2 ms·

I haven't read the article, yet, but the U.S. has developed a system that is a government subsidized, two-tier workforce. Military-trained pilots. Highly trai

I haven't read the article, yet, but the U.S. has developed a system that is a government subsidized, two-tier workforce. Military-trained pilots. Highly trained and experienced -- although not always in aircraft that reflect commercial flight profiles. I don't know how much the 2003 onward wars have influenced this, but prior, one put in their 5-7-10 years, then exited to a highly paid and privileged position with a commercial airline. Self/privately trained pilots. Those were routed to local and regional carriers, that have been increasingly snapped up by the major carriers and integrated into their networks. Learning to fly isn't cheap (not just training, but also getting hours -- on machines that are expensive to own and operate, ergo also to rent); despite this, these people end up in positions that often pay substantially below the median middle-class wage. I don't recall the details, but already some years ago, I read some things indicating that pilots, including the ex-military, have increasing concern about career futures. I think in part, with the ex-military, it's wage pressure from the privately-trained. Airlines also got pretty good at union-flogging, if not outright busting, tactics, for a while. The dips after 2003 and 2008 helped in this. Going by my memory... -- P.S. I read the article. I'll leave my original comment as is. Well, I said 2003, thinking of the invasion of Iraq and the pressures demands that placed. But yeah, 2001 is another position on the timeline to point to.

ReallyAnonymous 8y ago
The US has too many MBA types that determine that the 'job' is one that either 'anyone can do' vs 'very popular', so then they push wages down. It works for a while, as those that have chosen a career path feel it's not worthwhile to change midroute, but eventually, especially with the internet, people communicate and/or look up a profession and see if it's worth pursuing. More and more, 'management / administration' are the jobs that continually give advancement and bonuses, whereas previous good jobs (like cross country truckers, airline pilots, professors, etc... ) are no longer lucrative. Then, all of a sudden, there's a panic as people realize 'how come no one is becoming blah blah blah after post grad education of x years and a salary of 22k. Just look at the rise of administrative employees of universities and hospitals in this country. Mainly, supportive, non-critical jobs (in my opinion) that determine people's salaries, make all the money, and get all the bonuses. Moreover, how many people know someone who has 'maxed out his pay at his current job' at age 50? I believe the reason corporate America was against the ACA was to prevent capped employees from leaving bc of fear of losing health insurance. My brother is a senior EE and is 50 and is capped and financially could retire except what will insurance cost in 10 years? What if it got too expensive for him? Can you get a job after not working for 10 years? So he's kinda stuck. Of course, he no longer works weekends, even when the project is behind, bc he's told his boss he'd retire if he's let go, and he's pretty valuable to them (but not valuable enough to give more raises and bonuses (I think he makes about $150k a year)) Anyway, hopefully the pendulum will swing back to the 'workers' a bit, and not the spreadsheet gurus
- pasbesoin 8y ago
  50 is when it starts to get significantly harder to get into Canada, IIRC. I don't know how he would feel about moving. The professional background would be a big plus in an application for residency. But, unless he has investor class savings, he'd be looking at continuing to work, probably at lower pay. But... it would solve the health insurance problem. (So would parts of Europe.) Probably better for him to stay, and stay at 40 hours a week. Maybe a consulting sideline, if his circumstances allow. Which reminds me; for some professional categories, there's pretty good group insurance through professional organizations. Or so I hear, while I've yet to find something like that for myself. By the way, corporate America was crying out for something to be done, when the ACA was proposed and written. Businesses were facing double digit percentage year over year increases, and were saying 'we can't continue to compete particularly with foreign competition that doesn't have these levels of expense -- neither absolute nor yearly increases'. I view it as a very middle of the road proposal. It kept the existing insurance and provider structures and worked to increase the customer base. It also had provisions for getting over the "hump" period where previously uninsured were incorporated, caught up on deferred care, and during which insurers' actuaries would have a chance to determine and model the new population. Reflecting Obama's rhetoric leading into his first term, it was designed to bring people together. And it was also successful in measures that don't get as much credit. For example, it really did provide some significant cost controls for group insurance. One reason the hue and cry from employers died down. But it was deliberately sabotaged -- rather than improved -- with the goal of turning it into political fodder by a party whose leadership put itself before all else. I think I agree with you, that employer-provided group insurance has become quite anti-competitive.

ReallyAnonymous 8y ago

The US has too many MBA types that determine that the 'job' is one that either 'anyone can do' vs 'very popular', so then they push wages down. It works for a while, as those that have chosen a career path feel it's not worthwhile to change midroute, but eventually, especially with the internet, people communicate and/or look up a profession and see if it's worth pursuing. More and more, 'management / administration' are the jobs that continually give advancement and bonuses, whereas previous good jobs (like cross country truckers, airline pilots, professors, etc... ) are no longer lucrative. Then, all of a sudden, there's a panic as people realize 'how come no one is becoming blah blah blah after post grad education of x years and a salary of 22k. Just look at the rise of administrative employees of universities and hospitals in this country. Mainly, supportive, non-critical jobs (in my opinion) that determine people's salaries, make all the money, and get all the bonuses. Moreover, how many people know someone who has 'maxed out his pay at his current job' at age 50? I believe the reason corporate America was against the ACA was to prevent capped employees from leaving bc of fear of losing health insurance. My brother is a senior EE and is 50 and is capped and financially could retire except what will insurance cost in 10 years? What if it got too expensive for him? Can you get a job after not working for 10 years? So he's kinda stuck. Of course, he no longer works weekends, even when the project is behind, bc he's told his boss he'd retire if he's let go, and he's pretty valuable to them (but not valuable enough to give more raises and bonuses (I think he makes about $150k a year)) Anyway, hopefully the pendulum will swing back to the 'workers' a bit, and not the spreadsheet gurus

pasbesoin 8y ago
50 is when it starts to get significantly harder to get into Canada, IIRC. I don't know how he would feel about moving. The professional background would be a big plus in an application for residency. But, unless he has investor class savings, he'd be looking at continuing to work, probably at lower pay. But... it would solve the health insurance problem. (So would parts of Europe.) Probably better for him to stay, and stay at 40 hours a week. Maybe a consulting sideline, if his circumstances allow. Which reminds me; for some professional categories, there's pretty good group insurance through professional organizations. Or so I hear, while I've yet to find something like that for myself. By the way, corporate America was crying out for something to be done, when the ACA was proposed and written. Businesses were facing double digit percentage year over year increases, and were saying 'we can't continue to compete particularly with foreign competition that doesn't have these levels of expense -- neither absolute nor yearly increases'. I view it as a very middle of the road proposal. It kept the existing insurance and provider structures and worked to increase the customer base. It also had provisions for getting over the "hump" period where previously uninsured were incorporated, caught up on deferred care, and during which insurers' actuaries would have a chance to determine and model the new population. Reflecting Obama's rhetoric leading into his first term, it was designed to bring people together. And it was also successful in measures that don't get as much credit. For example, it really did provide some significant cost controls for group insurance. One reason the hue and cry from employers died down. But it was deliberately sabotaged -- rather than improved -- with the goal of turning it into political fodder by a party whose leadership put itself before all else. I think I agree with you, that employer-provided group insurance has become quite anti-competitive.