3 ms·

>To play devil's advocate: is the fact that 16-24 year olds hold drastically fewer jobs than in the past really something that can be brushed off? Or perhaps t

>To play devil's advocate: is the fact that 16-24 year olds hold drastically fewer jobs than in the past really something that can be brushed off? Or perhaps their parents are better off, more people are going to college, so fewer of them are forced to work menial jobs to pay the bills. I have no idea if that's true, but that's kind of the point; you have to dig deeper.

kurthr 8y ago
We know that the individual and family incomes for those in the lower 50% (or as much as 90%) of the income distribution have been falling (after inflation) for the last 30 years. So it's not just that their parents are better off... because they are flat to down.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  I don't see that in the figures that I've gone looking for. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ suggests that, in inflation adjusted terms, most workers wages are up a modest amount (6%) since 1979, while the 10th percentile workers have declined by 5% in that period.
  - kurthr 8y ago
    The telling plots are figures 2&3, which show wages as stagnant, but not falling during the 2008-10 recession. That is because it plots the wages of those who are working (full time?) and does not account for employment loss or underemployment. The employment to population ratio has fallen 5-6% over the same time period (and 10% from its peak) . It may be recovering somewhat now, but it's not part of the charts and not close to the peak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio Worse still, comparing to household income, you see that a higher employment ratio is necessary just to maintain the income. That causes childcare, prepared food, and transportation expenses to rise faster than inflation... because even if prices are constant, more people need them. That's ignoring the falling percentage of jobs with insurance and pensions that that also reduce total compensation... it also ignores stock options.

kurthr 8y ago

We know that the individual and family incomes for those in the lower 50% (or as much as 90%) of the income distribution have been falling (after inflation) for the last 30 years. So it's not just that their parents are better off... because they are flat to down.

sokoloff 8y ago
I don't see that in the figures that I've gone looking for. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ suggests that, in inflation adjusted terms, most workers wages are up a modest amount (6%) since 1979, while the 10th percentile workers have declined by 5% in that period.
- kurthr 8y ago
  The telling plots are figures 2&3, which show wages as stagnant, but not falling during the 2008-10 recession. That is because it plots the wages of those who are working (full time?) and does not account for employment loss or underemployment. The employment to population ratio has fallen 5-6% over the same time period (and 10% from its peak) . It may be recovering somewhat now, but it's not part of the charts and not close to the peak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio Worse still, comparing to household income, you see that a higher employment ratio is necessary just to maintain the income. That causes childcare, prepared food, and transportation expenses to rise faster than inflation... because even if prices are constant, more people need them. That's ignoring the falling percentage of jobs with insurance and pensions that that also reduce total compensation... it also ignores stock options.