What We Are Not Being Told About Suicide And Depression

Shouldn’t researchers examine societal and cultural variables that are making us depressed and suicidal?

By Bruce E. Levine / AlterNet

February 15, 2015

For nearly two decades, Big Pharma commercials have falsely told Americans that mental illness is associated with a chemical brain imbalance, but the truth is that mental illness and suicidality are associated with poverty, unemployment, and mass incarceration. And the truth is that American society has now become so especially oppressive for young people that an embarrassingly large number of American teenagers and young adults are suicidal and depressed.

In November of 2014, the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) issued a press release titled “Nearly One in Five Adult Americans Experienced Mental Illness in 2013.” This brief press release provides a snapshot of the number of Americans who are suicidal, depressed, and mentally ill, and it bemoans how many Americans are not in treatment. However, excluded from SAMHSA’s press release—yet included in the lengthy results of SAMHSA’s national survey—are economic, age, gender, and other demographic correlates of serious mental illness, depression, and suicidality (serious suicidal thoughts, plans, or attempts). It is these demographic correlates that have political implications.

These lengthy results, for example, include extensive evidence that involvement in the criminal justice system (such as being on parole or probation) is highly correlated with suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness. Yet Americans are not told that preventing unnecessary involvement with the criminal justice system—for example, marijuana legalization and drug use decriminalization—could well prove to be a more powerful antidote to suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness than medical treatment.

Also, the survey results provide extensive evidence that unemployment and poverty are highly associated with suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness. While correlation is not the equivalent of causation, it makes more sense to be further examining variables that actually are associated with suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness rather than focusing on variables such as chemical imbalances which are not even correlates (see AlterNet January 2015). These results beg questions such as: Does unemployment and poverty cause depression, or does depression make it more likely for unemployment and poverty, or are both true?

And the survey results also provide extensive evidence that younger Americans are more depressed than older Americans, that women are more likely to be depressed than men, and that Native Americans and biracial Americans are more likely to be depressed than other ethnic/racial groups. Again, while correlation is not the equivalent of causation, depression obviously cannot cause one to become young, female, or Native American. More rationally, researchers should be asking what is it about American society that is so depressing, especially for young people, women, and Native Americans?

These recent SAMHSA survey results provide a golden opportunity for a scientific and societal shift to reconsider what about American society and culture is resulting in emotional suffering and self-destructive behaviors, especially for certain groups. Below is a summary of some of the key statistics in these buried SAMHSA survey results.

Summary of Buried SAMHSA Survey Results
Involvement with the Criminal Justice System: In 2013, the percentage of American adults with serious suicidal thoughts: 10.7 percent for those on parole or a supervised release from jail in the past 12 months, 9.2 percent among those who were on probation, and 3.9 percent for those not involved in the criminal justice system. The percentage for adults with any mental illness: if on probation was 32.3 percent, if on parole or supervised release, 36.5 percent, double the percentage of adults not involved in the criminal justice system (18.3 percent). The percentage of adults with serious mental illness: if on probation was 9.4 percent, if on parole or supervised release was 13.9 percent, more than triple for those not involved in the criminal justice system (4.1 percent).

Unemployment: Among American adults in 2013, the unemployed were more likely than those who were employed full time: to have serious thoughts of suicide (7.0 vs. 3.0 percent), make suicide plans (2.3 vs. 0.7 percent), or attempt suicide (1.4 vs. 0.3 percent). The percentage of adults with any mental illness: for the unemployed was 22.8 percent, for part-time employed was 20.3 percent, and for full-time employed was 15.4 percent. Among adults with serious mental illness: the percentage for the unemployed was 6.6 percent, for part-time employed was 4.8 percent, and for those full-time employed was 2.7 percent. Among those adults having a major depression episode: the percentage for the unemployed was 9.5 percent, for part-time employed was 7.8 percent, and for full-time employed was 5.3 percent.

Family Income: Among American adults in 2013, serious suicidal thoughts occurred in: 6.6 percent of those from family incomes below the Federal poverty level, 4.7 percent of those with family incomes between 100 and 199 percent of the Federal poverty level, and 3.1 percent of those with annual family incomes at 200 percent or more of the Federal poverty level. Among American adults, the percentage with serious mental illness: for those with a family income that was below the Federal poverty level was 7.7 percent, for those with a family income at 100 to 199 percent of the Federal poverty level was 5.1 percent, and for those with a family income at 200 percent or more of the Federal poverty level was 3.2 percent.

Age: No suicidality results were reported for Americans under 18, however, among American adults having serious suicidal thoughts, the percentage: for those aged 18 to 25 was 7.4 percent, for those aged 26 to 49 was 4.0 percent, and for those aged 50 or older was 2.7 percent. And among adults who made suicide plans in the past year: the percentage for those aged 18 to 25 was 2.5 percent, for those aged 26 to 49 was 1.3 percent, and for those aged 50 or older was 0.6 percent. The percentage of Americans having a major depressive episode in 2013: for those aged 12 to 17 was 10.7 percent, for those aged 18 to 25 was 8.7 percent, for those aged 26 to 49 was 7.6 percent, and for those aged 50 or older was 5.1 percent.

Gender: In 2013, adult women were more likely than adult men to have: any mental illness (22.3 vs. 14.4 percent), a serious mental illness (4.9 vs. 3.5 percent), a major depressive episode (8.1 vs. 5.1 percent), and suicidal thoughts (4.0 vs. 3.8 percent). Among American ages 12 to 17, females were more likely than males to have a major depressive episode (16.2 vs. 5.3 percent) and a major depressive episode with severe impairment (12.0 vs. 3.5 percent).

Ethnicity/Race: In 2013, the percentages of adults aged 18 or older having serious thoughts of suicide in the past year were: 2.9 percent among blacks, 3.3 percent among Asians, 3.6 percent among Hispanics, 4.1 percent among whites, 4.6 percent among Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, 4.8 percent among American Indians or Alaska Natives, and 7.9 percent among adults reporting two or more races. The percentages of adults with a major depressive episode: were 1.6 percent among Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, 4.0 percent among Asians, 4.6 percent among blacks, 5.8 percent among Hispanics, 7.3 percent among whites, 8.9 percent among American Indians or Alaska Natives, and 11.4 percent among adults reporting two or more races.

Conclusions
The SAMHSA press release states that among American adults in 2013: 10 million American adults (4.2 percent) experienced a serious mental illness, 15.7 million adults (6.7 percent) experienced a major depressive episode, and states that “major depressive episodes affected approximately one in ten (2.6 million) youth between the ages of 12 to 17.” The press release then laments how many Americans with mental illnesses are not receiving treatment.

While these statistics in the SAMHSA press release are troubling, the devil is in the details of the actual lengthy SAMHSA survey results. These results make clear that suicidality, depression, and mental illness are highly correlated with involvement in the criminal justice system, unemployment, and poverty, and occur in greater frequency among young people, women, and Native Americans.

Shouldn’t researchers be examining American societal and cultural variables that are making so many of us depressed and suicidal? At the very least, don’t we as a society want to know what exactly is making physically healthier teenagers and young adults more depressed than senior citizens?

Obama's Job Speech: Democrats Fear It’s Too Late

Wednesday, September 7, 2011 by The Hill (Washington, DC)

by Alexander Bolton 

 

 

President Obama’s new effort to revive the ailing economy may be too little, too late, according to Democrats and liberal policy experts.

“The president has to bring forward a bold proposal. He can’t start the process by negotiating with himself,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Senate Democrats. “He needs to say, ‘If we do A, B and C, we can create millions of new jobs,’ and take it to the American people.” They contend that Obama missed his chance to turn the economy around by November 2012, but still want him to call on Congress to move an aggressive new jobs plan — even if it has little chance of passing.

Obama should swing for the fences during his speech on Thursday, they say, claiming there is no need to be politically pragmatic with the House in GOP hands.

“The president has to bring forward a bold proposal. He can’t start the process by negotiating with himself,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Senate Democrats. “He needs to say, ‘If we do A, B and C, we can create millions of new jobs,’ and take it to the American people.”

The risk for Obama, however, is that he could appear weak by putting forth a jobs proposal that is immediately viewed as dead on arrival on Capitol Hill.

Liberal activists say the best chances for passing legislation that would have really spurred growth was in the last Congress, when Democrats controlled the House and as many as 60 seats in the Senate.

Obama successfully pushed a stimulus bill through the 111th Congress, but it attracted only a few votes from Republicans and was criticized by liberals as too small. The White House vowed it would keep unemployment rates at around 8 percent. Now, the nation’s unemployment rate stands at 9.1 percent.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said Obama made a mistake by not pushing for more stimulus when Democrats had the votes in 2009 and 2010.

“He should have said, ‘This is a great first start, but we’re going to need more,’” Baker said.
Obama has dropped hints he will push ideas that he knows won’t pass anytime soon.
During an appearance on “The Tom Joyner Morning Show” last week, Obama said, “If Congress does not act, then I’m going to be going on the road and talking to folks, and this next election very well may end up being a referendum on whose vision of America is better.”

At press time, Bloomberg reported that Obama will propose boosting job growth with a $300-billion plan that focuses on tax cuts, infrastructure spending and direct aid to state and local governments.

The president is feeling pressure from the left and right on his highly anticipated speech. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Tuesday called on Obama to meet with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle before he delivers his address.

Some Democrats are publicly calling on Obama to embrace hundreds of billions of dollars in stimulus spending, complaining that Washington is focusing too much on the deficit and too little on job creation.

Without drastic action, they see little hope of turning the economy around in the next 14 months. And they concede Republicans, who are feeling more confident about winning back the White House next year, will block all of Obama’s ambitious plans.

Republicans counter that they agree with Obama that three pending trade agreements, with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, would create jobs. Those deals are expected to move later this year.

The worst scenario for many liberal Democrats would be if Obama proposes a modest, centrist approach that does little to encourage new hiring and gives them little ammunition against Republicans in the months ahead.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) said she wants Obama to emphasize incentives for domestically manufactured goods and stripping incentives for companies that outsource production overseas.

She also wants Obama to endorse and Congress to appropriate $16 billion immediately for a civilian conservation corps that would be led by unemployed military veterans.

Former Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said Obama should throw his support behind a made-in-America initiative that would provide incentives for companies that hire workers in this country. Like Kaptur, he says the Congress should do everything it can to eliminate incentives for companies that move production facilities overseas and outsource U.S. jobs.

“The country needs to see this as a very big crisis. You can’t nibble around the edges,” Dorgan said. “The president doesn’t have a choice but to be very bold.”

Still, Dorgan realizes the political realities: “The things we’ve seen from Congress [do not] suggest that very much can happen.”

Baker would like Congress to pass $100 billion a year in state aid to keep teachers, police officers and firefighters on local government payrolls. But he admits that is not likely to happen, given the political environment in Congress.

He thinks it’s more likely Obama could convince Republicans to support a work-share program that would redirect unemployment funds to encourage employers to keep workers at reduced hours and wages instead of firing them, a program that has worked well in Germany.

Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and a former top economics official in the Obama administration, said an infrastructure program that addressed the national backlog of school maintenance would be effective. But he admits “it’s going to be a very heavy lift” to pass it through Congress.

Bernstein said he expects Obama to propose extending the payroll tax holiday and unemployment benefits, which he thinks Republicans are likely to accept.

He said those proposals could reduce the 9.1 percent unemployment rate by half to three-quarters of a percentage point. But that would likely fall short of what many Democrats think could be effected by an ambitious stimulus spending program.

Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, said Congress has waited on the private sector for three years to begin creating more jobs, and it has not happened. He said the government needs to borrow and spend more to augment consumer demand.
But he thinks the time for getting Congress to act might have passed.

“I think they’re going to bury their heads in the sand and do absolutely nothing,” Lilly said.

Why Texas is a Complete Basket-Case

 (So Perry and the GOP are proud of the fact that his policies of tax breaks and subsidies for his corporate cronies who fund his campaign in return has eliminated well paying jobs and replaced them with more minimum wage service jobs like fast-food clerks, dishwashers, busboys, and 7-11 clerks? Anyone with a good job who believes in him will be mopping up puddles of puke at an underfunded elementary school within a year. There are not enough jobs in Texas that pay what a person needs for his/her mortgage and to raise a family. The Miracle is a myth--or rather a big pile of lying bullshit. And Perry, the fraud, would be a worse president than GW Bush was. He'll never get elected.--jef)

 +++

"A Shining Example of Right-Wing Governance in Action"

Conservatives claim the "Texas Miracle" is a model for the nation, but it's actually a blueprint for winning the race to the bottom.

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet

Posted on June 17, 2011

Conservative mythology now holds up Texas as a shining example of right-wing governance in action. Republicans would have us believe that gutting the state's social safety net, denying workers the right to bargain collectively and relentlessly cutting taxes unleashed a torrent of “job creation” and, ultimately, prosperity.

Under governor Rick “Goodhair” Perry's term in office, Texas has indeed been a model of conservative governance, but the truth is that it has resulted in anything but prosperity for the people of the Lone Star State. In fact, Texas is not only a complete basket-case, it would be faring far worse today without the help of policies enacted by Democrats at the federal level – policies Perry lambasted as “irresponsible spending that threatens our future.”

The kernel of truth on which the tale of the Texas Miracle is built is that the state has in fact added a lot of jobs over the past decade. In a gushing lead editorial, the Wall Street Journal noted that “37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas.” The Journal then spun that fact like this:

Capital—both human and investment—is highly mobile, and it migrates all the time to the places where the opportunities are larger and the burdens are lower. Texas has no state income tax. Its regulatory conditions are contained and flexible. It is fiscally responsible and government is small. Its right-to-work law doesn't impose unions on businesses or employees. (Yeah, uh, Texas is "will to work" which means a company can fire an employee without giving a reason or warning first.--jef)

In the Journal's hyper-partisan view, the lesson to be learned is that “the core impulse of Obamanomics is to make America less like Texas and more like California, with more government, more unions, more central planning, higher taxes.” That spin was echoed during last week's GOP debate by none other than Newt Gingrich, who asked, “Why [would] you want to be at California's unemployment level when you can be [at] Texas's employment level?”

James Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, scoffed at the whole narrative, telling AlterNet, “the notion that our state government is a model is almost enough to beckon the spirit of Molly Ivins back from the shades.” Galbraith said “Texas has been a low-tax, low-service state since the time of the Republic,” and noted that it's “therefore impossible that this fact suddenly accounts for its better job performance over the past few years.”  

Texas' record of job creation under Perry is the same as it was under former governor Ann Richards, a Democrat.

“Texas is an energy state benefiting from high oil prices and the incipient boom in natural gas,” explained Galbraith. “That's an accident of nature.” He added that the state “went through the S&L crisis, had major criminal prosecutions and more restrictive housing finance regulations this time around; hence it was not an epicenter of the subprime housing disaster. (Texas may, however, doomed to be the epicenter of the coming commercial real estate crash. Houston and Dallas could be doomed once that market has slowly cratered as hundreds of billions of dollars in bad loans mature.--jef)

That's called a learning experience.” Tighter regulation of the lending industry is also anathema to today's GOP.

Arguably the biggest sleight-of-hand in the Texas Miracle storyline, however, is that many of those jobs were a result of a huge surge in the state's population, much of it fueled by immigration from Latin America (rather than liberal hell-holes like California).

Texas' population grew by 20% over the past decade, and Hispanics accounted for almost two-thirds of that growth. A surge in people created greater demand for goods and services, which leads to more jobs. But the jobs being created in Texas aren't keeping up with the state's expanding workforce – the Wall Street Journal somehow failed to mention that during the exact same period in which it was adding all those new jobs, Texas' unemployment rate actually increased from 7.7 to 8% (it also failed to note that 23 states -- including such deep blue ones as Vermont, New York and Massachusetts -- enjoy lower unemployment rates than Texas).

But perhaps the most laughable claim in this whole narrative is that Texas has been “fiscally responsible.” Perry certainly adhered to the conservative playbook, offering massive tax breaks without the deep cuts in services that might inspire a voter backlash. As a result – an entirely predictable one – the Austin American-Statesman reported that “state lawmakers have spent much of the year grappling with a budget shortfall that left them $27 billion short of the money needed to continue current state services.”

CNN adds that while Perry was railing against the Democratic stimulus package passed over the fierce resistance of conservatives, the state “was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years,” and “it plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money.” The stimulus package created or saved 205,000 jobs in Texas, second only to California. But as James Galbraith told AlterNet, while “the state budget has not yet been cut drastically” due to the stimulus boost, “the key phrase is 'not yet.'” Now that the stimulus has run its course, “if projections for the current budget cycle are correct, things will get much worse in the next year.”

Indeed, those cuts are now on their way. The Texas legislature imposed draconian cuts to Medicaid, cut tuition aid to 43,000 low-income students and is weighing $10 billion in cuts to the state's education system. According to Texas state senator Rodney Ellis, D-Fort Bend, the 2012-2013 budget will underfund “health and human services in Texas by $23 billion, 29.8% below what is needed to maintain current services.”

But Perry's tax breaks are indeed part of the state's jobs picture; as Time magazine's Massimo Calabresi noted, Perry established several massive business tax breaks “designed to lure companies from other states.”

[But] the funds have been controversial. They have channeled millions of dollars to companies whose officers or investors are major Perry campaign donors and Perry has allowed them to keep their subsidies in many cases even when they fail to deliver promised jobs. More important for the purposes of judging Perry’s job-creating record, even those that do produce jobs don’t necessarily create long-lasting ones, or increase the state’s overall prosperity.

In a report written for Perry last spring, Michael Porter of Harvard Business School noted that such tax breaks “ultimately don’t support long-term prosperity,” because companies that can move easily “are looking for the best deal and when the deal runs out they move” again, taking their jobs with them.

He also found that Texas’ per capita income growth was the eighth slowest of any state in the country between 1998 and 2008. That's because, as the American Independent's Patrick Brendel noted, “Texas has by far the largest number of employees working at or below the federal minimum wage,” and the number of crappy jobs has exploded while this supposed Texas Miracle was taking place. “From 2007 to 2010, the number of minimum wage workers in Texas rose from 221,000 to 550,000, an increase of nearly 150 %,” wrote Brendel. As a result, Texas is now “tied with Mississippi for the greatest percentage of minimum wage workers, while California had among the fewest (less than 2 %).”*

At a fundraiser this week, Rick Perry, who despite toying with the idea of secession in the past may now be eying a White House bid, told a group of Republican fat-cats that in his state, “you don't have to use your imagination, saying, 'What'll happen if we apply this or that conservative principle?' You just need to look around, because they've been in play across our state for years, generating real results.”

In this, Perry is absolutely, 100% correct. He slashed taxes to the bone, handing out credits to his political cronies like they were candy. He decried the evils of Big Government while hypocritically using federal stimulus funds to help close Texas' budget gap in the short term, and now he's using the state's longer term fiscal disaster – one of his own creation – as a premise for destroying an already threadbare social safety net serving the neediest Texans. As a result of these policies, plus immigration and other external factors, his state's added a lot of low-paying poverty jobs without decent benefits. He's added very little in the way of “prosperity.”

In the final analysis, Texas is indeed a shining example of conservative governance, as well as an almost perfect model for winning the race to the bottom.

* It should be noted that the cost of living is higher in California than in Texas.

Where Are The Jobs? Overseas...

For Many Companies, Overseas
Tuesday, December 28, 2010 by Associated Press

Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn't anyone hiring?

Actually, many American companies are — just maybe not in your town. They're hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is fat.

More than half of the 15,000 people that Caterpillar Inc. has hired this year were outside the U.S. UPS is also hiring at a faster clip overseas. For both companies, sales in international markets are growing at least twice as fast as domestically.

The trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8 percent last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4 percent of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.

But the jobs are going elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, says Robert Scott, the institute's senior international economist.

"There's a huge difference between what is good for American companies versus what is good for the American economy," says Scott.

American jobs have been moving overseas for more than two decades. In recent years, though, those jobs have become more sophisticated — think semiconductors and software, not toys and clothes.

And now many of the products being made overseas aren't coming back to the United States. Demand has grown dramatically this year in emerging markets like India, China and Brazil.

Meanwhile, consumer demand in the U.S. has been subdued. Despite a strong holiday shopping season, Americans are still spending 3 percent less than before the recession on essential items like clothing and more than 10 percent less on jewelry, furniture, electronics, and big appliances, according to MasterCard's SpendingPulse.

"Companies will go where there are fast-growing markets and big profits," says Jeffrey Sachs, globalization expert and economist at Columbia University. "What's changed is that companies today are getting top talent in emerging economies, and the U.S. has to really watch out."

With the future looking brighter overseas, companies are building there, too. Caterpillar, maker of the signature yellow bulldozers and tractors, has invested in three new plants in China in just the last two months to design and manufacture equipment. The decision is based on demand: Asia-Pacific sales soared 38 percent in the first nine months of the year, compared with 16 percent in the U.S. Caterpillar stock is up 65 percent this year.

"There is a shift in economic power that's going on and will continue. China just became the world's second-largest economy," says David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's, who notes that half of the revenue for companies in the S&P 500 in the last couple of years has come from outside the U.S.

Take the example of DuPont, which wowed the world in 1938 with nylon stockings. Known as one of the most innovative American companies of the 20th century, DuPont now sells less than a third of its products in the U.S. In the first nine months of this year, sales to the Asia-Pacific region grew 50 percent, triple the U.S. rate. Its stock is up 47 percent this year.

DuPont's work force reflects the shift in its growth: In a presentation on emerging markets, the company said its number of employees in the U.S. shrank by 9 percent between January 2005 and October 2009. In the same period, its work force grew 54 percent in the Asia-Pacific countries.

"We are a global player out to succeed in any geography where we participate in," says Thomas M. Connelly, chief innovation officer at DuPont. "We want our resources close to where our customers are, to tailor products to their needs."

While most of DuPont's research labs are still stateside, Connelly says he's impressed with the company's overseas talent. The company opened a large research facility in Hyderabad, India, in 2008.

A key factor behind this runaway international growth is the rise of the middle class in these emerging countries. By 2015, for the first time, the number of consumers in Asia's middle class will equal those in Europe and North America combined.

"All of the growth over the next 10 years is happening in Asia," says Homi Kharas, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and formerly the World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and the Pacific.

Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent often points out that a billion consumers will enter the middle class during the coming decade, mostly in Africa, China and India. He is aggressively targeting those markets. Of Coke's 93,000 global employees, less than 13 percent were in the U.S. in 2009, down from 19 percent five years ago.

The company would not say how many new U.S. hires it has made in 2010. But its latest new investments are overseas, including $240 million for three bottling plants in Inner Mongolia as part of a three-year, $2 billion investment in China. The three plants will create 2,000 new jobs in the area. In September, Coca-Cola pledged $1 billion to the Philippines over five years.

The strategy isn't restricted to just the largest American companies. Entrepreneurs, whether in technology, retail or in manufacturing, today hire globally from the start.

Consider Vast.com, which powers the search engines of sites like Yahoo Travel and Aol Autos. The company was founded in 2005 with employees based in San Francisco and Serbia.

Harvard Business School Dean Nitin Nohria worries that the trend could be dangerous. In an article in the November issue of the Harvard Business Review, he says that if U.S. businesses keep prospering while Americans are struggling, business leaders will lose legitimacy in society. He exhorted business leaders to find a way to link growth with job creation at home.

Other economists, like Columbia University's Sachs, say multinational corporations have no choice, especially now that the quality of the global work force has improved. Sachs points out that the U.S. is falling in most global rankings for higher education while others are rising.

"We are not fulfilling the educational needs of our young people," says Sachs. "In a globalized world, there are serious consequences to that."

Billionaires Should Pay No Taxes At All!

by James and Jean Anton
www.endendlesswars.org
Sunday, 19 December 2010

When Obama said America was being “held hostage” by the Republicans, that he had no choice but to compromise, he lied.

He could have pushed the Public Option (sorry to bring this up Mr. President. We know how much it upsets you when we “fucking retards” bring it up). He could have extended unemployment insurance. He could have fought unemployment by Just Saying "No" to outsourcing. He could have proposed a jobs program like FDR did in the form of public works, and improved the infrastructure to boot. He could have attacked the decade-old billionaire and millionaire tax empire by proposing to raise their taxes to help pay off the deficit they created. He could have done some of the above using reconciliation, or he could have shown some real leadership.

He could have been the transformational leader that we thought we elected.

Of course, he didn’t. And of course, he wasn’t.

Instead Obama chose to act as if the Republicans were in charge, which they were not, claiming they were holding a gun to his head, which they weren’t - that he was being held hostage, which he was not.

He “compromised.”

He invited the Republican leadership to the White House, and offered to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years. These cuts originally were a “temporary” Bush-era ploy to “help the economy.” They did nothing of the sort. Instead they handed tax-free windfall billions to the most privileged people in America. The cuts cost 544 billion dollars, and resulted in an economic crisis that began in 2008 and continues today.

In addition, he sweetened the “deal” by proposing a Social Security “tax holiday“ (which will deprive the Social Security Trust Fund of 112 billion dollars), and an extension of the Estate Tax windfall that will benefit three-tenths of 1 percent of Americans (and cost Americans another 68 billion dollars over the next 10 years.)
There would be many other tax breaks for energy interests and select businesses as well.

Total cost for his proposal: More than 860 billion dollars. His “compromise” will cost more than the Bush/Cheney tax scam. It is almost as much as the total cost of the wars in Iran and Afghanistan since 2001. It is more than twice the cost of Medicare.

He did not dare run these audacious ideas by the Democratic rank and file. Instead he invited the ultra-conservative Republican leadership to the White House, and made a deal.

There would be no national debate.

There would be no debate at all.

Obama went over to the Republican side, drew a line in the sand, and thumbed his nose at the rest of us.

He declared that Progressives and Liberals shouldn’t act like “sanctimonious purists.” That they should put the interests of America ahead of their own interests. In other words, he accused his own constituency of not caring as much about the welfare of America as his plutocrat constituents do.

Republicans were surprised and delighted. (Some pretended to believe they could have gotten even more... but the reality is that most Republicans felt like they had just taken Ecstasy). Newspapers like the Washington Post hailed the “compromise” as "the most significant bipartisan vote since President Obama took office.” He was congratulated by Senate minority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, who consistently receives a 100% score from the ultraconservative American Conservative Union.

Newt Gingrich approved and applauded. Need we say more?

You don’t have to be an economist or a think-tank devotee to see why they were so happy.

Obama made fools of the American people.

The plutocrats know that in 2012, when Obama runs for reelection, America will still be held hostage. This is because in regular hostage deals, the criminals give up the hostages before they receive the pay off.

Obama never freed the hostages.

Plutocrats are giddy because they know that Obama served them once, and that he will serve them again. His willingness to “compromise” guarantees that the tax empire give-away will soon be made permanent.

They are orgiastic because they know that Obama has no real intention to rescind the Social Security tax “holiday.” He practically said so. Not in 2012, not ever.

As long as the Social Security trust fund is there to prop up the economy, Obama will siphon it off. Money will flow from the nest eggs of the working class into the pockets the ruling class.

And what did Obama get for regular Americans with his “compromise”?

Those who pay into Social Security get a little extra pocket money from Obama’s “tax holiday.” Obama hopes that we spend every dime of it, to stimulate the economy. If we put it in the bank, the “tax holiday” will not stimulate anything.

People who are dependent upon Social Security get nothing.

Obama will show how serious he is about deficit reduction by freezing Social-Security payments for eternity. Not only will the trust fund be siphoned off, it will be steadily diminished by inflation.

Employees who are exempt from paying Social Security (who have exempt state-run or other pension plans) also get nothing. No extra cash. Nada.

Low-income workers may actually see reductions in their paychecks. The way the law is written, approximately 50 million taxpayers (approximately one out of three) who make less than $20,000 will see an increase in taxes.

The unemployed get a short-lived extension of benefits. But Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke predicts that it will take four or five more years before we are back to “normal” unemployment levels. Do you think Obama will have the guts or the will to ask the hostage takers to pay out unemployment checks for four or five years?

And no one seriously expects the Obama “compromise” to create jobs for anyone.

What will happen when the economy does not improve (for us regular Americans)? What will happen when the Social Security trust fund shrivels away? What will happen when unemployment benefits run out again? And again... ?

We are not supposed to worry about that for now.

One can only speculate.

Maybe Obama will go to the plutocrats again and take their advice. Maybe he’ll draw another line in the sand and dare us “fucking retards” to cross it.

Maybe he’ll declare that BILLIONAIRES SHOULD PAY NO TAXES AT ALL.

And give us regular Americans a Medicare Tax Holiday!

Unemployed Are Seeing A Rise in Health Care Costs

Laura Bassett 08-30-10
While the national unemployment rate has been hovering at about 9.5 percent for the last year, the average cost of health care plans for jobless Americans is steadily on the rise.

Terminated workers are paying an average of $429 a month this year for individual HMO coverage, compared to $399 for the same coverage in 2009, according to a survey conducted by Aon Consulting. COBRA coverage for an entire family now costs an average of $1,251, up from $1,171 per month at this time last year. With COBRA costs on the rise and the average unemployment check totaling less than $300 a week, a growing number of jobless Americans are no longer able to afford their health insurance plans.

Dianna Walker, 41, of Clearwater, Florida, said she and her husband have been struggling to afford COBRA since she was laid off on June 3, three days after the COBRA subsidy expired.

"We are charged $884 per month for COBRA," Walker told HuffPost. "Try paying that with a $240 unemployment check."

Walker said her husband has a pre-existing health condition that requires up to $1,000 per month in medications, but he doesn't qualify for the government's new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan because he hasn't been uninsured for more than six months. HuffPost's Arthur Delaney recently reported that only 1,200 people have been approved so far for the PCIP program, whose steep premiums ranging from $140 to $900 a month make it no more affordable than COBRA for many unemployed Americans.

Walker said COBRA is draining her savings, but she and her husband are out of options.

"We just missed our first mortgage payment ever," she said. "I have checked into all the new options from Obama's new health care reform and it is next to impossible to qualify. And if you do, it is very little coverage and costs more than COBRA without the subsidy.

John Zern, executive vice president and Health & Benefits Practice director with Aon Consulting, said the costs of COBRA are rising because so many people are using the system.

"The increased frequency and duration of COBRA use is creating a significant strain on the program, leading to higher costs," he said. "Those who are unemployed, and facing uncertainty about employment prospects and future COBRA availability, are utilizing the program more than we've traditionally seen to treat a variety of conditions prior to potentially losing coverage."

Current employees should also expect to see their plans become more expensive in the next couple of years as employers shift the costs over to them. The Aon survey found that 65 percent percent of employers plan to increase cost-sharing in 2011 for deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket maximums, and 57 percent of companies polled said they will ask employees to contribute more for the overall cost of health care next year.

This Economy Is Ripping The Dignity Of Millions Of Unemployed Americans To Shreds

By Michael Snyder - BLN Contributing Writer
Published on 08-28-2010

If you can still put a roof over your head and food on the table for your family, you should consider yourself to be very fortunate. There are millions of Americans out there right now that are really, really suffering. The cold, hard reality of it is that there aren't even close to enough jobs out there for everyone right now. It is almost as if we are all caught in a really bizarre game of musical chairs where the losers get stripped of their tickets to the middle class. What this horrible economy is doing to the dignity of millions of middle class Americans is incredibly saddening. There are a lot of very highly educated and very hard working Americans who cannot seem to get jobs no matter what they do and now find themselves doing whatever they can just to survive. It can be really hard to keep your dignity when you played by all the rules and you worked as hard as you could all your life and now you find yourself a half step away from being homeless. Those of us who are still doing okay should never look down on those who are struggling in this economy, because the truth is that any of us could be next.

If you really want to read some horror stories about what long-term unemployment is doing to some people in America, you should go spend an hour or two over at Unemployed-Friends some time. It is a great forum with a lot of great resources for the unemployed, but it also contains dozens and dozens and dozens of heartbreaking stories from middle class Americans who have had their lives shattered by this economic downturn.

The following is a typical story on Unemployed-Friends. It is from a 48 year old Air Force veteran who has lost everything and is now sleeping in his vehicle. It turns out that Scott48's job was shipped off to India and now he has been out of work for over two years....

"I am a 48 year old USAF Vet. I got my house in 1996 with the help of the VA. In 2009 the company I worked for went out of buisness(gone to India) I then became a 99er. I notified Wells Fargo that I lost my job and they said they would work with me, the next mortgage statement I got they conveniently increased my mortgage! With what I got from UE was enough for the house but I had to cut out the luxury of food, gas, utillities, insurance, entertainment and alcohol. That was it for me, so the forecloser ball was in motion. I had to give my dog to my cousin so he would get fed, I took everything I owened to the auction( execpt tools, clothes, pictures, tech manuals and my Saxophone) and sold it. I went to a half-way house the VA recomended for a week and it was joke, so my cousin said I could stay with her. After 4 months she diecided that I wasnt looking hard enough and kicked me out, and Ive applied for everything except selling myself. This summer I was staying in an abandoned house due to forecloser and the real estate company has now put it on the market, and I am now on the street sleeping in my vehicle or a friend here and there. Keeping clean is going to be a challenge cuz the Flying J truck stops charge $10 for a shower, rip-off. What a country!"

The truth is that this economy is driving many Americans to the brink of desperation. Even recent college graduates are becoming desperate enough to actually consider suicide. The following story is from an Unemployed-Friends user known as 08pacollegegrad....

"I could just take any job like working at fast food places, but I hear people who try can't even get hired there. I went to Wendy's for lunch the other day and I thought of picking up an application...but the slot where they keep the applications was completely empty. That should say it all. Plus, I feel like if I take just any job...I will be set back further and never be able to gain experience in my chosen fields.

I follow up on job applications, but employers ignore me for the most part when I try to contact them. I sent five follow up e-mails last week and got no responses. I contacted an employer expressing my interest in working for them, but all they gave me is the link to their online application system that I have never gotten a job from.

I am thinking of applying for more internships (I have already done two), but I don't want employers to think why I am applying for an internship when I should have had a full fledged job by now.

I have almost killed myself over my situaion and am taking anti-depressants right now. I see a psychiatrist every 4-6 weeks, but I still have days where I feel so empty. I am sick of sitting at home searching for jobs and praying for a response that never comes."

Many Americans spend day after day after day looking for a job that never comes. The sense of hopelessness that can build after doing this for a few years is almost indescribable. The following is another incredibly sad story from an Unemployed-Friends user known as feuxdejoie....

"I lost my job in June 2008, my husband was working but sentenced to prison for 4 years, for DUI, no accidents or injuries. I had been using my unemployment to pay bills but my last check came June 12, 2010. I'm alone and scared. The city that I live in has the highest unemployment in the State, Illinois. Our children are grown and I sit alone all day searching for jobs. My husband can only call once a month because of the outrageous rates for telephone calls. I'm at the end of my rope and don't know where to turn if they don't pass a tier V for unemployment or open up some jobs.
I turned 50 in April and had worked all of my life, starting at age 14 with a work permit! My employer stated to me that they needed someone bilingual and terminated me even after I told them that I would take classes to learn. I signed up for college and began classes in January then unemployment told me that I wasn't elgible for unemployment while attending school."

There are millions of Americans who believe that their lives are over because they can't get decent jobs. When you lose your job, your home, your car, your health insurance and then finally your unemployment insurance runs out, it is easy to lose all hope as an Unemployed-Friends user named Ember has done....

"so i feel pretty much hopeless. been unemployed since July 2008. in over two years i haven't even been called for an interview. tired of looking and applying for jobs outside of my field that require experience i don't have. it's all for naught. i have two bachelor of science degrees. my BS degrees, cuz that's what they're worth. since losing my job i've gotten divorced. lost my house. lost my health insurance. totalled my car and sustained chronic back pain. and moved in with my mom. and did i mention, when all this started i was a new mom, just back from maternity leave? so (now) i'm raising a toddler on my own, with no income. my unemployment insurance ran out a few weeks ago. i don't even know what to do now. i just want to disappear. i'm tired of trying. i'm tired of being a burden on everyone. if i didn't have the responsibility to take care of my child i wouldn't be around anymore."

This final example is from an Unemployed-Friends user identified as Faith1028. Be warned that this one will shake you to your core if you have any sensitivity at all. As you read this, keep in mind that this kind of thing is literally happening to millions of Americans these days....

"HI, y'all! This is my story. I'm from Chicago.

I lost my job 11.06.09 - I did my best to remain positive & confident that I would get a job by the end of November.

December 2009 - Still no job. I'm getting food stamps (LINK card) & Unemployment Benefits. Not much money at all, but I'm surviving. Thanks to all this stress, my stomach has been burning and/or been painful daily for all December. I puked my guts out on the 26th.

January 2010 - My stomach is still hurting every day. I had to close out my savings account. I haven't told my slumlord or my fellow tenants that I lost my job; I go on pretending I'm still going to work everyday. Unfortunately on the 26th, I got my eviction notice. I called the office to ask why. The response was "I don't know." I became hysterical. I've no job, no money, no family/friends to help. (I have many *relatives*, but no *family*.) I truly believed my only alternative was suicide. I wanted to say good-bye to my brother (my only sibling), but we haven't spoken to each other for over 4 years; I no longer have his address/phone number. I found him on Facebook. I didn't bring up my situation because I felt he wouldn't care. We exchanged a few messages and that was it. I haven't heard from him since. Good riddance.

February 2010 - Someone found a family that I can stay with for only $250/month! My own room! They turned out to be aquaintances of mine. Vegetarian, too! At least I have a place to stay. I'd rather live alone, but, hey, I'm desperate! -- And I'm not too crazy about the bedbugs. OW!

June/July 2010 - Thanks to daily/nightly use of citrine crystals since 30 May, I have no more stomach problems!
Thanks to weekly use of a natural (green!) pesticide from PlusNaturalEnzymes.com, I no longer have a problem with bedbugs! However...
Mid-June, my Unemployment Benefits ran out. Of course, I'm still looking for a job! What am I supposed to do - put a gun to someone's head and force them to hire me? As of this date, I have $12 left to my name; $0 in my chequeing account. I recently reapplied for and am now receiving food stamps. Before I got my food stamps back, I've eaten whatever (Vegetarian!) food I can get, even stuff I'm allergic to. As a result, I've become sick: cold-like symptoms, pain in lower intestines...and a rash over my arms, legs, & neck. Oh, does it itch! At least my food allergies are not life-threatening.
Needless to say, my depression has gotten worse.

I am really trying hard to remain positive -- and alive.
But why? Is it really all worth it?

I haven't paid July's rent, and the people I'm staying with are getting very *impatient*; I fear I'll be evicted again! The money is coming! It's not my bloody fault!

Someone on Twitter sent me a link to this site. I know I'm not the only one suffering; some folks have already committed suicide. I don't want to die, but I don't want to be homeless, either. I am so bloody scared.
Just give me money that my tax dollars paid for!
--Or better yet: GIVE ME A BLASTED JOB!!"

The really sad thing is that there are countless other stories just like these being posted all over the Internet all the time.

People are hurting.

People are losing hope.

So how did we get here?

Well, it turns out that the "haves" have figured out that they really don't need the "have nots" after all. Incredible advances in technology have increasingly enabled employers to replace humans with machines and computers. In addition, as we have detailed previously, millions upon millions of middle class American jobs are being shipped off to China and to dozens of third world nations where workers are more than happy to work for less than a tenth of what an American worker would make.

All of those jobs that have been lost to technology and that have been sent overseas are not going to come back. The hordes of long-term unemployed that we are seeing now is just the beginning. It is going to get a lot worse.

So the next time you hear a hard luck story from an unemployed American, don't look down on that person.

You might be next.

Blacking Out on the Economy

The Lights are Out in Washington
By DEAN BAKER

I was late with my column this morning. It was the first time that I missed a deadline since I started college. This made me angry, not just because I hated to see a 34-year-streak end, but more importantly because of the reason I was late.

Sunday afternoon a storm hit Washington. It knocked out the power not only in my house, approximately three miles from the White House, but also in large chunks of the city and suburbs. Fifteen hours later we still don’t have power. Since the temperatures are predicted to get into the 90s today, we can expect that people will die. Sick and elderly people who cannot get into an air-conditioned facility will have great difficulty surviving in such heat.

This should make everyone very angry. There is no excuse for the nation’s capital not to have sufficient spare capacity and repair crews to ensure that prolonged blackouts do not occur in the middle of a summer heat wave.

Yes, this would cost money and that is why the whole story is damn painful. We have the money. We have the money.

We are sitting here with close to 10 percent of our workforce unemployed. This is because of a lack of demand. If there were more demand from any source, this would employ many of these workers. These are workers who have the necessary skills and desire to work. Remember, the vast majority of them were working before the housing bubble collapsed.

Back then the $8 trillion in illusory housing bubble wealth was creating the demand needed to keep our workforce near full employment. Now that this wealth has vanished, only the government can generate the demand to employ these people. It is only because of the painful ignorance or willful economic sabotage of members of Congress (mostly Republicans) that the government will not spend the money needed to bring the economy back to more normal levels of employment.

This is where D.C.’s power failure comes in. What would be the problem if Congress dispensed $400-500 billion to the states to be spent on upgrading infrastructure such as electric power lines, mass transit systems, and water and sewage treatment facilities? The stimulus passed by Congress last year started on this path, but did not go nearly far enough.

This spending could be financed by requiring the Federal Reserve Board to buy and hold the bonds used to pay for the projects. If the Fed held the bonds, then the interest would be paid to the Fed, which in turn would then be rebated to the Treasury. That means that there is no additional interest burden on our children for the deficit hawks to whine about. Instead our children will get a modern infrastructure that doesn’t jeopardize the country’s economic and physical health.

The new infrastructure could also be far more energy efficient, making important strides towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps future summer heat waves won’t be quite so hot.

A jobs and growth project along these lines should be a no-brainer. The huge number of unemployed workers is actually a source of wealth. It means that the country is currently meeting its consumption and investment needs while still having 10 percent of its workforce on the sidelines. If we can find useful work for many of the currently unemployed workers it makes the country richer, not poorer.

At this point, the budget deficit crew will invariably start yelling that governments will be wasteful in their spending. There is some truth to this, but so what? Imagine that we spend 20 percent, 30 percent or even 40 percent too much for rebuilding our infrastructure. Five or ten years out we still have a modernized infrastructure. Would be better off if we just did nothing so that our children are left with an infrastructure that is 10 years more out of date in 2020?

We also hear the complaints that this plan would generate inflation. This objection is hard to understand. We have massive excess capacity in almost every sector of the economy. Which business is going to start raising its prices because the government is supporting a major infrastructure program? Furthermore, if inflation did start to get out of hand, the Fed has all the tools necessary to keep inflation under control.

What’s the worst possible scenario, we get a recession like the 1981-82 downturn? That was a much more mild recession than the one we are currently experiencing, so it’s hard to see the basis for fear.

"Drug Tests for the Unemployed!" -- Senator Orrin Hatch

By John Byrne

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

Though the Clinton Administration passed a law years ago allowing states to test welfare recipients for drug abuse, one Republican senator wants to go farther: require drug tests of anyone who applies for government assistance.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment Tuesday that would require drug tests for those who seek welfare and unemployment benefits. States have the authority to enact drug testing requirements for their welfare programs under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, but they are not mandated to conduct tests under current law.

"This amendment is a way to help people get off of drugs to become productive and healthy members of society, while ensuring that valuable taxpayer dollars aren't wasted," Hatch said of his proposal. "Too many Americans are locked into a life of a dangerous dependency not only on drugs, but the federal assistance that serves to enable their addiction."

An advocate for the poor lambasted the idea.

"If people who need all kinds of help can't get certain kinds of help, that is just not right," Linda Hilton of the Crossroads Urban Center in Salt Lake City told the Salt Lake Tribune. She added that she "couldn't fathom the idea of denying assistance to a person with an alcohol dependency, and she worries it could punish entire families for the addiction of a parent."

A press release from Hatch's office said that any "money saved as a result of this amendment would be used to reduce the deficit."

But Hilton countered that the amendment would actually cost the government money, because federal officials would have to free up more funding for alcohol and drug treatment programs.

The Hill noted that: "Hatch introduced an amendment to the tax extenders bill that would require those who are applying for some of the benefits in that bill, including unemployment and welfare benefits, to pass a drug test in exchange for the benefits.

"Under the Hatch amendment," the paper continued, "individuals who fail to qualify for benefits because they failed a drug test wouldn't necessarily be jailed, but would be enrolled in a state or federal drug treatment program."

Disturbing Job Ads: 'Unemployed Not To Be Considered' for Positions

First Posted: 06- 4-10 

Still waiting for a response to the 300 resumés you sent out last month? Bad news: Some companies are ignoring all unemployed applicants.

In a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting. But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."

In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies.

"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."

There are about 5.5 people looking for work for every job available, according to the latest data from the Labor Department.

Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that recently announced that it would be bringing 180 new jobs to the Buckhead, Ga. area, also recently posted an ad for a marketing position on The People Place. The add specified: "NO UNEMPLOYED CANDIDATES WILL BE CONSIDERED AT ALL." When asked about the ad, a spokeswoman said, "This was a mistake, and once it was noticed it was removed."

Ads asking the unemployed not to apply are easy to find. A Craigslist ad for assistant restaurant managers in Edgewater, N.J. specifies, "Must be currently employed." Another job posting for a tax manager at an unnamed "top 25 CPA firm" in New York City contains the same line in all caps.

A company's choice to ignore unemployed applicants and recycle the current workforce ignores the effect of the recession on millions of highly-qualified workers and could prolong the unemployment crisis, said Judy Conti, federal advocacy coordinator for the National Employment Law Project.

"In the current economy, where millions of people have lost their jobs through absolutely no fault of their own, I find it beyond unconscionable that any employer would not consider unemployed workers for current job openings," she said. "Not only are these employers short-sighted in their search for the best qualified workers, but they are clearly not good corporate citizens of the communities in which they work. Increasingly, politicians and policy makers are trying to blame the unemployed for their condition, and to see this shameful propaganda trickle down to hiring decisions is truly sad and despicable."

There is no law prohibiting discrimination against the unemployed, though advocates said the practice could be illegal if it had a "disparate impact" on minority groups.

Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich.), whose home state of Michigan has a 14 percent unemployment rate, was particularly disappointed to hear about the ads.

"While I appreciate that many employers are facing unprecedented competition for job openings, to close the door on such a large population of potential employees is shortsighted," he said. "Being unemployed is not a choice many workers choose to make. I would hope that companies that are discriminating against the unemployed will take into consideration that this choice is only further contributing to long-term unemployment in our country."

Are the Unemployed Causing Unemployment?

by LesLeopold at 8:15 pm
June 4, 2010

Is it good news that the hiring of 411,000 temporary census workers finally made a small dent in our enormous jobs crisis… at least temporarily? Shouldn’t we now listen more carefully to Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire who wants to cut off extended unemployment benefits? He explained it this way on CNBC:

Because you’re out of the recession, you’re starting to see growth and you’re clearly going to dampen the capacity of that growth if you basically keep an economy that encourages people to, rather than go out and look for work, to stay on unemployment. Yes, it’s important to do that up to a certain level, but at some point you’ve got to acknowledge that we’re not Europe. (Senator Judd Gregg on CNBC)

The honorable senator and many other pols and pundits apparently believe that at least some unemployed Americans are just coasting on their unemployment checks, having a bit of a vacation rather than grabbing one of the many jobs being generated in this red-hot recovery of ours.

Somehow Gregg and company studiously ignore the fact that there still aren’t enough jobs to go around.

As May’s unemployment numbers show, we’re still in a jobs recession, despite the impact of temporary census jobs. More than 29 million Americans are still without work or forced into part-time work — that’s a real jobless rate of 16.6% (BLS U6). (Leo Hindery Jr.’s more precise estimate is 30.16 million for a jobless rate of 18.8 percent.) Nearly 7 million people have been jobless for over 26 weeks (the “long-term unemployed”) — more than at any time since the Great Depression. We still need more than 22 million new jobs to get us anywhere near full-employment.

Senator Gregg is not the only one who is putting the onus on the unemployed. The philosophy behind his statement is shared by many leading governmental officials. (And after all, the Obama administration wanted Gregg to head the Commerce Department. That thought he’s a moderate?)

The philosophy they share is this: In the ideal free market, the price of labor determines the amount of employment, or so the theory goes. If the price of labor goes down, there will be more jobs. By cutting the amount and length of unemployment benefits, we effectively lower the price of labor overall, forcing more people to compete for scarce jobs. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke has blamed high unemployment during the Great Depression on “sticky” labor markets — sticky because resurgent unions and New Deal wage and hour laws prevented employers from cutting wages the way they wanted to during a time of falling prices. (Gregg might say that in those days we were way too much like Europe.)

In short, the way to create jobs is to get those lazy workers off the dole so that they can help lower wages across the economy. Only then will employers find it worth their while to hire more workers.

Interesting theory, but it doesn’t apply to this planet.

In fact, during a major economic crash — like the Great Depression and the current Great Recession — the last thing you want to do is reduce the income of working people and the unemployed. With less income, people spend less. And falling consumer demand is the pathway to double-dip recession. The net result: even more job loss and a continued downward spiral — less demand, fewer business sales, fewer jobs needed, lower tax revenues, more public sector layoffs… and down we go.

Have Gregg and others forgotten that the Great Recession began on Wall Street? Do they really believe that coddled unemployed workers are to blame for our economy’s failure to produce sufficient jobs? (See the New York Times report, “Black in Memphis Lose Decades of Economic Gain” for a graphic picture of how money hungry banks have devastated whole communities, )

How can they be so blind?

Actually, they are far from blind — they’re just covering their eyes. No one in power wants to face up to the enormity of the job crisis. And no one really has a plan to get us out of it. Everyone is praying that “the markets” — the gods who appear to rule our world — will recover and start spewing out the tens of millions of jobs we need. No one has the nerve to say that we’ll never get those jobs back — not until the government (either directly or through contractors) starts hiring people en masse to repair our physical and intellectual infrastructures.

And of course no one has the nerve to point the finger at those who really are on the dole — to the tune of $900,000 an hour, in the case of our hedge fund elites. Or the Wall Street bonus babies who walked off with $150 billion last year as a direct result of our multi-trillion dollar bailouts. No, it’s a lot safer to beat up on the unemployed — no campaign contributions lost there.

It’s time to square up to the jobs crisis. It won’t go away by itself. The key to solving the crisis? Move money from Wall Street to Main Street. The only argument we need to have is over how best to do it. Personally, I’m for massive government investment in renewable energy, conservation, and education (especially for dislocated workers). We could create a million weatherization jobs almost overnight if we had the guts to put a 50 percent windfall profits tax on Wall Street bonus babies and hedge fund billionaires. Not only would we get people back to work, but we’d have better insulated homes and offices, vastly reducing our dependence on oil.

But no. Now that we’ve propped up Wall Street and shoveled out some stimulus money, we’re told that we’re broke. Deficit mania is setting in. So forget creating jobs. Besides, the mysterious and all-powerful “markets” won’t like it if government starts playing a more active role. They’ll jack up interest rates to punish any country that fails to cut government spending. The politicians are on their knees praying to the market gods and offering up sacrifices in the hopes that they can get through the next election cycle.

Catering to the whims of financial markets is madness. Are we living in a theocracy or a democracy? Do we have to grovel before the market gods? Or can we create a world where there is ample work and more harmony with our environment? Who decides? The wrathful gods of Wall Street? Or the people who actually work for a living — or would like to, if only they could find a job?

Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months

Remember, the REAL unemployment rate is around 18-20%, not 10%.

~#o#~

Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
Thu May 20, 2010

WASHINGTON – The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.

"Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment," said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Stocks slid as investors' already bleak view of the world economy worsened with another drop in the euro and the disappointing U.S. employment news. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 250 points in early afternoon trading.
In a separate report, a private research group said its index of leading economic indicators dipped slightly in April. It was the first decline in more than a year. Six of the 10 components on the Conference Board's index deteriorated. Among them: U.S. residents filed fewer applications to build homes; vendors were slower in delivering supplies to companies; the unemployed filed more claims for jobless aid; and consumers' confidence dropped.

Lawmakers responded Thursday to the persistently high jobless rate by announcing a deal to extend expanded unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed through the end of the year. Laid off workers would also continue to get subsidies to buy health insurance through the COBRA program. House leaders plan to vote on the bill Friday, with the Senate voting next week.

Employers are hiring again, but not at levels needed to make a dent in the unemployment rate, which increased in April to 9.9 percent. An improving economy has lured those who had given up looking for work back into the labor market. The jump in the unemployment rate came even though payrolls rose last month by 290,000 jobs, the biggest gain in four years.

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York, said he believed the unemployment rate would hold at 9.9 percent in May while payroll jobs could increase as much as 250,000. He said that figure would include an expected 150,000 temporary government workers hired to conduct the census.

After peaking at 651,000 in March 2009, weekly jobless claims fell rapidly through much of last year. But this year the improvements have leveled out.

Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, said one reason the improvements have stalled is that small businesses are having trouble getting loans. They create half of the new jobs in the country.

The Labor Department said the number of people receiving jobless benefits fell by 40,000 to 4.63 million for the week ending May 8.

However, that figure does not include unemployed workers who have exhausted their regular 26 weeks of benefits. An additional 5.3 million workers are receiving extended benefits paid for by the federal government for the week ending May 1.

The extended benefits have added as many as 73 weeks of unemployment on top of the 26 weeks customarily provided by the states. But jobs have been scarce for so long that many of those out of work will soon run out of the extended benefits.

For the week ending May 8, 35 states and territories saw increases in applications for new jobless benefits and 18 saw declines.

New Face of Foreclosure – The Unemployed

New Face of Foreclosure – The Unemployed
by Aaron Glantz

OAKLAND, Calif -- Giselle Jiles could be the new face of foreclosure. The 52-year-old financial planner has owned her home in Oakland's Laurel District for 12 years. She did not buy an expensive home that was beyond her means and she did not sign up for a predatory adjustable rate mortgage that was reset at an unsustainably expensive rate.

Jiles did not make any of the mistakes she sees in stories about distressed homeowners on the nightly news. Her economic stress comes from a more traditional source.

Jiles was laid off in March 2009. More than a year later, she's exhausted her savings and dipped into her retirement. Now, she's worried about losing her home.

"I worked for the company 20 years and 20 years ago I got a job, like that," she says snapping her fingers. This time, despite sending out hundreds of resumes, Jiles says she's only gotten "a few interviews, a few call backs, but the companies started saying, ‘We just don't have the money to hire you.'"

Jiles believes it could be a long time before she finds a new job. She says many of her friends and family members have been unemployed even longer. Nationally, the Labor Department reports 6.5 million Americans have been unemployed for more than six months, the highest number since the government began keeping records in 1948.

Housing counselors say they're increasingly seeing people like Giles, who are worried about losing their home because of persistent unemployment.

"It's as common or more common" than resetting adjustable rate mortgages or "underwater" borrowers who owe more than their home is worth, said Josie Ramirez, homeownership program manager at the Mission Economic Development Association in San Francisco.

Until recently, federal anti-foreclosure efforts provided little help to unemployed workers, but on March 26, the Obama administration announced changes to its Making Home Affordable Program that would allow some unemployed borrowers to have their mortgage payments temporarily reduced for a minimum of three months, and up to six months for some borrowers while they look for a new job.

The cost of that forbearance will be shared between lenders and the taxpayers, with the government's participation funded through a $50 billion allocation for housing programs under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The problem, says Ramirez, is that there's nothing in any of President Obama's anti-foreclosure programs that forces banks to work with troubled borrowers to keep them in their homes.

"It's all based on incentives," Ramirez said, "and you can't just incentivize."

The Treasury Department estimates 6 million home loans nationally are at least 60 days delinquent on payments, but through the end of March, the government reported that only 230,801 Americans had modified their loans through the Making Home Affordable program.

"There's a picture of chaos and unaccountability and people just getting shafted with no recourse," added Ramirez. "There's no way to appeal a bank's decision."

Giselle Jiles has been trying to renegotiate her loan since November, when - eight months after losing her job - she attended an all-day clinic organized by the city of Oakland designed to help people stay in their homes.

That day, Jiles said, she filled out all the paperwork that her lender, JP Morgan Chase, required. She's called the bank's toll free number every week since and faxed over required documents again and again.

Jiles still doesn't have an answer.

"It's just overwhelming," she said. "I totally get it when I see people on TV crying, because I'm pretty close."

Chase spokesperson Tom Kelly initially refused to go on the record to discuss Jiles' case, but after repeated inquiries from New America Media, he agreed to take down Jiles' full name, address, and loan number.

The next day, Kelly called back to say that Jiles had only sent in the necessary documents the day NAM started reporting her story. Jiles' loan modification request would be decided "in a few weeks," Kelly said.

The same day, Jiles was contacted by an underwriter, the first time a bank employee had been assigned to work with her.

"These institutions typically only work with people when you put pressure on them," said Josie Ramirez of the Mission Economic Development Agency. Sometimes she complains to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, government-chartered corporations that hold loans serviced by banks like Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America. Other times, she calls a politician. Other times, she goes to the media.

"The regulations are so weak even the Obama administration is simply trying to shame them," Ramirez said. "Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't."

To date, JP Morgan Chase has been earmarked more than $4.9 billion in taxpayer money to subsidize mortgage modification for struggling homeowners. Earlier this month, the company reported profits of $3.3 billion for the first quarter of 2010.