Agreed, I was thinking the same thing. Or maybe the house was just a rental, or perhaps it wasn't fully paid for yet, and with the housing market in decline, he would get less than he owed on it; who knows? But I guess everyone's tipping point or threshold of absolute despair is different; some lose hope a lot sooner than others and see no other way out. But killing your whole family as an economic option? Jeez... man, that's just so damn sick
Here,we don't feel the economic downturn yet but it is predicted that there will be less tourists this year affecting our economy,etc....but as my parents isn't feeling the difference yet
so far none of the options seems to resemble my situation either, which is senior year of college/uni going into the work field come september....
Though the poll is obviously imperfect, the line: "...If you're a kid and have never yet worked, answer for your Mom and Dad (or other adult person that works to supports you)." ...was meant to address those that were still in school. However, if you don't want to answer for Mum or Dad, then your economic outlook or general opinion too, is also most welcomed. This is not totally scientific, just a general social opinion gathering out of curiosity. At any rate whether you ultimately feel it's appropriate to answer or not, I nonetheless thank you for your reading and interest.
I work in media and web, my company just posted one of its best quarterly profit margin. Also about the 2 stories that ralphrepo linked. The first one, they gave 2 examples of people quitting a full time job and trying to dive into another field. I think it more about bad timing than a result of bad economy. If they didn't quit their original job, would they still be in this situation? Probably not. About the parents that kill their kids and themselves, its seems like they were doing something shady to have the company have an internal investigation on them.
You're mostly right on both counts but, no offense, IMHO, I think that you're also missing the point, or perhaps just choosing to overlook it. The CNN piece was attempting to highlight just how difficult it has become to switch jobs or enter new fields today, when it wasn't so in the past. Most people who wanted to, used to be able to transition into a new field fairly easily. The near impossibility of it in the present day is what the article was alluding to; that if you're in a steady job with a steady salary, then it's probably smarter to stay put right now. That is a direct result of worsening economic times. I think too, that the high numbers of over qualified applicants willing to settle for less, is a harbinger of a harsh economy. Or, let's put it this way, if you left your great job today; how much effort would you have to put into getting a job with similar or better pay? And if after looking unsuccessfully for months, would you be willing to settle for something less just to pay the rent? A surprising number of people have begun to answer in the affirmative. While some fields have narrowly been spared from retrenchment, the broad impact of so many other endeavors faltering acts to pull the entire employment arena down. >.< As for the couple that lost their jobs; sure, you're right in that they got fired for misconduct. However, it is again the difficulty of getting new employment that was the issue, and the source of the man's despair. I tend to think that there was also a degree of underlying psychological pathology to the man that wasn't discussed, but that's now a moot sidebar. At any rate, years ago, young kids got entry level jobs in neighborhood fast foods as a way of making after school or summer money. Now, those low paying meat grinder positions are being competed for by more and more able adults. Just a walk into your local McDee's will bear that out. That's my personal barometer of the economy; if I see smart, responsible, and intelligent people doing really shitty dead end jobs, then I know the economy is in major trouble. :ugh2:
i work in retail. i can see people not really spending a whole lot of money compare to last year. if it keeps going on, i have to look for another job.
Its kind of scary, Im 16 at the moment and my dad already had his paycut. If he is actually laid off and neither of my parents can't find work, we would probably have our house close down. Although were not exactly desperate right now, but its still scary to think about >_> I would have to move and leave my friends and school behind. It would suck.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/02/AR2009020202132.html GM and Chrysler offering early retirement packages... Chrysler is offering $50k cash + $25k car voucher... nothing to sneeze at, but not that great right?......... continuing... GM is offering $75k cash + $25k car voucher... nice... but bet they can do better right? GM offering to their 10yr senior employees $115k + $25k car voucher... neone really gonna believe that GM and Chrysler are shafting their employees can suck a big one... at $75k, u can stand to get retrained easily within 6months to a year...
While those numbers may sound attractive on the surface, you have to ask yourself, what is a 50 year old, with barely a high school education from the 1960's, going to do with it? Granted, younger people who see these figures would probably find it very attractive. For older workers who haven't looked for a job or new career in years, and who are not tech savvy, the prospects out there are slim, even with "easy" retraining. I'm not so sure if, given the same position, I would be so easily swayed, but it is something worth thinking about.
i'm sure even at 50+, u can take a 6month course in being a pharm tech, or tech in radiology... both relatively low tech, both easily bank $20+ an hour, both easily done in 6months, both easily done with a high school diploma, and both easily jobs that are readily available atm as jobs in the medical field are still there and growing... sure they're not glamour jobs, sure they won't make as much, but it will at the very least keep them going while dredging through this recession... not trying is the first sign of giving up, and u can't blame the economy for that...
You're right in that there is opportunity for retraining out there and I'm in perfect agreement with you. However, what I think many people miss is that some people are too set in their ways to learn; the idea of putting on a thinking cap once more scares them. I have a buddy who's been a photo duplication technician for more than a quarter century. Back in the days before digitization, his hand eye skills, using pin registration mind you, in making perfect photo composites meant he was paid top dollar. Now, any snot nosed 12 year old with an entry level budget photo software program, can do better than his best manual efforts. Is he bitter? Of course he is. He spent his whole life perfecting a skill only to see it become useless almost overnight. What he used to spend days on doing can now be churned out by anyone in less than an hour or two. In terms of new training in something more recession or progress proof, I've talked to him about doing just what you stated, specifically becoming an X Ray technician. Radiology tech training has similar aspects with photography. As such, it should be even easier for him to learn as many principles (exposure, inverse square law, etc) are the same. However, getting someone to do something good for themselves is often an uphill effort. One of his colleagues in his department already got laid off, and it's only a matter of time before his turn comes up. Why is he waiting and not doing anything? Who knows? I've already talked to him about this till I'm blue in the face. I guess some folks won't put on life jackets until the boats already flipped and they're in the water. Using him as an illustration, some folks just don't want to change, and they're willing to risk everything not to have to it seems. What do we as a nation do with those people? I certainly don't have an answer and I'm sure it's probably flummoxing many others too. While one or two more (who may have lost jobs, and are too lazy, stupid, or uncaring to do something about it), add themselves to the homeless rolls is not a big deal; what do we do if they number in the hundreds of thousands? There are no easy answers. I personally don't think that they're giving up, but rather something else. There seems to be a huge psychological block that many can't seem to get past. The idea of change itself seems to be the biggest negative factor, regardless of the consequences. BTW, another friend who was in the exact same position went and paid out of his savings to learn refrigeration, ventilation & heavy air conditioning (from one of those trade school that always seems to advertise on late night television). He's not happy, but at least he's working, at nearly half of what he used to make. To make matters worse, he's in a field that is only marginally less recession proof. IMHO, the moral of this is, there's still going to be a lot of pain out there, regardless. >.<
Yes, I've graduated from college with really expensive tuition! And NOW I CAN'T FIND A JOB! And I have lots of student loans to pay off.
i understand, and agree that people are reluctant to change, I also do feel sorry for those that constantly have to go through changes and are wading in this BS atm... i'm rooting for those people... i just hate seeing those that don't try at all, or are completely reluctant till the very last dollar is spent in their savings b4 changing... then turning around bitching and moaning at the economy, at the government, blaming everything on everyone else... and finally grabbing at the welfare that comes their way only to be expecting more... since when did the land of oppertunity become the land of handouts?
Land of handouts? LOL... I certainly agree that the dole can be seemingly endless. Aside from the "helpless" idiots however, there are genuine stories of people simply not being able to survive in this round of recession. This story of rural Alaskans living on the edge is heart breaking: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/09/rural.alaska.villages/index.html We that live in big cities often don't feel or understand how marginal and especially vulnerable rural America can be. Despite the misfits and malcontents, there is a real risk that many will fall between the cracks. Should we, as arguably the most powerful nation on the planet, risk allowing some of our citizens to starve to death? I personally find the idea to be abhorrent. The notion of the bitchers and moaners who grab at whatever welfare they can get is irritating. However, they don't even come close to the true cause of my ire, when you compare them to multimillionaires who are jumping on the bandwagon clamoring for economic aid and relief. It's a matter of degrees and impact. So in essence, I'd take that smug lazy laid off auto worker over the self serving Wall Street asshole (with an inflated sense of entitlement to match their ego), any day of the week. <_<
ah there's plenty of arguments that can go both ways about rural alaska, namely the huge tax relief, and government bonuses for living in alaska, but it is starting to get ridiculous with food prices soaring up there and the extra cold year we had last year couldn't have helped them very much so i do wish them well... there will always be stories of some truly unlucky folks... and there will also always be "casualties" in recessions... of course as humans we should do what we can to help them, but we should be able to help ourselves first... that's why i just see it pretty darn stupid to be throwing out these new economic stimulus plans when we can't even fund them to begin with... and like yourself, i also find it quite appalling to see bail out cash(which i'm virtually completely against in the first place) used by these greedy wall street assholes... in my mind, all we're doing atm is flushing our problems with diluted cash and putting a band aide on the problem and hoping the bleeding will stop soon... i mean honestly should a country with a credit problem really be spending more money?
LOL... I understand that, on the surface, that rationale seems rather contradictory and convoluted. But that's the idea behind "stimulus" per se. Say, you're out of work, do you necessarily need to spend money on taking an expensive course (like your example from a previous answer) in the hopes that you can then find more work? Obviously, the investment in time, money, energy, etc., towards something that can eventually bring you a new job is probably worth the effort. Buying yourself a new flat screen television is not. The trick here is, to find the things that will perform like the former and not the latter of those examples. Ideally, the nation has to identify productive venues that can be started by using seed money to foster sustained growth. Like you had stated, there are plenty of available jobs within the health care industry that can provide a safety net for laid off workers who are willing to retrain themselves; I agree. But let's go one step further; let the government pay for it, but only in those fields that are in desperate need of people. Take the field of nursing for example. There is projected to be a Shortage Of Nearly Half A Million RN Positions in the US alone. Even the ideas of the past (like importing nurses from foreign countries; Philippines, Ireland, etc) won't work any more because their nursing shortages are just as acute. So how about offering to pay tuition for any laid off worker willing to go into that field, and better yet, forgiving (or income averaging) the taxes that new nurses have to pay for the next several years? This would attract people to a profession that is relatively good paying, with subsequent increase to the tax rolls over time, AND help solve a substantial part of the national health crisis. -innocent2 Again, I agree that throwing money down a bottomless pit is going to be a wasted effort. The idea is, to find problems that exist, think of ways to solve them by using the current crisis to dovetail into them to our advantage. That way, we can kill two birds with one stone and wind up being better off overall. -woot2
