U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-06-2019, 03:26 AM
 
6,615 posts, read 3,738,816 times
Reputation: 13660

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
The NY Times is the nation's fishwrap-of-record. Might as well quote Nanci Pelosi and the DNC. It has little careful economic analysis, this article included.
The fact remains that when there are more jobs than workers, wages go up. That's not happening. So it's illogical to continue to believe that it's a tight job market, without some other explanation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2019, 03:31 AM
 
6,615 posts, read 3,738,816 times
Reputation: 13660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii View Post
From the article "which means it leaves out many students, stay-at-home parents or others who might like jobs if they were available"

That is discouraged workers (U4) and students (U6). U6 actually goes farther than the article, as it includes underemployed people too. U6 is at a multi-decade low right now.
No, Quietude is correct.

"Discouraged workers" group doesn't include students who'd like work but don't need it, a homemaker who'd like a job for a while to save money for a new car - but doesn't "need" it and is not actively known to be looking for work. Discouraged workers are "workers." People who work. For a living. They need work. They are workers. Not the same thing at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 06:12 AM
 
1,674 posts, read 548,866 times
Reputation: 3560
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
No, Quietude is correct.

"Discouraged workers" group doesn't include students who'd like work but don't need it, a homemaker who'd like a job for a while to save money for a new car - but doesn't "need" it and is not actively known to be looking for work. Discouraged workers are "workers." People who work. For a living. They need work. They are workers. Not the same thing at all.
Students are specifically added to U6 numbers.

And no. Discouraged workers are people who are eligible for employment and able to work, but currently unemployed and have not attempted to find employment in the last four weeks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 06:24 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,560 posts, read 17,535,380 times
Reputation: 27607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii View Post
That's been my point this entire time. It forces someone to continually improve. Blaming the job market, or an employer gives someone an excuse. If it's something or someone else's fault, that gives someone an excuse to not improve. They can claim they did nothing wrong and it's bad luck, discrimination, etc.

Back to my question that you still didn't answer, how often after you're rejected from a job do you go back through your notes from that company, your revisions for the resume you put together for that company, your networking list you developed for that job, and try to pinpoint what you could have done better?

If you were rejected because you were overqualified, then you presented your resume wrong, and the sales pitch you gave on yourself was wrong for that position. That's exactly what I've been talking about. How often do you specifically set aside 2-3 hours after you hear you didn't get the job and actually review your notes from that application process to critically think about what you could have done better in applying for that specific job?
Here's what you're not understanding.

I was in this position back in 2010-2013. I was working low end help desk work. I'd apply for a junior level position in network/sys admin, business analyst, whatever, and I'd always end up rejected, so I started "investing in myself" with certs and paying for training myself.

I ended up with quite a few certs - all of the intro level CompTIA stuff, CASP, ITIL 2011 Foundation, CCNA, and a couple of other small certs. Guess what? None of that qualified me for anything other than more help desk work. The only cert that would be worth my while to keep current would be the ITIL stuff.

No one is going to hire a junior network admin that hasn't been a network admin before. About the only way to get a job like that is to be promoted from within or transfer within the organization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 07:16 AM
 
12,265 posts, read 18,393,933 times
Reputation: 19088
Quote:
Originally Posted by usamathman View Post
MAGA supporters cling to the idea that the economy is at an all time high. Croc of bullsh*t. There are no more jobs than there were when Nosama was president. People will use whatever data they can to justify their political and personal beliefs.

Unless your in a high skilled white collar type of industry, you are in no better shape than you were five years ago. Stop it with the b.s.
Just the opposite - there are different measurements of unemployment and the economy to pull out to further ones personal agenda, a bunch of different data that people can manipulate and use to further this or that argument
However, there is one standard that is commonly published and the way to measure that standard has not changed. The best and fairest measurement we can do is have an apples and apples comparison, not be selective in what data it shows. And indeed this shows both the economy and jobs at an almost all time high using the most common measurements. The "crock of BS" is with you and your perception, driven by either personal misfortune, bad life choices, or a hatred of the current administration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by usamathman View Post
And yet the US national debt is still increasing at alarming rates. Highest it has ever been. Should we give POTUS credit for that as well....
This thread is about the job market, not about US national debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 02:19 PM
 
1,604 posts, read 1,119,998 times
Reputation: 2414
Echoing an earlier comment -- I'm nearing retirement age. I've lived through multiple boom/bust cycles. This does not feel like other boom times.

What industries are creating all of these new jobs? In previous booms, you could see that a large swath of the population at all income levels in some market segment was doing very well -- IT, the construction/mortgage industry, banking/finance (Enron, S&Ls, etc.), manufacturing. These folks were out there spending their money, taking trips, buying new cars and fancy clothes, boosting the rest of the economy, even if they were sometimes vulgar and obnoxious about it.

I'm not seeing that now. Who (beyond the 0.01%) is benefiting from the current boom? Nobody that I can see. In my field, salaries are still at 2008 levels. People seem focused on survival.

I would love for someone to convince me that these new jobs are actually good jobs and not just crappy gig assignments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 03:01 PM
 
780 posts, read 202,959 times
Reputation: 1134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthnry View Post
Echoing an earlier comment -- I'm nearing retirement age. I've lived through multiple boom/bust cycles. This does not feel like other boom times.

What industries are creating all of these new jobs? In previous booms, you could see that a large swath of the population at all income levels in some market segment was doing very well -- IT, the construction/mortgage industry, banking/finance (Enron, S&Ls, etc.), manufacturing. These folks were out there spending their money, taking trips, buying new cars and fancy clothes, boosting the rest of the economy, even if they were sometimes vulgar and obnoxious about it.

I'm not seeing that now. Who (beyond the 0.01%) is benefiting from the current boom? Nobody that I can see. In my field, salaries are still at 2008 levels. People seem focused on survival.

I would love for someone to convince me that these new jobs are actually good jobs and not just crappy gig assignments.
A couple comments I want to make in response here.

First and foremost, I agree with the bolded very much so. I graduated in the 2008 recession. I have not quite shaken the "survival" mentality that grew on me as a result of what I experienced then. Maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's not. I always get stressed about making purchases, especially big ticket items. I always feel insecure about not having enough of a nest egg. Living just to survive is a miserable, stressful existence.

Secondly, salaries across the board have been stagnant for some time, and there is ample data to support this. While I've seen my income grow, it has been a result of moving around to different opportunities over time. It's not to say that the position I am in currently has experienced much salary growth from 10-15 years ago. Let's just assume I'm making a flat $80,000/yr today in my current role. The same position may have paid about $78,000 10-15 years ago. How is that keeping up with 1-3% inflation year over year for the past decade, not to mention other areas like housing, education, and healthcare that have increased far more than those rates. Pay bands have not and are not keeping up with inflationary increases to our COL. If the pay band for X position at Acme Corp was $75,000 - $90,000 over 10 years ago, there's no reason the pay band for that same position should still be the same. That's what they mean by stagnant wages. Everything is going up in price/cost, but the pay bands are remaining the same.

The only way to get ahead it seems is to jump ship every few years until you're finally comfortable, not stick in the same role at the same company for the duration of your career.

Last edited by Sir Quotes A Lot; 05-06-2019 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 03:28 PM
 
117 posts, read 64,160 times
Reputation: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii View Post
........

You're also starting the conversation by quoting an incorrect statistic...
Actually there is hard government data pointing to the decline of middle class quality jobs. The media just don't want to mention. I don't think you can get the full picture of what is happening.

The labor participation rate is still at two decade low. It is now 62% of the population. It is the same as year 2012. During boom time 2005-2006 or even year 2003, it was at 68%. This suggested roughtly 6% of the population has given up looking for jobs. I suspect this group of people are highly educated and professional people like electric engineer. They don't want to work for minimum wages. They survive on their savings, support from their siblings and inheritance from their parents.

My theory is well supported by shrinking middle class jobs and wage inflation adjusted data. I suspect with the arising of computer software and automation, it is shrinking middle class drastically. Case in point, thousands and thousands bankers got laid off in recent years because the finance industry comes up with some computer algo that does the same job as bankers do. Clients just click some websites online connect with the algo. They can get the same advisory at a friction of cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 04:18 PM
 
1,674 posts, read 548,866 times
Reputation: 3560
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmun View Post
Actually there is hard government data pointing to the decline of middle class quality jobs. The media just don't want to mention. I don't think you can get the full picture of what is happening.

The labor participation rate is still at two decade low. It is now 62% of the population. It is the same as year 2012. During boom time 2005-2006 or even year 2003, it was at 68%. This suggested roughtly 6% of the population has given up looking for jobs. I suspect this group of people are highly educated and professional people like electric engineer. They don't want to work for minimum wages. They survive on their savings, support from their siblings and inheritance from their parents.

My theory is well supported by shrinking middle class jobs and wage inflation adjusted data. I suspect with the arising of computer software and automation, it is shrinking middle class drastically. Case in point, thousands and thousands bankers got laid off in recent years because the finance industry comes up with some computer algo that does the same job as bankers do. Clients just click some websites online connect with the algo. They can get the same advisory at a friction of cost.
Which is why I said according to U6 unemployment, the job market still looks better today than it has been in decades.

Add to that boomer's retiring and not being replaced in the workforce due to the size of their generation, a lower labor force participation rate doesn't indicate people who want work can't find it. People who want to work have an easier time finding a job now than they have had in decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2019, 04:21 PM
 
1,674 posts, read 548,866 times
Reputation: 3560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
Here's what you're not understanding.

I was in this position back in 2010-2013. I was working low end help desk work. I'd apply for a junior level position in network/sys admin, business analyst, whatever, and I'd always end up rejected, so I started "investing in myself" with certs and paying for training myself.

I ended up with quite a few certs - all of the intro level CompTIA stuff, CASP, ITIL 2011 Foundation, CCNA, and a couple of other small certs. Guess what? None of that qualified me for anything other than more help desk work. The only cert that would be worth my while to keep current would be the ITIL stuff.

No one is going to hire a junior network admin that hasn't been a network admin before. About the only way to get a job like that is to be promoted from within or transfer within the organization.
I never mentioned certifications. How could you have communicated better? How did you answer interview questions? What mistakes did you make in building a list of people to network with before submitting a resume? (DID you even build lists of people to network with for specific companies before submitting resumes?) What did you say that rubbed an interviewer the wrong way, and how could you have presented yourself differently? What were they really looking for in a candidate, and how could you have tailored your resume differently?

Those are the questions you ask after every rejection. People hire people, not simply lists of certs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top