People voluntarily leaving jobs at highest rate since 2009 downturn(jsonline.com)
jsonline.com
People voluntarily leaving jobs at highest rate since 2009 downturn
http://www.jsonline.com/business/people-voluntarily-leaving-jobs-at-highest-rate-since-2009-downturn-b99303175z1-265866551.html
24 comments
The article assumes this is because of a greater sense of security in the labor market, but they ignore the other possibility - nastier jobs that promise less for the future.
Having seen an upsurge in friends quitting, I can tell you that this is the reason for the quitting. Jobs are paying less, asking for more work, in conditions that are worse.
This is especially difficult when you have a prior standard of work and pay to judge from. Most people are willing to cut their pay 20-30% from their top, but a 40-50% cut with worse conditions, and higher expectations, people will quit.
That's what I'm seeing.
This is especially difficult when you have a prior standard of work and pay to judge from. Most people are willing to cut their pay 20-30% from their top, but a 40-50% cut with worse conditions, and higher expectations, people will quit.
That's what I'm seeing.
...or the liberating effect of knowing you'll have healthcare coverage wherever you go? (Chill with the downvotes, it's just a hypothesis.)
That's a very good point. I didn't really support Obamacare when it passed, but if helps separates health insurance from employment it's probably a net positive.
this is a huge reason to support obamacare..
I know a guy who happens to be extremely specialized in a certain high-end medical finance suite. He could easily demand a very high consulting rate. However, his wife is a cancer survivor so under the old health laws he had to settle for a single employer at a hospital administration salary.
I know a guy who happens to be extremely specialized in a certain high-end medical finance suite. He could easily demand a very high consulting rate. However, his wife is a cancer survivor so under the old health laws he had to settle for a single employer at a hospital administration salary.
As a non-American, can you explain why you would not support Obamacare?
ObamaCare has a few good features - heavy subsidy for those with very low income, and not turning people away who have pre-existing conditions.
However, it has some extremely serious downsides. Firstly, it's the same predatory insurance companies providing the insurance, only you're forced to buy from them. The available choices have gone down, and in particular there is no catastrophic cover anymore. Also, none of the plans are great - you still end up paying a huge amount out of pocket if you get seriously ill.
Basically it's tuned for people who overuse healthcare. For someone who actually takes good care of themselves but recognizes that serious conditions and accidents can happen to everyone, it's an extortion racket that will take money that could have been used for prevention and give it to the insurers.
However, it has some extremely serious downsides. Firstly, it's the same predatory insurance companies providing the insurance, only you're forced to buy from them. The available choices have gone down, and in particular there is no catastrophic cover anymore. Also, none of the plans are great - you still end up paying a huge amount out of pocket if you get seriously ill.
Basically it's tuned for people who overuse healthcare. For someone who actually takes good care of themselves but recognizes that serious conditions and accidents can happen to everyone, it's an extortion racket that will take money that could have been used for prevention and give it to the insurers.
2 reasons.
Constitutional: If the government can force you to buy something from a private company there's not really much left that it can't do. In fact this was the argument the Supreme Court made when it refuted that governments argument that the Affordable Care Act was justified by the commerce clause--that such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause would essentially grant the federal government unlimited power. However, the justification that the Supreme Court actually went with, that the ACA was basically just a tax, is a bit ridiculous because it has almost all of the same problems.
Basically the difference according to the supreme court is that congress doesn't have the authority to make it illegal not to buy health insurance. They can't throw you in jail for not buying health insurance. But they can tax you for not paying health insurance and throw you in jail for refusing to pay the tax. The end result is pretty similar.
Practical: This has more to do with the Affordable Care Act after the Supreme Court made some alterations, rather than the bill that was passed. The subsidies provided by the ACA are only for people making an income above some multiple X of the poverty line, and below some multiple Y. People with very low incomes were supposed to be covered by an expansion of medicaid, but the Supreme Court ruled that congress can't force states to expand medicaid. So in more than half the states people making just above a certain threshold get essentially free healthcare, while people making below it get nothing. In these states the ACA has done almost nothing to help the very poorest.
I would have honestly supported a single payer system and a universal (but progressive) tax instead of this public private hybrid with punitive taxes.
However, i think removing the ability for insurance companies to charge based on preexisting conditions, and the supplements provided for most middle class people will go a long way towards decoupling employment and health insurance. I generally support anything that will increase personal autonomy and allowing more people to work for themselves is a great way to do that.
Constitutional: If the government can force you to buy something from a private company there's not really much left that it can't do. In fact this was the argument the Supreme Court made when it refuted that governments argument that the Affordable Care Act was justified by the commerce clause--that such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause would essentially grant the federal government unlimited power. However, the justification that the Supreme Court actually went with, that the ACA was basically just a tax, is a bit ridiculous because it has almost all of the same problems.
Basically the difference according to the supreme court is that congress doesn't have the authority to make it illegal not to buy health insurance. They can't throw you in jail for not buying health insurance. But they can tax you for not paying health insurance and throw you in jail for refusing to pay the tax. The end result is pretty similar.
Practical: This has more to do with the Affordable Care Act after the Supreme Court made some alterations, rather than the bill that was passed. The subsidies provided by the ACA are only for people making an income above some multiple X of the poverty line, and below some multiple Y. People with very low incomes were supposed to be covered by an expansion of medicaid, but the Supreme Court ruled that congress can't force states to expand medicaid. So in more than half the states people making just above a certain threshold get essentially free healthcare, while people making below it get nothing. In these states the ACA has done almost nothing to help the very poorest.
I would have honestly supported a single payer system and a universal (but progressive) tax instead of this public private hybrid with punitive taxes.
However, i think removing the ability for insurance companies to charge based on preexisting conditions, and the supplements provided for most middle class people will go a long way towards decoupling employment and health insurance. I generally support anything that will increase personal autonomy and allowing more people to work for themselves is a great way to do that.
I do not understand your second reason.
> So in more than half the states people making just above a certain threshold get essentially free healthcare, while people making below it get nothing. In these states ACA has done almost nothing to help the very poorest.
The ACA, by itself, has done everything it could have to help the poorest, within the options that would actually pass the US congress (2009-2010). The Supreme Court said the ACA could not force the states to take the (federally funded) Medicaid expansion, so the state governments used that choice as a political party loyalty test. The state governments chose to refuse preallocated federal money, to help the poor, to show their loyalty for the next election cycle.
I too would have preferred a single payer system, but the ACA is what passed and the state governments have made their choice.
> So in more than half the states people making just above a certain threshold get essentially free healthcare, while people making below it get nothing. In these states ACA has done almost nothing to help the very poorest.
The ACA, by itself, has done everything it could have to help the poorest, within the options that would actually pass the US congress (2009-2010). The Supreme Court said the ACA could not force the states to take the (federally funded) Medicaid expansion, so the state governments used that choice as a political party loyalty test. The state governments chose to refuse preallocated federal money, to help the poor, to show their loyalty for the next election cycle.
I too would have preferred a single payer system, but the ACA is what passed and the state governments have made their choice.
>The Supreme Court said the ACA could not force the states to take the (federally funded) Medicaid expansion
The medicaid expansion is only fully federally funded for the first 3 years. It goes down to 90% by 2020 (Edit: I originally wrote 2014), and could very easily be pushed below that later on--Republican governors used that as an excuse not to expand.
I think they could have passed a bill that either allowed people making below the poverty level to use the exchanges with subsidies or they could have fully funded the medicaid expansion. I really don't think adding a small fractional increase in total cost would have killed the bill.
The medicaid expansion is only fully federally funded for the first 3 years. It goes down to 90% by 2020 (Edit: I originally wrote 2014), and could very easily be pushed below that later on--Republican governors used that as an excuse not to expand.
I think they could have passed a bill that either allowed people making below the poverty level to use the exchanges with subsidies or they could have fully funded the medicaid expansion. I really don't think adding a small fractional increase in total cost would have killed the bill.
That is not necessarily true. Employers are moving to Employer contributed health insurance. Which means that there is a specialize payment option [given benefits of paying pre-tax] that subsidizes the health insurance option. So technically they do and don't offer the plan.
This opens up the PHX (Private Health Exchange, market). The future effects are a little unknown at the moment, but the PHX is making bank.
All the ACA (screw the name "Obamacare") just is a requirement that all citizens must have health insurance. It's no longer a situation where the "poverty" citizens and seniors are guaranteed health insurance anymore. So if you go jobless/self employeed, you'll have to get a plan on the private market.
Good thing: The private market (which forces the carriers to actually compete for once). Also, the carriers have a requirement to serve their customers rather than administrative items. (Which also helps the secondary carrier supporting market)
Bad: Employers are given more power to push their social/health agendas and will be going away from group based plans.
This opens up the PHX (Private Health Exchange, market). The future effects are a little unknown at the moment, but the PHX is making bank.
All the ACA (screw the name "Obamacare") just is a requirement that all citizens must have health insurance. It's no longer a situation where the "poverty" citizens and seniors are guaranteed health insurance anymore. So if you go jobless/self employeed, you'll have to get a plan on the private market.
Good thing: The private market (which forces the carriers to actually compete for once). Also, the carriers have a requirement to serve their customers rather than administrative items. (Which also helps the secondary carrier supporting market)
Bad: Employers are given more power to push their social/health agendas and will be going away from group based plans.
Underplaying the changes a little there. Even ignoring everything else, removing the pre-existing condition limitations made private/non-employer insurance an option for (at least) about 20% of working-age Americans who previously wouldn't have had the option.
Compared to what? You don't get unemployment if you quit voluntarily, unless you can show you were effectiely forced out (eg abusive workplace or somesuch).
Burning through savings looking for another job, working part time, trying to start something of one's own, relying on family members, recognizing that one's mental health is at stake and no job is better than personal collapse...
There are lots of possibilities. Note that the uptick is relatively small. People don't have to be choosing rational or amazing alternatives. There just has to be a slightly larger percentage of people unable to handle the working conditions, and choosing any alternative.
There are lots of possibilities. Note that the uptick is relatively small. People don't have to be choosing rational or amazing alternatives. There just has to be a slightly larger percentage of people unable to handle the working conditions, and choosing any alternative.
Those possibilities all make sense at the individual level (I've had personal experience of several) but at the macro level the correlation with economic performance seems pretty tight. I'm having trouble buying the idea that negative reasons have taken over the trend. Nor do I think the uptick is especially small, it looks entirely proportional to me (bearing in mind that unemployment is a lagging indicator, and the financial crisis began in 08.
I hate my job more than anything I've ever hated. Every morning when I wake up I try to figure out if today will be the day that I call in and tell my manager that I can't do this to myself anymore.
My therapist keeps begging me to quit. Ultimately I'm just too afraid of not finding anything else to quit without a new job.
I guess it is nice to know that I am not alone.
My therapist keeps begging me to quit. Ultimately I'm just too afraid of not finding anything else to quit without a new job.
I guess it is nice to know that I am not alone.
By itself, quit rate is a meaningless statistic.
They should lump it into two groups.
1. People who quit and find a new job within 1-2 months.
2. People who quit and don't find a new job within 1-2 months.
Then, you can find out what % of people are quitting because they found a better job. It's even better if you can split (1) up into people who quit for a higher-paying job.
They should lump it into two groups.
1. People who quit and find a new job within 1-2 months.
2. People who quit and don't find a new job within 1-2 months.
Then, you can find out what % of people are quitting because they found a better job. It's even better if you can split (1) up into people who quit for a higher-paying job.
Is this adjusted to account for people who age out of the workforce? Presumably, as baby boomers reach retirement age, more people will exit the workforce than enter it, even in good times.
EDIT: Yes, this is among working-age people. But still, I'd assume early retirement would increase the numbers as baby boomers get older.
EDIT: Yes, this is among working-age people. But still, I'd assume early retirement would increase the numbers as baby boomers get older.
>Presumably, as baby boomers reach retirement age, more people will exit the workforce than enter it, even in good times
A .2% yoy change is a sign of growing confidence lol..
It's a 10% shift in the rate (and nearly 50% higher than the low point), so yes, it is significant.