|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
 Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 4:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
New government data released Friday morning showed the nation added 288,000 jobs in April, a reassuring sign that the economy has picked up momentum since stalling out over the winter.
The hiring spree surpassed most analysts' expectations and is the strongest showing in more than two years. Businesses added workers across a broad array of sectors, including business services, retail and construction. The unemployment rate plunged to 6.3 percent -- the lowest level since 2008 |
The caveat.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/03/upshot/jobs-report-looks-great-but-looks-are-deceiving.html?_r=0
The Jobs Report Isn’t as Good as It Looks
| Quote: |
The most promising trend in the labor market in the first three months of 2014 had been workers returning to the job market. Some 1.3 million more Americans counted themselves as either having a job or looking for one in March than in December. That represented the strongest three-month gain in the size of the labor force since the boom times of early 2000.
A dynamic that seemed — maybe, possibly — to be taking shape for 2014 was that of some of the millions of people who had given up on even looking for a job during the recession and the slow recovery were finally returning. That trend might have acted as a floor underneath the overall unemployment rate. People returning to the work force might not find a job immediately, joining the rolls of the unemployed, but it would be good news for the long-term prosperity of the American economy.
The details of the April job report, though, threw serious cold water on that proposition. The number of people in the labor force fell by a whopping 806,000, wiping out the February and March gains and a bit of January as well. The labor force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage points to 62.8 percent, returning to its December level.
And the number of people reporting they were unemployed fell by 733,000, which sounds good on its surface, but paired with the similar-sized decline in the labor force points to job seekers giving up looking rather than finding new employment.
It would be irresponsible to draw any definitive conclusions from a single month’s data, but this isn’t the only area in which this report has some soft underbelly. Both hours worked and wages were unchanged. If the economy is to ever expand more robustly, it will require workers to make more money, giving them the income to buy more goods, services and houses; in April at least, there was no progress on wages. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Has it occurred to you those "missing workers" may be attending school/acquiring training? |
Yes it has. Same article...
Here Comes the Class of 2014
Against that backdrop, according to a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.65 million American college students are going to hit the bricks by the end of next month, with their recently inscribed degrees in hand, looking for jobs.
If all of those students actually injected themselves into the job market, the economy would have to generate 137,500 new positions per month, over and above current job growth, just to keep pace with the demand for employment. Since that is not going to happen, a lot of them are not going to have any jobs to go to come September because the economy cannot grow fast enough to absorb them all as quickly as they would like to be absorbed.
In the meantime, June grads are being advised to go directly to graduate school, if possible, and that may be good advice. Employment consultants generally advise promising graduates not to spend two years working outside their intended fields on the grounds that employers often prefer to leapfrog over them to cherry pick from the cream of the fresh crop of June grads just coming out of school.
In 2013, 18 percent of the college graduates reporting went directly to graduate school but 43 percent of those who had graduated in 2011 were seeking graduate school placements in order to get better jobs. More than one-third of the recent graduates from the past three years are reporting that they were making $25,000 or less.
Graduate school may not be the Holy Grail of employment, either. Year over year, graduate school enrollments have been decreasing between one and two percent annually, while graduate school applications have been increasing by four to five percent annually
Researchers have identified one important reason for the discrepancy between applications and enrollment: money. Scholarships and grants for graduate education have decreased significantly since 2008, while costs for graduate school degrees continue to escalate. Students are looking at the loans they have hanging over their heads from their undergraduate careers and thinking twice about graduate school.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess those numbers have more to do with people being able to retire early/when they want to due to the good economy (high stock values mean their 401Ks/retirement packages/stock investments are worth a lot more than before). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| I guess those numbers have more to do with people being able to retire early/when they want to due to the good economy (high stock values mean their 401Ks/retirement packages/stock investments are worth a lot more than before). |
If you think people are leaving the workforce because so many of them have done so well that they are able to retire early you are extremely delusional. The 2008 meltdown wiped out so many baby boomers retirement funds. Look at the stats on how much people have saved for retirement. 50% of Americans have ZERO retirement savings.Sobering stuff. Those who are saving are having those funds drastically devalued by the FED who is printing money like mad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| 50% of Americans have ZERO retirement savings.Sobering stuff. |
Not true. (Unless they've been teaching in South Korea,) they've been paying into Social Security, which is matched by their employer. That's a lot of money.
| radcon wrote: |
| Those who are saving are having those funds drastically devalued by the FED who is printing money like mad. |
That's an extremely idiotic thing to say/believe. U.S. inflation: 1.5%. That's almost nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| radcon wrote: |
| 50% of Americans have ZERO retirement savings.Sobering stuff. |
Not true. (Unless they've been teaching in South Korea,) they've been paying into Social Security, which is matched by their employer. That's a lot of money. |
Too bad that it is all been pissed against the wall. Social Security is being used to help prop up the national debt. And while there is some nifty language like "trust" and "guarantee" that lefties will try to cling to, eventually if there is no money then there is no money. It is particularly tricky house of cards that your government is playing with.
Also
| Quote: |
| By 2033, the (Social Security Trust) fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 75% of program obligations. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
Like I have said governments should be accruing massive surpluses atm to pay for the impending escalation in aged and healthcare costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Older people vote at a higher rate than younger people. Therefore, social security benefits will never suddenly disappear. You think not paying into it at all (having that matched by one's employer) is the smarter choice? It's not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| radcon wrote: |
| Those who are saving are having those funds drastically devalued by the FED who is printing money like mad. |
"Printing money like mad" is helping to keep the US interest rates down. If interest rates went up the cost to government would be astronomical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Older people vote at a higher rate than younger people. Therefore, social security benefits will never suddenly disappear. You think not paying into it at all (having that matched by one's employer) is the smarter choice? It's not. |
Actually I think I am suggesting the opposite, although I have zero faith in any government handling money. They certainly have no respect for budgeting.
Social Security may never suddenly disappear but you can almost bet the governments will make it increasingly difficult for individuals to ever get there hands on. For instance, increasing the age that you qualify.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/treasurer-joe-hockey-announces-retirement-age-to-rise-to-70-from-2035/story-fn84fgcm-1226903116847
Treasurer Joe Hockey announces retirement age to rise to 70 from 2035
You can probably also expect much stricter asset means testing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's Australia my man. In the U.S. social security benefits start at 62. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| That's Australia my man. In the U.S. social security benefits start at 62. |
Is it fixed in stone?
It was 65 in Australia. We have had successive governments increase the age from 65 to 67 and now from 67 to 70.
I actually do not think this is a terrible policy change. Let's face it life expectancy is significantly higher now than it was when pensions were first dreamed of.
Last edited by Axiom on Sat May 03, 2014 5:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| I guess those numbers have more to do with people being able to retire early/when they want to due to the good economy. |
Yes, the 1% people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2014 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
Treasurer Joe Hockey announces retirement age to rise to 70 from 2035
|
70 is the New 65
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/09/06/70-is-the-new-65/
Today’s workers are beginning to see their retirement future, and one fact stands out clearly − age 70 is the new 65. People realize they’ll be working longer, delaying Social Security benefits to take advantage of delayed retirement credits, and relying more on employers for the health care gap if and when the age for Medicare extends past 65. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
| I would have thought that with the ageing population, that all westernised economies are experiencing, that the second sentence is equally alarming. For the last decade, governments around the world should have been amassing massive surpluses to pay for the rapidly increasing cost of aged care and health. |
After 2030, our elderly population stabilizes at about one-third the size of the working-age population.
In other words, all the sturm and drang over Social Security aside, our demographic problem isn't really that bad. What's more, compared to other countries, our outlook is positively sunny.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/05/america-does-not-really-have-big-aging-problem
America doesn't really have a huge aging problem. We have a very moderate aging problem, which could be handled in the federal budget with fairly modest changes to Social Security and Medicare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2014 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
In other words, all the sturm and drang over Social Security aside, our demographic problem isn't really that bad. What's more, compared to other countries, our outlook is positively sunny.
|
Is 75 the New 65?
How does nearly six decades of work sound?
http://bigthink.com/disruptive-demographics/is-75-the-new-65
Comparing data from baby boomers who have input their financial information for current income/expenses and future income/expenses with industry standards of what is ‘needed’ for a secure retirement My New Financial Advisor’s analysis suggests that another decade of work may be required to pay for life after work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
