(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fapps%2Fdata%3Fpid%3Davimage%26amp%3Biid%3Dimd7FLDNZcvg&hash=6466a23d0d03e4794b58e4efba24c71282bf7e4f)
What happened?
I really don't think the oldsters are pushing them out of the market like the graph suggests.
school has become more important? i know here (ontario) the got rid of grade 13 and when they did summer school participation spiked (not sure if it's still hugh, or went back down)
They've gotten so spoiled their parents don't make them work to get pocket money?
Quote from: derspiess on July 05, 2011, 01:11:27 PM
They've gotten so spoiled their parents don't make them work to get pocket money?
And they listen to jazz music and don't respect their elders!
Who is taking the jobs that kids would have once taken? Anecdotally, it seems to be immigrants or minority adults.
Edit: What was the actual article called? I can't find it with a quick google.
Economics are part of the equation with less jobs meaning less opportunity for entry level workers.
Also, kids are spoiled brats who expect everything handed to them on a silver platter. Parents no longer kick little Jimmy to the curb when Jimmy turns 25 and still doesn't have a job.
Conversely, in poor households, little Jimmy is a three time convicted felon and just got out of jail following his latest driving on a suspended license charge. His lack of a drivers license and possession of a criminal record prevents him from getting the job peddling a Big Mac so that he then goes out and peddles a little smack instead. Morever, convict Jimmy don't want to work anyway since work is beneath him and would rather steal copper from your air conditioner than take a job at Popeyes.
IMO.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 01:12:32 PM
Parents no longer kick little Jimmy to the curb when Jimmy turns 25 and still doesn't have a job.
What relevance does that have to kids not having jobs while in high school? :huh:
Quote from: Faeelin on July 05, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 05, 2011, 01:11:27 PM
They've gotten so spoiled their parents don't make them work to get pocket money?
And they listen to jazz music and don't respect their elders!
Don't dismiss that hypothesis so quickly. Certain demographic trends such as people waiting longer to have children and having fewer of them would tend to support it.
Quote from: HVC on July 05, 2011, 01:06:25 PM
school has become more important? i know here (ontario) the got rid of grade 13 and when they did summer school participation spiked (not sure if it's still hugh, or went back down)
That's not it. School and part-time jobs have always gone hand-in-hand.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 05, 2011, 01:06:25 PM
school has become more important? i know here (ontario) the got rid of grade 13 and when they did summer school participation spiked (not sure if it's still hugh, or went back down)
That's not it. School and part-time jobs have always gone hand-in-hand.
Eh not really. Parents who have the option don't want their kids working so that they can do better in school.
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
Computers. No one needs an army of teens in the summer to do filing.
Quote from: Fate on July 05, 2011, 01:25:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 01:18:44 PM
Quote from: HVC on July 05, 2011, 01:06:25 PM
school has become more important? i know here (ontario) the got rid of grade 13 and when they did summer school participation spiked (not sure if it's still hugh, or went back down)
That's not it. School and part-time jobs have always gone hand-in-hand.
Eh not really. Parents who have the option don't want their kids working so that they can do better in school.
Maybe that's the real answer to the question then. A shift in cultural thinking about it.
Parents used to view having a job as part of the kids' education, not a hindrance to it.
Kids download everything they need so they don't need money.
Where can I download a car?
Quote from: Habbaku on July 05, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
Where can I download a car?
You can steal a credit card & use a taxi tho.
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing?
Yes.
QuoteChildren should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
:huh: I'm not sure I see how having a part-time job when you're 16 or 17 spoils your childhood.
There is less jobs for temporary unspecialized workers?
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
Childhood is for learning what you need to know for life while the stakes aren't so high.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 01:30:23 PM
Maybe that's the real answer to the question then. A shift in cultural thinking about it.
Parents used to view having a job as part of the kids' education, not a hindrance to it.
I think this is a big part of it.
Another is the attitude that kids should be sheltered from the realities of life until they're 18(or 35 in some cases).
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
16-19 = children?
I wonder how that chart would correlate with high school graduation rates.
30 years ago, a hell of a lot more people would simply quit school at age 16 and go to work full time. Now, not so many do it.
Quote from: derspiess on July 05, 2011, 01:48:46 PM
:huh: I'm not sure I see how having a part-time job when you're 16 or 17 spoils your childhood.
It robs you of free time you're supposed to have after shool?
Quote from: garbon on July 05, 2011, 01:13:56 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 01:12:32 PM
Parents no longer kick little Jimmy to the curb when Jimmy turns 25 and still doesn't have a job.
What relevance does that have to kids not having jobs while in high school? :huh:
The relevance is that it is a trend among parents to not expect anything from their kids aside from going to school and not getting in trouble. Parents of this generation coddle their kids from the cradle to the grave. While I have no problem with parents being temporary stabilizers in a young person's turbulent unstable early adult life, the safety net has turned into parachute, body armor, bungee cords and the line you're walking on has been dropped to 6 inches above the ground, which is now covered in feathers.
Parents who don't take steps to correct Jimmy's unemployment at 25 likely never told Jimmy to get a job when he was 16 or 17 either. Or when he was in college that they were paying for. Symptom of the underlying problem. That is the relevance.
Quote from: Maximus on July 05, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
Childhood is for learning what you need to know for life while the stakes aren't so high.
Absolutely. It's also when you learn that life has privileges and responsibilities. Teaching kids the value of a dollar earned as opposed to a dollar given is important. I never appreciated how hard my parents worked until I got my first job at age 15. It was an eye opening experience and one that all kids should have.
You learn work ethic at an early age. If you go into the workforce for the first time after college and you have no specialized degree, you're going in with unrealistic expectations. You've never done that entry level menial job with no appreciation and little monetary reward. Everyone should wash dishes or wait tables or work construction for a summer or two. Builds character.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 05, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
Childhood is for learning what you need to know for life while the stakes aren't so high.
Absolutely. It's also when you learn that life has privileges and responsibilities. Teaching kids the value of a dollar earned as opposed to a dollar given is important. I never appreciated how hard my parents worked until I got my first job at age 15. It was an eye opening experience and one that all kids should have.
You learn work ethic at an early age. If you go into the workforce for the first time after college and you have no specialized degree, you're going in with unrealistic expectations. You've never done that entry level menial job with no appreciation and little monetary reward. Everyone should wash dishes or wait tables or work construction for a summer or two. Builds character.
But why does that have to be at age 16-19?
I did my crap jobs in university. I think I have plenty of character too.
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 02:02:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 05, 2011, 01:48:46 PM
:huh: I'm not sure I see how having a part-time job when you're 16 or 17 spoils your childhood.
It robs you of free time you're supposed to have after shool?
Free time doing what? With your parent's money?
Quote from: JonasSalk on July 05, 2011, 02:15:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 02:02:37 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 05, 2011, 01:48:46 PM
:huh: I'm not sure I see how having a part-time job when you're 16 or 17 spoils your childhood.
It robs you of free time you're supposed to have after shool?
Free time doing what? With your parent's money?
Blowjobs are free.
Which is to say, I had a job in high school, and no one would even let me pay them for one.
My first thought was that teens in high school are less likely to get a job because legal limits on what types of work can be done by people under age 18 and what hours they are allowed to work have gotten so much more restrictive. But a most of those restrictions were put in place more than 30 years ago, during a time that the chart shows workforce participation by 16-19 year olds increasing, so that's not it, at least not directly. (Many of the other theories mentioned in this thread don't fit the time-line very well, either.) Indirectly, maybe it does have some impact, due to businesses staying open later. Back around the time that I was senior in high school, very few businesses, even fast food places (which have long been a common place to find school kids working part time), stayed open past 8 or 9 PM during the schoolweek, so they were able to hire 17 year olds as closers, even with the legal restrictions on how late they could be at work. Now, most of the fast food places are open till 11 or midnight, and they can't hire school kids to close anymore.
Something else that probably has an impact is smaller family size. As single child families become more common, and large families become more and more uncommon, children in many ways are probably more spoiled. Adjusted for inflation, household incomes for middle and working class families have been stagnant for about 40 years, or maybe even have declined a small bit, but if there your effective income is about the same as your parents' in 1972, you are still more able to spoil your only child than they were their 4 kids.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 02:10:55 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 05, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
Childhood is for learning what you need to know for life while the stakes aren't so high.
Absolutely. It's also when you learn that life has privileges and responsibilities. Teaching kids the value of a dollar earned as opposed to a dollar given is important. I never appreciated how hard my parents worked until I got my first job at age 15. It was an eye opening experience and one that all kids should have.
You learn work ethic at an early age. If you go into the workforce for the first time after college and you have no specialized degree, you're going in with unrealistic expectations. You've never done that entry level menial job with no appreciation and little monetary reward. Everyone should wash dishes or wait tables or work construction for a summer or two. Builds character.
But why does that have to be at age 16-19?
I did my crap jobs in university. I think I have plenty of character too.
You are an exception to the rule.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 02:10:55 PM
I did my crap jobs in university.
I did also, but I think Max and Stoney's point is a good one. Lots of people are coming out of college with no idea how to operate in the non-academic world. I don't know if you'd call it street smarts or whatever, but the disconnect is akin to people who never travel anywhere and assume everywhere else is like where they live, making assumptions about the nature of things based on a limited frame of exposure. Academia has different rules, and lots of kids stumble badly when they hit the transition. Better to dip in a little at a time, gradually increasing that exposure so that you can be functional on your own than to just jump in and drown from the shock. Plus, if you fuck up, it doesn't wreck your life like Max said.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 05, 2011, 01:53:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
Childhood is for learning what you need to know for life while the stakes aren't so high.
Absolutely. It's also when you learn that life has privileges and responsibilities. Teaching kids the value of a dollar earned as opposed to a dollar given is important. I never appreciated how hard my parents worked until I got my first job at age 15. It was an eye opening experience and one that all kids should have.
You learn work ethic at an early age. If you go into the workforce for the first time after college and you have no specialized degree, you're going in with unrealistic expectations. You've never done that entry level menial job with no appreciation and little monetary reward. Everyone should wash dishes or wait tables or work construction for a summer or two. Builds character.
The fear, whether well-founded or not, is that this "character building" construction or table-waiting job could easily morph into little Jimmy's full-time occupation, as Jimmy appreciates the cash and respect that having a job entails, forms his friendships with other construction workers and table-waiters (who have far more adult real-life experience than his callow schoolchums), does worse in school than his jobless peers because his after-school time is spent working rather than studying, and decides school is just a waste of his time.
It's the old deferred-gratification problem. A job does give instant gratification in terms of money and self-respect it is true, but it can make putting up with years of schooling to possibly get an even better career option that much more difficult (or conversely, can demonstrate the horrors of manual labour and thus cause folks to value their education!)
Many of the people I knew who had jobs in HS stayed doing those types of jobs thereafter. Dunno if that is cause-and-effect though -- most middle-class or above type people no longer positively require their kids to work at such joe-jobs (what they require is that their kids do stuff to pad their future resumes).
Most Americans will get crap jobs after university. Why hurry?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 02:10:55 PM
I did my crap jobs in university.
I did also, but I think Max and Stoney's point is a good one. Lots of people are coming out of college with no idea how to operate in the non-academic world. I don't know if you'd call it street smarts or whatever, but the disconnect is akin to people who never travel anywhere and assume everywhere else is like where they live, making assumptions about the nature of things based on a limited frame of exposure. Academia has different rules, and lots of kids stumble badly when they hit the transition.
That's why you have military service.
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2011, 02:27:30 PM
Most Americans will get crap jobs after university. Why hurry?
IF they're lucky,
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2011, 02:25:26 PM
Many of the people I knew who had jobs in HS stayed doing those types of jobs thereafter. Dunno if that is cause-and-effect though -- most middle-class or above type people no longer positively require their kids to work at such joe-jobs (what they require is that their kids do stuff to pad their future resumes).
The people who would be satisfied with crap jobs are also going to have problems studying for 4 or more years in University in the hope of obtaining a good job. The problem of delayed gratification doesnt go away. In my case having crap jobs before and during University motivated me to do well in University. There was definitely a causal relationship.
But the situation with my kids will be different. They will not have to work as I did. They will have the opportunity to spend their time doing other things. The issue is how will they spend that time. If they want to simply lay about then I will go all Stonewall on their ass. But if they use their time for productive ends then I will let them be. I hope I have instilled in them the motivation to do that.
The thing is this generation and the possibilities open to it are much different than when I was growing up. I do not know enough to prejudge what they should be doing. So I dont think I should arbitrarily say you must get a crap job like I did, its the only way! They may well find a better way than I did. At least that is the hope. Those were after all really crappy jobs.
Quote from: derspiess on July 05, 2011, 01:11:27 PM
They've gotten so spoiled their parents don't make them work to get pocket money?
I never understood that sentiment. I never worked until I was 22, but then I got the best job of anyone I knew at the time. My friends who worked through their teenage years usually ended up with shitty, low-paying jobs.
People who force their teenage children to work are failures as parents. If you are so crap, you can't earn enough money to pay for your children growing up, at least admit it and don't try to build an ideology around it.
I used to think that the reason for fewer teens getting jobs was that typical homework assignments had gotten so much more onerous (and research has shown that to be the case), but recent studies I have seen indicate that only about 60% of high school students do any homework on a typical night! :lol:
I am now tending to agree with Stoney et al that it is the fact that parents enable their kids to have money without earning it that is responsible.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 03:16:41 PM
I used to think that the reason for fewer teens getting jobs was that typical homework assignments had gotten so much more onerous (and research has shown that to be the case), but recent studies I have seen indicate that only about 60% of high school students do any homework on a typical night! :lol:
Around here there is a significant movement to decrease the homework load based and the premise that more homework doesnt make a better educated student - just a more tired student.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned rising employer expectations for entry-level positions without expanded education. Even a job managing a Burger King or a Gamestop is nigh impossible to get without a bachelor's degree these days. Also, state restrictions on employment of minors have knocked them out of areas like deli or seafood clerking at grocery stores (in NJ, aside from farm work, about the only things a minor can operate are cash registers and walkie-talkies).
Yes. You have to be 18 to work with plutonium.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 05, 2011, 03:22:27 PM
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned rising employer expectations for entry-level positions without expanded education. Even a job managing a Burger King or a Gamestop is nigh impossible to get without a bachelor's degree these days.
A manager is not an entry level position. The people the manager manages at a Burger King or Gamestop are entry level employees.
Quote from: The Brain on July 05, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
Yes. You have to be 18 to work with plutonium.
I miss the good old days when anyone could do it. Damn regulations!
I worked at Rax but I wasn't allowed to use the meat slicer until I turned 18. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:24:35 PM
A manager is not an entry level position. The people the manager manages at a Burger King or Gamestop are entry level employees.
True, but on the other hand, along parallel lines to the farm argument, historically, kids worked in family businesses- we're at a point where family-owned small business are a dying breed; non-family small businesses and larger family-owned businesses are heavily pressured not to hire relatives or minors. The big corporations holding onto the bulk of the entry-level jobs are at the same time loathe to work around student schedules- around here, BJ's has actually told interviewees that they will not accomodate students in scheduling and that they'll just have to quit when school begins again.
DISCLAIMER: That may be a local anomaly; education in Cumberland County is atrocious, so there's an oversaturation of GED-holders and high school dropouts who will be perfectly content to take the entry-level jobs. When I say "atrocious," I mean 21% of 4th-graders passing state tests, 21% of 8th graders, and 20% of 11th-graders.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 02:47:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2011, 02:25:26 PM
Many of the people I knew who had jobs in HS stayed doing those types of jobs thereafter. Dunno if that is cause-and-effect though -- most middle-class or above type people no longer positively require their kids to work at such joe-jobs (what they require is that their kids do stuff to pad their future resumes).
The people who would be satisfied with crap jobs are also going to have problems studying for 4 or more years in University in the hope of obtaining a good job. The problem of delayed gratification doesnt go away. In my case having crap jobs before and during University motivated me to do well in University. There was definitely a causal relationship.
But the situation with my kids will be different. They will not have to work as I did. They will have the opportunity to spend their time doing other things. The issue is how will they spend that time. If they want to simply lay about then I will go all Stonewall on their ass. But if they use their time for productive ends then I will let them be. I hope I have instilled in them the motivation to do that.
The thing is this generation and the possibilities open to it are much different than when I was growing up. I do not know enough to prejudge what they should be doing. So I dont think I should arbitrarily say you must get a crap job like I did, its the only way! They may well find a better way than I did. At least that is the hope. Those were after all really crappy jobs.
Sure, I can agree with that.
Seems to me that many people think that having the same experiences they had as kids is character building.
My own dad thought that isolated wilderness living was character building, because he did a lot of that as a kid. The main effect of being forced to live in a log cabin and pick bugs off of vegitables every summer as a kid was to insulate me forever from any hippy-dippy notions about the essential benevolence of nature ... :lol:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 05, 2011, 03:31:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:24:35 PM
A manager is not an entry level position. The people the manager manages at a Burger King or Gamestop are entry level employees.
True, but on the other hand, along parallel lines to the farm argument, historically, kids worked in family businesses- we're at a point where family-owned small business are a dying breed; non-family small businesses and larger family-owned businesses are heavily pressured not to hire relatives or minors. The big corporations holding onto the bulk of the entry-level jobs are at the same time loathe to work around student schedules- around here, BJ's has actually told interviewees that they will not accomodate students in scheduling and that they'll just have to quit when school begins again.
That is a good point.
It reminds me of a case a number of years ago involving a large employer in a small community. The employer had a policy of hiring the teenage children of their employees during the summer as casual labour - really it was a good will gesture toward the employees to create work for their kids during the summer in a town where there were not really any other employment opportunites.
This practice had gone on for a number of decades. Then one day someone from outside the town applied for one of the casual summer jobs, didnt get it, made a human rights complaint alleging they were being descriminated against because they were not related to one of the employees.
The case effectively brought an end to the summer jobs program.
You know what builds character? No, not a job but rather a stint in the CCC - bring back the New Deal full employment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:41:42 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 05, 2011, 03:31:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:24:35 PM
A manager is not an entry level position. The people the manager manages at a Burger King or Gamestop are entry level employees.
True, but on the other hand, along parallel lines to the farm argument, historically, kids worked in family businesses- we're at a point where family-owned small business are a dying breed; non-family small businesses and larger family-owned businesses are heavily pressured not to hire relatives or minors. The big corporations holding onto the bulk of the entry-level jobs are at the same time loathe to work around student schedules- around here, BJ's has actually told interviewees that they will not accomodate students in scheduling and that they'll just have to quit when school begins again.
That is a good point.
It reminds me of a case a number of years ago involving a large employer in a small community. The employer had a policy of hiring the teenage children of their employees during the summer as casual labour - really it was a good will gesture toward the employees to create work for their kids during the summer in a town where there were not really any other employment opportunites.
This practice had gone on for a number of decades. Then one day someone from outside the town applied for one of the casual summer jobs, didnt get it, made a human rights complaint alleging they were being descriminated against because they were not related to one of the employees.
The case effectively brought an end to the summer jobs program.
Nepotism is against the law?
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2011, 02:25:26 PMThe fear, whether well-founded or not, is that this "character building" construction or table-waiting job could easily morph into little Jimmy's full-time occupation, as Jimmy appreciates the cash and respect that having a job entails, forms his friendships with other construction workers and table-waiters (who have far more adult real-life experience than his callow schoolchums), does worse in school than his jobless peers because his after-school time is spent working rather than studying, and decides school is just a waste of his time.
It's the old deferred-gratification problem. A job does give instant gratification in terms of money and self-respect it is true, but it can make putting up with years of schooling to possibly get an even better career option that much more difficult (or conversely, can demonstrate the horrors of manual labour and thus cause folks to value their education!)
Many of the people I knew who had jobs in HS stayed doing those types of jobs thereafter. Dunno if that is cause-and-effect though -- most middle-class or above type people no longer positively require their kids to work at such joe-jobs (what they require is that their kids do stuff to pad their future resumes).
Eminently fair point.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 03:49:18 PM
Nepotism is against the law?
That was the effective ruling of the case yes.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 03:49:18 PM
Nepotism is against the law?
That was the effective ruling of the case yes.
Huh.
You are going to have to learn to communicate a bit better. Perhaps you should get a job before attempting the practice of law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 02:47:27 PMBut the situation with my kids will be different. They will not have to work as I did. They will have the opportunity to spend their time doing other things. The issue is how will they spend that time. If they want to simply lay about then I will go all Stonewall on their ass. But if they use their time for productive ends then I will let them be. I hope I have instilled in them the motivation to do that.
The thing is this generation and the possibilities open to it are much different than when I was growing up. I do not know enough to prejudge what they should be doing. So I dont think I should arbitrarily say you must get a crap job like I did, its the only way! They may well find a better way than I did. At least that is the hope. Those were after all really crappy jobs.
As my wife and I start trying to make our family, this is inevitably one of our conversation pieces. How much to give them. How much to make them self-reliant. At what point does giving cross the line into spoiling. The conclusion that we have come to is that at age 15 or 16, they need to be weened off from us. If they are not playing sports or other kinds of organized activities, then they need to get a job. Maybe its only 8-10 hours a week. Maybe its cutting grass. Or lifeguarding at a pool, but they need to be responsible, in some limited sense, for themselves.
That is our conclusion....today. Tomorrow it might have changed completely. :)
Oh yeah, grass-cutting reminded me of another local aberration: having both a federal medium-security prison as well as the largest state prison in NJ in my county means a disproportionately large number of "landscaping" businesses; it's a local favorite for potential parolees who are having a hard time meeting employment requirements.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 03:57:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 02:47:27 PMBut the situation with my kids will be different. They will not have to work as I did. They will have the opportunity to spend their time doing other things. The issue is how will they spend that time. If they want to simply lay about then I will go all Stonewall on their ass. But if they use their time for productive ends then I will let them be. I hope I have instilled in them the motivation to do that.
The thing is this generation and the possibilities open to it are much different than when I was growing up. I do not know enough to prejudge what they should be doing. So I dont think I should arbitrarily say you must get a crap job like I did, its the only way! They may well find a better way than I did. At least that is the hope. Those were after all really crappy jobs.
As my wife and I start trying to make our family, this is inevitably one of our conversation pieces. How much to give them. How much to make them self-reliant. At what point does giving cross the line into spoiling. The conclusion that we have come to is that at age 15 or 16, they need to be weened off from us. If they are not playing sports or other kinds of organized activities, then they need to get a job. Maybe its only 8-10 hours a week. Maybe its cutting grass. Or lifeguarding at a pool, but they need to be responsible, in some limited sense, for themselves.
That is our conclusion....today. Tomorrow it might have changed completely. :)
You could follow my parents' method--borrow as much money from your kids' income as you can and never pay them back. They will leave the house asap just to be able to keep their paychecks. Works wonders for building self-sufficiency.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
Everyone should wash dishes or wait tables or work construction for a summer or two. Builds character.
As cliched as it sounds, I agree 100%. The only thing I'd avoid having my kid do is work in fast food. I did when I was 16-17 and it was a horrible experience-- possibly a bit *too* humbling.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 03:29:43 PM
I worked at Rax but I wasn't allowed to use the meat slicer until I turned 18. :P
I worked there, too :mellow:
I ate there. I liked those alligator shaped cups they had. :)
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it, which seems to be pretty idiosincratic. Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it, which seems to be pretty idiosincratic. Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.
It does, doesn't it? I'm often surprised that for as many allegedly intelligent people Languish has, this kind of "folksy wisdom" nonsense tends to be so prevalent on certain issues.
It's as if these people wore their intellectual laziness as a badge of honor of sorts.
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it, which seems to be pretty idiosincratic. Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.
When I was a lad, kids came up with
much better cliches that that! ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2011, 04:39:38 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it, which seems to be pretty idiosincratic. Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.
When I was a lad, kids came up with much better cliches that that! ;)
:lol: And you didn't even have spell-checkers to catch "idiosincratic," "intelectually lazy," and "embarrases."
Get off my lawn.
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
Why should people retire?
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.
As opposed to calling people "intelectually lazy" without any kind of rebuttal?
I don't know if it's just don't to the moral fibre of kids these days.
My younger siblings definitely had the Stonewall style "you will have a job" requirement from back home and they have at times struggled to find jobs. This has certainly impacted their life - how well they lived during uni, and their ability to do the kind of things they'd like to do (travel, shop, etc) - and they haven't beeh able to fall back on an ever dripping parental teat, so to speak.
My suspicion is that economic conditions have changed and the pool of jobs available to students is smaller.
That said, I'm sure there are other factors as well and there are, without a doubt, some people out there who are irredeemably spoiled brats.
I walked to school uphill, across a river and in a raging snowstorm.
Quote from: Jacob on July 05, 2011, 04:57:10 PM
My suspicion is that economic conditions have changed and the pool of jobs available to students is smaller.
I have no doubt that this is the case, but is it chicken or egg?
Quote from: Maximus on July 05, 2011, 04:51:18 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.
As opposed to calling people "intelectually lazy" without any kind of rebuttal?
Yeah.
I mean, it was a cliche to bemoan the character of "youth these days" in Republican Rome, Ancient Greece and Ancient China (if not before).
To apply a millenia old truism to explain a significant change in the economic landscape within the last decade, does seem more intellectually lazy than making a typo in your second language.
I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:
Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years? That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?
I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.
Quote from: Maximus on July 05, 2011, 04:59:22 PM
I have no doubt that this is the case, but is it chicken or egg?
I suspect the ability of late teen to early twenty part time workers to have a significant impact on economic trends isn't that strong.
If I were to offer an uneducated guess, I'd venture that there's increased competition for the type of jobs previously thought to be purely the purview of students. The trend to hire pension age people (as seen at Home Hardware and Walmart) is great for the pensioners (and the companies too, one assumes), especially in this tough economy, but it makes it harder for the students to get those jobs.
I suppose many people arent' retiring probably because they can't afford to.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 05:10:05 PM
I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:
Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years? That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?
I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.
That's a very good point.
Quote from: DGuller on July 05, 2011, 01:25:37 PM
Is this trend a bad thing? Children should be children, there will be plenty of time for work later on in life.
At 16-19, they're not children anymore.
Just because people have always been moaning about how the youth are spineless layabouts doesn't mean that it isn't true now.
Sweden has a record high 30% unemployment rate among the 18-25 category, and in Norway there is a wide-spread belief among younger people that they are "too good" for menial labour and so a lot of positions go unfilled simply because there is no available manpower.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 05:10:05 PM
I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:
Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years? That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?
I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.
Graduation rates have not increased significantly since 1999, the year the real falloff started. In fact, graduation rates peaked in the US in 1969, when the youth employment rate was 24%. Last year the employment rate was 6% and the graduation rate 66.8% (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html).
I think we need to find another answer.
Quote from: Slargos on July 05, 2011, 05:25:21 PMSweden has a record high 30% unemployment rate among the 18-25 category, and in Norway there is a wide-spread belief among younger people that they are "too good" for menial labour and so a lot of positions go unfilled simply because there is no available manpower.
The obvious answer is to turn to immigrants to fill those jobs, then.
I dunno man - I remember 20 years ago (1991 - was it really that long ago) when all the talk was that Gen X was a bunch of slackers, how we were destined to have no job opportunities (or what job opportunities there were would be McJobs).
Kind of like what a lot of you are saying right now.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 05:10:05 PM
I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:
Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years? That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?
I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.
Graduation rates have not increased significantly since 1999, the year the real falloff started. In fact, graduation rates peaked in the US in 1969, when the youth employment rate was 24%. Last year the employment rate was 6% and the graduation rate 66.8% (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html).
I think we need to find another answer.
Well, I'm not quite ready to give up on my answer - but we'd need to know more about what is measured as "participation rates", what proportion is PT vs FT employment, etc.
To me the chart looks like a steady decline from 1978 or thereabouts.
Quote from: dps on July 05, 2011, 02:21:05 PM
My first thought was that teens in high school are less likely to get a job because legal limits on what types of work can be done by people under age 18 and what hours they are allowed to work have gotten so much more restrictive. But a most of those restrictions were put in place more than 30 years ago, during a time that the chart shows workforce participation by 16-19 year olds increasing, so that's not it, at least not directly. (Many of the other theories mentioned in this thread don't fit the time-line very well, either.) Indirectly, maybe it does have some impact, due to businesses staying open later. Back around the time that I was senior in high school, very few businesses, even fast food places (which have long been a common place to find school kids working part time), stayed open past 8 or 9 PM during the schoolweek, so they were able to hire 17 year olds as closers, even with the legal restrictions on how late they could be at work. Now, most of the fast food places are open till 11 or midnight, and they can't hire school kids to close anymore.
I worked at McDonalds when I was 17 and I closed all the time.
Damn pledge to not pick on Tim... :mad:
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it
What do you do instead? Does nobody in Spain work while at university? That's how I avoided racking up insane debt.
Quote from: Jacob on July 05, 2011, 05:28:16 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 05, 2011, 05:25:21 PMSweden has a record high 30% unemployment rate among the 18-25 category, and in Norway there is a wide-spread belief among younger people that they are "too good" for menial labour and so a lot of positions go unfilled simply because there is no available manpower.
The obvious answer is to turn to immigrants to fill those jobs, then.
Depends on what kind of immigrants.
Somalis certainly aren't filling any jobs.
http://sverigedemokratermotrasism.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/migrationsverket-redovisar-invandringstyper-och-forsoker-sla-hal-pa-myter/
Average time it takes "an immigrant" to get a job is 7 years. Taking into account that the amount of work required to fullfill the statistical status of being "in employment" is an
average of one hour per week.
Taking into account that most western immigrants will have no more trouble finding a job than Swedes, and in fact a lot of the time have specialist knowledge that will land them among the working faster, that average looks pretty bleak.
See, I
don't pull these numbers from thin air, even if they seem incredulous and insane enough that you'd suspect it.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 05:32:40 PM
Well, I'm not quite ready to give up on my answer - but we'd need to know more about what is measured as "participation rates", what proportion is PT vs FT employment, etc.
Why would you give up an answer based on assumptions merely because facts get in the way? This is Languish! :P
"Labor force participation rate
The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population."
http://www.bls.gov/bls/glossary.htm
FT versus PT isn't accounted for - this is simply percentage of people not in the military, prisons, and whatnot who are employed at all.
QuoteTo me the chart looks like a steady decline from 1978 or thereabouts.
Nope; if you look closely, you will see that, for instance, 1985 has a higher participation rate than 1984, it trends upward until 1989, then drops to a plateau around 23% in 1995-1999, and then drops pretty steadily. My link gives the graduation rates, which bear no resemblance.
Quote from: Jacob on July 05, 2011, 04:57:10 PM
I don't know if it's just don't to the moral fibre of kids these days.
My younger siblings definitely had the Stonewall style "you will have a job" requirement from back home and they have at times struggled to find jobs. This has certainly impacted their life - how well they lived during uni, and their ability to do the kind of things they'd like to do (travel, shop, etc) - and they haven't beeh able to fall back on an ever dripping parental teat, so to speak.
My suspicion is that economic conditions have changed and the pool of jobs available to students is smaller.
That said, I'm sure there are other factors as well and there are, without a doubt, some people out there who are irredeemably spoiled brats.
Quote from: Josephus on July 05, 2011, 05:13:35 PM
I suppose many people arent' retiring probably because they can't afford to.
I definitely think the economy is a factor. When unemployment is high, there's fewer entry-level positions available and a lot more skilled workers in the job market. Heck, I have work experience from high school (cutting grass), college (internship), and two years teaching abroad, and I can't even get an admin assistant or secretarial job these days, much less anything that would start a career. Burger flipping would give me cash, but I couldn't afford a house around here on that. Now I'm looking at teaching abroad (can't afford schooling for a teaching degree here) or OCS.
It would also explain older people working more - if your IRA took a big dive because of the housing crash and you're 60+, your only option is to keep working.
Quote from: Slargos on July 05, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
Average time it takes "an immigrant" to get a job is 7 years.
Come on, you know that's BS. They're working, just not officially.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 05:52:49 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 05, 2011, 05:43:38 PM
Average time it takes "an immigrant" to get a job is 7 years.
Come on, you know that's BS. They're working, just not officially.
A possibility, but nowhere near a certainty.
The welfare provided is pretty hefty.
In fact, an immigrant mother of 6 gets more in welfare contributions than most people make after taxes on an above-averagely well paid job.
If they are in fact working they are in that case not paying any taxes but also getting welfare in addition to their salaries.
This is Sweden, not the US. You can live comfortably off the government teat here.
Curse you Jacob!
Quote from: Josephus on July 05, 2011, 05:13:35 PM
I suppose many people arent' retiring probably because they can't afford to.
Perhaps, but I think more often than not people are more more healthy and active in their 60s/70s compared to past decades and so have no desire to retire. Plus in many jurisdictions it is now contrary to human rights codes to fire people on the basis of age whereas before employers could set a retirement age.
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 05:10:05 PM
I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:
Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years? That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?
I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.
Graduation rates have not increased significantly since 1999, the year the real falloff started. In fact, graduation rates peaked in the US in 1969, when the youth employment rate was 24%. Last year the employment rate was 6% and the graduation rate 66.8% (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html).
I think we need to find another answer.
Yeah, I didn't directly address Beeb's point, but it was one of the things I had in mind when I said that it doesn't fit the timeline.
Quote from: HisMajestyBobI definitely think the economy is a factor. When unemployment is high, there's fewer entry-level positions available and a lot more skilled workers in the job market.
This is another idea that doesn't fit the timeline--the graph shows a huge drop-off in participation starting roughly a decade
before the current economic downturn. Back then, some businesses were complaining about a shortage of entry-level employees, and were actually giving hiring bonuses to entry-level personell.
Quote from: dps on July 05, 2011, 06:22:58 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 05, 2011, 05:26:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 05:10:05 PM
I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:
Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years? That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?
I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.
Graduation rates have not increased significantly since 1999, the year the real falloff started. In fact, graduation rates peaked in the US in 1969, when the youth employment rate was 24%. Last year the employment rate was 6% and the graduation rate 66.8% (http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/06/10/34swanson.h29.html).
I think we need to find another answer.
Yeah, I didn't directly address Beeb's point, but it was one of the things I had in mind when I said that it doesn't fit the timeline.
Quote from: HisMajestyBobI definitely think the economy is a factor. When unemployment is high, there's fewer entry-level positions available and a lot more skilled workers in the job market.
This is another idea that doesn't fit the timeline--the graph shows a huge drop-off in participation starting roughly a decade before the current economic downturn. Back then, some businesses were complaining about a shortage of entry-level employees, and were actually giving hiring bonuses to entry-level personell.
Yeah, I actually just glanced at the graph and assumed it covered a shorter time scale than it does. :blush: I maintain that it is a factor now and in the dip you see around 2008, but I guess less than I thought (except for me <_< )
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
Absolutely. It's also when you learn that life has privileges and responsibilities. Teaching kids the value of a dollar earned as opposed to a dollar given is important. I never appreciated how hard my parents worked until I got my first job at age 15. It was an eye opening experience and one that all kids should have.
You learn work ethic at an early age. If you go into the workforce for the first time after college and you have no specialized degree, you're going in with unrealistic expectations. You've never done that entry level menial job with no appreciation and little monetary reward. Everyone should wash dishes or wait tables or work construction for a summer or two. Builds character.
I didn't work until I was 17, only because I graduated early. My mother didn't want me working while going to high school as she said it was most important to focus on my grades. Considering that your typical senior graduates at 18, it isn't totally unreasonable for them to start working after 19. Nothing in that says they were coddled but rather that their parents put an emphasis on more important things. Minimum wage vs. working my grades to get into Stanford. No brainer. :P
Quote from: Jacob on July 05, 2011, 05:03:18 PM
Yeah.
I mean, it was a cliche to bemoan the character of "youth these days" in Republican Rome, Ancient Greece and Ancient China (if not before).
To apply a millenia old truism to explain a significant change in the economic landscape within the last decade, does seem more intellectually lazy than making a typo in your second language.
It's not the children's character but the parents' circumstances that have changed. A couple that has two kids while in their 30s will typically be able to indulge them more than one who has three kids while in their 20s. Though perceived difficulty entering the labor market is doubtless also a factor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
It's not the children's character but the parents' circumstances that have changed. A couple that has two kids while in their 30s will typically be able to indulge them more than one who has three kids while in their 20s. Though perceived difficulty entering the labor market is doubtless also a factor.
I think you have a big chunk of it right there.
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it, which seems to be pretty idiosincratic. Anyway the tired old line of "young kids these days are too soft, unlike us who are carved out of fucking granite" seems so intelectually lazy that it embarrases me to read so many of you uttering it.
Middle aged people these days are too soft. Back in the day, middle aged people wouldn't be blabbering about their kids getting soft. They'd be beating the shit out of them to toughen them up.
For people from better off backgrounds, they often end up in either private schools or some of the better public schools. To a disproportionate extent they then go on to well paid white collar careers. I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
Also, at least for me the time I spent in college was quite lazy. Very little studying and certainly coursework wasn't equivalent to a full time job. I spent 10-15 hours a week working, and probably not much more than that on schoolwork excluding finals and midterm weeks. Very few put in 40 hours a week just on schoolwork, and from what I understand that hasn't changed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 05:37:33 PMI worked at McDonalds when I was 17 and I closed all the time.
But that does not exactly refute the theory that people who work as teenagers end up having shitty jobs and are idiots, does it?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
I think work experience of shitty jobs is over-rated. I doubt the experience of working in McDonald's is going to help prepare for office jobs.
Very few HKers who plan to go to university work in their teenage years. The reality is that if your classmates (read your competitors) spend most of their free time studying, and you don't, you'll lose your university place to them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 04:48:16 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
Why should people retire?
Because if they don't you end up in a disfunctional gerontocracy, with old people clinging to the top jobs in your society, holding back the generational advancement and getting young people squeezed out of their careers. Some particular cases can be understood, but eventually the old have to get out of the picture and make room for the young.
Quote from: The Larch on July 06, 2011, 03:11:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 04:48:16 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
Why should people retire?
Because if they don't you end up in a disfunctional gerontocracy, with old people clinging to the top jobs in your society, holding back the generational advancement and getting young people squeezed out of their careers. Some particular cases can be understood, but eventually the old have to get out of the picture and make room for the young.
Should they have retired while still able to work in the old days too or is today a special case?
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2011, 05:10:05 PM
I raised the point a long time ago, but it seemed to have been overlooked:
Could the graph not simply reflect that graduation rates have increased quite a bit over the last 30 years? That the decrease in youth employment is because more youths are staying in school, rather than leaving school and trying to work full time at age 16 (as once happened more frequently)?
I suspect the conversation about after school part time jobs is missing the main part of the story.
Yeah, there are many different interpretations that can be made from that graph, and the text of the article would come in quite handy, as would be lots of complementary information, as we only have the participation rate data. The gist of the article, as per the tagline of that graph, would be that the increased participation of older workers is pushing out younger workers, but we don't have their rationale. To tackle just the part-time after-school teenage job market is narrowing a lot the focus of the discussion.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
As for teenage jobs, there's not much that I can say, it's something that it's not done at all over here in the way that you describe it
What do you do instead? Does nobody in Spain work while at university? That's how I avoided racking up insane debt.
University is affordable over here, you don't need to get into debt to get a degree. :P
Seriously speaking, although price of education is also a factor, college age is a different thing, I was thinking more about high school kids. Working while in college is not unheard of over here, even if not as common as it seems to be in the US, and it is predominantly the domain of people who don't come from a well off background and/or are studying in a different city than their hometown and need to cover rent and expenses. Then again it's not exactly the most desireable outcome, as employers aren't exactly willing to make acomodations for workers who are still studying and these people will normally be quite disadvantaged in comparison with their non working classmates.
Quote from: The Brain on July 06, 2011, 03:17:00 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 06, 2011, 03:11:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 04:48:16 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
Why should people retire?
Because if they don't you end up in a disfunctional gerontocracy, with old people clinging to the top jobs in your society, holding back the generational advancement and getting young people squeezed out of their careers. Some particular cases can be understood, but eventually the old have to get out of the picture and make room for the young.
Should they have retired while still able to work in the old days too or is today a special case?
I wouldn't say it is a "special case" but the fact of increasing longevity coupled with increasing work efficiency makes this problem worse and worse.
Quote from: The Larch on July 06, 2011, 03:25:09 AM
University is affordable over here, you don't need to get into debt to get a degree. :P
Seriously speaking, although price of education is also a factor, college age is a different thing, I was thinking more about high school kids. Working while in college is not unheard of over here, even if not as common as it seems to be in the US, and it is predominantly the domain of people who don't come from a well off background and/or are studying in a different city than their hometown and need to cover rent and expenses. Then again it's not exactly the most desireable outcome, as employers aren't exactly willing to make acomodations for workers who are still studying and these people will normally be quite disadvantaged in comparison with their non working classmates.
University is expensive in HK too. But here, it is widely considered a parental responsibility to cover all expenses.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
Eww, there are times when one must take a bus? :x
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
Eww, there are times when one must take a bus? :x
Martinus is poor.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
Eww, there are times when one must take a bus? :x
Martinus is poor.
He's not really a lawyer is he?
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 08:27:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
Eww, there are times when one must take a bus? :x
Martinus is poor.
He's not really a lawyer is he?
He's a janitor at a law office.
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 08:27:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
Eww, there are times when one must take a bus? :x
Martinus is poor.
He's not really a lawyer is he?
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:55:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 05, 2011, 03:49:18 PM
Nepotism is against the law?
That was the effective ruling of the case yes.
Huh.
You are going to have to learn to communicate a bit better. Perhaps you should get a job before attempting the practice of law.
It was just a question, and I was surprised by the answer. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
Eww, there are times when one must take a bus? :x
You assume that Poland even has cars. The first time they ever even saw an internal combustion engine was in 1939.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
Also, at least for me the time I spent in college was quite lazy. Very little studying and certainly coursework wasn't equivalent to a full time job. I spent 10-15 hours a week working, and probably not much more than that on schoolwork excluding finals and midterm weeks. Very few put in 40 hours a week just on schoolwork, and from what I understand that hasn't changed.
Roughly, yeah, this was my experience, too. When I was in college, 12 hours or more a semester was considered a full course load, and you had to get special permission to take more than 21 hours. 18 was typical for me, but lots of people just took 12 hours a semester and took 5 years instead of 4 to complete their degrees. Of course, that's just actual classroom time; it doesn't include study time or time spent working on assignments, but really even that load was pretty light.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 10:13:04 AM
You assume that Poland even has cars. The first time they ever even saw an internal combustion engine was in 1939.
:face:
Quote from: dps on July 06, 2011, 10:17:26 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
Also, at least for me the time I spent in college was quite lazy. Very little studying and certainly coursework wasn't equivalent to a full time job. I spent 10-15 hours a week working, and probably not much more than that on schoolwork excluding finals and midterm weeks. Very few put in 40 hours a week just on schoolwork, and from what I understand that hasn't changed.
Roughly, yeah, this was my experience, too. When I was in college, 12 hours or more a semester was considered a full course load, and you had to get special permission to take more than 21 hours. 18 was typical for me, but lots of people just took 12 hours a semester and took 5 years instead of 4 to complete their degrees. Of course, that's just actual classroom time; it doesn't include study time or time spent working on assignments, but really even that load was pretty light.
That wasn't my college experience. During the semester, I had a shitload of work to do. Maybe it's just a nature of engineering colleges. I did also work, but I worked as a TA, so that was neither a shit work, nor a menial one.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
What about above ground LRT? :unsure:
I need to know if I need to change my commuting arrangements or not.
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
What about above ground LRT? :unsure:
I need to know if I need to change my commuting arrangements or not.
That's probably okay. After all there are some decent people who take commuter trains. Really, I think there is something about buses that just beg for the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 07:34:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:32:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 05, 2011, 10:44:08 PM
I think it is good to experience some of what the working class goes through, even if briefly.
I experience that when I have to take a bus. That's more than enough. Especially in summer. :yucky:
Eww, there are times when one must take a bus? :x
:lol:
Garby don't ever change, or at least remember to upgrade you airs and graces later in life.
A for instance, what about if the bus happens to be the quickest and most convienient form of transport ? :gasp:
Quote from: mongers on July 06, 2011, 10:38:40 AM
:lol:
Garby don't ever change, or at least remember to upgrade you airs and graces later in life.
A for instance, what about if the bus happens to be the quickest and most convienient form of transport ? :gasp:
Then you should realize that something is wrong in your life. :(
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:29:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 05:37:33 PMI worked at McDonalds when I was 17 and I closed all the time.
But that does not exactly refute the theory that people who work as teenagers end up having shitty jobs and are idiots, does it?
:rolleyes:
Teaching is eminently respectable, something that can not be said for being a Polish lawyer.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:38:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
What about above ground LRT? :unsure:
I need to know if I need to change my commuting arrangements or not.
That's probably okay. After all there are some decent people who take commuter trains. Really, I think there is something about buses that just beg for the lowest common denominator.
Thank goodness my commuting plans have the garbon seal of approval. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
What about above ground LRT? :unsure:
I need to know if I need to change my commuting arrangements or not.
Who said anything about lawyers being forbidden to ride public transport? :huh: Neil said Marti was poor. I said he couldn't be a lawyer, then. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:38:04 AM
That's probably okay. After all there are some decent people who take commuter trains. Really, I think there is something about buses that just beg for the lowest common denominator.
Yep.
Quote from: The Larch on July 06, 2011, 03:11:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 04:48:16 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
Why should people retire?
Because if they don't you end up in a disfunctional gerontocracy, with old people clinging to the top jobs in your society, holding back the generational advancement and getting young people squeezed out of their careers. Some particular cases can be understood, but eventually the old have to get out of the picture and make room for the young.
How is it that one day a person is a productive member of the workforce and then the next day when they have a birthday and reach some magical age they suddenly are "clinging" to a job. Also, what makes you assume that older workers have all the "top jobs".
Also, there appears to be no evidence for the contention that older people staying in the job market squeezes anyone out of "their careers". First that assumes that someone has a career they have not yet entered to which they have some kind of inalienable claim. Second one of the Scandi countries used your theory as the reason for introducting early retirement packages to free up jobs for younger workers so they in fact would not be "squeezed out". The early retirement packages cost a lot of money and what did the goverment get in return? Higher unemployment in the younger work force.
One of the reasons economists give for this is that if you remove older workers from the work force you also remove the extra spending their employment would have supported. The "squeezed out" model ignores the fact that economies benefit if more people are working - not less.
Seems to me you are engaging in some intellectual laziness:P
Quote from: derspiess on July 06, 2011, 10:50:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:38:04 AM
That's probably okay. After all there are some decent people who take commuter trains. Really, I think there is something about buses that just beg for the lowest common denominator.
Yep.
I rode the bus for years. I only stopped because I became a chauffeur taking my boys to their pre-school activities and then picking them up from the post school activities.
Far from being the lowest common denominator I prefered to think of my bus driver, who I got to know quite well, as my semi private driver... :D
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:40:10 AM
Quote from: mongers on July 06, 2011, 10:38:40 AM
:lol:
Garby don't ever change, or at least remember to upgrade you airs and graces later in life.
A for instance, what about if the bus happens to be the quickest and most convienient form of transport ? :gasp:
Then you should realize that something is wrong in your life. :(
I just prefer taking a coach/bus into central London, door to door in 2hrs, rather than taking a car and either 'abandoning' it in the suburbs or trying to find a parking place in the centre of town, not a fun game in my experience. <_<
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
Warsaw is pretty backward in this respect - we have good subway but it is just one line. While it goes along the main thoroughware, if you want to get sideways, you need to take a bus or a tram.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:38:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
What about above ground LRT? :unsure:
I need to know if I need to change my commuting arrangements or not.
That's probably okay. After all there are some decent people who take commuter trains. Really, I think there is something about buses that just beg for the lowest common denominator.
I think this is a US issue (I was told by people who went there that buses are extremely crappy there).
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:38:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
What about above ground LRT? :unsure:
I need to know if I need to change my commuting arrangements or not.
That's probably okay. After all there are some decent people who take commuter trains. Really, I think there is something about buses that just beg for the lowest common denominator.
I think buses in Poland (as well as other places) are a bit different than the US. I've taken a bus between two polish cities, and it was more pleasant than the train (and was recommended to me as faster and more comfortable than train). I've had the same experience in some of the better off parts of south america. I think there is a sweet spot of developing countries around 10k gdp per capita where auto transportation is too expensive for many in the general public, but there is still enough money to keep things from getting ghetto.
Unless those old folks are working flipping burgers and the like, I doubt their increased participation is seriously affecting the ability of HS kids to get jobs ... ;)
I worry about riding the intercity busses in Canada, because of the prevelance of Chinese decapitators. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:08:28 AM
I worry about riding the intercity busses in Canada, because of the prevelance of Chinese decapitators. ;)
Agreed. I would never travel on a long haul bus without having a metal collar of some sort.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2011, 10:41:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:29:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 05:37:33 PMI worked at McDonalds when I was 17 and I closed all the time.
But that does not exactly refute the theory that people who work as teenagers end up having shitty jobs and are idiots, does it?
:rolleyes:
Teaching is eminently respectable, something that can not be said for being a Polish lawyer.
Not here in America. :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:08:28 AM
I worry about riding the intercity busses in Canada, because of the prevelance of Chinese decapitators. ;)
I would never, and have never, taken an intercity bus in the US or Canada. I think Poland is a bit different.
Quote from: mongers on July 06, 2011, 10:59:56 AM
I just prefer taking a coach/bus into central London, door to door in 2hrs, rather than taking a car and either 'abandoning' it in the suburbs or trying to find a parking place in the centre of town, not a fun game in my experience. <_<
Well I will certainly go with the notion raised by Alfred that buses are different in different places. I was certainly okay with the Oxford Tube - although the bus I had to take to get to Lewisham wasn't my fave.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 10:55:34 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 06, 2011, 03:11:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2011, 04:48:16 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 05, 2011, 04:37:41 PM
And what about the other part of the graph? Why are people who should be retired still working?
Why should people retire?
Because if they don't you end up in a disfunctional gerontocracy, with old people clinging to the top jobs in your society, holding back the generational advancement and getting young people squeezed out of their careers. Some particular cases can be understood, but eventually the old have to get out of the picture and make room for the young.
How is it that one day a person is a productive member of the workforce and then the next day when they have a birthday and reach some magical age they suddenly are "clinging" to a job. Also, what makes you assume that older workers have all the "top jobs".
Maybe they sucked for a while but firing them was too ard or costly :P
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2011, 11:24:47 AM
Maybe they sucked for a while but firing them was too ard or costly :P
As is often the case with younger workers.... :P
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 11:15:17 AM
I would never, and have never, taken an intercity bus in the US or Canada.
I have. There were some city buses in Athens integrated into the university's transportation system.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 06, 2011, 11:27:58 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 06, 2011, 11:24:47 AM
Maybe they sucked for a while but firing them was too ard or costly :P
As is often the case with younger workers.... :P
nah, we're easy to get rid of. little or no severance.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2011, 11:28:23 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 11:15:17 AM
I would never, and have never, taken an intercity bus in the US or Canada.
I have. There were some city buses in Athens integrated into the university's transportation system.
Stanford had a bus shuttle service to take students around campus / into Palo Alto. I pretty much never took it as it wasn't dependable. There was a full on schedule, but you never knew if it would actually come - so you were better of walking or biking if you needed to be somewhere at a specific time. :blurgh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2011, 11:28:23 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 11:15:17 AM
I would never, and have never, taken an intercity bus in the US or Canada.
I have. There were some city buses in Athens integrated into the university's transportation system.
Are those really intercity?
Oh you meant Greyhound? Nevermind then.
Quote from: The Larch on July 06, 2011, 03:25:09 AM
University is affordable over here, you don't need to get into debt to get a degree. :P
True enough. Or at least affordable to the individual. 'Cause debt you have. :lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2011, 11:35:30 AM
Oh you meant Greyhound? Nevermind then.
I did say intercity, but actually I can't think of any bus system in the US that I would want to get on.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 11:39:12 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2011, 11:35:30 AM
Oh you meant Greyhound? Nevermind then.
I did say intercity, but actually I can't think of any bus system in the US that I would want to get on.
Iron Maiden's tour bus would be pretty cool.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2011, 11:41:21 AM
Iron Maiden's tour bus would be pretty cool.
Oh, wait:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fassets%2FgetAsset.aspx%3FItemID%3D38341&hash=5a4ff4fdd79bf022812ec9d8d5fb063d7249c08c)
:lol:
I don't think I'd want to get on a plane with a musical act. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2011, 11:46:17 AM
I don't think I'd want to get on a plane with a musical act. :hmm:
Bruce Dickinson is a pilot, at least.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 11:15:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:08:28 AM
I worry about riding the intercity busses in Canada, because of the prevelance of Chinese decapitators. ;)
I would never, and have never, taken an intercity bus in the US or Canada. I think Poland is a bit different.
Here in Alberta there's a company that does a very nice 'upscale' intercity bus service between Calgary, Edmonton, and Ft. McMurray. Given how much of a gong show those highways are I'd prefer to take that bus than drive if I can manage it.
Edmonton-Fort Mac in particular is a disaster, and the QE2 could probably use another lane going each way.
I'm going to have to drive down there for my wife's family reunion in August. I am: Sad.
Man, the 63 looks, atleast on Street View, like some regular Quebec Highway. That's really not good.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2011, 11:47:32 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 06, 2011, 11:46:17 AM
I don't think I'd want to get on a plane with a musical act. :hmm:
Bruce Dickinson is a pilot, at least.
So is David Gilmour, of Pink Floyd.
Before I had a car, I regularly took Greyhounds to and from Atlantic City. They're all right, the far more annoying part of taking these buses are the wait times to board them. Now that I have a car, taking a bath is beneath me, of course.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 12:19:37 PM
Before I had a car, I regularly took Greyhounds to and from Atlantic City. They're all right, the far more annoying part of taking these buses are the wait times to board them. Now that I have a car, taking a bath is beneath me, of course.
:lmfao:
:huh:
Well, I don't guess anybody is going to want to carpool with you.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 12:23:10 PM
:huh:
I didn't know car ownership made me above regular body hygiene.
:face:
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:07:32 AM
Unless those old folks are working flipping burgers and the like, I doubt their increased participation is seriously affecting the ability of HS kids to get jobs ... ;)
Many are. Dunno as to the effect on HS kids seeking jobs, though.
Quote from: Neil on July 06, 2011, 11:59:35 AM
Edmonton-Fort Mac in particular is a disaster, and the QE2 could probably use another lane going each way.
I'm going to have to drive down there for my wife's family reunion in August. I am: Sad.
Went to Calgary and back on the Dominion Day weekend. QE2 was ridiculous - came to a complete stop due to congestion on more than a few occasions.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 11:12:35 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 06, 2011, 10:41:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:29:40 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 05, 2011, 05:37:33 PMI worked at McDonalds when I was 17 and I closed all the time.
But that does not exactly refute the theory that people who work as teenagers end up having shitty jobs and are idiots, does it?
:rolleyes:
Teaching is eminently respectable, something that can not be said for being a Polish lawyer.
Not here in America. :huh:
I dunno, being a Polish lawyer in America is even worse than being an American teacher.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 11:06:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:38:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 06, 2011, 10:02:09 AM
Since when are lawyers forbidden from riding public transit? :unsure:
Who said public transit? Subways are certainly an acceptable mode travel.
What about above ground LRT? :unsure:
I need to know if I need to change my commuting arrangements or not.
That's probably okay. After all there are some decent people who take commuter trains. Really, I think there is something about buses that just beg for the lowest common denominator.
I think buses in Poland (as well as other places) are a bit different than the US. I've taken a bus between two polish cities, and it was more pleasant than the train (and was recommended to me as faster and more comfortable than train). I've had the same experience in some of the better off parts of south america. I think there is a sweet spot of developing countries around 10k gdp per capita where auto transportation is too expensive for many in the general public, but there is still enough money to keep things from getting ghetto.
You have been to Poland? Nice. When was it?
Quote from: alfred russel on July 06, 2011, 11:15:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:08:28 AM
I worry about riding the intercity busses in Canada, because of the prevelance of Chinese decapitators. ;)
I would never, and have never, taken an intercity bus in the US or Canada. I think Poland is a bit different.
Actually, I think these days, taking a plane or a train between cities would be a better option. But buses in cities like Warsaw are quite nice.
Quote from: Martinus on July 06, 2011, 01:51:03 PM
You have been to Poland? Nice. When was it?
I've been a few times. I was in Warsaw for 4 weeks back in March (we were opening an office there).
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:07:32 AM
Unless those old folks are working flipping burgers and the like, I doubt their increased participation is seriously affecting the ability of HS kids to get jobs ... ;)
Indirectly, perhaps? Take any given profession (lawyer, doctor, whatever), where there is a certain demand for personnel. If old folks stay in their positions longer, and demand does not go up, then the value of new professionals goes down. They have to seek employment at a level below what they were expecting and what they had trained for, and being more highly qualified will tend edge out people with bachelor's degrees, who in turn edge out high school grads, who in turn edge out high school students.
I mean, I don't know if this is at all the case, but it does make sense.
Quote from: Stonewall on July 05, 2011, 01:12:32 PM
Economics are part of the equation with less jobs meaning less opportunity for entry level workers.
Also, kids are spoiled brats who expect everything handed to them on a silver platter. Parents no longer kick little Jimmy to the curb when Jimmy turns 25 and still doesn't have a job.
Conversely, in poor households, little Jimmy is a three time convicted felon and just got out of jail following his latest driving on a suspended license charge. His lack of a drivers license and possession of a criminal record prevents him from getting the job peddling a Big Mac so that he then goes out and peddles a little smack instead. Morever, convict Jimmy don't want to work anyway since work is beneath him and would rather steal copper from your air conditioner than take a job at Popeyes.
IMO.
i miss your cynacism around here
lets grab some beer
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 05, 2011, 12:53:18 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fapps%2Fdata%3Fpid%3Davimage%26amp%3Biid%3Dimd7FLDNZcvg&hash=6466a23d0d03e4794b58e4efba24c71282bf7e4f)
What happened?
I really don't think the oldsters are pushing them out of the market like the graph suggests.
I love graphs with no comments or explanations.
What does it represent exactly? The number of teens working full time? The proportion of teens working in the global work market?
The graph would seem to support the last theory. Less children, more elders, hence it shows in the global data that there are more older people working and less young ones because their global numbers have shifted.
Quote from: Martinus on July 05, 2011, 03:13:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 05, 2011, 01:11:27 PM
They've gotten so spoiled their parents don't make them work to get pocket money?
I never understood that sentiment. I never worked until I was 22,
that explains a lot.
Quote from: viper37 on July 06, 2011, 03:16:03 PM
What does it represent exactly? The number of teens working full time?
It does say "participation rate". Labor participation rate is the percentage of teens out of the whole teen population that are either employed, or want to be employed. Part time employment counts as employment.
QuoteThe proportion of teens working in the global work market?
The source is BLS, so it has be American statistics.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:09:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:07:32 AM
Unless those old folks are working flipping burgers and the like, I doubt their increased participation is seriously affecting the ability of HS kids to get jobs ... ;)
Indirectly, perhaps? Take any given profession (lawyer, doctor, whatever), where there is a certain demand for personnel. If old folks stay in their positions longer, and demand does not go up, then the value of new professionals goes down. They have to seek employment at a level below what they were expecting and what they had trained for, and being more highly qualified will tend edge out people with bachelor's degrees, who in turn edge out high school grads, who in turn edge out high school students.
I mean, I don't know if this is at all the case, but it does make sense.
I find it difficult to believe that the 'trickle-down' effect of seniors not retiring impacts the burger-flipping-type job market that much.
i have no idea if Top level seniors retiring or not effects anything, but now a days i see a lot of old people in jobs that used to the domain of teens. McJobs, cashiers, walmart, etc. now i don't know if it's becasue kids aren't applying so the geezers are getting them, or the kids can't get them because the geezers get there first.
Quote from: viper37 on July 06, 2011, 03:16:03 PM
I love graphs with no comments or explanations.
What does it represent exactly? The number of teens working full time? The proportion of teens working in the global work market?
The graph would seem to support the last theory. Less children, more elders, hence it shows in the global data that there are more older people working and less young ones because their global numbers have shifted.
I just noticed in your reposting of that graph that the two lines are, in fact, based on unrelated scales with different ratios. The superimposition of them isn't an honest one. Boooo! :thumbsdown:
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 03:33:58 PM
I find it difficult to believe that the 'trickle-down' effect of seniors not retiring impacts the burger-flipping-type job market that much.
I'm not convinced either, but I can see how
in theory it sort of makes sense.
64 year old CEO won't retire.
50 year old VP doesn't get promoted
35 year old middle management doesn't get to rise to VP
25 year old pencil pusher doesn't rise up the ladder
Company doesn't hire entry levels
College kid remains at McDonalds. :(
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 12:17:11 PM
So is David Gilmour, of Pink Floyd.
So was Randy Rhoads. :contract:
:P
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 06:45:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 03:33:58 PM
I find it difficult to believe that the 'trickle-down' effect of seniors not retiring impacts the burger-flipping-type job market that much.
I'm not convinced either, but I can see how in theory it sort of makes sense.
64 year old CEO won't retire.
50 year old VP doesn't get promoted
35 year old middle management doesn't get to rise to VP
25 year old pencil pusher doesn't rise up the ladder
Company doesn't hire entry levels
College kid remains at McDonalds. :(
Except that world doesnt work in lock step like that.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 06, 2011, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 12:17:11 PM
So is David Gilmour, of Pink Floyd.
So was Randy Rhoads. :contract:
:P
I think you're mistaken. :sleep:
Gilmour is a hobbyist. Dickinson is a currently working professional pilot when he's not recording/touring. So is Chris DeGarmo of Queensryche, but he does it exclusively as his only job.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2011, 07:57:04 PM
So is Chris DeGarmo of Queensryche, but he does it exclusively as his only job.
You know, after hearing bits of that last Queensryche album, I think he chose wisely.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2011, 07:57:04 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 06, 2011, 06:48:49 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 06, 2011, 12:17:11 PM
So is David Gilmour, of Pink Floyd.
So was Randy Rhoads. :contract:
:P
I think you're mistaken. :sleep:
Gilmour is a hobbyist.
This is true. By his own admission, he is an earth-bound misfit.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 02:09:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 06, 2011, 11:07:32 AM
Unless those old folks are working flipping burgers and the like, I doubt their increased participation is seriously affecting the ability of HS kids to get jobs ... ;)
Indirectly, perhaps? Take any given profession (lawyer, doctor, whatever), where there is a certain demand for personnel. If old folks stay in their positions longer, and demand does not go up, then the value of new professionals goes down. They have to seek employment at a level below what they were expecting and what they had trained for, and being more highly qualified will tend edge out people with bachelor's degrees, who in turn edge out high school grads, who in turn edge out high school students.
I mean, I don't know if this is at all the case, but it does make sense.
Maybe but there is also the flipside that people who have been around a while keep getting raises and eventually are more expensive than a new hire who needs a little breaking in.
Is it written that raises must be granted?
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 08:52:25 PM
Is it written that raises must be granted?
I've no idea but in a lot of jobs people might leave to seek them elsewhere.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 06, 2011, 07:57:04 PM
I think you're mistaken. :sleep:
Whoops. I think you're right. :blush:
Quote from: grumbler on July 06, 2011, 06:05:14 PM
I just noticed in your reposting of that graph that the two lines are, in fact, based on unrelated scales with different ratios. The superimposition of them isn't an honest one. Boooo! :thumbsdown:
Yeah, it appears that the vertical scale on the left is the participation rate for teens, while the vertical scale on the right is the rate for senoirs. Which means that comparted to the peaks and valleys for teens, the line for seniors is a much gentler curve, even more than it appears to be.
I had noticed this before, but didn't point it out 'cause A) the participation rate for seniors isn't reallly the point, and B) I figured that most people noticed.
Old people have experience and more of a developed work ethic. When you're just hiring them to do a job and don't care about keeping them in the long term they're the logical option.
At my old job, traditionally the domain of teenagers, they've certainly switched onto hiring more retirees these days..
I guess this is linked in to the rising quality of life and the retirement age still being where it has always been. It used to be people who retired and were in their late 60s were pretty much done, just waiting to die. Now however they can be rather healthy and doing nothing grows boring for them, hence they look for a little job to earn a bit of extra money...the sort of job students should be taking.
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 08:56:06 PM
I've no idea but in a lot of jobs people might leave to seek them elsewhere.
:shifty:
Quote from: garbon on July 06, 2011, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 06, 2011, 08:52:25 PM
Is it written that raises must be granted?
I've no idea but in a lot of jobs people might leave to seek them elsewhere.
Then the problem is self-correcting. Win-win.
Quote from: DGuller on July 06, 2011, 03:29:20 PM
It does say "participation rate". Labor participation rate is the percentage of teens out of the whole teen population that are either employed, or want to be employed. Part time employment counts as employment.
[...]
The proportion of teens working in the global work market?
The source is BLS, so it has be American statistics.
[/quote]
I meant if it included only full time job, not part time job, obivously it was for the USA.
Anyway, I found the relevant article and as I suspected, it's a simple case of stats presentation.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils49.pdf
The text cannot be copied, but it explains a methodology change in their surveys from 1994 and on, wich created a gross overstatement of people enrolled in school. People having one summer class were considered unemployed, even if they had a part-time or full time job.
How can people with a job be considered unemployed? Do you actually mean that those people were considered to not be participating in the labor force?