I believe you've misinterpreted my picture of "job hopping" (and I suspect intentionally because you had no where to go the other way). You can hop all you want but if you're not getting a better deal the hop was worthless. 99% of the time if you're getting more pay it's because the job has changed (i.e., it has different/more requirements). Janitor I is Janitor I and, assuming there are no other qualifications, will pay the same just about everywhere. If Joe, a burger flipper I at McD's, trades jobs with Bill, a burger flipper I at BK, that isn't "changing jobs" to me. There's no "upward mobility" going on there - it's just a lateral move and usually occurs because of boredom or a personally clash or someone needing to move to another location. Regardless of the reason, it's still not a change of jobs.
Except that mostly people don't do that. If you would ever both to read the article I continually cite you, you will note that most of them are leaving for
higher paying positions. The vast majority of Americans, as we grow, add skills and experience that allow us to move up the ladder; either with our current employers, or by seeking new ones.
I'm sorry you feel only poor, lost souls who can't do well on their own can have my beliefs.
:shrug: your flat refusal to accept basic statistical reality further indicates that reason is not driving your response, but rather emotion.
Your chart is as irrelevant now as it was two pages ago. This shows income, not pay from job compensation.
Which is a distinction without a difference. Not
least because the largest portion of compensation (and the most rapidly rising one) over the past couple of decades has been healthcare, which gets
more expensive the more you age. If those shifts in wages were reflecting a constant total compensation package
then young people would be getting paid more than old people, not the other way around.
Had, for example, compensation remained largely constant across age groups, while the mixture shifted between wage and benefits, you would see a
decrease in the relative wage income of older workers, as healthcare costs have increased at an above-inflationary rate for the past 30 or so years. However, you will notice that when we
look to see if that is the case, what we notice is that in fact
the exact opposite has occurred:
So, in fact, when we shift from simple "income" to "compensation"
the data is even more in my favor.
And why would God's gift to employers take such a lower paying job (essentially half pay IIRC) when he has the "superior education and abilities" you claim to have?
Because taking this job allowed me to
get that superior education and job experience.
Like most Americans, as I grow, I add skills and experience that make me worth more in the job-market.
If he moved on and up then someone else somewhere along the food chain has retired, died, etc. Job openings can only be created from new jobs in the marketplace or retirements from the workforce.
That is simply mathematically farcical. For the extreme example to demonstrate the rule, if you had a single organization with a single hierarchy that was a straight ladder and held 30 million positions, then only 1 person would have to retire and 1 new job would have to be created at the bottom for 30 million people to move up.
But, hey, if you're saying Obama's economic policies will create 30,000,000 new jobs and/or allow 30,000,000 to retire then I'm good with that admission.
:lol: Even within the false boundaries of the model you are arguing (see immediately above), you are confusing "jobs created" with "net jobs created". Even in the middle of the downturn the American economy was still a churn-and-burn of jobs created and destroyed. The relevant question is - which number is higher, and by how much. So, for example, when we say "In April of 2013 there were 174,000 jobs created", we don't mean that 174K jobs were created and everyone else just stuck tight. We mean that 2,300,000 periods of employment ceased, and 2,474,000 periods of employment began. A-B="Jobs Created".