I rarely put much stock (no pun intended) into "Money Magazine", but a gift subscription arrives monthly so I occasionally peruse it. Imagine my chuckle at the following, noted in the February, 2009 issue:

In the article entitled "Fireproof Your Job", on page 82, under "Be A Money-Maker", the first paragraph of that subsection of the article states "The easiest jobs to cut in a downsizing are usually the ones that cost the company money rather than make it money. If your job is in the second group, start acting like you're in the first."

If people do as recommended, they will most certainly be shooting themselves in the foot!

I wrote them and suggested that they direct their editors to read copy a bit more carefully in the future.

Vermonter

Back in the 1980s, I used to read Money Mag all the time, probably into the early 90s. It was a great magazine, like the Consumer Reports for financial issues. I learned a great deal from reading Money Mag. I stopped in the early 90s because it became a useless rag. I guess it decided that it was better to make money off financial ads than print stories about how ordinary folks don't really need to pay for financial advice. AARP has gone the way of Money Mag, shilling for the companies that provide it with revenue through ads or kickbacks. What a shame.

Gee, Vermonter. There might be a grain of truth in what they say.

If you work for a manufacturing company, the people who make and sell the product probably have the most secure jobs (provided the product continues to sell).

Its the people in the staff departments who are most at risk. Its pretty easy to consolidate those jobs, get rid of the highest paid, most senior people, and then promote the most experienced jr employees to do the work. Or you can consolidate and trim. Advertizing, research, engineering, accounting, and other similar departments can often be downsized or outsourced.

It helps to know the difference between line and staff departments and to figure out which one you are in. Then of course you try to move toward line positions if you can.

ResNullius:

Interesting that you bring AARP's mags and newsletters into the discussion.

I agree. Seems to me that AARP doesn't much care who advertises in their publications, considering some of the rather cheap BS that appears in there.

Vermonter

I agree. Seems to me that AARP doesn't much care who advertises in their publications, considering some of the rather cheap BS that appears in there.

It's difficult (if not nearly impossible) for a publication to turn down advertising without accusations of censorship and possible/probable lawsuits.

DorothyM:

It's difficult (if not nearly impossible) for a publication to turn down advertising without accusations of censorship and possible/probable lawsuits.

I know that's true, of course, but one can still wish that "our" (speaking as a senior citizen here) organization could do better.

While I'm complaining ("whining" may be a better word, according to some people here), I wish they could omit all those damned CARDS in the magazine, too, but I know they can't. My first effort when I get the magazine is to take 5 minutes to rip ALL of those cards out of there so the pages will turn easier, and so I can read it. Last time I checked, I had removed about 30 of those cards.

Vermonter

While I'm complaining ("whining" may be a better word, according to some people here), I wish they could omit all those damned CARDS in the magazine, too, but I know they can't. My first effort when I get the magazine is to take 5 minutes to rip ALL of those cards out of there so the pages will turn easier, and so I can read it. Last time I checked, I had removed about 30 of those cards.

You're a very slow ripper of cards -- I do the same thing with the cards but it never takes me a whole minute. But I've never had 30 cards in the AARP magazine -- I've never counted but I expect there are 8 or 10. Instead of whining into the ether on an internet message board you might consider whining to AARP directly.

Maybe when I am older I can complain about the cards. ;-)

Anyway, they are a pain in any magazine that you get.

Anyway, they are a pain in any magazine that you get.

I consider them to be free bookmarks.

PSU

Maybe you get fewer bounce cards than I do, then, because I COUNTED them last time, and I have written to them -- just as I did to protest their indication that the ONLY choices people had about prescription drug costs had to do with choosing which Plan D, when one obvious choice is to REJECT the whole thing, IF (a big IF, I admit) it obviously is cheaper for YOU to go to Walmart or wherever for cheaper prescriptions.

Vermonter

I think OP was objecting to the idea that you act as if you make the company money, the arrogance will put a target on your back. I think that the magazine was saying that you need to be able to quantify your value to the company to avoid being a layoff target. It is easy to point to the number of units you have moved or the amount of revenue you have generated. But more often than not, those who work in back-office jobs difficulty being able to identify their contribution to the bottom line.

There are two ways to improve profitability - increasing revenue and decreasing costs. Sometimes it is easier to demonstrate an ability to drive profits by decreasing costs than by increasing revenue. For example, I write reports. In some cases, the reports are customer-facing, so I help drive revenue by producing value added reporting services to paying customers. But more often than not, I am writing internal reports which do not affect revenue. However, they can point out areas where the business is operating efficiently and inefficiently, which can lead to cost savings.

Fuskie
Who concludes you can see yourself as a cog in a wheel or as a valuable contributor to the bottom line, and how you see yourself can impact how management sees you...

I consider them to be free bookmarks.

My thought exactly. You said it for me;))

Birgit

I call card-removal "deboning".

Byron