I'm assuming that if you're getting paid, you must be producing something of value. It may not be something everyone values but somebody values what you're doing enough to pay you.
Regulators, we regulate any stealing of his property and we damn good too. But you can't be any geek off the street, gotta be handy with the steel if you know what I mean, earn your keep!
Productive work is the best way to enjoy life, in longterm, that I know. Why would I switch to something else while I'm still able to work? (Full disclosure: only worked in gamedev for my 11 years of professional experience).
Because you could be doing whatever you want to do, instead of what your boss or board of directors or CEO wants you to do.
I would say that we absolutely don't need work to be happy, we need hobbies. A job can be a hobby, if you really enjoy it. But the vast majority of people don't really enjoy they work, and don't really have an option to switch to a job they would love.
This is a sign the economy is nearing full employment when previously marginalized workers are suddenly treated well. In fact we may already be at employment numbers that past what economists would call a sustainable full employment rate. We should expect higher wage growth and higher inflation in the short term.
What I wonder about this: What should we make of it about the people who "are no longer in the market." The people who have been unemployed based the cut-off.
Unemployment is measured in a length of time since their last position. Not the total amount of unworking people.
Measures that can capture some of what you're looking for are "U-6 unemployment," which includes discouraged workers as well as those actively looking, as well as the labor force participation rate. U-6 has been showing steady improvement and nearing 30-year lows (from late 90s). Participation rates have been on a decline though for quite some time, but this includes people who don't want to or can't work. One thing we saw during the great recession is a huge increase in permanent disability applications.
maybe for a bit until the fed plays economy / wage growth wack a mole by raising interest rates. one of their main decisions for raising rates is they see inflation in wage growth. call me cave man, but i think its kind of sick.
"This is a sign the economy is nearing full employment when previously marginalized workers are suddenly treated well."
Another explanation is that jobs have become harder to fill, and that's why companies are treating previously marginalized workers well. They know if they don't they'll have a hard time finding people to replace them.
Or it could just be that employers are now starting to realize the value of older, more mature, and more experienced workers.
Or maybe they're rejecting ageism as discriminatory, and want to treat everyone more fairly. Attitudes towards discrimination have certainly changed greatly over time, and a lot of discriminatory activity has become much less acceptable than it once was.
The explanations probably vary from company to company, from person to person, and from time to time. I'd be curious to interview hiring managers and older employees about this to get their take on it.
"Many boomers facing retirement want to work because they fear they don't have enough money for retirement." - shouldn't this increase the unemployment rate?
24 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 66.9 ms ] threadI have hobbies like woodworking, gardening, homesteading, camping. Many of those are productive, and I'm seldom bored.
It's also okay to enjoy your work, of course.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
NeoBasilisk 3 hours ago [-]
I'm so sorry. reply
I would say that we absolutely don't need work to be happy, we need hobbies. A job can be a hobby, if you really enjoy it. But the vast majority of people don't really enjoy they work, and don't really have an option to switch to a job they would love.
Unemployment is measured in a length of time since their last position. Not the total amount of unworking people.
Another explanation is that jobs have become harder to fill, and that's why companies are treating previously marginalized workers well. They know if they don't they'll have a hard time finding people to replace them.
Or it could just be that employers are now starting to realize the value of older, more mature, and more experienced workers.
Or maybe they're rejecting ageism as discriminatory, and want to treat everyone more fairly. Attitudes towards discrimination have certainly changed greatly over time, and a lot of discriminatory activity has become much less acceptable than it once was.
The explanations probably vary from company to company, from person to person, and from time to time. I'd be curious to interview hiring managers and older employees about this to get their take on it.
I see tons of ageism, across many industries.
Those same ageists will kowtow to anyone that can fit the role they're trying to fill.
Probably not great to generalize "millennials".
They were able to get away with paying senior employees less for a how because that market was scared.