Octopus Overlords

Isgrimnur wrote:Hard work =/= long work. There are plenty of people younger than we are busting their tails to bring you the next generation of technological advances, out there building your infrastructure, and doing plenty of hard work.

There is no such thing as hard work developing technology. Running a dairy farm working 16 hour days 7/365 without a vacation for 20+ years is a good example of hard work. 80% of the US has no idea what real hard work is.

Rip wrote: There is no such thing as hard work developing technology. Running a dairy farm working 16 hour days 7/365 without a vacation for 20+ years is a good example of hard work. 80% of the US has no idea what real hard work is.

That's physical work and irrelevant.

You could just as easily say 80% of the US would have their head explode trying to learn c++.

noxiousdog wrote:

Zarathud wrote:The American dream promised that work paid off, you received a fair deal and could build a secure future with education.

Any one under forty, at a minimum, has not put in hard work...

Huh?

noxiousdog wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Hard work =/= long work. There are plenty of people younger than we are busting their tails to bring you the next generation of technological advances, out there building your infrastructure, and doing plenty of hard work.

Well, too bad. If someone promised you middle class on 10 years of "hard work" they were lying.

There's no way to make the math work, unless you want to go 25 years without a raise.

If you expect everyone with a college degree and 10 years experience to make 60K by forty, how much do you plan on paying sixty year olds?

Maybe some people expect guarantees, but except for the abnormality of the Boomer generation, I'm not sure that a promised progression through the social strata of life was ever an expected outcome for a lifetime of work. I see a ton of slacker millennials today, but I see a ton of slacker Xers and Boomers as well. At the same time, I see millenials who are hustling and finding innovative ways to earn a good living, and I see plenty of people of my generation (solidly X) doing the same.

The paradigm change as I see it, and this is just anecdotally, but I do have a fairly wide range of insight into the work patterns and habits of a pretty healthy slice of younger people, is that the opportunities are out there, but people of any generation that expect high reward need to also be willing to endure some risk. No one is going to guarantee you a middle-class income just for being 25. Or 35. But if you make smart choices and can fashion yourself into an asset, the opportunities will be there.

geezer wrote: The paradigm change as I see it, and this is just anecdotally, but I do have a fairly wide range of insight into the work patterns and habits of a pretty healthy slice of younger people, is that the opportunities are out there, but people of any generation that expect high reward need to also be willing to endure some risk. No one is going to guarantee you a middle-class income just for being 25. Or 35. But if you make smart choices and can fashion yourself into an asset, the opportunities will be there.

I agree with this 100%.

noxiousdog wrote:

Zarathud wrote:The American dream promised that work paid off, you received a fair deal and could build a secure future with education.

Any one under forty, at a minimum, has not put in hard work, so I honestly couldn't care less about the millenials at this time.

This comes as a complete shocker to me, that I haven't been working hard as a lawyer at a large law firm for the past 14 years or the 5 years before that as a consultant at a multi-national accounting firm. By that standard, I could have only worked hard for the last 2 years.

You don't get it, do you? The millennials are busting their ass to even find work, just to get laid off with the next failure in management. I've known millennials with a great education and attitude who work hard to become assets but still get their career prospects cut from under them. That's not just enduring some risk.

The American dream was that you could work hard and eventually get ahead. Now, you're lucky if they keep you for a year or two, let alone 10 years and with a $60,000 brass ring.

Ignore it, and the millennials will find themselves a real Socialist leader who makes President Obama look like Bill O'Reilly.

That didn't come out quite right, nd.

It's partially because I'm completely overwhelmed with work lately and suffering from severe cranky pants, while my younger sister is an out of work millennial who was screwed after 2 years of long hours at a dot-com for not much more pay than a Starbucks shift manager. She might look like a blond cupcake, but she has quick mind that holds her own -- even when we board game at Octocon.

Zarathud wrote:That didn't come out quite right, nd.

It's partially because I'm completely overwhelmed with work lately and suffering from severe cranky pants, while my younger sister is an out of work millennial who was screwed after 2 years of long hours at a dot-com for not much more pay than a Starbucks shift manager. She might look like a blond cupcake, but she has quick mind that holds her own -- even when we board game at Octocon.

I'm just curious what 60 year old Zarathud would tell 40 year old Zarathud in terms of hard work, responsibility, accountability, and compensation.

I spent 6 years doing restaurant work, including dishes and cooking, and 2 years doing $9/hour IT work.

I'm sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for your sister.

So instead of the idea that future generations should build on the past and have better lives, you're of the opinion that everyone should suffer as much or more than you did?

Isgrimnur wrote:So instead of the idea that future generations should build on the past and have better lives, you're of the opinion that everyone should suffer as much or more than you did?

Seriously? I'm supposed to feel sorry that someone has put in a whole 2 years worth of work and hasn't achieved the "American Dream"?

I don't think the point was that after 2 years, she was supposed to have arrived. More that the trend seems to be treating employees as disposable commodities, with layoffs after a few years being very common. It's really hard to get invested in any job when you have the constant threat of being laid off with no warning, regardless of your performance at work.

Chaz wrote:I don't think the point was that after 2 years, she was supposed to have arrived. More that the trend seems to be treating employees as disposable commodities, with layoffs after a few years being very common. It's really hard to get invested in any job when you have the constant threat of being laid off with no warning, regardless of your performance at work.

I don't really think that's a new thing.

80's

Unemployment history

And that is an older chart. Unemployment is down to 6.6%

/cue but but underemployment!!!!! I don't think that's a new thing either.

Why think when you can research?

Vertical lines are every 2 years 1994-2014

U-5 Unemployed and marginally attached workers as a percent of the labor force and marg attached
* White horizontal lines are 5-12.5 at 2.5 increments



U-6 Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
* White horizontal lines are 7.5-17.5 at 2.5 increments



When I subtract the data, I get this:



That certainly looks like an increase in the difference, which is part-time for economic reasons.

Isgrimnur wrote:
That certainly looks like an increase in the difference, which is part-time for economic reasons.

Right. A whole 3% of the work force. After the biggest recession in 80 years. And it's improving.

Quick! Revolution!

It's certainly not going down nearly as quickly as unemployment. Great, we have more people with college experience and degrees working at the new gas stations and Starbucks that are popping up.

Median pay of young adults isn't keeping pace with inflation.

The median pay of millennial college graduates was $45,500 -- not that much more than the $43,663 that young adults made two decades ago and the $44,770 earnings of people ages 25 to 32 three decades earlier.

As the Pew report notes: "Young college graduates are having more difficulty landing work than earlier cohorts. They are more likely to be unemployed and have to search longer for a job than earlier generations of young adults." What's more, other research has shown that these hardships tend to shadow their careers as low starting pay means future earnings are likely to be depressed as well.

Inflation calculator

$43,663.00 in 1994 has the same buying power as: $68,634.29 in 2013.
$44,770.00 in 1984 has the same buying power as: $100,380.03 in 2013.

Isgrimnur wrote:Median pay of young adults isn't keeping pace with inflation.

The median pay of millennial college graduates was $45,500 -- not that much more than the $43,663 that young adults made two decades ago and the $44,770 earnings of people ages 25 to 32 three decades earlier.

As the Pew report notes: "Young college graduates are having more difficulty landing work than earlier cohorts. They are more likely to be unemployed and have to search longer for a job than earlier generations of young adults." What's more, other research has shown that these hardships tend to shadow their careers as low starting pay means future earnings are likely to be depressed as well.

Inflation calculator

$43,663.00 in 1994 has the same buying power as: $68,634.29 in 2013.
$44,770.00 in 1984 has the same buying power as: $100,380.03 in 2013.

The Pew report was already inflation adjusted. So, in other words, even during the Great Recession, millenials are ahead.

Isgrimnur wrote:Median pay of young adults isn't keeping pace with inflation.

The median pay of millennial college graduates was $45,500 -- not that much more than the $43,663 that young adults made two decades ago and the $44,770 earnings of people ages 25 to 32 three decades earlier.

As the Pew report notes: "Young college graduates are having more difficulty landing work than earlier cohorts. They are more likely to be unemployed and have to search longer for a job than earlier generations of young adults." What's more, other research has shown that these hardships tend to shadow their careers as low starting pay means future earnings are likely to be depressed as well.

Inflation calculator

$43,663.00 in 1994 has the same buying power as: $68,634.29 in 2013.
$44,770.00 in 1984 has the same buying power as: $100,380.03 in 2013.

I'd be curious to measure that against the types of jobs that recent grads are getting though. There are innumerable surveys that establish that millennials value quality of life and "enjoying" their jobs more highly than they value the bottom line income number, and the simple fact is that "fun/desirable" jobs (media/sports/entry-level dot com/pr/journalism/ and any "creative" field) that millennials all want pay less *because everyone wants those jobs and competition is fierce* and they make a willing choice to forego traditional fields like consulting/accounting/engineering/computer science for reasons of lifestyle.

I'm fine with that, but young adults can't have it both ways. The math doesn't work, and it never did. If you study stuff you like in college instead of what makes you an asset, you better be happy settling for less, or be ready to spin that work into something that looks employable.

Ah. Well, that's not nearly as bleak. But an overall 4.2% increase over 20 years isn't exactly anything to crow about. From the retirement thread, that's the equivalent of three years of annualized 1.5% growth. I, for one, don't consider that worth nearly the productivity growth that a company has been able to extract out of a new graduate today compared to one 20 years ago.

Isgrimnur wrote:Ah. Well, that's not nearly as bleak. But an overall 4.2% increase over 20 years isn't exactly anything to crow about. From the retirement thread, that's the equivalent of three years of annualized 1.5% growth. I, for one, don't consider that worth nearly the productivity growth that a company has been able to extract out of a new graduate today compared to one 20 years ago.

I give up.

Isgrimnur wrote:Ah. Well, that's not nearly as bleak. But an overall 4.2% increase over 20 years isn't exactly anything to crow about. From the retirement thread, that's the equivalent of three years of annualized 1.5% growth. I, for one, don't consider that worth nearly the productivity growth that a company has been able to extract out of a new graduate today compared to one 20 years ago.

Why do you think a graduate today should make any more than a graduate of yesteryear? I disagree that they are any more productive than they were back then compared to an experienced worker from among their respective peers.

We aren't comparing them to experienced personnel in this case.

In the period between 1980 and last year, inflation adjusted median household income has been highly variable, with about a $20k swing between top and bottom during that time. It's tied to the business cycles. So with a relatively static floor, we're seeing a lot of expansion in the experienced households.

And if the new grads aren't being more efficient, then maybe those industry members that hire out of colleges aren't working with the universities that feed them their new employees. They were still teaching COBOL at my school in the 90s because JCPenney needed them to feed their employment needs. They were certainly benefiting from students being taught skills to improve their year 1 efficiency without having to bear the costs of that education.

Isgrimnur wrote:We aren't comparing them to experienced personnel in this case.

In the period between 1980 and last year, inflation adjusted median household income has been highly variable, with about a $20k swing between top and bottom during that time. It's tied to the business cycles. So with a relatively static floor, we're seeing a lot of expansion in the experienced households.

Teach me to jump into the middle of something. What does median household income have to do with new grads? You made a statement that new grads getting 4.2% more than they did 20 years is not good. I disagreed because they are no more productive.

And if the new grads aren't being more efficient, then maybe those industry members that hire out of colleges aren't working with the universities that feed them their new employees. They were still teaching COBOL at my school in the 90s because JCPenney needed them to feed their employment needs. They were certainly benefiting from students being taught skills to improve their year 1 efficiency without having to bear the costs of that education.

Really? This means nothing. How much of the workforce falls into this bucket? I blew away the median income out of college because I majored in engineering - a high demand field. So what? Are some new grads more efficient due to special opportunities they had, sure! Is the majority of the workforce - no way.

Any analysis of median College educated pay without student debt is incomplete - even if median pay has slightly increased - student debt has increased drastically in the same period. FWIW those do appear to be inflation indexed results even though they don't specifically point it out. I have found other inflation injusted numbers that match up with the 90s figure. *Edit: Double checked again and not likely inflation adjusted. So I'll do the adjustment - it'd be $18000 in 2013 dollars for 1996 versus $30000 in 2013. That is a pretty hefty increase all the same.

If the average pay in the 1996 was 43000 and the average debt was $12000 or so$18000, now they are getting nearly the same salary but have debt of over $30000. And I haven't found it but I suspect we'll see higher overall debt. If the trend continues then median debt is going to eclipse median salary in only a few years. I can't see how any serious analysis can uncouple that.

Not saying it isn't worth the cost - it is almost mandatory to even get decent entry level jobs. However it is demonstrably worse for them. I can't see how one can ignore it. The household formation numbers aren't some bizarre aberration - they are the fore-shocks of a troubling problem that is only going to get worse. It literally went off the rails around the time of the financial crisis. There could be (and probably is to some extent) a linkage there but multiple surverys have shown debt / lack of career prospects have been a driver here too.

Allow me to retrench a bit.

Whether or not college graduates deserve to be making more than they used to is probably outside of the scope of any long-term research, as I doubt anyone is studying their productivity levels as compared to experienced workers. That pretty much makes any discussion along these lines, as it has been here, a matter of opinion and gut feeling, especially as I doubt that many of us have worked with sets of college graduates over that time frame to even have anecdotal evidence on which to base it.

The issues today is that, while a degree is still a better option in terms of opportunities and wage growth than not getting one, the curve for that group termed the Millennials over the data that can be compared to previous generations is flattened. It's going to take longer to get to where the previous generation did, with slower wage growth, deferred family choices, etc. And that's going to change the face of this and a lot of other countries.

In the early 80s, about 25% of 18-24 y.o.s went to college. Today, it's over 40%. That has three important effects on the analysis of the income of young adults.

1. Fewer of them are working, because more are going to school, so there will be a lot more non-workers or part-time workers than their used to be.
2. The productivity of those not going to college is probably lower, because the workers are drawn from a lower average portion of the ability distribution than they were in the past.
3. The productivity of those going to college is probably lower, too, because the works are drawn from a lower average portion of the ability distibution than they were in the past.

geezer wrote:If you study stuff you like in college instead of what makes you an asset

I feel like that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer hires Dominicans to make Cuban cigars...where talking about people, right?

I don't disagree with your point that their strategy will necessarily result in lower pay. That's the way the world works. I just cringe at the notion that children should grow up in this world with the goal to ignore being what they want to be in favor of turning themselves into an "asset" for someone else. It just sounds gross when you put it like that.

Seems like people would just sign up for Phoenix University and get the job they want.

Isgrimnur wrote:Ah. Well, that's not nearly as bleak. But an overall 4.2% increase over 20 years isn't exactly anything to crow about. From the retirement thread, that's the equivalent of three years of annualized 1.5% growth. I, for one, don't consider that worth nearly the productivity growth that a company has been able to extract out of a new graduate today compared to one 20 years ago.

I simultaneously don't understand your point.

If millennials are making 4.2% more, on average, than college graduates 20 and 30 years ago...WTF are they bitching about?

I would think that they SHOULD be making roughly the same, adjusted for inflation. I don't understand why you think they should be making more. They're worthless college grads, just like their forebears 20 to 30 years ago.

I guess I just expect that the overall value should have gone up, even at the start. But I suppose that the employment outlook based on being 25 with a degree over being a HS graduate kind of makes up for that fact.

I should have read more before responding. I can understand that the starting income to student debt ratio has these kids getting boned. College is a complete racket. Most college diplomas are completely worthless in terms of the knowledge you graduate with. And somehow they are the only way to get in the door now despite not preparing you for a job, at all.

geezer wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Median pay of young adults isn't keeping pace with inflation.

The median pay of millennial college graduates was $45,500 -- not that much more than the $43,663 that young adults made two decades ago and the $44,770 earnings of people ages 25 to 32 three decades earlier.

As the Pew report notes: "Young college graduates are having more difficulty landing work than earlier cohorts. They are more likely to be unemployed and have to search longer for a job than earlier generations of young adults." What's more, other research has shown that these hardships tend to shadow their careers as low starting pay means future earnings are likely to be depressed as well.

Inflation calculator

$43,663.00 in 1994 has the same buying power as: $68,634.29 in 2013.
$44,770.00 in 1984 has the same buying power as: $100,380.03 in 2013.

I'd be curious to measure that against the types of jobs that recent grads are getting though. There are innumerable surveys that establish that millennials value quality of life and "enjoying" their jobs more highly than they value the bottom line income number, and the simple fact is that "fun/desirable" jobs (media/sports/entry-level dot com/pr/journalism/ and any "creative" field) that millennials all want pay less *because everyone wants those jobs and competition is fierce* and they make a willing choice to forego traditional fields like consulting/accounting/engineering/computer science for reasons of lifestyle.

I'm fine with that, but young adults can't have it both ways. The math doesn't work, and it never did. If you study stuff you like in college instead of what makes you an asset, you better be happy settling for less, or be ready to spin that work into something that looks employable.

I find this... Suspect. Are accountants, engineers, and doctors are larger or smaller percent of the population than fifty years ago? It's easy to say hippy kids but there is an equal portion of kids who would have otherwise gone and worked labor or agriculture that are now the psychology majors. Using theatre as an example, as a teacher I have the median income, many of my friends are Union and thus are making solid living wages, both performance and technology etc. Marketability is part of it, but flood a market with any asset and individually they are all worth less. There are a limited number of jobs, more people with degrees and and less people willing to do trades be a use of forty years of everyone must go to college mantra.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

Chaz wrote:I don't think the point was that after 2 years, she was supposed to have arrived. More that the trend seems to be treating employees as disposable commodities, with layoffs after a few years being very common. It's really hard to get invested in any job when you have the constant threat of being laid off with no warning, regardless of your performance at work.

What you describe isn't a "new" normal; it's a return to normal. Millenials grew up during a period of unusual economic prosperity and economic *stability*. It was a period where "down" business cycles lasted as long as a news cycle. It was a period where many experienced rapid increases in salary, and the lucky got really sweet ownership stakes. It was a period where people changed jobs because they wanted to, not because they had to. It was a really fun fucking ride!!

But it's OVER! Welcome back to normal. You've always been an asset, a disposable commodity. Your performance only matters if the company makes money; if it doesn't you go down along with the slackers.

Here's a pro-tip for you guys. Don't get invested in a job. Get invested in a career. Get invested in *yourself*. You are the only one that cares about you. You are the only one who will manage and direct your career. Find a marketable skill, learn it, get some expertise, and market the fuck out of yourself! Once you've made the sale, then deliver big.

Also, there is no such thing as underemployment. There is simply starving or not.

Isgrimnur wrote:So instead of the idea that future generations should build on the past and have better lives, you're of the opinion that everyone should suffer as much or more than you did?

You directed the question at ND, but I'll answer.

YES! If you don't suffer, then how will you ever recognize this "better life" that you speak of?

That's a terrible plan to ask college educated millennials to ignore their self-interests and lack of long-term prospects because they should (1) be happy they're not starving yet and (2) deal with the new normal that existed before the Great Depression.

Might as well tell them to Eat Cake, while they know the Cake is a Lie.

Zarathud wrote:That's a terrible plan to ask college educated millennials to ignore their self-interests and lack of long-term prospects because they should (1) be happy they're not starving yet and (2) deal with the new normal that existed before the Great Depression.

Might as well tell them to Eat Cake, while they know the Cake is a Lie.

But... Capitalism!

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

Zarathud wrote:That's a terrible plan to ask college educated millennials to ignore their self-interests and lack of long-term prospects because they should (1) be happy they're not starving yet and (2) deal with the new normal that existed before the Great Depression.

Might as well tell them to Eat Cake, while they know the Cake is a Lie.

One should always be happy that they aren't starving because its not a given. This new normal that you speak of isn't new; it's the normal that existed prior to the 90's. Maybe you were lucky enough that you didn't notice.

As for "self-interests" and "long term prospects"? My plan is all about self-interest and creating your own prospects.

What's your plan?

Zarathud wrote:That's a terrible plan to ask college educated millennials to ignore their self-interests and lack of long-term prospects because they should (1) be happy they're not starving yet and (2) deal with the new normal that existed before the Great Depression.

Might as well tell them to Eat Cake, while they know the Cake is a Lie.

There's plenty of long-term prospects, but no one is going to present them to you. You have to go get them.

noxiousdog wrote:

Zarathud wrote:That's a terrible plan to ask college educated millennials to ignore their self-interests and lack of long-term prospects because they should (1) be happy they're not starving yet and (2) deal with the new normal that existed before the Great Depression.

Might as well tell them to Eat Cake, while they know the Cake is a Lie.

There's plenty of long-term prospects, but no one is going to present them to you. You have to go get them.

What leads to you assume that? Job growth / GDP growth in general has been below the norm. This has been the longest jobs recession since the Great Depression. We still don't have as many jobs as before the bubble. Population has been growing so just on the average there is likely less opportunity.

malchior wrote: What leads to you assume that? Job growth / GDP growth in general has been below the norm. This has been the longest jobs recession since the Great Depression. We still don't have as many jobs as before the bubble. Population has been growing so just on the average there is likely less opportunity.

According to Isg's chart, nearly 85% of people are fully employed. That's a good start.

2nd, there's a WHOLE LOT of people who are just content. They don't volunteer. They don't go interview. They don't try to get certifications or skills or industry specific learning. They don't go to trade shows. They don't network. If you're a go getter (and you want to be... there's nothing wrong with the former group if that's what they want) you're way ahead of all those that are content.

3rd, I've never been more secure in my job and skills as when I had to interview potential people to be a co-worker. Sweet jeesus. Of the seven candidates, 5 weren't qualified for anything, 1 could have been first line support, and 1 was actually qualified for the job. And these were supposed to be college grads with experience. At least that's what their resume said.

If you are good at what you do and you have a skill and you are willing to go look, you will be fairly compensated. 100% of the time? No, of course not. Will you be layed off? Probably. Will you find another job? Not if you sit around and whine about how unfair it is. You have to go do something. And that's no guarantee, but if 85% of the people do it, and you fancy yourself as above average, the probability is weighted in your favor.