The great resignation—where is the hired help?

[reddvltj]

I'm not sure what industries or companies you've worked for, but every company I worked for has a near identical training and induction program for new employees regardless of their experience. Intel is the same. So is Samsung. So is Bayer. There are many others.

Pretty much blue collar type jobs my whole life. My first job was at a plant nursery, making $2.85/hr, from there things like, delivering pizza for a small 3 store chain, residential construction (framing, finish carpentry, roofing, plumbing, etc), truck driving, school bus driver, automotive repair (went to tech school for that), retail and commercial automotive parts sales, equipment operator in the mining industry, wild land fire equipment operator. Now I do a contract mail route in a rural area..

All of the industries I have worked in recognize previous experience and reward such accordingly, There is absolutely zero sense expending time and effort to "train" someone who already has been trained, the money saved on training is therefor passed on to the new employee as higher wages/benefits.

Experience dictates what position and generally what responsibilities you'll have. It has very little to do with training/induction.

I can agree with the first part of this, not so much with the second. Again if you hire an experienced framer and pay him "wages based on experience", you wouldn't have him picking up wood scraps, nor would you spend any time training them short of seeing that they actually know what they claim to, as opposed to having to train someone with no experience at all. It takes months to train someone who has never looked at let alone knows how to read (in some capacity) blue prints, use a circular saw, competently use a framing nailer, lay out walls, etc.

In my current company, if we hire a new driver with <2 years on the road or a driver with 3,000,000+ miles - they both go through the same training and induction.

The company you work for is an anomaly then. Most trucking companies will stick you with a trainer right out of the box, again to see if you have the skill set you claim to, that's a given. The 2 year OTR requirement is a norm for the truck driving industry, but not as far as training is concerned. Most companies (this was a few years ago that I looked at the market) typically wouldn't hire anyone with less than 2 years OTR or proof of a certified training facility. If you have 3m miles under your belt you can bet you have WAY More than 2 years experience. (With the average OTR driver clocking in 80k to 120k per year). Someone who has 3 million miles of experience (if he has a clean driving record) would be a waste of resources to keep a trainer with for weeks on end. Someone with no training or less than 2 years of verifiable experience is going to be a much higher risk therefore it's only prudent to keep them with a trainer or a seasoned driver (in a team setting) for an extended period of time to see if they have bad driving habits.

If employers think that hiring and training workers are too expensive, then wait until the find out how expensive it is to continually hire new employees. If you're unwilling to invest in your workers are day one, you should be hiring different workers.

It's not that training employees is too expensive, most companies are willing to expend the resources necessary to train people, but, once again, if someone is entering into a field of work with zero experience or training, then they are a "high risk" expense. Smaller companies don't always have the financial means supply medical benefits to someone who after 3 months of training (paying 2 people wages for the work one trained employee could have done alone plus any mistakes that cost the employer more) decide they don't like said job or employer. Larger companies have the ability to offer medical as an incentive to come work for them, and that's great but like others have said, The Obummer admin screwed that up for the little guy when they implemented mandatory health insurance. Just like auto insurance when it became mandatory premiums went through the roof!!!

And many of us tend to think of things from the perspective of the employer. What happens when you shift to thinking about the employee? What is a company or boss sucks? Is that not also wasted time, wages, etc?

Not exactly sure where you were headed with this line of thinking but I'll try to interpret anyway.

If you're meaning was how should an employee feel if his/her boss/company sucks to work for, I would say this.

What is the job market like where you live? Are jobs readily available that interest you? Are you taking this job because you absolutely have no other choice? If you like the industry but not the company you work for, stay at your job, (so long as it is not unsafe to do so), and look for a similar job with another business. When you find an open position in that field, approach that employer with your concerns about the employer/job conditions you are currently in. If you're not just being a whiney little #itch because you think the work is too hard, then chances are a good employer will see your concerns as valid, but they better be valid reasons.

 

[Rooscooter]

I think @Rooscooter touched on the fact that there are 20 million or so out of the workforce in the last couple years that aren’t counted anymore when they calculate the “unemployment rate”.

Figures lie, liars figure.

If I was in the workforce and didn’t like my situation, I’d vote with my feet and rectify that post haste. Never been a better time!

Have a big drink of your favorite caffeinated beverage..... here goes.

Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps two Unemployment numbers. U3 and U6. The U3 is the one that is always reported publicly. U6 is reported monthly but gets no press.

So.... U3 is simply the number of unemployed that have been unemployed for a rolling 3 month time period divided by the Labor Force. After 3 months they "fall off" that count.

So... what's the count? The Able Bodied Labor Force between 18 and 65. This group is estimated to be around 115M or so. Able Bodied means not on disability or otherwise disabled to the point not being able to work.

So.... at any given time the Able Bodied Labor Force in that 3 month rolling time period ranges from about 95M to 85M. So.... if there are 90M in that workforce you divide the number with jobs by that number..... if there are only 85M you divide it by that number.

You can get 7% unemployment against 95M in the Labor Force and you can get 7% unemployment against 85M in the Labor Force. The difference is that 10M are still unemployed for LONGER than that 3 months covered in the U3 number. You'll hear terms like "long term unemployed" or "out of the labor force".

U6 is the same thing. It includes the U3 numbers but extends the Labor Force pool to those unemployed for up to 6 months.

The thing that the government and all the talking heads rarely ever tell you is the number in the Labor Force changes.

The much more accurate statistic they keep is the Labor Force Participation Rate. It divides the total number employed by the total number in the Labor Force who are able to work. Here's the latest chart:

While the unemployment rate dropped from 2011 to 2016 from 10% to 6% or so the number of those overall who were working as a percentage of the available Labor Force dropped significantly. After 2016 we saw the first real turn in the participation rate since 2004.

This "game" in the BLS numbers was put in place in 1993 when they moved from the way we had been calculating unemployment. So any comparison you see or hear with pre 93 unemployment is a false narrative because of the way they changed the calculations.

The chart below shows the duration of unemployment. Remember than anyone unemployed longer than 12 weeks isn't counted in the U3 or "headline" number. You can easily see that the Obama Administration touting of the economic recovery was based in the numbers game. While they had unemployment number around 5% the number out of the Labor Force was 15M more than those that were in it prior to that administration. About 8.5M of those returned to the Labor Force in 2017-2019. While the rate stayed around 5% the actual number of people with jobs was up around 9M.

One last little tidbit to remember. Legal immigration, expanding populations and retirements are constantly shifting that Labor Force. To maintain the unemployment rate you need about 95,000 jobs a month. So a number under that is actually a contracting labor situation. This is aside from the number who fall off the 3 month count.

 

[DaveF]

"But otherwise, 21st century American “peasants” — currently perhaps about 46% of the population — usually die with a net worth of less than $10,000, both receiving and bequeathing little, if any, inheritance."
—> https://news.mit.edu/2012/end-of-life-financial-study-0803

So I went to the MIT article, and followed it's source link to the original study, then downloaded the .pdf and started reading.


The stat quoted (45% die with net worth of less than $10,000) comes from data from 1993, and is referring to liquid financial assets, not net worth. I think based on this thread alone we can all agree that $10k in 1993 is not the same as 10k today, based on some quick google searches it's more like 19k.

Net worth on the other hand is a very different number even back then.

Article summary even talks about how base on a replacement rate comparison, many of these same households could be deemed to have been well-prepared for retirement, though with little leeway for unexpected expenses. Not great, but not the dire picture painted by the previously referenced articles.

The stats are further complicated by an apparent relationship between health and wealth at time of death. Those in the poorer end of the spectrum are also significantly more likely to have been in poor health that 'could' indicate a spend down of finances to pay for higher than average medical care.


Here is a table of wealth of still living households in 2008 in that same study.

Note that if you want to look at net worth as indicated in the book/article, the lowest listed mean value are single persons 85 or older, with a net worth of 408k. And yes, I realize mean isn't the same as average, and doesn't equate to the 46% quoted but it is interesting.

You can contrast that with this chart showing a breakdown of percentiles...

Here if you look at net worth, even the lowest 10% at the oldest 85 and up age group have an average net worth of $56k, well over the quoted 46% @ 10k. You have to look at the top, in the "Financial Assets" which are liquid assets to get under the 10k quoted, and even there, if you look at 50% (not 46 but close), you see higher values than 10k.

Again the quote was saying 10k for net worth however.

and another chart, showing the poorest people have an average "total wealth" or net worth of $30k at age 90+ in the worst health category. Looking across all health levels, the 10th percentile is around 44k net at 90+.

TLDR:

At the time of writing, the source article state that at time of death if 80+ years old poverty was considered to be at 10k. The study found that at time of death 23% of people had less than 2x the poverty level ($20k). Not the 46% below 10k as quoted. And this is just the 'single person' pathway, meaning they were a single person household most of the end of their life. This is the LOWEST financial category, and to get to the quoted 46% you have to look across ALL life paths.

The quote in question is derived from this statement in the article:

Which refers to 'financial assets' which does not include home values, or income such as SS or other, just liquid assets and does NOT represent a "Net Worth" of less than 10k.

 

[Rooscooter]

Some remarkably alarming statistics in that article...

It really echos why I get disgusted by comments of "people don't work hard nowadays", without keeping things in context (particularly when speaking across generations). It wasn't too long ago when a typical "middle class" job at a GM plant or mill would allow dad to work a fairly regular schedule, while mom would stay home and raise 2-3 kids on a comfortable salary, while the company pension took care of the worker after years of reliable service. Similarly, corporations paid their share of taxes, infrastructure and the economy was built and prospered...

Something definitely changed, though I certainly refuse to believe that it was the "work ethic" of later generations that so many are quick to point at.

Having owned 2 service related businesses and having been in management level of 2 others that were much larger I can say that the workers have changed. Now are they less willing to work hard? That depends on the situation in my experience. Working toward goals within a structured system is one thing. We see 20% of the workforce in Architecture move each year. Most of the large firms see similar numbers.

One major difference is the recruiter industry and it's influence on how workers approach service firms. Everyone is working somewhere while being in almost constant contact with outside recruiters pushing and pulling with used car salesmen acumen. I've watched a lot of hard workers bounce out because they were promised "x" from company "y" only to find that the total of "z" was the same. That game has changed dramatically and it's not in the workers best interests 90% of the time.

As for those "pensions".... pensions are essentially a ponzi scheme. As long as the workforce is expanding they work. If/when that industry goes through disruptive change we see just how those work out for the workers. There is no magical money machine that turns 25K of payroll deductions into 1.5M of retirement benefits over a 25 year career. I could go on here but there is a body of evidence that most private and public pensions are not self sustaining given a fixed workforce without external enhancement or far less than promised benefits.

The expansion of the work force in the 70's through the early 2000s didn't create nearly as many new jobs as it did new workers. I believe part of the answer to the single earner household is there.

 

[Rooscooter]

The quote in question is derived from this statement in the article:
View attachment 289487
Which refers to 'financial assets' which does not include home values, or income such as SS or other, just liquid assets and does NOT represent a "Net Worth" of less than 10k.

Your home is a financial asset. Social Security is not. An asset is anything of value. Liquidity in that context is relative but not the definition.

 

[DaveF]

Your home is a financial asset. Social Security is not. An asset is anything of value. Liquidity in that context is relative but not the definition.

Not in this study, they broke out equity value as a different category. It's in one of the screen shots provided

 

[Tomcat]

When did people decide not to work?

When did McDonalds offer $19 per hour to start?

When did companies offer Next Day Pay?

When did states offer $2000.00 to go to work and get off unemployment?

How did we get to the point that people are so terrible at work that we tolerate it- just to have people at work?

I remember when unemployment was a shame like divorce, called “being sorry”.....when people strived for a career, when certain jobs were sought after-

What has happened and where is this going?

I own a small construction business and I don’t even want to get started on the shortage of technical knowledge, let alone just trying to get people to be productive and excited about their craft.

We are doing well and have pretty good employee engagement- but America has a strange new problem- what is causing this?

In a word, Millenialism.

 

[Rooscooter]

Not in this study, they broke out equity value as a different category. It's in one of the screen shots provided

I'll take a look but in general accounting terms property is a financial asset.

It's an interesting take. Any financial asset has market value and it fluctuates based on the market. A home is less liquid than a savings account but more liquid than other assets.

But hey.... try having a discussion over Money Supply. M1 vs M2 vs M3.... Lots of different takes.

I do know when you are doing a financial statement for a large loan that home equity is a line item in the financial asset calculation. It's not separate.

 

[DaveF]

I'll take a look but in general accounting terms property is a financial asset.

I know, and I agree, but when quoting a study you have to use the terms as defined in the study.

One of my biggest gripes about 'society' today is that people don't question the actual source and validity of numbers as represented by the 'media'... including books, podcasts, videos, news papers, "news" outlets, anything.

Hell, even the actual study should be reviewed to ensure proper methods and source data were used.

 

[Rooscooter]

I know, and I agree, but when quoting a study you have to use the terms as defined in the study.

One of my biggest gripes about 'society' today is that people don't question the actual source and validity of numbers as represented by the 'media'... including books, podcasts, videos, news papers, "news" outlets, anything.

Hell, even the actual study should be reviewed to ensure proper methods and source data were used.

you'll not get an argument from me on the statistical BS floating around out there as fact.

Almost all employment compensation issues today fall into a larger political debate. Nothing in a political debate is believable any longer I'm afraid.

 

[Rooscooter]

So... to the larger discussion illuminating the financial assets people have when they die....

Both of these are adjusted to 2019 dollars.

Consumer spending over 50 years:

... and dollar adjusted average wages

So, in dollar adjusted terms we see the median wage is roughly even while consumer driven spending has more than tripled.

Here's an illuminating chart showing how the changing attitudes toward debt, consumerism and the access to debt have driven expansion of personal debt.

So, an answer to the growing instance of people dying without assets is partially explained here I'd say. While wages haven't grown, savings is down and consumption is up and debt is way up.

I was raised by two depression era parents. My Father made good money (upper middle class) and invested wisely. We lived in the same 1,400 sf home (we did add 400sf over the years) from 1963 until my father died in 2014 at 94. They furnished that home twice in that time frame. No one does that anymore. The changing approach to personal finances and buying habits play a massive role is what you have of value at the end of your life.

Personal debt is a huge issue. National debt is a huge issue. Pension shortfalls (public and private) are a huge issue. Estimates are that in the US alone 2050 debt (total) and unfunded liabilities (money owed in pensions, services etc.) is about $140T.

 

[WallyWest]

At the time of writing, the source article state that at time of death if 80+ years old poverty was considered to be at 10k. The study found that at time of death 23% of people had less than 2x the poverty level ($20k).

I call that a win. Why would you want to die and still have money left over? I want the last check I write to bounce!

 

[Rooscooter]

I call that a win. Why would you want to die and still have money left over? I want the last check I write to bounce!

Yup.... naked and broke.... on the way in and way out!

 

[AndyG]

In a word, Millenialism.

Author Simon Sinek really explains how the behavior the Millenial generation is known for was created in “ The Millenial Question” on YouTube.

One thing I have come to realize more and more as I’ve gotten older (I’m 55 this month) is that people generally aren’t how they are for no reason- many things- environment, parenting, friends, and of course their choices shape people into what they become.

When you live long enough you get to see people go from a child to a drug addict, a doctor or brilliant network engineer, and everything in between.

 

[Rooscooter]

Author Simon Sinek really explains how the behavior the Millenial generation is known for was created in “ The Millenial Question” on YouTube.

One thing I have come to realize more and more as I’ve gotten older (I’m 55 this month) is that people generally aren’t how they are for no reason- many things- environment, parenting, friends, and of course their choices shape people into what they become.

When you live long enough you get to see people go from a child to a drug addict, a doctor or brilliant network engineer, and everything in between.

One problem in particular is looking at a demographic as a group and judging it by appearance alone. That problem is prevalent everywhere in society right now. Millennials are defined by the bracket years that they were born. I've to 2 daughters in that group. They couldn't be further apart in world view and the actions they take in life.

I prefer to view people individually rather than by some group definition.

 

[reddvltj]

One problem in particular is looking at a demographic as a group and judging it by appearance alone. That problem is prevalent everywhere in society right now. Millennials are defined by the bracket years that they were born. I've to 2 daughters in that group. They couldn't be further apart in world view and the actions they take in life.

I prefer to view people individually rather than by some group definition.

I'm of the opinion that, the reason millennials in general get branded in such a bad light is because, the derelict, whiney, give me give me, group, are the ones making all the noise. Oh not to mention the legacy media only likes to report or limelight the groups that parrot their agenda.

 

[AndyG]

One problem in particular is looking at a demographic as a group and judging it by appearance alone. That problem is prevalent everywhere in society right now. Millennials are defined by the bracket years that they were born. I've to 2 daughters in that group. They couldn't be further apart in world view and the actions they take in life.

I prefer to view people individually rather than by some group definition.

I agree 100 percent- it is a huge generalization to lump everyone born in that time period together, just like not everyone in the late 60’s was a hippie-

The term millenial is the first time a generation was labeled since the Baby Boomers (I think) - what seems to be the case is that society has deemed that certain behaviors are more prevalent among that generation.

If they are, Simon is likely pretty spot on about the causes-

As far as people returning to work , it seems it goes beyond generations-

Regardless, it takes money to live, and I believe the basic economic needs of survival will kick in and largely correct the situation-

As far as people that write books and diagnose societal issues all they can do is generalize- Sometimes generalizations are helpful in understanding things and sometimes they create a prejudice that is not at all justified-Right now it may be difficult when people of the millennial generation are looked at on job applications , Just because of the stereotype that has been created- I know some fantastic people in that generation and I know some real losers-And I can say that for about every generation of people that I have encountered.

 

[Rooscooter]

I'm of the opinion that, the reason millennials in general get branded in such a bad light is because, the derelict, whiney, give me give me, group, are the ones making all the noise. Oh not to mention the legacy media only likes to report or limelight the groups that parrot their agenda.

... or is it that we made the noise too but didn't have a broadcast platform like they do?....

There is something to be said for being born under the asymptote of a societal curve. The last 3 generations have seen nothing but prosperity on a global scale in relative terms. Sure there are issues but nothing like the 3 previous generations saw.

I'm a big believer in cycles. I'm not sure humans are smart enough yet not to repeat those mistakes again and again.

 

[AndyG]

I just read the above post, and it occurred to how little we all know as Americans about what it takes for most of the world to survive-

In America:

- obesity kills way more here than hunger

- we lack nothing, we throw away more food than most countries have to eat

- we live like no civilization has ever lived

-we earn fabulous incomes, and the word earn may be a stretch

- we have incredible medical care

- our country is beautiful, majestic , and clean for the most part

- our schools are safe and our children get educate for close to free (that is arguable)

- there is practically no fear of takeover, war or anarchy (I didn’t say possibility, but I mean things are pretty stable)

In short, we have it all - and we cry, whine, complain, stomp our feet and boo hoo while most of the world works harder than we ever will and will never have what we have.

There is something wrong with that.

 

[pc1p]

I just read the above post, and it occurred to how little we all know as Americans about what it takes for most of the world to survive-

In America:

- obesity kills way more here than hunger

- we lack nothing, we throw away more food than most countries have to eat

- we live like no civilization has ever lived

-we earn fabulous incomes, and the word earn may be a stretch

- we have incredible medical care

- our country is beautiful, majestic , and clean for the most part

- our schools are safe and our children get educate for close to free (that is arguable)

- there is practically no fear of takeover, war or anarchy (I didn’t say possibility, but I mean things are pretty stable)

In short, we have it all - and we cry, whine, complain, stomp our feet and boo hoo while most of the world works harder than we ever will and will never have what we have.

There is something wrong with that.

Could you not say the same about almost every major first-world country today?

Even looking into historical context and adjusting for technological advancements, the "first-world" countries of any particular era had lots of similarities to the first-world countries of today: abundance of resources (some of which exploited for wealth), relative safety (again, not absolute - just relative for the times), advanced education (again, relative to the times), modern medical advancements (again lol), etc.