>Maybe because the long tenure with an employer went away in the 70's when we started off-shoring everything?
Maybe because people started moving around in their careers a lot more than in the 1970s when you had one job for life?
We employ far more people, at higher wages (especially for women and minorities, and certainly with higher benefits (BLS tracks total cost to employ - check the historical data) than the 1970s. So maybe that offshoring really did not move many jobs overseas. Most jobs moved to automation (the US only lost top producer of goods rank somewhat recently - except most of that production is automated now).
Also, pensions never covered many people. Far more people retiring have 401ks now than had pensions at their peak.
In general, I get the somewhat paternalistic sentiment that people should be provided for in retirement in spite of lack of explicit savings on their part (presumably in excess of Social Security). As a society, we don't want elderly people to lack shelter and food.
However, I find it hard to argue that the fix is to tie increased retirement security to very long term employment with government or individual large companies. Basically, the typical tech worker would get basically no pension under the terms of most pension agreements of the 50s-80s even if the large tech companies offered such.
I see a lot of people in well-paying tech jobs moving around every few years--and not just because of companies going out of business or laying off people. I'm sure many have good reasons for doing so. But people used to stick with employers through thick and thin. I just saw a former manager who was with the same employer (through a couple acquisitions--and, yes, a couple years laid off in dot-bomb) for 43 years.
That's a small amount of people. Most people in life move from job to job by choice as they gain skills or want to try something else.
Track all the people you run into in a week, and consider how many you think would choose to keep the job their in with the same employer for life. I don't know anyone I can think of who would choose that.
There's just too many opportunities, at all levels, to find better jobs over a 50 year span.
Maybe because people started moving around in their careers a lot more than in the 1970s when you had one job for life?
We employ far more people, at higher wages (especially for women and minorities, and certainly with higher benefits (BLS tracks total cost to employ - check the historical data) than the 1970s. So maybe that offshoring really did not move many jobs overseas. Most jobs moved to automation (the US only lost top producer of goods rank somewhat recently - except most of that production is automated now).
Also, pensions never covered many people. Far more people retiring have 401ks now than had pensions at their peak.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-history-of-retirement-i...