A Lost Decade for Working Families in the US

Poverty and income trends continue to paint a bleak picture for working families

By Elise Gould and Heidi Shierholz | September 14, 2011

The 2010 poverty and income data released yesterday morning by the U.S. Census Bureau are yet another reminder of the continued weight of the Great Recession on families in the United States. The Great Recession officially ended in the summer of 2009, but the labor market continued deteriorating through the end of 2009, and the modest economic growth in 2010 was not enough to compensate for those losses.  From 2009 to 2010, the number of jobs fell by 658,000, the unemployment rate increased from 9.3 percent to 9.6 percent, and the share of unemployed workers who had been unemployed for more than six months climbed from 31.2 percent to 43.3 percent. Thanks to this deterioration in the labor market, incomes dropped and poverty rose.

AUDIO: Listen to EPI’s press call about the 2010 report

Key findings from the Census Bureau’s report


Poverty

• The poverty rate increased from 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent in 2010, representing an additional 2.6 million people living in poverty and bringing the total number of people in poverty in the United States to 46.2 million.
• The poverty rate for children was 22.0 percent in 2010, representing 16.4 million kids living in poverty. In 2010, more than one-third (35.5 percent) of all people living in poverty were children.
• The poverty rate for working-age people (18- to 64- year-olds) hit 13.7 percent in 2010, the highest rate since the series began in 1966. Poverty among the elderly (age 65 and older) poverty was statistically unchanged over the year.
• The poor are getting even poorer. In 2010, the share of the population below half of the poverty line hit a record high of 6.7 percent.
• Nearly one in 10 children (9.9 percent) fell below half of the poverty line in 2010, up from 9.3 percent in 2009.
• Non-Hispanic whites maintained far lower poverty rates than any other racial/ethnic group. Blacks were particularly hard-hit by increases in poverty from 2009 to 2010, increasing 1.6 percentage points to reach a rate of 27.4 percent.
• In 2010, over one-third of black children (39.1 percent) and Hispanic children (35.0 percent) were living in poverty. The poverty rate for families with children headed by single mothers hit 40.7 percent in 2010. Of the 7.0 million families living in poverty in 2010, 4.1 million of them were headed by a single mom.

Income

• Between 2000 and 2010, median income for working-age households fell from $61,574 to $55,276, a decline of roughly $6,300, which is more than 10 percent.
• Disparities in incomes among racial and ethnic subgroups grew in 2010, as racial and ethnic minorities experienced particularly large declines in income. The  black household earning the median income is now bringing in $5,494 less than the median black household did 10 years ago (a drop of 14.6 percent) and the median Hispanic household is now bringing in $4,235 less than the median Hispanic household did 10 years ago (a drop of 10.1 percent).
• There were losses across the income distribution in 2010, particularly at the very bottom and the very top. In 2010, incomes of families in the middle fifth of the income distribution fell 0.9 percent, for a total decline of 6.6 percent since 2007. Families at the low end of the scale were hit harder, with the bottom fifth losing 3.5 percent in 2010 and 11.3 percent from 2007 to 2010. The top fifth lost 2.7 percent in 2010, but since their losses in the prior two years were modest, the total decline from 2007 to 2010 was a relatively modest 4.5 percent.  
• The median, or typical,  inflation-adjusted earnings of men working full-time year-round fell slightly from $47,905 in 2009 to $47,715 in 2010, while the median earnings of full-time year-round female workers stayed essentially flat, at $36,877 in 2009 and $36,931 in 2010.
  

A quick comment on the effect of ARRA
How did the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) affect the 2010 poverty and income numbers? Because ARRA was passed in February and was in the process of ramping up through the end of 2009, its full impact was felt in 2010.  ARRA primarily affected these numbers by creating and saving jobs, the earnings from which otherwise would not have been there supporting family incomes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Recovery Act created or saved around one million full-time equivalent jobs in 2009, and 3.4 million jobs in 2010. Without these jobs, the decline in income and increase in poverty would have been much more dramatic. In other words, the new Census Bureau report is ugly, but without ARRA, it would have been much uglier. This underscores the growing impact of the end of ARRA—in the current quarter, ARRA is supporting only 2.3 million full-time equivalent jobs, and the number of jobs supported drops to half a million by the fourth quarter of 2012. This means that the loss of the boost from government action is—and without additional intervention will continue to be—a substantial drag on jobs and family income.

What about the direct income supports in ARRA? Of three major income supports in the stimulus—unemployment insurance, nutritional assistance (food stamps), and tax cuts—only unemployment insurance is counted in the income numbers just released; the income numbers include cash income received from programs such as unemployment insurance, but exclude noncash benefits like food stamps, and are measured before payments of taxes, so they do not reflect reductions in taxes. While unemployment insurance benefits replace a maximum of half of a worker’s prior earnings, these benefits went to workers who were laid off and who had low odds of quickly finding another job (in 2010, there were 5.3 unemployed workers per job opening on average). In other words, these unemployment benefits went to families that otherwise would likely have suffered even steeper income declines, and in some cases dropped below the poverty line. Census data show that 3.2 million people were kept out of poverty in 2010 by unemployment insurance benefits alone.


Poverty:  Record highs
Between 2009 and 2010, an additional ­­­­­­2.6 million people slipped below the poverty line, as the poverty rate increased from 14.3 percent to 15.1 percent. The rate represents 46.2 million people living in poverty in the United States. The last time the poverty rate was higher was in 1983, when it was 15.2 percent (as shown in Figure A).

The poverty rate for children in 2010 was 22.0 percent, higher than the overall rate and up more (1.3 percentage-points) than the overall poverty rate, which increased 0.8 percentage points from 2009 to 2010. The 2010 “children’s poverty rate” represents 16.4 million kids living in poverty. In 2010, more than a third—35.5 percent— of all people living in poverty were children.

Nearly all of the decline in poverty achieved during the business cycle of the 1990s has now been reversed. From 1989 to 2000, overall poverty declined by 1.5 percentage points, and child poverty dropped by 3.4 percentage points. From 2000 to 2010, however, poverty increased overall by 3.8 percentage points, and by 5.8 percentage points among children. The large increase in poverty suggests that as anti-poverty policies have come to depend more on paid work as the main pathway out of poverty, the safety net has become less effective in reducing economic hardship when the economy and job market are underperforming.

The poverty rate for working-age people, those 18-64 years old, increased by 0.7 percentage points, from 12.9 percent in 2009 to 13.7 percent 2010,  the highest rate since the series began in 1966 (Figure B). Over the same five decades, the poverty rate for persons older than 65 dropped precipitously, due in part to Social Security payments, which have effectively lifted millions of elderly Americans out of poverty. In 2010, the elderly poverty rate, 9.0 percent, was statistically unchanged from 2009.

Figure C displays the share of the population falling below half of the poverty line from 1975–2010. In 2010, 50 percent of the poverty line for a two-adult two-child family was $11,057. This measure tracks the depth of poverty, those living on half the subsistence rate. In 2010, 6.7 percent of people were living below half of the poverty line, up 0.4 percentage points since 2009—a record high share of the population in deep poverty since the Census Bureau began tracking this statistic in 1975. Not shown in the figure but alarming: Nearly one in 10 children (9.9 percent) were below half the poverty line in 2010, up from 9.3 percent in 2009.

As shown in Figure D, poverty rates and changes in those rates have varied across racial and ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic whites experienced the lowest rate of poverty at 9.9 percent, while the rates for blacks and Hispanics were more than two-and-a-half times higher at 27.4 percent and 26.6 percent, respectively. Poverty rates also increased more between 2009 and 2010 for blacks and Hispanics than for other groups.

The 2000s have all but erased any gains to reducing poverty in the 1990s. This recession has only exacerbated the damaging trends over the last decade, leaving some of the most vulnerable populations with large shares living below the poverty line. Figure E shows changes over time in poverty rates for particularly vulnerable populations—children, racial and ethnic minority children, and single-mother families. From 2000 to 2010, black children experienced a 7.9 percentage-point increase in poverty, reaching 39.1 percent. Hispanic children experienced an increase of 6.6 percentage points over the same period, reaching 35.0 percent.

For families headed by single mothers, there was a 7.7 percentage point jump from 2000 to 2010 to 40.7 percent. In 2010, 4.1 million of the 7.0 million families living in poverty were headed by single moms.




Income:  Another lost year in a lost decade
From 2009 to 2010, median household income, adjusted for inflation, fell from $50,599 to $49,445, a decline of $1,154, or 2.3 percent. Working-age households—those with a head of household younger than 65 years old—experienced even larger declines because they are most exposed to the labor market and therefore most likely to be affected when the labor market deteriorates. The median income of working-age households fell from $56,742 in 2009 to $55,276 in 2010, a decline of $1,466, or 2.6 percent.

Figure F shows real median income over the last three decades for all households and, starting in 1994 when the data became available, for working-age households. A key point here is the comparison between business cycles. From 1979 to 1989, real median income grew $3,002 (from $46,074 to $49,076); from 1989-2000, it grew $4,088, (from $49,076 to $53,164). But for the first time on record, over the business cycle from 2000-07, incomes did not rise, but fell slightly, from $53,164 to $52,823. And with the weak labor market over this period, the real median income of working-age households fell significantly, from $61,574 to $59,460. This means that working families are weathering the current economic downturn on the heels of one of the worst economic expansions on record.

These figures show that 2010 was but another year of income declines in a decade of declines: From 2000 to 2010, median income for working-age households fell from $61,574 to $55,276, a decline of roughly $6,300, which is more than 10 percent.

Disparities in incomes among racial and ethnic subgroups grew in 2010, as racial and ethnic minorities experienced particularly large income declines, with African Americans getting hit the hardest. Figure G shows real median household income for racial and ethnic subgroups over the last two decades. The median income of non-Hispanic whites declined by 1.3 percent in 2010 and has declined by 5.4 percent since the start of the recession in 2007 . (In dollar terms, it fell from $57,752 to $54,620 over this period). The median African American household experienced a decline of 3.2 percent in 2010 and a total decline of 10.1 percent since 2007 (falling from $35,665 to $32,068). The median Hispanic household experienced a decline of 2.3 percent in 2010 and a total decline of 7.2 percent since 2007 (falling from $40,673 to $37,759).

The Great Recession and its aftermath have wiped out all improvements in median black income since 1996, all improvements in median Hispanic income since 1998, and all improvements in median white income since 1997. The median black household is now bringing in $5,494 less than it did 10 years ago (a drop of  14.6 percent) and the median Hispanic household is now bringing in $4,235 less than it did 10 years ago (a drop of 10.1 percent).

There were losses across the income distribution in 2010, particularly at the very bottom and the very top (see Figure H). In 2010, incomes of families in the middle fifth of the income distribution fell 0.9 percent, for a total decline of 6.6 percent since 2007.  Families at the low end of the scale were hit harder, with the bottom fifth losing 3.5 percent in 2010 and 11.3 percent from 2007 to 2010.  The top fifth lost 2.7 percent in 2010, but since their losses in the prior two years were modest, the net change from 2007 to 2010 was a relatively modest 4.5 percent. The rise in inequality over the last three years compounds thirty years of increasing inequality. Furthermore, with unemployment expected to remain high for years to come, inequality is likely to increase because weak labor markets have a larger negative impact on income at the middle and low end of the income distribution.

Particularly astonishing over the last three years has been the drop in the number of earners working full-time (35 hours or more per week) and full-year (at least 50 weeks, including paid time off).  Between 2007 and 2010, there was a 9.4 million decline in the number of people with full-time, full-year employment and a 3.9 million increase in the number of people with part-time and/or part-year jobs.

 As Table 1 shows, a disproportionate share of the erosion in full-time, full-year work over this period was among men—the number of men working full-time, full-year dropped by about 6.6 million between 2007 and 2010, while there was a 2.8 million drop in the number of women working full-time, full-year.  However, focusing just on the change from 2009 to 2010, the gender dynamics were reversed, with a 754,000 decline in total employment among men and an 854,000 decline among women. Furthermore, losses were larger among part-time and/or part-year workers in 2010 than among full-time full-year workers, both male and female. Although it is not depicted in the table, the number of “involuntarily part-time workers”—workers who work part-time but want a full-time job (from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey)—was virtually unchanged from 2009 to 2010, after increasing  by 4.5 million between 2007 and 2009.

In 2010, the median male working full-time, full-year experienced a slight drop in real earnings  of 0.4 percent, from $47,905 to $47,715, while the median female working full-time, full-year experienced very little change, with an increase of 0.1 percent, from $36,877 to $36,931 (see Figure I). The persistent high unemployment dampens earnings growth even for those who have full-time, year-round employment. Looking from 2007 to 2010, the shift from full-time, full-year employment to part-time and/or part-year employment contributed to the overall drop in median earnings: The annual inflation-adjusted earnings for the median male worker dropped from $38,524 to $36,676 between 2007 and 2010, and for the female median worker from $27,212 to $26,552.

Conclusion
The new data on income and poverty underscore the real, human consequences of the economic downturn. The labor market is the core building block of family incomes—when the labor market falters and people lose work, hours, and wages, family incomes drop and poverty rises. The Census Bureau’s report shows that much of the income and anti-poverty gains made in the 1990s have been more than erased due to both the weak business cycle from 2000-07 and the lasting effects of the Great Recession. While the Recovery Act stemmed the losses from the Great Recession, it was never big enough to right the economic ship given the scale of the crisis. With unemployment expected to stay above 8 percent well into 2014, it is time for Congress to once again act boldly to create jobs so that America’s residents have the work they need to provide for their families. The jobs plan that President Obama announced last week takes an important step in the direction of a solution that matches the scale of the ongoing crisis. For more on what we can and should be pursuing to generate jobs, see EPI’s Putting America Back to Work.

+++++

JOLTS
If one takes the official broader definition of unemployment, or U6, in July at 16.1%, the ratio becomes even worse, 7.78^* unemployed people per each job opening for July. Below is the graph of number of unemployed, using the broader U6 unemployment definition, per job opening.

If you do not like the use of U6 to look at the real number of people looking for a job to actual opportunities, consider this number. In July 2011, of those not in the labor force, 6,575,000 were actually wanting a job. U-6 only includes 2,785,000 of this number.
The rates below mean the number of openings, hires, fires percentage of the total employment. Openings are added to the total employment for it's ratio.

• openings rate - 2.4%
• hires rate - 3.0%
• separations rate - 3.0%

Below are raw job openings, way below pre-recession levels.

Believe this or not, one month past the so called end of the Great Recession, July 2009, job openings have only increased by 1,116,000. July 2009 was the low point of job openings, 2,112,000. That's pathetic. In March 2007, a few months before the start of the recession (December, 2007), the number of job openings was 4,755,000.

We can see some of labor market malaise in the actual hires from July, 3,984,000, which declined by -74,000, or -1.82% from June.

Below are total job separations, 3,920,000, which is a monthly decrease of -73,000 or -1.83%. The term separation means you're out of a job through a firing, layoff, quitting or retirement, so a decrease is good. Yet, notice how separations is almost equal to the number of hires, 3,984,000. Take this as a symptom of the disposable worker syndrome.

The number of quits or voluntary job separations are still dangerously close to the number of fires, although improved from November 2010, as well as June 2011. Want a choice of employers? Doesn't seem to be much of an option today. Quits were 50% of the total separations whereas layoffs and fires were 43% in July. In June, quits were 48%, whereas layoffs and fires were 44%, so a slight, but certainly not enough, improvement.

Below are quits minus discharges and layoffs. When quits comes close to firings that means people have little choice in employment. You want to see choice, or quits, rise and be much higher than firings. The below graph shows people still do not have many options when it comes to a job.

The JOLTS takes a random sampling of 16,000 businesses and derives their numbers from that. The survey also uses the CES, or current employment statistics, not the household survey as their base benchmark, although ratios are coming from the household survey, which gives the tally of unemployed.

The BLS was kind enough to make a credible Beveridge Curve graph, reprinted below. The Beveridge curve shows the official unemployment rate vs. the job openings rate, over time. If you see a bunch of data points to the far right, that's bad, it means there is long term unemployment and not enough jobs. Look at how we're stuck to the right. July 2011 moved slightly left of June 2011. The green, representing the 2009 time period, shows how fast we went to the right and the purple, which is 2010, 2011, means we are stuck there.

This graph shows working America is in big trouble and considering how the August unemployment report is much worse, don't expect things to get better. Remember, this report is for July, not August.

For the JOLTS report, the BLS creates some fairly useful graphs, some of which were reprinted here, and they have oodles of additional information in their databases, broken down by occupational area. The Saint Louis Federal Reserve also had loads of graphing tools for JOLTS. Below is a reprint of the BLS bubble graph, and the first thing to note is how health and educational employment dwarfs manufacturing. For economies of scale, we really need to see that manufacturing bubble grow and grow, it's about 11% of the total economy which is not good for a host of reasons. You can also see how the housing bubble deflation has laid to waste construction jobs.

Also, bear in mind professional and technical services is notorious to import workers on foreign guest worker Visas, displacing Americans. Employers also quite often put out fictional job openings, demanding perfect skill matches to the point no one on the globe has that experience.

^* is defined as the official unemployed plus people who are in part-time jobs for economic reasons plus the marginally attached. The marginally attached,, are officially not part of the civilian labor force, , and also not seasonally adjusted. The above graph was created by the seasonally adjusted levels of the unemployed, part-time for economic reasons and the marginally attached. The raw U-6 totals can also be calculated by this formula:

where

Why the Unemployment Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think

Here are 11 unemployment facts that mass media underreport or ignore completely. 

By Michael Thornton, AlterNet
Posted on September 14, 2011

President Obama recently addressed the nation during a joint session of Congress and the main theme of that address was the need to create jobs, lots of jobs, millions of jobs. The Great Recession has cost US workers millions of jobs and those jobs have not come back as quickly as they disappeared and in many cases those jobs will never return. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “In total, there are 6.9 million fewer jobs today than there were in December 2007.”

That is only a small part of the jobs-hole story, a story that is often ignored, overlooked and oversimplified by mass media.

The media has failed to present the unemployment problem, with all its associated economically devastating consequences, in the manner it deserves. It’s possible that unemployment facts and figures don’t translate well for advertisers, or they are too cumbersome to present in a two-minute segment. Whatever the reason, the mass media seem to avoid unemployment details as they would avoid describing and filming fresh road kill during a dinnertime newscast. While some excellent blogs clearly explain unemployment data, such as Mish’s Economic Trend Analysis, Calculated Risk and Economic Populist, mass media sites are absent.

The (U-3) unemployment rate remained at 9.1% (U-6 is 16.2%) for August. Unemployment to the mass media generally centers on that single point within the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly employment report. There is passing mention of discouraged workers and the underemployed, but the true scale of the jobs crisis is given scant attention considering the magnitude of the problem.

What follows are 11 unemployment details that mass media underreports or ignores completely. This list will not be recalled fondly as a top-10 list of best quarterbacks or favorite vacation retreats would, but it’s where the REAL unemployment crisis is exposed.

1. The jobs deficit: That is the total number of jobs lost PLUS jobs that should have been created since the recession began in December 2007; as mentioned above, there are 6.9 million fewer jobs today than at the start of the Great Recession, but that tells only half the tale of the jobs deficit. There is also the matter of creating jobs to keep up with the increase in workforce population. Those new workers include high school and college graduates, and immigrants. The number of jobs that need to be created each month to accommodate new entrants into the workforce ranges from 120,000 - 150,000. Adding together the jobs lost since the recession and the new jobs needed for population growth, the total jobs deficit is estimated to be 11.3 million. A few tax breaks, some targeted workforce retraining and some regulatory relief for businesses are not going to be the forces behind the creation of more than 11 million jobs. A massive effort is required to fill that gaping jobs hole.

2. Filling the jobs deficit: According to EPI: “To fill that gap in three years – by mid-2014—while still keeping up with the growth in the working-age population—would require adding around 400,000 jobs every single month. To fill the gap in five years—by mid-2016—would mean adding 280,000 jobs each month. By comparison, over the last three months, the economy added just 35,000 jobs, on average.”

It’s striking that the economy has created only 105,000 jobs during the past three months. When considering only the new entrants to the workforce, such as recent college graduates, that three-month span produced a shortage of 270,000 or more jobs.  

3. The Birth/Death Model: This is not births and deaths of people, but of businesses. The BLS estimates how many jobs were created or lost by business formations or closings.  In August, the BLS estimated that 87,000 jobs were created by new businesses.

This is an often discussed employment barometer at many economy centered blogs, but mass media pays it meager attention. Why is that so? It’s a complicated model that can make the head spin of even the most astute employment expert. But there appears to be agreement that the model has a tendency to misread the economic cycle, as Calculated Risk points out, “A few years ago several people -- myself included -- pointed out that the birth/death model would miss turning points in employment. I thought the model would overstate the number of jobs added as the economy slid into recession (and understate the number of jobs lost monthly during a recession). Sure enough that is what the annual benchmark revision showed during the employment recession.”  

To illustrate just how wide this model can be off the jobs mark, Bloomberg shows that 824,000 jobs “disappeared” after a birth/death model adjustment in February 2010.  That adjustment is important because if it was known that job creation was weaker by 824,000 jobs during 2009, additional job creation efforts could have been considered. At present job creation is stagnant and we won’t know what role the birth/death model has on today’s job numbers until 2012. But if history is any guide, job creation may again be overstated.  

4. JOLTS (Job Openings Labor Turnover Survey): This monthly BLS report gives an indication of the number of available jobs. On the occasion that it is mentioned by the media, it offers only a sliver of the issue, such as the number of unemployed per job opening, which stands currently at 4.3.

From the BLS, “The number of job openings in July was 3.2 million, little changed from June.  Although the number of job openings remained below the 4.4 million openings when the recession began in December 2007, the level in July was 1.1 million openings higher than in July 2009 (the most recent trough). “  

What is missing from that JOLTS report? Plenty. First, the 4.3 unemployed per job opening is limited to the 14 million U3 unemployed (the 9.1%). But those aren’t the only unemployed wanting a full-time job. There are the 2.6 million marginally attached workers, 8.8 million underemployed (those who want full-time work, but are working part-time). I’m not going to include the 3.9 million non-unemployed unemployed (explained later).  When those 11.4 million workers are included with the 14 million U3 unemployed, there are 25.4 million unemployed workers and 3.2 million available jobs, or 8 unemployed or underemployed workers per 1 job opening.  

The second issue with JOLTS is that it doesn’t distinguish whether the available jobs are full-time or part-time. According to a BLS representative “Part-time jobs are included in our job openings counts; however, we do not distinguish between full and part-time positions. We only ask if the position exists, not which type of position it is.”  

It’s important to know how many job openings are part-time, since part-time jobs usually pay less and offer fewer, if any, benefits. Extrapolating from the BLS “Employed persons by class of worker and part-time status” data, there are 139,627,000 employed workers, of which 27,034,000 are part-timers. More than 19% of all workers work part-time. If nearly 20% of all available job openings are part-time, there are only 2.56 million full-time jobs for 25.4 million unemployed and underemployed who want full-time work, or 10 workers for each available full-time position; more than double the 4.3 workers per job opening touted by most media outlets.  

5. The participation rate: Is, according to the BLS, “The labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population.” Or, more simply, the percentage of the working-age population that is working or is actively looking for a job. The participation rate rose 0.1 percent in August to 64%, which is slightly above the 27-year low recorded in July of 63.9%.

If more jobs were available would there be more participation? More than likely that would be the case. The mass media very seldom mentions this point, but the participation rate shows the potential number of people waiting on the sidelines for the job market to improve before they jump back in.  

A couple of striking graphs of the historical participation rate can be seen at ZeroHedge  and BLS.  

6. Marginally attached workers:  From the BLS, “These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.” I know, it’s not an easily digested description, but it’s a population of unemployed that want to work, but for various reasons have not looked for work recently.  Currently 2.6 million workers are considered marginally attached. If they are included in the unemployment rate, that rate increases from 9.1% to 10.6%.

7. The underemployed: Who are the underemployed? “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers). These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job,” states the BLS.

The August employment report indicated that underemployment increased from July by 400,000 to 8.8 million. Part-time jobs range in hours from one to 34, any job of more than 34 hours is considered full-time work. That might not be the case in the real world where a full-time job is considered 40 hours, but that is the case according to the BLS.  

While some believe that part-time jobs eventually translate into full-time jobs, that hasn’t been the case during this recession, as the linked graph from Calculated Risk illustrates. From 2000 to 2008, the number of underemployed ranged between 3 and 4 million. There are currently 4 million more unemployed than at the start of the recession. Businesses would need to see a dramatic uptick in business to place 4 million more part-timers into full-time slots.  

The “real” unemployment rate increases to 16.2% when the underemployed and marginally attached workers are considered.  

8. The not-unemployed unemployed: Yes, there is a point at which the BLS stops considering an unemployed person unemployed. That point is reached when an unemployed person has not look for a job in the previous 12 months. When asked, the BLS replied, “The 3.9 million individuals not in the labor force that you are referring to responded that they wanted a job, but had not looked for a job in the last 12 months. They are not considered unemployed because they had not actively searched for work in the four weeks preceding the survey.” I recall no mention of these 3.9 million from any mass media outlet.

This 3.9 million are the most discouraged of discouraged workers, but if the jobs market was improving, these millions would start to become part of the unemployed once more. If these 3.9 million were added to the “real” unemployment rate (U6) the rate would increase from 16.2% to 19%. (Which is higher than all but 2 years of the Great Depression's high unemployment rates--jef)

Nearly one in five American workers is either unemployed or underemployed. Why isn’t that disturbing fact in the media spotlight every day?  

9. The long-term unemployed: These 6.0 million are the jobless who have been looking for work for 6 months or more (this does not include the not-unemployed unemployed). Long-term unemployment receives occasional mass media recognition, but it scratches only the surface. There are subsets of the long-term unemployed that show the depth of the problem more clearly. The 6.0 million long-term unemployed represent 43.1 percent of all unemployed. Of that 6 million, 4.458 million have been jobless for 52 or more weeks and within that group 2.040 million, a record high, have been unemployed for 99 weeks or more (not to be confused with the “99ers” explained below). Even more startling than those numbers is the lack of response by lawmakers. 

10. 99ers: These long-term unemployed have exhausted all unemployment benefits (not all unemployed collect unemployment benefits). The name “99ers” comes from the fact that some collected benefits for up to 99 weeks. It’s a misnomer in the sense that only about 25 states are eligible for the 99 week maximum; many unemployed exhausted benefits in as little as 60 weeks.

Official statistics are not kept for this unemployed population. When Mish Shedlock of Global Economics Trend Analysis was asked about the 99ers population, he contacted Tim Wallace. Wallace has been digging into long-term unemployment data to try and weed out the number of unemployed who have exhausted all unemployment benefits. His most recent efforts show that, “we can safely assume that 3,058,152 people have exhausted all benefits -- they are no longer covered on either sets of (unemployment) rolls.” But it doesn’t end there, using some additional Department of Labor data Wallace pries out another 2.0 million 99ers, for a combined 5.1 million.  

Other 99ers estimates range from 1.5 to 5.0 million, but as the linked graph at Here come the '99ers at Calculated Risk illustrates; the number of unemployed that are exhausting unemployment benefits is rapidly increasing.  

While there may be disagreement about the total population of 99ers, Wallace concludes, “There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for this to not be a readily accessible piece of data daily. After all, Walmart can tell you how many strawberry Pop Tarts they sold yesterday.” There is also no excuse for the mass media ignoring this vast unemployed population and not taking agencies to task for not reporting accurate 99ers data.

Millions of additional unemployed will become 99ers immediately unless extended unemployment benefits are renewed in December. A worker laid off today will be eligible for only 26 weeks of state benefits unless an extension is approved by a much divided Congress.  

How can an economy function when so many are out of work and have exhausted unemployment benefits?

(To view Wallace’s report, go to, How Many Unemployed Have Exhausted All Benefits?)

11. How many unemployed collect unemployment benefits? It may seem reasonable to assume that all 14 million unemployed collect unemployment insurance benefits, but that is not the case. In September 7.17 million unemployed collected benefits, which is only 51%  of all unemployed (U3, the 9.1%).

Surprisingly, on average just one third of all unemployed are eligible for unemployment benefits at the state level (2011 data). As an example, temporary staff, self-employed and recent high school and college graduates may be out of work, but not eligible for benefits. Eligibility rates range from 57 percent in AK and PA to TX at 21 percent. Each state can set its own guidelines regarding eligibility requirements. When someone tells you they are unemployed, it’s more than likely they are not collecting unemployment benefits.  

Many pundits and some GOP lawmakers excoriate all unemployed for being lazy and enjoying life on the dole. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)recently said, "People are gaming the system and refusing to take jobs because they get unemployment benefits and food stamps." That naïve and cruel assessment disparages all unemployed, but it’s particularly insulting to the majority of unemployed who aren’t eligible to collect or have exhausted unemployment benefits. If Sen. DeMint and his ilk want to see where the system is being gamed, he may want to look at Wall Street instead of Main Street.

What message can be taken from this list of realistic and discomforting unemployment figures? The bottom line is that unemployment is much worse than the 9.1 percent unemployment figure pushed by the media and many lawmakers; in fact it’s considerably worse.

Mass media’s inability to communicate the depth of the jobs crisis is one reason the response to it has been primarily weak and ineffectual. If the media mutes the crisis, lawmakers and corporations will continue to act slowly and impotently, forcing millions of American families to suffer needlessly.

Unemployment and jobs creation are national emergencies demanding focused attention with a wide-ranging and rapid response. This American jobs disaster will not vanish if neglected, but what will vanish are the hopes, dreams and financial well-being of millions of hard-working Americans.

++++++++ 

THE ECONOMY NEEDS 11.2 MILLION JOBS TO REGAIN ITS PRE-RECESSION LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT.

• In August 2011, the economy added zero (0) jobs. 

• 17,000 private-sector jobs were created in August 2011; 17,000 public-sector jobs were lost that month. 

• In August 2011, 366,000 workers entered the labor force. 

• In August 2011, there were 2.5 million workers who wanted a job, were available to work, but had given up actively seeking work and so were not counted as offi cially unemployed. 

• In total, there are 6.9 million fewer jobs today than there were in December 2007. 

• In June 2011, there was only one job opening for every 4.5 unemployed workers in the economy.

THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN AUGUST 2011 WAS 9.1%.

• There were 14.0 million unemployed workers in August 2011, 6.3 million more than in December 2007. 

• 42.9% of these unemployed persons have been without a job for more than 6 months. 

• Males had an unemployment rate of 9.6%, females 8.5%. 

• Whites had an unemployment rate of 8.0%, blacks 16.7%, and Hispanics 11.3%. 

• The underemployment rate (i.e., those who are unemployed, marginally attached, or working part time involuntarily) was 16.2% in August 2011. 

• There were 25.3 million workers who were either unemployed or underemployed in August 2011. 

• In July 2011, seasonally adjusted underemployment was 25.3% for blacks, 13.2% for whites, and 22.0% for Hispanics.*

IN AUGUST 2011, THERE WERE 11 STATES WITH DOUBLE-DIGIT UNEMPLOYMENT RATES.

• The state with the highest unemployment rate was Nevada, at 12.9%; the state with the lowest unemployment rate was North Dakota, at 3.3%. 

• In August 2011, there were 15,000 jobs lost in state and local government; over the last two years, a total of 537,000 state and local jobs have been lost.

THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR ALL 16-24 YEAR OLDS WAS 17.7% IN AUGUST 2011.

• The unemployment rate for those 16-24 year olds with a high school diploma (but not currently enrolled in school) was 21.2% in August. 

• The unemployment rate for those 16-24 year olds with a bachelor’s degree (but not currently enrolled in school) was 11.2% in August. 

• The unemployment rate for all 16-19 year olds was 25.4% in August; for 16-19 year old blacks it was 46.5%, and for Hispanics it was 37.4%.

SO FAR IN 2011, ANNUALIZED INFLATION-ADJUSTED WAGE GROWTH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR HAS BEEN -1.6%.

• Annualized inflation-adjusted growth from 2000 to 2010 for people with a high school diploma was only 0.1%. 

• Annualized infl ation-adjusted wage growth from 2000 to 2010 for people with a bachelor’s degree was 0.3%. 

• Annualized productivity growth from 2000 to 2010 in the nonfarm business sector was 2.5%.

IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2011, THE ANNUALIZED, INFLATION-ADJUSTED GROWTH RATE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT WAS 1.0%.

• The average infl ation-adjusted rate of GDP growth for the fi rst two quarters of 2011 was 0.7%. 

• Consumer spending grew at a 0.4% rate in the second quarter of 2011. 

• The economy, measured in terms of infl ation-adjusted GDP, is currently 0.5% smaller than it was before the recession began in the fourth quarter of 2007.

* This seasonally adjusted underemployment data is calculated by EPI; the most recent data available is from June.

What You Don't Get About the Job Search: Voices of the Jobless

(Thanks to Adam, from whom I swiped this link.--jef)

By Derek Thompson - The Atlantic

Aug 22 2011

 

Last week, the Atlantic asked readers to share with us the one thing people didn't understand or appreciate about looking for work. This weekend, we published the first batch of responses in two pieces: The Unemployed Speak and Advice from Employers. This third post is our longest yet, culled from more than a hundred entries through comment sections and email in just the last few days.

We know their numbers. Roughly 25 million Americans, equal to the entire population of Texas, are unemployed, forced to work part-time, or have dropped out of the labor force entirely. But we don't all know their stories.

If you have something to add, you should leave your response in the comment section below or send a note to our private email account aboutmyjob1@gmail.com. Thank you all for sharing your stories. And keep reading and sharing.

 

++++

"For those of us prone to depression, the job search can amount to a heroic effort"

The worst part will depend on your temperament and Myers-Briggs profile, but for an introvert (probably the majority of the unemployed), the worst part is the personal uncertainty: the virus of self-doubt triggered by job rejections, the effort to second-guess your personal dynamic with the hiring contact, the lack of a reality check as to why you didn't get even a rejection letter, the willingness to overlook any illegalities, the effort to convince yourself to get back out there and do better next time. The loneliness and social isolation, if your workplace even partly filled that need, if you have no family for moral support. For those of us prone to depression, the job search can amount to a heroic effort, even without dependent family members asking you the wrong questions.

"Your friends and family are going to wonder what is *wrong* with you."

As your job search drags on, even your friends and family are going to wonder what is "wrong" with you. Of course this is mostly motivated by sheer terror that they are going to be in the same position, despite their assurances that they are too smart or good at their job to be in your position. They may be right in some instances, but the upshot is that no one has real job security anymore, and it is devastating to many people to find out that they are totally disposable in a game they thought they could win. At least the currently unemployed know there is no winning anymore, just damage control.

"Don't use my name. I can't let Google search reveal I have an unlisted graduate degree."

Being long term unemployed, the most difficult and surprising problem is the uncertainty. Many routine decisions are complicated by the unknown. Contemplating relocation seems to rule out new romantic relationship possibilities. Can my car last five more years? Spend some money on home projects to get self productive and occupied OR save every dime? Take on acquiring a new professional skill even recognizing that payoff is relatively far off? Eliminate best credential from resume to remove "overqualified" from rejection reasons? All crucial questions with unclear answers. Don't use my name. I can't let Google search reveal I have an unlisted graduate degree.

"Yes, I've got a Masters, but I'll be a kick-ass assistant."

Maybe I'm overqualified, and yes, I understand that they're scared of hiring someone and training them and seeing them leave after six months; and that that process costs them money. 

But particularly in this economy, do they not think that someone who's overqualified is applying for  job because they NEED and WANT it?  That they'll work that much harder because they're grateful for the job and the income, and that if they're overqualified, odds are they're smarter and harder working and more professional than the slackers you usually get applying to crappy jobs?  Yes, I've got a Masters, but I'll be a kick-ass assistant.  Because to get that Masters, I had to work my butt off and be organized and know how to manage time effectively.

"In one interview the questions were so few I found myself giving mini-monologues. In another, the interviewer could not stop talking."

Recently I had to deal with a couple of interviewers who asked none of the typical interview questions.  In fact they didn't ask many questions at all. In one interview the questions were so few that I found myself giving mini-monologues to make sure she got a good picture of who I am. In another, the interviewer could not stop talking so I had to get in my story whenever she paused for more than 5 seconds. GAH! I couldn't wait to get out of there. She kept saying the same stuff over and over AND I swear to God at one point I thought I fell asleep. 

I hate gimmicky interviews. Never been to one but I see them in the ads. I've seen ads asking you to come in and audition or they ask you to answer silly questions. They weren't even for creative positions.  Recently saw one ad asking the applicant to answer why they are passionate about shipping and packing? Who the hell is passionate about shipping and packing.

Another thing that ticks me off are employers who demand you commit to them long term for 1 or 2 years yet they can fire you at anytime. No way.

"I want to work. I won't apply for a job I'm not serious about."  

Employers never seemed to understand that if I was applying for a job, I wanted it. I can't tell you how many jobs I applied to where I was told, in my own follow-up from a non-response or rejection, "You were overqualified." "Or, we didn't think you were serious, given your education." I understand they don't want to lose me in three or six months, but I've got to eat and pay rent in the meantime. Not to mention I'm a darn good assistant and barista. Frankly, I probably would have stayed on in a part-time capacity in many "below-me" jobs if at all possible just for the extra help paying back student loans. I like to work. I want to work. And I won't apply for a job I'm not serious about.

***

"Possibly the worst thing about being unemployed is having to suffer through the pundit and the politician classes gassing on interminably about what it's like to be unemployed, what kind of people are unemployed and how they think and act, when none of them knows or understands one damn thing about it, nor do they even want to. Get down here on the ground, and try to go a year on $350 a week with no hope in sight, and then tell us why the lazy unemployed just need a good swift kick to get the country moving again." 

***

"The most difficult part of the job search is waiting for permission to give up"

The most difficult part of the job search is:

1. that I don't live near a factory or outsource outlet in China, India, or Malaysia.

2. trying not to appear desperate for a job when I am, in fact, quite desperate for a job.

3. that I am subject to everyone's advice on how to get a job, but no real job leads.

4. that I am reminded that having a good job is not an entitlement.

5. that when I become depressed from my job search, I'm told told to cheer up or else give a bad vibe to prospective employers ... yet when I become happy through non-search related activities, I am reminded that I should be looking for work

7. that when I confide to friends and family that I have "given up" to pursue more fruitful interests,  it elicits a crushing look of disbelief, disappointment, and disgust

8. waiting for permission to give up.

If looking for a job is a full-time job, then are you "fired" when you never (after many resumes, networking events, and workshops) find a job?

"The worst thing is the impact on my kids."

I am over the bruises to my ego; I just ignore my mother-in-law completely now. The worst thing though is the impact on my kids. We were making $120K plus two years ago. Now, about $35K. Lost the house. Thankfully still in the same school. That said, the kids went from being respectably comfortable in their cohort to being comfortable if tattered (used clothes, battered rental, same old car, no summer trips, etc.). Thank God they are still young (just started third grade) but we're not having any sleepovers here no matter how much they ask. I am afraid for the social impact on them. They are so upbeat, so enthusiastic. They don't know we're in a ditch. It would break my heart if they figured that out.

***

"I think the most difficult part for many is going to be the fact that so many companies will not hire someone who doesn't currently have a job!"

***

"I graduated with a Ph.D. in Education from Purdue University. After a first month and a half, I was moonlighting as a janitor."

I graduated with a Ph.D. in Education from Purdue University in May and moved back to my home state of Colorado. I was fortunate enough to stay with friends who live in a large house in a well-to-do suburb of Denver. Every day, I spent hours looking for jobs and painstakingly tailoring my cover letters and resumes to jobs. After the first month passed, I was embarrassed that I could not find a job and that I looked like a mooch. Even worse, when I did have phone interviews I failed them spectacularly because I was so nervous because I knew the stakes were high. Not to mention I have a terrible phone voice. As the days passed, I kept looking at my phone willing it to ring with an offer for an interview. The phone was blank.

What people don't realize is that it costs us precious money to put together mini portfolios for interviews, or to print and mail certain documentation (such as transcripts). There are a lot of financial sacrifices related to job searching that are being made that on the surface appear trivial, but do impact a budget.

The worse thing about phone interviews is that they focus so much on behavioral questions and interpersonal work place scenarios. They never point blank ask what your story is or why you want the job. Being labeled "unemployed" is humiliating because it conjures up imagery that is far from reality.

I learned to be prudent with gas and did not drive my car unless it was absolutely necessary. I clipped coupons like mad and shopped at the dollar store. The worst part about living in a well-to-do neighborhood is that you begin to wonder what you did wrong and what others did so well. Did I spend too much time in graduate school? Will I ever be able to pay my student loans off? How long can I keep my car running? But you also gain more empathy for people who are in similar situations. It also opened my eyes to gave me another lens from which to view society's problems. I wasn't reading or researching about it, I was living it.

After the first month and a half, I landed a retail job part time and moonlighted as a janitor in the evenings (my co-worker has an MFA in Creative Writing, so we joked that we were the mostly highly educated janitors in Denver). I was proud to finally have work but the self-doubt increased. I was finally offered a job last week. I am excited and relieved, but I am still keeping my retail job on the weekends to pay off my student loans.

***

"Unemployment doesn't mean you have "free time". It's a FT job looking for work. And even when you aren't, you're occupied with other things in your house (especially if you have kids)."

***

"Even the employed (who have taken a job to be employed in this economy) are not having a swell time of it."

I was unemployed for 7 months (5 months to find a job in my pay range that turned out to be "false advertising" so I left to look for other employment which took an additional 2 months and a 90 mile move [had to sell one house and buy another]).

The employer that I worked for in 2009 laid off 30% of its workforce only to advertise for those positions using "Company Confidential" ads (and the dumbasses had a "mail forward" on the @yahoo.com email account that returned the true employer's identification on my "read receipt").  The job I took is so different from my previous and I have been expected to be a mind reader. The "personality" fit is so wrong for me, so I continue to look. That being said, as companies are trying to find ways to cut their budgets, they are offering previously "cut" positions with such ridiculous wages that it is hard to find employment in the "pre-crisis" pay range where the "personality" and skill requirements make for that perfect employment "marriage."  A lot of firms are now posting want ads with "Company Confidential" status, which potential employees are sure to avoid due to the "unknown" employer seeking applicants (i.e., are you applying for your previous job or are you applying to your current employer?).  As you can tell - I'm sending "blind applications" to "blind employers."  Even the employed (who have taken a job to be employed in this economy) are not having a swell time of it.

***

"Unemployment dehumanizes the real person. They lose the essence of their identity and value. To become a number, a label, a resume, a failure, a defect, unproductive, desperate, wishful, delusional, depressed, poor and separated from respectful society.  Being unemployed is to be silently disrespected. On a par with being homeless, mentally ill or addicted."

***

"Getting a graduate degree is the worst decision I've ever made."

I've read many articles similar to this one and have never responded to any of them but today I felt the need to respond, so here's my story: 

I'm an African American woman in my late 20s.  I worked my way through my undergraduate degree and finally received it just as the recession started.  As a result, few people were hiring then.  So, after spending nearly 2 years volunteering and helping out my family in whatever ways I could I headed to graduate school (a decision that I now consider to be the worst decision I've ever made).  I'm nearly finished with that degree and after a year of being a graduate teaching assistant in my program, personal reasons dictated that I relocate closer to my family.  As a result I've spent the last year unemployed.  I recently began working part-time at a big box store--on the sales floor making what I made at my last retail job 5 years ago--and I'm probably the most educated person in the store.  I can't get a management position because I don't have enough experience in retail--so I've been told on several interviews.  Apparently, teaching adult students--both in the classroom and as a volunteer tutor--are not skills easily transferred to the training of adult workers in a retail store. 

I'm starting to feel like something is wrong with me internally.  I know that I've made some poor decisions in my life (getting a graduate degree in women's studies is the biggest among them), but I'm still out here trying.  I've applied to literally hundreds of jobs, and for all of those hundreds of jobs I've had maybe four interviews.  Only one of those jobs paid a human wage.  I'm not asking for much.  I would just like to make $30,000 a year.  At least that way I could afford to sleep on a bed again.  Did I mention that I haven't slept on a real bed in over a year?  I go out of my way to help people, not because I want something from them, but because I've always been this way, and when I need something (and I don't usually ask for help), no one is ever there to help me.  

It's sad to know that if I didn't have to work my way through school and take extra time, I'd probably have a job now. It was that extra year that put my entry-level job search in the recession's beginning.  I look at my peers who are getting married and having children and generally living life and it's depressing.  They've got jobs, health insurance, relationships, homes; I don't even have a real bed to sleep on.  

So people can criticize the educational choices that I've made. I've criticized myself more severely than anyone else can.  I know my graduate degree was an awful, awful idea. Especially since my research ideas didn't get much traction in the department.  People can say that I should have become a nurse, or an engineer or whatever else, but when I started college and the economy was still good young people were sold the idea that they should 'follow their passions'.  The jobs were supposed to come.  I didn't take out a mortgage for a property I couldn't afford; I didn't participate in credit default swaps or create a Ponzi scheme.  I went to college and educated myself.  I've spent countless hours at libraries educating myself.  I've taken care of sick relatives and taught immigrants how to read and write in English--with no pay.  But I'm not responsible enough to run a retail store. I could have spent those hours drinking or partying or whatever else, but I've spent them trying to 'improve' myself in different ways because I seriously feel like I'm damaged goods.  Why else can't I pin down a full-time job with some benefits?  

I hope someone can find something of value in my words.

"It's an employer's market, so they can make unreasonable demands."

One ad stated, "60 day trial at minimum wage to see how it works out."  So you can fire that individual and find some other poor schmuck to take a go at it?  Would I state in my cover letter that I'd like to work 60 days at minimum effort to see if the job is fun enough to stay?

Or the laundry list of tasks is 25 items long, but the hours are 10-2 every day.  So you really can't find a second job unless you'd like to wait tables at night.  I worked for an organization that fit that description and yet, they'd call me at 4:30 in the afternoon and expect me to have info from the company computer spreadsheets for them.  I also brought in my own office supplies because they never got around to giving me any, or any training.  After 3 weeks I was let go; being told they thought I was more qualified for the position than I turned out to be.

And finally: "Here is your salary and the hours are 9-5."  OK!  Second week: "I meant to say 9-6."  OK.  3rd week: "do you think you can come in at 8am until we finish this project?"  Uhhh? OK.... "Maybe when it's too hot out anyway (Arizona) you might feel like working a few hours on the weekend?"  Not really. "Oh, I need someone who is a team player.  You are fired."

And the worst part is, how do you explain this on your resume without looking like a malcontent?

***

"It used to be that older, mature and seasoned workers had a closer connection to what the experience of being unemployed was like. But the more we've moved away from the "emotions" of the depression and have instead "intellectualized" this "recession" then the harder it is for working people to be able to "identify" with the unemployed. The empathy is non-existent."

***

"I'm in my mid-40s. Ageism is a HUGE problem in this economy where employers want young, inexpensive hires."

To be blunt, the hardest part about looking for a job is that human resources departments, filled with unnamed people hiding behind the internet, have completely taken over the process. I'm in my mid-40s, a writer (I know, good luck, right?) and when I was younger, you always had a name of an editor to actually send your materials to, and to call a week or so after you'd sent your clips and resume. Now, those folks don't want to hear from you. Bottom line - if you don't have a connection to the organization you're applying to, sending your materials to HR is like sending them into a black hole. In every case during my job hunt, I only got an interview or a polite rejection letter if I found a real live human being OUTSIDE of HR who had at least a mild interest in my talents. 

Problem number two: not being in late 20s or early 30s. Ageism is a HUGE problem in this economy where employers want young, inexpensive hires.

"I would gladly pay higher taxes for universal health care, if I could only have a job that would allow me to pay those taxes."

I was laid off in 2009 at age sixty. I don't think it was just coincidence, that most of the two hundred people laid off with me were over fifty, with health problems.

After ten months, I was able to find a temp job at much lower pay, with no benefits. I worked that job, until I qualified for Social Security, and retired.

There was no way that I wanted to go through the job hunting process again, at age sixty two, when the temp job ended.

I lay the blame for all the elderly layoffs squarely on the shoulders of our government, that saddles businesses with the burden of providing health care access to their employees.

We are the only developed nation that does this, and it's the primary cause of our jobs being shipped overseas.

I would gladly pay higher taxes for universal health care, if I could only have a job that would allow me to pay those taxes.

"I have been looking for a job for six months and no one wants to hire a 50-year old woman."

I am really sick and tired of this myth you have helped to create about the unemployed having terrible resumes and not being "positive" or "energetic" or whatever else is on your list. I am a very positive person, I have excellent qualifications, and take my work very seriously. But I had my hours cut through no fault of my own, along with others.

I have been looking for a job for 6 months and no one wants to hire a 50 year old woman. I graduated with honors (and I did not graduate in the seventies, I graduated in 1999) and I have excellent computer skills using a plethora of programs, which has done nothing for my prospects. Not to mention the laundry list of duties employers are looking for, barely paying above minimum wage.

Face it, this economy has changed everything, and workers have no rights and are powerless, too bad it's not easy to just fire someone, thank god for that paper trail. I have seen people fired after over 20 years of service, when my employer showed up drunk and decided to get rid of a fellow worker, because they" needed" to get rid of one of the higher paid people to save money. But we just aren't" positive" enough. Think about it, in this environment, when you can lose your career on someone's whim, workers are frightened and working as fast as they can.

Jan Schakowsky Announces New Budget Plan With Focus On Jobs

Thursday, August 11, 2011 by Huffington Post

by Jordan Howard 

 

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, announced on Wednesday that she will introduce a progressive-minded budget outline aimed at putting more than two million people to work.

Titled the Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act, the plan would cost $227 billion and would be implemented over two years. It would be financed by separate legislation introduced by Schakowsky called the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would raise taxes for Americans who earn more than $1 million and $1 billion. It would also eliminate subsidies for big oil companies while closing loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas.

The congresswoman said that her plan would create 2.2 million jobs and decrease the unemployment rate by 1.3 percent.

"If we want to create jobs, then create jobs," Schakowsky said in a press release. "I’m not talking about "incentivizing" companies in the hopes they’ll hire someone, or cutting taxes for the so-called job creators who have done nothing of the sort. My plan creates actual new jobs."

Schakowsky’s proposal reads more like a progressive wishlist than legislation likely to be signed into law. But it does provide a template of sorts to help Democrats frame their budget argument as lawmakers enter the high-stakes super committee negotiations.

Under her plan, the following policies would be implemented:

• The School Improvement Corps would create 400,000 construction and 250,000 maintenance jobs by funding positions created by public school districts to do needed school rehabilitation improvements.

• The Park Improvement Corps would create 100,000 jobs for youth between the ages of 16 and 25 through new funding to the Department of the Interior and the USDA Forest Service’s Public Lands Corps Act. Young people would work on conservation projects on public lands including the restoration and rehabilitation of natural, cultural, and historic resources.

• The Student Jobs Corps would create 250,000 more part-time work study jobs for eligible college students through new funding for the Federal Work Study Program.

• The Neighborhood Heroes Corps would hire 300,000 new teachers, 40,000 new police officers and 12,000 new firefighters.

• The Health Corps would hire at least 40,000 health care providers, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and health care workers to expand access in underserved rural and urban areas.

• The Child Care Corps would create 100,000 jobs in early childhood care and education through additional funding for Early Head Start.

• The Community Corps would hire 750,000 individuals to do needed work in communities, including housing rehab, weatherization, recycling, and rural conservation.

In addition, the bill would give priority to the longterm unemployed -- the so-called "99ers" who have exhausted both their state and federal unemployment benefits. Federally extended unemployment benefits are set to expire this year, even though 24 million Americans remain out of work and it takes the average worker nine months to find a new job.

“The worst deficit this country faces isn’t the budget deficit," Schakowsky said. "It’s the jobs deficit. We need to get our people and our economy moving again.”

Careening Toward a Third Depression

Save the Economy, Hike the Deficit! By MIKE WHITNEY

How do you light a fire under Congress? How do you get these guys to do what they're paid to do?

We're 5 years into this slump, millions of people have lost their homes and jobs, 44 million people are on food stamps, the economy is in the tank, and congress won't lift a finger to help. What's that all about? You'd think that the revision in GDP and the uptick in unemployment claims would set off alarms on Capitol Hill. But it hasn't. They just shrug it off and move on. What do they care? They get their fat paycheck one way or another, so what difference does it make to them? Besides, if they play their cards right, they'll nab a 6-figure lobbying job as soon as they retire and spend the rest of their lives working on their chip-shot and swilling single-malt at the club with their moneybags friends. Doesn't that piss you off?

Congress just doesn't seem to "get it". They don't understand what people are going through; how maxed out they are. We're in the middle of a Depression and all they want to do is score points playing political circlejerk by stonewalling the debt ceiling or jacking-around with Medicare. Meanwhile, unemployment is on the rise (Initial claims rose to 424,000 on Thursday), GDP is falling (1Q GDP revised to 1.8%), durable goods are down 3.6 percent in April, the market is topping out, business investment is flat, Europe's on the ropes, Japan is in a historic slump, China is overheating, the output gap is as wide as it was 6 quarters ago, bank balance sheets are bleeding red from falling home prices and non-performing loans, and the housing market is crashing.

Did I miss something?

Oh yeah, and the Fed's goofy QE2 program is winding down, which means that the last drop of monetary stimulus will be wrung-out by the end of June. That ought to be good for stocks.

So, excuse me for asking, Mr. Bigshot Congressman, but would you mind lending a hand? A little stimulus would be nice. You know, just enough so we can get a job and feed the kids. And if you're worried about the deficits; don't be. They're not a problem. That's just more GOP scaremongering. Here's how economics professor Bradford DeLong sums it up:

"The biggest problem generated by this right now is that Washington DC's focus on the Dingbat Kabuki theater of the long-run fiscal stability of America is keeping it from taking any effective steps to use government to boost employment and output now. And things aren't helped by the fact that the way the rescue of the banking system was carried out convinced a lot of people that stimulus policies exist to enrich the top 1% of Americans at the expense of everybody else.

This means that our hopes for economic recovery right now rest not on any government boost to aggregate demand--whether through fiscal, monetary, or banking policy--but rather on the natural equilibrium-restoring full-employment achieving market forces of the economy, especially in the labor market.

And so we are in trouble: right now there are no signs that the economy is crawling up back to anything like full employment on its own. ... The economy will grow, but we won't close the gap between actual and potential output. We will not for a long time to come get back to the 62 to 64% of the adult population having jobs that we thought was normal back in the decades of the 2000.

And that is the depressing overall macroeconomic picture. I wish I could paint a better one....("DeLong: The Economic Outlook as of May 2011", Economist's View)

Deficits aren't the problem, they're the solution. The government needs to increase spending to make up for the loss of activity in the private sector, otherwise, we're back in the soup. But, here's the good part; the government can borrow at rates that are lower than ever. Just look at the bond market. The 10-year is stuck at 3.12. That means that money is cheap because no one is borrowing, because, well, because the economy is dead-in-the-water. It's like Treasuries are yelling, "Wake up, you idiots, we're in a Depression!"

Besides, deficit spending isn't always a bad thing anyway. Just ask a guy who's been out of work for 99 weeks how much he cares about deficits. Not much, I'll bet. All he cares about is getting a job and paying the bills. Here's a clip from economist Mark Thoma who explains how deficits can actually rev up the economy:

"When the economy goes into recession, deficit spending through tax cuts or the purchase of goods and services by the government can stop the downward spiral and help to turn the economy back around. Thus, deficits can help us to stabilize the economy. In addition, as the economy improves due to the deficit spending the outlook for businesses also improves, and this can lead to increased investment, an effect known as crowding in. Deficits also allow us to purchase infrastructure and spread the bills across time similar to the way households finance the purchase of a car or house, or the way local governments finance schools with bond issues." (Government Deficits: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Mark Thoma, CBS Moneywatch)

Deficits are just a way of investing in the future, like student loans. You don't hear anyone crybabying about paying for college, do you? No, because it improves their chances for making more money in the future. Sometimes you have to take on a little debt to create better opportunities for yourself. That's just the way it is. It's the same with the economy, the deficits are a bridge to the next credit expansion. But once things are up-and-running and revenues increase, then the government can throttle-back on spending and balance the budget. That's how we've always done it in the past, until we started listening to the Voodoo crackpots, that is. Besides, if we don't increase the deficits now and put people back to work fast, we're going to be stuck in this "underperforming" funk for a very long time. So, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.

How did we get to where we are today? 

Well, when the financial system crashed, the economy plunged and then reset at a lower level of output. So--while we're no longer in freefall--we're still no where near where we should be. And, guess what, we can't get back to trend when 9% of the workforce (16.5% underemployed) is on the sidelines. We have to put people back to work and get them spending. That's the only way to boost demand and kickstart the economy. Of course, big business doesn't mind the current policy, because more of the profits from productivity go to them during a sluggish recovery. So, they're just fine with the way things are right now. They also like the fact that high unemployment puts more pressure on wages. CEO's love that part.

So, how dire is the situation right now?

Well, consider this: QE2 ends on June 30, right? But according to economist David Rosenberg, there's a "89% correlation between the Fed's balance sheet and the movements in the S&P 500 over the past two years." So when the Fed stops purchasing US Treasuries, then stocks will retreat.

Add that to the fact that the states are cutting costs and laying off state workers at record pace to balance their budgets. That just increases deflationary pressures. When money is drained from the system, activity slows, demand weakens, revenues shrink, deficits bulge, and more people are laid off. It's a vicious circle.

Here's how Paul Krugman breaks it down on his blog this week:

"Last year I warned that we seemed to be heading into the "Third Depression" — by which I meant a prolonged period of economic weakness:

' Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.'.....

And nobody in power cares! (Third Depression Watch, Paul Krugman, New York Times)

And that's what makes this political burlesque on Capitoll Hill so excruciating to watch, because it's such a waste. Peoples lives are being ruined for nothing, just because Congress doesn't have the courage to do the right thing. Do you think they'd hesitate if they had to pony-up for another multi-billion dollar weapons system, or another bailout for Wall Street, or more tax cuts for their tycoon friends? Of course not. The only time congress worries about red ink is when it might help working people. Then they throw a major hissyfit, waving their hands overhead and babbling hysterically about the free market. Give me a break. The world's not going to end. The truth is, the rest of the world WANTS us to borrow more because they want to maintain strong demand for their exports and keep their workers busy. That's why they're willing to lend us money so cheap.

So, why don't we oblige them? Why don't we borrow enough money to whittle down unemployment to 4 or 5% and get back on track? After all, we know that fiscal stimulus works, because the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released another report on Wednesday saying that Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was a booming success.

Here's a clip from the report:

"The economic stimulus package passed by Congress in 2009 raised gross domestic product, created jobs and helped lower the country's unemployment rate this year..... the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed while the U.S. struggled to emerge from a severe recession, would save or create 3.5 million jobs while cutting taxes, investing in roads, bridges and other infrastructure, extending unemployment benefits and expanding aid to states....

The CBO report out Wednesday said the plan increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million, and lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 and 1.8 percentage points in the first quarter of 2011.

The stimulus package also raised gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic output, by between 1.1% and 3.1% in the same period...." ("CBO Says Stimulus Boosted Growth, Will Add More to Deficit", Wall Street Journal)

Okay, so ARRA boosted growth by roughly 2% and added about 2 million new jobs to the workforce just like the administration predicted. So, that settles it, right? We now have solid proof that the program worked, so what are we waiting for? Congress needs to push through a second round of stimulus, put people back to work and get the economy firing on all 6 cylinders. No more foot dragging.