BEGGARS CAN’T BE CHOOSERS — CAN THEY?
**GUEST POST BY ANNE WILSON, ONE-TO-ONE CAREERS ADVISER FOR GRADUATES AT GRADUATEJOBMENTOR.CO.UK**
I’m inspired when I meet graduates with strong principles. Many of the graduates I work with tell me that it’s important to them to do something they believe in — something that will “make a difference”. The Guardian even reported recently that this factor was rated as more important than salary. But I also come across graduates whose high principles seem to me hopelessly idealistic – and that concerns me.
There is a big difference between these two groups. The first includes Hamish, who wants to shed light on poverty through a policy or research job – or Nilini, who I helped get a job with a charity that supports deprived youngsters in accessing higher education. Great stuff. Matt, however, falls into the second group, as he piously declared that he would have nothing to do with business or “making profit for men in suits”. Ditto Carrie, who insisted she “wants to make the world a better place” but has nothing on her CV so far to prove it.
It’s got me wondering how much it’s realistic to hope that a job reflects your personal values as well as earning you a living. Can you compensate for being a banker by pursuing good works at the weekend? Is it okay to be part of a culture of bullying if it’s a charity? Can you do something worthwhile in an organisation that is committed to making a profit? When jobs are thin on the ground, can jobless graduates afford to have principles?
I’ve recently written communications materials for a big bank. I’ve worked for the Army — and I’ve even written speeches for a weapons manufacturer. I don’t feel particularly guilty. Is it because I feel my weekly voluntary shift as a children’s counsellor counts as offset? Or is it because I’ve come to recognise over the years that if I make my living writing communications there will inevitably things I have to do of which I don’t wholly approve?
Working for the military — and meeting some great men and women who were completely committed to their job — forced me to confront some uncomfortable realities which I’d managed to ignore up to then, like the fact that I pay for the Army through my taxes and expect them to be there in a crisis.
Nowadays, there are very few organisations which can claim to be above reproach in everything they do. If you feel strongly about particular issues and you also need to make a living, my advice is to ask yourself some searching questions about where exactly you draw the line.
And, rather than having knee jerk reactions to particular organisations, look below the surface and get the facts before you make your judgement. What marks out the principled graduates I work with from those who merely claim they are principled is that they are incredibly well-informed. They have done their research. They understand that life is rarely black and white, but they know where they stand on the various shades of grey.
Hamish (who I referred to earlier) can give you chapter and verse on poverty in the UK. He is no bleeding heart liberal — he knows he can’t change the world overnight, but he’s giving time and energy to changing it in the long term. Nilini works ridiculously hard and doesn’t always like the people she works with — but knowing she’s doing something that she considers worthwhile helps her through.
In contrast, Matt is a talented artist lucky enough to be backed by wealthy parents and my guess is that when he’s trying to market his work, he’ll be only too happy to know a few men in suits. I stopped working with Carrie after just a couple of sessions because she wanted to “make a difference” but she also wanted a secure, well-paid, high status job with a clear career path. She needed to get real. In my experience, high ideals can only be achieved with knowledge, hard work and the ability to make tough choices in a challenging world.
*WILL YOU ONLY WORK FOR ‘GOOD’ EMPLOYERS?
Would you take any job you could get — or are there some companies you would never work for? Would you work for an oil company, defence company, gambling brand or for a cigarette manufacturer? Have you ever turned down a job because of your principles?
i am looking for a graduate job, but employers pay so rubbish that it doesnt matter which company you work for is that there will always be some to replace you in no time (my opinion)
Compared to the people mentioned in this article, I suppose I don’t really have principles… From an ethical standpoint, I would pretty much consider working for anyone, barring terrorist organisations and the like. I’m actually not terribly drawn to the charity sector, and have been applying for a lot of City jobs, which sometimes inspires angry rants from my course mates about finance being “evil”. I think it’s fine to have principles, but at the same time, clinging on to beliefs about profit being bad and “men in suits” being horrible sounds like wilful ignorance in the face of reality, which is probably pretty unattractive to employers. As an aside, I wonder if the artist mentioned in the article also refuses to go to the shop so as to not be involved in profit-generation?
In a way, ‘banking’ as an industry has performed quite an incredible PR feat. It’s an industry which provides a universally useful social function in supplying credit and ‘multiplying money’, while simultaneously being utterly reviled by much of the population.
I think you have it right in some ways. When you grew up poor and you grew up without financial backing then it is very difficult not to accept the cheque of someone who you might not necessarily consider scrupulous.
Similarly, I despair of people who loathe what they regard as “Men in suits”, most of whom having received a very good start in life to these same people but more than that, because it’s a bullshit moral to have. Most people work for smaller firms whose owners are often just people with their own strengths, senses of morality and weaknesses which you will get to know if you know them and their actions. Like everyone there are those businesspeople who actively contribute in a positive way and those who are cowardly or contribute in a way that is only self-enriching.
However, I’d also like to add this, it’s a video made by Henry Rollins who was a member of successful USA punk band Black Flag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbnFJVgBcw0
It’s a pretty inspirational video and also touches on something that I hold true, that in our most destitute moments, this is time to be better citizens more than any other.
I’m fortunate in that I work a job that applies something I feel very strongly about and it means that I do feel like I’m making a difference (even if the beneficiaries of my help would likely never thank me; it’s a strange job).
I would never work for the charitable sector because I find that it is rife with hypocrisy. Leading poverty charities offering long term unpaid internships and “volunteer positions”? What a joke. They’re contributing to social inequality by not providing legitimate paid opportunities, instead relying on their backbone work-force of unpaid “volunteers” priveledged enough to work for free. Isn’t it funny that I have moral problems with what is meant to be a sector of the highest moral order?
I do have strong principles on certain things, but they’re mostly issues which wouldn’t affect my employment – I doubt, for example, my strong views against the death penalty would affect my employment. But, who knows?
I have strong principles, and I like to feel I do good by what I do. But sometimes, it’s about balance – you can’t always be good when you’ve got bills to pay, and that’s the sad truth for me. If you can go home at the end of the day believing you’ve done more good than harm in what little way your actions affect the world, then I think you’ve got the right balance.
Get real huh? It sounds like a few people here need to get real, because if you don’t now, nature will force you to within the next twenty years, and in fact is already starting to, as those who have already been hit by floods know to their cost. The stark reality is that methane is already starting to bubble up through the East Siberian Shelf and melting permafrost and the Arctic is melting at a phenomenal rate. You should know this by now and if you don’t where have you been? If therefore you are not doing something to counter climate change, you are basically complicit in its exaggeration. As James Baldwin once said “People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction”. This is a nice smug post from someone who obviously wants to feel good about not giving a monkeys… but the time is approaching when those who have sat on their backsides instead of trying to live their lives as ethically as possible will be justifiably vilified for their ignorance, laziness and selfishness, either by their fellow human beings or by nature itself. Since 1990, I have chosen not to work for oil companies, not to work for defence companies, not to work of crap fast-food companies and so on, while also trying to do the best I can in the companies I have found myself working for, which have included a local newspaper and the Crown Prosecution Service among others. Invariably though, if you try and press the green button when working for a company, some jerk will vilify you for it and kick you out, which is what happened to me when I was a temp at Ofsted some years ago. So, what do you do? The real answer is to spit in the face of adversity and do it yourself. You might not earn mega bucks but at least you can keep a clean conscience. I did four years as a self-employed gardener in Glastonbury. Didn’t work out in the end but I learnt from it. Having graduated into the recession in 2008 and not finding the jobs I wanted, I fell back on my other skill – writing, and I am now a self-employed freelance journalist with the bulk of my clients in the renewable energy industry, and this time it’s going well. People in well-paying jobs may think they are better than others who are not so wealthy, but I judge them according to what they’ve done for the planet and for future generations, and usually I find them wanting. The lesson is this, if you are too lazy or ignorant to do the right thing, you help to bring about the downfall of the society and thus share the guilt. If however you want to do the right thing, then do so, and if you can’t find an ethical job, then simply create one. Right now the growth industry, alongside renewables, is freelancing. It isn’t easy, but when was it ever? I’ve got plenty of time for people who try, none at all for people who can’t be bothered and then smugly try to justify it….
Having looked at your website Anne, here’s a suggestion, why don’t you offer an environmental version of your service aimed at getting graduates into ethical career positions? British Gas has recently announced it will be taking on 1,000 new apprentices to train in preparation for the 2014 roll out of smart grids. As the renewable energy sector expands, as it indeed it will if the government is to meet its 2020 or 2030 carbon targets, there will be more opportunities like this. So you could help graduates and help the sector, instead of banging on about how graduates shouldn’t necessarily have high ideals… Just a thought…
Robin, your comment has annoyed me beyond comprehension. Who the hell do you think you are? Get off your high horse you absolute tosser. You’re basically like one of those Christians who use the excuse of “salvation” as an excuse to feed me moral bullshit (it’s all based on guilt).
You may feel that “This is a nice smug post from someone who obviously wants to feel good about not giving a monkeys”. However, I’d rather that be the case than a nice smug post from someone who obviously cares *so* much, that they feel it their moral duty to let us know that if you don’t feel the same was as they do, they will judge you for your apparent lack of morals, ethics, and values
Ethics about anything (whether about the environment, unpaid internships, death penalty, whatever) is a subjective matter; who made you judge, jury and executioner of subjective morals?
“The stark reality is that methane is already starting to bubble up through the East Siberian Shelf and melting permafrost and the Arctic is melting at a phenomenal rate. You should know this by now and if you don’t where have you been?”
” If therefore you are not doing something to counter climate change, you are basically complicit in its exaggeration.”
“…but the time is approaching when those who have sat on their backsides instead of trying to live their lives as ethically as possible will be justifiably vilified for their ignorance, laziness and selfishness, either by their fellow human beings or by nature itself.”
You are literally the most smug person I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading the keyboard manifestations of. Your “freelance” work is nothing to do with your ethical position; it’s because, with such extreme opinions, who’d employ you? If I was an employer, I wouldn’t even interview you. Seriously, there’s literally one word to describe people like you, it starts with a C a rhymes with Runt.
@Robin, good for you. It’s all well and good, sitting on your high horse and passing judgement on everyone. In the real world, though, some graduates are desperate for any job they can get so long as it pays a wage, and it’s really quite unfair for you to judge them for it. And even if they’re not literally clutching on to the only job they can find, who are you to say that the industry they have chosen is wrong just because it doesn’t fit you impossible ideal of doing good unto everyone and every cause in the world? I, for one, am sick of the finance industry being vilified by everyone and their dog. There are so many good, hard-working people in that industry who aren’t after some exorbitant bonus, and that industry actually keeps this country running. And yet all we hear is high-minded people like you pontificate on how we should all work for charity and if we don’t, we’re evil and terrible. Why don’t you get real and realise that not everyone can work towards stopping climate change and global poverty, or what have you?
Well, Rio, I can easily give just as aggressive a response back actually, personally I don’t give a flying **** about your irritation. The fact is you need a healthy planet in order to survive and if you can’t understand that,that’s your problem. As for your remark about employment, I think the fact that I have several prominent renewable energy magazines employing me and am networking actively with a great many others, that speaks volumes. Ethics are a matter of choice, this post by Anne basically insulted those who choose to make that choice and I am pretty damn sick of people telling me I should drop my environmental considerations. As for those who really want to make a difference but are not sure now, my message is basically that you can if you really want to, although like everything else it’s fairly hard to do. Freelancing is the growth industry in the country at the moment, so that’s one of the major ways to go, and if you want to go green freelancing is also a very good idea. Kayla, I didn’t even mention the finance industry, but since you mentioned it I would point out that some pretty hefty reports have come out in support of renewables in the last two years by the likes of Ernst & Young and various others, so even if you work in finance, there are still opportunities to move in the direction of supporting the renewable economy. “Some graduates are desperate for any job they can get so long as it pays a wage” you say, well in the meantime they could freelance and earn themselves some money while they’re waiting for that ideal job to come along, all the while gaining experience and marketing themselves. So, no excuse in my opinion. Things are possible if you put yourselves out there and in this recession, which absolutely was caused by the banks by the way Kayla and not Labour who got lumbered with it, you’ve just got to be more imaginative rather than sitting on your butt and whingeing about it. So, rant at me if you wish, you know, I don’t actually care to be honest… if that’s smug, so what? I can live with that…
*that should be ‘not sure how’ rather than ‘not sure now’ by the way…
Actually, I must apologise to Anne to some extent, as she does say this: “In my experience, high ideals can only be achieved with knowledge, hard work and the ability to make tough choices in a challenging world”.
That’s absolutely true, and that’s the climate, excuse the pun, we now find ourselves in. You can either do something about it, or whinge. The choice is yours really…
“I am pretty damn sick of people telling me I should drop my environmental considerations”
Nobody is asking you to drop your environmental considerations. But I absolutely abhor people who are condescending, smug, and judgemental about their views. As I said, you are not the moral authority on all things environment. You have ONE world view that I am sure you’re well read on and that is yours and nobody can take that away from you. Frankly though, I don’t give one. It’s not MY cause. You could feed all the moral and factual bull you want, but honestly? I still won’t care. I might think “Oh yeah… Bad that, but I’m not really interested”.
It doesn’t make me immoral to pick and choose where I can and want to make a difference; honestly, environmental issues are NOT one of those where I can or want to make a difference.
Replace this phrase with ANY world view, and you’ve got yourself a typical one-sided world-view:
“The fact is you need a healthy planet in order to survive and if you can’t understand that, that’s your problem”
“The fact is you need to embrace god in order to save your immoral soul and if you can’t understand that,that’s your problem”
“The fact is you need to become a vegetarian in order to become healthy and if you can’t understand that,that’s your problem”
Sure, I’d agree that we need a healthy world to survive, but you’re looking at that from an ENTIRELY environmental perspective. Is economic disparity not a symptom of an unhealthy world? Is social immobility not a symptom of an unhealthy world? Is inequality of opportunity not a symptom of an unhealthy world?
Fact is, a “healthy world” is far beyond the bounds of wind farms and tidal power. In fact, it covers a broad spectrum of social, economic, and environmental issues, some of which I am and can make a difference in. And I’ll do that in my own way, thanks, and you can sure as hell bet I won’t be making others feel like shit for not doing what I do.
Also freelancing isn’t the holy-grail of being an unemployed graduate in the recession. In fact, I’d probably say it’s growth is a symptom of the recession. Have you ever considered it’s growing for lack of actual sustainable opportunities? Even if it is the ideal now, at some point the freelancing market has to saturate. What then?
Bottom line: If you have views that you feel strongly about, great. Share them, by all means. But share them in a constructive way, and lose the high-horse. I understand that your input is topical to the post but, let’s face it, your delivery is just awful. From one writer to another, your tone of voice for written communications is an example *not* to follow, unless someone was looking for the elusive “so smug that you like the smell of your own farts” tone of voice.
“environmental issues are NOT one of those where I can or want to make a difference”
Hmm, read any James Baldwin recently?
“People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction” – James Baldwin, ‘Stranger In The Village’ (1955)
Regarding your point about economic disparity, sure, environmental issues are increasingly also economic ones. Fossil fuel energy prices are rising astronomically and won’t fall again because of the increasing difficulty of getting the stuff out of the ground (peak oil). For those in developing countries, who are INFINITELY poorer than you are I might add, renewable energy is increasingly the way to go. So you should be interested in environmental issues because sooner or later it will adversely affect your wealth anyway if you choose not to. Your points about social immobility and inequality of opportunity are also valid, but the truth of the matter is that increasingly, wealth and growth is and will be generated from a renewable energy economy whereas the fossil fuel driven economy is declining and will continue to do so irreversible. Social mobility therefore will be overcome by promoting growth where is is most likely to occur – in renewable energy. Even the big energy companies know this – British Gas recently announced it was taking on 1,000 apprentices ready for the Smart Grid rollout in 2014, so even they know that fossil fuel’s days are numbered. The future will increasingly be sustainable, so you can either choose to join the train or be left behind – your choice.
Regarding your point about wind and tidal power, sadly not. This is why the Scots are investing heavily in wind, wave and tidal among other renewable energy technologies, for one thing the rise in conventional energy prices is causing horrendous fuel poverty in Scotland (and elsewhere) right now. Being cold is not healthy, or didn’t you know that? Furthermore, we have to address climate change urgently. The Scottish island communities and those areas affected by floods are already feeling the first brutal effects – hmmm, healthy, can you be healthy when everything around you is damp? Or if you are not eating properly because the food prices have shot up due to a ruined harvest caused by flooding (which happened this summer)?
Sure, you have a point with freelancing, in part its growth is due to the recession, all the more reason to get on board early so you can establish a good reputation, market yourself properly and therefore stay ahead of the competition, in the meantime you can acquire valuable skills which are transferable back into permanent salaried employment when/if the economy recovers.
As for your final point, I have a variety of ‘voices’ I use in written communications. This is just one of them.
Right, you are actually the most impossible person to talk to, ever. You literally cannot talk about wider issues without referring back to renewable energy. Every world problem can’t be solved by renewable energy.
If you were trying to convince me that your cause is worthwhile, you have in fact failed miserably. You are literally the most insufferable person, ever.
Robin, just a quick question though: How do you define a fundamentalist? In case you’ve forgot your own words, you define a fundamentalist as “anyone who is determined to convert others to their own religious beliefs or believe that their own brand of religion is superior to others”.
Personally though, I interpret fundamentalism in a wider context… In fact, I believe it’s anyone who is determined to convert others to their own world view or believe that their own brand of world view is superior to others.
For someone who has a “beef” with fundamentalists, you’re quite the fundamentalist. I’m surprised a man of such “high moral standing” is such a hypocrite.
I found Robin’s description of a fundamentalist on one of Robin’s blog:
http://nofundamentalists.blogspot.co.uk/
I’m not a hypocrite, I am a realist. Just visit any climate science site and you’ll see for yourself. There was a brilliant documentary on BBC4 last night about ‘Climate Wierding’, essentially how climate change is making the weather so extreme so often. Environmental issues are not a religion, they are an essential consideration IF we want to continue a semblance of the relatively comfortable life we lead now. But if you want to call me a fundamentalist, fine, if that term applies, it applies only in terms of my environmentalism, because even if you don’t listen to me, you will have to listen to nature eventually, because its nature that gives you what you have, including your physical existence here on earth. And in that sense, yes, resistance to environmentalism is in fact futile, because all species ultimately, including humans, have to adapt to their environment. Or die.
Regarding the blog, had actually forgotten about that one actually. It’s not one I’ve paid much attention to recently, as I’ve been to busy with work and the Energy and Environment blog that I also maintain. But as I said, environmentalism isn’t a religion, so that blog and your labelling me as a fundamentalist and a hypocrite, doesn’t actually apply, irrespective of whether you think it does or not.
Listen very carefully, Robin: I am not suggesting that what you say isn’t true. But what I don’t need is you to take every opportunity to relate an unrelated issue with the environment.
I also don’t have a problem with your environmental concerns, they are legitimate concerns; But I do take problem with your preachy and “morally superior” delivery. It is not your views that make me liken you to a fundamentalist; But rather, how strong they are and how you deliver them. That is what I think makes you a hypocrite – that you would oppose the “strong” views of others without identifying that your own are on equal footing.
If you want people on your side, don’t alienate yourself from those who might side with you.
Maybe, but we’ve had the system, the government and those who hated our (environmentalists) very existence, preaching at us, denouncing us, ridiculing us not to mention worse, at every opportunity for years. Now it’s our turn. The original question was can ‘graduates afford to have principles’, the answer is yes, simply because there is no other choice. Which is what we tried to tell everyone back in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, to no avail. There’s been room for reasoned debate for years, but that debate didn’t take place because we weren’t allowed a voice, we were effectively shut out of political dialogue, and in that sense, the only way we could therefore participate and make our views known, was simply by barging our way in forcefully. If that makes me a ‘green fundamentalist’, so be it. I actually love these times in one sense, because our predictions and our warning are being proved right.
And in fact, this comes back to the original point really, because what Anne’s post arguably represents, in essence, is yet another attempt to shut environmentalist’s out of the debate.
Robin, the 70s, 80s, and 90s were times before I was able to undertake reasoned debate so… I’m just going to shrug my shoulders and say that the attitudes and values of people in those eras who had environmental concerns are not my problem (have you considered the audience of this blog before you made your denouncements of us? Most people posting on here were born in the late 80s or early 90s, well before the times when we could be culpable of ignorance).
My attitudes and values can tolerate any reasoned world view; but I don’t tolerate intolerance or the imposition of views by force. That is something that I will always be vocal in my opposition to.
I also don’t care about the history of environmentalism; What I care about is where it’s going as a movement. I find your confession that you’ll happily exert your views by force as a threat akin to religious or political extremism. You are no better than them, regardless of how true the predictions of your predecessors are.
If the Christian god were proved real tomorrow, would it excuse the inquisition? Would it excuse years of intolerance and hatred to women, homosexuals, and non-believers? Would it excuse the years of wars in the name of God, of the application of force to exert a world-view?
Of course it wouldn’t; and your use of force is not excused regardless of how true your predictions are.
You should be ashamed of that confession.
No I am not, why should I be? Given that the force of a hurricane exacerbated by a warming ocean is infinitely more terrible than any force I could ever hope to exert…. Churchill said, more or less, “First, there are warnings, then there are consequences”. To compare my forceful arguments to the inquisition is to be honest quite laughable and rather pathetic. Sure you can do better than that? As for political extremism? Rubbish, since when have I advocated the kind of things that for example Al Quaeda have advocated? Which force do you prefer? My arguments or your house flooded out? I know which I would prefer…
Robin, what I would prefer is for you to tone down the force of your delivery. You’re accusatory, you consider your view superior, and you can’t appreciate the wider issues beyond the environment.
It’s great that you’ve found a passion. It’s great that you’re working hard to promote that. But I am telling you now: The application by force of any world view, however correct, is immoral.
Is it not your objective to promote change in attitudes and behaviour? You won’t do it by force. You are making no friends here with that tactic. Do you really not want us to stop and think “Wow… through Robin’s convincing, well written, accessible and not-at-all-preachy delivery, I am going to consider my impact on the environment”?
Can you answer me this without reference to some environmental fact: Do you really want us to ignore your message because of your terrible delivery, didactic tone, and, quite frankly, terrible attitude towards us?
The moment you confess that you have to exert your views by force, you lose all legitimacy regardless of how correct you are.
“The application by force of any world view, however correct, is immoral”. Sure, but you miss the point, which is, in times of great danger, such as now, it is necessary. That is what, essentially, Churchill meant by his statement, given above. Force was needed to defeat the Third Reich, you could convincingly argue that it was immoral, but it was still necessary, otherwise you would have been speaking German by now. What we need to defeat climate change is a similar mobilisation of society, in essence a ‘war footing’ against climate change. Obviously, that isn’t happening and probably won’t happen. So the fall back position is to do it economically where possible. To argue that graduates cannot afford to have ethics is essentially a subtle attempt to close down that option along with the discourse that goes with it. That’s essentially my argument. As for your final comment, do you prefer this (you still haven’t that question): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6fiaTlvPCA
Alright, point taken, it’s not so black and white, but it serves for me as an effective general principle.
World War II was a situation that involved more than simply a “world view”; It involved issues of state sovereignty, security of Europe (and, indeed, the world), and the rearmament of a super-power under an extreme world view. In that instance, utility had to prevail; For the greater good, the use of force was required.
I did answer that question, Robin. I just didn’t answer it with the limited options you gave me (which clearly weren’t the only options).
What I actually said to answer that question was “Robin, what I would prefer is for you to tone down the force of your delivery. You’re accusatory, you consider your view superior, and you can’t appreciate the wider issues beyond the environment.”
To paraphrase: My answer was I’d rather listen to you present your world view without shoving it down my throat. This is clearly a distinct option from “your opinions” (as they are now, didactic to say the least) or “house flooded”.
Any thoughts on a pretty damning statement like this?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/more-hurricane-activity-doesnt-necessarily-mean-climate-change
Actually its not pretty damning, it merely says that a definitive link between hurricanes and climate change has still yet to be proven. That’s certainly true, hurricanes are incredibly complex involving entropy (which I am not a physicist so even I have problems grasping that, unfortunately), however what is known is that there is definitive link between hurricanes and increasing Surface Sea Temperatures (SST’s), so given that the seas are undoubtedly warming, that would seem to lean the argument in the direction of climate change, though of course as I said just now, it’s yet to be definitively proven, in essence, although there is a strong suspicion, the jury is still out. HOWEVER what is definitely known, and which will prove to be almost as destructive in the long term, is that melting Arctic ice is affecting the fluctuation of the northern polar wind currents known as the Jetstream with the result that countries that have hitherto had temperate climates are now experiencing very severe winters while countries having had severe winters, such as Russia, are having very hot periods. This explains the severe winters we’ve had in the UK over recent years as well as the dry conditions in Russia and the US which have prompted wild fires. In addition to that, the methane hydrate in the East Siberian Shelf region is destabilising. That means, given that methane is around 50 times more destructive, in terms of its warming potential, than carbon dioxide, that there will be an increased release of methane into the atmosphere (bear in mind that the permafrost is melting as well and that there is also significant release of methane from bogs and marshes) which will exacerbate climate change even more and push us close to a point where climate change becomes irreversible and unstoppable (known as a ‘tipping point’ or ‘runaway’ climate change). You now see the danger?
By the way you said “It involved issues of state sovereignty, security of Europe (and, indeed, the world0” – all these in fact actually also apply with climate change.
There is a further point to be made here which I’ve just thought of. Representatives from vested interests, such as certain oil companies, are indulging is what Monbiot has called ‘astroturfing’, i.e. manipulating opinion at a grass roots level. The most obvious signs of this, ironically given what we are doing now, is by sending ‘trolls’ in to comments pages to deny, disrupt and sow confusion into debates about climate change. By sowing doubt about the science, they are effectively delaying action on climate change. Now, I am not saying that in this case Anne’s post has been affected by this process, but I am saying that attempts to steer graduates, and others in the labour market, away from including ethical considerations in their job hunting choices would be something that these vested interests would definitely approve and possibly already involved in doing. Steer people away from the ethics, and you basically advance the status quo and ‘business-as-usual’. So by sowing the thought that perhaps graduates can’t afford to be ethical, or even can’t afford to be choosy in any way even, essentially you help those who want to see things carry on as they have been for so long. It’s something to think about.
I agree morality isn’t black and white. Several of my friends work in the charity sector and I’ve been shocked at the immoral practices going on there-in terms of treatment of donors and employees. It’s about maximising money for their cause and people are just collateral damage.
Robin, I’m not sure where you go the impression that I said the Labour Party caused the recession, or that I’m sitting around whinging about it. I just gave an example of an industry (financial services) that is constantly pilloried for everything in the recent years by high and might people who think they have the monopoly on morality and ethics. As a side note, I’m pretty sure most people wouldn’t associate research into renewable energy with the finance industry, so I’m not clear on how that disproved my point.
On the subject of freelancing, it is not a panacea to graduate unemployment, just like starting your own business isn’t a magical fix. The truth is that a freelancing grad will have just as much trouble making progress, what with a lack of experience and references. So some will inevitably fail to make this work, and will be back to square one. Furthermore, the market for freelancers will at some point, just like the market for technological SMEs or whatever the latest hype is. So, again, it’s not a sustainable career option for every unemployed graduate and while it’s great that it worked for you, you should also recognise that this doesn’t make it suitable for everyone.
Sure, what I am saying is that you can afford to have principles providing you are tough enough to stick by them. It’s all a matter of choice. Choosing not to have principles, or not to allow your principles affect your jobhunting search, is a choice, not a necessity, as the original article seems to suggest. I am pretty sick of this attitude in society that resistance to the status quo is futile and that you just have to go along with whatever employers demand. You don’t. There is always a number of options if you really want to find them. I got this kind of attitude years ago, back in 1988 when I was working for the Employment Service. “Don’t believe everything you read” said one of the senior officers in the building when I just happened to briefly climate change one day. I just instantly resented someone who hadn’t even bothered to read up on the subject telling me what to think. If you really want to lead a green lifestyle, including with regard to your vocation, you will find a way of doing it eventually, if you try hard enough.
*the market for freelancers will at some point saturate*, sorry about that.
Maybe you’re right, but for now I would much rather be doing this than cleaning toilets or shelf-stacking. Have a look at the latest story on here. If you want to do that, go ahead…
Robin, I would suggest you read the second to last comment on the “menial” jobs article. They’re not so menial after-all.
CD, re: “The ‘Menial’ term used doesn’t really relate to some of the jobs included in the 60,000 who were in non-graduate employment”, yes you’re quite right about the comment, but ‘menial’, which is what I was referring to, doesn’t necessarily square with ‘non-graduate’. I interpret ‘menial’ as meaning toilet cleaning, shelf-stacking, McJobs and the like, so I think you misread my remarks there to be honest. Out of those jobs listed by the way, I am only really suited to about one of them – the wages clerk, but I’ve been in such roles before, another trap if ever there was one. No thanks.
I understand perfectly well what “menial” means, but you referred a person to the latest story on here as if that backed up your point that you’d rather a freelancer than clean toilets or shelf-stack.
BUT (and this is a BIG but), the data discussed in the latest article did not suggest AT. ALL. that more graduates were cleaning toilets or shelf-stacking. It shown that more graduates are in non-graduate jobs, which includes professions that some *wouldn’t* consider menial (is a marketing assistant menial? Is a paramedic menial? Teaching assistant? I wouldn’t say so)
You refered Kayla to the latest article as if it demonstrated the superiority of your position as a freelancer over other graduates in the job market. But if anything, I’d say it diminishes your position because the data actually demonstrates that graduates, as a statistical majority, aren’t doing so badly. Tanya’s interpretation is that non-graduate equates to menial. This is NOT the case.
Remember, on sites like this, we only see the one in five graduates who are suffering – not the ones who are doing great.
Okay, I didn’t check the comments, so point conceded perhaps on that one, I was basically referring to the main article when I referenced it, not the comments. Superiority of my position over other graduates in the job market? I’ve never actually claimed such a thing. My entire point all along has been that you CAN afford to have principles if you wish to. It’s all relative actually, granted graduates who factor in ethics into their job hunting are going to have to pay a price, but that doesn’t mean to say that all opportunities are closed to them, I merely held up freelancing as an option. What I object to is some people looking down on graduates, and others, who make that choice. There’s some really snotty attitudes going around at the moment, and the principles issue, as originally raised by Anne’s article, is one of them. At the end of the day, I CHOOSE to be a freelancer and I CHOOSE to have principles and stick by them. I don’t see why I or anyone else should have to tolerate snottiness and pomposity just because I happen to make that choice. My original point still applies, though, if you don’t opt for as ethical a lifestyle as possible, including with regard to career, then you are technically complicit in the negative effects resulting from so many people choosing not to live in an ethical manner. Holier than thou? Yes possibly, but so what I don’t happen to care if it is… actually…
Robin, nothing I have said relates to this article in particular.
I was calling you on your comment referring to Kayla to the latest article and that what you said was not entirely correct. That’s it.
I am choosing not to engage with you on any other issue because simply, from what I’ve seen above, I don’t want the hassle.
Probably a good idea….
If you want to end up on Workfare then no.
Sign the government epetition below to stop the return of slavery to Britain. Cheers Mike
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/29356
Well, this argument has been running a while and I’ve said my piece, but its interesting that President Obama has made the development of renewable energy an absolute priority, so if the US, formerly the world’s most climate sceptic nation, can turn its attitudes around, so can the UK. And all sensible politicians now recognise that we have to do something about climate change, all of us. So sooner or later you will have to, whether you like it or not.
(At risk of being verbally attacked by Robin) Personally I don,t think what those companies do are bad, i mean the way they go about business may be wrong but the service they provide is something that humanity needs. So no, it wouldn’t bother me.