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.
The purpose of the private sector is not to create jobs, but to generate profit. Labor is a necessary evil for businesses because it is an added cost and hassle. The fact that labor is necessary for business is a benefit to government and the public.
Government can create jobs but it is one of the major debates of economics as to how beneficial or detrimental government jobs are to the economy. Some say that government jobs boost demand by putting money in peoples' pockets. Others say that government drains money from the productive private sector into inefficient or unnecessary government jobs.
Also, no one is forced to go to college for a job. In fact, I would argue our economy is getting worse in some ways because too many people go to college now.
I read an article the other day that said construction costs are going up because there is a shortage of skilled labor. There aren't enough electricians, carpenters, plumbers, inspectors, HVAC guys, etc. to go around. There are good jobs out there, but parents don't want to tell their peers their kid went into the trades instead of college, and a lot of kids don't want to do actual work.
Actually, taxes were much higher in the 'good old days' of job-creation in the 1950s.
In 1955, the median family income was about $3,300, and the federal income tax on that was 20.0% (the lowest marginal rate). Today's lowest marginal rate is 10.0%, but the median family income is about $65,000 and in a higher bracket of 15.0% - but still lower than the lowest marginal rate in 1950.
As for the upper end of the scale? Today's brackets top out at 39.6%, for incomes of $450,000 and above (about 7x the MFI). Now, in 1955 tax on an income 7x the MFI would be 38.0%, ever so slightly lower than today. But that wasn't the top rate then. Earn just a few hundred bucks more per year back then and you're into a higher tax bracket of 43.0%. And the highest marginal rate in 1955? 91.0% No, that's not a typo - it was ninety-one percent.
Oooops! Now I must be a 'lefty troll' for pointing out that reality...
No one was paying a 91% income tax back then. The pols created the 91% tax rate as a sop to the workers to make it look like they were sticking it to the rich, but they also added all kinds of ways for their rich buddies to avoid actually paying 91%. More deductions back then.
If you don't want to go to college no one is making you and you can get a decent job and have a good career without going, but you'll have to work extra hard. Some will require a state license of some kind which is typically a one day to a week class to prepare for the test.
What kind of jobs?
Insurance sales
Investment sales
Home inspector or appraiser
Realtor
Daycare provider
Retail store manager
Postal worker
Car salesman
Construction/Contractor
Fireman
Restaurant owner
Small business owner
Customer service Rep
Some professions will allow you to start at the bottom and work your way to the top such as a bank teller, to a supervisor to an assistant branch manager, to manager. Or a sales assistant to retail store manager. Some companies will help pay for your schooling as well.
That's a great list. RE: working your way up to bank mgr., I know people who have done that, but in a different era (now retired). I've heard it's much harder to do, these days, and that teller tends to be more of a dead-end job. I've seen a teller in my town work his way a step up from teller to something like accounts manager, but no farther than that. Usually banks want people with an economics background (read: BA, if not--MA) for the mid-level jobs (mortgage broker/mgr) and higher, in my observation. I also suspect that promotions up from teller depend on how much bank product you're able to sell: credit cards, etc.
About once a year, I meet someone who actually gets it. They buy property as soon as they can, they work extra jobs, pay off loans, and save every penny. They don't count on government for anything.
This kind of common sense is rare. Too bad.
In some places houses are so expensive that it doesn't make sense to buy one, financially speaking, especially if you are single and don't need all that space...
Why don't either governments or private sector create jobs (even if that job creation is artificial) that can be had once out of high school like a lot of jobs were in the 50's? I'm 25, it's a very miserable time to be growing up, especially since even I haven't established myself in the adult world yet. I would love to go to a time machine and travel to the 50's, even if only for the opportunity to live a better quality of life. I'm struggling to make myself and find even a very low-level job. I kind of have a disability, and it makes it a little harder. Robots and automation will probably destroy it before I get to "make" myself and I'll be too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
Well if you are 25 you have no idea what the 50s were really like and often people look back at history with rosy revisionist glasses. It also false to believe others had it easy and it's never been harder for yourself, it's a common mistake though
I can tell you people in the 50s, were complaining about needing a good job, just like they are today. I was in the Navy discharged in 1954, so I was there at that time and knew exactly what was going on.
Back then it took 1 out of every three employed people working on farms to grow the food the rest of the company need to eat and be healthy. Today it only takes 1 1/2% of the working people to be involved in growing food, and we grow a lot more of it. The country had to develop enough new jobs, to give farm workers a way to make a living for a family. And people were complaining back then, about how hard it was to find a good job, just as they are today. Of course a lot of people hated the jobs they had to work at. Remember in the 50s, men were being drafted into the military and hated the kind of jobs they were given. I only went into the Navy, because I had a draft notice to go to the Army in the post office box. The carrying my bed on my back along with not attractive food, and sleeping in fox holes keeping my head down as people were shooting at me trying to kill me as many had to do in the Army did not appeal to me, so I went into the Navy.
In the 50s, people had a lot less choices for jobs, and had to work a lot harder overall, than they have to do today.
I was lucky some would say. Due to the grades I got on tests, I spent the first year in the Navy in schools, and was only assigned to two naval air transport bases, and was always in a supervisory position including being in charged of all cargo, passengers, etc., as Air Terminal Chief for the majority of my working time in the navy. After getting out of the navy, I was never out of work more than 3 days, before I got a new and better job if I left one behind.
But on the other hand, there were lots of people that were trying to find a job and found it very hard to find one just as the OP and so many others complain about today.
Times have changed about getting a decent job, and today it is a lot easier than it was back in the 50s for a lot of people.
Unemployment rate in 1958 was 6.8% when the Korean war was over, and a lot of young men were being discharged from the military, and for 2016 last annual figure, it was, 4.9% the lowest it has been in this decade. From the 50s till today, the unemployment rate has gone up and down, depending on the economy and current job market. With today's unemployment rate, it is easier to get a job today, than lots of years in the past 70 years.
The reason that so many find it hard to find a job, is the same one that has kept people from getting a job in the past.
That reason is, the applicant applies for jobs against other applicants. The applicants are considered and the one that has the most experience, education, and personality for the job is hired, and other applicants do not meet or exceed what the person selected for the job has and they are rejected.
In the 50's a lot of jobs were in manufacturing, machine shops, etc. Automation and a declining manufacturing base have eliminate most of those jobs. I worked for a defense contractor that has automatic milling machines, and some standard lathes, etc. One of the machinist told me the automatic milling machine could do in 20 minutes what used to take 5 machinists all day. Once the fixture to hold the casting was made and the machine programmed, unskilled labor could put the piece in the fixture and press the start button. When the piece was done, they'd put a new casting in the fixture and press start again.
In mining they have automated machines, or bigger and bigger machines to do mining work. 1 shovel loading 4 trucks vs 2 loading 6. Even McDonald's is putting in automated kiosks to order your burgers, if the order is wrong, the customer input it wrong. The kiosk never takes a sick day, no benefits, etc, etc. Labor is the biggest cost of anything, eliminate that.
Someone mentioned truck driving, just like Uber working on automated cars. Mercedes and other companies are working on automated trucks. They already have "lane departure warnings" etc. I know people who drive them, really annoying when someone pass you. Then they get back into the lane in front of you before they've reached the proper following distance for the speed the truck is traveling. All kinds of warning bells go off, the cruise control cuts out, sometimes even breaking until the proper distance is established.
Go try living like someone in the 50s, maybe you can afford it. Get a small inefficient house, own one car but get an older cheaper one since you don't want good mileage/reliability/safety to be 50s style, ditch the cable TV, cell phone, internet connection, computer, Netflix, $5 coffee at Starbucks, fly in airplanes less, etc.
^^LOL.
Oh, and I forgot to mention....Almost 50% of our food dollars are now spent eating out. That was certainly only a tiny slice of food spending in the 1950s. If people at at home like they did in the 1950s, they'd save money on more than just food. Food made at home is usually healthier and the portions smaller, so it would help chip away at those health care costs as well.
Either that, or just take whatever job you can find and live a relatively minimalist lifestyle. It's not glamorous, it's not always ideal but I have been doing it for years.
I know of someone who lives a very minimalist lifestyle (no car, rents a very tiny room, etc.) and basically works part time doing various odd jobs--but over the last year and a half has now stashed away $7k in cash and a Vanguard mutual fund. It's not a lifestyle I would want, but if the savings habit is kept up, it won't be forever.
In some places houses are so expensive that it doesn't make sense to buy one, financially speaking, especially if you are single and don't need all that space...
Agreed, but I think you get the gist of blisterpeanuts' post.
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.
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.
