Interesting, I had never heard of that. That jibes with what I know about the origins of social work in the US. Bored rich white women shut out from basically every professional sphere needed something to do, so they decided, hey, let’s teach poor people how not to be degenerate! And then they spent some time with the degenerates and some of them (not all) starting thinking, hmm… this seems to be… dare I say it… a systemic issue more than a personal failing.
As far as intersectionality and stuff, that’s what the work on the ground looks like, from a very practical standpoint. What I mean is, if you are a service provider, you are serving people from all kinds of demographics, and when you start to look at disparities in outcomes among your clients, it becomes evident that there are issues associated with being Black or LGBTQ+ or what have you that need to be addressed alongside the standard service. For example, domestic violence issues among the LGBTQ+ population can be associated with a whole host of additional issues, ranging from the insularity of the community in which the violence is taking place to abuser threats to out the person, withhold hormone medication or even traffick them. To recognize those additional issues and design interventions around serving that specific population is pretty much the textbook application of intersectionality.
To be fair, another factor is the more rural/post-industrial nature of red states in general. I read an article not long ago (great cite, I know, sorry) about decaying red-state communities in which going on disability is basically the only realistic alternative to grinding poverty. There just isn’t enough economic vitality to support enough workers actually working at higher than bare-subsistence wages.
This article claims that a bunch of people hit a wealth bubble during the pandemic, and chose that moment to retire. None of the surveys I know actually ask people why they retired, so it’s pretty suppositional.
Which reminds me… we really invested our money at the exact wrong fucking time. Sigh. Well, it couldn’t be helped, because we didn’t have the money to invest at the right time. But still.
Oh, I absolutely concur that intersectionality, diversity, inclusion, and all the rest of the current movements in progressivism are not at all silly. I don’t think that Victorian desires to relieve suffering, end abuses, prevent cholera, increase literacy, etc. etc. etc., were at all silly either.
In both cases, it was just that passion, inspired by recognition of the real power and validity of moral enlightenment, that both achieved some significant crucial reforms and also lent itself to “buzzwordy” parody and satire of its “moral earnestness” on the part of the sceptical.
My age (59) is keeping me in a job I’m not crazy about. Public libraries can get young librarians for a lot less than they’d be paying someone with my 30+ years of experience. Other local school systems have more strict educational requirements for librarians, so I’d need to go back to school. Since I’m a year and a half from retirement, the best option is to gut it out. I can work in the school system where I live as a sub for some extra cash. My daughter is subbing there while finishing college and actually enjoys it.
What is your problem? No, I mean retired. Pension and everything. If I were merely unemployed, I would have said so.
Oh, absolutely. I just mean there is an incompatibility. Which demographic is to ‘blame’, if any, I’m sure is specific to the situation. But there IS a disconnect between many of them that is frustrating older workers.
Thanks for the languge lesson, but if I wanted to say ‘Woke’ I would have.
I wasn’t thinking about anything ‘woke’. More like personality problems, mental health, and fragile egos that can’t take criticism. Also a sense of entitlement, like one who wouldn’t take on a task that was her responsibility and important, because it conflicted with her desire to take a training class that had nothing to do with her job but was ‘personally rewarding’. My wife wound up doing her work for her, because it had to be done and that’s what conscientious people do.
She had two younger workers (late 20’s) who just constantly fought with each other, made snippy comments to each other in meetings, and bent anyone’s ear they could all the time about how horrible the other one was. They both wound up in different departments eventually, but it was endless headaches for my wife until they were gone. And I suspect their careers have been severely curtailed.
The person that was being groomed to take my wife’s job when she leaves has made it clear that the promotion would be too ‘stressful’ - after wasting six months of everyone’s time trying to train her. So my wife will be leaving without a replacement. Oh well.
So when the recently retired say they are not unemployed we shouldn’t included them in the unemployment figures correct?
If I they were merely unemployed, I they would say so.
I reported my status to the government as ‘retired’ last year on my taxes. I am officially on the ‘retired’ list.
Unemployment figures come from two sources in the U.S - a payroll survey of businesses, and a household survey where they straight up ask people if they are working, looking for work, or not looking for whatever reason.
You can see the details of the latest household survey here:
No, the ‘’‘confusion’‘’ is your position that the recently retired and the people who have stopped actively looking for a job should be included in the unemployment figures when you, a recent retiree, shouldn’t be.
And the reason for that is . . .
They. Are. Not. Unemployed!
If they’re earning money they are NOT unemployed. They may not be employed full time, but they do have a job if they’re getting money for something they do.
I think they’re are plenty of unemployed/underemployed people of all ages in urban areas, but they’re usually shunted off the margins and/or ignored. They’re there, but often you can’t pick them out of the crowd because they don’t look different than anyone else.
Yeah. I look where I’m working (retail) and if you wanted to you could climb the corporate ladder with more ease here than many other places. Just have to show up to work on time, actually work when you’re here, and be nice to the customers then ask to advance. Only have to do that 6-12 months to start climbing the ladder. If I were 20 years younger I’d be doing that, but I’m looking to retire in 10 years so I’ve decided to stop just a rung or two up from the bottom and coast, which is also a valid choice. Sure, it’s considered a “shit” job but you can earn a living wage at it (need to pick a good employer, but right now everyone is hiring and prior experience still counts) and unlike many other jobs you don’t take it home with you at night and until you get to store director level you don’t have to deal with e-mails at home and the boss calling you. There are benefits and a retirement program.
In other words - even a shit job can allow you to support yourself.
And those guys are the ones who most likely had the best jobs. So when they quit, died, retired, whatever, some of the people with these shitty jobs no one wants to do found an opportunity to move up the ladder. No one is dreaming about taking some kid’s first job as a dishwasher, but lots of people dream about taking the boss’s job in the corner office.
Many people will claim there are huge impediments to relocating for work. I don’t really buy it, if one’s goal is to provide for oneself and one’s family.
Like, you and your spouse both had decent community. When tikes were good, ypu bought an inexpensive house and paid it off. The plant closes, and you get laid off at 45. Spend some years looking, but there is nothing. You bought the house for cheap, but now its worthless as an asset, but it still provides a place to live. Your spouse has worked their way up and its possible to live on their salary, though not well, because your hpusong is free.
Now, if you move and abandon the house, or sell it for pennies, the spouse will lose their job, and depending on the job, it may not be very portable. So your new oncome has to be enough to cover this huge new expense (housing), plus what reduction in income your spouse has. And you’ve lost your safety net.
