of productivity and absenteeism, reported the Globe on New Year’s Day.

bright lights and booz = not helpful for sleeping

Even though all the oodles of economic stimulus and bailout packages have totally killed my sense of proportion with dollar-figures, I know $20 billion is not chump change. It seemed even more massive when I thought insomnia only plagued a tiny fraction of the population.

Thought, being the key word.

The research (which was published in the medical journal Sleep) points out that 15 per cent of adults suffer from insomnia and another 32 per cent suffer from it occasionally.

What does that actually mean? Insomnia is classified as having trouble sleeping at least three nights a week. Occasional insomnia is defined as at least once a month (does anybody else think that’s a huge window between the two?). The remaining 52 per cent of the population are a-okay.

Let’s just consider the 15 per cent of folks who struggle on a weekly basis; that means more than 1 in every 10 adults is in serious sleep-related trouble.

The research doesn’t get into the ‘why’ of the matter, instead it points out that people wait a very, very long time to seek medical treatment (10-12 years on average) and that the most popular treatment is of the non-medical variety.

It turns out that marijuana is to cancer patients, what booz is to the sleepless. Seriously. Apparently Canadians spend over $1 billion a year on booz, specifically to help them sleep.

Seeing as how I don’t want any of Watercooler’s sleepless readers to need a liver transplant, I figured it was best to assume the ‘why’ myself and pass along a little non-LCBO related sleep advice.

Why insomnia? I’ll take a stab at that: stress, anxiety, a stressful job (and in this market, tell me a person who wouldn’t classify their job that way). We’re not living in easy times.

Luckily, we are living in times ripe with city magazines always out to soothe the minds of their urban dwellers. Time Out New York decided to kick-off 09 with a focus on de-toxing, whether from “last night or last year”, a perfect relax-so-you-can-sleep guide.

(Truth be told: I was in New York last week and stole the magazine from my hotel room, thinking it’d be good airplane reading; I slept on the plane but damn, if the mag isn’t super useful sitting on my lap right now.)

Bad sleep comes from not-great-waking-hours stuff (proof: my super scientific opinion), which is why I figure it’d be nice to point you to some ideas that help battle your sitting behind a desk all day or staring at a computer (as examples) so you can get some quality shut-eye.

The only downside is that the ideas are all NYC-specific. Though don’t let that turn you off—the ideas (yoga, knitting, art classes, jogging clubs, to name just a few) are not exclusive. Some, you might say, are downright obvious.

For the sleep-deprived who are going, but I don’t have a copy of TONY! Not to fret, it’s obviously all online. Even better, is that the whiz kids behind the site’s database have also pointed me/you to previous sleep-aid advice, including a by-the-senses list of ideas to repair your snoozing-challenged self.

Me, I’m prone to sight-related sensitivity, so I appreciated this little tidbit:

“Get an alarm clock that you trust and turn it so the time display is facing the wall. This way, you won’t be staring at the time all night.
”—Dr. David M. Rapoport, director of the NYU Sleep Disorders Center

Lately (as it’d be fair to say I fall under that 15 per cent), I’ve heard a lot of people tell me that if they can’t fall asleep they watch TV. While that’s not my particular dose of medicine, if you think it could be yours keep in mind:

“If watching the TV helps you fall asleep, that’s fine, just make sure it’s on a timer: The commercials are louder than regular programs and could wake you up in the middle of the night.”—Dr. Michael Breus, author of Beauty Sleep

Overall, bad sleep (or no sleep) sucks the big one and anyone with a magic cure-all, please share with the class in comments. Hopefully some of TONY’s tidbits can help if you’re one of the struggling but if they don’t, at least the research shows you’re not alone.

As they say, misery loves company.

Ah, the dreaded Sunday night.

For Watercooler’s regular readers, my distaste of Sunday night is nothing new. The weekend is over and all that lies immediately ahead is work, alarm clocks, packed lunches, re-heated double-doubles and dry-cleaning bills.

We were lucky this year – New Year’s was in the middle of the week, giving everyone a sort of prolonged work-laziness but tonight is the true kick-off back into routine.

Only the sick and deranged could be excited about tomorrow (maybe I’m exaggerating a little). Either way, tonight seemed like the perfect Sunday to bring back an early Watercooler habit – a little suggested longer-form reading to help ease you into a good Sunday night sleep.

i, too, wear riding boots and smoke a cigarette to do my best thinking

This week’s recommendation: A Hollywood Elusive

The article is Vanity Fair’s February cover story on Cate Blanchett. Beyond perpetually finding new ways to write about old money, Vanity Fair’s an old standby for the well-written celebrity profile.

Given that Blanchett, star of The (totally, wicked, amazing, awesome, go see it now) Curious Case of Benjamin Button, is of the most-celebrated and least controversial of the super, famous acting elite (see: her costar in Button), I went about reading the profile, word for word, no skimming.

Without any tabloid drama to discuss, the interview focused on Blanchett’s approach to her job, which whether you’re an actor or not, can be appreciated as a little thoughtful optimism about one’s career.

Among the highlights:

“…Some ideas, like what you’re going to do with your life, take time to form. When something is a vocation, you don’t really make a decision about it.”

“…Someone might have a germ of talent, but 90 percent of it is discipline and how you practice it, what you do with it… Instinct won’t carry you through the entire journey. It’s what you do in the moments between inspiration.”

Whether you’re dead sure of where your career, not at all sure of what that career is, or somewhere in the middle, it seemed like might good food for thought to pass on.

Come to think of it, f you’re anything like me, these sound bites might not lull you to sleep. In fact, they may kick-off some good, old-fashion, late night existential pondering.

At any rate, it’s a good read if you’re interested in how one of the best in their field operates.

his best thinking..nah, too easy

If you’re more of a tear ‘em down sorta person, I point you to Farewell to All That: An Oral History of the Bush White House, which given the title, I think you can imagine what it’s about and how it’s framed.

(the summary on that one is that it’s essentially a lot of big names from American and International politics sharing their insider thoughts on the Administration that was, they confirm, as brutal as everyone on the outside said all along.)

Happy Reading and Happy Sunday.

(ed note: I’m going to assume you know what The Hills is. If you don’t, I’m truly impressed at your ability to ignore all forms of media. Here.)

Full disclosure:

I watch The Hills.

Yes, yes this is humiliating to confess, not just because of its fake-ry and plain ol’ boringness but because of it it’s downright negative contribution to all the things I love a lot more (like actual quality television). But I can’t help myself – every week Lauren and Co. kill more brain cells than any herbal substance ever has and yet I still watch.

It’s a sickness, really.

the new role models?

And it’s spreading. Enter The City. A spin-off of the spin-off.

(Because as all good Pop Culture students know The Hills, the most successful MTV show to date, stemmed first from Laguna Beach, a reality show inspired by the OC, which was created by the guy who introduced the world to the brilliance of Gossip Girl. How much does the zeitgeist owe to Josh Schwartz? One will never know. But I digress..)

The City essentially re-sets The Hills’ premise, with a young ingénue in a new city, with new friends, embarking on a new career.

The context of the City is that producers of the Hills’ have long held that it’s better to pretend as if these girls aren’t paparazzi magnets and D-listers looking to upgrade, to show their lives as if they’re Just Like Ours (never mind that Theirs involves private planes to Mexico and Vegas on intern stipends).

As a result, as time has gone on and the cast’s aspirations have spread to various projects (books, clothing lines, straight-to-DVD-movies, disastrous music careers), making the cast seem normal has become harder and harder to do. Not wanting to lose their stronghold on young minds everywhere, MTV tapped the quietest, least transparent member of The Hills, Laurent’s work friend Whitney Port, to move to NYC and keep the brand alive.

You know, figure out life, love and the ephemeral dream job (in PR at a major fashion house, natch) in the big, scary city.

Last week, NYMag wondered if that brand isn’t less about what’s happening on screen but rather, what the City’s cast (and their friends and followers) hope will happen off:

To a certain type of young person—abnormally good-looking, independently wealthy, eager for attention—the success of The Hills has created a peculiar opportunity that didn’t exist even a few years ago: the chance to turn an instinct for self-exploitation into a career. The entire cast of The City has come into the project hyperaware of their potential: to be paid to drink where they normally drink, to be stalked by paparazzi, to be able to slap their names on a pair of sunglasses or designer jeans. “It seems like everyone I know suddenly wants to get on that show, or have their own show, or pretend to have a show in order to get on another show,” says Sean Glass, a 24-year-old Dalton grad and aspiring filmmaker whose social circle intersects with a few characters on The City. He is working on his own show about glamour-flecked twentysomethings in New York, as is his good friend Devorah Rose, the 26-year-old editor of Social Life magazine, who recently sold an idea (currently called Social Heights) to ABC about the lives of her and her close friends, the publicist Kristian Laliberte and diamond heiress Annabel Vartanian. The show’s original name? The City! Olivia Palermo met with ABC about being part of that show before ultimately deciding to do the MTV series. When asked by producers why she wanted to be on TV, she reportedly said, “Because I want to be a brand.”

Before I read that, I used to think that my watching The Hills (and now The City) was only hurting myself (see: afore-mentioned brain cells). But now I see the greater damage, the City isn’t just escapism anymore, it’s aspiration. My watching the show, supporting its chances of renewal and further spin-off-ing, is feeding the market for people who want their own brand. Not just Palermo’s desire for something, but Port’s lurve interest is band boy, Jay Lyon, who wants what else – to get his band big and famous. (I’m not saying its  name on principle.)

Forget a hunger for 15 minutes of fame or simple masochism (Blind Date, anyone?), now cheap reality tv is just a stepping stone enroute to mini-moguldom. Who cares if the end result is a less-than-impressive (again: see horrific music videos), just bring-on the fame, the notoriety, the influence.

Is there really a population of people out there who aren’t watching The City just because, that they’re watching the cast on- and off-screen as a model to follow? Like a little army of reality-bots.*shudder*

While I doubt this ambition extends to the aspiring young professional masses-it’s sort of hard to imagine a City-equivalent of someone in teacher’s college, law school, or working at an admin job to save money (mostly because I’m not sure how reality show fame would benefit any of those careers), but still, although not MTV’s brand of shine, I could totally see nursing school or an LSAT prep course making it on Bravo. TLC, for sure.

Who’s to say how influential The City will actually be (especially given its not great opening numbers) and if it will in fact, cement the young, able and ambitious’ perspective that to be on a reality show that isn’t real can equal a real career and is a legitimate career move. Time (and ratings) will tell..

In the meantime, I’m going back to books.

(At least until the next episode. What can I say? I’m weak.)

Canadian big cheese PM Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty are set to deliver a budget on January 27 that could signal fireworks for federal politics or a continued proroguing of the possibility of anything (sorry..I couldn’t help myself).

With the pundits playing guessing games (aka predictions) about Canada’s biggest political game in 2009, it’s tempting to look at the event as just another tent pole in the on-going saga of which Canadian party can numb Canadians’ expectations even more about their effectiveness in office (oppositions, included), OR considering my recent resolution for Watercooler, we could look forward to the event as the start of a reversal of attitudes in parliament and as a result, a signal of good things to come in the job market.

Sure, the manufacturing and infrastructure sectors and other less-BA required industries are going to be at the forefront of any stimulus package, leaving any good vibrations for recent university grads and first-jobbers looking to get to the next level to come as a subsequent benefit but still, let’s cross our fingers that Canadians get a budget announcement worthy of some Obamanation-worthy optimism.

Let’s not forget: a healthier attitude equals a healthier economy. (how’s that for some laymen socio-economic theory?)

And if we start thinking happy thoughts as a society today, right this second, we have a fighting chance to see some non-shenanigans, government-at-its-best-action come to fruition.

… The realist in me just can’t go unheard. Clearly, my resolution needs a little time to get up to full-speed (at least where federal politics are concerned).

“…on the whole, though I never arrived at the perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell far short of it, yet as I was, by the endeavor, a better and a happier man than I otherwise should have been had I not attempted it.”

- Benjamin Franklin on why when it comes to a resolution, sometimes an ‘A’ really is for the effort.

(thanks to Gretchen over at The Happiness Project)

Happy New Year!

Two days into 2009 and I hope you and yours have started off the new year, healthy, happy… and optimistic!

I think it’s safe to say 2008 was a year nobody was sad to see come to a close and reviewing my various news feeds and email blasts this morning, consensus as the clock struck 12 was goo-o-o-o-d riddance!

To which I say, amen!

three cheers to a new year

Over the last couple of days, I’ve been teetering over whether or not to commit Watercooler to a New Year’s Resolution. On the one hand, as a living, breathing thing (in my mind, if nothing else), this darling deserves a little nod to improving itself. On the other, Watercooler’s odds of being part of the 80 odd per cent who ditch their resolutions before Valentine’s day are pretty high. And nobody likes a quitter.

Seeing as how the resolution I have in mind is tres importante, I guess the answer is to simply not let the resolution fade away.

Looking back on 2008, Watercooler had a good start. The number of people who visit every day is growing, the non-SPAM comments are becoming more and more regular, and a few key friendships managed to be born. All in all, I’d say Watercooler got off to a strong start.

Where it struggled (and here’s where the resolution comes in) was staying focused on the bright side.

Granted that Watercooler’s being born coincided with the worst economic meltdown since our grandparents were our age, I could argue it wasn’t like I was left much choice about what and how to write but still; if 2008 was the year of worrying and wondering, 2009 is going to be the year of thinking ahead, being proactive, and planning for a bright future. Our bright future(s).

Watercooler filters the latest news, current events and informed opinion about the Canadian and American job markets through the eyes and for the eyes of Gen Y-ers and their friends, and it’s time that opinion re-focus back on the opportunities yet to be discovered, rather than those crushed by the falling Dow, NASDAQ and TSX.

… not that that means I plan to lay off the sarcasm or skepticism, mind you. Thinking critically never hurt anybody.

All you need to know is this: as 2009 kick-offs our collective recovery from 2008, Watercooler will be there to remind you that the best has yet to come.

So sincerely, genuinely, truly: may your year be filled with all good things and few of the bad.

And don’t forget – Watercooler is your daily dose of all the news you want, and none you don’t. Come back, comment, and come back and comment often.

(As you can see, I made no resolutions about shameless self-promotion.)

one last time – Happy, Happy New Year!

ed note: alas, i can’t help myself with re: lame new year’s joke.

Since September, this gorgeous newly born blog has given me many an opportunity to procrastinate from my other responsibilities, from school work to scrubbing my bathtub to returning my mother’s phone calls. Today it has saved me once again – this time from packing up to head home for the holidays.

As I stare out into the abyss of clothes strewn across my bed (a Greenberg family tradition that forces the packer to zip up the suitcase before bed) the time has come to tell you that I will be taking my first vacation from Watercooler.

With news engines and career bloggers alike slowing to a snail’s pace for the next two weeks, I figured it was the best time to take a breather myself; this way I can focus my energy on really enjoying all the over-eating and over-spending I can.

That, and the fact I’ll be traveling most of the time (ah, life as a child of divorce).

Although I think most of you will be on your computers less, thinking about jobs and other such practical things less, for those of you who love your daily dos(e) of Watercooler have no fear:

I’ll be back January 2, 2009, rested up and raring to blog*.

In the meantime, may your holidays be happy, healthy, filled with the people you love and the presents you’ve been dropping hints about since Thanksgiving.

*If something stupendous happens (e.g. Obama creates jobs for all! Harper’s hair moves! York students are awarded free tuition for life!), I’ll be on here faster than you can say, wifi.

Promise.

Ciao for now.

Sorry about that. Something about my cable blocking the other tenants in the building. Who knows…

Anyway, back to the debate.

My last line being that I think Funk and Fawkes are equal parts right and wrong.

There will always be major media companies to work for but do I think that when the dust settles they will look exactly like they did before, only with less paper and more computers? No.

Having said that and (despite all my enthusiasm for do-it-yourself endeavours), do I think we’re on the cusp of some entrepreneurial/freelancer revolution? Nope.

I think the major point missing from both sides is that you cannot generalize an entire population of professionals. The whole debate reminded me of an observation one of my former editors used to make about how freelancers and in-house staff are two totally different beasts.

In my experience, freelancers and in-house people are on opposite sides of the fence, and I’d argue that while the economy may make people re-think their comfort zone, some people are more adept at one career-style then the other.

So while yes, I think the economy is in such a shit storm that everyone needs to re-evaluate what they want and how to get it, let’s not lose sight of the fact that we all work best in different ways and we’re going to thrive in different circumstances.

Some people may prefer Fawkes’ feeling that you can be CEO and intern all in one, right out of the gate, while others may yearn for the fostering talent-focus Funk puts out there (that’s a whole lotta effss).

There’s no right or wrong (sorry Fawkes), there’s just figuring out what space you’re going to fair better in.

And as a last thought, I’ll add, regardless of which direction you’re naturally inclined to head in, buyers beware: lots of hard work ahead.

Given everything going on with the (global) economy and given its deepening impact on the media industry, is it better to go out on your own post-graduation or look for safety beneath a big corporation’s shaky, if not still open, umbrella?

That’s the question being debated between PSFK’s Piers Fawkes and YPulse’s Liz Funk.

It all started with Funk posting about how college students/recent grads looking for that illustrious dream job as a magazine writer/editor, complete with just-so cubicle and a caricature of an editor, should go about managing the job market as it exists today.

She dished out some good ‘ol standbys in the tips department from networking with every person you can get your hands on to diversifying skill sets aka learning another language.

And being the glass-is-half-full person she seems to be, Funk points out that while the publishing world is in beaucoup bad shit, at least it’s not being bailed out to survive (*couch cough* Wall Street, cough Detroit, *cough cough*).

So while the media industry wraps its collective mind around how to make money online and survive the times (no pun intended), Funk says just get in somewhere good (anywhere), reap the benefits of a boss who will bestow wisdom on you, a regular paycheck to pay down debt, and oh yes, the holy grail of American employment, health benefits.

Fawkes popped up in the comments, then in his own post on PSFK, basically saying Funk’s advice is cracked; young people don’t need corporate jobs, they need to start up their own business, offer unique services, and create something new new new.

Fawkes says Funk’s advice is ignoring the fundamental shifts in the professional stratosphere:

Whether we like it or not – a huge number of us are and will become freelancers. Many of the people losing their jobs now will not get new ones – they will have to make their own jobs…

[Funk] should be advising students to just go out and set up their own companies, collaborate with each other and make products and services that the world really wants rather than a monopoly knows how to control the distribution…

if a student does leave college and is lucky enough to get a job, all they’ll end up doing for the first 5 to 8 years of their working life is learn all the bad habits from their boss which in turn will make the rest of their career a misery.

The word misery makes me think Mr. Piers had quite the doozy of a first boss to poison his attitude about having one but needless to say, after that, YPulse spit out another post responding to Fawkes, mostly refuting his above points and also highlighting some of the many comments made by the young subjects at the heart of the debate.

Not one to back down, Fawkes came out a blazin this morning with his version of the straight talk express. It wreaks of ‘tough love’ and whatever your stance on the work for yourself or for others debate, I can’t help but feel like mom and dad are playing good cop/bad cop.

It’s worth noting I believe Funk and Fawkes are equal parts right and wrong.

Feck…

I’m being interrupted by the cable guy (though he doesn’t look like Matthew Broderick). My thoughts on the debate to come..