Fewest working, or looking for work, since.........1978!!!

[OverVolt]

In the 1970s people bought a car and kept it for years like 6 years on average I believe. You did not have people perpetually leasing automobiles and luxury vehicles were actually a rare sight. Now you will see the people driving Mercedes and bmws quite a bit.

Also people did not borrow or spend no where near as much as you see today. Nor did you see people buying McMansions with 5 bedrooms for a family of 3.

Back then the regular working guy lived in a modest rambler or ranch style home, about 900-1300 square feet. And the kids shared one room, mom and dad slept in the other room.

People live a much more modest lifestyle in the 70s and a lot of families had single earners ie the dad and mom stayed home.

This is why the participation of the labor force was smaller back then.


So If we are indeed seeing a labor force bubble correction, does this mean people will spend and live like the 1970s?

That would be the last thing the elites such as the kock brothers would want to see.

At some point something is definitely going to give way.

More women are in the workforce now so the employment rate numbers are worse than in the 70's. I'm not saying its a bad thing, I don't care personally. Its just the facts. One of my Anatomy teachers originally got a bachelors in nursing because in the 60's and 70's it was the only way to get your foot in the door in academia as a woman. In reality what she wanted to do was work in a research lab, which in the 80's paid around $20/hr and she did this for a number of years. These days college students are jumping over each other to do it for free so their name can be a foot note on a research paper and their resume. Which is why these days she was teaching.

The whole "get a bachelors in nursing to get your foot in the door of academia" is actually really common with the older woman baby boomer cohort. Talk to some of them.

 

[Vic]

yes..get some rest and read up on your liberal mythology.

Seriously, go back on your meds. Then think on the poor way in which you represent your political affiliation.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Today your typical family now requires two earners compared to back then. But then Americans now spend a shit load more than they did in the 1970s. As I said in my last post. People saved much more and spend less on discretionary things like they do today.

If the average American decides to spend like in the 1970s again, it will be a nightmare for the elite, ie kock brothers etc..


just think about it what if the average American decides to go back to owning non luxury cars like corollas for 6 years on average? and they decide to cut down on shopping only for the necessities and that's it?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The Koch brothers companies are so diversified it would take a economic colapse to affect them.

 

[Vic]

Today your typical family now requires two earners compared to back then. But then Americans now spend a shit load more than they did in the 1970s. As I said in my last post. People saved much more and spend less on discretionary things like they do today.

If the average American decides to spend like in the 1970s again, it will be a nightmare for the elite, ie kock brothers etc..


just think about it what if the average American decides to go back to owning non luxury cars like corollas for 6 years on average? and they decide to cut down on shopping only for the necessities and that's it?

I had a similar discussion with a friend not long ago. He was complaining about the high cost of living, etc which made it "impossible" to save money or pay off debts.. and I had to ask him if he had always bought Starbucks every morning. Or had he always driven a luxury SUV. Or had that big house with the giant mortgage.
Needless to say, he didn't get it. An otherwise smart guy too.

 

[IGBT]

Seriously, go back on your meds. Then think on the poor way in which you represent your political affiliation.

..well I guess if I was a liberal liar like you everything would be just fine. Be advised I'm a registered democrat. Have been for years on end.

 

[ivwshane]

..well I guess if I was a liberal liar like you everything would be just fine. Be advised I'm a registered democrat. Have been for years on end.

No you aren't a liberal...a liar? Yes, most definitely.

 

[Vic]

..well I guess if I was a liberal liar like you everything would be just fine. Be advised I'm a registered democrat. Have been for years on end.

Well.. then you're doing a great job at helping the Democrats get more votes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seeing as how you have proven time and time again and even in this post you feel you have the right to what other people have earned, how is what he said that far off the mark?

OooH! nice bit of false attribution. Capitalists feel the right to what other people have earned with their labor, don't they?

 

[Jhhnn]

At this point starve and/or revolt, they have become a permanent underclass that must be weaned slowly. While reducing their benefits it may make sense through legislation to alter working conditions away from the obviously top-heavy nonsense it's become in recent decades.

Gawd. The victim blaming in that is shameless and appalling.

You act as if being part of the underclass is voluntary, as if the current structure of our society doesn't demand an underclass, as if medieval society didn't demand serfs.

You know how businesses have job slots? Some of them being pretty shitty, depending? Our society has life slots to be filled in the same way, and some of them are shitty, too. If you're a member of society, you will occupy one of those slots.

Remember that "depending" part? It all depends on who we let define the model of society. If our model is to create maximum inequality & reward at the top at the expense of everybody else, we're doing a fine job of it, have been since the Reagan era.

 

[Victorian Gray]

As a core conservative belief, it requires no empirical evidence. It's simply an article of faith, like the virgin birth or the infallibility of Mohammed.

It's not a conclusion, but rather a predicate on which conclusions are based.

It's why conservative leaders push faith based everything, to promote faith based thinking as rational. If you can be induced to think that way, their pitch is a lot more appealing.

Somebody, somewhere is 'getting something for free' that I'm not getting and it might even have taken a buck of my taxes as well!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and God bless the Job Creators!!!!!

 

[umbrella39]

..well I guess if I was a liberal liar like you everything would be just fine. Be advised I'm a registered democrat. Have been for years on end.

Liberal liar? No... you are just broken record rinse, wash, and repeat babbling fool who escaped and has yet to be reeled back in yet...

 

[theeedude]

Here is the situation as I see it:
Workers are more productive, so we can produce more with fewer people. Therefore, unless we increase consumption of goods and services, we are going to have fewer people working. To increase consumption of goods and services, workers will need to be paid more relative to the price of goods and services they consume. So, unlike what you'd expect from a traditional supply-demand vs price curve, where the demand for labor will fall if wages rise, it is not true in this case, because higher wages will feed back to increase demand by increasing spending by the workers getting paid these higher wages. In fact, we need to see wage increases, adjusted for inflation to see growth. A minimum wage increase is just what the doctor ordered.

 

[Mixolydian]

Do you have any empirical basis for this?

We finally come around to one of the great bits of rationalized denial by conservatives.

Obviously, the reason that there aren't enough jobs is because people don't want to work, right?

I'm confident that was the belief in such circles back in 1931, as well.

Automation & offshoring have taken a toll on job availability in this country, obviously. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if income hadn't shifted radically to the tippy-top over the same period of time.

Modern society has been conditioned to think that white-collar jobs (pushing papers around a desk) are the only option. The fact is, there ARE jobs out there, but they require you to do actual work. Work that requires you to get up out of a chair. Work that requires you to exert physical effort. Work that might even require you to get a little bit dirty. People don't want to do that work if there's a possibility that they won't have to. People are lazy. People would naturally want something for nothing.

and LOL at trying to paint me as a conservative - I'm anything but.

 

[shadow9d9]

Outsourcing is a problem, but elderly people staying in the workforce is also a problem in my opinion. Remember, there is a huge group of people that are slowly and finally getting around to retiring. This will affect the numbers and is completely logical.

 

[fskimospy]

Modern society has been conditioned to think that white-collar jobs (pushing papers around a desk) are the only option. The fact is, there ARE jobs out there, but they require you to do actual work. Work that requires you to get up out of a chair. Work that requires you to exert physical effort. Work that might even require you to get a little bit dirty. People don't want to do that work if there's a possibility that they won't have to. People are lazy. People would naturally want something for nothing.

and LOL at trying to paint me as a conservative - I'm anything but.

You realize that job seekers outnumber job postings by approximately 3:1, right? This includes all jobs, not just pushing paper.

With that in mind, how does your description match up with reality?

 

[Jhhnn]

Modern society has been conditioned to think that white-collar jobs (pushing papers around a desk) are the only option. The fact is, there ARE jobs out there, but they require you to do actual work. Work that requires you to get up out of a chair. Work that requires you to exert physical effort. Work that might even require you to get a little bit dirty. People don't want to do that work if there's a possibility that they won't have to. People are lazy. People would naturally want something for nothing.

and LOL at trying to paint me as a conservative - I'm anything but.

You offered no sources to confirm that, unsurprisingly.

It's pure rationalization in a very conservative mold.

Labor intensive manufacturing and construction jobs weren't annihilated because of a lack of willing workers.

 

[Mixolydian]

You realize that job seekers outnumber job postings by approximately 3:1, right? This includes all jobs, not just pushing paper.

With that in mind, how does your description match up with reality?

The reality is I see it first-hand nearly every day.

 

[fskimospy]

The reality is I see it first-hand nearly every day.

But you understand that anecdotal evidence isn't very compelling when compared to actual data driven analysis, right?

The jobs/job-seeker ratio is simply not there right now. There is no way to accomplish what you suggest.

 

[Mixolydian]

But you understand that anecdotal evidence isn't very compelling when compared to actual data driven analysis, right?

The jobs/job-seeker ratio is simply not there right now. There is no way to accomplish what you suggest.

Accomplish what? I didn't suggest anything, merely making an observation. Are there enough jobs available for everyone who's unemployed? Certainly not. But there ARE some (many?) jobs available for people who are willing to do the work.

 

[fskimospy]

Accomplish what? I didn't suggest anything, merely making an observation. Are there enough jobs available for everyone who's unemployed? Certainly not. But there ARE some (many?) jobs available for people who are willing to do the work.

Well if you admit this is the case it's hard to see how the real problem is people not wanting to work. The real problem is pretty clearly not enough jobs.

 

[AViking]

Accomplish what? I didn't suggest anything, merely making an observation. Are there enough jobs available for everyone who's unemployed? Certainly not. But there ARE some (many?) jobs available for people who are willing to do the work.

I kinda like this type of thinking. Mostly because it's funny.

It's not enough to just get a job. People need full time work. Not only are there too few jobs but many can't even get full time employment.

They need to utilize their skills. If you have engineers working at Starbucks and other Engineers facing the prospect of having to dig ditches to make the rent then something is seriously wrong. Lazy? How is an engineer lazy? They went and got educated, probably had a job, but now there are not enough since jobs have gone overseas? You think they're lazy because they aren't digging ditches or picking fruit?

The solution is not to have a bunch of overqualified people doing dirty work. There would still not be enough jobs.

The solution is to create more jobs.

 

[AViking]

Well if you admit this is the case it's hard to see how the real problem is people not wanting to work. The real problem is pretty clearly not enough jobs.

Damn you beat me to it. I started typing first though!

 

[BoberFett]

I had a similar discussion with a friend not long ago. He was complaining about the high cost of living, etc which made it "impossible" to save money or pay off debts.. and I had to ask him if he had always bought Starbucks every morning. Or had he always driven a luxury SUV. Or had that big house with the giant mortgage.
Needless to say, he didn't get it. An otherwise smart guy too.

The middle class largely created its own woes with the spending spree that started in the 80s. Offshoring had begun but wasn't fully underway, so initially a lot of that consumerism did benefit the middle class, and was a positive feedback loop, driving the economy further. Unfortunately a lot of it was credit driven, offshoring increased, jobs were lost. A negative feedback loop. The chasm between the positive loop and the negative one is where we now find ourselves, moving from bubble to bubble, trying to reinflate the difference between middle class expectations and reality. If we stop spending, the bubble bursts and consumers have to live in reality. Nobody is willing to do that.

 

[Mixolydian]

Well if you admit this is the case it's hard to see how the real problem is people not wanting to work. The real problem is pretty clearly not enough jobs.

I never once said that people not wanting to work is the "real problem". It is, however, a factor.

I kinda like this type of thinking. Mostly because it's funny.

It's not enough to just get a job. People need full time work. Not only are there too few jobs but many can't even get full time employment.

They need to utilize their skills. If you have engineers working at Starbucks and other Engineers facing the prospect of having to dig ditches to make the rent then something is seriously wrong. Lazy? How is an engineer lazy? They went and got educated, probably had a job, but now there are not enough since jobs have gone overseas? You think they're lazy because they aren't digging ditches or picking fruit?

Contrary to popular belief, nobody is entitled to their dream job. Joe Public may want to be an engineer, but there simply may not be a demand for more engineers. The only way a person is guaranteed the job they want is if they create it themselves. If a person needs to sustain themselves, they should do whatever it takes.

But I know, I know, everyone is entitled to 6 figure jobs!

The solution is not to have a bunch of overqualified people doing dirty work. There would still not be enough jobs.

Enough of what kind of jobs? high-paying, white-collar, six-figure jobs? No, probably not. But there are certainly other jobs where one could earn a decent living if they were willing to go for it.

The solution is to create more jobs.

Easier said than done.