This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Chart Of The Day: Jobs "Additions" By Age Group Reveals The Scariest Picture

Tyler Durden's picture





 

While the GETCO algos care only about one thing: the headline NFP number derived by the establishment survey, the reality is that in November this number was strictly a divination of seasonal adjustments (which resulted in the typical for November 1.2 million "gain" in jobs), as well as who knows what other Sandy-related adjustments which the BLS has not broken down, the reality is that a more granular dig through the jobs data reveals a far uglier picture, especially for those in the prime working demographic between 25-54. This has been a sensitive issue for the pundits as ever since the arrival of the Obama administration, all the job gains have gone in the 55 and older job category as we now see age outsourcing, while jobs in the 55 and lower age group have imploded. Sure enough, the November data, when seen through the prism of the Household Survey's age distribution, is frankly horrendous.

First, what that granular data shows is that instead of a 146K gain in November, there was actually a drop of 114K jobs when broken down by worker "vintage." But where it gets simply stupid, is that of the 4 age group buckets (16-19, 20-24, 25-54, and 55-69), the biggest gainer continued to be America geriatric work force, which added 177 jobs. As for that key segment of the workforce, the 25-54? Jobs here declined by a whopping 359K in November. And this is good news?

 

And the really scary charts: cumulative jobs gained or lost in the 55 and under, versus 55 and over age groups. In case it is confusing, since Obama became president, 4 million jobs have been added in the 55-69 age group. Everyone else? Down 3 million!

The same as above but broken by all four age cohorts:

Since Obama became president, over 2.5 million jobs in the 25-54 age group have been lost.

Welcome to the Recovery.

Source: BLS

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:17 | Link to Comment aston
aston's picture

I have some problems (after visiting the link provided) to understand the Nov number (359) for the 25-54 age group. Where to you get that. Any math ? someone can help ?

i have age group 25-54 +94 while over 54 +31

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:42 | Link to Comment Urban Roman
Urban Roman's picture

177 + 62 + 6 - 359 = 146 ...

The Tylers don't do the arithmetic, they simply report it.

87.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:17 | Link to Comment Prison Justice
Prison Justice's picture

You didn't hear?  Walmart has been hiring new greeters en masse.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:20 | Link to Comment granolageek
granolageek's picture

This meme is one of ZH's best.

 

For instance, that chart shows that the people in the 16 year age range  of 54-69 got a hair more than 3 times as many jobs as people in the 5 year age range of 20-24. If you financial geniuses divide 16 by 5, what number do you get?

 

Thanks ZH for the chuckles on a slow day at work.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:23 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

And you can what? Infer something about the distribution of actual ages from the widths of the age ranges?!

Please return to STAT 101.

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:37 | Link to Comment granolageek
granolageek's picture

I happen to know out of band  that it's roughly the same. 54-69 is the leading edge of the boomers, and there are a sh*tload of us. Demographic cliff and all that.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:45 | Link to Comment GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

It's hard to miss you guys...what with the billions in Medicare Part D deficits you shovel down your corpulent triple-chinned throats.

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:32 | Link to Comment Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

Hey dumbass. What about the even larger group losing jobs? your ability to read charts is in serious doubt. 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:39 | Link to Comment granolageek
granolageek's picture

Different chart, dumbass.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:31 | Link to Comment Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

No, I can read just fine. It's your interpretation of the information that is incredibly stupid. 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:20 | Link to Comment Let The Wurlitz...
Let The Wurlitzer Play's picture

If the older group doesnt work who is going to pay for their kids I gadget and data service?

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:21 | Link to Comment babylon15
babylon15's picture

Tyler, can you also put up a graph of jobs created by sector?  All the jobs created are part time jobs in areas like fast food chains.  These 55-69 year olds are not getting jobs in high skill areas that require degrees.  They are taking jobs at fast food chains.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:25 | Link to Comment Shell Game
Shell Game's picture

Bahgdad Bob just showed up on my screen proclaiming, "there is no unemployment!  We have crushed the Great Unemployment and sent it fleeing under the greatness of our superior economicness!  Krugman Akbar, Krugman Akbar!!"

 

 

Fucking. Empire. of Lies...

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:29 | Link to Comment Clint Liquor
Clint Liquor's picture

Bahgdad Bob?

Does he work for CNBC or Bloomberg?

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:54 | Link to Comment Inthemix96
Inthemix96's picture

Bets handle on ZH Clint.  Every time I see one of your posts I get a chuckle.  Well done mate for giving out smiles.

:-)

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:24 | Link to Comment Critical Path
Critical Path's picture

The younger cohort gets left behind again I see, no surprise there really.  In an environment where the economy were doing poorly and unemployment were high one could understand how people would stay in the workforce longer, especially after taking a net loss on their wealth leading up to retirement.  Unfortunately, propaganda says otherwise about the economy.... unemployment is falling and we haven't even entered a new recessions (according to those whom know better than we), let alone having ever left the "great recession".  So what is it than?  Younger people increasingly being left behind in the workforce and by the time they are able to fill positions by their retiring counterparts, their skills have deteriorated significantly from years of pushing shitty food through a drive through window or swiping credit cards in a checkout lane at many of our fine American retailers?  By then, then worker to retire ratio will sit around, 2:1?  Add to that we'll mostly likely be somewhere around $1.5 trillion in student debt accumulated.  Not to mention a national debt clearly over $20 trillion (lets just keep those interest rates down a bit longer until its someone elses problem) in a country who's infrastructure that has drastically degraded from years of neglect.  (I could go on but its all too depressing). Sounds to me like the boomers said we're taking it all... We'll have it all, and once we're retired, you can keep paying for us... Whoever came up with the term ageism had it all wrong, this is obviously generational warfare.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:36 | Link to Comment MilleniumJane
MilleniumJane's picture

It's a tactic as old as time-divide and conquer.  Don't fall for their generational warfare meme.  We don't have the luxury of quarrelling amongst ourselves.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:34 | Link to Comment Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Even the idea of retirement will be a memory of an abberation ,enjoyed by a very few for a

short period in history.

Work till you drop is the  reality today  for most ,as it always was.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Been saying this for years.

I've dropped the very notion from my mind.  Aim low, it's easier to "succeed" :-)

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:25 | Link to Comment shutterman
shutterman's picture

sadly, I have gotten used to working part time. How in the hell did I manage to get up 5 days a week for all those years?

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:26 | Link to Comment UnRealized Reality
UnRealized Reality's picture

Leave it to our great leaders again. If they didn't destroy interest rates seniors wouldn't have to work. The one thing that keeps seniors out of work is interest on their nest egg.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:02 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

What a brilliant idea!  We can ALL stop working and live on "interest!"

Don't you get it?  Don't you get that "interest" and growth are both tied to borrowing from the future?

Yup, cash in and then sit on it.  Get money from that future growth and horde it!  I cashed in on the housing bubble; not big, but what I got wasn't meant to sit on- I'm applying it toward producing food: I think that I owe the future generations something meaningful; call it my insurance (hedge) against them taking me out back and shooting me.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:27 | Link to Comment aston
aston's picture

IS IT ACCURATE ?

IWent to the BLS SITE (LINK PROVIDED BELOW THE ARTICLE)  and i still don`t get the math to have the Zero hedge numberS.

Could explain ? How do you get this STRANGE result.

MINE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. HOW TO GET THAT ?

HELP PLEASE

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:33 | Link to Comment Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

An easy place to pull the data is the St Louis Fed: aged 16-19 (source), aged 20-24 (source), aged 25-54 (source), aged 55 and over (source)

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:13 | Link to Comment ekm
ekm's picture

Brilliant

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Yeah - The Fed.  They would never lie.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:41 | Link to Comment prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

Further analysis is always welcome.  You got different results?  Throw 'em up here.  Let's compare.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:28 | Link to Comment SanOvaBeach
SanOvaBeach's picture

I got mine!  Have a nice day!  ps. there is a sale on Alpo at Walmart.............

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:28 | Link to Comment slackrabbit
slackrabbit's picture

The locusts protect their own...

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:40 | Link to Comment Cortez
Cortez's picture

Lazy workers get paid the same as hard workers.  At one point in time, hard workers got raises and bonuses.  Now everyone gets the "lean times" bs from employers.  The elderly workers didn't get the text since they are still complaining about how that cell phone is so darn complicated.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:27 | Link to Comment RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

Shows how fucking dumb you are, This oldster wrote about 1/2 of all the software that handles the cell phone network call switching - globally.  What have you accomplished lately, you fucking whiner, besides diddling yourself whilst running your facebook app? 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:11 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

While clearly superior to whining and diddling and facebooking, I'm still not seeing this as being of long-term value.

This oldster is clearing land and making it produce food.  I've got the aches and scars to back it up.

Thomas Jefferson wanted to be remembered most for being a farmer.  I'd like to do the same.

Powering people rather than gadgets.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:39 | Link to Comment Central Bankster
Central Bankster's picture

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:41 | Link to Comment Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

We need to redefine employment so we can be more honest in these reports.  Playing Xbox all day may be low paying, but I think it should be counted as a job.  I tried to put this in Bernanke's suggestion box.  But, he clenched up. 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:57 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Bullish for Microsoft and Activision, and Duracell and Eveready (those wireless controllers eat batteries, let me tell you).

The hi-def. flat screen at 1080p is the bomb, and for the full experience you'll need a good recliner.

Off to play Mass Effect 3 multiplayer (oh, bullish for Cumcast too).

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Until credit completely dries up...

But... how fitting of an end is it? to end it all with an entertainment bubble collapse?  It's ALL been smoke and mirrors, it's ALL been virtual.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:43 | Link to Comment 1000yrdstare
1000yrdstare's picture

Don't worry, The powers that be have employment ready for the young folks. (See: Carrier off the coast of Syria\WMD's in Syria) Hint: False flag soon, to get you flag waving, and killing the enemy!

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:48 | Link to Comment realtick
realtick's picture

The Debt Ceiling - Sealing Our Fate To Become Japan http://chartistfriendfrompittsburgh.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-debt-ceilin...

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:52 | Link to Comment Cortez
Cortez's picture

I think those that grew up in middle class america in the 70s 80s and 90s had everything they wanted and needed.  Now as adults they aren't living at the same standards as they were accostomed to.  But the realization is this: Their happiness didn't decline because they had less money and things. 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:03 | Link to Comment zebrasquid
zebrasquid's picture

Less money, less things for things like....food, gas, mortgage money, health insurance money...   

This country is not getting cheaper to live in.

Do the math:  Cost people $60K a year, minimum to live a middle class life in an urban or suburban area as an independent over 25 year old adult ....  

-Live to 85, that's about $3.6 million you'll need, after tax or almost $5 million pretax.

-Work for 40 years, making the average of $50K/yr, you make $2 million --- that leaves you $3 million short to fund a long life!

Even if you make $100K a year, you're still a million short.

If you only live to 70, you're still short.  

And all this BEFORE factoring inflation, which we all know is going to increase much more than wages.

 

Not as easy as saying Happiness doesn't decline because of not being able to afford less things.  

Most people I know worry a lot these days and should.  

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:51 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Good analysis.  It clearly points out how unsustainable it all is.  And I'll wager that it's FAR more unsustainable higher up: the higher they are the farther they'll fall.

If it cheers anyone up, roughly 2/3 of the world's population lives on $3/day or less. (yeah, it's all relative, just trying to do what I can to make it not so dour)

I think it more wise to seek to stabilize to a lower level than to try and claw upwards against all those who control most of everything and are doing everything they can to hold on to their elevated positions: the majority of these folks won't be successful.

Play your future as a glider pilot.  We're ALL returning to earth.  Attempts to escape will be futile; it'll mean hitting the boosters, draining the fuel, and then finding that gravity still exists AND your vehicle/plan doesn't do "glide."  Oh!  And there are NO parachutes!

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 16:40 | Link to Comment Blankenstein
Blankenstein's picture

This is why almost all housing is overpriced.  The NAR needs to be brought up on racketeering charges.  

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 18:35 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Or perhaps the currencies are WAY depreciated?

One thing to purchase/possess a home, another thing to be able to maintain it.  I'm figuring that the maintenance angle is going to become a bigger and bigger burden/load as all key things like food and energy ramp up in cost.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:55 | Link to Comment paulbain
paulbain's picture

 

 

 

Actually, Tyler Durden, this news article is much more interesting, at least to me:

A study by the Center for Immigration Studies concludes two-thirds of the net increase in employment since President Obama took office has gone to immigrants and illegal aliens. The analysis calls into question the wisdom of bringing in more than one million new legal immigrants each year.

See more here:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/november-1-2012/study-two-thirds...

-- Paul D. Bain

PaulBain@PObox.com

 

 

 

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 20:51 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Well, if one were an xenophobic dick I suppose that it would be more "interesting."

Listen you fucking losers, it's fucking going down, doesn't fucking matter who is getting what "jobs," "jobs" that are really about working FOR TPTB.

So, if the article is more interesting to YOU then maybe should take it and run off into a corner somewhere, and stop trying to hijack this thread.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 11:59 | Link to Comment q99x2
q99x2's picture

It is strange that the older I get the farther I can jog. I'm up over 15 miles at one time now. When I was younger my knees used to act up so much just going for an hour that I wasn't able to run for 10 years. It has to be GMO or hormones in the beef. That is why I think the NWO got it wrong to pick the new generation for the world takeover. The old fucks are going to be real M'Fers to try and topple.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:53 | Link to Comment edifice
edifice's picture

Oh, I don't know... Everyone (old and young) are obese... 2/3 of us, anyway... It won't be that hard to topple this country.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 20:54 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

This is what the livestock industry does, fatten 'em up and then slaughter...  I'm figuring that TPTB are working with the space aliens to raise their food supply on their next stop-over...  Sigh, I won't be food, which means I'll be slave material.  Heads you lose.  Tails you lose.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:05 | Link to Comment QuantumCat
QuantumCat's picture

Baby Boomers doing what Baby Boomers do best...  spreading everyone elses wealth around and taking care of themselves.  I can only hope they live long enough to see the consequences of their actions, not that they would collectively care.   

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:29 | Link to Comment RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

Baby boomers spreading THEIR OWN FUCKING wealth around.  Sorry the administration hasn't gotten around to redistributing enough of our wealth to you yet.  Sucks to be a parasite, doesn't it?

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:57 | Link to Comment QuantumCat
QuantumCat's picture

Take some accountability.  Perhaps you have personally fought against generational excess, but on the whole, BBs have left a cesspool for the rest of us to swim in.  BBs represent the largest voting bloc which has delivered multiple pointless wars that my generation has been asked to fight, and that wonderful cure-all QE. You guys should be so proud, MAN.  All of that hippie time rebelling against the man delivered something many orders of magnitude worse.  Congrats on that generational accomplishment. I work for living, but unlike you, when I'm in my prime earning years, I will be paying enormous taxes on your generation's debt and bailouts and left holding a bunch of devalued dollars. I wish you a long life to see it all through.    

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

The attacks on Baby Boomers are simply a reflection of how little the succeeding generations know about spending and demographics, combined with changes in Social Security payment calculations.  The boomers have barely started to retire, but we're already 16 trillion in debt.  It is The Silent Generation which got the gold.  They entered their working life with a rapidly growing real economy.  They followed the war generation and were the purveyors to the families with young boomer kids.  They were the businessmen selling the 'sixties generation their music and consumer lifestyle. When they retired they received SS based on best ten years, not thirty as most of us boomers will.  They received the greatest calculational credit for the periods of enormous inflation, the seventies.  "The phrase gained further currency after William Manchester's comment that members of this generation were "withdrawn, cautious, unimaginative, indifferent, unadventurous and silen." Wikipedia.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:47 | Link to Comment QuantumCat
QuantumCat's picture

True, and I think a great many BB's will live to see the bust.  However, BB's have tried to perpetuate the Silent generation's success with "out of control" government spending.  Look at the chart of government spending as a percentage of GDP starting in the 80's.  It's about voting for big government to take care of what should be the current generation's responsibility.  Just as BB's sucked as parents in the 70s, they of course have not wanted to take care of their Silent and GI parents in the past decade... so they've voted for government programs to do that for them, meanwhile, protecting their parent's assets for themselves.  Shameful, and that is but one example.   

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:01 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Clearly you're trying, but you're likely too young to really understand how things work...

'"out of control" government spending' was built-in; as long as the System marched to time it would get to this point, the only thing in question was the time it would take.

If you can understand the concept of "out of control" growth in government then I might direct you to seeing that growth itself always becomes "out of control."  Track down Dr. Albert Bartlett's presentation Arithmetic, Population and Energy; or, check out Chris Martenson's Crash Course.

Or, you can continue to operate half-cocked, looking like the younger-developed brain that you do to those who have managed to step up out of the mud-slinging pits to see what's really driving the currents.

Good luck!

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:45 | Link to Comment Floodmaster
Floodmaster's picture

The Great Baby Boomer Asset Bubble. QE + Low Interest rate are for the boomers assets, the bill will be paid by their kids and grandkids.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:03 | Link to Comment Ness.
Ness.'s picture

When do boomers get to start spending YOUR accumulated wealth, asshole?  Boomers ponied up 20% downpayments and dealt with 12% interest rates to buy their homes - you Genx pussies can't manage to save enough to move out of mommy's basement.

 

 

 

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:06 | Link to Comment sharky2003
sharky2003's picture

Money went a lot further in that day and age than it does today.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:41 | Link to Comment Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch's picture

It's important to have some historical understanding regarding retirment age individuals. Alan Greenspan did a supposedly one-time fix to social security. Had social security not been looted by a series of administrations both Republican and Democrat, the one-time fix would have generated a two trillion dollar surplus in social security and the same can be said for Medicare. The Reagan administration created a bogus Social Security lockbox, which meant that various Congresses could steal from social security as long as they left an IOU. The IOUs became part of the US deficit and of course they were never repaid. Clinton eliminated the IOUs and wahla a balanced budget was achieved by a deceitful accounting tricck.

It's interesting that looting social security and medicare are never described as factors in the social security shortfall or that if the funds had been preserved for their intended purpose, that today they would have a 2 trillion dollar surplus.

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:44 | Link to Comment Thisson
Thisson's picture

You could add $20 trillion and the problem still doesn't go away.  Costs are going up 12% compound a year, in an economy growing at ~1%.  It's exponential math.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:08 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"It's exponential math."

BINGO!

Perpetual (exponential) growth on a finite planet is IMPOSSIBLE.  Government, private sector, it makes NO/ZERO difference.  The math is the SAME!

BTW - At 1% that sill means a doubling in size in 70 years (the BIG assumption here, with ANY growth, is there would be actual PHYSICAL resources to do so).

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:09 | Link to Comment docj
docj's picture

The pre-collapse American consumer-based economy - working yourself to death in a job you hate so you can make enough money to buy crap you don't need.

The Obama American consumer-based economy - not working at all so you can sit-back, collect a check, and spend it on crap you need to fill-up all the free time.

FORWARD!

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:11 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Which one consumes less energy?

Eventually realities push it toward a future with less energy per capita.

In no way saying that anything we're seeing is in anyway any human design.  Nature, yes, human, no.

"Men argue, nature acts." - Voltaire

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:15 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

more and more of the young are just being sugar babies to the sugar daddies and sugar mommies

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:19 | Link to Comment ZeroFreedom
ZeroFreedom's picture

Maybe we should create a site or section called Zero Jobs. In any case government employee unemployed rate came in at 3.8% which says something.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:19 | Link to Comment ZeroFreedom
ZeroFreedom's picture

Maybe we should create a site or section called Zero Jobs. In any case government employee unemployed rate came in at 3.8% which says something.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:21 | Link to Comment reader2010
reader2010's picture

This age thing is by design IMHO. Those in the younger age group will be enticed to join the Emipiral Military to carry out WWIII and the NWO for those motherfuckers. 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:14 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

I doubt it's by design (history always shows that things become a bit unstable when you have high levels of younger men out of work), but it's a certainty that this will provide an opportunity to stock the cannon-fodder cabinets for the next wars.  NOTE: it's kind of a package deal anyway, as wars are about resources, and insufficient resources means that your employment levels suffer, which then adds pressure to... yup, engage in wars.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:16 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

I would also add that wars are good excuse for tightening up control on the home front.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:23 | Link to Comment Miffed Microbio...
Miffed Microbiologist's picture

The only increase in employment I see now for youth is sidewalk sign flipper. We oldsters don't seem to be able to penetrate that niche. That's why I'm staying in shape... fend off the competition in the coming years.

Miffed:-)

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:30 | Link to Comment mendigo
mendigo's picture

Purely anecdotal of course but I am seeing many new senior faces working the retail stores. Put cat-food on the table I guess.

Meaning while in the places of business where I work all of the manufacturing staff are illegals (great people) and increasingly the office staff are "interns" from off-shore and some illegals working as contractors. Your government is fully aware of this and yet talks about creating new jobs. So they subsidize these operations by looking the other way or promoting the hiring of off-shore talent (who are very capable and motivated) and leaves the public to pick-up the social cost. They talk about creating jobs but in reality they are undermining the workers - nwo. As long as thier kids get jobs what's the harm?

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:36 | Link to Comment RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

You're seeing more senior faces in retail jobs because the "connected" generation can't be bothered to allow themselves to be interrupted - and take their face out of their fucking cell phones long enough - to serve customers.   

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:19 | Link to Comment walküre
walküre's picture

Who created these monsters? The fucking "high" tech companies which are a concept of the advertising gangs, which is a concept of the mass consumer retail corps. If it wasn't for the stupid kids with their faces in their fucking cell phones, there wouldn't be any consumers left. Now you're blaming the brainwashed, zombie youth for not being able to work as slaves to serve their own kind? How fucked up is that?

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:36 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

NOTE: Some of my response is somewhat rhetorical (and not necessarily directed at you; just piles on what you're saying, what I THINK you're saying).

"our government is fully aware of this and yet talks about creating new jobs. So they subsidize these operations by looking the other way or promoting the hiring of off-shore talent (who are very capable and motivated) and leaves the public to pick-up the social cost."

What, there should be talk of NOT creating jobs?  Since when doesn't the govt hype shit, politicians lie?

On one hand people say that government regulations should go away, and on the other we have a stick poking government in the eye for "looking the other way."

If government really IS "the people," then it's clear the people are just all fucked up and confused, have no idea on how to "solve" anything.

First, no one forces businesses on US soil to hire anyone, especially "illegals."

If you're talking more along the lines of collusion between government and business on all of this (can you say fascism?), then yes, absolutely.  Legislated LEGAL immigration (such as provided to my dearly departed grandparents from back during the early 1900s).  H1B visas, which were really no more than a collusion with businesses to help crush unions.  And then NAFTA, which allowed US Ag to operated in Mexico while flushing up cheap labor to work fields in the US.

The overwhelming majority of the "jobs" that are out there are going to disappear, "for legal," "illegal" or whatever one's "classification" is.  The future was over-extended and now it's going to be BARE bones, only the essentials will drive things: and anyone who doesn't know what those are by now can just stick their head back in the sand and forget about everything.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 12:43 | Link to Comment haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

Why do "Studies" like these have to be politisized?

Just pick a date and start with it. Jobs didn't start on inauguration day 2009. 

Any time you see something that attaches a president's name, beware of Useful Idiot Syndrome.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:13 | Link to Comment Haus-Targaryen
Haus-Targaryen's picture

Anyone know where the 146k number came from? 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:12 | Link to Comment Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch's picture

I'm right at retirement age. I have been contracting independently as a technical writer and software training developer for nearly 20 years.

My view is that so many job require a minimum of 5 years of experience. College graduates do not have the required experience and so Indians are being shipped in with the requisite experience. This is a self defeating loop because as more Indians are hired into computer programming jobs, US citizens fall farther and farther out of the work pool.

This is not a criticism of the Indians in any way. They simply accepted job. It's the corporate chieftans who continue to betray their country.

As far as experience goes,  it's the old codgers who have the experience and then some, and so they continue to be hired into the workplace.

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:08 | Link to Comment walküre
walküre's picture

You know that at least 50% of Pakistani immigrants are certified as doctors in their home country, right? Getting certified in India, Pakistan or any other hole is like getting a fake student id anywhere in the US...

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 17:15 | Link to Comment Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch's picture

I am aware that many Indians do not have the requisite 5 years experience, but are carried by the rest of the Indians coming from the same employment placement agency that is staffing the project. The thing is that they are in the corporate pipeline and Americans are not.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:42 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

"It's the corporate chieftans who continue to betray their country."

???

Their allegiance is to their shareholders, this is the agreement that we have with the system, with Capitalism.

Further, better margins also mean better profits, which, supposedly, mean more tax dollars to "their country."

Nothing about the system running amok.  It's operating just as it's supposed to.  Problem is is that we're squeezing the planet and the increasing costs of material extraction has to be made up elsewhere.

I didn't vote for any of this (it's been sanctioned/cast in stone a LONG time before I was born).  I don't agree with it.  BUT... it is what it is, until, that is, it ain't- that which cannot continue forever won't (and the pains that we're feeling is the "won't" part starting to filter in).

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:24 | Link to Comment Chester_McGoldsteez
Chester_McGoldsteez's picture

lol

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:27 | Link to Comment ian807
ian807's picture

I have business owning acquaintences. Their reasons they give me for hiring older people is:

1) They show up on time every day.

2) They haven't been partying, dating or taking care of infants the night before.

3) They're pre-trained with education AND experience.

4) They're customer-presentable (i.e. No tats. Normal hair. Standard English without urban slang).

5) They've seen so many stupid decisions, that they now know how to avoid them.

They probably don't work as long or as hard. They also don't need to. They know what they're doing and can organize appropriately. The reasons are 100% economical and practical. If these guys could hire a 20-something like this, they would. They don't exist in enough numbers to matter.

 

 

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment walküre
walküre's picture

Depends on the business of course. A young guy can stack and carry a whole lot more and faster than the old guy. The young guy won't have put his back out at the end of the day either. Realistically, there are only so many jobs that the older person can do and can do better.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 21:53 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

Well, that's the theory, isn't it?

I'm older and I'll wager that very few "younger" people can begin to keep up with my on my farm.

One negative against "older" people might be that they're not as gullible, that they're less likely to put up with shit from some younger manager.  I've always been this way, but I know that when most are younger they are less savvy in detecting when someone's yanking their chain.  And then again, older folks might just let shit roll right off knowing that it's likely all stupid anyway.

Might be more about wages.  Older folks are likely needing less income because their basic needs are mostly covered via other means (paid off mortgage, paid off vehicles etc.).

Until there's a decent study done on this we're really only speculating.  No matter, the future is looking pretty shaky.

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 13:42 | Link to Comment walküre
walküre's picture

I personally know of a couple 70+ geezers who work a few hours a week, few days a month to keep driving their cars and keep the lights on in their condos. They got fucked by Wall Street and lost a big chunk of their "nestegg" portfolio. Their SS payments buy them mac&cheese, Heinz 57, pink slime and Wonder Bread. They're holding on to their real estate which is paid off but worth less and less. The savings they have are now mostly in cash and they will never ever go back to investing. Mind you, at 70+ they're in the almost dead investor class anyway.

So let's stay focused here. Wall Street sucked 'em and fucked 'em over and over. Now the retirees are barely able to survive on their SS cheques and they feel healthy enough to do a job.

The younger ones work whereever they can in whatever jobs they can get their hands on to keep feeding the family. Working any time of day or night, working 10 to 15 hour days in several jobs. That's their life. Guess how much they will want to put into any investments on Wall Street? Zilch.

2 POINTS:

1) Wall Street killed the investor. There are no investors left. Old ones are scared and broke and young ones are working too hard for their money to give it up freely

2) There may very well be more jobs but all the new jobs combined are still not enough to grow the economy, grow GDP. People lost good paying jobs with benefits that were considered "safe". They work multiple jobs w/o benefits and still not have the same quality of life they had prior to the initial job loss.

@Wall Street. You gotta ask yourself this question. Was it bloody worth it?

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 22:02 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

1) It's ALL a Ponzi;

2) The MAJORITY of the world knows nothing about "retirement."

As the late great George Carlin put it, "It's the American Dream; you have to be asleep to believe it."  Those not born in to the ruling class fell for the trick because they wanted to fly with the eagles.  Never mind history, never mind statistic/probabilities, if you only "want" it hard enough, "work" (for the folks that profit off you not reaching Their level) hard enough you too can be just like Them.  Fucking turn around and see TPTB holding that stick with that carrot!

People have always been free to question the premise.  Ignorance is no excuse.  These 70-somethings have likely had a fair amount of use of the medical industry; I KNOW that I won't be afforded that opportunity.  I could cry for them and their situation, but I doubt that they're going to cry for my future (and as we know, what has really transpired is that up to now we've been borrowing heavily from the future, those 70-somethings especially).

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 14:28 | Link to Comment Yankee.go.home
Yankee.go.home's picture

Maybe a lot of workers reached age 55 . . .

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 15:01 | Link to Comment trader1
trader1's picture

^^^classic!

+1

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 22:04 | Link to Comment Seer
Seer's picture

It's part of that Mayan Calendar thing!  Weird times for sure!

Fri, 12/07/2012 - 18:58 | Link to Comment SmittyinLA
SmittyinLA's picture

The Latino replacement population ain't nearly as productive as the people they're replacing, they're far less educated as well as have higher obesity, diabetes, welfare and disability rates, they live longer yet have shorter careerspans too.

 

But hey all people are equal and replaceable like lightbulbs, right?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!