3 ms·
Also during the US recession, many people had their retirement funds drastically affected (I know several people that saw near a 40% loss) This forced many peo
by briffle 12y ago
Also during the US recession, many people had their retirement funds drastically affected (I know several people that saw near a 40% loss) This forced many people nearing retirement age to keep working. Those people are often more senior, and with them staying on, there was no "movement" up the chain, so not many new entry level positions opening up. if they were smart, and did not touch the money, it should be fully recovered now, so we might start seeing some mobility again.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- bronbron 12y agoCompounding that problem, however, I would imagine that parents with "boomerang children" are inclined to keep working longer (because they're essentially supporting a dependent again). It's kind of a vicious cycle.
- Balgair 12y agoA previous reply mentioned that the US, finally, after 6 years, is back to the pre housing crisis workforce numbers. This is true, however, the population has grown since then and we are still about 7 million jobs short [0]. Also, the labor department includes, as said in the OP, underemployment. Typically you then have to work more jobs or live much less high on the hog. This is in addition to the older workforce continuing to stay in their positions. I have an anecdote on this as well. My brother used to work for Lockheed. Many times, an expert would retire with no replacement in the free world to step up. They would then need to hire the expert back again for a much inflated price. The cows recently came home for that particular plant, as this last year all 4000 employees were fired. I'm sure the rehiring of more expensive contractors played a role. [0]It's Friday, google it please, my apologies on the laze.