My dad worked for the same company from age 25 til he retired. How things have changed.
Typical younger boomer had held 10½ jobs by age 40
Over 25 years, the average younger baby boomer someone who was 39 to 48 years old at the conclusion of a national study — had held 10½ jobs.
The study released recently by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics tracked the employment histories of the “younger boomer” age group from 1979 to 2005. Its primary finding was that individuals born from 1957 to 1964 held an average of 10½ jobs while they were 18-40 years old.
It found that job tenure tended to increase with age but that percentage growth in inflation-adjusted hourly earnings generally did not.
The study relied on annual or biennial interviews with 9,964 U.S. workers who were 14-22 when first interviewed and 39-48 when interviewed most recently.
As might be expected, the survey found that job changes were most frequent in workers’ younger years.
The participants reported an average of 3.8 jobs while they were 18-21 and an average of three jobs while they were 22-25.
At the other end of the age period, workers reported an average of two jobs from 36 to 40. The survey found that this boomer age group also tended to have large numbers of short-duration jobs.
The findings underscore current warnings by financial planners that workers must assume greater responsibility to save for their retirements.
With such short job tenures, workers are less likely to be covered by or become vested in employer-sponsored pension plans.
The report said inflation-adjusted hourly earnings grew by an average of 6.3 percent a year from ages 18 to 21 and by 6.5 percent a year from ages 22 to 25.
Average earnings growth then slowed to 4 percent a year from ages 26 to 30, then to 3.6 percent annually from ages 31 to 35 and 2.5 percent a year from ages 36 to 40.
The problem is obvious. Since the reign of the MBA began, there is no loyalty to the employees from most companies. From their point of view, you are a replaceable cog in a wheel, and if they pay you one cent more than it takes to keep you from quitting, they are wasting money (or in MBAspeak “decreasing shareholder value”). The only way for the employee to make more money is to quit and find a new job. It’s a case of musical chairs… you are hired to replace the last guy who had to quit to get a raise, and they pay you more money than they paid him. He may well have gone to your old company to take your place at a salary that the company was unwilling to pay you. It’s a pain for the employees, the employers lose huge amounts of productivity, and the net gain is essentially zero, although the churn does keep spots open at the bottom of the ladder for entry level employees who are grateful for whatever they get. Usually.
The exceptions to the above are the “superstar” employees who manage to jump the ladder quickly. We all know where THEIR real talents lie, however. They don’t get those round mouths from eating square meals.
Read “How to Work For a Jerk”. Very insightful.
I can’t disagree with #1 or #2, but wouldn’t people born between 1957 and 1964 be those who were unable to get good jobs with established companies because the positions had already been filled by the earlier Baby Boomers? So the good jobs would be with less well established institutions, and thus more transient. Or they settled for less-than-good jobs and of course were always on the lookout for better ones.
#2, good summary, xrayspex. I would only add that this actually costs money to companies. The cost of training and never being sure of what you are hiring can not be recaptured with high turnovers looking for the gems. Next, most of the gems won’t stay with a company that would be so cavalier and uncaring to their employees.
Many companies talk about their best resource being their employees, but seldom do they actually follow through.
The demise of American manufacturing also may have contributed to this. Many of us here think in terms of white collar jobs, but the American factory worker is about a thing of the past. Once upon a time you were born in a company town, and you followed your Father and Grandfather through the company gate. The lack of security gives rise to opportunity, but not everyone made it out the old town.
I wasn’t part of the study, but I: was born in 1958, graduated from High School in 1976, served in the Navy until 1996, and am on my 2nd job since retiring from the Navy.
Like Dennis says in #1, I’m on my 2nd job in the same industry – so the job hasn’t really changed, just the corporate name on the checks.
Interesting to see the Minneapolis Federal Reserve’s timeline:
http://minneapolisfed.org/bb/
Which has some nice “zingers” in it – covering the “young baby boomer” survey’s period of 1979 – 2005…
I wonder how all of these events, and others not mentioned, affected my cohorts’ ability to have a “traditional” career?
i.e.
1979: Consumer prices rise 13.3 percent, the largest increase in 33 years
December 1980: Prime rate reaches 20.35 percent
October 1987: Stock Market Crash
1992: “It’s the economy, stupid”
3rd Q 1993: Flooding in nine Midwestern states
December 1996: Chairman Greenspan declares “irrational exuberance” in the stock market
Summer 1997: Asian financial turmoil
Looks like Census data from 2005 shows problems across the board, not just for “young boomers”.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/opinion/edcensus.php
Gotta luv the slap at Dubya, at the end.
President George W. Bush is unlikely to push for those changes, wed as he is to tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy. But the economic agenda for the next president could not be clearer.