For the past couple of years, whenever unemployment numbers are released, there is usually some commentary on how the actual numbers of people looking for work is decreasing. They’re the so-called ‘discouraged’ worker who has completely stopped looking for work and thus is not counted in the unemployment rate.
I think this is all nonsense and the lower numbers in the workforce are simply the baby boomers retiring. In the 1990’s and 2000s, we’d constantly hear stories about how social security is going to be a mess because there will be fewer people working and they are paying into Social Security to support a boomer generation that is living longer.
I’m sure there are some examples of individuals who do drop out of the workforce due to ‘discouragement.’ I can see perhaps example a couple who decides to live on one income from a good job and the other ones decides to quit the lousy $11 an hour job with a tyrant for a boss. If it can help save on child care or transportation costs, that would also figure into the economic decision to be a one income couple.
I can also see how some might decide that a lousy recession is a good time to get that grad degree or finish up the undergrad degree rather than taking a menial job.
But, thousands and thousands of people just throwing their hands up in the air and saying, “I’m done looking for a job?” I don’t believe it at all.
I’m one of those people, and can think of several others. However, I realized that I could retire on the money I have in savings, and the other people I know or know of are in the same situation or have a working spouse.
We’ve been through this at least three times in recent decades, and yes - economic upheaval always results in industry changes that leave a class of workers whose jobs are obsolete (in nature or in quantity), are generally too old to be retrained, and choose an option other than going back into the workforce. Steel and auto in the 1970s-80s; tech around 2001-2; Great Recession around 2008-9.
David Halberstam wrote some telling stories about the first one in The Reckoning - he noted that when tool and die men started selling and pawning their tool kits, they had given up. Programmers and tech workers of later eras don’t tend to have hardware to sell, so it was not as blatant. But if you were, say, a 45-year-old programmer who expected to cruise ten more years on your skill set, and found yourself unemployed and unable to be rehired on aging knowledge, and unable to train meaningfully to new tools, and unwilling to start at a much lower salary, and being less hireable because of age… staying home with the kids, going to very early (and poor) retirement or something else becomes your only choice.
“Unable to train,” of course, often means that one simply does not have the money and that one cannot secure a loan because after the crash, banks tightened their loan rules excluding older workers whom the banks felt would not be able to secure jobs that would last long enough to repay the loans.
There are people unwilling to start at lower salaries, but it is much more common for employers to decline to grant interviews with people whom the employers claim will want more money.
The age issue, bad at 45, insurmountable at 50 and above, is the hardest barrier to crack. Many, many HR departments simply decided, on their own, that they wanted younger people and simply stopped interviewing older workers. It did not help that through the 90s and continuing to today, a lot of HR departments in larger companies were able to take the hiring away from department heads, so a prospective employee who could make a good case with a department manager that they could handle the new code never gets to talk to that manager with the HR barrier in the way. (This is not true in every case, but it is true in enough cases that the number of employment opportunities are diminished for older workers.)
Something similar happens with jobs outside the tech industry: employers are afraid to pick up a senior analyst to be a clerk on the grounds that the former analyst is going to bolt at the first sign of a better job. Of course, that is probably true, but that analyst is not going to get many opportunities to bolt for the reasons listed, above, and even if the analyst does get a better job, he or she will have provided more value, (easier to train, added experience, etc.), than the less educated prospect for whom the employer is holding out.
Have “thousands and thousands of people just” throw up their “hands in the air and said, ‘I’m done looking for a job.’”? Probably not so much. Have thousands of people despaired of ever finding another job and moved in on relatives, taken under-the-table employment, started eating into their retirement accounts prematurely, and similar actions? Almost certainly.
I’m curious why these folks aren’t willing to find something as a source of income until something better comes along. I don’t get how there are middle aged folks with all these skills and education supposedly unhirable when my in-laws, with no degrees between either of them managed to stay continuously employed their entire lives in spite of many disadvantages (not fluent English speakers, no degrees, live in one of the most expensive counties in Silicon Valley) and still able to afford a nice home and raise four daughters.
Is it pride? That they get so stuck on sticking to their career they can’t bear the idea of working at Taco Bell? Laziness?
When I was thrown on to 3 years of unemployment several years ago, my unemployment check paid more than the minimum wage jobs I could find. I wasn’t proud, I tried looking for work - all I could find were jobs that paid less than what I had been making, and it worked out to less than the unemployment compensation would pay me. No, it wasn’t pride that kept me from taking the McDonald’s jobs - it was knowing that I was paid better on unemployment. Eventually my company hired me back and I was able to pick up where I left off, but a lot of folks aren’t that lucky.
It’s absurd statements like this that really highlight how this board skews towards 20-something tech nerds in that:
You believe 45 or even 55 is “old” (or at least too old to retrain in some other “hot tech” du jour.
One can or should simply “retire” at 45 when statistically they have another 20+ years of work and another 40+ years to live.
That “aging tech workers” is even a legitimate example of the problem of “discouraged workers” leaving the work force.
Of course it’s easy to think this way if you joined the work force during the 90s tech boom where people changed jobs every 6 months for a better offer. Or if you work at the sort of tech consulting firms and startups where I spent most of my career that tend to hire armies of 20-somethings a few years out of college. Especially places where you are dealing with clients who are often much older and less tech-savvy.
This mistakenly leads 20-something tech workers to overestimate their value and worth. They assume because everyone they work with is young, they constantly read about startup billionaires under 30, get constantly bombarded with headhunter spam and make a relatively high income that’s how the entire world works.
The reality is that most of those tech jobs are, if not “entry level”, are at the lower levels in the company. Those workers are often simply referred to as “staff” or “resources”. The reason we hire so many of them in their 20s is that they are unmarried and will work 100 hours a week. The expectation is that they will eventually grow into management, engagement management or sales support roles in the future.
And the good ones constantly update their skills anyway.
At greater risk of becoming permanently unemployed or underemployed are the non-tech workers whose labor is replaced by the apps the tech workers design.
Well, when I started looking into retail jobs I got zero callbacks. Until I stopped listing my college degree, THEN I got calls. So I can only conclude that in some situations higher education works against you getting your foot in the door.
This … where I live at, umemployment pays more than driving 30 plus miles to a fast food place or grocery store to make minimum wage. A paycheck would be eaten up by gas alone, much less all the extras expenses of work.
And our unemployment is very low… last time I was aware, my son was drawing a little bit over $200.00 a week, before child support. He was trying to find a job when he passed away, but taking a minimum wage job would have cost him money. He was a blue collar worker though, without a college education or skills so it was extremely hard to find work at that time. ( A year ago) He also had no vehicle so I would have had to driven him back and forth to a job at McDonalds 30 miles away.
The next closet town is 12 miles away and has only one small grocery store…
So I can see people getting discouraged and caught in a loop … once you start spiraling, it’s hard to get out of …
It’s discouraging how people who are talking out of their ass can blow off an experienced, informed and educated observation.
First, genius, I’m 53.
Second, I was an adult for all three eras and knew people first-hand who met the descriptions I listed. I also read about many more, individually and in groups.
Third, I didn’t say 45 was old: I said it’s easy at that age to be in cruise mode, assuming your job, career and mad skilz are going to carry you for the next two decades. Doesn’t matter whether you were a steel or auto worker in 1975, a niche programmer in 2001 or pretty much any shaky-industry worker five years ago. Your comfy cruise mode dumps your ass on the cold highway of instant obsolescence, and no amount of going back to school or ramping up on new tools/techniques/processes puts you back at your prior salary level.
And yes, that is the bulk of the discouraged - those who are just well off enough financially and familially to quit the labor force. Not those who have to find a job, any job, to keep the family out from under overpasses. Not those lucky or agile enough to adapt to a wholly new industry and find a job when legions of better-trained, cheaper 20-30s are pushing for the same jobs. Not those who can swallow their pride and basically start over after twenty years of experience.
This … where I live at, umemployment pays more than driving 30 plus miles to a fast food place or grocery store to make minimum wage. A paycheck would be eaten up by gas alone, much less all the extras expenses of work.
And our unemployment is very low… last time I was aware, my son was drawing a little bit over $200.00 a week, before child support. He was trying to find a job when he passed away, but taking a minimum wage job would have cost him money. He was a blue collar worker though, without a college education or skills so it was extremely hard to find work at that time. ( A year ago) He also had no vehicle so I would have had to driven him back and forth to a job at McDonalds 30 miles away.
The next closet town is 12 miles away and has only one small grocery store…
So I can see people getting discouraged and caught in a loop … once you start spiraling, it’s hard to get out of …
This is what we are all told, and it is a myth that has grown to be believed to he true. But, the biggest reason companies don’t hire older workers is because they are more expensive. Health care costs alone would dictate a company search for a cheaper (i.e. younger) employee. The idea that an analyst or someone like that would bolt for another job is a nice story, and it certainly gives companies a reason not to hire someone older, but the truth is, like you point out, those jobs to bolt to aren’t there anymore.
I would really like to see numbers on this, because I believe it is true. I get the sense that most people who are saying they don’t believe it to be true have never been unemployed, or have not been forced to have to search for a job for over a year. It is rough. Before i was laid off, I thought I was cruising. I was just promoted at my company, moved into a nice big office, and had a big staff. A month later, the CEO of the company “retired”, and the new CEO canned my boss, the CIO. Just like a new male lion who takes over a pride kills all the cubs, the new CEO rips through the organization and cans everyone associated with the top-tier C-level employees, fearing a lack of loyalty (or some nonsense). Anyway, i wasn’t too worried, as I’d been working for a couple of decades, had my MBA, and a ton of contacts. It took me 15 months to find a new job. That was a long grind.
There are a couple of things I learned while I was looking for a job. The employed and unemployed tend to run in two different social circles. So if you have been unemployed, all of a sudden you see a ton of other people that are looking like you are. When I finally landed a new job, I was lucky. I got a nice bump in pay, a promotion, and everything for the most part worked out. But i know I was lucky, because I worked for the job like never before. I interviewed for the job for three months, travelled overseas twice for interviews, and was interviewed 3 times in the States. I realize an executive position is a bit different than an average position, so my process is longer, but even so, i began to tire of the interview process. It takes a tremendous amount of mental toughness and physical energy to keep looking. When you hit your wall (and everyone is different, so when the wall hits is different) just looking at job postings on the internet can exhaust you both mentally and physically.
I know folks that were laid off at the same time I was and have still not found work. They aren’t lazy. They are exhausted, discouraged, and often depressed. It is hard for many folks that have college degrees to feel like the steel workers of the 1970’s, but in many cases, that’s exactly what has happened to many tech people. They are out of the work force, and they will not be making the same money they once did for a long time, if ever. That’s hard for many people to admit and accept. And as you have read, many people would have taken any job they could get, but the pay didn’t offset the earnings they were making with unemployment insurance, so they stayed on unemployment. You will understand this only if you are unemployed and go through this awful, often degrading process.
Speaking for myself, I would have taken just about any job while i was looking for my new job, but I couldn’t afford to take just anything. But the desire was there. It is much better to get up and leave the house and stock shelves if you have to, instead of sitting at home. Being in a work routine is much better for someone who is looking, instead of sitting at home surfing the web for work. Everyone’s situation is different, but i personally know many people who have not been able to re-enter the workforce. I don’t think the claim that thousands upon thousands have given up is a stretch, but it is impossible to know for sure because once you slide off the unemployment rolls, there is no way to track folks. They get lost in the shuffle, and are no longer counted. Neither party in Washington wants to point this out, because everyone wants to be elected. Maybe once every four years, it comes up during the presidential election, but it’s a problem with no easy solution.
I don’t know your in-laws particular situation, but good for them if they have been able to keep working. But people have different ways of looking at things. Some folks have been offered employment that is either under the table or partially under the table and have turned it down on moral grounds. Or perhaps pride gets in the way. Or maybe a thousand other reasons. But until you walk in the world of the unemployed, try not to be too judgmental. God knows I was and learned a valuable life lesson. I used to think similar things when I looked at the unemployed; then, I had the misfortune of becoming one, and I saw the world from the other side of the wall. It’s much more complicated. Going back to school isn’t always an option for people who have families, or other issues. Money is always pressing… When you are young and single, you don’t see the problems that can creep up on someone in their late 30’s or 40’s who all of a sudden find themselves out of work and a steady income.
Then maybe you should go to a different message board “genius”. Anecdotal observations does not constitute “experienced, informed and educated” fact. But that’s what 90% of the bullshit expressed here is.
I would be interested in seeing some actual numbers and facts around discouraged workers. What industries are they in? What was their income level before becoming discouraged? Where are they located geographically? What is their age ranges?
Where I would expect to see discouraged workers is in places like Detroit, Cleveland or Buffalo where they have terrible job markets. And I would expect to see them not “retiring early”, but living on welfare or sleeping on family member’s couches.
I guess the fundamental question is why after 20+ years of work experience, a person has no “mad skilz” are valuable to anyone?
Get rid of the notion that all us Boomers are simply calling ourselves “discouraged” when we are really joyfully retired. First off, only the Boomers born in 1948 or earlier have reached age 65, and are eligible for full Social Security. And now that the “official” retirement age is being ratcheted up, I won’t be eligible for full benefits until I’m 66.
After I got laid off, I applied for 425 jobs. Not only did that include everything I could find that I was qualified for, it also included retail. I never got any callbacks from retailers, probably because they were swamped with people like me.
The 425 applications led to 42 interviews. I won’t go through the humiliation of the interview process, but here’s one example. I finished the interview and left the prospective employer’s office at 5:45 p.m. I got a formal rejection letter in the next day’s mail. The post office’s last collection was at 6:15. Since the administrative assistants had already gone home, the decision had already been made before I came in, or the interviewer had to literally compose the letter, print it out, run it through the postage meter himself, leave the office, jump in his car and get to the post office in 30 minutes.
Repeat that a few dozen times and you can see how you get a “discouraged worker.”
I have seen a large number of my peers suddenly get laid off and unable to find another job. I’ve seen marriages break up, people lose their houses and have to file for bankruptcy. Would they rather have taken a menial job? Hell, yes.
That you have lived somewhere past your 20s (I infer) and have never encountered anyone whose skills were obsolete outside a continuing employment situation indicates to me that you need to get out more.
Let’s start with, oh… dBASE IV programmers. Tool and die workers when such work was still done in the US. Any tech worker whose industry evaporates in front of him/her: I just barely stepped out of a huge, vibrant, powerhouse industry in 2001 that had more than 400 significant players… and two years later had three, all minor divisions of megas like Oracle. I worked with hundreds of very specialized programmers and developers whose skills were essentially valueless by 2002.
I mean, being a programmer whose skill set turns to obsolescence is a trope - one based on decades of reality. I worked with a programming team that was balls-out badass until they had to evolve to OOP, and half of them washed out, unable to grasp the new models. That was major, but it happens every two or three years in program development as a whole; decades of mastery go up in smoke when that tool set or method is obsoleted.
Because people pattern their lives from their parents, perhaps? I can only speak from my own personal experience. I know neither of my parents were constantly updating their “mad skilz” over the course of their long careers. They weren’t concerned with building their resumes or being competitive. They just did their jobs every day and then came home. Just like their parents did, and their grandparents before them.
I feel compelled to keep my “mad skilz” up to date because I don’t feel like I can do my job well without this diligence. However, maybe I wouldn’t care so much if my job wasn’t so technical. One trade-off of going into management is that many “mad skilz” gather dust from disuse. That’s why I’m not really interested in management at this time in my career. Perhaps when I’m closer to retirement, but not now.
Since I was RIFfed, I have worked as a driver for a disabled person, a water main inspector, and a stock clerk/cashier in retail. As Broomstick noted, posting one’s education in a resume identifies one as “too expensive” and “too old” to a great many employers. At a time when unemployment approaches 10% of those looking for work, assuming that middle class educated people are not willing to find some sort of work is absurd.
(And while your in-laws sound like fine people, it would be more instructive to know when they were in the workforce, in what region, and at what jobs. A carpenter anywhere in Arizona had much better prospects than a tool and die worker in Flint, MI for most of the past twenty years.)
And it’s absurd statements like this that seem to indicate that some posters to this board live in a cocoon in which they do not appear to be aware of the real world.
Attacking people in their twenties when the majority of informed responses have been posted by people over the age of 50 indicates that you do not seem to recognize or understand what the actual situation is.
Here is the data.. (That took all of two seconds to Google.)
It seems that about a half a percent of the labor force is discouraged, which is defined at the bottom of the table. About 5% are “marginally attached” who are part time workers who want full time work. So lots of people are doing something, but are prevented from doing more.
As for the rest - I know of cases where the only hiring done is for new college grads. That’s good, since those people need to get employed right away, but it sucks to be experienced. This is even true in a case where the hiring manager really wants someone experienced but can’t get a req.
Upgrading skills isn’t as easy as it might sound, for a person working a single 9-5 job. Companies have hollowed out their internal training. We used to have training goals every year - they don’t even bother pretending any more. I’m sure the average company would be thrilled about someone taking time to learn a skill which would help them leave. Someone with no other obligations might be able to afford night classes - and then you’d have to guess right.
I saw something in the Times the other day which implied that people who have just left jobs (and the firing level is much lower now) can find jobs pretty quickly, but those out of work for a year or more. (4,1 million people have been out of work for 27 weeks or more - Cite.)
I’m 62, and there is no way in hell I could find another job now, even with my connections. 10 years ago it might have been possible. Think - how many 50 year olds have your work hired recently?
Which is why I got out of the development rat-race about 11 years ago. I saw the writing on the wall about 5 years out of undergrad- realized that the nifty 4GL I was working in would be a niche product at best in another few years, and didn’t really want to foot the bill to retrain myself in C++ in the expectation that I’d have to do it all over again in another few years when C# came out, or PHP or Python or whatever.
I’m somewhat sympathetic but somewhat not for people who get caught by that kind of thing. If it’s a massive rapid sea change sort of thing- like say… the government outlawed nuclear power overnight, I’d feel bad for the nuclear workers and engineers, but I have a hard time feeling bad for 40-something developers who didn’t keep up. It’s not like this snuck up on them.