• 21st March 2008 - By proteman

    “I’ve got a risk-proof way to make a million dollars!”
    “This plan to invade Iraq is fool-proof!”
    “This new firewall is 100% hacker-proof!”

    I’m always leary when I hear that anything is “proofed”. The phrase implies that there’s a 100% guaranteed way to prevent something from happening. I can’t think of anything in life, or business especially, that’s foolproof or completely without risk.

    This morning at the gym I was watching CNN and saw an advertised segment on “Recession Proofing your Job.” Jumping on the “Big R” scare, other media outlets and and business consultants have written articles claiming to have the secret to recession-proofing your business, finances or job.

    Any business or employee who is fool-hardy enough to think that they’re immuned from the impact of recession is tempting fate. It’s like saying that driving the speed limit, being cautious, wearing your seatbelt and having airbags makes you accident-proof. It doesn’t. What it does do is give you some control over your fate by protecting yourself.

    In my next blog post, I’ll give tips for how to become more valuable to your employer, so you are recession-resistant. This means that even if your job is downsized, outsourced or cut back during a recession, you’ll be able to bounce back quickly.

    Recession resistance means doing things that make you valuable – in any job, in any economy.

    Copyright 2008. Phyllis Roteman. The Loyalty Group. Sherman Oaks, CA.

  • 2 Comments to “No Such Thing as Recession-Proof”

    • Steve Roesler on March 23, 2008

      Phyllis,

      Your “recession-resistant” approach is a lot more helpful and honest than the “fullproof” grabbers that promise what cannot be delivered.

      Nice going.

    • Phyllis Roteman on March 25, 2008

      Thanks Steve! I imagine that the “fullproof” grabber is a big contributor to our current mortgage crisis. How many people “bought” the idea that a zero down, adjustable rate mortgage was a virtually risk-proof commitment? Or that there was “no way to lose” playing the dot-coms? : )

    Leave a Reply