Posted on 07/30/2004 5:05:51 PM PDT by Archangelsk
Survey: 57% who lost full-time jobs 2001-2003 and found full-time work again are earning less.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Judging from the latest government data, more than 50 percent of workers who lost or left full-time work between 2001 and 2003 and were lucky enough to have found another full-time job by this year were earning less than they used to.
From January 2001 through December 2003, 5.3 million long-tenured workers were displaced from full-time or part-time jobs they had held at least three years, according to a new report released Friday by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Displacement in this context is defined as a job that was lost or left because a plant or company closed or moved, there wasn't enough work to do or a position or shift was eliminated.
Among the long-tenured workers who were displaced, 65 percent had found either full-time or part-time work by January of this year, when the BLS survey was conducted.Another 20 percent were still unemployed and 15 percent were not in the labor force, meaning they said they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to the survey.
But 57 percent of the group who had lost full-time jobs and found new full-time work reported that they were now earning less than what they earned in their old jobs. Indeed, about one-third of those with smaller paychecks were being paid at least 20 percent less.
In unpublished data, the BLS found that among all workers displaced from 2001 through 2003 -- a total of 11.4 million people -- 52 percent of those who lost full-time work and regained it by this year were earning less than they used to. Reasons for job displacement
Among the long-tenured workers surveyed, 43 percent said plant or company closings or moves accounted for their displacement.
Another 29 percent cited elimination of their position or shift.
And 28 percent said there wasn't enough work to do. Other highlights
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Here's wishing you better prospects in the future.
I got laid off in Sept of 2003, am currently employed in a similar job, significantly more money, significantly less aggravation.
You're right about that. Mall parking lots. That used to amaze me when we were in the depths of a "recession" but there was still nowhere to park at the mall.
I think another factor in the "average" wage data is still coming from the fallout of the dot-com bubble. Lots and lots of way overpaid IT and other professionals at massively overcapitalized -- and failing-- companies... those folks eventually get back in the workforce at far lower, yet more realistic, dollars.
Another factor yet is the aging demographic of the population. Retirements are accelerating, and will be even more so in the next couple of decades. Those people are typically coming off of the rolls at the top of the salary scale.
Just a couple of things.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but all party rhetoric aside... Presidents don't create jobs, and they don't actually drive the economy. They have some small impact, but there are far larger forces at work in the business cycle.
It's better that this is true.
I am considering leaving my job, and will be considering many different options, but I fully expect to take something at way less than half my current salary.
At this point I'm after a simpler life. Less stress. No midnight emergency conference calls. Weekends off.
Wonderful!!
So, your wife is from Denmark ? or you have a big dog ?
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.
Very well said...
Love to go against "the trend".
Oh great...I won't have a compatriot in aggravation any longer?
bwaahahah... well... I didn't say I was going to do it *this week*. Maybe I'll milk this cow just a little longer before I pull the rip cord.
Oh... and also, not to nag, but just an editorial suggestion: You forgot the "Workers of the World Unite!" tagline. Would've been more effective.
Regards, :-)
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.
Thanks for providing the data to show that earnings are stable.
John / Billybob
I never said that I've been personally affected by this. I've been employed by the same firm for close to 25 years.
Actually, they're down, Counselor. You can, if you wish, live in cloud cuckoo land - I won't.
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
hehehe... not an off chance at all. Yes, that was supposed to go to you.
Roger on your observation.
I told somebody in my dept (who I learned was being headhunted by another employer) just this week: Nobody quits a job they like. That's why I don't counter-offer when somebody has a bid from the outside. If they're looking... then go. Take it. Be happy. If you were happy here you wouldn't have been looking in the first place.
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.