Good for you. And, of course, 2/3 is better than 0.
In the latter category, the lower salary ones are 52%. Eliminate the end-of-career bias, and this story shows that the Bush Administration is correct, that people are dominantly getting higher paying jobs. The "burger-flipping" complaint is therefore false.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "The Wussification of America: Fallout from Arnold, John and Sandy"
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
Yup. That's me. Worked 14 years at a company, worked my way up to Telecomm Manager. New top management comes in to stir up sales and I'm out so the new people can put their own guy in my place (I wasn't the only one. Almost all mid-management people were replaced).
Have only had short-term contract work since.
According to the IRS, wages have plummeted by almost 10%. Yet we're told the economy is booming...I guess it is at the top. They're up 10-22%. Group by group, job by job, industry by industry, our lives are being destroyed. In the meantime our politicians do everything in their power to aid in the jobs exportation and cheap labor importation that is causing average Americans so much strife.
This will cost Bush the election, imho. His Administration continuously shows it's contempt for the American worker. Not that Kerry will do better. Until we throw them all out of office, entropy will stay the course.
Lucky? Lucky???
No bias here....
I guess finding a job is like hitting the lottery. You're just lucky. No, you didn't work at finding a new job. No, you didn't put together a resume and sent it out to several potential employers. You didn't make follow-up calls or go to interviews.
You were just lucky. Or so says the Clinton News Network.
I got laid off in Sept of 2003, am currently employed in a similar job, significantly more money, significantly less aggravation.
Well then I must be in the minority because I was laid off in early 2002 but was able to find a new and better job soon after that with a significantly higher salary. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.
Love to go against "the trend".
For many, it's labor market equilibrium. They're making less now because in their previous job they were making more than they were truly worth to an employer.
If you can start a new job making as much or more than your old job, you are very well placed or lucky. It's one thing to change jobs voluntarily and move up, quite another to lose a job and do the same.It's always been that way. I may lose my job on Monday, but I will be working before the week is out. I doubt I'll be making as much as I would at the company I've been with the past 15 years. That's life. You make more the longer you've been at a particular job and are more valuable at that job. If you're answering the phone for a living, I'd advise a new line of work
A whole lot of people were being overpaid at the peak of the dot.com boom which is when this comparson starts.
1) Lots of dotcoms had huge bloated payrolls paying people to do, well, not much. While it was great at the time, it couldn't last. But while it happened, it didn't affect just the dotcoms. In addition to paying crazy salaries, the dotcoms bought stuff. Routers, servers, coffee makers, tables, chairs, desks, staplers, etc. All this money then zoomed through the economy, and other companies started adding excess people. Add the dotcom to the overstaffing at other tech companies for y2k (remember that?), and you had a lot of people getting high salaries without contributing much to the bottom lines of their companies.
2) Productivity. While most of the focus was on the dotcoms in the late 1990s, people were more or less ignoring the enterprise software makers, unless they were implementing a thin client or ASP (web-based) model. But the big story was that they made their software better. Companies implemented the newer versions to get to y2k compliance, but later realized that they could do more with less. Companies can now easily figure out which sales staff members aren't performing, which divisions aren't performing, and deal with these problems. Companies can keep lower inventory levels, they can contain all kinds of costs much better now. Good for the companies, good for the consumers (companies compete with other companies, and with lower costs can lower prices or at least not raise prices as much as inflation).
The fact is that in any technological shift, people get displaced. The number of RR workers plummeted between 1900 and 1950.