And here is one for 55+yo: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11324230
All is fine
Edit: genuinely perplexed on the response. This saved my ass one winter when I had nothing for rent.
I know many ex-colleagues who have been retired early -- they face age discrimination and cannot find work.
It's great how two sources can tell a completely different story about the same numbers.
That should already make you skeptical, and after looking at the chart, I'm more on side "all is fine" than the doom narrative the article is pushing.
An aging population means 25-54 represent less workers and people "retiring" from the labor force before social security age is likely to be deeply negative for their finances into old age and not just a decision from the relative luxury of being able to select jobs with quick vesting pensions like in past decades.
If pension ages were going down over the years and the average worker were well vested by 55 then in that reality all would be fine.
I think you've got something wrong here, "millennials" refers to people currently between 30 and 45 and are surely the least likely to be discriminated based on either age or inexperience.
Worth noting this is people who have a job, it includes the under-employed.
Not all of them, some of them have just been pushed out of the workforce unwillingly due to ageism while still financially insecure.
I'm all about people being angry with the current situation and pushing for class war, but blanket assumptions about any demographic, including those of a certain age, is not helpful.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
Pre-2008 retail was quiet in the middle of the day, now it booms. I can’t comment on if this is a good or bad thing, but I am surprised at how many people are causally walking their dog as I am rushing to compete an essential errand and get back to work.
Previously I imagined only the top-top tier firms could enjoy low single-digit acceptance rate, but here we have Accenture crushing it. Competition must be tough.
(But for what I know, could be that AI has made it easier for people to spam everyone with applications)
I know this is as real as "a matter of fact" but it's so stupid.
They're based in Ireland. There's like 42k software developers in the entire country* and Accenture has 779k staff**, so they had to hire people in foreign places like Norway and the USA.
* OK, it says "Computer Programming": https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/publications/publication-files/...
** and I have no idea how many of them do "Computer Programming"
Or they will start electing people like Trump/Mamdani to shake the system on both sides
People at my work were talking poor of gen z and how they are bulk of neets and how they are lame and etc.
There is always some cringe in different generations apart, but even being older, I can empathise with them. You have zero forecast to buy a home for yourself, to buy a car, to even pay for a university. Whatever they want to do, they will be sucked dry, even if it is a video game.
The f our generation is doing. We are being evil towards the elderly and the young. We blame the rich, the game, the system. All of them we power of our utmost selfishness, transfering the guilty for someone like we couldn't do anything about it.
Civic engagement across the U.S. is at historic lows. We are giving up social society for digital screens these days.
Original headline: "Job seekers giving up: Labor force participation rate falls to lowest in 50 years, outside of the Covid era"
Seeing a lot of age "bias" * in recent job cuts and comments by CFOs.
* Which may be rational, if unfair, if experience counts for less with the advent of the LLM coder.
Overall I can't imagine the killing all this head count cause blossomed too much and now AI definitely reducing head count futher is a good thing for an economy. An economy where these jobs let you buy nice single family homes in nice areas.
For me I havent left the job market but it's a huge joke now for techies and soon will be for a lot workers who use a computer to complete their work tasks. AI agents will be reducing all white collar jobs where only a few will be needed vs. 10 or 20 were needed before.
Deplete your retirement savings, have daily panic attacks, add roommates, stop eating healthy, give pets away, stop taking medications, downgrade car, find and recycle aluminum, use coupons, go to several grocery stores to capture distinct loss leaders, drive only when necessary, stop volunteering, visit crisis centers, cancel all subscriptions, wear clothes and shoes until they fall apart, learn to do your own plumbing, stop going to meetups unless they have free food, have trouble both waking up and going to sleep, stop reading the news, buy in bulk, check the thrift store first, stop donating at checkout, cut your own hair, have more panic attacks, air dry your clothes, stop playing games, stop exercising, sell off your sentimental items, buy generic products, juggle interest rate deals, ask for discounts on imperfect items, usenet/bittorrent, curse at the "gifted" system, drink only water, look around and in dumpsters, pick up that penny, and make a mental note about which bridges have the best living conditions.
“You deserve to starve instead!!” - is this really the position you want to argue?
Not everywhere is America, fellow hacker.
If you're playing labor in a capitalist society, you're playing a losing strategy.
They are being inundated with thousands of AI slop applications each week.
Hiring has devolved to word of mouth recommendations.
that may be an evolution, not a devolution
Networking turned from a suggestion into being the only way of getting hired. I don't need a job, but I've gotten several emails from recommendations and I didn't have any 3 years ago or so, maybe an odd one here and there.
I think getting scouted is also one of the better ways of getting hired by having an active github profile with at least one popular open-source project even if it is AI slop.
The real candidate has already been recommended by someone trusted on the team and is going through a much shortened version of the same process.
"Council staff dubbed the ‘Pink Ops’ allegedly promoted friends, NSW anti-corruption watchdog hears"
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/11/counc...
The issues in this thread will be addressed with what I am building and you will all thank me one day.
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...
The effects of this change are definitely being felt, good and bad, in many countries already.
- People anticipating high interest and price hikes in a world where many products are very-slowly-depreciating assets, in the case of game consoles and RAM, even appreciating, and
- A low current of suicidality, with an ambivalent regard towards the prospect of death once the account reaches $0.
- Alternatively, unemployed people in our field often find themselves free from a noncompete to work on profitable projects during unemployment.
I work 8 AM - noon, 3 PM - 2 AM. (Exact ranges vary.)
I don't have an office and I've never met most of my coworkers.
I'm exceedingly angry that restaurants and stores are no longer open until midnight. I used to do 11 PM Target shopping, 2 AM Walmart shopping, etc. Nothing is open late anymore, and it sucks.
At the gas stations I worked at, the shifts were 7AM-3PM, 3PM-11PM, and 11PM-7AM.
I used to do a lot of things at abnormal times. What does a quick beer after work look like when you're done at 7AM?
I also don't know many unemployed people cruising around malls looking for ways to spend money.
Also if you live in a tourist destination like a major city there's going to be lots of people with time off walking around everywhere.
Especially concerning when a bunch of politicians were in on it, ensuring that the money went out willy-nilly and that $700+ billion in "loans" were turned into a straight up gift from the taxpayers.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre...
https://fortune.com/2020/07/08/ppp-loan-recipients-members-o...
Wasn't that widely understood during the pandemic? All the coverage I've seen mentioned that the loans for forgivable if certain criteria were met, and nobody was like "yeah it's fine because it's a loan!".
The tax simplification that occurred in 1986 struck a bargain: We'll lower your tax rate, but we're not going to allow you to take all those BS deductions anymore. The effective tax rates barely budged.
An effective 94% tax rate is a huge drag on the economy, since it makes risk taking impossible to justify. You'd be stupid to start a business or invest in a startup at that rate. There's no surer way to throw half your work force out of work.
https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC...
https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260221_IRC...
What we've done to other countries has finally turned inwards. It was just a matter of time.
If you just do it yourself... there is no one to tax or take anything off the top. It often ends up you double your "income" from your work or better.
So I think it’s going to lower recall a a lot - it reduces volume of good and bad actors equally. Anecdotally, I’m not going to bother with such an application unless it’s my top choice or I’m desperate. For small companies that probably means throwing the babies out with the bathwater.
Honestly, it probably comes down to more networking and credentials.
Why are we shocked that tech workers also share deeply antihuman views like those of their masters?
But wow, 98€ is about how much it takes for me to take my family out to lunch at a fast food restaurant.
the US seems much more speculation and leverage based, rather than capital being used by private owners to apply labour to to make useful goods
Only works if the government doesn't turn around and spend the money. And feeding dollar bills into a furnace just looks bad.
Where is the connection between the percentage being graphed and whatever their definition of “stronger redistribution” is?
And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.
The chart is supposed accompany an article, which explains what the metric is:
"""A simple measure of progressivity involves comparing the distribution of income both before and after tax. By this measure America redistributes about twice as much today as in the 1960s (see chart 1). Germany and Japan, the next biggest rich economies, also redistribute a lot more than they used to. So do Britain and Canada. Indeed by our estimate, seven in ten countries have more progressive tax-and-benefit systems than in 1990. The ones that have become less progressive tend to be dysfunctional (Belarus, Eritrea, Haiti) or were exceptionally redistributive to begin with (Norway, Sweden)."""
>And I just realized the second graph includes capital gains for the fiscal income but not for the after tax income? This just seems blatantly misleading with that detail being hidden in an asterisk.
1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:
"We then sequentially remove capital gains, which are not in national income"
I don't know enough about economics to dispute this, but given that they bothered to adjust for other factors like imputed rent and "corporation retained earnings", I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt unless there's convincing reason otherwise.
2. On page 16 they have an actual breakdown of all the adjustments, which lists the effect of removing capital gains at between 0.7% to 1.4%. In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.
[1] https://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-Tax_Data_and_Inequal...
> 1. If you read the original paper[1], they seem to be doing it for weird economics reasons:
You should probably link a reference to the required extra information if you are expecting people to believe your sourced data instead of assuming they already know it.
> I don't know enough about economics to dispute this…
> In other words, not enough to change the conclusion.
If you don’t know enough about economics to dispute this, why would anyone trust your conclusion?
You’ve not changed my mind, only solidified that this is misleading data given your follow up.
And then these loans were just forgiven. And since they went to businesses, Republicans are completely silent about that.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Protection_Program
There are _some_ decent Democrats in the Congress. There are also plenty of bad ones. There are NO decent Republicans in the Congress. And yes, reality appears to be partisan.
To the topic in question, PPP was not really a big deal. The real culprit is this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CP - the corporate profits literally DOUBLED since 2020 because of earlier Trump's tax cuts.
This guarantees you will only get people who are young or childless or single
Not really. If you add data series for pre-tax profits and index both series to 2020, you see the two lines are basically on top of each other.
