US jobs gap between young and old is widest ever

Status
Not open for further replies.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Squeezed by a tight job market, young Americans are especially struggling. They have suffered bigger income losses than other age groups and are less likely to be employed than at any time since World War II.

An analysis by the Pew Research Center, released Thursday, details the impact of the recent recession on the attitudes of a generation of mostly 20- and 30-somethings.

With government data showing record gaps in employment between young and old, a Pew survey found that 41 percent of Americans believe that younger adults have been hit harder than any other group, compared with 29 percent who say middle-aged Americans and 24 percent who point to seniors 65 and older. A wide majority of the public — at least 69 percent — also said it's more difficult for today's young adults than their parents' generation to pay for college, find a job, buy a home or save for the future.

Among young adults ages 18 to 34, only a third rated their financial situation as "excellent" or "good," compared with 54 percent for seniors age 65 and over. In 2004, before the recession began, about half of both young and older adults rated their own financial situation highly.

"Young workers are on the bottom of the ladder, and during a recession like we've had, it's often hard for them to hold on," said Kim Parker, associate director of Pew's Social & Demographic Trends project. She noted that some have been heavily involved in the nationwide "Occupy" protests over economic disparity.

"They are clearly less satisfied with their current circumstances than they were before the recession," she said. "This may be where some of the anger and frustration being expressed in the Occupy movement is rooted."

"They have a long way to climb back, and a lot of displaced workers to compete with," she said.

Still, Parker noted that despite the challenges, young adults were upbeat about the future: only 9 percent said they didn't think they would ever have enough money to live the life they want, a share unchanged from before the recession. In contrast, 28 percent of adults 35 and older didn't anticipate making enough in the future.

The latest numbers offered a mixed picture for young adults, many of them minorities, whose strong turnout and 2-1 support for Democrat Barack Obama in 2008 buoyed him to election. As voters this year point to the economy as their top concern, a slew of recent census data have underscored the difficulties of young adults: in record numbers, they are shunning long-distance moves in the economic downturn to live with mom and dad, delaying marriage and raising kids out of wedlock, if they're becoming parents at all.

At risk of becoming a "lost generation," many young adults are going back to school or scraping by on waitressing, bartending and odd jobs as they wait for the economy to slowly recover.

For instance:

—The share of young adults 18-24 who are employed has dropped to 54.3 percent, the lowest level since the government began tracking such data in 1948. In the downturn, the employment decline has been steeper for this age group than any other; at the end of 2011, the unemployment rate was 16.3 percent for 18-to-24-year olds and 8.8 percent for adults ages 18-64. After the recession technically ended in mid-2009, the gap in the unemployment rate between those two age groups stretched to the widest on record.

—Young adults working full time have median weekly earnings of $448, about 6 percent less than in 2007, as employers found it easier to restrict the wages for entry-level jobs than to cut the pay of more experienced workers. Other age groups had either no change or modest increases in pay during the same period.

—About 19 percent of men ages 25-34 were idle in the weak job market, neither working nor attending school. That's up from 14 percent in 2007.

—Fewer than half of young adults who are currently working say they have the education and skills necessary to advance in their careers. They also feel more vulnerable than they used to: 43 percent said they were extremely or very confident that they could find another job if they lost or left their current one. That's up from 25 percent in 2009, but down from 65 percent in 1998.

The shifts may be contributing to changes in social norms about when adulthood begins.

A shrinking share of parents — about 67 percent — believe that children should become financially independent by age 22, while 31 percent say it need not occur until age 25 or later, according to the Pew survey. In 1993, 80 percent of parents said children should be independent by age 22.

"I'm surprised young adults remain so optimistic," said Mark Mather, an associate vice president at the Population Reference Bureau who has analyzed the census data. "The research points to long-term economic problems for young adults. But many of the trends we are seeing among young people — postponing marriage, living at home, staying in school longer — can be viewed more as short-term ways to cope until the economy picks up."

Pew based its findings on Bureau of Labor Statistics data as well as a poll of 2,048 adults interviewed by cellphone or landline from Dec. 6-19, 2011. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for all respondents, higher for subgroups.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobs-gap-between-young-050926726.html
.
 
Republicans: Young people are just lazy pot smoking hippies who don't want to work.
 
It's true. A lot of the jobs that teens used to have are now being taken by middle-aged folks trying to support families and shit.

Dey took our jerbs!
 
As soon as these old folks start retiring (assuming nothing changes in Social Security policy) I think the outlook for young employment will improve. Unfortunately some people who were denied those chances at jobs at a young age will still continue to struggle to prove themselves worthwhile to employers, while recent college grads will be more fortunate than the people who graduated into this recession, like myself. The article talks about the risk of a "lost generation" but it's not a risk any more, it's a fact that a lot of people my age have been left behind economically and socially. If we had a competent government there would be a way to address this serious issue, but alas.

edit: Of course SS and other economic policies will have to inevitably change to support the aging population, so that's another burden the young will have to bear.
 
Just need all the baby boomers to disappear and all our nation's problems will go away. ALL of them
I know you're being sarcastic, but if you think about what the "problems" are, it's actually true, primarily because if baby boomers were to disappear, it would radically reduce future outlays for Medicare.
 
As soon as these old folks start retiring (assuming nothing changes in Social Security policy) I think the outlook for young employment

Retiring, right. The only reason my dad was able to retire is because he was a teamster.
 
Easy to believe. I am inclined to think that many businesses now have less flexibility in hiring and are looking especially for people with past experience, who would likely be older.
 
I was talking to a few friends recently and this topic came up. I seriously think we need a massive stimulus (and not in the way you think) to give 60 years old+ people incentive to retire and leave the work force.

Only when they leave can the middle manager 40-55 year old people finally move up to completely senior positions, which will free up middle management for the 30-40 crowd and then the starter jobs for the 20-30 crowd. Everything is freaking gridlocked because retirement funds and pensions have tanked and people won't leave because they have a general feeling of income insecurity.

Let's jack up Social Security for a period of 3-5 years and guarantee people a bit more money so they will freaking leave the work force, forever.
 
Vote mothafuckers!

I was so upset of the low turnout rate in the midterm election amongst young voters. Keep letting grandma out vote you she keeps her medicare while your financial aid is slashed.
 
I was talking to a few friends recently and this topic came up. I seriously think we need a massive stimulus (and not in the way you think) to give 60 years old+ people incentive to retire and leave the work force.

Only when they leave can the middle manager 40-55 year old people finally move up to completely senior positions, which will free up middle management for the 30-40 crowd and then the starter jobs for the 20-30 crowd. Everything is freaking gridlocked because retirement funds and pensions have tanked and people won't leave because they have a general feeling of income insecurity.

Let's jack up Social Security for a period of 3-5 years and guarantee people a bit more money so they will freaking leave the work force, forever.

But how does that solve anything for the next generation? Lower it to 55, then 50 , then 45 every 20 years (and maybe more to compensate for the increasing population)?
I mean essentially what you are asking for is a short-term solution - a method that tanked our economy in the first place.
 
All of this makes me think about how fortunate I really am. I was very lucky. I got a full ride to UF, and additional scholarships which helped me pay for living expenses. Then I got a well-paying job right out of college, with no student loans to pay. I don't really think about that enough.
 
But how does that solve anything for the next generation? Lower it to 55, then 50 , then 45 every 20 years?

No, I don't think you can lower the retirement age. But what you do is create an artificial incentive for people to leave the workforce and collect a slightly higher Social Security than they normally would have.

It's a short term play to solve an issue. Companies do this sort of thing all the time when they are trying to bring down their overhead costs. You give people early retirement packages so that they leave today rather than in 5-10 years and you will reduce your total costs over the long run.

Companies right now are gridlocked, terribly so. If people at the top won't leave, no one can move up and new people can't come in to fill the starter jobs.
 
No, I don't think you can lower the retirement age. But what you do is create an artificial incentive for people to leave the workforce and collect a slightly higher Social Security than they normally would have.

It's a short term play to solve an issue. Companies do this sort of thing all the time when they are trying to bring down their overhead costs. You give people early retirement packages so that they leave today rather than in 5-10 years and you will reduce your total costs over the long run.

Companies right now are gridlocked, terribly so. If people at the top won't leave, no one can move up and new people can't come in to fill the starter jobs.

I don't know. It sounds like a Baby Boomer-esque solution for a Baby Boomer caused problem.
 
It's true. A lot of the jobs that teens used to have are now being taken by middle-aged folks trying to support families and shit.

Dey took our jerbs!

I live in a "retirement" type of town.. 3+ years of filling out application and not even getting interviews
 
Thank goodness my baby boomer father was able to persuade some people to hire me.

So far I've gotten work at a carpet cleaning company and now I'm working as an intern at a small web design firm. :P

No bootstraps for me. haha....
 
I'm pretty sure the military is usually hiring new people. If I was a civilian perfectly capable of working and couldn't find a job. I'd sign up. Better than bitching about it and being broke. I know this is not an option for all, but I'd say a good percentage of the 18-24 range.
 
You could fine people for not voting..

Incentives are easier to manage and cheaper since you don't need to pay thousands of people to hunt down all the people who didn't vote and collect the fine.

On university campuses they use incentives like free food, t-shirts, travel mugs, etc. to lure students into voting for student union elections. It seems to boost voter participation.
 
It is pretty doom and gloom for the young generation. I've read numerous articles over the years (and I'm trying to find them) stating that we're probably going to be a sort of lost generation. The wages you earn over your whole lifetime are highly affected by your early career. In order to jump up in wages you have to switch jobs a lot early in your career, and start higher in general. That amounts to a rather significant (way moreso than I though) amount of your career earnings. All the college grads waiting tables and all that are just getting pushed further and further back and career earnings are going down by the second.

The thing that scares the hell out of me is when I read stuff from Elizabeth Warren about the disappearance of the middle class (go youtube some of her longer speeches or read about her book The Two Income Trap). It paints a really bleak picture for me and everyone else that graduated during the recession. Not only do we have a disappearing middle class that has struggled more and more every generation to get what the previous generation could, we've got to try and do that while being taken out at our knees right at the start.

And, personally I don't think it's just a problem that my generation and the people that are 20-28 or so now are going to face. If we as a collective are just struggling to pay off loans rather than starting families and buying homes and all that stuff, then I'm not sure when our economy can really recover. A lot of the economy in good times is fueled by that generation that's starting out.
 
It is pretty doom and gloom for the young generation. I've read numerous articles over the years (and I'm trying to find them) stating that we're probably going to be a sort of lost generation. The wages you earn over your whole lifetime are highly affected by your early career. In order to jump up in wages you have to switch jobs a lot early in your career, and start higher in general. That amounts to a rather significant (way moreso than I though) amount of your career earnings. All the college grads waiting tables and all that are just getting pushed further and further back and career earnings are going down by the second.

The thing that scares the hell out of me is when I read stuff from Elizabeth Warren about the disappearance of the middle class (go youtube some of her longer speeches or read about her book The Two Income Trap). It paints a really bleak picture for me and everyone else that graduated during the recession. Not only do we have a disappearing middle class that has struggled more and more every generation to get what the previous generation could, we've got to try and do that while being taken out at our knees right at the start.

And, personally I don't think it's just a problem that my generation and the people that are 20-28 or so now are going to face. If we as a collective are just struggling to pay off loans rather than starting families and buying homes and all that stuff, then I'm not sure when our economy can really recover. A lot of the economy in good times is fueled by that generation that's starting out.

Yep.

People born between 1980 and 1990 are the "fucked generation".
 
I found an article talking about early career and how they affect you throughout your life. This isn't the good article I read last year, but it says sort of the same thing: here

Kahn's research shows that for every 1-point increase in the unemployment rate, the starting income of new graduates falls, on average, by between 6 and 7 percent; people who come out of school in times like these often make only three-quarters the starting salary of those who come out in more bountiful times. And the earnings gap endures as the years roll by. Even at midcareer, Kahn has found, people who first entered the job market in a recession are more likely to work in low-pay, low-status positions and industries, and less likely to work in professional occupations. Many appear to have gotten stuck on the slow track, for reasons largely outside their control.

"Earnings tend to grow much more [quickly] early in one's career than later," says Princeton University economist Henry Farber. One prominent study shows that, adjusting for inflation, about two-thirds of all lifetime income growth occurs in the first 10 years of a career, when people can switch jobs easily, bidding up their earnings. People who can't immediately step onto this steep portion of the career curve thanks to a bad economy have a hard time doing so later, when houses and marriages have made them less mobile, and when many employers will look askance at their disappointing résumés. Even an eventual return to boom times won't change that, Farber explains. "If you happen to have the bad draw early on and the good draw later, it's going to be hard to fully recover."

Yep, we're fucked.
 
"Don't worry!" they told me. "You're going to have so much opportunity in just a few years!" they told me, IN 2003. "So many people are going to be retiring, and the market will need you desperately!"

time to devour the baby boomers

SERIOUSLY. FIRE THEM THEN EAT THEM.
 
Shockingly, you're not the first one to think of this. The military is getting more and more

selective because of it.

But hey, go ahead and encourage kids to join the army and get blown up over an IED instead of addressing the actual problem here.

You keep voting and contemplating how to make the stat rise.

I will continue to accept that the military is a good career option for my demographic. I know it's not for everyone but I still see no harm in encouraging it to anyone my age who needs a stepping stone to their future.

Every person that joins directly improves the stat ... which is the issue we are discussing. I'd rather die by an IED than die in a traffic accident going to work my shift at Taco Bell.
 
Republicans: Young people are just lazy pot smoking hippies who don't want to work.

What's funny is my dad is the biggest Republican tea partier type person you can find. He is the first one in a room to state his political views, and they're ALWAYS Republican. Hell, half the time he things Republicans are wusses for not being conservative enough. But even he thinks the country needs to do something for the young generation. He would be in favor of a bailout of the graduates. In his words, the young generation that went to college did everything right. They pushed us all into going, and it turned out bad. He also admits that he also doesn't think the economy is going to recover with student debt and early careers being as fucked up as they are right now.
 
It is pretty doom and gloom for the young generation. I've read numerous articles over the years (and I'm trying to find them) stating that we're probably going to be a sort of lost generation. The wages you earn over your whole lifetime are highly affected by your early career. In order to jump up in wages you have to switch jobs a lot early in your career, and start higher in general. That amounts to a rather significant (way moreso than I though) amount of your career earnings. All the college grads waiting tables and all that are just getting pushed further and further back and career earnings are going down by the second.

The thing that scares the hell out of me is when I read stuff from Elizabeth Warren about the disappearance of the middle class (go youtube some of her longer speeches or read about her book The Two Income Trap). It paints a really bleak picture for me and everyone else that graduated during the recession. Not only do we have a disappearing middle class that has struggled more and more every generation to get what the previous generation could, we've got to try and do that while being taken out at our knees right at the start.

And, personally I don't think it's just a problem that my generation and the people that are 20-28 or so now are going to face. If we as a collective are just struggling to pay off loans rather than starting families and buying homes and all that stuff, then I'm not sure when our economy can really recover. A lot of the economy in good times is fueled by that generation that's starting out.

Agree with everything you say here and Elizabeth Warren's presentations are quite good. I just turned 35, so according to the article I'm 'middle-aged'.

At the corporation I work for I'm still a youngin because we don't hire anyone anymore, its all offshore and onshore. Even when/if the boomers retire, two of my coworkers are near 60, they won't be replaced with a younger person like me, raising a family, invested in the long term health of the company. Instead they will be replaced with an onshore/offshore person who sticks around for two years before moving on to something else, taking all their knowledge with them.

What we honestly need in this country is some good ole protectionism, no more onshoring or offshoring etc. Lock it down.
 
Entry-level position

Requirements: 10 years experience.

Entry-level position. Temporary for only 3 months. Pay is 11 bucks an hour.

Requirements: 5 years experience.


I sent my resume in to that thinking the 5 years experience was just inflated for the hell of it. They couldn't actually want 5 years for something that was 3 months and had pay barely above the deli job I was working, could they? Yep, they could. I got an email back within about 10 minutes saying they were looking for someone more qualified.
 
Baby Boomers: The Worst Generation Ever

I've been feeling this way for a long time now, and not just because of all the economy issues. All of their preaching about how the 60's were the best time ever and the Beatles were the best band ever is getting old. News flash: every generation thinks what they did when they were young was the best thing ever. Obviously I'm generalizing, but I think us 20-somethings do have reasons to be bitter.
 
Unemployment represents the biggest lost of wealth (assets and capital) for the future and is the biggest economic threat we collectively face. That is why it is critical that the government make sure it is spending enough money targeted at regular people to increase aggregate demand and get the economy going again. This represents the best chance to minimize the losses to future generations.

Some economists propose that the government provide a job guarantee, which means that it give a job to any person who wants one. I think that is a fantastic idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom