And a lot more people to fill those positions…
Not intentionally. 
80% of those unemployed last summer are still unemployed:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100504/cm_huffpost/562493
This goes to a couple of points I find key. One involves what should be expected of work, and the second concerns our lifestyle.
For the past 100 years or more, there were large numbers of jobs that most able bodied and not mentally deficient people could perform and earn somewhat more than a subsistence living. An average (or below average) person could graduate from high school (or even drop out) and have the possibility of earning a living wage. They might be poor, and not able to afford a fancy house filled with electronics, and might need to take public transportation, but they could support themselves. The fortunate or ambitious could get a spot in a union shop, or in a white- or blue-collar setting where they might be able to climb up the economic ladder. And there was always the possibility that thrugh education they could assist their kids in joining the job market a rung or 2 higher than they did.
So where are the jobs now at which a person can simply draw a secure living wage? Realize that 1/2 of every HS class is below average, and not all go on to college. Where are they going to be able to earn enough to survive - not to mention start a family?
My second point concerns our lifestyle. We seem to have accepted it as tho every American has a RIGHT to cell phones, PCs, widescreen TVs, multiple gas guzzling cars, HUGE separate family homes in the burbs, and endless consumer goods, fast food, etc. I’m embarrassed when I look back and see what my parents considered to be luxury, which was less than I take for granted today. Through media we’ve created a nation of consumers, and I don’t see where the number of jobs are going to come from that are going to pay enough for everyone to support the lifestyle they seem to consider themselves entitled to.
When farming became mechanized, there was a huge shift of labor from rural to urban - requiring tremendous lifestyle adaptations. At present I hear so many people talking about the economy, environment, foreign relations as tho they want to do whatever it takes - so long as it doesn’t require that they personally make any sacrifices or change their lives in any significant way. Doesn’t seem realistic to me.
I think this is a very important point. We’ve really gotten used to the lifestyle fueled by two-earner families, and an ever increasing array of gadgets and gizmos that are considered just normal to have. But also, lets not forget that back in the “good old days”, there were plenty of poor people in both cities and in rural areas (think Appalacia and rural Mississippi, for example) that we’d be horrified to see today.
Those nice union jobs weren’t so readily available if you were Black, and the economy since then has done an amazing job of giving better opportunities to minorities while at the same time absorbing millions of women into the workforce.
Interestingly, in today’s newspaper there was an article that said that in my metro area (in California) there are about 20,000 people who have jobs designing apps for smart phones. These are well-paying, skilled jobs that didn’t exist five years ago, and were inconceivable ten years ago.
ETA: I work for a software company that is moving somewhat into the app business, and as I said in a previous message on this thread, business is booming.
You were lucky. When I became a a manager 25 years ago I had about half a secretary, who supported maybe 20 people. 15 years ago only second level managers had secretaries, who supported say 50 people. Now only VPs have secretaries, who support well over 100 people. This comes from the fact that most of the stuff that the secretary had to do is now done by employees themselves on the web. I’m not sure that this is an efficient use of our time, but people manage by headcount not dollars.
One of the big reasons we got used to two earner families is that families could no longer support themselves on one salary. Two salaries did lead to some extra stuff - but many things today are a lot cheaper than they were 40 years ago, like long distance. We don’t have to rent our phones either.
The problem is that people normalize around a certain income level, and going back to a one-earner situation is traumatic.
No, sir, I was GOOD, damn good, at the job.
But as you point out, for the most part only the highest level executives have secretaries any more, and while I was excellent at supporting managers below VP level I really didn’t like the atmosphere and subservience required to be an executive level secretary (nevermind I was one for some years).
When I was laid off it was a wake-up call. Not sure where I’m going to wind up from here, but I’m healthy, smart, willing to work my ass off, and I’ll get by somehow or other. However, MOST people my age in my spot are not as healthy, not as smart, and while they may be willing to work their ass off that’s not always enough.
You are absolutely correct. My position was eliminated through automation. I don’t like it, but I’m not just sitting on my ass complaining. I am trying to find a new means to make a living.
I am not certain that that is necessarily fact. Could they not support themselves, or simply not at the level of comfort/luxury they desired?
Are you seriously going to point to telecommunications as something that is cheaper today than yesterday? Sure, long distance may have dropped. But did any generation before this one pay anywhere near the monthly fees for multiple cell and land lines, TV, and computer service?
Yes, the time is unquestionably coming when only a very small percentage of the population will be needed to produce the goods and services that drive the economy. Maybe no percentage at all, except for those who design and repair the technology which replaces the working class. We may not be there for another century or two, but we will be there.
Either that, or the process of approaching that state will pretty much tear society apart and reduce us to a more primitive level of technology than we have today.
I meant to include in my last post that at least some small part of the trend towards dual income families was related to changing gender roles as well.
Depends on the major. Some majors barely qualify you to make change at a cash register.
As long as that skilled labor is creating value sufficiently in excess of what the skilled labor must be paid, there will always be a job for that skilled labor. Your job might have created sufficient value to support the lifestyle you wanted at one time but if it doesn’t now, you need to reinvent yourself.
One of my friends worked for one of the consulting arms of the accounting firms in the 80’s he made a ton of money for helping companies pick out computer equipment, he was very knowledgable for his time but he probably knew less than the average helpdesk jockey does these days. These days he still works for that company but now he helps structure executive compensation packages. If he decided, he was going to stick with advising people on purchasing computer equipment, he would probably be the oldest guys on the Geek Squad at Best Buy.
On the other hand my company still has telephone switchboard operators who answer the phones and direct them to the appropriate office but there are not nearly as many of those jobs to go around as there used to be.
That sounds like more of a problem of people picking the wrong majors. There is still a shortage of many professions in this country. When we export R&D, we are not trying to save money on salaries for scientists and engineers, we are trying to find enough scientists and engineers to do the research taht we need. Perhaps people need to realize taht they can’t all be Connie Chung.
Thank God for Obama. Imagine where we would be today without him.
Couldn’t agree more. We have way too many people with useless majors, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have liberal arts majors but the only liberal art majors that get really good jobs graduate from places like Princeton or Amherst and those employers are hiring raw material, they are not hiring a skill set.
The velocity of change is significantly higher. You have to be a lot more nimble than you used to be.
This has lead to some painful displacement in industrialized nations.
It all started when we let women into the workforce? I agree that it affected the supply of labor but like other posters have mentioned, there is always room for another employee that creates more value than they cost. I think the problem is that the world changes a lot faster than it used to and human capital investments are frequently made to last a lifetime.
If you live like people lived in the 50s, you can more easily support yourself on one salary. When I was growing up, we never ate out at restaurants. We had 1 B&W TV, and my mom made most of our clothes herself. This was in the 60s, not the 50s. Hardly anyone lives like that these days.
I’m not so sure of that; I think the standard of living has to be taken into account for that - there are a lot of assumptions of things that a family considers to be needs that are actually luxuries. I’ve heard it said that if we lived the same lifestyle as people in the fifties, we could live comfortably on one salary per household.
There is a concern in Canada (and I assume also in the US) that there will be a shortage of skilled workers in blue-collar trades. Never mind people picking the wrong majors; there are many kids who shouldn’t be in a university at all. I’d like to see a change in the attitude towards skilled blue-collar jobs; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a kid becoming a carpenter or electrician rather than getting an Arts degree.
And there are a lot of differences between today and the 50s & 60s.
Many employers now require online applications and communicate by email. Without a computer and internet access, you’re screwed. Yes, there are some very limited public facilities that provide such - but who makes a better impression in job-hunting for a low-level job? Someone who replies promptly, or someone who can only check their mail once a day or so? The job can be gone by the time you see an email, if they’re in a hurry. Employers are used to instant access to employees via cellphone - again, the person without can lose a job before they even find out they had a chance.
It’s very expensive to make your own clothes these days. Since it’s not nearly as common as it used to be, prices for materials have skyrocketed. You can either spend very large $$ on nice clothes that will last, very large $$ on making your own clothes, or not as much $$ on crappy clothes that fall apart (which is the vast majority of what’s available).
Back then, a lot of families only had one (or no) car. These days, in many locations, it’s extremely difficult to manage without a car. There are no longer local neighborhood groceries - you have to be able to drive across town to Walmart to get food (or eat junk food from the local convenience store or fast food place - expensive and bad for you). Many employers won’t hire you if they find out you don’t have a car, because they’re concerned you won’t be reliable.
I do know a number of families who live on one salary, because it costs more for daycare than the second parent can make. However, many of them have no insurance (because they can’t afford it), no savings left (because there’s no money for that), and are a paycheck away from the street. A major illness or injury for the wage earner would do them in. But since they’re working, they don’t qualify for any assistance.
These aren’t stupid, lazy people - they’re just caught in a bad economy. And we’re still in pretty good shape here, I can’t imagine what it’s like in some areas that have been really hurt by this recession.
I didn’t mean it the way you took it. In my area, the jobs went away a lot longer ago than 5 years.
The exec secretaries I have known have been nothing like subservient, but that might have been because in technical areas even the highest of execs have gone through a period where they were engineers and the real world told them they were idiots.