Also, how does it reflect the changing employment environment that seems to be moving towards more mobility between jobs for workers? Do these surveys actually reflect the current, and more importantly future, employment conditions in America?

It seems to me that we are trapped in the mentality that job security means that you will work for the same employer for 20 or more years and not the fact that you may change jobs with little or no loss of economical security. I don't believe that this reflects the employment conditions that exists in America today and in the future.

My father learned programming in the Army in the early 60s. He was employed by the same employer until the late 70s when the company chose to move to CA. He then worked for two different companies in the following decade, then ended his career in 2002 when he was forced to retire 2 years early because his job was moved to India.

My own job history has a similar pattern. After a variety of 1-2 year jobs throughout high school and college, I worked for the state government for almost 10 years (until 1997). Government is one place where people are employed with the same employer for 30-40 years. My co-workers were evidence of that. I then entered the IT industry. My first job for a consulting company lasted 9 months until I was hired by the client. I was there for 2 years, the next one for 6 months, then 2.5 years, then laid off and unemployed for 5 months, then a 10 month contract, followed by 18 months of unemployment, then 1 year, and I've been with my current company for almost 1 year. I certainly don't expect to be with this company until I retire in 20 years or so. My 3 sisters also work in IT and have similar work histories.

My son is 20 years old and has already had 3 jobs, all different industries. The first two were part-time, sometimes full-time during school. He's been at the most recent one for a year.

As for education, my grandfather graduated from high school, my father only had a year of college, and I had a lot of years of college with no degree (long story). My sisters all have college degrees with one having a master's.

I think the study should have compared 3 groups: my grandfather's generation (1920s to 1980s), my father's generation (1960s to 2000s), and my generation (1970s to present). Add in when those long employment periods took place and I think THAT study would prove the "popular story".

I would be interested to see the average age of the respondents when they started that longest term of employment, whether it was early or late in their careers, that would be a more accurate number to gauge current job security. If the average age is higher for the 1969 respondents than for the 2002 respondents, that means job security is on the decline, if it is lower it means job security is on the rise.

Imagine a worker in the first category. Starts working in mid 20s. Loses job with the Big Crash. Scrounges around trying to find work throughout the thirties. Maybe works a steady job in a factory during WWII. Then, in the postwar economy find job security and works till 1969. Time in longest job - 23 years.

Worker in second category. Gets first job in post-war economy, late 50s. Holds job for 23 years till the great Reagan disaster. Then spends next few decades being laid off, trying to find jobs here and there etc. Time in longest job. 23 years.

These scenarios explain the data presented, and are also completely consistent with the popular meme you wish to debunk.

You are right that there is no data, of the type presented in this study, to make an appropriate comparison of postwar security with modern security. But there certainly is lots of other types of data to indicate that workers are less secure in their jobs now than they were in the past.

The key point for today's discussion though, is that Stevens has presented us with a study that does not show what she claims that it shows. She has chosen data, and time periods which are not relevant to the point she is trying to make.

Three statements.

1. Job security was lousy during the Depression, as people lost jobs, and had difficulty keeping jobs that they did find.

2. Job security was great in the postwar years as people took up jobs that offered near-lifetime security.

3. Job security today sucks, as people rarely can expect to hold jobs throughout their careers.

The popular meme you wish to debunk relates to statements 2 and 3. The categories defined by Stevens bridge the times covered by statement 1 and 2 (for her earlier category) and statements 2 and 3 (for her later category).

The appropriate categories would isolate 2 and compare it to 3.

Since category 2 time period is common to both her categories, they can cancel eachother. Given that her overall result was similar, that means time period 1 and 3 contributed similarly. Todays's job security is as bad as in the Depression.

I am not asserting that that is the case. But that is a logical deduction from these data. I would be content to simply say that it is a badly chosen data set.

And yes, you have a point there. Because the people of the previous generation had lousy to non-existent job security during the Depression, so their numbers are skewed downward for that part of their careers.

Uhhmmm, you consider working for the same employer for over 20 years on average and in some cases over 30 years bad job security? If that is the case, then the problem is more fundamental. The data looks to me like job security was good for those who ended their careers in 1969 right up through 2002.

Maybe this will no longer be the case, but the claim that job security is now dead is hard to make given that the data necessary for the conclusion is not yet at hand, and the date we do have shows little to no erosion in job security.

And you really should read the links. People pushing the popular meme point to the firing/layoffs of people who fit into the demographics the data do cover.

Just reread my own comments. You are right, I used "economic security" in that first post. Sorry, I meant job security.

Smart-ass.

I was inspired by that great Steven Wright line, where he goes to the Open 24 Hours convenience store & finds the guy locking up for the night.

Your claim is that job security for people who entered the workforce in the late fifties is not, contrary to the popular view, any worse than for people of a previous generation.

And yes, you have a point there. Because the people of the previous generation had lousy to non-existent job security during the Depression, so their numbers are skewed downward for that part of their careers.

But nobody would contest that finding. The popular meme that you seem to want to debunk is something else though. That the notion of working for a single employer is now dead.

Nobody would be surprised to learn that people who lived through the Depression were unlikely to spend their entire career with one employer. No, the notion of single-employer careers was a post-war notion. And the popular meme is that it is no longer so.

So to measure that, you need data for people whose careers coincided with the post-war years, not biased downward by the Depression. And contrast it with people whose careers coincide with some conception of "modern times".

Thats why the two time periods I laid out above are the relevant ones. Granted we dont have data for modern times. But the two time periods chosen in the study are irrelevant to the issue of whether the popular meme is valid or not.

And what is with this "economic security" that you keep accusing me of distracting you with? I am, and have been, speaking of job security just as you have.

The problem with the survey, and your recounting of it, is that you are seeking to claim that current security is similar to what it was in the “golden olden” days (and I think it clear that you are basically referring to the post war boom days). Yet the data presented for the “olden days” is based on job histories that extended through the Depression. So it is not an accurate assessment of the level of job security in the postwar years.

Uhhhmmm no.

First off, I was referring to the tendency to view the past with rose-tinted glasses with the comment about the "golden olden" days. Your problem with reading into such phrases is your problem, not mine.

Second, the work histories cover who started working in the late twenties all the way up to the late fifties. That covers part of the post war "boom". That it doesn't cover all of it is indeed true, but then again, the kind of data necessary to make statements about job tenure simply isn't available, and as such statements about job security are in large part speculation.

As for the issue of economic security you have changed to a different topic than my post deals with. As such, to try and infer conclusions about economic security based on my post about job security is not really all that honest.

And then contrast that with those who entered the workforce in the early eighties, and who reach 62 in a decade or so. Those will be people who experience the job security available in these modern times.

The problem with this is that it isn't the narrative that we are seeing in regards to job security. The current narrative is that people who entered the workforce in the late fifites were being let go and that job security for these people was no longer true. This data contradicts that.

The problem with regards to people entering the work force in the 80's and later is covered in the last paragraph of my post. Job security might be lower, but right now we don't have enough data to make that conclusion.

The problem with the survey, and your recounting of it, is that you are seeking to claim that current security is similar to what it was in the "golden olden" days (and I think it clear that you are basically referring to the post war boom days). Yet the data presented for the "olden days" is based on job histories that extended through the Depression. So it is not an accurate assessment of the level of job security in the postwar years.

A better measure would be those who entered the workforce during WWII, and reached 62 in the mid to late eighties. Those would be workers who experienced whatever job security that the "golden olden days" had to offer.

And then contrast that with those who entered the workforce in the early eighties, and who reach 62 in a decade or so. Those will be people who experience the job security available in these modern times.

In a row?

Smart-ass.

Tano,

You have conflated job-security with economic-security. While undoubtedly related they may not be identical. Second, I don't see that job security has declined since a change of .5 years is very tiny. If you are worried about that I have to wonder how you manage to get up in the mornign and actually venture outside.

In a row?

A 62 year old in 1969 started in the workforce in the mid-1920s - i.e. their data will reflect their history through the Great Depression. Plus the post war boom.

A 62 year old in 2002 started in the workforce in the late fifties (post-war boom) and through up till now.

So what is the message here? That the loss of economic security in recent times has a similar effect on ones economic history as did the Great Depression?