<p>This just in…the economy had negative growth last quarter. Unless the political winds change, everyone should assume that a double dip recession is the likely scenario due to the tax increases on all of us.</p>
<p>How do you prep your kids to graduate into struggle, a world of less opportunties, higher costs, rejection, debt and frustration?</p>
<p>The labor force needs to become more creative, more flexible and relocatable. The employers need to be more willing to give up on ridiculous job requirements like 2 years experience for minimum wage, entry level jobs or college degrees for office administrators aka secretaries. And the country needs to get back on track.</p>
<p>Momsie, my husband has an MPA, has been in NYS gov’t for 24 years and he is planning on retiring in a few years and he is in his mid-50’s. We know people who are retiring every day. </p>
<p>When he entered his field a masters was already a necessity. About the only jobs in gov’t which didn’t require a masters are extremely low grades level (secretarial, for example) and required a civil service exam - and promotion from there is based on continuing exams - which cannot be taken whenever you want, but only when offered. Then to actually be promoted into the next grade level, with a chance of a better job, you must take the exam and be reachable on the list. </p>
<p>People with masters degrees get hired without having to take an exam and to come in at a much higher grade level (my DH for instance got in at a Grade 18 for a budget analyst position,) but are still only promotable after taking exams and being reachable on a list. It took him about 15 years to get the place where he was promotable without having to take an exam and reachable on a list. </p>
<p>People in gov’t jobs are definitely retiring because they get out with a great pension and health benefits. The problem lately with getting any government job is because governments (local, state, fed) have been cutting jobs and implementing hiring freezes. </p>
<p>They also are relying increasing on consultants as they don’t have to pay for their benefits and they aren’t in the pension system. </p>
<p>Teachers also retire when they become eligible but school districts, because of budget cuts, cannot replace them - thus it’s much tougher to get a teaching position.</p>
<p>Do biology majors do worse on average than physics majors? If so, is it because the physics majors have better math and computer programming skills? I’d guess that chemistry majors are between biology and physics majors on these criteria.</p>
<p>Why is retirement being discussed like it’s even an issue related to the jobs crisis? Jobs are out there but why would someone wait in line for years for one hoping someone will retire or die? </p>
<p>Retirement is the least of our concerns. Businesses are losing money and going out of business, Business is overregulated and no jobs are being created. </p>
<p>Personally, retirement is an antiquated idea of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that needs to die with the industrial revolution of that era.</p>
<p>"No. One. In. America. Is. Ever. Going. To. Retire.</p>
<p>I know lots of people in my generation (40’s and 50 year olds) who are still waiting to be promoted to the next level, which will never happen until someone retires. and no one is ever going to retire."</p>
<p>I feel your pain. Late retirements really do affect some positions, more than any other factor. My job is completely seniority related, what you do for work and what position you have is totally based on seniority. Our work can range from absolutely terrible to extremely good. Guess what jobs the older and more senior people are taking. You guessed it, the extremely good jobs. We have mandatory retirement at 65 (used to be 60), and they didn’t think people were going to stay that long, but many did, and progression just stopped. I see the same guys that I worked with 15 years ago that I thought, man, you are really old to do this job…and they’re still here. Leave! Get outta my seat! </p>
<p>I guarantee you I will go early, not kicking and screaming and hanging on by my fingernails.</p>
<p>Retirement in one’s early 60s may be an antiquated idea, but most people don’t die suddenly but deteriorate physically and mentally before they go, and they cannot be expected to work like 40-year-olds.</p>
<p>I don’t know how this topic morphed into a discussion of retirement - but anyhoo:</p>
<p>Out here in ScoutLand, I know lots of peope who retire in their late 50s/early 60s. I’m not there yet, but I can definitely see retirement on the horizon (so tantalizing!) and I am looking forward to it.</p>
<p>Oh, and I don’t feel antiquated OR mentally/physically deteriorated.</p>
<p>Biology is probably one of the worst majors overall in terms of finding a job at the bachelor’s degree level. Biology majors should plan on looking for jobs widely (i.e. not limited to major-specific jobs), the way humanities and some social studies majors should. The chemistry major outlook does not seem to be all that great either.</p>
<p>Physics majors also have a hard time finding jobs in physics, but they are more likely to be able to adapt their skills to computer software or finance, or their physics knowledge to some types of engineering (not requiring a PE license).</p>
<p>The chemistry job market is pretty horrible, too. I won’t go into my long sob sorry about my days in pharmaceutical research, but if anyone is interested in chemistry-related job prospects, I would recommend the blog by chemjobber. There was also an article recently in “Chemical and Engineering News” (the trade publication for the American Chemical Society) with the cheerful title: “New Bachelor-Level Chemists Face Grim Job Market.”</p>
<p>In saying that retirement is not the issue, I added my 2 cents about retirement. Oops. Opinions don’t matter because the economics of retirement will force whatever changes need to be made even though it may be decades for public policy to catch up with it.</p>
<p>So, please, what was the topic of this thread?</p>
<p>That it’s better to have a degree (or certificate or something) than not to have one as even the lower skilled jobs now are being staffed with people who do have them…</p>
<p>Those without anything tend to be really hurting unless they are super skilled at the very few specialties that don’t discriminate.</p>
<p>My cousin was one of two who got a job (he wanted) in law enforcement about a year ago. There were 40 - 50 applications. The two who got the job were the (only) two with 4 year degrees. A degree is not “necessary” for his job. He does not mind having to pay off his loans (which are not excessive).</p>
<p>The key, IMHO, is to stay away from excessive debt.</p>
<p>In what way, specifically? How is regulation preventing them from hiring 20-somethings when they do need additional employees? (Not employees unjustifiably replaced.)</p>
<p>Every regulation comes at a cost. The cost of compliance (not to be mistaken with actual results or outcomes) adds up. I owned a business - a start up. It was mildly profitable and I would’ve hired 2-3 people and expanded but the cost of hiring entry level workers exceeded the cost of getting technology instead. I don’t have to buy healthcare, pay taxes or listen to complaints from technology and tech doesn’t extract an arbitrarily set minimum wage from me either so when my state increased minimum wage, they tipped the balance to automation. My friend had to close his business altogether when the minimum wage was raised. His coffee shop was barely breaking even with him, his wife, his partner and his partners wife all putting in hours while not pulling a paycheck of their own. So, with the state saying his employees should get more, he shut down and they probably got more from unemployment. And this is very small stuff having a huge impact. </p>
<p>The corporation I work with now has laid off about 75,000 employees, yet we pay tens of millions in compliance costs just to show that we are in line with those regulations. The funny thing is that those costs don’t make us better or add to what we do. We do what we always have done but now with lawyers looking at our every move as we do it. Ridiculous.</p>
<p>Oh noes, a minimum wage! It’s not like the country has had a minimum wage since 1938 or anything! It’s Obama-imposed Marxism destroying our economy!</p>
<p>
And every non-regulation comes at a cost, too. Like before we had laws regulating water pollution - allowing companies to dump toxic waste into rivers and streams was never “free.” It came with a significant externality - the destruction of healthy ecosystems, impaired fisheries, contaminated drinking water, major public health impacts, etc. All of those things have a financial, social and human impact on the nation. So the people of the United States told the government to regulate water pollution and minimize those impacts.</p>
<p>If an employer and employee agree on a wage, I don’t see why third parties should interfere. If they think the worker is being underpaid, they should offer to hire him for more. As Madaboutx explained, the minimum wage and other labor regulations reduce employment.</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong With admitting that there are trade-offs when we impose various policies. </p>
<p>You exaggerate my reaction to them. However, the truth is the truth. My state raised the minimum wage actually several times over the last few years and the last time was the straw that broke the camels back. It’s just a fact. Jobs were lost.</p>