FR is funded solely by the freedom loving folks
who love and use it.
WE ARE FREE REPUBLIC!
You are Free Republic.
There are no outside influences.
No advertisers.
Just us, all of us.
Please Contribute Today!
Posted on 07/07/2013 12:12:14 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Hiring is exploding in the one corner of the U.S. economy where few want to be hired: Temporary work.
From Wal-Mart to General Motors to PepsiCo, companies are increasingly turning to temps and to a much larger universe of freelancers, contract workers and consultants. Combined, these workers number nearly 17 million people who have only tenuous ties to the companies that pay them—about 12 percent of everyone with a job.
Hiring is always healthy for an economy. Yet the rise in temp and contract work shows that many employers aren't willing to hire for the long run. …
Driving the trend are lingering uncertainty about the economy and employers’ desire for more flexibility in matching their payrolls to their revenue. Some employers have also sought to sidestep the new health care law’s rule that they provide medical coverage for permanent workers. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Giving Americans more time to write poetry, learn to play the guitar and paint still life paintings. Whadda country!
Yes, they are. They are also adapting to the new normal in the employment market. This is our future, and we can thank the democrats who voted for Obamacare for it.
Those of us who have saved? Many of us are trying to stay out of the principle while interest rates are so low. Others are spending down their savings very quickly. They have no way to restore that money, so will end their final years in poverty.
The delayed giving the reason as long as they could, and then suggested it as a speculative possibility.
If Bush had been responsible, it would have been in the headline and the first sentence.
The pressholes trying to muddy the waters.
Number one reason is the ObamaCare disaster followed by government regulation making it no longer prudent to hire full time workers.
Then we have Republican idiots and the criminal Democrats trying to flood the labor market with yet more workers thus driving wages down further.
Sure. Just keep adding more mandates and taxes to punish employers for hiring. What could go wrong?
The sad thing is that these underemployed people will keep voting Democratic because they perceive its the party that cares about the Little Guy.
Fox had a report on this morning with the startling news that only 47% of American workers had a full-time job, an all-time low. Can this be true? If so, that certainly should be trotted out by the Republicans in every election year political ad.
Boomers care? News to me.
What money to save for retirement? We’re all paying for Boomers.
Maybe we should eliminate the ponzi scheme called social security. There’s a large worker shortage.
Boomers are those from about age 50 to 66. On the whole, they were able to get educations they could afford, establish careers, and buy houses before prices were insane. Many have had the opportunity through work to save.
It's those who are younger who haven't had that stability or ability (or common sense) to avoid crazy debts.
If we made jobs in congress and the administration more TEMPORARY, then we’d get back to permanent jobs for the rest of us.
“those who are younger who haven’t had that stability or ability (or common sense) to avoid crazy debts.”
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2013/03/21/why-boomer-debt-has-soared-since-2000/
“Overall, 44% of 65-plus household hold at least some debt, and the average household owes $26,000 – also more than double its 2000 level.”
“That’s undoubtedly part of the burden for those baby boomers in the age 55-to-64 category: The average household in that age group now carries $70,000 in debt, up 64% from 2000”
Again, you might believe this to be so, but it just ain’t so.
Boomers carry about 3x the amount of debt as their parents and are generally carrying far fewer assets.
The younger generation not only has fewer debts, since they’ve not bought as much as the boomers, they also do more with less.
Again - if the average boomer retires with 100k in debt, how’s that going to work out for society in general?
You’re not paying for this boomer. We are all paying for the bad voting decisions of others and having laws like ObamaCare.
Younger folks are hurt more since we’re less likely (statistically) to use or need Obamacare. It’s actually a huge benefit for the average boomer on up - since everyone pays the same and average costs for those 55+ are less than what they are paying.
BS, ObamaCare just raised my rates. My retirement is all but gone also.
The part-time work-force...
Soon, the highest paid people in the population will the the ones collecting Social Security. But, in a couple of decades, the payments to SS recipients will also be dropping, because, the number of hours worked will have dropped the earned payout in SS benefits.
That's since the beginning of GWB's presidency. Outsourcing of jobs, the recession, and economic instabilty caused that.
Overall, 44% of the 65-plus households hold at least some debt and the average household owes $26,000 - also more than double its 2000 level
Speaking as an "over 65", that's what I'm describing. The average debt wasn't high at all in 2000, and would easily be paid off with selling the house (again, the prevalent situation, not the only one). Then real estate values collapsed and interest on savings went to near-zero. That meant people had to use up their savings and accrue debt to pay bills.
It does not turn around without stable jobs that provide incomes which allow people to pay their bills and save for emergencies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.