Underemployment

or Register to post new content in the forum

23 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Feb 25, 2010 9:07 am

So, before NYC or shoe gets on here talking about the rising jobless claims, I'd like to mention the "underemployment" issue.

So Gallup surveys 20k adults.  4000 of them say they are underemployed. 

When I was in B school, I had a guy in my class who said that he would never work for less than $70k a year (that figure is now $80k, he is unemployed). 

What exactly is, "underemployed"?  You have a job, don't you? 

Underemployment is actually not having the job that you think you deserve.  If that is the case, I would think the number would be a lot higher.

As for the "I won't work unless I make XX dollars", I don't get it.  Work is work.  I offered the guy I went to B school with a job.  And then it was all very demanding.  Well, what about health benefits.  What is my title going to be?  I need a minimum of $80k.  I need a corporate car (WHAT!?!  Do I look like I'm rolling in cash over here!?  We are a SMALL business). 

FCUK YOU!  I'm trying to throw you a lifeline.  I don't need you.  In fact, I'm not sure you won't be worth less than I would pay you. 

The guy has two kids.  Losers.

Feb 25, 2010 9:36 am

Feb 25, 2010 9:41 am
Shania Twain:

 
dont worry.   we can always use govt tools to get economy going....wait...we used all those....
Feb 25, 2010 9:47 am

By the way.  For the bears out there, I do see the unemployment number as pretty bad.  No way around it.  

Feb 25, 2010 9:48 am

Mo,

 
I typically see "underemployment" in my area as the $250K a year exec that gets axed working as CEO for a non-profit for a year or two making $80K.  Or the engineer that gets laid off from his $150K a year job stringing together "consulting" assignments making around $50K a year.  I also see people in "specialized" jobs get laid off and simply can't find anything else even remotely close to their field, and they end up doing something completely different out of desparation.
 
In some cases, severance and unemployment shores up some or all of the shortfall (so they are not really cash poor, just nervous as he11 about replacing their income within the next year or two).  But in many cases, I know people that had jobs that were relics of the "go-go" days, that have simply evaporated, and will NEVER be able to replace with similar wages.  A good example is blue-collar jobs in previously fast-growing industries.  In my area, I have some clients that used to make 70-80K dumping pharmaceutical componants into mixers, and getting outstanding benefits to boot (but worked there for 35 years).  Where else would a 55 year-old high-school graduate with no technical skills get employment making 70K a year?
 
I think it is less an issue with recent MBA's.  They're young enough, they can survive.  Plenty of entrpreneurial opportunities to make your own future.  I am really referring to the 50-somethings with previous "big jobs" that have been making 6-figures for the past 10+ years or more.
Feb 25, 2010 10:03 am

I just went long another individual stock that hit my price target.

I think equities will continue to correct and there will be great opportunities to buy beaten down names.

Feb 25, 2010 10:07 am
B24:

Mo,

 
I typically see "underemployment" in my area as the $250K a year exec that gets axed working as CEO for a non-profit for a year or two making $80K.  Or the engineer that gets laid off from his $150K a year job stringing together "consulting" assignments making around $50K a year.  I also see people in "specialized" jobs get laid off and simply can't find anything else even remotely close to their field, and they end up doing something completely different out of desparation.
 
In some cases, severance and unemployment shores up some or all of the shortfall (so they are not really cash poor, just nervous as he11 about replacing their income within the next year or two).  But in many cases, I know people that had jobs that were relics of the "go-go" days, that have simply evaporated, and will NEVER be able to replace with similar wages.  A good example is blue-collar jobs in previously fast-growing industries.  In my area, I have some clients that used to make 70-80K dumping pharmaceutical componants into mixers, and getting outstanding benefits to boot (but worked there for 35 years).  Where else would a 55 year-old high-school graduate with no technical skills get employment making 70K a year?
 
I think it is less an issue with recent MBA's.  They're young enough, they can survive.  Plenty of entrpreneurial opportunities to make your own future.  I am really referring to the 50-somethings with previous "big jobs" that have been making 6-figures for the past 10+ years or more.
Or the banking executive who lost his job in the credit meltdown and decided to become a financial advisor. 
Feb 25, 2010 10:16 am
NYCTrader:

I just went long another individual stock that hit my price target.

I think equities will continue to correct and there will be great opportunities to buy beaten down names.

 
You're breaking down......we are getting to you.....you're coming closer to the right side of the tracks/.
 
1043 holds
Feb 25, 2010 10:43 am
Shania Twain:
NYCTrader:

I just went long another individual stock that hit my price target.

I think equities will continue to correct and there will be great opportunities to buy beaten down names.

 
You're breaking down......we are getting to you.....you're coming closer to the right side of the tracks/.
 
1043 holds



No, it's just discipline.  I only buy when I see great value.  I just hope I'm not catching a falling knife. 

Feb 25, 2010 11:53 am
iceco1d:
B24:
 
Where else would a 55 year-old high-school graduate with no technical skills get employment making 70K a year?
 




 
Ummmmm HELLL-O!  How about OUR INDUSTRY?!
 
A friend of mine is a driver for UPS.  $75K a year, full benefits, 4 weeks a year off, pension, 401k -  no high school diploma.  Another friend manages a string of Starbucks stores.  $70K, full benefits, 2 weeks of vacation (he's new to Starbucks), 401k - no high school diploma.  Those jobs are out there for the folks who are willing to work hard and dig to find them.  I think today, I'd rather be driving a UPS truck than fighting with my FSD.  Today they are certainly living up to the "sales prevention" nickname. 
 
I guess under the "underemployment" rules, I'm underemployed.  I'm not making anything near what I think I'm worth. 
Feb 25, 2010 11:55 am

That "Underemployment" headline made me thing that same thing...what BS.  As Bill Parcells says, "you are what you are."  That's like saying the Lions SHOULD have won 8 games, but they won 3...well, that still makes them 3-13.  The "Underemployed" person thinks they are a .500 team when they are not (or a 12-4 team when they are at 8-8).

Feb 25, 2010 12:01 pm
Moraen:

So, before NYC or shoe gets on here talking about the rising jobless claims, I'd like to mention the "underemployment" issue.

So Gallup surveys 20k adults.  4000 of them say they are underemployed. 

When I was in B school, I had a guy in my class who said that he would never work for less than $70k a year (that figure is now $80k, he is unemployed). 

What exactly is, "underemployed"?  You have a job, don't you? 

Underemployment is actually not having the job that you think you deserve.  If that is the case, I would think the number would be a lot higher.

As for the "I won't work unless I make XX dollars", I don't get it.  Work is work.  I offered the guy I went to B school with a job.  And then it was all very demanding.  Well, what about health benefits.  What is my title going to be?  I need a minimum of $80k.  I need a corporate car (WHAT!?!  Do I look like I'm rolling in cash over here!?  We are a SMALL business). 

FCUK YOU!  I'm trying to throw you a lifeline.  I don't need you.  In fact, I'm not sure you won't be worth less than I would pay you. 

The guy has two kids.  Losers.



Sure, there may be people out there that will never be "fully employed"
because they are dilusional and living in a fantasy world in terms of
what they are worth and what kind of money they should be making.



That said, there are a lot of people out there that have had to take
jobs that they would have never taken in 2007 before the economy
turned. 



What this tells me is that if people think they are "underemployed"
(regardless whether they truly are or not, which is really beside the
point), they are less likely to spend money.  Without consumers buying
goods and services, corp profit margins will be hurt.  We need US
consumers to be employed, confident and willing to spend money in order
for the economy to pick back up again.

Feb 25, 2010 12:03 pm
NYCTrader:
Moraen:

So, before NYC or shoe gets on here talking about the rising jobless claims, I'd like to mention the "underemployment" issue.

So Gallup surveys 20k adults.  4000 of them say they are underemployed. 

When I was in B school, I had a guy in my class who said that he would never work for less than $70k a year (that figure is now $80k, he is unemployed). 

What exactly is, "underemployed"?  You have a job, don't you? 

Underemployment is actually not having the job that you think you deserve.  If that is the case, I would think the number would be a lot higher.

As for the "I won't work unless I make XX dollars", I don't get it.  Work is work.  I offered the guy I went to B school with a job.  And then it was all very demanding.  Well, what about health benefits.  What is my title going to be?  I need a minimum of $80k.  I need a corporate car (WHAT!?!  Do I look like I'm rolling in cash over here!?  We are a SMALL business). 

FCUK YOU!  I'm trying to throw you a lifeline.  I don't need you.  In fact, I'm not sure you won't be worth less than I would pay you. 

The guy has two kids.  Losers.



Sure, there may be people out there that will never be "fully employed"
because they are dilusional and living in a fantasy world in terms of
what they are worth and what kind of money they should be making.



That said, there are a lot of people out there that have had to take
jobs that they would have never taken in 2007 before the economy
turned. 



What this tells me is that if people think they are "underemployed"
(regardless whether they truly are or not, which is really beside the
point), they are less likely to spend money.  Without consumers buying
goods and services, corp profit margins will be hurt.  We need US
consumers to be employed, confident and willing to spend money in order
for the economy to pick back up again.



Those dumba$$es spend money anyway.  I got a business owner who has less than $1000 coming into his business each month.  Bought a new bike (one of those bicycling bikes that look like you have to have no balls to ride) for like $4000 last week!  What the hell?

No.  I don't think we have to worry about these jokers not spending.  We have to worry about them not paying their bills.

Feb 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Spaceman Spiff:
iceco1d:
B24:
 
Where else would a 55 year-old high-school graduate with no technical skills get employment making 70K a year?
 




 
Ummmmm HELLL-O!  How about OUR INDUSTRY?!
 
A friend of mine is a driver for UPS.  $75K a year, full benefits, 4 weeks a year off, pension, 401k -  no high school diploma.  Another friend manages a string of Starbucks stores.  $70K, full benefits, 2 weeks of vacation (he's new to Starbucks), 401k - no high school diploma.  Those jobs are out there for the folks who are willing to work hard and dig to find them.  I think today, I'd rather be driving a UPS truck than fighting with my FSD.  Today they are certainly living up to the "sales prevention" nickname. 
 
I guess under the "underemployment" rules, I'm underemployed.  I'm not making anything near what I think I'm worth. 
 
That describes my cousin to the "T" (except he was with DHL).  He just got laid off last year.  Good luck replacing that job.
Feb 25, 2010 12:05 pm
Cowboy93:

That "Underemployment" headline made me thing that same thing...what BS.  As Bill Parcells says, "you are what you are."  That's like saying the Lions SHOULD have won 8 games, but they won 3...well, that still makes them 3-13.  The "Underemployed" person thinks they are a .500 team when they are not (or a 12-4 team when they are at 8-8).

 
no, tuna said  "You are what your record says you are"
 
 
Feb 25, 2010 12:07 pm
NYCTrader:
Shania Twain:
NYCTrader:

I just went long another individual stock that hit my price target.

I think equities will continue to correct and there will be great opportunities to buy beaten down names.

 
You're breaking down......we are getting to you.....you're coming closer to the right side of the tracks/.
 
1043 holds



No, it's just discipline.  I only buy when I see great value.  I just hope I'm not catching a falling knife. 



Excellent.  Even if you catch the falling knife it is ok.  Discipline is more important than being right.

Feb 25, 2010 12:09 pm
Moraen:
NYCTrader:
Moraen:

So, before NYC or shoe gets on here talking about the rising jobless claims, I'd like to mention the "underemployment" issue.

So Gallup surveys 20k adults.  4000 of them say they are underemployed. 

When I was in B school, I had a guy in my class who said that he would never work for less than $70k a year (that figure is now $80k, he is unemployed). 

What exactly is, "underemployed"?  You have a job, don't you? 

Underemployment is actually not having the job that you think you deserve.  If that is the case, I would think the number would be a lot higher.

As for the "I won't work unless I make XX dollars", I don't get it.  Work is work.  I offered the guy I went to B school with a job.  And then it was all very demanding.  Well, what about health benefits.  What is my title going to be?  I need a minimum of $80k.  I need a corporate car (WHAT!?!  Do I look like I'm rolling in cash over here!?  We are a SMALL business). 

FCUK YOU!  I'm trying to throw you a lifeline.  I don't need you.  In fact, I'm not sure you won't be worth less than I would pay you. 

The guy has two kids.  Losers.



Sure, there may be people out there that will never be "fully employed"
because they are dilusional and living in a fantasy world in terms of
what they are worth and what kind of money they should be making.



That said, there are a lot of people out there that have had to take
jobs that they would have never taken in 2007 before the economy
turned. 



What this tells me is that if people think they are "underemployed"
(regardless whether they truly are or not, which is really beside the
point), they are less likely to spend money.  Without consumers buying
goods and services, corp profit margins will be hurt.  We need US
consumers to be employed, confident and willing to spend money in order
for the economy to pick back up again.



Those dumba$$es spend money anyway.  I got a business owner who has less than $1000 coming into his business each month.  Bought a new bike (one of those bicycling bikes that look like you have to have no balls to ride) for like $4000 last week!  What the hell?

No.  I don't think we have to worry about these jokers not spending.  We have to worry about them not paying their bills.



I think your buddy is the exception to the rule.  There will always be those jackasses spending money on stuff they can't afford in any environment.  But when you have fiscally responsible people greatly curtailing their spending habits, it becomes very difficult to make up that kind of contribution to the economy.

Feb 25, 2010 1:04 pm

What irks me is when 7% unemployment was considered 'full employment'. I even remember hearing that 5-6% unemployment was not a sustainable number a few years ago. I don't know what is true or not about whether that level is sustainable but it sure seems like 7% is a much more realistic number yet everyone will be upset with that number when it gets here.

Feb 25, 2010 2:04 pm
NYCTrader:
Moraen:
NYCTrader:
Moraen:

So, before NYC or shoe gets on here talking about the rising jobless claims, I'd like to mention the "underemployment" issue.

So Gallup surveys 20k adults.  4000 of them say they are underemployed. 

When I was in B school, I had a guy in my class who said that he would never work for less than $70k a year (that figure is now $80k, he is unemployed). 

What exactly is, "underemployed"?  You have a job, don't you? 

Underemployment is actually not having the job that you think you deserve.  If that is the case, I would think the number would be a lot higher.

As for the "I won't work unless I make XX dollars", I don't get it.  Work is work.  I offered the guy I went to B school with a job.  And then it was all very demanding.  Well, what about health benefits.  What is my title going to be?  I need a minimum of $80k.  I need a corporate car (WHAT!?!  Do I look like I'm rolling in cash over here!?  We are a SMALL business). 

FCUK YOU!  I'm trying to throw you a lifeline.  I don't need you.  In fact, I'm not sure you won't be worth less than I would pay you. 

The guy has two kids.  Losers.



Sure, there may be people out there that will never be "fully employed"
because they are dilusional and living in a fantasy world in terms of
what they are worth and what kind of money they should be making.



That said, there are a lot of people out there that have had to take
jobs that they would have never taken in 2007 before the economy
turned. 



What this tells me is that if people think they are "underemployed"
(regardless whether they truly are or not, which is really beside the
point), they are less likely to spend money.  Without consumers buying
goods and services, corp profit margins will be hurt.  We need US
consumers to be employed, confident and willing to spend money in order
for the economy to pick back up again.



Those dumba$$es spend money anyway.  I got a business owner who has less than $1000 coming into his business each month.  Bought a new bike (one of those bicycling bikes that look like you have to have no balls to ride) for like $4000 last week!  What the hell?

No.  I don't think we have to worry about these jokers not spending.  We have to worry about them not paying their bills.



I think your buddy is the exception to the rule.  There will always be those jackasses spending money on stuff they can't afford in any environment.  But when you have fiscally responsible people greatly curtailing their spending habits, it becomes very difficult to make up that kind of contribution to the economy.



Who is fiscally responsible in this country?  The millions of people who bought houses they couldn't afford?  Another business owner client of mine that does $250k in revenue a year (Photographer), but yet can't pay down the $90k in unsecured credit card debt because she refuses to use a budget?  The ex-clients of mine (who are in their late 50's), who two years ago had $500k in investments and now have zero because they used their investments to supplement their lifestyel (Humvees, jet skis, vacations, etc.)?  The list goes on and on.  They are not my buddies and they are everywhere. 


Feb 25, 2010 2:05 pm
LSUAlum:

What irks me is when 7% unemployment was considered 'full employment'. I even remember hearing that 5-6% unemployment was not a sustainable number a few years ago. I don't know what is true or not about whether that level is sustainable but it sure seems like 7% is a much more realistic number yet everyone will be upset with that number when it gets here.



I think 8% is more appropriate actually.