Millions of educated, experienced workers are tossed aside by a strong economy(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Millions of educated, experienced workers are tossed aside by a strong economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/23/millions-educated-experienced-workers-have-been-tossed-aside-by-strong-economy
124 comments
Many of the facts you stated are relatively invariant to the strength of the economy. I do not have good sources to describe how they have changed over time, but I would assume that points 1,3,4, and 5 are true nearly all the time. Additionally, for point 2, real wages going down on a timespan of 1 year is essentially noise in the face of rising real wages by various measures by FRED.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/tags/series?t=real%3Bwages
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/tags/series?t=real%3Bwages
If it's invariant then I find it even more disturbing.
A lot of these facts are designed to make scary headlines.
#1 and #3 are both symptoms of a common cause- essentially zero savings rate for a wide swath of the American population. For the large fraction of people, failing to save is a behavioral phenomenon. For many people, doubling their income would still result in them living paycheck to paycheck.
For #5, 17% of canadian children are living in poverty, 1 in 5 French children live in poverty, and poverty affects more than one in four children in the UK today (https://globalnews.ca/news/3739960/canadian-census-children-...) (http://www.france24.com/en/20150609-unicef-report-france-chi...) (http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/child-poverty-facts-and-figur...). Of course, each country sets its own poverty line to represent a socially-empathetic income level, resulting in pretty-even levels of nominal poverty across countries. It is not that surprising that expanding the scope of headline-worthy impoverishness to be "low-income or in poverty" would result in headline #4.
#1 and #3 are both symptoms of a common cause- essentially zero savings rate for a wide swath of the American population. For the large fraction of people, failing to save is a behavioral phenomenon. For many people, doubling their income would still result in them living paycheck to paycheck.
For #5, 17% of canadian children are living in poverty, 1 in 5 French children live in poverty, and poverty affects more than one in four children in the UK today (https://globalnews.ca/news/3739960/canadian-census-children-...) (http://www.france24.com/en/20150609-unicef-report-france-chi...) (http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/child-poverty-facts-and-figur...). Of course, each country sets its own poverty line to represent a socially-empathetic income level, resulting in pretty-even levels of nominal poverty across countries. It is not that surprising that expanding the scope of headline-worthy impoverishness to be "low-income or in poverty" would result in headline #4.
Here's what I see: fewer unemployed people around me, but the employed are deep in debt and gradually slipping deeper into it. Standard of living hasn't gone down, but it's financed with debt while interest rates are creeping up.
"Financed with debt" is another way to say "Can't afford".
You can finance an enterprise with debt because it may produce income, and the debt will be repaid. But financing consumption with increasing debt is... dangerous at best.
You can finance an enterprise with debt because it may produce income, and the debt will be repaid. But financing consumption with increasing debt is... dangerous at best.
As someone else said in the thread [1], just existing in America is very expensive. It’s easy to conflate consumption vs necessary expenses needing to be financed, but you do what you have to do.
It takes 20 years of nothing going wrong to escape poverty [2]. Imagine how easy it is to get back there.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17594826
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economi...
It takes 20 years of nothing going wrong to escape poverty [2]. Imagine how easy it is to get back there.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17594826
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economi...
Very easy. Just get very sick and survive it. Or have a dependent do the same.
"Consumption" is just something that does not produce an income. It's not about some excessive consumption.
I mean, if you buy your 100" TV with debt, it's that not great, but if you buy your daily bread with debt, you're in a big trouble.
I mean, if you buy your 100" TV with debt, it's that not great, but if you buy your daily bread with debt, you're in a big trouble.
> but if you buy your daily bread with debt, you're in a big trouble.
That's the problem. People are funding survival on credit.
How do you fix that? Raise wages. How do you raise wages outside of macro supply/demand factors (interest rates, employment slack)? Politics.
That's the problem. People are funding survival on credit.
How do you fix that? Raise wages. How do you raise wages outside of macro supply/demand factors (interest rates, employment slack)? Politics.
> How do you fix that? Raise wages.
Raise (net real) incomes on the bottom end. Doesn't have to be wage increases.
But, yes, politics.
Raise (net real) incomes on the bottom end. Doesn't have to be wage increases.
But, yes, politics.
The way you fix that is by making the cost of living lower. We need to get rid of all laws that force people to take on high cost living. Currently, if a builder wants to produce low cost housing by using cheaper materials, small square footage, etc, they're simply not allowed to do it: it's illegal in most places. Plus the land is proibitively expensive, which is a problem with zoning.
Next, for medical care, we need to overhaul the laws that govern medical insurance. Once again, if you try create your own affordable medical insurance that only covers in-expensive treatments, legally it's not allowed. Furthermore, there's a lot financial liability with going to a hospital. Gov't could enact laws that prevent the end customer from being financially liable above a certain amount per treatment: and force the hospital cartels to pay for it. I'm guessing that'll help hospitals become more cost effective in a hurry and prevent all that price gouging.
And third, consumers need to learn to spend within their means. There's so many things you can do to reduce your monthly costs, that most people haven't even begun to scratch the surface. Does your car really need an oil change every 3k miles? no do you really need an 80$/month cell phone bill when a 20$ one can do? do you really need to pay 100$ a month on cable when youtube gives you all the entertainment you could already want for free? (or just go to the library) etc, etc. And stop thinking that McDonalds is cheap. 8$ a meal (24$/day) is not cheap (you could eat oatmeal, beans, rice and bananas for just 1.50$ a day) there's countless more examples of this.
Next, for medical care, we need to overhaul the laws that govern medical insurance. Once again, if you try create your own affordable medical insurance that only covers in-expensive treatments, legally it's not allowed. Furthermore, there's a lot financial liability with going to a hospital. Gov't could enact laws that prevent the end customer from being financially liable above a certain amount per treatment: and force the hospital cartels to pay for it. I'm guessing that'll help hospitals become more cost effective in a hurry and prevent all that price gouging.
And third, consumers need to learn to spend within their means. There's so many things you can do to reduce your monthly costs, that most people haven't even begun to scratch the surface. Does your car really need an oil change every 3k miles? no do you really need an 80$/month cell phone bill when a 20$ one can do? do you really need to pay 100$ a month on cable when youtube gives you all the entertainment you could already want for free? (or just go to the library) etc, etc. And stop thinking that McDonalds is cheap. 8$ a meal (24$/day) is not cheap (you could eat oatmeal, beans, rice and bananas for just 1.50$ a day) there's countless more examples of this.
My personal opinion is that these are all terrible ideas. You’re attempting to normalize poverty. You can’t not live near jobs. You can’t not consume essential healthcare. This is not an argument about avocado toast.
People need their incomes to rise (after stagnanting for the last four decades), period.
People need their incomes to rise (after stagnanting for the last four decades), period.
> Gov't could enact laws that prevent the end customer from being financially liable above a certain amount per treatment
This basically introduces gov't-supported insurance for treatments above that sum. If they would say that hospitals should just eat the cost, the hospitals will have to put a large part of this cut into increased cost of other, cheaper treatments.
Not that I know the fix for the cost disease in US medicine. But likely it lies somewhere allowing hospitals compete on price.
This basically introduces gov't-supported insurance for treatments above that sum. If they would say that hospitals should just eat the cost, the hospitals will have to put a large part of this cut into increased cost of other, cheaper treatments.
Not that I know the fix for the cost disease in US medicine. But likely it lies somewhere allowing hospitals compete on price.
You would expect to see average wages decrease as companies hire less experienced, less productive workers who are just starting new jobs. So in a way it could be sort of a good sign since those workers wouldn't have found jobs at all when the economy was weaker, but it's hard to tell what's really going on based on that data.
(I agree the economy still isn't good for many people.)
(I agree the economy still isn't good for many people.)
>> You would expect to see average wages decrease as companies hire less experienced, less productive workers who are just starting new jobs.
In a truly booming economy people, bodies, matter more than skills. Skills can be trained after employment. I would expect companies to be paying more regardless of background. Any lesser pay for new people would/should be balanced by greater pay to retain trained people. None of that is happening. Wages are up a tick here and there, but not substantially. It will be booming when I see wages growing as a percentage of profits, when companies start tightening profit margins to retain people.
In a truly booming economy people, bodies, matter more than skills. Skills can be trained after employment. I would expect companies to be paying more regardless of background. Any lesser pay for new people would/should be balanced by greater pay to retain trained people. None of that is happening. Wages are up a tick here and there, but not substantially. It will be booming when I see wages growing as a percentage of profits, when companies start tightening profit margins to retain people.
4 out of 5 of your examples are about income inequality, which isn't the same as how strong the economy is IMO. Everyone could be living in a shack and the poverty line = no shack and by your definition the economy would be strong if everyone could afford a new shack if their current one collapsed.
if you separate income inequality and economy, then you basically say that economy's goal is not to improve everybody's life. Benefits of successful economy should be shared by everyone.
If 9 out of 10 people's wages increase by 10% and the remaining one out of 10 sees their income go up by 1,000% did the economy get worse (assuming cost of living remains stating)? How so, given everyone's real incomes rose?
This is why I'm usually skeptical of most claims that point to inequality as proof the economy is doing poorly. In absolute metrics, people's lives are usually getting better. The Economist ran an article a while ago that measured standards of living in absolute metrics (% of households without electricity or plumbing, whithout an automobile, that sort of thing). Almost across the board, everyone's situations are better. The main downturn is home ownership and apartment situations - but that's more to do with cities' housing restrictions rather than the economy.
This is why I'm usually skeptical of most claims that point to inequality as proof the economy is doing poorly. In absolute metrics, people's lives are usually getting better. The Economist ran an article a while ago that measured standards of living in absolute metrics (% of households without electricity or plumbing, whithout an automobile, that sort of thing). Almost across the board, everyone's situations are better. The main downturn is home ownership and apartment situations - but that's more to do with cities' housing restrictions rather than the economy.
If you live in a society where money == power, then rising inequality does make your life worse.
Maybe today you get the benefits of new tech and it's and improvement, but tomorrow is a vote on if you get healthcare or not and you have less influence in society so you have less say in your destiny and things that affect you directly
Maybe today you get the benefits of new tech and it's and improvement, but tomorrow is a vote on if you get healthcare or not and you have less influence in society so you have less say in your destiny and things that affect you directly
The economy doesn't have a goal. Our economic policies have goals.
All valid points, but I believe "strong economy" versus "personal wealth" are very different measures, and have been conflated in the past when it suited various arguments.
Plot the chart of GDP vs GDP/capita. In the UK that tells you everything you need to know about the true state of the economy.
The economy and the education system are out of sync. We are turning out a TON of degrees for a few jobs and expecting people to be able to just succeed based on a 4 year degree program. All the while the economy does expect a 4 year degree for some jobs that really shouldn't. So you're expected to waste money on a degree you don't need to work a job that won't help you pay back your degree because they aren't paying you what you need to pay off that debt.
I don't have a solution. I just see that I know plenty of people who have GREAT degrees, are very intelligent and are working in a field where their success is more defined by who they are then how they were educated. I think whatever solution we do have, needs to take a look at both the economy as well as the education system and how we prepare our young for a life in the workforce. Because at the end of the day that's what we're doing, we're educating our young to be able to step into our economy and profit.
Again, I don't know the solution. Regulate the number of graduates within a certain degree field? Regulate jobs so that we force jobs to accomodate the degrees? Unionize alternate jobs so working at walmart / factories becomes profitable again? I don't know I just worry about what my children will do when they enter the economy and how will they stay in the middle class.
I don't have a solution. I just see that I know plenty of people who have GREAT degrees, are very intelligent and are working in a field where their success is more defined by who they are then how they were educated. I think whatever solution we do have, needs to take a look at both the economy as well as the education system and how we prepare our young for a life in the workforce. Because at the end of the day that's what we're doing, we're educating our young to be able to step into our economy and profit.
Again, I don't know the solution. Regulate the number of graduates within a certain degree field? Regulate jobs so that we force jobs to accomodate the degrees? Unionize alternate jobs so working at walmart / factories becomes profitable again? I don't know I just worry about what my children will do when they enter the economy and how will they stay in the middle class.
> Again, I don't know the solution. Regulate the number of graduates within a certain degree field?
Stop providing loan guarantees for all students regardless of the marketability of the degree they've chosen?
Stop providing loan guarantees for all students regardless of the marketability of the degree they've chosen?
This is the root of the problem. Anyone can get a degree regardless of aptitude. Loans will pay your way in, the school will do everything in their power to stop you from flunking out.
We have to take a lien on loans for cars that in some cases are much less money than school loans.
Maybe make schools take some brunt of the loans. If they feel so strongly that their degree is worth it, its like they should back you as an investment.
Maybe make schools take some brunt of the loans. If they feel so strongly that their degree is worth it, its like they should back you as an investment.
Several schools are investing in their students, using the Income Share Agreement (ISA) format. Students do not pay any upfront tuition, the school takes care of it. Then, students only pay when they find a job with a % of their income. Alternative education[1] but also more traditional college are offering this[2][3].
[1] https://www.inc.com/salvador-rodriguez/long-term-coding-scho... [2] http://time.com/money/4568213/income-share-agreements-colleg... [3] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/07/21/i...
[1] https://www.inc.com/salvador-rodriguez/long-term-coding-scho... [2] http://time.com/money/4568213/income-share-agreements-colleg... [3] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/07/21/i...
And make loans dischargeable like any other loan.
Exactly. If the burden of collecting the debt is on the loaner, they will do a better job of enforcing who gets a loan (which is traditionally the job of the loaner anyway). Student loans get handed out like candy and now we have a continuously-compounding problem of growing tuitions and debt.
If bankruptcy could fix student loans, then the ones giving out loans would be a lot more careful, schools would stop wasting hundreds of millions on new buildings that that are 80% empty, and we wouldn't have a large segment of the middle class population in indentured servitude.
Seems pretty simple to me.
If bankruptcy could fix student loans, then the ones giving out loans would be a lot more careful, schools would stop wasting hundreds of millions on new buildings that that are 80% empty, and we wouldn't have a large segment of the middle class population in indentured servitude.
Seems pretty simple to me.
I've been through bankruptcy over decade ago and I'm still paying on a useless ITT tech degree... Wish I had known better when I was younger.
Well, technically I'm paying, I have paid off very little. This is the first year I'll be breaking 2x poverty.
> Stop providing loan guarantees
Full stop.
Need-based public aid (whether it's the recipients financial need or societies workforce need, or both) should be grants, and there should be broad opportunities for public civilian service that provides service-based grants not based on specific need, too. The former should have payoff considerations, the latter should not.
Full stop.
Need-based public aid (whether it's the recipients financial need or societies workforce need, or both) should be grants, and there should be broad opportunities for public civilian service that provides service-based grants not based on specific need, too. The former should have payoff considerations, the latter should not.
Yup. Mortgage lenders do their own valuations on houses. Student loans companies should too. You'll see a rapid decline in shitty degrees. Goodbye Art History.
Colleges which accept government funding or government-backed student loans should be required to publish employment and salary data for their graduates. For example, what percentage of alumni have found full-time employment in their degree field within 6 months of graduation? That way students would have a more realistic picture of their prospects and could make informed decisions.
Teacher friends of mine talk to me about how their job is next to impossible. The curriculum in the schools is basically perpetually 12 years behind, students today are just now being taught stuff that the market is now responding to but the fundamentals that are needed for those skills should have been introduced years prior.
Educators are effectively trying to project 12 years out and try and guess what the market will demand so that they can provide the minimum skills necessary to provide a modicum of middle-class life.
Educators are effectively trying to project 12 years out and try and guess what the market will demand so that they can provide the minimum skills necessary to provide a modicum of middle-class life.
This sounds like a gross exaggeration. Twelve years out? Are first-graders being taught the latest framework or something? Except that maybe it shouldn't stretch out for twelve years, pre-college education is learning the fundamentals that do not depend on the job market. The fundamentals haven't changed in hundreds of years.
> pre-college education is learning the fundamentals that do not depend on the job market.
That's the problem, though. Some companies, and many parents and students, no longer see it as that. They see secondary school as a place to train their future employees. And, because parents so often have to work multiple jobs, kids often come out knowing nothing about finance, so they complain about having to take classes like Algebra II.
To be honest, I feel like a lot of the problem could be solved if companies would actually go back to investing in employees. They want their employees to come fully-trained nowadays, and then don't really care about keeping them or their development. It pushes everything off onto the schools, which is also why so many feel like they have to attend university.
That's the problem, though. Some companies, and many parents and students, no longer see it as that. They see secondary school as a place to train their future employees. And, because parents so often have to work multiple jobs, kids often come out knowing nothing about finance, so they complain about having to take classes like Algebra II.
To be honest, I feel like a lot of the problem could be solved if companies would actually go back to investing in employees. They want their employees to come fully-trained nowadays, and then don't really care about keeping them or their development. It pushes everything off onto the schools, which is also why so many feel like they have to attend university.
The solution is to cut K-12 to K-8, and teach modern college courses in 9-12 instead of wasting time there to "prepare." Dual-track 9-12 so that one track is the equivalent of full college, and another is the equivalent of vocational school/community college. College can be what graduate school is now, and graduate school can go back to being genuinely faculty-track.
As a student who SUFFERED through K-12, was an awful C-D student, I agree 100% with this overall idea.
I went from a D high school to a straight A student in college. I found the freedom to choose to study what I am interested in ( Computer Science ) extremely liberating. I found the respect shown by the faculty to the students refreshing compared to my high-school. I found that being able to leave, take a nap, and then come back for my next class much more tolerable. I found that not being locked in a building for 9 hours a day freed up time to actually study and get your homework done.
Basically, I discovered what everyone else already knew: Current schooling is intended to keep kids in child-jail while their parents are working. Most schools do not have the resources to cater to bored gifted students, so we are cast aside with the understanding that "we'll be fine" while sitting through remedial classes where we have to read out loud because some of the students in the classroom are illiterate.
People claim college is a waste of time? HA. HIGH SCHOOL is four years of my life WASTED that I will never get back.
Let students set their own pace for education. Have them take responsibility for their own lives and future at a younger age. Let the children out of child jail.
I went from a D high school to a straight A student in college. I found the freedom to choose to study what I am interested in ( Computer Science ) extremely liberating. I found the respect shown by the faculty to the students refreshing compared to my high-school. I found that being able to leave, take a nap, and then come back for my next class much more tolerable. I found that not being locked in a building for 9 hours a day freed up time to actually study and get your homework done.
Basically, I discovered what everyone else already knew: Current schooling is intended to keep kids in child-jail while their parents are working. Most schools do not have the resources to cater to bored gifted students, so we are cast aside with the understanding that "we'll be fine" while sitting through remedial classes where we have to read out loud because some of the students in the classroom are illiterate.
People claim college is a waste of time? HA. HIGH SCHOOL is four years of my life WASTED that I will never get back.
Let students set their own pace for education. Have them take responsibility for their own lives and future at a younger age. Let the children out of child jail.
I think this would fix high-schools but not college. This is a great idea though. It'd fix the no child left behind and become more of a, if you want college great we'll help you there. If college isn't for you, also great we'll help you there too.
I'm not super convinced that the economic hardships many Americans experience is mainly because of what major they chose in college. I would think a larger factor is that many people can't afford a degree at all. Most Americans never get one. And a lot of people that do go to college start their adult life with tons of student debt. Shouldn't we focus on those things rather than potentially regulating what major people choose?
I think this is also part of the problem. Why do they need a degree? I have seen many jobs that have a degree to enter barrier which don't need them. All of a sudden you reduce the debt of your workforce while opening up to a whole new group of candidates. I can think of a handful of coworkers who did not need degrees at all. Just a H.S. Education would have been overkill in some cases.
I'd like to go back to a system where we look at what the job actually requires, and set the level there. Then educate people to that level. In this way we aren't allowing colleges to tell us what level we need to educate people to, but instead letting it become a hybrid.
The required education for your basic job should be free. But I also don't want to write a blank check for people to go to college for the college experience. I don't think that's necessary.
I'd like to go back to a system where we look at what the job actually requires, and set the level there. Then educate people to that level. In this way we aren't allowing colleges to tell us what level we need to educate people to, but instead letting it become a hybrid.
The required education for your basic job should be free. But I also don't want to write a blank check for people to go to college for the college experience. I don't think that's necessary.
There is a lot of potential work that needs to be done. The market is not providing the capital for it, but the need is apparent and you have an educated labor force surplus.
It is logical, moral and efficient to put that educated labor surplus to good use. It is stupid to throw that potential away, just because it does not enrich a few bankers and their wealthy shareholders. What about the rest of America?
This is talked about by Scott Alexander of Slate Star Codex here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/06/06/against-tulip-subsidies...
The idea of there being too many jobs that require degrees (but really don't utilize them) is touched on, and the proposed solution is for positions to not be allowed to ask for degree status. Instead, they would have to test for aptitude. The whole article is worth a read.
The idea of there being too many jobs that require degrees (but really don't utilize them) is touched on, and the proposed solution is for positions to not be allowed to ask for degree status. Instead, they would have to test for aptitude. The whole article is worth a read.
In the UK we are going to solve this by letting everybody get a degree, there is a move to allow apprentices to become graduates. Add in the fact that shops are offering apprenticeships for 'sandwich artists' and you can see where it is all going.
>"She once had her own office, secretaries and assistants, along with titles like “director” that spoke to her decades of experience. Now, she’s a temp — one of many.
>Levi was laid off from her job at a law office during a merger in early 2015, and has struggled to find long-term work. In late 2016, she filed for bankruptcy."
How do you go from director at 59 to filing bankruptcy in fewer than two year after losing your job? Fiscal irresponsibility
>Levi was laid off from her job at a law office during a merger in early 2015, and has struggled to find long-term work. In late 2016, she filed for bankruptcy."
How do you go from director at 59 to filing bankruptcy in fewer than two year after losing your job? Fiscal irresponsibility
>How do you go from director at 59 to filing bankruptcy in fewer than two year after losing your job? Fiscal irresponsibility
This is a very entitled and selfish statement. The act of simply existing is very expensive in the USA, and if you have children or have unexpected medical bills that can be tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, you can easily eat through all of your savings very quickly and not be able to pay back debts I'm sure they could pay before they were laid off.
This is a very entitled and selfish statement. The act of simply existing is very expensive in the USA, and if you have children or have unexpected medical bills that can be tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, you can easily eat through all of your savings very quickly and not be able to pay back debts I'm sure they could pay before they were laid off.
>The act of simply existing is very expensive in the USA
Someone who lives a lifestyle one typically associates with someone who's employment can be describes as "own office, secretaries and assistants, along with titles like “director” that spoke to her decades of experience" will become impoverished if they lose and do not quickly replace that job on any continent. It's not just a US thing.
Someone who lives a lifestyle one typically associates with someone who's employment can be describes as "own office, secretaries and assistants, along with titles like “director” that spoke to her decades of experience" will become impoverished if they lose and do not quickly replace that job on any continent. It's not just a US thing.
But it's a choice to live that lifestyle. Doing so is implicitly assuming that you will always have that income level - which is rather unwise to assume.
This is a very entitled and selfish statement.
It doesn't take a huge imagination to realise the unexpected could happen, especially at that age. If you have had a reasonable career in a well paying job then it is irresponsible not to put something away for a rainy day.
It doesn't take a huge imagination to realise the unexpected could happen, especially at that age. If you have had a reasonable career in a well paying job then it is irresponsible not to put something away for a rainy day.
In the United States, a bad medical problem can cost five-to-ten years' salary. That's one hell of a rainy day fund.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
The article didn't mention a bad medical problem, rather some low level issues.
I'm not sure using the lack of socialised health care as an excuse for not managing your finances is sensible. It's only a minority that need expensive health care before 65 but it seems it's the majority who aren't managing to live within their means.
I'm not sure using the lack of socialised health care as an excuse for not managing your finances is sensible. It's only a minority that need expensive health care before 65 but it seems it's the majority who aren't managing to live within their means.
2 years is a lot of rainy days.
I think about this a lot. I've always been a bit concerned with pricing myself out of the market. I've never really fought particularly hard for pay raises, but I have kept up my education and experience and my pay has risen pretty consistently, putting me in a very comfortable salary range. But I still consider the possibility that the bottom could drop out completely and every employer in the US could collectively decide that programmers aren't worth what they're paying us and find myself settling for a lot less than I've been used to. Before I got married and had kids, I organized my life around that possibility - I never put myself into a position where I _needed_ the paycheck I was getting. Since getting married and having two kids, though? My wife and I both make high salaries and we're still barely breaking even every month. It's all disposable stuff - lots of vacations, eating out several times a week, a handful of extracurricular activities for the kids; all stuff we could cut out in a heartbeat... _if_ she was willing to. Honestly, I'm not as worried about potentially losing earning potential as I am about convincing my wife that we have to make some cuts if we ever find ourselves in that position.
My wife and I read the Two Income Trap early in our relationship. Then I went to grad school. Then she went to grad school. Then I went to grad school again.
After seven years, we had never really had two incomes, only one.
So when we had a kid, all of our expectations were built on one income. We maintained those - my wife has been a SAHM now for almost three years. She's going to go back when he starts pre-school one or two days a week, but she'll be choosing satisfaction over money, and only to keep skills relevant (she still gets job offers). If I ever lose my job, she can make a call, get a job (she's privileged in her field), and pick up 80% of my slack. We did this so that we never have to be too worried about my team scaling down.
It helps me sleep at night.
After seven years, we had never really had two incomes, only one.
So when we had a kid, all of our expectations were built on one income. We maintained those - my wife has been a SAHM now for almost three years. She's going to go back when he starts pre-school one or two days a week, but she'll be choosing satisfaction over money, and only to keep skills relevant (she still gets job offers). If I ever lose my job, she can make a call, get a job (she's privileged in her field), and pick up 80% of my slack. We did this so that we never have to be too worried about my team scaling down.
It helps me sleep at night.
I am in no position to judge one way or another - but it seems like you already know what you want to do.
Indeed, bankrupt in two years after a high paid career speaks of financial irresponsibility. However, it does seem that in today's world the good jobs are far and in between. The middle class of the 1950's keeps getting squished. And the bridge from low class to middle class is financed by debt that takes often 30 years to pay off (student loans).
If you have a severe loss in income, bankruptcy after 2 years is probably too late. She probably cleaned out her retirement funds, which used to be largely protected from bankruptcy.
Just because she looked important at work, doesn't mean she was compensated as much as you all seem to believe.
It seems natural that bankruptcy filings would normally be “too late” from a retrospective position; the negative consequences favor delay if turnaround is reasonably possible, but the best time too have filed will probably be in the past once you've determined you need to.
Poor budgeting and fiscal irresponsibility are one. Also: getting sick/medical coverage with existing conditions? Mortgate debt on a house that doesn't have equity sufficient to cover costs after sale? Divorce? Family emergency? A combination of these?
>How do you go from director at 59 to filing bankruptcy in fewer than two year after losing your job? Fiscal irresponsibility
Or you know, fiscal responsibility, but a health issue or two in the house, and there goes your money...
Or you know, fiscal responsibility, but a health issue or two in the house, and there goes your money...
Are you familiar with the cost of health insurance for someone in their 50s? Along with other non-discretionary expenses, a significant decline in pay can quickly deplete emergency reserves and retirement accounts.
To assume financial irresponsibility is to grossly misunderstand the issue.
To assume financial irresponsibility is to grossly misunderstand the issue.
Healthcare coverage for a family of 3 at middle 30s costs 1200/mo, more than my mortgage. Do you believe paying for insurance, to cover some inevitable medical issue, irresponsible?
I understand getting sick is the number one cause of bankruptcy.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/05/01/this-is-the-no-1-...
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/05/01/this-is-the-no-1-...
The waste of human potential is staggering. The purpose of the economy should be to enable making full use of it. Instead we focus on profit.
You have to work out a system, then, to figure out who pays to employ the people doing unprofitable work. Not as easy as it sounds.
The government should become a temporary employer of last resort for workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. They could clean up parks, tutor children, paint over graffiti, update public records, provide child care for other workers, etc. Stuff that would be of value to society but which we often can't afford to pay regular government workers to do. This would help to keep unemployed people in the workforce and doing something productive while they retrain for jobs in higher demand.
And we should subsidize vocational training to a greater extent so that students aren't forced to take on financially crippling loans.
And we should subsidize vocational training to a greater extent so that students aren't forced to take on financially crippling loans.
All of the examples you gave of jobs that government should be paying people to do are jobs that are already done in the private sector. Tutoring and child care alone are very large industries.
The biggest issue with your proposal is that if those employees paid by the government to do these jobs are paid less than the private sector, you'll put the private sector out of business. If they're paid the same or better, you would need strong incentives to make them go find a different job instead of keeping a market rate job that is assured to never go away.
The biggest issue with your proposal is that if those employees paid by the government to do these jobs are paid less than the private sector, you'll put the private sector out of business. If they're paid the same or better, you would need strong incentives to make them go find a different job instead of keeping a market rate job that is assured to never go away.
You could just as well argue that we should eliminate existing government jobs and contract them out to create more private sector businesses. It's just a matter of degree.
I would propose that the temporary government employees be paid minimum wage. This isn't intended to be permanent.
I would propose that the temporary government employees be paid minimum wage. This isn't intended to be permanent.
That minimum wage government child care worker would put a whole bunch of private sector child care workers out of a job because the government can sell their child care services for cheaper than that for profit child care company can even ignoring the fact that the government run child care will be entirely tax payer funded.
There's quite a few jobs for which the government rightfully has a monopoly. I certainly wouldn't want the fire/police forces to be private. We had that and saw the problems it created. Same goes for the military. I'm not aware of an example of a private IRS or judicial system at a national level but I can't possibly see that going well either.
So yes it's a matter of degree but I disagree with you strongly on where to draw the line.
There's quite a few jobs for which the government rightfully has a monopoly. I certainly wouldn't want the fire/police forces to be private. We had that and saw the problems it created. Same goes for the military. I'm not aware of an example of a private IRS or judicial system at a national level but I can't possibly see that going well either.
So yes it's a matter of degree but I disagree with you strongly on where to draw the line.
Lots of things are profitable but never absurdly and increasingly profitable, which is the trap we are now in.
There’s no credit given for having a tidy business with steady profit. Instead you have to have “growth” and other this-quarter-must-be-better-than-last-quarter-or-else crap that “investors” want.
There’s no credit given for having a tidy business with steady profit. Instead you have to have “growth” and other this-quarter-must-be-better-than-last-quarter-or-else crap that “investors” want.
What sort of credit are you looking for? There are millions of tidy small businesses with steady profit. Just because you don't see newspaper articles about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Look around.
Small businesses are often able to get credit in the form of bank loans once they have established a track record of profitability.
Small businesses are often able to get credit in the form of bank loans once they have established a track record of profitability.
> but never absurdly and increasingly profitable
You are in a tech bubble. Absurd profitability is not required elsewhere.
You are in a tech bubble. Absurd profitability is not required elsewhere.
Yes but also the entire definition of "profitable" vs "unprofitable" work is messed up.
Simple example: The real, measurable costs of pollution - illness, polluted drinking water, etc - are externalized and so companies doing said polluting are "profitable." Would they still be profitable if those costs were not externalized? I suspect not.
Similarly I suspect there are externalities not being accounted for, for self-interested reasons on the parts of those collecting the profit, when assessing which types of work are profitable or not.
Simple example: The real, measurable costs of pollution - illness, polluted drinking water, etc - are externalized and so companies doing said polluting are "profitable." Would they still be profitable if those costs were not externalized? I suspect not.
Similarly I suspect there are externalities not being accounted for, for self-interested reasons on the parts of those collecting the profit, when assessing which types of work are profitable or not.
Hmm, in your incentive system, human exterminator might be the most profitable job title.
> The purpose of the economy should be to enable making full use of it. Instead we focus on profit.
Please define what "making full use of it" means, without referring to profit.
Because without that definition your sentence doesn't actually say anything.
Please define what "making full use of it" means, without referring to profit.
Because without that definition your sentence doesn't actually say anything.
Here's a radical idea: get rid of the stock market and public ownership of stock.
The only way to become an owner of a company is by being an employee. Essentially, all companies become co-ops. Investment of capital would happen through long-term relationships with banks, not through selling pieces of the company off to creeps who want outrageous returns at the expense of the employees/customers.
Instead of short-term gains, people now focus on 10, 20, and 50-year plans. Employees can democratically elect their leadership (or any other internal system can be set up).
The stock market and public ownership in general seems like an incredible waste of resources and focus.
The only way to become an owner of a company is by being an employee. Essentially, all companies become co-ops. Investment of capital would happen through long-term relationships with banks, not through selling pieces of the company off to creeps who want outrageous returns at the expense of the employees/customers.
Instead of short-term gains, people now focus on 10, 20, and 50-year plans. Employees can democratically elect their leadership (or any other internal system can be set up).
The stock market and public ownership in general seems like an incredible waste of resources and focus.
I don't think these two things have to be mutually exclusive. Much of the retirement savings people do have is invested in the stock market. I created tons of wealth for Americans, it's just not distributed fairly. I'd like to see more Americans represented by unions. Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision will make that much more difficult. Germany strikes me as good example of letting people share in the economic growth of their country. Some businesses are employee owned, many are unionized, and union reps make up some of the board members on public companies. That kind of thing is almost unthinkable in the U.S. but it benefits the average person greatly.
Human Potential is worthless if it is not profitable. A lot of third world countries have jobs programs where they pay one group to dig holes and another group to fill up those holes.
What US currently lacks is the entrepreneurs who would come up with new products and services and then employe the unemployed, old people etc. But given the restrictions on immigration of highly skilled individual this is going to be tough to achieve.
What US currently lacks is the entrepreneurs who would come up with new products and services and then employe the unemployed, old people etc. But given the restrictions on immigration of highly skilled individual this is going to be tough to achieve.
The education system and social expectations have not changed WRT entrepreneurship since the pre-1950s era, so naturally a model designed for producing cannon fodder factory workers in 1900 isn't going to work well in a 2020 economy. In that way the first half of your comment is correct. It'll be a cold day in hell when corporate funded clickbait journalism permits anything positive to be written about entrepreneurship. All big government retraining programs revolve around giving tax credits to big corporations for participating in taxpayer funded programs to retrain people to work for those big corporations. In exchange for campaign donations of course. Its always a scam, and its never to primarily benefit the individual participants.
The problem with the second half of your comment is its multiple applications of the magic dirt theory, in that somehow there exists a magic dirt in some countries that grows great entrepreneurs who are also magically forbidden from success in their own lands, yet supposedly magic dirt in other countries produces the opposite effect of people who cannot create business while in the conditions for great success. And somehow the solution to this magic soil fertilization issue is to take a solution that works for 1 person, such as moving around the world, and scaling it by 7.6 Billion to move the entire world population to Silicon Valley. The exact biochemistry is also mysterious, in that moving people around is implied to be a perm fix, although its more likely that moving people from "where X is broken" to "where Y is broken" will merely result in a larger quantity of "where Y is broken" people after a short amount of time, essentially re-enacting the slave trade to harvest a perpetual supply of human capital. Or maybe its a weird varient of old fashioned imperial era colonies complete with mercantilism. Move all the unemployed orange growers from Florida to Alaska, the only economic result will be a larger number of unemployed orange growers in Alaska rather than FL. Likewise there is no number of experienced profitable Maine fishing boat captains adequate to import and create a lobster fishing boom in Nevada, South Dakota, or Wyoming. Problems that don't scale have to be solved at the root of the problem, rather than brute force. On an individual basis, of course its nice when immigrating entrepreneurs work out, but for a variety of reasons it's not a scalable or long term solution to the very large scale overall economic problem.
The problem with the second half of your comment is its multiple applications of the magic dirt theory, in that somehow there exists a magic dirt in some countries that grows great entrepreneurs who are also magically forbidden from success in their own lands, yet supposedly magic dirt in other countries produces the opposite effect of people who cannot create business while in the conditions for great success. And somehow the solution to this magic soil fertilization issue is to take a solution that works for 1 person, such as moving around the world, and scaling it by 7.6 Billion to move the entire world population to Silicon Valley. The exact biochemistry is also mysterious, in that moving people around is implied to be a perm fix, although its more likely that moving people from "where X is broken" to "where Y is broken" will merely result in a larger quantity of "where Y is broken" people after a short amount of time, essentially re-enacting the slave trade to harvest a perpetual supply of human capital. Or maybe its a weird varient of old fashioned imperial era colonies complete with mercantilism. Move all the unemployed orange growers from Florida to Alaska, the only economic result will be a larger number of unemployed orange growers in Alaska rather than FL. Likewise there is no number of experienced profitable Maine fishing boat captains adequate to import and create a lobster fishing boom in Nevada, South Dakota, or Wyoming. Problems that don't scale have to be solved at the root of the problem, rather than brute force. On an individual basis, of course its nice when immigrating entrepreneurs work out, but for a variety of reasons it's not a scalable or long term solution to the very large scale overall economic problem.
A lot of third world countries have jobs programs where they pay one group to dig holes and another group to fill up those holes.
That pretty much describes most of humanity, resource extraction to landfill with a brief stop off in our living rooms.
That pretty much describes most of humanity, resource extraction to landfill with a brief stop off in our living rooms.
Immigrant entrepreneurs aren’t going to magically start hiring elderly and other under employed cohorts.
No, may be they will hire all the young ones and native born will hire the elderly. The idea is to unleash creativity.
The recession was a market correction not just for housing prices but also for labor prices, and a lot of educated/experienced workers have learned that the market doesn't value their skills like they thought they did.
What is paradoxical is that American voters keep voting to reduce taxes for the rich, who don't do anything with that saved money to increase businesses.
Taxes should be lower for the poor who would thus spend more and keep the economic engine running and create jobs.
Taxes should be much higher for the rich so that that money is used by Govt to do infrastructure work (create jobs) or pay down debt (and thus provide services and create jobs).
Lowering taxes for the rich just allows the rich to seek investments that will increase their own wealth, not necessary creating jobs (Some VCs are an abberation to this).
Taxes should be lower for the poor who would thus spend more and keep the economic engine running and create jobs.
Taxes should be much higher for the rich so that that money is used by Govt to do infrastructure work (create jobs) or pay down debt (and thus provide services and create jobs).
Lowering taxes for the rich just allows the rich to seek investments that will increase their own wealth, not necessary creating jobs (Some VCs are an abberation to this).
They keep electing people who reduce taxes for the rich. If it was up for a direct vote, I doubt most of these tax bills would pass. The last one was deeply unpopular with the public.
Some of it's just failings of a two party system. You vote for the one you like better, but given a binary choice it's a fairly non-specific vote.
Some of it's just failings of a two party system. You vote for the one you like better, but given a binary choice it's a fairly non-specific vote.
I think this a great opportunity for someone to make a real time "consequences" website.
Whatever the candidate says, fact check it and display a few important impacts to people directly. Economic is the easiest. Another good one is jobs, taxes, quality of life, debt, inequality.
Whatever the candidate says, fact check it and display a few important impacts to people directly. Economic is the easiest. Another good one is jobs, taxes, quality of life, debt, inequality.
I am having hard time understanding the problem articulated in this article. Can someone with English as first language summarise the actual technical arguments ?
For example I see that there is one graph with part-time, full-time graph. The full time employment has increased rapidly while the part-time graph remains the same. How is that possible ? Also, sharing economy is a new thing where a lot of people who would be "unemployed" in past are now doing part time work. A lot of work can be done online today staying at home and hence more people might have taken up part time work.
Another graph shows how part time and full time wages have grown and it claims part-time wages have been stagnant. The graph does not show that.
-- “I’m overqualified for these jobs, but they don’t think that I would be happy to do them,” Corcoran said. “I’m not finding any interest in a 60-year-old guy with gray hair and, honestly, kind of a limited shelf life.” --
Aren't these people actually the perfect candidates for part time experimental work positions where you could fire them easily ? (In almost all countries old people have hard time finding new employment)
For example I see that there is one graph with part-time, full-time graph. The full time employment has increased rapidly while the part-time graph remains the same. How is that possible ? Also, sharing economy is a new thing where a lot of people who would be "unemployed" in past are now doing part time work. A lot of work can be done online today staying at home and hence more people might have taken up part time work.
Another graph shows how part time and full time wages have grown and it claims part-time wages have been stagnant. The graph does not show that.
-- “I’m overqualified for these jobs, but they don’t think that I would be happy to do them,” Corcoran said. “I’m not finding any interest in a 60-year-old guy with gray hair and, honestly, kind of a limited shelf life.” --
Aren't these people actually the perfect candidates for part time experimental work positions where you could fire them easily ? (In almost all countries old people have hard time finding new employment)
Many “jobs” today won’t even cover cost of living in their areas, making UNDER-employment a valid issue that is too easily ignored in statistics that show lots of people “employed”.
Also, being forced to take on a massive amount of debt just to have a chance to get a certain job makes that job less valuable overall. A company can still boot you out in less time than it takes to pay off debts so you’re really trying to find continued employment to justify an investment such as having to move or obtaining a degree. And of course you might acquire new debts while paying off the older ones.
These situations tie the hands of so many, and that’s not a “strong” economy. If there’s no truly disposable income, you’re essentially expecting people to set aside their basic needs to raise your stock price.
Also, being forced to take on a massive amount of debt just to have a chance to get a certain job makes that job less valuable overall. A company can still boot you out in less time than it takes to pay off debts so you’re really trying to find continued employment to justify an investment such as having to move or obtaining a degree. And of course you might acquire new debts while paying off the older ones.
These situations tie the hands of so many, and that’s not a “strong” economy. If there’s no truly disposable income, you’re essentially expecting people to set aside their basic needs to raise your stock price.
This sums up in a nutshell the 40 year slide in Mens wages:
“When he first started working iron, Hartnett was making about $43.90 in today’s dollars. On his last project, he made $16.93.”
“When he first started working iron, Hartnett was making about $43.90 in today’s dollars. On his last project, he made $16.93.”
Why the U3 statistic for unemployment is far from telling the whole story:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+adult+population,+us...
I find it amazing how much US cares about employment rate. Then people start talking about U3 vs U*. I know they mean something... they always come up.
What I'm curious about these statistics is: how do the statistics track the self-employed?
Seems to me the gig-economy is not about part-time jobs but about part-time self-employment.
So, if you are self-employed and you pay your taxes, from the government's point of view you are OK. But that doesn't mean you are profitable or making a living wage.
In IT, if you are 'benched' the employer pays you regardless. But a 'benched' self-employed person is basically an unemployed that is burning through cash paying taxes, health insurance, etc.
What I'm curious about these statistics is: how do the statistics track the self-employed?
Seems to me the gig-economy is not about part-time jobs but about part-time self-employment.
So, if you are self-employed and you pay your taxes, from the government's point of view you are OK. But that doesn't mean you are profitable or making a living wage.
In IT, if you are 'benched' the employer pays you regardless. But a 'benched' self-employed person is basically an unemployed that is burning through cash paying taxes, health insurance, etc.
> that doesn't mean you are profitable or making a living wage
These statistics are tracked to a pedantic level of detail by the BLS. You can get numbers of people by industry and zip code and earnings bucket and quarter for most categories of self employment going back to the early 1980s. Moreover, unemployment isn’t mean to measure if people are getting a liveable wage. It measure if they’re getting any wage. The problem you cite is an issue, but it would quickly resolve itself into unemployment as the cash stores ran out.
These statistics are tracked to a pedantic level of detail by the BLS. You can get numbers of people by industry and zip code and earnings bucket and quarter for most categories of self employment going back to the early 1980s. Moreover, unemployment isn’t mean to measure if people are getting a liveable wage. It measure if they’re getting any wage. The problem you cite is an issue, but it would quickly resolve itself into unemployment as the cash stores ran out.
I wasn't thinking only about the self-employed (as in S-corp) but also LLC owners that are employees at their own company and smaller ventures/startups(?).
Indeed, at some point the money runs out and that will become actual unemployment, but it will show up in statistics with a rather long delay or not at all.
In the mean time, you have people doing literally nothing while on paper the economy is overheating.
Of course, I'm sure it's a small percentage of the population... so probably not very relevant.
Indeed, at some point the money runs out and that will become actual unemployment, but it will show up in statistics with a rather long delay or not at all.
In the mean time, you have people doing literally nothing while on paper the economy is overheating.
Of course, I'm sure it's a small percentage of the population... so probably not very relevant.
"For consistencies sake" (or more likely, to make the numbers look better) the stats have been compiled the same way for a century or more with criteria relevant to an economy mostly employing unskilled manual laborers for factory work and ag work. Because unskilled laborers can find a job if they want in less than a year, they drop off the unemployement rolls after a year. Of course its trivial if you have an esoteric degree and decades of experience to end up in a situation where there are no skilled jobs in your field... at all... regardless how "hot" the economy might be for other people with other skills, and in a year it won't matter anyway as you drop off the list of unemployed and onto NEET or similar status. That is the situation with almost every person in the linked article, they have 2020 skills and experience, no jobs exist for those skills, and they'll will only appear for a short time in unemployment stats designed to track unskilled manual laborers working at a Ford plant a century ago.
The only problem with that rant is that the entire premise is false. Unemployment benefits have a time limit, but unemployment statistics do not (you only fall off of the headline unemployment statistic if you become institutionalized or employed, stop actively looking for work, or die.)
Even some of the people who stop actively looking for work are still tracked in unemployment statistics, just not in the U3 rate that is usually reported headlines. Discouraged and marginally attached workers who have stopped looking for work because they don't think they will find a job but who would like to work if they could find one are tracked in the U4 and U5 measures.
That's because it's not a strong economy. Millions have stopped looking for work and never started after the recession. Wages have stagnated even for white collar jobs. Employers are unwilling to pay competitively. Millions like the ones in the article are underemployed and underutilized. How the fuck is that a strong economy?
You know, I keep hearing the 'many stopped working during the recession' thing bandied about like received wisdom, and have not seen any statistics to back that up.
Note: I am not saying it's not true, just that I personally haven't seen any studies or reports to back up that fact. Have you a link? All the U6 (real) unemployment rate numbers I've seen indicate 'real' unemployment is back to pre-recession numbers
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
There's this. This doesn't exactly back up the claim - there are a lot of reasons people might not be participating.
There's this. This doesn't exactly back up the claim - there are a lot of reasons people might not be participating.
Especially this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060
25-54 year Labor Paticipation Rate is those that you'd expect to be working but aren't.
25-54 year Labor Paticipation Rate is those that you'd expect to be working but aren't.
The difference between the 25-54 and civilian participation rates are largely attributable to retiring boomers. Participation rates depend heavily on demographics. They matter for things like dependency ratios. But quoting them without the context of a large generation retiring and increasing time spent getting educated hides the full picture. That said, the 3 percentage point drop in 25-54 participation is largely attributable to the opioid crisis—that’s a disturbing start to a trend.
How do you propose such statistics be collected if these people have given up and are no longer looking for a job and are no longer receiving unemployment benefits? I assume this is why the unemployment rate doesn't include these people and therefore doesn't ever reflect reality.
I see.
So you just feel like there are millions of such people, and don't have any actual facts to back that statement up.
And there is a statistic that does capture those kind of discouraged workers, it's the U6 unemployment rate. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-... And like I said, the U6 numbers do not reflect your original statement that millions of people gave up during the recession and have not worked since.
And there is a statistic that does capture those kind of discouraged workers, it's the U6 unemployment rate. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080415/true-... And like I said, the U6 numbers do not reflect your original statement that millions of people gave up during the recession and have not worked since.
You would expect that as the largest cohort in modern history retires en mass that the ratio of people in the work force to those outside would start to shift. I think its valid to say that a lot of baby boomers were discouraged post-2008 and perhaps would have worked an extra decade had things been better. But at this point we're well into their retirement years.
Except that, statistically, most baby boomers in the USA have zero to little saved for retirement, and can't afford to retire, and so they keep working.
They have not saved nearly enough but it hasn't stopped them from retiring. The number to watch is the "old-age dependency ratio" which has risen to 25/200 from 21 per 100 in 2010. The trend is for this number to increase as more boomers surpass 65.
As people age their skills and acuity decrease, so while some may want to continue working its not at all a sure thing they'd be able to even if 2008 hadn't happened. I can't think of a good statistic to capture this and we're both looking at second derivative statistics.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/retiring-baby-boomers-leave-the...
As people age their skills and acuity decrease, so while some may want to continue working its not at all a sure thing they'd be able to even if 2008 hadn't happened. I can't think of a good statistic to capture this and we're both looking at second derivative statistics.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/retiring-baby-boomers-leave-the...
I know a few people who would have retired except they need the health insurance.
Isn't medicare better than most private insurance plans?
Maybe a long time ago. Politics have dramatically since changed Medicare, which is why nearly all seniors buy supplement plans today.
Medicare doesn't start until 65. So they probably mean would have retired early.
Close to half the baby boomer cohort is 65 or older now. We're not talking about early retirement.
> And once we knew where to look, we found their stories hiding in plain sight, in the Labor Department’s data.
In other words, you began your research with conclusion already in mind, and then looked for a way to present this data to show this conclusion.
Excellent statistical work. That's exactly how such research should be done.
In other words, you began your research with conclusion already in mind, and then looked for a way to present this data to show this conclusion.
Excellent statistical work. That's exactly how such research should be done.
From an employer standpoint, educated and experienced = expensive
And everyone is looking for a deal. And sometimes people have to be burned by going cheap. Although sometimes they do get lucky and get someone decent for a pittance.
An ideal employee (in maybe 75% of the positions out there) should only know enough to get his or her job done.
Long term unemployed people are cheap to hire no matter what their experience or education.
and maybe too opinionated ?
[deleted]
It is time for Universal Basic Income.
https://www.yang2020.com/
https://www.yang2020.com/
That's always the easy answer, isn't it?
It is not easy, but it is something I believe we need to try as part of the solution to the problems facing our species on this planet.
http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq
http://www.scottsantens.com/basic-income-faq
Until you have to find enough money to pay for it.
There is a lot of savings in its low administration costs. Since it would replace a number of social programs that have high administration costs, a UBI actually saves money.
There can be additional cost savings in UBI (and even in existing social programs) if it is structured to incentivise people to work. Many existing social programs actually disincentivise people from working because they lose the income from the social program if they work (too much) and it results in a net loss for them, so they don't bother working.
If a social program is structured so that people don't lose all of their social program income when they work, then they realize a net gain in their income and they continue working. The longer they continue working, the more likely it is that they will gain experience allowing them to make more income on their own, resulting in a further reduction of their social program income.
A very simplistic example would be to remove 50 cents for every dollar they make at their job. If they received $500/month when not working, by the time they're making $1000/month at their job, they're receiving no social program income anymore.
There can be additional cost savings in UBI (and even in existing social programs) if it is structured to incentivise people to work. Many existing social programs actually disincentivise people from working because they lose the income from the social program if they work (too much) and it results in a net loss for them, so they don't bother working.
If a social program is structured so that people don't lose all of their social program income when they work, then they realize a net gain in their income and they continue working. The longer they continue working, the more likely it is that they will gain experience allowing them to make more income on their own, resulting in a further reduction of their social program income.
A very simplistic example would be to remove 50 cents for every dollar they make at their job. If they received $500/month when not working, by the time they're making $1000/month at their job, they're receiving no social program income anymore.
Most American's can't afford a $1000 emergency [1].
Wages actually went down last month [2]
78% of Americans are living Paycheck to Paycheck. [3]
Nearly half of all Americans are low-income or in poverty. [4]
1/5 of children in USA are living in poverty [5]
I want someone to explain to me how this is a "good economy". I keep hearing it. It's total nonsense. I'm glad WaPo is bringing up that workers are still struggling despite these claims of a "strong economy".
[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/most-americans-cant-aff...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-t...
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...
[4] https://kairoscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Poverty-...
[5] http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html