E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Traditionally male-dominated professions, such as construction, suffered heavy job losses during the recession.
With the labor market still on the ropes, Americans who have jobs are hunkering down and staying at them longer.
The median length of time people have been at their jobs is 5.4 years, compared to 5.2 years in 2010 and 5 years nearly three decades ago, according to new research conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
It's not that we love our jobs so much, said Craig Copeland, the study's author and senior research associate at EBRI. "It seems like people who have jobs in this economy are holding onto them if they have a choice," he said. When the economy is thriving, people switch jobs more often in search of better pay and benefits or more room for advancement. In this economy, we're happy just to have our jobs.
The group's research found that a once-sharp disparity between men and women's job tenures has now entirely vanished. While male workers' median job tenure slipped from 5.9 years in 1983 to 5.5 years today, the median tenure of female workers climbed from 4.2 years to 5.4 years over the same time period.
Copeland said there are several reasons for this. Traditionally male-dominated professions in both blue- and white-collar sectors, like construction and finance, bore the brunt of job losses during the recession. Union jobs typically held by men are on the decline, and a growing number of female-headed households have contributed to their rise in the work force.
"There's a lot of evidence that female labor market attachment goes up in a counter-cyclical fashion" with male employment, said Jeff Strohl, director of research at Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. Male unemployment can prompt their partner to get a job or stay at the one they have for a longer period of time. "You have to have some sense of financial security inside of a family unit," he said.
Today, Americans enter and leave the work force later in life. "The career cycle has been changing over time. We’ve moved away from the high school economy," Strohl said. Now, more people enroll in college before starting their careers. "Real labor market entry is 22, 23." On the opposite end of the spectrum, more workers are delaying retirement — a long-term trend Strohl said was exacerbated by the recession, when many workers saw their retirement nest eggs shrink.
EBRI's research also debunks the myth that a one-job career was the norm in previous generations. Today, male workers between the ages of 55 and 64 stay at a job for 10.7 years at the median, an increase from 9.5 years in 2006. Even when the median job tenure for this age group peaked in 1983, it amounted to 15.3 years — hardly a career-length stint.
Only around 20 percent of workers aged 60 to 64 have been at their jobs for 25 years, Copeland said. That's not very many, but it's a drop of only around 3 percentage points since 1983. "The majority of people do change their jobs, either by choice or being forced to," he said.
More money news:
- Social Security can be fixed (but it won't be pretty)
- Hey, hot stuff! You're fired
- Financial moves to make before the new year
- Sign up for our TODAY newsletter
Follow TODAY Money on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
DUH!!! Unemployment is still at about 8% and there won't be much improvement anytime soon. Oh well, four more years of NOTHING!!!
Watch out, your prejudices are showing!! Did you not read the article posted today that the unemployment claims are down to their lowest in 4 1/2 years? That goes all the way into the last president's term, no?
Prejudiced? Because I think job growth is stagnant? WOW!!! More than likely a seasonal adjustment anyway. If unemployment does improve we can thank the Republican House for that. Businesses have much to worry about not only in the form of taxes but also because they are soon to be hit with Obamacare and the taxes needed to fund that monstrosity. Mr. Obama has a taxation plan not a job creation plan.
Next month unemployment claims will be the lowest ever when everyone who has been receiving unemployment benefits over 27 weeks are put out on the street.
Just because unemployment claims drop, does not mean unemployment drops; it just means that people have given u p and are no longer searching for work.
DAN
You got that wright !!!
Most don't see that simple fact ( rose colored glasses you know ). About the only real job increase is in the north east. Lots of work there repairing the damage from Sandy. Most of the country is still stagnant at best. Promises of manufacturing jobs returning to this country. But so far no real jobs created from that.
Dan, no one is putting anyoine out in the streets. It's up to the individual to make their own livelyhood. Stop expecting the government to take care of you all your life. Unembployment insurance is not suppossed to be welfare.
mmm1379 - And how is that so? If the only source of income they have is cut off, how is it they're not going to be put out on the streets? Their mortgage lenders will put them on the street. Their landlords will put them on the street. Try living on unemployment for a while, and see how well you do. If you are over the age of 45, you're no longer considered for employment by most companies. If you have an illness, nobody will hire you. Your simplistic, Pollyanna view of the employment situation in the US is just that. And your Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck/Faux Nooz platitudes are just that - platitudes, with absolutely no meaning. You don't have any answers at all, just criticisms.
People are also staying at their jobs longer simply because they can't find other jobs to go to. They've found a measure of job security in that many around them were laid off and were forced to absorb their duties without an increase in pay.
On top of that, with the complete and utter failure of this administration to fix the fiscal cliff dillema, people can expect the 2% raise they might be receiving to be washed out by increased income taxes. Yep, fo mo years!
The journalist is avoiding the real issue.
Americans are staying with their job longer not only because of the high unemployment rate but also they are too poor to risk looking for another job or to retire.
Despite many two-income families--almost the norm today-- why are so many Americans poor?
Thanks to heavy taxations from local and Federal government, the average American working-stiff is working nearly 4 months per year just to pay the taxes: State and Federal income tax ( for some a city tax also) , social security tax, national health car tax, property tax, sales tax, utility tax, capital gain tax, gasoline tax, environment taxes, excise tax, tax on dividend and interest, travel tax, and the death tax.
Finally, whatever money remainding is subjected to debasement -- theft is the right word-- by Bernanke's QEs.
In 1776 America had unfair taxation with no representation. Today, Americans have unfair taxation with betrayal representation.
14 Million people need a job! The economy needs to grow! The budget deficit needs to be paid off! We can spend money on everything, until it comes to these 14 million out of work Americans. Pay these people $800.00 per week for two years tax free. Take 10% from the top, and give that money to the states each week, then take another 10% from the top and apply it to the budget deficit! Require them to either work or train for work to receive this money, but pay taxes on any work they do,; This will stimulate the economy, stop all other subsidies, to them, unemployment food stamps, and all other for two years. This will create demand in the markets, manufacturing, retail, construction and it will increase the money paid into SS and medicare. The states will be able to balance their budgets, and hire workers creating more jobs and demand taking in 1,120,000,000 each week for two years, the same amount would be applied, to the budget deficit, each week for two years. This would save interest the country is paying on the budget deficit that would help fund this, along with the money saved by not giving these 14 million people any subsidies other than the $800.00 dollars minus 20% each week for two years. Later it could save more If any one of these 14 million people, were to apply for additional help. This would mean two solid years of growth, and would make it easier to cut waste and spending, without derailing the economy! I think this or something like this would work and help the country get back to a sustainable growth economy where everyone who will want to work can find work. some may not agree that's OK, but if you do not agree whats your plan? Another thing they could do, is give people on SS a fifty percent raise and charge them more for medicare, like double what they pay now, or in some cases triple! More would leave the work place and it would stimulate the demand in the market place more.
Not a word about a contribution from the uber wealthy. All of your suggestions fall on the middle class. It's not about the subsidies, it's about the availability of jobs. If there were 14 million jobs available, do you really think that many folks would be taking subsidies?? The subsidies, as welcome as they are when there is no other source of income, is not enough to live on, much less thrive on.
Your suggestion about SS is not well thought out either. What good is a 50% raise if you turn around and take it back by doubling or tripling medicare? You won't persuade anyone to leave the workplace on an idea like that. People can usually figure out their own self-interest if not bamboozled by faux news, etc., and a social security payment minus hefty medicare premiums is not better than a good salary.
Nina-TX; The money would lift the markets and generate taxes! The people who get SS on average receives 1,250 per month their medicare co-pay is a little over one hundred dollars per month. If they double the SS it would be 2,500.00 per month; The co-pay would be two or three hundred. This would help fund medicare, and would leave them a more livable monthly income, while generating tax revenues, and jobs because of their spending. It is hard to see how this would work, but it would work if they lift the income cap to a higher figure like to one million dollars, instead of one hundred and five thousand, or what ever the cap is. SS is a hedge against recession, it would be a stronger hedge if they double it, and many could leave the work force with a higher income that would open up jobs for younger workers.
In my first comment I did say a 50% raise, in SS. In my second comment I said double either would work, double would work twice as good. They keep saying people are living longer, and they are, but many are not living longer.
"Pay these people $800.00 per week for two years tax free."...Unemployment benefits are NOT tax-free!
dale:
The government has no money or productive capacity. Government activity does not generate a profit or grow the economy. The government gets all money from the people, either through taxation or penalty.
When government hands out subsidies, the government is giving money to one unproductive group of people while taking money from a productive group. The unproductive people will merely consume the wealth while the money from the productive group is available for investment and business expansion.
If you want more consumer consumption, increase discretionary income by reducing taxes. If you want more business expansion, meaning more job opportunity, increase available capital for private enterprise rather than for government borrowing. That means increasing the savings rate in the US by rewarding savers with higher interest rate and reducing the size of government.
I WISH my job would have lasted 5.4 years.
14 million out of work, unemployment claims lowest in 4 1/2 years.......
Happy days are here again.....just keep drinking the Kool-Aid....
First, we were told of a 'soft landing.' Then we were to have a 'jobless recovery.' Then we were told there were 'green shoots'. Finally, we are told that the Great Recession officially ended in June, 2010, moderate recovery underway.
Some people don't have a choice but to stay at their jobs. I don't think this particular reporter realizes that.
Three jobs after the U.S. Army and I'm not counting my jobs before I graduated from high school. Two years in retail, twenty two years in wholesale and finally twenty two years in maintenance. For many of those years I was self employed while working forty hours a week or did side work. Never unemployed, never left a job not having one to go to. A job is a job I never had a job I did not like, perhaps some situations were unpleasant, pehaps some people were also but the job was what it was. I think that's the problem too many people wanting the perfect job, no unpleasant situations and far too many wanting to get paid for doing too little and from my experiences lately with some businesses, a lot of people just do not do their job.
This article was pretty stupid. Maybe this is important news to some people, but not to me. But I am getting paid to sit here and type this...I love my job!!!!! Look at me, paid to post!!!! Woo-hoo!!!!!
"While male workers' median job tenure slipped from 5.9 years in 1983 to 5.5 years today" Previous:quote from this story.
On January 20, 1981, Reagan took office. No coincidence. The anti-union break-ups were beginning to take effect in a few years (3) beginning the downfall of the middle class. For this reason, Reagan deserves to go down in the history books as one of the worst presidents for the PEOPLE ever. GOP copy-cats want to continue with his strong business, as he did. Let's not forget VOTERS; we are the PEOPLE - NOT the businesses. Make business strong and profitable, but not more important than US.
Anti worker trends were fluent and prosperous for capitol gains in companies across America during the Bush(s) administrations. Clinton's biggest mistake was signing off on the trade agreement that sent millions of jobs out of our country. WE NO LONGER HAVE A MIDDLE CLASS. That is, jobs available out of high school or college that can produce enough to save to marry, buy a home and have children, then taking care of all the above. Nine, 11, or even $16 an hour jobs do not cut the mustard for such.
If corruption ruined organized labor, the federal government needs to step in, enacting profit sharing standards to the workers, allowing for middle class standards. Couples with 2 kids, a dog, and rent need to be able to afford homes, and take care of kids with insurance and adequate food, clothes etc.. We need a new 'wave' of job producing technology or labor demands to produce whatever. There are needs in energy, the infrastructure, transportation, and material handling, along with many other job related components of the economy, but not many jobs paying 50K a year, which is about what both adults need to raise a family, not $9 hourly times 40 = $360 a week, minus taxes = $288. Four kids and a dog will take near $200 in groceries and a couple fast food meals - weekly. It's time to get it back to where we were. Affordable lifestyles for all Americans who want to work, or are retired, disabled, or ill.
Prior to the early "80's we had jobs in manufacturing that produced corporate profits near record pace, year after year. China followed suit with Japan to undercut many American dominant entities, such as Machine Tools, Automobiles, Appliances, by giving their companies kick-backs, allowing them to sell product comparable to US goods for 25 - 33% less, along with cut &/or slave labor. The rise of Toyota is a result of this practice. The fall of the auto industry in the US came along with having EVERY machine-tool producer fail, melting into one company is the result of the same. From Cleveland, to Pittsburgh, to Milwaukee, Cincinnati through Chicago, Michigan, & Ohio, down to the southern states, they all went belly-up, selling out. All those jobs needed replacing. Those lucky enough, found other work that paid enough, and those that didn't are today's lower class: The New Majority.
The only answer: Fight big business and record profits year after year. Write your elected officials.
Staying with a job even after you've been screwed? That's what I thought. Sheep!
How about the people who are under-employed. People with degrees working at Home Depot and Walmart - some working two jobs. The unemployment numbers going down is a myth. Many kids have moved back w/ mom and dad and have quit looking for jobs. No wonder the 50+ year olds are better off now than the younger generations. We're not retiring any time soon.
First of all, the government statistics on unemployment are so far from reality it would be laughable, if it weren't so tragic. Their purpose is to make themselves look effective, even if it means lying. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has no clue or no will about how to actually determine the real unemployment numbers, and whatever numbers they do put out they pull out of their rectums.
Second, the howlers of "Get a job, you lazy bums!" are not hiring anyone, and they never will. They just like to shout the neo-cons chauvinistic bleatings, which makes them feel superior. Until they too lose their jobs. The people who actually could do the hiring are too busy drinking Cristal, eating Beluga caviar, and smoking Cuban Cohiba cigars to devote a moment's thought to the plight of the working man, and are actually striving to find new and better ways of cutting employment in their own companies.
Lastly, the slack-jawed losers who believe that everyone can make their own glorious future by simply reaching down to their bootstraps, and tugging mightily upward until they rise above the steaming dung heap they live in, are simply absolving themselves from any kind of societal involvement. They write off anyone who isn't a success as the dregs of society, and live as far away from "those people" as they can. The French Aristocracy, around the time of Louis and Marie Antoinette, held similar views. These smug prigs deserve the same type of fate.
Oh Oh I must be part of the unnormal. I have been at my job for 35 years and have no plans on quitting for a long time yet.