Yes, no compulsion for employers to care for employees. There will always be someone who will work for less. No matter how much they are educated, they will work for a pittance and make life tough for the rest. All this due to over population and I still see all religion/caste/etc young couples aim for 3 kids. I used to blame poor people of a certain state in the North for over population but I see even people from Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi etc all aiming for 3 kids no matter what, no matter whether they are rich or poor. This country is doomed. There's too many idiots now compared to intelligent people. We are laughing at USA for people being idiots but even we are no better. Even our country has lot more idiots than sensible people.
Work toxicity on the rise
- Thread starter nRiTeCh
- Start date
Population is an asset, if managed well be leaders, unfortunately for India we know how it goes.
Population is an asset when there are constructive avenues to channel it to. This requires a lot of foresight and investment. When you can't do so, it becomes a rat race and then the powers that be, divert that ire by turning people against each other and not against them; using region, religion, caste.
Till date India as a country didn't get an opportunity to efficiently utilize it's population as an asset.
China could, to a good extend.
When discussion about India, only negatives are too much, positives are not enough to be seen.
@Ramadhir, the lobbies will get crushed after India's demographic changes - when there's no further 'cheap labor' available easily. next-to-next generation may reap the benefits.
Congrats @buzz88 . I'm in the same situation - just left my job and will find another in a few months. Going up the ladder was bad for personal health and family time.
And look what Japan paid for it. Korea as well. China is about to. Economic prosperity of a country has a negative correlation with the average age of its population. People spend more effort/focus/time/energy to build self/nation and birth rates fall. Sadly, the development, high GDP, etc. comes at a social and cultural cost.
salman8506
Herald
I am in same boat now, about 18 years of experience of which 11 years in current org, work culture has now gone to shit, I am in mid senior position with delegation however it's very bad and toxic culture now, it's like dog eat dog. My bp comes down when I take leave and goes back up when I start work lol. Pay disparity is a joke. I have some financial backing I built over the years and some passive income which should support me for 2 years about and more with basic expenses. Let's see i might just take the plunge soon.
Uh oh :-( Sorry to hear about your bad work experience, @salman8506 . I have 17 years total exp. I had multiple lifestyle changes (all bad ones!) and high BP in the last 2-3 years. So, left a mid-senior position at Microsoft. Yes, it is such a dog-eat-dog world -- no sanity at all. I wish everyone can build some passive income - the amount doesn't matter. Financial freedom gives us far more guts than anything else.
blr_p
Oracle
In the US it's estimated by 2030 that 45% of women aged 25-44 will be single & childless. In 2018 it was 41% of women.
As women earn more they expect guys that make as much if not more and realise they are all competing for the same top 10% that treat them like sh*t.
Great for business as more customers but not good for society.
Huh? No, the opposite is true.
Interesting phenomenon. I wonder what's driving it because among middle classes its reducing.
So the intelligent can command a premium. Yes?
Forget about freshers. There is over supply for them everywhere.
Last edited:
More like a hundred year.
Today, you see city infra is failing and excess of cheap labor. I don't think it has a lot to do with population, as many are suggesting. It's not like the population has suddenly tripled in the past 10 years.
What has happened then? People are moving to cities for better opportunities. Plain and simple. How many of you are natives of the cities you are residing in? Remember, more than half of the population still resides in the countryside and works on farms.
Even if India's population starts declining tomorrow, the exodus coming from villages to cities not going to stop. People would still want to better their lives.
Whose fault is it, then? Should we force people to stay in their villages? The fault lies with the govts as they have failed miserably to create alternate cities. Look at the US or China, these countries have an insane number of cities. Whereas India is a country full of villages and with a handful of number of cities.
I live in Maharashtra. More than a third of national tax revenue comes from Maharashtra. More than 60% of the rich population of India lives in this one state. It's the most urban and industrial state in India (by any statistics). And, still, for me, there are only 2 valid cities-Mumbai & Pune-in this whole state. Granted, we have Nashik, Aurangabad, Nagpur etc, and those cities themselves are better than the capital cities of more than half of the Indian states. Still, you can't convince me to move there.
Why couldn't govts create more cities? India has a democracy, comprising people who are mostly uneducated. Such democracies aren't allowed to plan for the next 20–50 years by their voter base. In an election where a party promising benefits in 20 years vs. another party promising another set of benefits next month, we all know who's going to win.
Coming back to our point, India will continue having a limited number of cities going forward. Limited cities mean limited job opportunities. But the exodus of people coming to cities not going to stop. Companies will have access to cheap labor for indefinitely. Work toxicity will follow. Cheap labor and work toxicity are two sides of the same coin.