on my way back from Austin......

[djAdvocate]

i read an article on how perceptions of work are changing.

when i was a teen, here is how work was generally viewed:

you got the best education you could, and got yourself on board with an employer that would allow you challenge and advancement for the rest of your life.  employers would never give you the sack as a cost saving measure, but would figure out a way to make enough money to pay for you, and you would all grow rich together.  in the OLD paradigm, the worker saw themselves in a symbiotic partnership with their bosses, which lead to a sense of empowerment and security.

teens now see work as fundamentally insecure.  because of that, they are unwilling to take educational risks, and they have no loyalty for employers at all, since it is clear that employers have no loyalty to them.  the bond of trust is broken.  the article also explored the phenomenon of "new homemakers".  if it is true that what people crave is a sense of control and certainty, then what could be more certain than pursuing one's own interests, no matter how uneconomical they might be?

what occurred to me is that this might be a rational explanation for declining workforce participation (WFP).  if people really do value certainty and control, and business can no longer offer that, then why should they NOT opt out?  if this is NOT the reason for declining WFP, what is?  Obama? 

[bimetalaupt]

you got the best education you could, and got yourself on board with an employer that would allow you challenge and advancement for the rest of your life. employers would never give you the sack as a cost saving measure, but would figure out a way to make enough money to pay for you, and you would all grow rich together. in the OLD paradigm, the worker saw themselves in a symbiotic partnership with their bosses, which lead to a sense of empowerment and security.
insert quote here

dancer,

I had my own firm and me for boss. I invested well and put into my retirement account as much as the law allowed.  Above that Walgreens gave me profit sharing and life insurance. After three degrees; what was important in my life?  Like Dr. George Day's on Strategic Planning said; Just after you analysis you set your own GOALS! YES, That was the first statement I made, My goal was to work for myself. I also noted the swing in MBA's from working for a Money Machine on Wall Street for someone who does not care to starting your own firm with a boss that cares, yourself!!

Just a thought,

BiMetalAuPt

PS UT-Austin PharmB 1972!!!

[resolution]

That probably has something to do with why members of Gen Y are so much more likely to want to start their own business than previous generations.

[jkapp]

What is WFP?

[Tennesseer]

jkapp - My guess would be work force planning.

[resolution]

Should be work force participation, the implication being that some of the younger generation has given up work before they started.

I disagree with the premise that the younger generation is unwilling to take educational risks and that they are opting out. This generation is more highly educated than any that came before them. I read an article last week about how some college educated are unable to find jobs that use their degrees, and they are pushing the high school educated out of the better paying non-degree jobs. This is pushing the high school graduates down to the lesser paid jobs that the drop outs used to get, and the drop outs are pushed out of the labor force.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 17, 2014 6:36:55 GMT -5 resolution said:

That probably has something to do with why members of Gen Y are so much more likely to want to start their own business than previous generations.

it is the WHY of that that interests me.  it is the WHY that drives everything.  in this case, what is the WHY of "people want to be entrepreneurs rather than employees"?

i mean, look at me.  i worked for an F500 company for 2 years.  i quit.  within 5 years that DIVISION had been sold THREE TIMES.  it had moved from SF to IOWA (nein, danke) and it had shed 80% of it's workforce.

workers are 1's and 0's now.  is it not in the self interest of every worker to account for that, and consider it at the first opportunity to NOT PARTICIPATE (or go into business for themselves)?  i know i would.

and if that is true, then declining WFP might simply be a rational response to declining desirability/security/meaninfulness of work.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 17, 2014 9:33:25 GMT -5 jkapp said:

What is WFP?

workforce participation.  i will edit the OP.

[happyhoix]

and if that is true, then declining WFP might simply be a rational response to declining desirability/security/meaninfulness of work.

I think that's part of it.

I'm old enough I can remember when any old college degree would land you a job. English or History majors could get hired on as business execs. Just having that diploma was enough to guarantee you a place in the middle class.

Not anymore. A lot of my son's friends (25 years old) got business degrees that meant nothing. Most landed jobs that did not require a college degree, and didn't pay more for a college degree (although they probably bumped out other kids without college degrees from those positions). 

The idea that you could begin at an entry level position and work your way up the ladder seems to be dead. Owning your own business seems a lot more attractive than working for low wages at a company that probably won't promote you and doesn't give two shits about you.

The American Dream of starting on the bottom floor and rising to the top due to your own hard work is dead.

[bimetalaupt]

Mar 17, 2014 9:38:21 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

jkapp - My guess would be work force planning.

As George Day would say. You need to RE-engineer as you have 200% the size of glass you need for the job.

Just a thought,

BiMetalAuPt  

[jkapp]

Mar 17, 2014 13:12:27 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

and if that is true, then declining WFP might simply be a rational response to declining desirability/security/meaninfulness of work.

I think that's part of it.

I'm old enough I can remember when any old college degree would land you a job. English or History majors could get hired on as business execs. Just having that diploma was enough to guarantee you a place in the middle class.

Not anymore. A lot of my son's friends (25 years old) got business degrees that meant nothing. Most landed jobs that did not require a college degree, and didn't pay more for a college degree (although they probably bumped out other kids without college degrees from those positions). 

The idea that you could begin at an entry level position and work your way up the ladder seems to be dead. Owning your own business seems a lot more attractive than working for low wages at a company that probably won't promote you and doesn't give two shits about you.

The American Dream of starting on the bottom floor and rising to the top due to your own hard work is dead.

Oh that rising to the top from entry level thing was dead before I even graduated back in the 90's...today, its get an entry level job, learn some skills, move to another job that will teach you new skills and pay more, etc, etc. It is why 401ks are so much better than pensions in these times...you don't feel stuck at a job because you're vested in the pension.  Personally, I prefer to work at a new company every few years...it adds variety to life.  I would love to find a job that I could stand working, and even be excited to go to, for ten or twenty years...but a job like that is very rare (at least in my field)

I learned not to stay at one place too long as soon as I received my first raise at a professional job!  Why would I settle for the 3% raise at my current job when this other job is willing to pay me 11% more as a starting salary?

workforce participation. i will edit the OP.

Ah, that makes more sense. I googled WFP and got "Welfare Food Program" and didn't know if I missed something in the news about it

I have to wonder if the drop in WFP is also due to a deep deeling of disenfranchisement in the younger crowd. This recession has lasted a long time now, and if they've been searching for their first job for a good portion of that time, I could see how they might feel like giving up. That's one issue with colleges is that they practically say "get this degree and you'll have a job in that field before you graduate." I'm waiting to see this type of over-selling backfiring on colleges in the very near future...the college institutions cannot back up their outrageous claims with the numbers of unemployed these days. There are still some industries needing applicants, however, once students start filtering toward that industry, those positions will fill up quick and be gone again...

[djAdvocate]

Mar 17, 2014 16:02:58 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Mar 17, 2014 13:12:27 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I think that's part of it.

I'm old enough I can remember when any old college degree would land you a job. English or History majors could get hired on as business execs. Just having that diploma was enough to guarantee you a place in the middle class.

Not anymore. A lot of my son's friends (25 years old) got business degrees that meant nothing. Most landed jobs that did not require a college degree, and didn't pay more for a college degree (although they probably bumped out other kids without college degrees from those positions). 

The idea that you could begin at an entry level position and work your way up the ladder seems to be dead. Owning your own business seems a lot more attractive than working for low wages at a company that probably won't promote you and doesn't give two shits about you.

The American Dream of starting on the bottom floor and rising to the top due to your own hard work is dead.

Oh that rising to the top from entry level thing was dead before I even graduated back in the 90's...today, its get an entry level job, learn some skills, move to another job that will teach you new skills and pay more, etc, etc. It is why 401ks are so much better than pensions in these times...you don't feel stuck at a job because you're vested in the pension.  Personally, I prefer to work at a new company every few years...it adds variety to life.  I would love to find a job that I could stand working, and even be excited to go to, for ten or twenty years...but a job like that is very rare (at least in my field)

I learned not to stay at one place too long as soon as I received my first raise at a professional job!  Why would I settle for the 3% raise at my current job when this other job is willing to pay me 11% more as a starting salary?

workforce participation. i will edit the OP.

Ah, that makes more sense. I googled WFP and got "Welfare Food Program" and didn't know if I missed something in the news about it

I have to wonder if the drop in WFP is also due to a deep deeling of disenfranchisement in the younger crowd. This recession has lasted a long time now, and if they've been searching for their first job for a good portion of that time, I could see how they might feel like giving up. That's one issue with colleges is that they practically say "get this degree and you'll have a job in that field before you graduate." I'm waiting to see this type of over-selling backfiring on colleges in the very near future...the college institutions cannot back up their outrageous claims with the numbers of unemployed these days. There are still some industries needing applicants, however, once students start filtering toward that industry, those positions will fill up quick and be gone again...

here is the thing, jkapp- we are looking at this like the blind men and the elephant.  people talk about WFP as an emerging problem, but the fact is that WFP among MEN has been falling since the end of WW2.  that's SEVENTY YEARS for anyone without a calculator.  it was 87% in 1944, and it is now 70%.  the decline has been slower during times of growth (it only fell 2% in the 90's), and much steeper in times of recession, but it has been basically going downhill 0.3% per year for two generations.

what raised the alarms is that WFP among women had masked the decline by going from 33% in 1944 to 60% in 1997.  it then remained there for ten years, and then declined in the most recent recession.

in Germany, WFP among men bottomed out at 65% and has been rising since a few years ago.  it is hard to say whether or not it will hold, but i think that we are entering a new era where global demand, affluence, and shifting priorities will determine WFP, rather than basic economic factors.  in other words, we have become, in the first world, a society that can make rational choices between a conventional job and selling stuff on EBay, Etsy, or ......

my main question is this: is the decline in WFP due to lack of interesting prospects in the work place, and the failure to reward attainment?  i think that is very much part of it.  if you know you are going to only get 3% for doing a good job, and inflation eats up 3.5%, you are basically being given a kick in the balls, not a reward.  that is why every employee that works here gets a statutory 3.5% raise no matter how they are doing.  if they are doing well enough to work here, they are doing well enough to keep up with inflation.

i am starting to think the WFP is utterly meaningless, and certainly beyond the scope of what Obama, Bush or any other president can help with, unless you can think of some magical way that a president can make jobs more interesting, challenging, and secure.

[bimetalaupt]

Pool Dancer;

i am starting to think the WFP is utterly meaningless, and certainly beyond the scope of what Obama, Bush or any other president can help with, unless you can think of some magical way that a president can make jobs more interesting, challenging, and secure.

WE HAVE 200% THE AMOUNT OF GLASS WE NEED.

Well, We have now supper systems. Food for thought and body. Remember when it took 90% of the population to feed the nation.  We are doing more with less. More food with less toxic chemicals.  We are seeing challenging growth, life and mind with better more natural food.  We have better life with more productive use of time and productive use of assets.  AS George DAY said..About diffustion and Adoption of "World Class Concepts and products". We will need to work better chemistry into our Suppers of life.  Supper for the brain of super foods and lifelong  learning.

Just a thought,

BiMetalAuPt 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 17, 2014 18:47:37 GMT -5 bimetalaupt said:

Pool Dancer;

i am starting to think the WFP is utterly meaningless, and certainly beyond the scope of what Obama, Bush or any other president can help with, unless you can think of some magical way that a president can make jobs more interesting, challenging, and secure.

WE HAVE 200% THE AMOUNT OF GLASS WE NEED.

Well, We have now supper systems. Food for thought and body. Remember when it took 90% of the population to feed the nation.  We are doing more with less. More food with less toxic chemicals.  We are seeing challenging growth, life and mind with better more natural food.  We have better life with more productive use of time and productive use of assets.  AS George DAY said..About diffustion and Adoption of "World Class Concepts and products". We will need to work better chemistry into our Suppers of life.  Supper for the brain of super foods and lifelong  learning.

Just a thought,

BiMetalAuPt 

i think there is a rational alternative to killing yourself working 80 hours a week, even in a high paying job.

living simpler.

enjoying yourself.

what is the value of that?

[EVT1]

Mar 17, 2014 11:02:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 17, 2014 6:36:55 GMT -5 resolution said:

That probably has something to do with why members of Gen Y are so much more likely to want to start their own business than previous generations.

it is the WHY of that that interests me.  it is the WHY that drives everything.  in this case, what is the WHY of "people want to be entrepreneurs rather than employees"?

i mean, look at me.  i worked for an F500 company for 2 years.  i quit.  within 5 years that DIVISION had been sold THREE TIMES.  it had moved from SF to IOWA (nein, danke) and it had shed 80% of it's workforce.

workers are 1's and 0's now.  is it not in the self interest of every worker to account for that, and consider it at the first opportunity to NOT PARTICIPATE (or go into business for themselves)?  i know i would.

and if that is true, then declining WFP might simply be a rational response to declining desirability/security/meaninfulness of work.

That's real easy- they have figured out that employers consider them a necessary evil rather than a team member (no matter what their stupid uniform says on it). The pensions are gone- and with that went any loyalty.  Unions are dying, right to work is the new paradigm, and the bottom line and how it effects the top management payout and stock price is all that matters- small business owners not withstanding- and of course not all public corporations either.

Look at the popular TV show Shark Tank- they just love to show their 'success stories' and every one of them shows the entrepreneur having millions in sales on the horizon and then a shot of their new employees hard at work- and of course no one is interested in them so it is just a quick shot.  It's the American dream- to be a millionaire company owner and sit back and collect while your 1's and 0's carry the load. 

Boiled down it is the old saying- 'you will never get rich working for someone else' updated to modern times to 'you are probably going to starve working for someone else and have no future' so why bother with them in the first place.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 17, 2014 21:38:09 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Mar 17, 2014 11:02:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is the WHY of that that interests me.  it is the WHY that drives everything.  in this case, what is the WHY of "people want to be entrepreneurs rather than employees"?

i mean, look at me.  i worked for an F500 company for 2 years.  i quit.  within 5 years that DIVISION had been sold THREE TIMES.  it had moved from SF to IOWA (nein, danke) and it had shed 80% of it's workforce.

workers are 1's and 0's now.  is it not in the self interest of every worker to account for that, and consider it at the first opportunity to NOT PARTICIPATE (or go into business for themselves)?  i know i would.

and if that is true, then declining WFP might simply be a rational response to declining desirability/security/meaninfulness of work.

That's real easy- they have figured out that employers consider them a necessary evil rather than a team member (no matter what their stupid uniform says on it). The pensions are gone- and with that went any loyalty.  Unions are dying, right to work is the new paradigm, and the bottom line and how it effects the top management payout and stock price is all that matters- small business owners not withstanding- and of course not all public corporations either.

Look at the popular TV show Shark Tank- they just love to show their 'success stories' and every one of them shows the entrepreneur having millions in sales on the horizon and then a shot of their new employees hard at work- and of course no one is interested in them so it is just a quick shot.  It's the American dream- to be a millionaire company owner and sit back and collect while your 1's and 0's carry the load. 

Boiled down it is the old saying- 'you will never get rich working for someone else' updated to modern times to 'you are probably going to starve working for someone else and have no future' so why bother with them in the first place.

this is pretty much how i see it: who the hell wants to "participate" in someone else's success?  for 150 years, the bottom 99% had upward mobility, just like the top.  that took a drastic turn in the 70's.  if kids are more nihilistic now, it is probably because their parents dreams of a better life were shattered by the new paradigm.  it might not be laziness that is driving WFP down.  it might be gnostics.

[EVT1]

I would participate in someone else's success if I thought the fruits of such an endeavor would be spread around- and in a lot of small companies it does. 

But if you look at it from the current generation- that looks at their parents that are collecting pensions, have health care, and other things that companies no longer offer- it is easy to see why they told corporate America to shove that gold watch up their ass. 

What is really telling is the average length people keep jobs now- there is zero company loyalty- and I suspect with that is (to steal from office space) some people are only going to work hard enough to not get fired- and given a new opportunity will leave.  What's good for the goose is now good for the gander- companies wanted to be able to fire people at will- well now employees like to quit at will.  For once the law helps these folks that would otherwise be black-balled. 

Maybe I am a conservative on this- but I liked the old days of negotiation and employment contracts- not today's world of take it or leave it.
And corporate America wonders why fast food employees do stupid shit like bathing in the sink or worse.  THEY DON"T CARE- because they learned that by the shitty wage you provide that you don't care either.

Stopped by Mapco on the way home form work- around 6pm- had I think 8 people in line with one cashier- I left.  Another new paradigm- it is called fuck the customer- scan your own items and bag it yourself because fuck you that's why.  It was plenty bad when the employees were 1's and 0's- well, now the customers are too.

[Deleted]

More to do with access to the marketplace and massively reduced barriers to entry IMHO. You can advertise for free (facebook), you can build a blog for free and build up SEOs with regular postings using key search terms. You can provide a service or product remotely using download functionality. You can build apps and market them through app-stores. You can write and e-publish books. You can tweet and selfie or YouTube your way to notoriety.

20 years ago there were a lot more barriers to reaching your market and delivering your product.

[resolution]

I think you guys are romanticizing small businesses more than is justified. A small business owner can be just as much or more of a prick than a large corporation. At least the large corporations have retention and advancement policies that are based on knowing they need quality people at some level to function.

DH interviewed last week at a small business where the guy was going on and on about loyalty and he wants skilled craftsmen to work there for 20 years, he doesn't want someone to just stay for a few years and move on. But at the same time he is saying no raises or bonuses, 50-60 hour work weeks, and 1 week of vacation.

When DH tried to negotiate the starting pay, the owner said he has guys that have been in that job 20 years that make what he was offering DH to start. Really? He just told DH that there is absolutely no room for growth, even after 20 years? Take it or leave it.  Fortunately we are in a position to leave it.

[Phoenix84]

I didn't read the article, so I'll just go by your post.

I'm not sure if it's true that teens are unwilling to take educational risks.  It seems to me that college enrollment is as high as ever, and more kids are going to college than ever before.  I'm not sure what you mean by kids these days being unwilling to take educational risks.

I do concur that the overall attitude is shifting in the direction of not being loyal to your employer.  As you said, it's a natural consequence of the volitility of the workforce.

What's a "new homemaker?"  In theory it might make sense, if someone was craving power and control, to not participate in the workforce.  But at the end of the day, people gotta eat and pay the rent.  So I don't see how you can really escape it.  Most people on social programs are on it for a few years, not for 40+ years, the average length of a career.  So I'm not convinced this phenomona is a cause of declining WFP.  I thought that was mostly due to changing age demographics, and companies unwilling to hire the long term unemployed.

[happyhoix]

I'm not sure if it's true that teens are unwilling to take educational risks.

I think the current crop of HS students are seeing kids 5 and 10 years older than they are struggling a low paying jobs while trying to pay back significant student loan debt, and they're becoming less willing to take on all that debt for jobs that aren't there.

In a way I think that's an excellent thing - if you want to become a social worker and know that your maximum salary will never be that high, you need to make sure you don't spend 100,000 at a premium college to get that social work degree. At the same time, though, I think it encourages kids to stick with a two year degree or maybe skip college completely in order to avoid all that SL debt.

What's a "new homemaker?"

I've read a little bit about this. Young women who went to college and wanted a professional career getting discouraged by the low wages/boring work/lack of advancement and deciding to be SAHM's that earn money through what they do to save the family money, like learning to sew clothes, bake bread, raise chickens, etc. Good for the individual woman, but if you have a whole generation of women who decide full time work outside the home is unrewarding financially, boring, and unfullfilling, that's more of a problem.

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2014 13:12:27 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

and if that is true, then declining WFP might simply be a rational response to declining desirability/security/meaninfulness of work.

I think that's part of it.

I'm old enough I can remember when any old college degree would land you a job. English or History majors could get hired on as business execs. Just having that diploma was enough to guarantee you a place in the middle class.

Not anymore. A lot of my son's friends (25 years old) got business degrees that meant nothing. Most landed jobs that did not require a college degree, and didn't pay more for a college degree (although they probably bumped out other kids without college degrees from those positions). 

The idea that you could begin at an entry level position and work your way up the ladder seems to be dead. Owning your own business seems a lot more attractive than working for low wages at a company that probably won't promote you and doesn't give two shits about you.

The American Dream of starting on the bottom floor and rising to the top due to your own hard work is dead.

dead?

no

changed?    

yes


money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/

there are still great companies to work for....and still great environments to work in

yes....managers have to look at employees as more than Jim or Bob now.....

they are a cost, and Jim and Bob have to produce enough that their value to the company outweighs their cost to the company

i dont see that going back.....too many companies left dead weight just hang around before.....

No one can afford to do that anymore

The key is to find someone above you that will take an interest in you.....and you do that through effort, networking, and social skills

It is the way i rose up.....and the way i have subordinates climbing the ladder now

Probably easier in this size company.....dont think i would work for anything bigger than a few hundred people anymore

then politics more than performance can make the difference.....and i am not a great politician

[Phoenix84]

Well, I still see colleges brimming with young people, so until I see college enrollment declining, I'll take any indication of young people not wanting to take educational risks with a grain of salt.

I can see how the tough economy and difficulty in launching could lead some women to be homemakers instead of workers.  Similar to how many baby boomers left the workforce after layoffs and being unable to find work.  Personally I don't see most women of my generation leaving to be SAHM's in droves, but I can see how you might see an uptick in that demographic.

Most of the women I know still work though.  But maybe the "new homemakers" are a bit younger than my generation.

[Value Buy]

I forget where I read this, but  Bill Gates had an interesting list of jobs that will disappear due to robotization.

A ton of entry level jobs are going to disappear.

WFP is an interesting thread. This was the backbone of the country in the last century.

Time stand still for no one.

I do not have a clue what the answer for the country is.

Good thread dj

[djAdvocate]

Mar 18, 2014 0:22:38 GMT -5 @lillylake said:

More to do with access to the marketplace and massively reduced barriers to entry IMHO. You can advertise for free (facebook), you can build a blog for free and build up SEOs with regular postings using key search terms. You can provide a service or product remotely using download functionality. You can build apps and market them through app-stores. You can write and e-publish books. You can tweet and selfie or YouTube your way to notoriety.

20 years ago there were a lot more barriers to reaching your market and delivering your product.

when i said gnostics, i was referring to this as well.  there was a lot of mystery about business once upon a time.  you went to school and got a degree to figure it out part way, an the school of hard knocks taught you the rest. 

now, movies like "The Social Network" teach you the rest, and you might rationally choose not to graduate.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 18, 2014 7:43:14 GMT -5 resolution said:

I think you guys are romanticizing small businesses more than is justified. A small business owner can be just as much or more of a prick than a large corporation. At least the large corporations have retention and advancement policies that are based on knowing they need quality people at some level to function.

true.  you might not even get the opportunity to work for a small business, either, depending on your talents and your geography.

DH interviewed last week at a small business where the guy was going on and on about loyalty and he wants skilled craftsmen to work there for 20 years, he doesn't want someone to just stay for a few years and move on. But at the same time he is saying no raises or bonuses, 50-60 hour work weeks, and 1 week of vacation.

well, he is offering a bag half full of rotten, just like most big businesses, imo.  loyalty to a bad situation is no better than no loyalty, imo.

When DH tried to negotiate the starting pay, the owner said he has guys that have been in that job 20 years that make what he was offering DH to start. Really? He just told DH that there is absolutely no room for growth, even after 20 years? Take it or leave it.  Fortunately we are in a position to leave it.

yeah, i have a guy who is about to quit, because i started him at $15 sweeping floors, and six months later he thinks he should be making $25/hr welding.  i don't need another welder.  i need a floor sweeper.  when he signed up, he knew that.  it is amazing what people forget.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 18, 2014 8:37:37 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

What's a "new homemaker?"  In theory it might make sense, if someone was craving power and control, to not participate in the workforce.  But at the end of the day, people gotta eat and pay the rent.  So I don't see how you can really escape it. 

really?  my whole point in putting this up for discussion is that i DO see it.  very vividly.

Most people on social programs are on it for a few years, not for 40+ years, the average length of a career.  So I'm not convinced this phenomona is a cause of declining WFP.  I thought that was mostly due to changing age demographics, and companies unwilling to hire the long term unemployed.

no, it turns out that the demographics part is only 30% of it.  i learned that by discussing the issue on this board.  the rest is something else.

ibid

[djAdvocate]

Mar 18, 2014 9:17:25 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I'm not sure if it's true that teens are unwilling to take educational risks.

I think the current crop of HS students are seeing kids 5 and 10 years older than they are struggling a low paying jobs while trying to pay back significant student loan debt, and they're becoming less willing to take on all that debt for jobs that aren't there.

In a way I think that's an excellent thing - if you want to become a social worker and know that your maximum salary will never be that high, you need to make sure you don't spend 100,000 at a premium college to get that social work degree. At the same time, though, I think it encourages kids to stick with a two year degree or maybe skip college completely in order to avoid all that SL debt.

What's a "new homemaker?"

I've read a little bit about this. Young women who went to college and wanted a professional career getting discouraged by the low wages/boring work/lack of advancement and deciding to be SAHM's that earn money through what they do to save the family money, like learning to sew clothes, bake bread, raise chickens, etc. Good for the individual woman, but if you have a whole generation of women who decide full time work outside the home is unrewarding financially, boring, and unfullfilling, that's more of a problem.

sounds like a job as a secretary, right?  or a waitress?  look, i am not advocating for SAHMs, but i can certainly see why they would do it. 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 18, 2014 9:44:01 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

Mar 17, 2014 13:12:27 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I think that's part of it.

I'm old enough I can remember when any old college degree would land you a job. English or History majors could get hired on as business execs. Just having that diploma was enough to guarantee you a place in the middle class.

Not anymore. A lot of my son's friends (25 years old) got business degrees that meant nothing. Most landed jobs that did not require a college degree, and didn't pay more for a college degree (although they probably bumped out other kids without college degrees from those positions). 

The idea that you could begin at an entry level position and work your way up the ladder seems to be dead. Owning your own business seems a lot more attractive than working for low wages at a company that probably won't promote you and doesn't give two shits about you.

The American Dream of starting on the bottom floor and rising to the top due to your own hard work is dead.

dead?

no

changed?    

yes


money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/best-companies/

there are still great companies to work for....and still great environments to work in

sure.  but here is my point.

my wife's dad worked for IBM.  they had cradle to grave employment, outstanding pay and benefits, and treated people as if they were creative, growing individuals: with dignity and respect. 

who does that now?  anyone?

[djAdvocate]

Mar 18, 2014 10:14:55 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Well, I still see colleges brimming with young people, so until I see college enrollment declining, I'll take any indication of young people not wanting to take educational risks with a grain of salt.

this was my fault probably.  when i said "educational risks", i meant taking risks that had certain reward.  now, i think kids go to school because they are afraid that they won't even GET a job if they don't.  that is not the same thing as why i went to school.  i went to expand my mind, and to not have to do scut work.  now, even college grads are doing scut work.  that is the issue.

I can see how the tough economy and difficulty in launching could lead some women to be homemakers instead of workers.  Similar to how many baby boomers left the workforce after layoffs and being unable to find work.  Personally I don't see most women of my generation leaving to be SAHM's in droves, but I can see how you might see an uptick in that demographic.

well, it is absolutely happening: and here is the interesting thing: it has been happening for about 17 years.

Most of the women I know still work though.  But maybe the "new homemakers" are a bit younger than my generation.

precisely.