>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 2:36 PM, Matthias Wasser wrote:
>
> Does "temporary and flexible" neccessarily mean part-time or temp? The
>> number of careers and jobs an American has over her lifetime has
>> increased,
>> for instance.
>>
>
> That's not all that clear either. Here's the history on job tenure. Note
> that the median number of years on the job for men in 2008 was about a year
> below what it was in 1966, but that's offset by an increase for women,
> leaving the overall figure unchanged. Similiarly with the share of workers
> on the same job for 10 years or more - though those stats only begin in
> 1983.
>
> all men women
>
> median job tenure (years)
> 1951 3.4 3.9 2.2
> 1963 4.6 5.7 3.0
> 1966 4.2 5.2 2.8
> 1968 3.8 4.8 2.4
> 1973 3.9 4.6 2.8
> 1978 3.6 4.5 2.6
> 1981 3.2 4.0 2.5
> 1983 3.5 4.1 3.1
> 1987 3.4 4.0 3.0
> 1991 3.6 4.1 3.2
> 1996 3.8 4.0 3.5
> 1998 3.6 3.8 3.4
> 2000 3.5 3.8 3.3
> 2002 3.7 3.9 3.4
> 2004 4.0 4.1 3.8
> 2006 4.0 4.1 3.9
> 2008 4.1 4.2 3.9
>
> share of over-25 with >10 years
> 1983 31.9 37.7 24.9
> 1987 30.7 35.0 25.7
> 1991 32.2 35.9 28.2
> 1996 30.5 33.1 27.6
> 1998 30.7 32.7 28.4
> 2000 31.5 33.4 29.5
> 2002 30.8 32.6 28.8
> 2004 30.6 32.4 28.6
> 2006 30.0 31.1 28.8
> 2008 31.5 32.9 30.0
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Where are you getting your numbers? BLS seems to show something more dramatic, at least for men:
Median years of service with current employer, men and women age 35-54, by age group, 1983 and 2000
Median years of service
1983 2000 Men 35 to 39 6.1 4.8 40 to 44 9.7 6.2 45 to 49 11.8 9.1 50 to 54 14.2 9.9
Women 35 to 39 3.9 3.7 40 to 44 4.3 4.9 45 to 49 5.5 6.6 50 to 54 7.4 8.1
Of course, these numbers are only for the middle-aged. The difference seems significant for older men as well<http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/Aug/wk4/art05.htm>. So maybe new job market entrants are having longer tenure?