Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Leaving your footprints in the digital age



I am mildly amazed that some people still don't have much of an online presence. In this day and age, not having a digital footprint seems almost impossible. Yet, I can Google any number of folks who I have known over the years and find virtually nothing about them in cyberspace. No Facebook account. No LinkedIn profile photo. No blog or corporate website information about the person. Not even an old garage band photo. Nothing.

How do people avoid being found online?

Nowadays, if you get a speeding ticket or get married, you could easily show up in a newspaper's digital police blotter or wedding announcements respectively, and thereby be found in an online search. Join the board of your HOA, and you will likely be found online. Or, if you win an award from your alma mater or your civic club, you could be named on an achievements web page or two, and again, be discovered by an old friend, colleague or classmate. It's not difficult. You can be almost completely passive and without any technical skills, an ultra-introvert, and still show up on the Internet. Yet, some people remain ghosts.

In theory, any of these possibilities, and many more, should lead to you being found in a casual Google or Bing search. In essence, unless you've been completely off the grid for the last 20 years and without any friends or associations, there should be some electronic record of your existence, even if it's just a mugshot from your high school yearbook.

Now I know certain people avoid computers like the plague. Not to stereotype, but most of them tend to be over a certain age. Others use computers for work but stay away from social media. Some go to extremes and make sure not to be in the group picture at the end of softball season, fearing it could end up on the the team or league's website. Many folks just want to protect their privacy and won't even shop online. I understand all of that. But still, it's a mystery to me how someone can have no online exposure.

Not having an Web presence probably has its benefits. You don't have to worry so much about identity theft. You can sleep easy knowing no one has hacked your Twitter account or used your photo to play a prank on a friend. You won't get stalked by a Craigslist crazy.

But there is a growing drawback to not leaving any 'Net footprints. Besides not being found by your long-lost love, you may also be sending the wrong message to a potential employer. Companies nowadays want you to feel comfortable with technology. While they might still be tempted to snoop around into parts of your life that could hurt your chances at landing a good job, you're more likely not to be hired because you've shown a reluctance to keep pace with modern ways of communicating. That, in the eyes of some employers, is a liability and evidence that you are adverse to change. In some cases, employers might even think you have something to hide.

So if you're not in a profession that requires a basic digital interaction then I wouldn't sweat it when typing your name into a search box yields zero results. But if you are looking for work that requires a grasp of the way businesses connect, market and sell in the digital age, I would advise that you make sure your name comes up in Google search more than once, preferably in a positive light. I know a lot of this stuff like Facebook and blogging seems like a waste of time, but to be totally invisible can be a detriment.



Monday, February 11, 2013

Life expectancy and the merits of retiring on your own terms


Woke up to the big news today. A pope is calling it quits for the first time in 600 years. While this is of religious significance in the Catholic community, reading the announcement raises some secular thoughts about aging and vocation.

Lately, I've been wondering about the following questions:

  • How old is too old to work in a responsible, full-time job?
  • Who should decide when a person retires?
  • While we are living longer, does that necessarily mean we should be working longer?

The pope is 85, which is 30 years older than me. I'm pretty tired after a long day in the office, so I can imagine how the pope must feel after a grueling day in Vatican City. However, the pope has a lot of support. Probably has a staff that rivals most presidents. Most likely has a team of chefs and eats healthy -- i.e., not grabbing a burger on a shortened lunch hour while rushing off to another meeting. I am also guessing that most popes are more delegators than micro-managers, particularly in their latter years. Yes, there's some business travel involved, which can be exhausting at any age, but the pope must be crossing oceans in relative style and comfort.

Still, Pope Benedict XVI decided enough is enough today. I applaud him for that. Breaking 600-year-old traditions can't be easy. He came to the conclusion that he wasn't up for the job, and rather than continue on out of pride or to pad his 401k, he did the right thing for himself and for the church. He did what we all want to do, which is to decide for ourselves when our working days are over. For some that might be at age 55, for others it can be 85. But regardless of age, we have to be honest with ourselves in evaluating our skills and energy level, and know when to step aside.

This brings me to my next point.

I do not believe that just because Americans are living longer, that means we should delay retirement benefits to the elderly. I do not support raising the age for receiving Social Security or Medicare.

Just because we might physically still be breathing in our 70s and 80s, does not necessarily mean we are fit to work. The pope quit because of his failing "mind and body." Average Americans should be able to do the same without being denied the benefits they are owed. But more importantly, they should be able to retire before their minds and bodies collapse.

Raising the Social Security age would mean many people with significant ailments and limitations would still be waiting tables and putting up drywall because they can't afford to retire at reasonable age.

Additionally, how many companies do you know that would allow 70- and 80-year-olds to remain on the payroll? Yes, I know there are age-discrimination laws in this country, but for the most part, they aren't enforced. In fact, they are a joke. Just ask anyone over 50 years old who has been looking for a job in the last few years. If you can't find work at 50, how do you think the job search will go at 70? Do policy makers in Washington ever think about this stuff before proclaiming everyone should work into their 70s? Do they think that it is just magically going to happen, and that all seniors will be welcomed with open arms by employers?

I've seen people burned out at 40 and I've also seen people going strong on the job well into their 60s. I had a grandfather who would have never retired if he wasn't forced to by his employer. He was one of those guys who probably wanted to die on the job. I, on the other hand, am more like the pope. I think I will know when the time is right to get out of the rat race. I'm not saying I will make it to 85, but I won't hesitate to let go when I no longer feel capable or relevant in the workplace.

Of course, unlike the pope, I will have to consider whether I can afford to retire, which is a whole other issue.

Our society has allowed early retirement for cops and firefighters and certain government workers for decades, mainly because of the stress associated with those jobs. Yet, most professions have no early escape from the pressure cooker of a high-rise or coal mine. Is a big city bus driver any less stressed than a cop on patrol in a cushy suburb with little crime? Why do we make these distinctions and judgments when each job and how individuals cope with work varies so much? Cops are vulnerable to stress related illnesses but accountants aren't? I don't think you can paint occupations with that broad of a brush. I think everyone deals with stress in a different manner, and therefore, work pressures have more to do with the person than the profession.

Imagine working on a farm since you were able to walk. Perhaps by the time you hit 60, you've already put in 50 years of 14-hour work days. You're not officially disabled, but your body hurts from thousands of days of hard labor. Your mind worries about drought and market prices every year. You think you might have earned the right to sell the farm and to kick back in a mobile home park somewhere in Florida for the remaining 10 or 20 years of your life? I think so. But apparently some people in our government would label you a "taker" and imply that you are lazy. These politicians, many making over a million dollars a year and can retire whenever they want because they aren't relying on a Social Security check, will tell you that you have to keep working on that farm. They'll deny you your lousy $1,200 a month in Social Security because they say the government can't afford to pay you that amount for too long. So, the later you retire, the closer you are to death. They steal from the people who could most benefit from that $1,200 a month, yet refuse to mean test people who are super wealthy and don't need to collect Social Security in order to retire.

Frankly, I want to be somewhat functional when I retire. The longer I wait, the more likely I won't be. Oh, doctors might keep me alive, but what good is retirement when you are spending it in a wheel chair or attached to a breathing machine? Life expectancy has risen, but what about quality of life? Has that proportionately gone up? I doubt it. We're a culture kept alive by pills.

If you want to keep working into your golden years, you should be able to do that as long as you are capable. Some folks need the sense of purpose that being employed can provide. Some don't  or can get that same feeling dangling a fishing pole over the waters of a calm river. But you have to be healthy enough to get in the boat, so you better not delay retirement for too long.

No telling what the pope will do in retirement. How bad his health is remains to be seen. He has exceeded the life expectancy of men in most countries. He's able to walk away and not die on the job. We should all have that choice and not be impeded by a government that seems to want us to work until we drop.