Jul 6, 2009

Be Forewarned

Please post the following.

Most of us don't know when the axe will fall, but we have the ability to reduce the damage to ourselves. The following article by Tom Jacobs while sobering, can be taken as being forewarned to what could befall us.

Getting Laid-Off May Lead to Early Death -- But There Are Ways to Cushion the Severe Health Impact of Job Loss

By Tom Jacobs, Miller-McCune.com. Posted July 1, 2009.

Studies show that the current economic climate may be eroding months or even years from the lives of those on the bleeding edge of insecurity.

When you lose your job, with no prospect of finding another one quickly, you give up a lot more than income. You are deprived of a sense of security, a source of self-esteem, a certain status in the community. And, according to recent research, you also lose something even more precious: a year or more of your life.

That's the conclusion of two prominent economists, Daniel Sullivan of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and Till von Wachter of Columbia University. Matching death records with employment and earnings data of Pennsylvania workers from the 1970s and '80s, they found mortality rates for high-seniority male workers spike sharply in the year following an involuntary job loss, and they remain surprisingly high two decades later.

If this higher death rate persists into old age, it implies "a loss in life expectancy of 1 to 1.5 years for a worker displaced at age 40," the researchers report. Or as von Wachter puts it more informally: "We were convincingly able to show that if you lose your job, you die earlier."

But the risk of premature death isn't limited to those who have actually been let go. A growing body of research suggests a nagging, persistent fear of losing one's job is also detrimental to one's health. University of Michigan sociologist Sarah Burgard, who has extensively studied the relationship between job loss, job insecurity and health, calls this "the waiting-for-the-other-shoe-to-drop problem." Given the current state of the economy, many people are anxiously awaiting the thud of that falling footwear.

In recent months, official Washington has been consumed by two issues: jobs and the economy, and the cost and availability of health care. But there has been surprisingly little discussion regarding the ways in which they intersect. A series of recent studies not only provide evidence these public-policy problems are interrelated: They also suggest that if, as many fear, long-term job security is largely a thing of the past, the public health consequences could be enormous.


[Read the full article here.]


Anonymous said...

Death, an innovative way to bring about worker attrition. I think LANL already tried that one with Todd Kauppila. The stress induced by LANS mis-management should prove effective at pushing this bold concept even further.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure that I agree with this.
My father was a machinist and between 1945 and 1955, he was laid off about a half-dozen times. He always found a job with little delay. He only lived to be 93 and was driving legally until age 92.

Anonymous said...

Here are the worst 10 boilerplate phrases -- the ones to seek out and destroy in your resume as soon as possible:

Results-oriented professional
Cross-functional teams
More than [x] years of progressively responsible experience
Superior (or excellent) communication skills
Strong work ethic
Met or exceeded expectations
Proven track record of success
Works well with all levels of staff
Team player
Bottom-line orientation

I'm sure a similar list can be found for LDRD proposals.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm. If I drive people from the ranks, they'll die earlier...Does that mean I'll have more LANS money for my bonus? Gotta go!


Anonymous said...

Over at LLNL, they have started placing hand sanitizing cream next to all the hand geometry units to stop the spread of swine flue.

Meanwhile, back here at LANL, our safety obsessed LANS management team has shown absolutely no interest in following the same action.

It make you wonder why?

Anonymous said...

Working at Lanl could cause sudden death!

Anonymous said...

11:02, it has many times already. LANS likes that. Reduces the numbers.

Anonymous said...

Well, 8:57 PM, with all the curtail on travelling (unless you are a senior LANSIE) why bother? Besides, that sanitizing shit costs money!

Anonymous said...

Working at LANL is much more likely to cause slow brain death.

There's only so much mindless safety training that can be endured by the human brain.

Anonymous said...

7/6/09 11:23 AM--"not sure that I agree My father ... was laid off about a half-dozen times. He always found a job with little delay. He only lived to be 93 and was driving legally until age 92."

Well dumbo, don't you think finding a job with "little delay" would kind of ease the stress and uncertainty? Then again maybe he would have lived to 102 had he not been laid off so much. Ever think of that?

Anonymous said...

4:59 PM, what amuses me most about your list of worst boilerplate phrases is how many LANL job postings include these as requirements (esp. "excellent communication skills" and "works well with all levels of staff")... and then grade you on whether you have addressed these intangibles in your cover letter.

Anyway, my personal favorite empty LDRD phrase is: "This project will enhance LANL's reputation through seminal publications in high profile journals such as Science, Nature, [PRL, JACS, PNAS...]"

That's the scientific equivalent of "met or exceeded expectations" in my book.

Anonymous said...

2:20 AM, why do you post on here? your comment are neither constructive nor interesting. you are just a sad, miserable person who has nothing better to do. go spew your misery somewhere else, we're not interested!

Anonymous said...

"This project will enhance LANL's reputation through seminal publications in high profile journals such as Science, Nature, [PRL, JACS, PNAS...]"

"seminal publications"? Yes, these projects are the scientific equivalent of masturbation.

Anonymous said...

7/7/09 8:23 AM ..."we're not interested!"

Yeah we are. We are an equal opportunity anyone-can-bitch-whine-moan crowed. No disrimination. :-)

Anonymous said...

Other LDRD proposal terms of note (or shame):

- World class

- Run with the ball

- Distinguished team

- Best in class

Many LDRD proposals are chock full of these meaningless buzzwords and terms of self congratulation.

Anonymous said...

"Getting Laid-Off May Lead to Early Death"

Yes, but making it into the upper reaches of the LANS executive team can be very profitable and good for your health. Perhaps the wisest choice of action would be to kick, scream, lie, back stab and bad mouth your way to the top of the heap. Once there, you'll be set for life.

Our standards aren't too high. Just look at some of the poor quality ADs and PADs we've put into to place at LANL. We've created more high paying executive positions than ever before at this lab. It's easy pickings.

Writing proposals and attempting to bring in more funding to pay for the enormous overhead is for dummies. You can do better. Come join us in the pillage of the lab, mates! There are still a few good years left in which to gain your treasure before LANL turns to ashes.

- The LANS Team

Anonymous said...

LDRD boilerplate phrases:

"internationally-recognized group of distinguished scientists,"
"leading researchers,"
"top-flight research team,"

Anonymous said...

Frank, can you post:

(1) "On Eve of Obama´s Moscow Summit, Experts Warn of Growing Risks to U.S. Nuclear Deterrent," with links to "U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting It Right," and "Our Decaying Nuclear Deterrent" by Senator Jon Kyl (Rep-Arizona) and AEI Fellow Richard Perle in The Wall Street Journal, at http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18110.xml.

(2) "Arms Control Amnesia" by Dr. Keith B. Payne in The Wall Street Journal, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124693303362103841.html.


Anonymous said...

"Some of these policies are rooted in the President’s stated ambition to rid the world of nuclear weapons. As a matter of long-term idealism, once there is a fundamental transformation in the world’s politics (192 peace-loving democracies that recognize human rights and threaten no one), such a goal may be in order."

A child’s dream based on a child’s logic.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Frank Young, these three previously mentioned documents are of utmost value, especially if you have a blog with the title, "LANL: The Rest of the Story."

All of these three documents speaks in behalf of a strong, reliable, and probable US nuclear deterrent for the 21st Century, as well as these documents are in conjunction with Pres. Reagan´s "Peace through strength" and his successful effort in defeating Soviet Union in the Cold War, and a critique of the weak nuclear weapons policy of the Obama administration, it is essentially diverging towards zero, both in numbers of strategic nukes, tactical nukes, and the value itself of the US nuclear deterrent provides almost no national security value for the Obama administration.

The first document, "U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Getting It Right," outlines the future and path forward for the nuclear weapons complex, and the US nuclear deterrent. Some examples of "Table Of Contents":

-- "Statement of Principles on Nuclear Deterrence."
-- "The Nuclear Environment Today."
-- "Required: A Credible U.S. Nuclear Deterrent."
-- "What an Effective Deterrent Entails."
-- "What Should the United States Do Now?"
-- "Fashioning an Acceptable New Strategic Arms Control Agreement."

And the two Wall Street Journals articles, "Arms Control Amnesia," and "Our Decaying Nuclear Deterrent," both speaks in behalf of a strong, and credible US nuclear deterrent, as well as Dr. Keith B. Payne in "Arms Control Amnesia" in-depth analyze of the recent US-Russia Summit in Moscow, July 6-8, 2009. Dr. Payne writes:

"In the first place, looking in specific reductions for U.S. forces prior to the conclusion of the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review is putting the cart before the horse. The Obama administration´s team at the Pentagon is currently examining U.S. strategic force requirements. Before specific limits are set on U.S. forces, it should complete the review. Strategic requirements should drive force numbers; arms-control numbers should not dictate strategy.

Second, the new agreement not only calls for reductions in the number of nuclear warheads (to between 1,500 and 1,675), but for cuts in the number of strategic force launchers. Under the 1991 Start I Treaty, each side was limited to 1,600 launchers. Yesterday´s [July 6, 2009] agreement calls for each side to be limited to between 500 and 1,100 launchers each.

According to open Russian sources, it was Russia that pushed for the lower limit of 500 launchers in negotiations. In the weeks leading up to this summit, it als has been openly stated that Moscow would like the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers to be reduced "several times" below the current limit of 1,600. Moving toward very low numbers of launchers is a smart position for Russia, but not for the U.S."

Anonymous said...

Moving toward very low numbers of launchers is a smart position for Russia, but not for the U.S."

7/8/09 6:48 PM

So, then, we can count on Obama to fully comply with the Russian's wishes, nyet?