Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Those Who "Give Up"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Those Who "Give Up"

    August 4, 2009
    Income Loss Persists Long After Layoffs

    By MICHAEL LUO

    RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. — Chuck Dettman said he had not really considered the notion back in 2001 that he and his friends in a job-search support group would never recover from being laid off.

    “I think there’s maybe only one or two that have been successful in making what they did then,” Mr. Dettman said.

    Taken together, their struggles are stark illustration that it can take years for a worker’s earnings to bounce back after a layoff, and that it can take even longer for a layoff during a recession. Economists, in fact, say income losses for workers who are let go in a recession can persist for as long as two decades, a depressing prognosis for the several-million people who have lost their jobs in the current recession.

    “On average, most workers do not recover their old annual earnings,” said Till von Wachter, an economics professor at Columbia University, who recently completed a working paper with two other economists that examined the long-term earnings of workers who lost their jobs in the recession of the early 1980s.

    Mr. Wachter studied workers who had been with their companies at least three years, then lost their jobs when their employers reduced their work forces by at least 30 percent. He found that even 15 to 20 years later, most on average had not returned to their old wage levels. He also concluded that their earnings were about 15 percent to 20 percent less than they would have been had they not been laid off.

    The largest wage losses are typically for workers who had long tenures at their previous companies. The stability often allows them to build up skills specific to their employers or their industries and to accrue corresponding wage increases, but those skills can be worth less to other companies.
    Older workers’ wages usually slide more than those of younger workers.
    Those with college degrees do slightly better than those without.

    The networking group that Mr. Dettman helped form in 2001 was initially made up mostly of former colleagues of his from Pratt & Whitney, the jet engine maker, which laid off hundreds at the end of 2000 in a restructuring. The group members were all in their 40s and 50s.

    Interviews with seven early members of the group found that many had been forced to drastically change their lifestyles to cope with lower incomes. Several have struggled with long bouts of unemployment. Some were laid off several times. Many have been forced to lean heavily on spouses’ incomes.

    Mr. Dettman, who was a business analyst and earned just over $50,000 after nearly 20 years with Pratt, spent almost four years looking for work, exhausting his savings and his 401(k). He finally took a job as the chief financial officer of a drug and alcohol detox clinic run by his daughter and his son-in-law, getting paid three-quarters of what he used to make, without benefits. He quit two years ago to start his own Christian counseling service but has yet to draw a paycheck.

    Jim Clark, 60, a former engineering assistant at Pratt who made about $49,000 a year, went back to school to earn a bachelor’s degree in organizational management but has still not found full-time paid employment. He now scrapes together about $20,000 a year as a cantor at his Roman Catholic parish on Sundays and by singing at weddings and funerals.

    Bill Sankey, 62, a computer programmer, earned about $55,000 a year for a company that owned Pizza Hut franchises, before being laid off in 2001 when the company was sold. Since then, Mr. Sankey has been hired and laid off twice. At one point, he was making more than he did before his 2001 layoff. At his latest job, he is back to making about the same, though with inflation factored in, he is probably making less.

    “I really haven’t progressed anywhere financially in eight years,” he said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/mem/sendtophone.html

  • #2
    Re: Those Who "Give Up"

    that is... bar none... the most depressing article i've ever read here.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Those Who "Give Up"

      This is an old issue that many don't know about, its even worse for many who are graduating now or already have graduated in the last year or so. People end up being pretty much "stuck" in the same role/earning capability for life.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/bu...cene.html?_r=2

      Consider the evidence uncovered by Paul Oyer, a Stanford Business School economist, in his recent paper, "The Making of an Investment Banker: Macroeconomic Shocks, Career Choice and Lifetime Income" (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 12059, February 2006. http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/oyer/wp/mba.pdf). Dr. Oyer tracked the careers of Stanford Business School graduates in the classes of 1960 to 1997.

      He found that the performance of the stock market in the two years the students were in business school played a major role in whether they took an investment banking job upon graduating and, because such jobs pay extremely well, upon the average salary of the class. That is no surprise. The startling thing about the data was his finding that the relative income differences among classes remained, even as much as 20 years later.

      The Stanford class of 1988, for example, entered the job market just after the market crash of 1987. Banks were not hiring, and so average wages for that class were lower than for the class of 1987 or for later classes that came out after the market recovered. Even a decade or more later, the class of 1988 was still earning significantly less. They missed the plum jobs right out of the gate and never recovered.

      And as economists have looked at the economy of the last two decades, they have found that Dr. Oyer's findings hold for more than just high-end M.B.A. students on Wall Street. They are also true for college students. A recent study, by the economists Philip Oreopoulos, Till Von Wachter and Andrew Heisz, "The Short- and Long-Term Career Effects of Graduating in a Recession" (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 12159, April 2006. http://www.columbia.edu/~vw2112/papers/nber_draft_1.pdf), finds that the setback in earnings for college students who graduate in a recession stays with them for the next 10 years.

      These data confirm that people essentially cannot close the wage gap by working their way up the company hierarchy. While they may work their way up, the people who started above them do, too. They don't catch up. The recession graduates who actually do catch up tend to be the ones who forget about rising up the ladder and, instead, jump ship to other employers.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Those Who "Give Up"

        To me it is version 2.0(or is it about 2.5.5?) of the blue color job destruction that occurred in the 70's/80's in the steel and lower order manufacturing industries.

        As it had a lower impact on the university educated and more geographically mobile, it was easy to say "retrain/upskill" and find employment in new, emerging industries...as if it were somehow easy to move from making steel on 3rd shift in Pittsburg to making integrated circuits for Intel in California for Joe 6 Pack.

        I think the recession in the early 90's and the white-ish collar job culling soon thereafter with secretaries being replaced with PCs were either too small or too quick for most to feel the pain and SEE the train heading their way from way down the track.

        Even with the more recent and highly visible attrition of white-ish collar cubicle work being off-sourced hasn't really awakened the masses of white-ish collar workers to the prospect that they are exactly in the same situation as their blue collar predecessors, but worse...they have even less savings.....more debt.....and quite possibly worse long-term prospects.

        University "upskilling" isn't exactly the answer........a degree costs several times more than 20 years ago...and pays about the same...return on investment is poor at best.

        It IS a depressing article........I feel for anyone who doesn't yet see.

        Lower quality of life, lower standard of living for many.......diminishing expectations for themselves and their children will become more common.

        A recent Oprah episode "being happy with less"(somehow making you more enlightened) broadcast down her seemed to be working on several levels....I'm almost of the belief she is the 21st Century Goebbels.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Those Who "Give Up"

          Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post

          It IS a depressing article........I feel for anyone who doesn't yet see.

          Lower quality of life, lower standard of living for many.......diminishing expectations for themselves and their children will become more common.

          A recent Oprah episode "being happy with less"(somehow making you more enlightened) broadcast down her seemed to be working on several levels....I'm almost of the belief she is the 21st Century Goebbels.
          While not a huge Oprah fan. The question of what DOES make me happy, is a good one. Is there a way to look at money so that is does not play such a huge role in my life? That my self worth is not so wrapped up in my salary and living standard. Can I use the moment of conflict in myself over this question too SEE what really is important?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Those Who "Give Up"

            Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
            ...Lower quality of life, lower standard of living for many.......diminishing expectations for themselves and their children will become more common.

            A recent Oprah episode "being happy with less"(somehow making you more enlightened) broadcast down her seemed to be working on several levels....I'm almost of the belief she is the 21st Century Goebbels.
            That first item depends greatly on how one defines quality in their own life...and how much they think they control it [most people have more ability to control that than they think].

            Small personal anecdote: Many years ago my wife and I decided to sell the second car - something completely unheard of in our circle of friends and co-workers. At the time we lived in the inner city, I walked to my office downtown, and although we could easily "afford" two [or even three or four] vehicles, we decided life would be simpler with one. What we didn't expect was the other postive changes it made in our life and marriage. We organized our local trips to combine errands, we had to actually talk to each other about day-to-day routine stuff and make choices about how we spent our weekends, and we spent more time doing things together...all because there was only one car.

            I'm not trying to dismiss or make light of people in dire straits trying to put food on the table...but some of the changes that the people in this article have made have, hopefully, been motivated by an understanding of what represents quality of life to them...within the choices they have available to them.

            This sounds like a cliche, but honestly when I look around me at the people I know, in general the ones with the most money seem to have the most messed up lives...
            Last edited by GRG55; August 05, 2009, 08:30 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Those Who "Give Up"

              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
              That first item depends greatly on how one defines quality in their own life...and how much they think they control it [most people have more ability to control that than they think].

              Small personal anecdote: Many years ago my wife and I decided to sell the second car - something completely unheard of in our circle of friends and co-workers. At the time we lived in the inner city, I walked to my office downtown, and although we could easily "afford" two [or even three or four] vehicles, we decided life would be simpler with one. What we didn't expect was the other postive changes it made in our life and marriage. We organized our local trips to combine errands, we had to actually talk to each other about day-to-day routine stuff and make choices about how we spent our weekends, and we spent more time doing things together...all because there was only one car.

              I'm not trying to dismiss or make light of people in dire straits trying to put food on the table...but some of the changes that the people in this article have made have, hopefully, been motivated by an understanding of what represents quality of life to them...within the choices they have available to them.

              This sounds like a cliche, but honestly when I look around me at the people I know, in general the ones with the most money seem to have the most messed up lives...
              I heartily agree. Over the years I've known a number of people who have made quite a lot of dough and underwritten their childrens' finances, with nearly universal disastrous results. "Kids" 25 to 40 never working a legitimate job, alcohol, drugs, crime... a real mess. Usually involves a few grandchildren as well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                That first item depends greatly on how one defines quality in their own life...and how much they think they control it [most people have more ability to control that than they think].

                Small personal anecdote: Many years ago my wife and I decided to sell the second car - something completely unheard of in our circle of friends and co-workers. At the time we lived in the inner city, I walked to my office downtown, and although we could easily "afford" two [or even three or four] vehicles, we decided life would be simpler with one. What we didn't expect was the other postive changes it made in our life and marriage. We organized our local trips to combine errands, we had to actually talk to each other about day-to-day routine stuff and make choices about how we spent our weekends, and we spent more time doing things together...all because there was only one car.

                I'm not trying to dismiss or make light of people in dire straits trying to put food on the table...but some of the changes that the people in this article have made have, hopefully, been motivated by an understanding of what represents quality of life to them...within the choices they have available to them.

                This sounds like a cliche, but honestly when I look around me at the people I know, in general the ones with the most money seem to have the most messed up lives...
                Ok fine, I'll get rid of her yacht and keep only mine. Sheesh.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                  Originally posted by WildspitzE View Post
                  Ok fine, I'll get rid of her yacht and keep only mine. Sheesh.
                  Tell her if she wants to be Captain, you get promoted to Admiral...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                    Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                    Tell her if she wants to be Captain, you get promoted to Admiral...
                    But I thought that part of the idea was that the conversation flowed both ways?

                    One can't have a Captain giving orders to an Admiral!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                      Originally posted by WildspitzE View Post
                      But I thought that part of the idea was that the conversation flowed both ways?

                      One can't have a Captain giving orders to an Admiral!
                      Forget what I said. There's a limit to this togetherness stuff...

                      I recommend separate yachts...and make sure both of you are familiar with COLREGS...just in case

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                        Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                        Forget what I said. There's a limit to this togetherness stuff...

                        I recommend separate yachts...and make sure both of you are familiar with COLREGS...just in case
                        LMAO.

                        Thanks for the regs, but the yachts tend to go in opposite directions. Chances of a crash are slim. I think that the sales guy sold us ships with hulls that are magnetically polar equals. I wonder why?!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                          "Interviews with seven early members of the group found that many had been forced to drastically change their lifestyles to cope with lower incomes. Several have struggled with long bouts of unemployment. Some were laid off several times. Many have been forced to lean heavily on spouses’ incomes."

                          I guess I'm becoming more callous because this article doesn't pull at my heart strings. My reaction is "so what?"...deal with it, get up the next morning, do the best you can do, make the decisions you need to make, take the actions you need to take, repeat. It's called life. Sure, it's unfortunate that they're not having the kind of success, currently, that they'd like to have or that is considered the "norm", but what are we supposed to do...extend unemployment benefits forever?, create government make-work jobs to replace their income?, give them food stamps and health care and subsidized housing/debt relief, and on and on?

                          We need to have faith that the free-market will sort-out this economic chaos, and after some tough times for many people for awhile, we'll come-out on the other side as a stronger, healthier country and peoples. In the meantime, we'll be forced to get back to neighbor (church, family, charities, even LOCAL government) helping neighbor, not the inefficient, corrupt machinations of federal government as our savior via spending and higher taxes. Now would be a great time to slash the size of the federal government, not make it larger and more powerful.
                          "...the western financial system has already failed. The failure has just not yet been realized, while the system remains confident that it is still alive." Jesse

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                            Very depressing, but not surprising.

                            Only now that the credit spigot has been turned off the electorate are finding out that Ross Perot was exactly right about what outsourcing will do to the nation.

                            Further, in the higher reaches of government it's still nearly impossible to find a politician of any strip who will admit that globalization is simply a means for the masters to reduce the pay and conditions of the masses.

                            I really honestly wonder what it will take for folks to wake up and realize we've been completely taken for a ride by the oligarchs, and I've reached the sad conclusion that we just have to try to look out for the well being of our own families.

                            And while it's true that money won't make you happy, it's also true that being poor can be damn miserable, and that most folks who ask "It's not about how much you make" are financially very comfortable.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Those Who "Give Up"

                              Originally posted by rjwjr View Post
                              "We need to have faith that the free-market will sort-out this economic chaos, and after some tough times for many people for awhile, we'll come-out on the other side as a stronger, healthier country and peoples..
                              What free market would that be ?

                              Wall St forces your company to offshore your job. Free movement of capital means it will continue to move around the globe in search of the country with the least pay and conditions for its workers.

                              So should American workers pack up and move to China, Indonesia, etc etc

                              Free trade is only for the big boys. Little folk aren't allowed free anything. There's no level playing field and hence no free market. It's rigged.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X