http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/us....html?_r=1&hpw

 

Wow "that" was a cheerful read. Thank god many of us have better luck in this economy.

 

This is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics

ABS Home > Statistics > By Catalogue Number
6265.0 - Underemployed Workers, Australia, Sep 2011 Quality Declaration
LATEST ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 02/03/2012

MEDIA RELEASE

02 March 2012
Embargo: 11.30 am (Canberra time)
25/2012

Underemployed part-time workers want 14 hours more work

In September 2011, there were 11.6 million people employed in Australia. Of these people, 786,800 wanted to work more hours and were available, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The average number of extra hours preferred per week was 14.1 hours.

Part-time workers made up the majority of these underemployed workers, 62% were women, but the proportion of underemployment was higher for men (28%) than women (19%).

The most common step taken when looking for more hours was 'asked current employer for more work' (62%), followed by 'contacted prospective employers' (58%). 'No vacancies in line of work' was reported by 21% of underemployed part-time workers as their main difficulty in finding work with more hours.

Over one-quarter (28%) of underemployed part-time workers would move to another part of the state if offered a suitable job, while 21% would move to a different state.

Over half (56%) of all underemployed part-time workers preferred to work full-time hours (at least 35 hours per week).

The median length of underemployment for Australians remained steady over the last year at 30 weeks, though there was variation across age groups.

An article Underemployment Patterns and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has been prepared looking at underemployment patterns from 2006 to 2011, showing that underemployment peaked during the GFC.

 

I can think of some regionals that fall into that category. Shame.

 

As someone that's been furloughed/laid off, been through multiple displacements and pay cuts since 9/11 etc, I feel for the people being affected by the recession. But........

...........the agony, the horror of driving a car with that many miles on it, no vacation, as well as NO BIG SCREEN TELEVISION!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sullenberger has said it best, although it doesn't usually get much attention as his other sound bites. Sucks for the people affected starting around 2008. Airline workers, and some others have been eating this crap sandwich since the end of 2001.

 

I'm only commenting on the high mileage vehicle part, I agree with you on the rest of it. I drove my car to just under 180,000 miles and the last 20,000 miles were an agonizing money pit as I was constantly making repairs (myself, not taking it to a shop). Just when I would start to get ahead money-wise, something would wear out and break down. It was frustrating. So, finally, when I had just enough money to justify buying a (new to me) used car with one sixth as many miles, I did. And it's been bliss ever since.

Point is, driving a car into the upper limits of it's serviceable life is good if it doesn't constantly cost you money to keep it running. But some people need their car just so they can get to work. I did. And I had to live with that for a couple of years longer than I would've liked to, but patience paid off... I hope.

 

Then you should of bought a Toyota or a Honda. If your car was one of those, well, you probably got one that had some crappy previous owners when it comes to taking care of their cars and it woud have happened regardless.

"Serviceable life" is a relative term depending all the usual factors of make, model, whether or not the maintenance was done, etc. I've had more than one of the above go well past the 200k mark with just standard/routine/scheduled maintenance. As have many of my friends, family, and coworkers.

Now cue a standard poster whining/complaining with "well I had a Toyota/Honda it only lasted (insert short mileage here) and was nothing but problems blah blah blah............"

B.S., the overall reliability record of certain autos speak for themselves.

 

My volvo has 307k on it. I bought it for 50 dollars at 186k. It's only needed gas, oil/fluids, brakes, timing belt, water pump, alternator belts, two windshields, and tires. Oh, and I just replaced the ORIGINAL clutch only last week...

buying a car with under 100k miles is just unfathomable to me, and I don't think I could justify the expense/premium.

 

If you could get a "good" deal on one, it's a no brainer.

Used to be that certified/pre owned with less than 30-40K on it could be bought for a decent price. Usually they were lease return vehicles and kept under the mileage caps, all regular MX done, and warranty left on them.

Dealers have figured this out and in many cases charging way more for the above type of vehicle then they did a few years ago.