The 5 year plan to £50k - Accomplished.

Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,615
Location
Surrey
I'm the same age as Nix without a degree working in close to minimum wage. I'm reluctant to take a chance on moving away from where I've worked for the past 6 years, due to the fact that the last time I took a chance on a role it just so happened the manager that took me on was replaced a month after I started, and the new one just binned me off straight away. How is that not unlucky? Then the financial crisis hit, double unlucky... from there has just been a never ending trend of low paid jobs with terrible conditions (zero-hour contracts, unsociable shift work, abusive and rude customers etc), with a fear of ending down at the Jobcentre to sign on if that bad luck shows up again.

I know that if I took a chance to move jobs I could probably do a lot better, however it's the chance that things could be much worse that makes me debate it to the point I just carry on with what I do.

I am studying with the OU now though, making some attempt to improve what I am on paper.

But surely in your situation you have more to gain than to lose? If you are unhappy with the current situation then does it matter if moving turns out to be 'wrong'? If that happens then just move again and you lost nothing.

Or you can stay where things aren't right... for years... maybe forever.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Dec 2003
Posts
11,133
Location
Wiltshire
But surely in your situation you have more to gain than to lose? If you are unhappy with the current situation then does it matter if moving turns out to be 'wrong'? If that happens then just move again and you lost nothing.

Or you can stay where things aren't right... for years... maybe forever.

It depends on the support network and personal circumstance. I cannot afford financially and psychologically for it to go **** up. I see it as gambling almost, but with stakes I'm not willing to play with.
 

Nix

Nix

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
19,841
Wrong. Landing an interview (HR doesn't give you the job, just dots the I's and crosses the T's) is based upon skill, not chance. If you respond to an available job interview, with a perfect CV, then you'll get an interview. You turn up to the interview, looking the business, sounding the business and expertly selling yourself and your skills, better than any of the other candidates then you'll get the job.

It's based on metrics. If you meet the metrics and apply that would be agency of course. However, there is an element of luck -- remember it's an employer's market -- with getting seen. In an over-applied job (which they will be if they're bottom of the ladder), HR are ruthless in the cut-offs. You could be binned for any reason and that could be chance. You could find someone in HR who's having a good day and (say you weren't the 'perfect' candidate) gives you a chance. Likewise you could find someone who's lazy or just stumped their toe and you'll end up in the bin because they simply cannot be bothered to go through all the applications and thus dump half.

You're right about experience which is agency, provided that you know what you want. If you're speculative, it's a little different. You can't prepare in advance for something that you don't know exists.

If you make it to interview, it's largely agency at that point (do your research and sell yourself) but it's also chance if there's a 'better' more suited candidate there, or if an interviewer takes a dislike to you because you remind them of an ex lover.

It's not all agency and this is what I've been trying to spell out over and over. Two sides. Same coin.

But surely in your situation you have more to gain than to lose? If you are unhappy with the current situation then does it matter if moving turns out to be 'wrong'? If that happens then just move again and you lost nothing.

Or you can stay where things aren't right... for years... maybe forever.

If he's in a bad job, chances are he's living hand to mouth and genuinely struggles to find any other work.

It's not as simple as if he doesn't like it, move on. For people further up the ladder, they have options. When you're not even on the ladder, you simply don't.

That said, in terms of loss and gain I do agree with you. He has more to gain.
 
Don
Joined
17 May 2004
Posts
12,775
Location
Telford, Shropshire
It's based on metrics. If you meet the metrics and apply that would be agency of course. However, there is an element of luck -- remember it's an employer's market -- with getting seen. In an over-applied job (which they will be if they're bottom of the ladder), HR are ruthless in the cut-offs. You could be binned for any reason and that could be chance. You could find someone in HR who's having a good day and (say you weren't the 'perfect' candidate) gives you a chance. Likewise you could find someone who's lazy or just stumped their toe and you'll end up in the bin because they simply cannot be bothered to go through all the applications and thus dump half.

You're right about experience which is agency, provided that you know what you want. If you're speculative, it's a little different. You can't prepare in advance for something that you don't know exists.

If you make it to interview, it's largely agency at that point (do your research and sell yourself) but it's also chance if there's a 'better' more suited candidate there, or if an interviewer takes a dislike to you because you remind them of an ex lover.

It's not all agency and this is what I've been trying to spell out over and over. Two sides. Same coin.

Surely none of that is luck though? I think you misinterpret the term chance. By someone dumping half of the CV's into a bin, (which is entirely unprofessional and not the sort of HR department I'd want to work with!), they might be doing you a favour? If you get your CV looked at and all the boxes are ticked then it's up to you to pass your interview and sell yourself.

I remember for my current job, my name got passed to them, I was then asked for my CV, I had a phone interview, then got invited to a formal interview where I had to give a presentation on a subject I knew very little about. After that, we had a more formal interview and my now manager tried to catch my out by putting me out of my comfort zone and tell a joke. Which I did, and got the job.

I like to think it's because my joke was so awesome, but it's not. I ticked all the boxes leading up to it and on the day performed well. The fact that I put my self out there (either tell something interesting about yourself, or a joke) was the final tick. I know of people who went for the same job (just not at the time time), which have haven't had an answer about something interesting about themselves, or couldn't give a joke. What I'm trying to get at, is once you have your CV in place and you then get the interview, you are then entirely based not upon luck, or chance, but upon skill. Skill at selling yourself and what you can bring to the company.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Dec 2003
Posts
11,133
Location
Wiltshire
I think both sides can only go so far.

Your train could break down and you end up 30 minutes late to the interview you have been practicing for the past week, then on the other hand you could be early but totally unprepared in terms of knowledge and not well drilled for the process ahead.

You could have had two jokes in your head, and for some reason on that spot at that moment, told the one you got off Dave down the pub last weekend that the interviewer took offence too.

I know that a key reason I got my current job was because I was interviewed by someone that liked me, when I actually started the job the shop manager took an instant disliking to me for no reason I ever understood and I was never appreciated until she moved on a year later. If she had been taking interviews that day, she wouldn't have hired me due to an underlying prejudice that no one ever understood.
 
Last edited:

Nix

Nix

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
19,841
Surely none of that is luck though? I think you misinterpret the term chance. By someone dumping half of the CV's into a bin, (which is entirely unprofessional and not the sort of HR department I'd want to work with!), they might be doing you a favour? If you get your CV looked at and all the boxes are ticked then it's up to you to pass your interview and sell yourself.

I remember for my current job, my name got passed to them, I was then asked for my CV, I had a phone interview, then got invited to a formal interview where I had to give a presentation on a subject I knew very little about. After that, we had a more formal interview and my now manager tried to catch my out by putting me out of my comfort zone and tell a joke. Which I did, and got the job.

I like to think it's because my joke was so awesome, but it's not. I ticked all the boxes leading up to it and on the day performed well. The fact that I put my self out there (either tell something interesting about yourself, or a joke) was the final tick. I know of people who went for the same job (just not at the time time), which have haven't had an answer about something interesting about themselves, or couldn't give a joke. What I'm trying to get at, is once you have your CV in place and you then get the interview, you are then entirely based not upon luck, or chance, but upon skill. Skill at selling yourself and what you can bring to the company.

Largely if you can jump through their hoops, but there is still chance involved. As I said, if there was a better candidate (chance that there is or isn't) on paper at the time and you both interviewed well, the company will likely side with the other candidate. That's not 'skill'. That's chance.

You're deluding yourself if you think the ball was completely in your court.

Chance and circumstance is inextricably linked to everything we do, you can't rule it out.

A lot of you seem for some reason to be falsely assuming that I don't rate agency. Because I was arguing with Housey doesn't mean I'm taking the opposite stance as him. I took umbrage against the lack of weight people give to chance and circumstance and then the mental gymnastics people do to make themselves feel superior to others.

If you go to an interview under-prepared, that's not 'bad luck' (unless there were mitigating life circumstances). That's on you. That's removing your 'skill' in the process. But being fully prepared can only take you so far.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Mar 2008
Posts
23,030
Location
West sussex
I think the problem is people giving up! Many try for a while and drop the idea! IMO persistence is the thing when it comes to getting paid for what you love doing!

I know a few guys who basically gave things a go, applied to jobs they liked and after getting nowhere for a few months just stopped and went the other way! I was there too, worked in a hotel, shoe shop, clothing shop etc! I kept a clear mind and knew that all this was just temporary and that sooner or later I will figure it out and find a way out of this hole! Been at my current place for two years and it's going quite well! As far as "me" goes, I've got my foot in the door and have a choice to move if I don't feel happy! Trust my I was very down when I worked in retail with no way up, minimum wage etc but I kept on trying! I knew what I was good at and I just needed to find a place which gave me a chance.. So IMO, sit on it, try it and sooner or later you'll hit the jackpot and get out of the hole! You just need to keep working towards a target. Sitting here and saying how much life sucks and how unfair it is will get you nowhere.

Then again, I'm only 23 and I could well be very wrong! Still got loads to learn.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Aug 2007
Posts
28,615
Location
Auckland
It's an entirely achievable wage by the age of 30 and is clearly based on the thread where that OP wanted $50k but couldn't or wouldn't do anything to actually achieve that.

So guy does good thing, gets paid ok and you want proof or it's shenanigans? I'll take it as proof.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,623
[FnG]magnolia;27217012 said:
I'm not picking sides but Housey's views align most closely with my own.

I think there's a fine line between dismissing luck as unnecessary and blaming lack of luck for lack of success, and sometimes that tipping point comes when something actually does go your way that maybe you didn't expect because you were working your ass off on something else.

Thomas Jefferson said, “I'm a greater believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it” and whilst it's a little trite of me to repeat someone else's soundbite, it's undeniably true.

Anyway, well done OP :)

Indeed, there is undeniably luck involved at all stages but you can do a lot to increase your chances of good luck, increase the payoff when you are lucky, minimize the chances of bad luck and minimize the costs of bad luck.

The most successful people I know personally all came from pretty benign backgrounds, mostly poor working class parents. They all share a set of personalities characteristics, traits and attitudes. I don't necessarily admire any of them, in fact many of them I really dislike, but they all clearly go to their position on their own accord. Be it shear determination, hard work, persistence, desire to succeed and fear of failure, willingness to take chances, confidence verging on arrogance, never letting failures drag them down but motivate them to try harder and suceeed.

You can certainly be unlucky or lucky but you can do a lot to change the odds or at least least exploit them as best as they can.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Posts
5,996
Location
Essex
Another mid 40s person here and Housey is spot on.

I'm 31 and I agree with Housey.

Helps that after spending the best part of 5 years bumming around after uni I finally decided on a career to pursue. Changed jobs, didn't earn enough money to fuel my car to get to work and eat at the same time, avoiding the £1 charity dress down days. Now I earn over £50k. Life is what you make it.

Oh, and don't assume HR won't read your CV. They probably do. My girlfriend complains enough at all the ones she gets over a weekend.
 

Nix

Nix

Soldato
Joined
26 Dec 2005
Posts
19,841
Indeed, there is undeniably luck involved at all stages but you can do a lot to increase your chances of good luck, increase the payoff when you are lucky, minimize the chances of bad luck and minimize the costs of bad luck.

The most successful people I know personally all came from pretty benign backgrounds, mostly poor working class parents. They all share a set of personalities characteristics, traits and attitudes. I don't necessarily admire any of them, in fact many of them I really dislike, but they all clearly go to their position on their own accord. Be it shear determination, hard work, persistence, desire to succeed and fear of failure, willingness to take chances, confidence verging on arrogance, never letting failures drag them down but motivate them to try harder and suceeed.

You can certainly be unlucky or lucky but you can do a lot to change the odds or at least least exploit them as best as they can.

Whilst I agree with everything you've said, my contention all along has been this:

1. People seem to confuse chance and circumstance with agency. They are separate but they work together, as is the understanding that you can "make your own luck". As I've explained though, we can point ourselves in the right direction and try and steer the ship as best we can. It's not all chance at all, but it does play a vital role (as you've explained nicely)

2. The unpleasant undertone that if agency equals success, those that meet failure or otherwise are 'unlucky' evidently didn't apply agency and therefore deserve their lot. Life just isn't that simple.

I'm not arguing with anyone here at all that if you want something you need to go out there and get it and you can seriously help weigh things in your favour. My point is, sometimes it doesn't matter. Despite all the will in the world, things don't work out the way we need or want them to.

Lastly, I think a lot of those people agreeing with Housey outright are on the other-side of the career mess. At the bottom, you really do need some good fortune to land "that lucky break" so you can build that crucial experience. You may say to try interning, or unpaid instead but then, that's down to personal circumstance (if you're lucky or unlucky enough to afford to do that or not). When you've got some experience, or are on the 'inside', it's much easier to manoeuvre your way around similar roles and career progression. It's not so much chance as it is agency then. It's completely different when you're on the outside looking in.

I have a friend who's doing very well in his chosen career, but even by his own admission it was a stroke of good fortune to land the entry job that paved the way. I'm not saying he hasn't worked hard to get where he is, but it wrong to assume that those who haven't found progression haven't been working equally, or as may be the case, harder than those that were blessed.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Jan 2004
Posts
4,969
Location
Harrogate
Well done. I'll happily admit I'm one of those guys who doesn't seize opportunity. I'm in a large company that used to be good at internal promotion, now, not so good, but I'm still not willing to push the directors, even though I get on well with most of them, for a chance a better job. Perhaps I feel I don't deserve to do well at life, the other part of me doesn't actually give a **** what life gives.

As long as I can fuel my car, keep a roof over my head, and drink at the local, I feel content...worrying.

read: I lack any motivation, crap with women, don't want kids, don't desire real happiness and therefore any reason to progress
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
6 Nov 2004
Posts
2,645
Location
BOOMTIMES
I've found that when it comes to making things happen in life - work, relationships, learning new stuff etc, the only thing you can rely on to perform in the way you expect to is you; your own effort.
You generally get out of something what you choose to put in.

However, this all goes to **** when you get other people involved. People are chaos and for the most part will step on you when it suits them.
People you respect and trust generally turn out to not be worthy of either, so that's something to bear in mind when adjusting your focus. When you look at the world of business and companies you have the added problem of dealing with faceless entities who's only care is the bottom line, so it doesn't matter how good or bad you are at your job, unless you are in a position to be making the decisions based on that bottom line, you will always be subject to the decisions of others. Redundancy is a perfect example of this in action.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Aug 2007
Posts
28,615
Location
Auckland
Nix said:
Despite all the will in the world, things don't work out the way we need or want them to.

That's how it works sometimes :)

e: take the above words (post #124) with a gigantic piece of salt as it is nonsense, albeit well-intentioned nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
7 Jan 2007
Posts
10,607
Location
Sussex, UK
Nix with a your geography degree is it physical or human?

We have very similar degree if it is physical geography you did. Have you ever applies for things like:

Water resources partitions
Environmental positions
Town or country planning
Highways agency
Environment agency
DEFRA
Wild life trusts
Natural england
Power industry
Water industry
Fisheries
Renewables
Gis
Etc etc etc

Maybe it's time to consider being a geography teacher or primary teacher? Teach English on your travels them apply for pgce on return?

I never new what I wanted to do after university either I just feel into a professional career as they were the only offer of employment I had, I was never served with a choice in that sense. You just have to run with it and try to mold a verse you want out of your first years experience, but I started unhappy in my first job for years and for bitter. Until the point where I couldn't go in another day.

I lost 5 years of work in that job before I woke up.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
11 Sep 2009
Posts
13,994
Location
France, Alsace
Whilst I agree with everything you've said, my contention all along has been this:

1. People seem to confuse chance and circumstance with agency. They are separate but they work together, as is the understanding that you can "make your own luck". As I've explained though, we can point ourselves in the right direction and try and steer the ship as best we can. It's not all chance at all, but it does play a vital role (as you've explained nicely)

2. The unpleasant undertone that if agency equals success, those that meet failure or otherwise are 'unlucky' evidently didn't apply agency and therefore deserve their lot. Life just isn't that simple.

I'm not arguing with anyone here at all that if you want something you need to go out there and get it and you can seriously help weigh things in your favour. My point is, sometimes it doesn't matter. Despite all the will in the world, things don't work out the way we need or want them to.

Lastly, I think a lot of those people agreeing with Housey outright are on the other-side of the career mess. At the bottom, you really do need some good fortune to land "that lucky break" so you can build that crucial experience. You may say to try interning, or unpaid instead but then, that's down to personal circumstance (if you're lucky or unlucky enough to afford to do that or not). When you've got some experience, or are on the 'inside', it's much easier to manoeuvre your way around similar roles and career progression. It's not so much chance as it is agency then. It's completely different when you're on the outside looking in.

I have a friend who's doing very well in his chosen career, but even by his own admission it was a stroke of good fortune to land the entry job that paved the way. I'm not saying he hasn't worked hard to get where he is, but it wrong to assume that those who haven't found progression haven't been working equally, or as may be the case, harder than those that were blessed.

I agreed with Housey, and although I do fantastically, currently, I have also changed career paths, been made redundant and gone from earning well 31k) at a fairly young age, to being on 15k. The whole make your own luck isn't the BS you think, it's the fact that you need to do the right things. Just working hard isn't necessarily that.
Being smart about where your efforts are best placed for the most chance of success. Yes, you can't control the people who receive your CV, or outside influences, but you can make sure you trailer that CV so it hits the mark, or grabs their attention, or call them to make sure they have seen your CV.
People give up too easily, or say it's not in their control, but you really do have to go out there and bust that but in the right way and the "luck" starts to unfold.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Jun 2003
Posts
91,393
Location
Falling...
I think you do have to make your own luck to a certain extent. That could mean being proactive or training or working a bit harder or networking in the right circles etc.... It is also down to personality and how you come across. But ultimately it is also how hard you work.

Well done op hope that it makes you happy. Good luck in your new role. :)
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,934
I still think people are discounting the role of chance too much... especially when mentioning traits that successful people have etc.. those are often necessary conditions but not really sufficient. Risk taking inevitably means there will be some losers the other side of the distribution - it wouldn't be a 'risk' if there wasn't some exposure to chance. Obviously you do need to be prepared to take risks, work hard etc.. in the first place.

Nassim Taleb has written a lot on the subject and has spend most of his academic and professional career dealing with risk, uncertainty etc... would certainly recommend reading one of fooled by randomness, the black swan or antifragile.(He's a bit arrogant and is essentially trying to get the same points across in the books but they're worth a read)

Notice how our brain sometimes gets the arrow of causality backward. Assume that good qualities cause success; based on that assumption, even though it seems intuitively correct to think so, the fact that every intelligent, hardworking, persevering person becomes successful does not imply that every successful person is necessarily an intelligent, hardworking, persevering person (it is remarkable how such a primitive logical fallacy – affirming the consequent – can be made by otherwise very intelligent people, a point I discuss in this edition as the “two systems of reasons” problem).

There is a twist in research on success that has found its way into the bookstores under the banner of advice on: “These are the millionaires’ traits that you need to have if you want to be just like those successful people.” One of the authors of the misguided The Millionaire Next Door wrote another even more foolish book called The Millionaire Mind. He observes that in the representative cohort of more than a thousand millionaires whom he studied most did not exhibit high intelligence in their childhood and infers that it is not your endowment that makes you rich – but rather hard work. From this, one can naively infer that chance plays no part in success. My intuition is that if millionaires are close in attributes to the average population, then I would make the more disturbing interpretation that it is because luck played a part. Luck is democratic and hits everyone regardless of original skills. The author notices variations from the general population in a few traits like tenacity and hard work: another confusion of the necessary and the causal. That all millionaires were persistent, hardworking people does not make persistent hard workers become millionaires: Plenty of unsuccessful entrepreneurs were persistent, hardworking people. In a textbook case of naive empiricism, the author also looked for traits these millionaires had in common and figured out that they shared a taste for risk taking. Clearly risk taking is necessary for large success – but it is also necessary for failure. Had the author done the same study on bankrupt citizens he would certainly have found a predilection for risk taking.
 
Back
Top Bottom