Poll: Age for Dating and Marriage

[Ken]

I wonder how much of this is due to the 'trash' dead-end degrees that have been available now for some years. (What I mean is degrees for professions that have few openings. I could be considered an example, except that although there aren't a lot of openings for missiology majors, I went through with it. However, I certainly did experience the lack of qualifications for any available jobs in my area of expertise when we moved to Holmes County when I was just 47. The only two jobs for which I felt I was especially qualified was work for the county in a program for immigrant families, and in doing translation checking for CAM. The county never started that program, and I was probably not 'Plain' enough for CAM, and I may have also been seen as a threat, due to the very thing that qualified me for the job - my long-term experience in Bible translation work. But I DO know first hand how threatened a translator can feel when working with a translation consultant. It can at times feel intensely 'personal'.)

That wouldn't explain why men and women are having opposite trends upon graduation in terms of unemployment.

I thought I posted a response to this earlier, but apparently didn't finalize it correctly.

The main title of the graph is what I was responding to, comparing the jobless rates for college grads to that of non-grads. (The difference between men & women appears to be roughly consistent. There may be some salient factors other than gender-based comparative pay or employment rights, such as general social expectations of the society of which these young people are a part. Some cultures view employment status for men quite differently than for women. This can transform into differing intensity of social pressure to maintain employment.)

Unemployment is narrowly defined as those who are out of work but actively looking. So college students, high school students, stay-home parents, and retirees do not count in those numbers. Even though they are not working, they are not considered unemployed if they are not actively seeking full-time employment.

That leads to some discrepancies. So for example (and I'm just making up these numbers for illustration) You could have 80% of adult men employed and 60% of adult women employed, but the unemployment rate could be the same 5% for both men and women if only 5% of both men and women are actively seeking work.

This can also lead to some paradoxes such as the unemployment rate can decline during a recession if enough people just give up and stop looking for work. This results in a shrinking workforce and shrinking unemployment rate while the economy is also shrinking.

[ohio jones]

Financial stability isn't the only measure of maturity of course. But it is one easily observed measure. That said, I've seen couples get married in their mid 20s who were not yet financially stable, but they were mature. For example, couples getting married when one (or both) spouses are in college or grad school. Or perhaps they are doing mission work as low paid volunteers.

I see.

Do you disagree?

I disagree that one can do mission work (or anything else, really) as a low paid volunteer.

[Neto]

That wouldn't explain why men and women are having opposite trends upon graduation in terms of unemployment.

I thought I posted a response to this earlier, but apparently didn't finalize it correctly.

The main title of the graph is what I was responding to, comparing the jobless rates for college grads to that of non-grads. (The difference between men & women appears to be roughly consistent. There may be some salient factors other than gender-based comparative pay or employment rights, such as general social expectations of the society of which these young people are a part. Some cultures view employment status for men quite differently than for women. This can transform into differing intensity of social pressure to maintain employment.)

Unemployment is narrowly defined as those who are out of work but actively looking. So college students, high school students, stay-home parents, and retirees do not count in those numbers. Even though they are not working, they are not considered unemployed if they are not actively seeking full-time employment.

That leads to some discrepancies. So for example (and I'm just making up these numbers for illustration) You could have 80% of adult men employed and 60% of adult women employed, but the unemployment rate could be the same 5% for both men and women if only 5% of both men and women are actively seeking work.

This can also lead to some paradoxes such as the unemployment rate can decline during a recession if enough people just give up and stop looking for work. This results in a shrinking workforce and shrinking unemployment rate while the economy is also shrinking.

I was aware of this, and I think that, as you say, it can create a false impression of the job situation, the economy, if you will. People DO give up looking sometimes.

Maybe you can answer this question as well - How often does a person need to apply for another job in order to be included in the data?

A corollary question: How often must a person apply for a job in order to continue on unemployment? (I don't know how to word this, but I don't mean to include those who were fired due to some illegal act or incompetency.)

[Neto]

I see.

Do you disagree?

I disagree that one can do mission work (or anything else, really) as a low paid volunteer.

Please expand on this. What, for instance, constitutes 'low pay'?

(As an example, WBT USA, which is a 'faith mission', determines how much support a missionary is required to have promised before they are allowed to return to their over-seas assignment. There are ways to reduce that amount by not reporting all expected project expenses. Then if that is not enough to be able to return to the field, a letter from the branch director to the effect that the member in question has not been a financial burden to the branch, and has not been the recipient of the branch emergency fund, the missionary in question is allowed to return. Some are simply more frugal than others, or have personal income from interest or dividends on which they can draw when needed.)

[Ken]

I see.

Do you disagree?

I disagree that one can do mission work (or anything else, really) as a low paid volunteer.

Are you making a semantic point here?

Volunteers working overseas with a living stipend is quite common. From the Peace Corps to organizations like MCC or CRS or the Friends Service Committee or CAM. They are classified as volunteers because they do not earn anything remotely close to a legal wage. But they are given a living stipend to cover food and housing and incidentals such as they may cost in the host country. Whether you call that a stipend or low pay is semantics I guess.

I would consider anyone who has successfully served for several years overseas in the developing world on a minimal living stipend to have demonstrated or developed a great deal of maturity but not necessarily financial stability.

[ohio jones]

Are you making a semantic point here?

Yes. Volunteers, by definition, are unpaid.

[Ken]

Are you making a semantic point here?

Yes. Volunteers, by definition, are unpaid.

Like I said, most overseas volunteers do receive a living stipend which is a form of pay and that doesn't change their legal volunteer status.

[Ernie]

Preplexity says,

It’s generally not technically correct to say “low paid volunteers.” Here’s why:

1. Definition of Volunteer
A volunteer is, by definition, someone who works willingly without pay. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a volunteer as “a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task” and, in relation to jobs, as someone who “works for an organization without being paid.”

2. When Payment is Involved
If someone receives any form of payment, they are usually classed as an employee, stipendiary worker, intern, or paid worker, not a volunteer. Some organizations use the term “stipend volunteer” to refer to someone who receives a small allowance for expenses, but this is typically to cover costs incurred while volunteering, not a wage or salary.

3. Colloquial vs. Technical
People sometimes say “low paid volunteers” informally when referring to paid workers who receive very little, but this is not technically or legally correct. In regulations (like Fair Labor Standards Act or non-profit law), this phrase is contradictory.

4. Alternatives
A more precise alternative would be:

Low-paid worker

Stipendiary volunteer (if referring to volunteers who get a minimal expense allowance)

Intern (if that’s the context)

Summary:
“Low paid volunteers” is not a technically correct phrase. If someone is paid, even a little, they are typically not considered a true "volunteer."

[Soloist]

It’s only going to be a matter of time before we have two chat bots arguing with each other rather than us bothering to post.

[temporal1]

It’s only going to be a matter of time before we have two chat bots arguing with each other rather than us bothering to post.

and oj. to reference God’s definitions.