oh.. link me pls.. the 25 and older is this one.. and rising a bit https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01300060 the one i linked was the 25 and older, with college degrees.. and it's not rising a bit.. that doesn't give you any info?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_Donald_Trump Projected effect of Trump's plans on the debt-to-GDP ratio over ten years, as calculated Moody's Analytics (light blue line) and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (orange line). The black line is the projection under current policy (as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office), which is similar to the CRFB's projection for the policies of Trump's rival, Clinton.[16] CBO explanation for shortfall in employment of 2.5 million relative to a theoretical full employment level.
25 to infinity? that's a useless statistic; should be 25-39; 39-50, etc to see what the real issue is
yea! that sure would be nice to have it be 25-50.. I don't know how much the 55 and older number is messing with the numbers.. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11324230
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing Possible route of the bridge across the Bering Strait.
A college degree is good, but skills and experience are also very important. If you work for one company for a long time, you may be doing specialized things that do not translate to the broader job market. It is necessary to keep your skills sharp by participating in training and asking for different assignments at work, and moving on to another job if there are no such opportunities available for you. Otherwise you end up a has-been. It's hard to come back from that in your 50s or later. This is something that requires a lot of ambition: staying sharp is not easy or comfortable. You'll have to get outside of your comfort zone repeatedly, and possibly move to a different city or state. A lot of people think a job is security--it is no security, no matter who you are. It is too many eggs in one basket. No matter who or what you are, you are not indispensable, and your employer does not give a rat's ass about you. They may do a few things to try to keep you and your colleagues happy, but ultimately that is just part of the economics calculations to your employer. The gig economy offers some security for people who are reliable and customer-oriented. As an example, I caught a Lyft ride to the airport the other day at 4 AM with a guy who said he makes $600 a day (working 10 hours). He focuses on one market: nighttime. He said he is very busy by 2 or 3 AM with airport rides. I calculated a bit to see what would happen if he drove people like me to the airport and back all night (25 minute ride for $45, I think Lyft gives him 85%, assume he makes tip of $5). Even if he cannot get two fares an hour, he could still easily clear $600. If he works 6 days per week, he can make $187K before tax. Now he would have some expenses, but at this wage, he can buy a new or slightly used Camry every year and still make a decent living--one that requires no education or experience. Why isn't everyone doing this? It requires a work ethic, living in a major city, working unusual hours, and putting in more than 40 hours a week. My point is that there are many ways to make a living and build some security: white collar or blue collar. In either scenario, achieving security takes effort. Ambition seems to be in short supply these days.
A job is the most insecure thing I can think of. Even slavery is more secure because slaves don't get laid off (although they do get set free from time to time.) No, the only secure man is the entrepreneur. Never work for another man. Sell him your labor if that's all you got, but always be in business for yourself.
I saw this in the Nov. 11 Chicago Tribune: A recent paper by Trump advisers calls for using federal tax credits to generate $1 trillion in private sector infrastructure investment over a decade. To offset the cost of the credits, U.S. corporations would be encouraged to bring home profits parked overseas to avoid taxes, in exchange for a low tax rate. If that corporate tax "repatriation" idea sounds familiar, it's probably because Obama has been urging Congress to do that, and Clinton cited repatriation as the way she would pay for her infrastructure plan. ''' There's been bipartisan support in Congress for addressing the nation's aging and inadequate infrastructure if funding questions can be resolved. Congress passed transportation bills in 2012 and 2015 to shore up the strained federal Highway Trust Fund, which provides highway and transit aid to states, and to provide modest increases in transportation spending — far short of what Obama and congressional Democrats said was needed. Congress did block much of the infrastructure money, but not all, that Obama wanted.