Long-time unemployed male population growing

[sparkee]

Very interesting article in the NY Times about the growing number of men in their 40s and 50s who've lost employment (many in manufacturing) that was relatively well paid and are unwilling to take jobs that pay very low wages. The numbers are staggering, something like 13% of that population (and when they aren't looking for work anymore, they aren't counted as unemployed--interesting to know what they'd to our "low" unemployment numbers).

Interesting choices of individuals to personalize the story.

Scary, however, that the examples they use are people who are spending down all savings, or in the case of one LA Electrical Engineer off work since 2002, living off of increases in the value of his home (how much longer can THAT last?).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/business/31men.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all

 

[Outtahere]

I just read that, it's one of the welcome screen links on AOL. Doesn't paint a very good picture for the future.

 

[shiny]

Thanks, that was an interesting article. Especially thinking how it parallels some of the ER lifestyles, just without proper funding.

 

[Scrooge]

when they aren't looking for work anymore, they aren't counted as unemployed--interesting to know what they'd to our "low" unemployment numbers

Well, it's always been an issue with government unemployment stats, but what else can you do? If a person says that he hasn't looked for employment in weeks, how can you tell if he is (1) ER'd, (2) has given up and lives in squalor or (3) somewhere in between like these guys?

 

[sgeeeee]

Click on the graph that shows men not working and not looking for a job. It's kind of frightening that there appears to be more than twice as many men age 30 to 55 who are without work and no longer looking than there are officially unemployed. That doesn't seem like a sustainable trend.

 

[Nords]

the growing number of men in their 40s and 50s who've lost employment

Hey, I resemble that remark, and I think I saw most of those guys on the beach yesterday.

They were sitting attentively at a picnic table about 20 feet from the outdoor shower, where a comely young thong-clad surfer grrrl was rinsing off her board. I can understand why-- it was a great-looking board.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

there appears to be more than twice as many men age 30 to 55 who are without work and no longer looking than there are officially unemployed

Hmmm....somebody here made some noise about the unemployment number being BS not that long ago...who was that again?!?



Not to mention I have it on good authority that these numbers are almost always close enough to accurate to not worry about any discrepancies...especially if they're gathered with anonymous surveys.

Edit: oh yeah, here it is... http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=6954.0

 

[Scrooge]

Hmmm....somebody here made some noise about the unemployment number being BS not that long ago...who was that again?!?

Well, it's not so much that the numbers are inaccurate, it's just that we need to keep in mind what it is that they measure. It's like that "70% live from paycheck to paycheck" number -- it may very well be accurate depending on how you define your terms.

To give you just one example of how hard it can be to measure unemployment, I knew a woman who fully planned to get back into the workforce after having her children. However, a number of considerations, including changes in the employment picture in her field, the rising cost of daycare, her husband's supercharged career, etc, resulted in her gradually changing her mind from "I'll be working full time in months!" to "Maybe a part time job would be OK too" to "I guess full time motherhood isn't that bad after all". So when exactly did she move from the ranks of the unemployed to the ranks of housewives?

It is particularly difficult to compare unemployment (and many other) numbers across countries whose governments use different sampling techniques 

 

[sgeeeee]

Hmmm....somebody here made some noise about the unemployment number being BS not that long ago...who was that again?!?



Not to mention I have it on good authority that these numbers are almost always close enough to accurate to not worry about any discrepancies...especially if they're gathered with anonymous surveys.

Edit: oh yeah, here it is... http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=6954.0

I don't think this discredits the unemployment figures. People who are no longer looking for a job (like many of the posters on this board) are not in the same situation as someone who is without a job and looking for work. They should be counted separately. I am just surprised that the number is that high. It appears from the graph that about 9% of the male population (age 30 to 55) is out of work and not looking. Combine that with the 4+% unemployed and that means that more than 1 in 10 men you meet have no job.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I agree with what you're saying, but come on..."unemployed" = no job.

I think my point in that other thread (and most certainly my point in this thread) is how the media uses the stat and how the average joe interprets it.

UNEMPLOYMENT IS DOWN

is screamed by the CNBC's of the world as a positive economic sign, and the administration uses it to tell the people that they're doing a good job of creating jobs.

When the reality is that more people are out of work, year on year, and just not measured...then the stat is being misused and misunderstood.

When part of the ranks of people-with-no-jobs is left out because they gave up looking for a job, and a portion of the stat is estimated...and the difference thats reported is miniscule...that makes it (in my mind) a worthless stat.

Yet its quite widely bandied about as a measurement tool and a perceptual tool.

 

[Scrooge]

I agree with what you're saying, but come on..."unemployed" = no job.

I am sorry to hear that you are unemployed

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I am absolutely unemployed!

However, I have a heck of a lot of work to do for an unemployed guy

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . I think my point in that other thread (and most certainly my point in this thread) is how the media uses the stat and how the average joe interprets it.

UNEMPLOYMENT IS DOWN

is screamed by the CNBC's of the world as a positive economic sign, and the administration uses it to tell the people that they're doing a good job of creating jobs.

When the reality is that more people are out of work, year on year, and just not measured...then the stat is being misused and misunderstood.

. . .

No argument on this point. We have the best media advertising dollars can buy.

 

[rs0460a]

So when exactly did she move from the ranks of the unemployed to the ranks of housewives?

Sounds like she's back to full time work 

 

[laurence]

How weird is it that people can go years without working despite the fact they didn't save prodigiously for ER...kinda makes you wonder if our estimates are a little too conservative!

 

[haha]

How weird is it that people can go years without working despite the fact they didn't save prodigiously for ER...kinda makes you wonder if our estimates are a little too conservative!

A close reading of the article shows that most of those profiled are getting a bit out of touch with reality. They are either depending on their wife, and/or are depleting their savings. The last is definitely time limited, and as the article mentions, the first strategy is often time limited as well.

I think they also mentioned that 50% of these men are on SS Disability, which provides an income to them that averages $1000 per month, and after a 2 year period, access to Medicare. But this program often is not easy to qualify for, and you can be kicked off the rolls.

Ha

 

[Cut-Throat]

How weird is it that people can go years without working despite the fact they didn't save prodigiously for ER...kinda makes you wonder if our estimates are a little too conservative!

That, and the fact that most of us here are not going to live near as long as we planned on!

 

[Martha]

The article says 25% of the missing men are on Social Security Disability.  How do they know this?  The article states with reference to SSD:

No federal entitlement program is growing as quickly, with more than 6.5 million men and women now receiving monthly disability payments, up from 3 million in 1990. About 25 percent of the missing men are collecting this insurance.



The doubling of numbers on SSD can be due to any number of reasons.  Aging population for one.  Also, SSD recipients also doubled in the 10 years from 1984 to 1994. There is no indication that it is getting any easier to get SSD.

The article goes on to state:

The disability program, in turn, is an obstacle to working again. Taking a job holds the risk of demonstrating that one can earn a living and is thus no longer entitled to the monthly payments. But staying out of work has consequences. Skills deteriorate, along with the desire for a paying job and the habits that it requires.

“The longer you stay on disability benefits,” said Martin H. Gerry, deputy commissioner for disability and income security at the Social Security Administration, “the longer you’re out of the work force, the less likely you are to go back to work.”



I don't think it is the disability program that is an obstacle to working again, it being disabled that is the obstacle.

The tone of the article bugged me:  a bunch of loser men that could get loser jobs if they just buckled down and got off their lazy asses.

 

[sgeeeee]

The article says 25% of the missing men are on Social Security Disability.  How do they know this?  The article states with reference to SSD:

No federal entitlement program is growing as quickly, with more than 6.5 million men and women now receiving monthly disability payments, up from 3 million in 1990. About 25 percent of the missing men are collecting this insurance.



The doubling of numbers on SSD can be due to any number of reasons.  Aging population for one.  Also, SSD recipients also doubled in the 10 years from 1984 to 1994. There is no indication that it is getting any easier to get SSD.

The article goes on to state:

The disability program, in turn, is an obstacle to working again. Taking a job holds the risk of demonstrating that one can earn a living and is thus no longer entitled to the monthly payments. But staying out of work has consequences. Skills deteriorate, along with the desire for a paying job and the habits that it requires.

“The longer you stay on disability benefits,” said Martin H. Gerry, deputy commissioner for disability and income security at the Social Security Administration, “the longer you’re out of the work force, the less likely you are to go back to work.”



I don't think it is the disability program that is an obstacle to working again, it being disabled that is the obstacle.

The tone of the article bugged me:  a bunch of loser men that could get loser jobs if they just buckled down and got off their lazy asses.

There is more detailed information at:

What Do Male Nonworkers Do?
A USBLS working paper
http://www.bls.gov/ore/abstract/ec/ec040010.htm

 

[Martha]

There is more detailed information at:

What Do Male Nonworkers Do?
A USBLS working paper
http://www.bls.gov/ore/abstract/ec/ec040010.htm

Much more helpful. Thanks.

 

[haha]

An interesting subtext, to me at least, was the idea expressed that men without women can go "off the rails" easier and more completely than men who are trying to keep a woman, live up to her expectations, etc.

From what I have seen, this is definitely true. Nothing like a divorced 40 year old laid-off welder to let his life get really primitive.

Ha

 

[Texas Proud]

The tone of the article bugged me:  a bunch of loser men that could get loser jobs if they just buckled down and got off their lazy asses.

You could say that... or a bunch of men who used to be paid well, the economy has changed and they have not... so they sit on their lazy asses waiting to get a job at thier 'high' wage.. I say 'high' as it was not that high, but the one example was someone making $50K with either a high school education or less.. not too bad.. The reality is now they would earn $16K to $24K if they got a job... so if they can get $12K disability then why go for the $4K or so uptick

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Never understood the mentality, not even a little. The income stream stops, you get another one going, then work on improving it.

Sitting at home on the couch gets you zero dollars per hour.

 

[laurence]

Something about ancient Rome's 200 holidays a year, and free events in the collosium with loaves and fishes thrown to the unemployed crowds to keep them happy because all the work was done by slaves from Gaul and Syria comes to mind....

 

[Cool Dood]

Hm, I don't think John McCain or Hillary Clinton will be running on that platform...