
Where did the Boomer women go? - jmacd
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/where-did-boomer-women-go
======
lkrubner
This paragraph indicates that more men than women have left the labor force:

"The largest single bloc of “missing workers” -- 2.4 million of them -- are of
prime working age, 25-54. Another 1.3 million are under the age of 25. The
smallest bloc of "missing workers" is aged 55-plus -- 700,000 workers. Of that
group, the overwhelming majority are women. In the other two age cohorts, more
men than women have left the workforce than were expected."

As such, this seems less of a mystery. Why wonder why some women nearing
retirement decided to basically retire early, when the economy is bad? Surely
it is a much bigger mystery why younger men, in the prime work years, have
left the labor force?

No doubt the bad economy explains the shrinking labor force, but focusing on
older women, rather than younger men, focuses on a small issue and misses a
much bigger issue.

~~~
adventured
That large segment of young men is also imploding on an education basis.
Nobody seems to care or want to talk about it. It strikes me as a looming
disaster, to have such a large and growing segment of the population without
either an education or job skills.

[http://collegestats.org/articles/2013/05/why-men-are-
falling...](http://collegestats.org/articles/2013/05/why-men-are-falling-
behind-in-higher-ed/)

[http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14893585](http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14893585)

~~~
lsc
>Nobody seems to care or want to talk about it. It strikes me as a looming
disaster, to have such a large and growing segment of the population without
either an education or job skills.

Well, I can't speak to the 'education' part, as I don't have one, myself. I
think that education is overrated; I mean, If, for instance, a competent party
with money came in and bought my company tomorrow? Yeah, I might go get a
history degree. It would be a lot of fun. but, really, of little commercial
utility. Clearly, some people do learn useful things in school, while others
get little (aside from 'personal growth') from the experience.

However, the 'job skills' part? that /is/ youth unemployment. You can't get
work experience... without a job. And getting a job when unemployment is high
and you have no education or experience... is difficult.

I was able to get a programming gig at 17, in part, yeah, 'cause I was a smart
kid, because my father and stepfather were programmers, and because I had
worked through high school as an IT monkey. (My "programmer" title was a
little misleading. While I did do some programming, the bulk of my work was
systems administration.) But a huge factor was that it was 1997. Standards,
quite simply, were lower. (I was shotgunning resumes; The one that landed me
my first programming gig was me accidentally sending my resume to the place I
currently worked as a call-center tech rather than the local university where
I actually intended to apply. Oops.)

Now, I was able to turn my work during the dot-com into really good experience
that I was able to leverage to get jobs through the crash. However I can tell
you right here that if I had started out looking in 2001? I would have been
fucked.

I mean, yeah, there were a bunch of factors that lead to me becoming
employable. But without timing? without the economy demanding a huge number of
workers with my skillset? I, as a kid with no education and no experience
would very likely have not gotten a chance.

But yeah... that's the point. High unemployment rates mean that you have a
large and growing segment of the population without job skills... You get job
skills from... your job. It's quite difficult to come up with job skills
without a job.

Hell, even if you have had a job in the past... those skills are perishable.
You need to have recent experience.

So yeah; the national attention, I think, needs to be switched away from rich
people problems, and focused back on the unemployment problem. Well, that or
they need to figure out how to run a society with a large number of
permanently unemployed folks. Some people think the natural consequence of
automation is unemployment. I'm not sure I agree, but either way, Yes, long-
term unemployment has long-term consequences.

~~~
mjn
I agree recent job experience is the main issue in computing, but that's a
fairly small segment of the job market (~5%). Outside of computing, there just
aren't that many career paths without degrees anymore, where there's even
hypothetically a way to get in on the basis of self-study and experience.

The people with the hardest time finding new jobs are the large cohort of
blue-collar workers caught in the rapid evaporation of the entire category of
"well-paid blue-collar job": they have solid job experience, perhaps 20 years
experience doing something mid- to high-skilled in an auto factory, but due to
shifts in the economy and automation, that experience is no longer relevant,
and they have no formal education in another field to fall back on.

One angle could be to try to get some job experience in a different field, but
computing and starting a business are two of the few paths where you can just
go directly into that. You can get hired as a programmer or sysadmin with no
degree, and you can start any kind of business you want with no degree. But
Dupont, say, is not going to hire a chemical engineer with no degree, and that
goes for a large segment of the economy.

~~~
lsc
>I agree recent job experience is the main issue in computing, but that's a
fairly small segment of the job market (~5%). Outside of computing, there just
aren't that many career paths without degrees anymore, where there's even
hypothetically a way to get in on the basis of self-study and experience.

Is that really true? (that's not rhetorical.) I mean, sure, it's true in the
sciences, in part because scientists outside of the computer industry don't
have it so great; employers get their pick, but is it true in
management/business/sales/accounting? If it is true, how much of that 'truth'
has to do with the expectation that it's true rather than any required
knowledge? Are folks without those degrees not trying for the position,
because they think they need school, first?

(I see that a lot in my industry; kids think they need degrees, so they go to
school rather than working. I mean, it's hard to argue if the parental units
are paying now and won't pay later, but... you don't want to pass up your
personal 1997. I think the number of folks in my field who go to school is
inflated by the belief that you need a degree to get in.)

now, I'm again stepping outside of my immediate sphere of knowledge, but I'm
pretty sure degrees are not needed in sales. I mean, you've gotta be able to
pretend to be middle class, and a degree helps for that, but...

And management? Come to think of it... I can't remember working under guys who
didn't have degrees /or/ hadn't gotten their start with their own company, so
you might be right there. However, I have worked under guys with degrees from
for-profit schools... I have a hard time imagining a degree from one of those
places counting in your favor, and I've met a lot of management types who
could give the sales folks a run for their money when it came to reading
comprehension.

------
anovikov
I don't buy much into the vision that it's harder for the elder generation to
find a job in general. To me it seems that when you're 25, you may be to some
degree judged by your perceived potential. When you are 50, you're not, it's
only your past achievements that matter. So there must be a much more
polarized job market, clear winners and losers.

~~~
RougeFemme
A lot of people hire people like themselves or - to paraphrase previous posts
and threads - people they would like to hang out with. And hiring managers are
typically younger than 50 and don't want to hang out with someone in their
50's and/or don't want to hire their "parent".

Many people see 50-year-olds as "old dogs who can't/don't want to learn new
tricks", regardless of past achievements/tricks.

And many mid-size to large employers still harbor the illusion that they can
hire someone who will stay with the comapny for life, or close to it. Thus,
they don't want to "waste time" on someone who will "retire" soon anyway. They
want someone to "invest in" and for them, that translates into a younger
person.

Finally, some people simply don't want to hire someone who knows more/is more
experienced than they. Sometimes it's because they fear that person will have
an attitude; sometimes it's because they have a need to always be - or
perceive themselves to be - the smartest kid on the block.

~~~
anovikov
I am 34 and 2 of my coders are 42 and 41. They are slow learners and lack
initiative, but this is exactly what i want: they do their job well,
responsible because they have families to care for, and won't leave any time
soon because they are somewhat inflexible/unable to learn fast/avoid changes
in general. What else could i wish? I am really happy with them.

~~~
anovikov
I want to also add that older guys can do a better job managing people,
because they are normally less emotional and better communicators (something
at which i really suck). So if any of these guys manage to grow out of coders'
pants i will find him a suitable use, too.

