What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

blogs.wsj.com

71–72 of 72 posts

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#71

Post by lightbritefight » Fri, Oct 23, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

Nagyman wrote: post #46

michaelZejoop wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you top out the salary range, and are close to 55 (the earliest age for reduced retirement benefits) they look for ways to shed you. It happened to me, and many other colleagues. I have worked on a lot of great projects such as B2 Bomber, Space Shuttle, UAV Global Hawk and many satellite programs. That does not matter; once you hit the age/wage criteria, you better have great connections or you could easily see…

That's nuts. You're more proficient and efficient with that experience, which should compensate for the wage difference between you and a less experienced colleague.

Its short term, bottom line thinking. If you force them out at reduced retirement wages, that saves pension money you can then bonus yourself with. You don't care that you are firing your most competent people, because they are just resource slots you put new, cheap college hires into. They arent as good, but whatever. You have 2000 of them. They are good enough, right? You can then bonus yourself with that salary savings as well.

The company will eat itself to death, but that will take years, and you'll have left to do the same to other companies, using your "success" at this one to prove you need an insane salary at the new one. Repeat, over and over.

Re: What We Know About the 92M Americans Who Aren’t in the Labor Force

#72

Post by michaelZejoop » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:42 AM UTC

lightbritefight wrote: post #71

Nagyman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nuts. You're more proficient and efficient with that experience, which should compensate for the wage difference between you and a less experienced colleague.

Its short term, bottom line thinking. If you force them out at reduced retirement wages, that saves pension money you can then bonus yourself with. You don't care that you are firing your most competent people, because they are just resource slots you put new, cheap college hires into. They arent as good, but whatever. You have 2000 of them. They are good enough, right? You can then bonus yourself with that salary sa…

Yes. But imagine this on a scale of the big defense contractors. They won't 'eat themselves to death' as you put it but they are big enough (especially after major consolidations in the 90's) to sustain this behavior indefinitely.

Unfortunately a large part of their business model relies on fulfilling their commitment to seat engineers on programs as promised in the contract they signed with their customer, i.e., the USG. Filling seats is more important than achieving quality engineering outcomes. There are three big-time losers in that equation: [1] the taxpayer, [2] the "lifer" employee, and [3] the warfighter.

Post reply on HN