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.
Some sectors of the economy are, indeed, doing very well. I am in tech, for example, and get messages from recruiters every other day.
However, I would have to be naive to think that everything is honky dory.
First, the amount of visible misery has exploded where I live. Homeless and tent cities are virtually in every public space. People are literally rotting alive by the thousands and no relief is in sight.
More importantly, even people with jobs that are great on paper are living paycheck to paycheck, as cost of living keeps climbing. On the surface they appear to be doing great but when this boom fizzles out they'll be screwed very quickly. I believe the vast majority of Americans to be in this category.
Outside of the upper and upper middle classes, I would say this "awesome economy" is ephemeral. It does not enable most of us to achieve long term prosperity.
My last two jobs were for Fortune 500 companies. Both companies lived and died by stock prices and YoY growth. It didn't matter that we were making hand over fist hundreds millions of dollars (or a few billion in the case of one company). The fact that we were down 5-10% in YoY profit meant layoffs. I saw entire teams of veterans either laid off or forced to "retire". A year later when things were "better" we re-hired, except we then had to start from scratch.
So yes, while the stock market is booming, inside many of those companies, there's always the constant threat of layoffs and restructuring once things head even slightly south.
Last edited by illinoisphotographer; 09-10-2018 at 11:10 AM..
My last two jobs were for Fortune 500 companies. Both companies lived and died by stock prices and YoY growth. It didn't matter that we were making hand over fist hundreds millions of dollars (or a few billion in the case of one company). The fact that we were down 5-10% in YoY profit meant layoffs. I saw entire teams of veterans either laid off or forced to "retire". A year later when things were "better" we re-hired, except we then had to start from scratch.
So yes, while the stock marked is booming, inside many of those companies, there's always the constant threat of layoffs and restructuring once things head even slightly south.
Yes.
My advice to any young person: avoid working for a publicly traded company. They’re never satisfied and need constant profit growth to please shareholders. They’ll lay you off for no reason other than economic conditions.
Some sectors of the economy are, indeed, doing very well. I am in tech, for example, and get messages from recruiters every other day.
However, I would have to be naive to think that everything is honky dory.
First, the amount of visible misery has exploded where I live. Homeless and tent cities are virtually in every public space. People are literally rotting alive by the thousands and no relief is in sight.
More importantly, even people with jobs that are great on paper are living paycheck to paycheck, as cost of living keeps climbing. On the surface they appear to be doing great but when this boom fizzles out they'll be screwed very quickly. I believe the vast majority of Americans to be in this category.
Outside of the upper and upper middle classes, I would say this "awesome economy" is ephemeral. It does not enable most of us to achieve long term prosperity.
It's refreshing that you see the big picture outside of your own world as many people do not. They just want the tent cities away from them and think the working poor are not doing enough or just don't manage their money. Lol, they have no money to manage.
The bolded is the reason corporate propaganda works so well. Instead of taking the time to truly consider an issue, too many people just parrot their partisan "team's" talking points. Anytime corporate greed and extreme income inequity is questioned, many team posters will write post after post blaming low earning workers for the fact that they work full time jobs but are still in poverty and never dare question the policies of corporations and wealthy elite that lead to so many hard working Americans struggling to afford even the lowest version of the American dream.
There's always a pat answer for everything that keeps the focus on US workers being solely at fault if they struggle; if one earns low wages, they must be too lazy to get educated. If one is educated but earning low wages, they must have chosen the wrong kind of education. A typical partisan tactic is divert attention by falsely alluding to something that was never stated, such as when a post criticises the fact that a job pays the same wage today as it did decades ago and a poster responds that the job is low skilled and never meant to earn one an upper class salary, as though stating a full time job should pay above the poverty level and wages should rise over decades is equivelent to expecting an top percentile salary for low skill work.
I've been reading along and just shaking my head at how predictable the answers are. The partisan puppets have been trained well in how to answer questions in a manner that directs away from questioning the donor class and the power they wield over our government. Americans are working more productively than ever, but the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits.
What about Clinton/Obama(?) is a nothing answer and an obvious attemt to avoid addressing the actual issue. This isn't a team competition, i.e.. Trump vs Clinton/Obama. Stark economic disparity is an issue all our representatives, reagardless of party need to address in order for the US to truly prosper. Concentrated wealth in the hands of a few while the majority struggle is not a recipe for economic growth. Those benefitting from the status quo usually donate to both parties. Money buys influence over politicians and it buys exposure vehicles for propaganda which can influence average people to speak against their own interests.
And your answer is as partisan as they come, just for the other side.
You are reading through your own prism of bias. No one on this thread has chastised people who through no fault of their own are struggling. That is a point brought up repeatedly (the disabled) but it is a false attack because no one is questioning the need for support for people like that. And yes, the question of Obama/Clinton is a legitimate one, because the poster in question has started threads criticizing the Trump administration and their supposed treatment of the disabled. When it is pointed out that Trump is not quite 2 years in, and it is asked, what were your thoughts on the 16 years of Obama/Clinton, the question is ignored and I am accused of oversimplification. To my mind, it is still a legitimate question because the other poster seems to have his own partisan agenda.
Regarding the problem of the receptionist job, yes I did engage in a bit of hyperbole, but it does not change the fundamentals. For years libs have told blue collar workers such as coal miners or auto workers, look the jobs have changed, you need to retrain for a new position or go back to school. Now that it is being said back to you, you don't like it? A receptionist has almost always been an entry level job. You get your foot in the door of the company, and you move up to more responsibility and better pay.
Should the pay now be the same as 25 years ago? Maybe not, given the rise of computers and smart phones. Look at travel agents--they are practically non existent now. This is going to happen repeatedly over our lifetimes. Somehow you take people saying "life isn't fair" as not being sympathetic. I am plenty sympathetic. My husband and I were wiped out financially by the crash of 08. I know what it is like. When you get right down to it, though, how does sympathy help? How does blaming the big, mean, greedy corporations help? What helps is squaring your shoulders and lifting up your head and doing something different if you can. If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.
And yes, people should look at what career they are interested in pursuing and see if the pay level meets their needs. There is no excuse not to do this.
Your "stark economic disparity" sounds like wealth redistribution. No thank you.
Last edited by calgirlinnc; 09-10-2018 at 11:52 AM..
Actually the situation with the decline in birth replacement levels is a global as the Great Depression.
Factor into the (global) economy 78.8 million baby boomers leaving the workforce, with the decline in replacement level births, it leaves a void. And people still believe the government creates these jobs. Even the private sector hasn't anything to sing about either ... oh, but they do. I just don't buy into it, because I see something that is a bit more logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
I dont know what you are talking about. I am talking about teenage birth rates in America being far, far higher than societies with a proper public safety net.
You may be right, but I began talking about a declining workforce, where as there all these jobs that are being produced and where as these companies #1 issue, not enough workers to fill the open spots. Your focus in on the teenager's pregnancy and I included in that the baby boomers. So in taking a step back, as I am reading that too (report dated 2015) however ... Teen Pregnancy Rates Declined In Many Countries Between The Mid-1990s and 2011
Quote:
The authors also found that, in countries with high teen pregnancy rates, a smaller proportion of those pregnancies end in abortion than in birth. As a result, the difference between countries’ teen birth rates is even greater than the already large difference in teen pregnancy rates between these countries. For example, the United States’ teen pregnancy rate is seven times that of Switzerland, while the birth rate is 15 times as high.
<snip>
The study also looked at pregnancy, birth and abortion rates among 10–14-year-olds and found that they are far lower than those among 15–19-year-olds. Among countries with reliable evidence, the highest pregnancy rates among 10–14-year-olds were in Hungary and the United States, while the lowest was in Switzerland. The highest birth rate among this age-group was in Romania, followed by the United States, while the lowest, again, was in Switzerland.
Babies have to get born and grow up, in order to enter the workforce, and the wheels on the bus go round.
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.
