The GOP proclaims to be the experts at capitalism andaccuses the Democrats of Socialism. But the GOP must not know beans about“supply-side economics” because they’re still preaching"trickle-down".When people have extra money in their pocket and they spendit on stuff, then the "job creators" hire more people to accommodatethe increase in "demand".But when these supposed “job creators” ship jobs to Chinafor cheaper labor, or have one employee do the work of two ("increasingworker productivity"), or instead, automate or hire robots to do the workof humans, then it means that less people are working --- and so therefore,they don't have extra money in their pockets to spend.That sounds like perfect common sense, right? But not tomulti-millionaires like Bill O’Reilly.Most Republican politicians (receiving government salariesfrom government jobs) and those champions of the “job creators” over at Fox News say there are plenty of jobs,and that Americans who are unemployed are just lazy and want a free ride. (Just ask Mitt Romney, he’ll tell you.)Republican politicians and Fox News commentators:Dumb and dumber. And many are millionaires, so how can someone so stupid becomeso wealthy, as opposed to some people who are very intelligent but remain sopoor? One might think some good luck and God’s good graces might have somethingto do with it.In an economic system that uses the principles of"supply and demand", the consumers provide the demand forgoods and the "job creators" provide the supply. Simple.Sounds like perfect common sense, right?Nick Hanauer, a multi-millionaire entrepreneur and venturecapitalist, tried to explain this simple economic theory to Neil Cavuto at FoxNews, but Nick Hanauer was rudely talked over by a know-it-all Neil Cavuto.(The video is here at my YouTube channel).Just as Nick Hanauer once explained in a speech he gave at TEDUniversity, "Somebody like me makes hundreds or thousands as timesmuch as the median American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of times asmuch stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pantsand shirts a year like most American men. Occasionally we go out to eat withfriends."The Republicans hounded President Obama for the past 4years: "Where are the jobs?" But why didn't they ask the "jobcreators"? They have over $2 trillion parked overseas from foreign profitsand don’t want to pay the taxes.I heard that the $600 billion-a-year defense budget createsa lot of jobs (and a lot of profits for defense contractors too). As amatter-of-fact, the government hires more people than Wal-Mart and McDonaldscombined; so maybe "government” really does create jobs.During the latest recession (the Great Recession) the"rebound" in employment has been weaker than the previous tworecessions --- and G.D.P. growth in the current "jobless recovery" has also been much slower.Laura D’Andrea Tyson, professor at the Haas School ofBusiness at the University of California, Berkeley writes: "The lossof jobs in the most recent recession was more than twice as large as inprevious recessions, meaning a slow recovery has also meant a much higherunemployment rate. Most economists believe that it's because of weak aggregate demand."What? Did she say "demand"? That makes too muchsense!The 2008 recession resulted from a systemic financial crisisrooted in banking corruption that resulted in an asset bubble that gripped thehousing market with particular ferocity. So private sector demandcontracted sharply.The large and persistent decline in private-sector demandthat began the 2008 recession explains why the painfully slow recovery is soapparent in the private-sector financial balance — net private saving — thedifference between private saving and private investment.The private-sector financial balance swung from a deficit of−3.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2006 (near the height of the last stock market boom)to a surplus of about 6.8 percent in 2010 — and about 5 percent today. Thisrepresents the sharpest contraction and weakest recovery in the private sectorsince post-World War II.But the Republicans and those at Fox News ignore thefacts and blame the jobless for being unemployed, rather than the banks or “jobcreators” who’d do anything to save or make a dollar.Growth in private consumption has been especially slow inthis recovery compared with the average for previous recoveries (meaning, farless demand = far less spending = far less hiring).And weak investment demand cannot be explained by lowprofits and/or high taxes either. After all, corporate profits just recentlyhit another historic peak and taxes on investment income are now at historiclows. (Some guy who once ran for president once said, "I'm not concernedabout the very rich, they're doing just fine.")Another factor contributing to the slow pace of the current"recovery" has been the relatively weak growth of governmentspending on goods and services — by both state and local governments, andby the federal government. (The GOP has been ruthlessly whining aboutgovernment spending and government employees ever since Obama was firstelected.) And the contraction in government spending and decline inpublic-sector employment have also been major headwinds restraining G.D.P.growth.Stronger demand now would encourage more private investmentand stem the loss of skills and productivity resulting from long-termunemployment and the drop in the labor force’s “participation rate”. (More onthat below.)Add to that, all the spending cuts scheduled for next year —the so-called “fiscal cliff” —which would also have a large negative effects ondemand, output, and employment.Nancy Folbre, economics professor at the University ofMassachusetts writes:“For the past four years, this nation has tolerated levelsof unemployment that have essentially made it impossible for most of thoseseeking paid employment to find it, with a ratio of unemployed workers to jobopenings of more than three to one.”Some Republicans have long insisted that many of thejobless, relaxing in a billowy social safety net, simply aren't trying hardenough to find a job.New York Times Economix contributor Casey Mulligancontends that the poverty rate should have risen between 2007 and 2011, but didn't because public assistance was neutralizing the effect of job loss andundermining incentives to work. (WRONG!)Shawn Fremstad of the Center for Economic Policy andResearch challenges that methodology, pointing to measurements showing thatthe poverty rate did rise significantly among working-age adults overthis period. Furthermore, increased unemployment contributed to economic stressacross most of the social spectrum, not just among the poor and near poor.Between 2007 and 2011, average household income declined inall of the four bottom quintiles. The most recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau shows America’s poverty rate had a huge spike, and that nearly 50 millionAmericans, more than 16 percent of the population, are now struggling tosurvive.But it's worse than that. The U.S. Census Bureau'slatest poverty report is far from a complete picture. One problem with theCensus report is that it uses the same income threshold to determine if aperson (or household) is impoverished that has been in use since 1964. The onlychanges have been to adjust income levels for inflation. Currently, anyoneearning less than $11,484 per year is considered to be living in poverty. For afamily of four, the earnings threshold is $23,021 per year. Try living on thatin 2013.When Heather Boushey and Jane Farrell at the Center forAmerica Progress reported that "in 2011 the typical U.S. household hadan income of $50,054," they are painting a much rosier picture than mostother economists.I would have said it this way: "The Social SecurityAdministration, in its latest report, shows that 50% of the entire Americanworkforce (those that pay payroll taxes on a W-4 form for wages) earned lessthan $26,363.55 a year after taxes. Inother words, HALF of all Americans earn poverty or near-poverty wages.When they (and everyone else) reports "a typical U.S.household", what they really mean is "two adults who have to work attwo or more low-paying jobs at places like Wal-Mart with no healthcareinsurance or pension plans --- just to pay the rent."A single parent (with one income) would have an especiallyhard time...part of the 47%...those .who need food stamps (aka "freestuff").And this really ruffles my feathers! Everybody in the mediaconstantly parrots the same old government talking points without everresearching the real facts behind their numbers. A perfect example was AGAIN diatribed inthe New York Times:"Paralysis by discouragement is a pretty good descriptionof a growing segment of the United States population. In general, the higherthe unemployment rate in a state, the higher the percentage of discouragedworkers (those who did not search for work in the previous four weeks, for thespecific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them) and thehigher the percentage of marginally attached workers (those who did not searchfor work in the previous four weeks, for any reason)."The myth of "discouraged workers" >>>After people run out of unemployment benefits, they have no one, no place, orno government agency to report to on their current status. In reality, they arejust written off as "discouraged workers" --- as people who stoppedlooking for work and dropped out of the labor force. (I for one didn't drop out, I wasforced out.)I have been out of work since October 2008. The unemploymentrate peaked at 10.2% in October of 2009 with over 15 million Americansunemployed at the time. My unemployment benefits ran out of June 2010. Todaythe unemployment rate is reported to be under 8% --- when less than 5 millionjobs were created since the unemployment rate peaked in 2009. That's not evenenough to keep up with natural population growth, let alone the re-hiring the 8million people who lost their jobs between 2007 and 2009. It’s called “math”.Yes, a few went on disability or took an early SocialSecurity retirement at 62, but…And what about the 6 million high school and college gradsfrom 2008 to the present, who just like the old folks, can't even get a lousyjob at McDonald's? There are literally MILLIONS of Americans who have had noincome at all for two years and longer(like myself), and so therefore can't buy things to grow the economy.Rich people aren't "job creators", people withgood-paying jobs that spend money and create "demand" are the REALjob creators.The "labor force participation rate" has declinedsignificantly since the last recession began, especially among less-educatedmen like myself, those who were between jobs and didn't have enough seniorityto avoid a layoff, and were too old to be re-hired somewhere else, but yet tooyoung to collect a reduced Social Security check or pension.If you unemployed today (especially long-termed unemployed) and you only have ahigh school education --- and are 50 years or older --- then you’re competing with 22-year-old college graduatesfor a job as a Wal-Mart greeter for $8.50 an hour.And like me, you are between a rock and a very hard place.
20 Aralık 2012 Perşembe
50 and Unemployed: A Rock and a Hard Place
To contact us Click HERE
The GOP proclaims to be the experts at capitalism andaccuses the Democrats of Socialism. But the GOP must not know beans about“supply-side economics” because they’re still preaching"trickle-down".When people have extra money in their pocket and they spendit on stuff, then the "job creators" hire more people to accommodatethe increase in "demand".But when these supposed “job creators” ship jobs to Chinafor cheaper labor, or have one employee do the work of two ("increasingworker productivity"), or instead, automate or hire robots to do the workof humans, then it means that less people are working --- and so therefore,they don't have extra money in their pockets to spend.That sounds like perfect common sense, right? But not tomulti-millionaires like Bill O’Reilly.Most Republican politicians (receiving government salariesfrom government jobs) and those champions of the “job creators” over at Fox News say there are plenty of jobs,and that Americans who are unemployed are just lazy and want a free ride. (Just ask Mitt Romney, he’ll tell you.)Republican politicians and Fox News commentators:Dumb and dumber. And many are millionaires, so how can someone so stupid becomeso wealthy, as opposed to some people who are very intelligent but remain sopoor? One might think some good luck and God’s good graces might have somethingto do with it.In an economic system that uses the principles of"supply and demand", the consumers provide the demand forgoods and the "job creators" provide the supply. Simple.Sounds like perfect common sense, right?Nick Hanauer, a multi-millionaire entrepreneur and venturecapitalist, tried to explain this simple economic theory to Neil Cavuto at FoxNews, but Nick Hanauer was rudely talked over by a know-it-all Neil Cavuto.(The video is here at my YouTube channel).Just as Nick Hanauer once explained in a speech he gave at TEDUniversity, "Somebody like me makes hundreds or thousands as timesmuch as the median American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of times asmuch stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pantsand shirts a year like most American men. Occasionally we go out to eat withfriends."The Republicans hounded President Obama for the past 4years: "Where are the jobs?" But why didn't they ask the "jobcreators"? They have over $2 trillion parked overseas from foreign profitsand don’t want to pay the taxes.I heard that the $600 billion-a-year defense budget createsa lot of jobs (and a lot of profits for defense contractors too). As amatter-of-fact, the government hires more people than Wal-Mart and McDonaldscombined; so maybe "government” really does create jobs.During the latest recession (the Great Recession) the"rebound" in employment has been weaker than the previous tworecessions --- and G.D.P. growth in the current "jobless recovery" has also been much slower.Laura D’Andrea Tyson, professor at the Haas School ofBusiness at the University of California, Berkeley writes: "The lossof jobs in the most recent recession was more than twice as large as inprevious recessions, meaning a slow recovery has also meant a much higherunemployment rate. Most economists believe that it's because of weak aggregate demand."What? Did she say "demand"? That makes too muchsense!The 2008 recession resulted from a systemic financial crisisrooted in banking corruption that resulted in an asset bubble that gripped thehousing market with particular ferocity. So private sector demandcontracted sharply.The large and persistent decline in private-sector demandthat began the 2008 recession explains why the painfully slow recovery is soapparent in the private-sector financial balance — net private saving — thedifference between private saving and private investment.The private-sector financial balance swung from a deficit of−3.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2006 (near the height of the last stock market boom)to a surplus of about 6.8 percent in 2010 — and about 5 percent today. Thisrepresents the sharpest contraction and weakest recovery in the private sectorsince post-World War II.But the Republicans and those at Fox News ignore thefacts and blame the jobless for being unemployed, rather than the banks or “jobcreators” who’d do anything to save or make a dollar.Growth in private consumption has been especially slow inthis recovery compared with the average for previous recoveries (meaning, farless demand = far less spending = far less hiring).And weak investment demand cannot be explained by lowprofits and/or high taxes either. After all, corporate profits just recentlyhit another historic peak and taxes on investment income are now at historiclows. (Some guy who once ran for president once said, "I'm not concernedabout the very rich, they're doing just fine.")Another factor contributing to the slow pace of the current"recovery" has been the relatively weak growth of governmentspending on goods and services — by both state and local governments, andby the federal government. (The GOP has been ruthlessly whining aboutgovernment spending and government employees ever since Obama was firstelected.) And the contraction in government spending and decline inpublic-sector employment have also been major headwinds restraining G.D.P.growth.Stronger demand now would encourage more private investmentand stem the loss of skills and productivity resulting from long-termunemployment and the drop in the labor force’s “participation rate”. (More onthat below.)Add to that, all the spending cuts scheduled for next year —the so-called “fiscal cliff” —which would also have a large negative effects ondemand, output, and employment.Nancy Folbre, economics professor at the University ofMassachusetts writes:“For the past four years, this nation has tolerated levelsof unemployment that have essentially made it impossible for most of thoseseeking paid employment to find it, with a ratio of unemployed workers to jobopenings of more than three to one.”Some Republicans have long insisted that many of thejobless, relaxing in a billowy social safety net, simply aren't trying hardenough to find a job.New York Times Economix contributor Casey Mulligancontends that the poverty rate should have risen between 2007 and 2011, but didn't because public assistance was neutralizing the effect of job loss andundermining incentives to work. (WRONG!)Shawn Fremstad of the Center for Economic Policy andResearch challenges that methodology, pointing to measurements showing thatthe poverty rate did rise significantly among working-age adults overthis period. Furthermore, increased unemployment contributed to economic stressacross most of the social spectrum, not just among the poor and near poor.Between 2007 and 2011, average household income declined inall of the four bottom quintiles. The most recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau shows America’s poverty rate had a huge spike, and that nearly 50 millionAmericans, more than 16 percent of the population, are now struggling tosurvive.But it's worse than that. The U.S. Census Bureau'slatest poverty report is far from a complete picture. One problem with theCensus report is that it uses the same income threshold to determine if aperson (or household) is impoverished that has been in use since 1964. The onlychanges have been to adjust income levels for inflation. Currently, anyoneearning less than $11,484 per year is considered to be living in poverty. For afamily of four, the earnings threshold is $23,021 per year. Try living on thatin 2013.When Heather Boushey and Jane Farrell at the Center forAmerica Progress reported that "in 2011 the typical U.S. household hadan income of $50,054," they are painting a much rosier picture than mostother economists.I would have said it this way: "The Social SecurityAdministration, in its latest report, shows that 50% of the entire Americanworkforce (those that pay payroll taxes on a W-4 form for wages) earned lessthan $26,363.55 a year after taxes. Inother words, HALF of all Americans earn poverty or near-poverty wages.When they (and everyone else) reports "a typical U.S.household", what they really mean is "two adults who have to work attwo or more low-paying jobs at places like Wal-Mart with no healthcareinsurance or pension plans --- just to pay the rent."A single parent (with one income) would have an especiallyhard time...part of the 47%...those .who need food stamps (aka "freestuff").And this really ruffles my feathers! Everybody in the mediaconstantly parrots the same old government talking points without everresearching the real facts behind their numbers. A perfect example was AGAIN diatribed inthe New York Times:"Paralysis by discouragement is a pretty good descriptionof a growing segment of the United States population. In general, the higherthe unemployment rate in a state, the higher the percentage of discouragedworkers (those who did not search for work in the previous four weeks, for thespecific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them) and thehigher the percentage of marginally attached workers (those who did not searchfor work in the previous four weeks, for any reason)."The myth of "discouraged workers" >>>After people run out of unemployment benefits, they have no one, no place, orno government agency to report to on their current status. In reality, they arejust written off as "discouraged workers" --- as people who stoppedlooking for work and dropped out of the labor force. (I for one didn't drop out, I wasforced out.)I have been out of work since October 2008. The unemploymentrate peaked at 10.2% in October of 2009 with over 15 million Americansunemployed at the time. My unemployment benefits ran out of June 2010. Todaythe unemployment rate is reported to be under 8% --- when less than 5 millionjobs were created since the unemployment rate peaked in 2009. That's not evenenough to keep up with natural population growth, let alone the re-hiring the 8million people who lost their jobs between 2007 and 2009. It’s called “math”.Yes, a few went on disability or took an early SocialSecurity retirement at 62, but…And what about the 6 million high school and college gradsfrom 2008 to the present, who just like the old folks, can't even get a lousyjob at McDonald's? There are literally MILLIONS of Americans who have had noincome at all for two years and longer(like myself), and so therefore can't buy things to grow the economy.Rich people aren't "job creators", people withgood-paying jobs that spend money and create "demand" are the REALjob creators.The "labor force participation rate" has declinedsignificantly since the last recession began, especially among less-educatedmen like myself, those who were between jobs and didn't have enough seniorityto avoid a layoff, and were too old to be re-hired somewhere else, but yet tooyoung to collect a reduced Social Security check or pension.If you unemployed today (especially long-termed unemployed) and you only have ahigh school education --- and are 50 years or older --- then you’re competing with 22-year-old college graduatesfor a job as a Wal-Mart greeter for $8.50 an hour.And like me, you are between a rock and a very hard place.
The GOP proclaims to be the experts at capitalism andaccuses the Democrats of Socialism. But the GOP must not know beans about“supply-side economics” because they’re still preaching"trickle-down".When people have extra money in their pocket and they spendit on stuff, then the "job creators" hire more people to accommodatethe increase in "demand".But when these supposed “job creators” ship jobs to Chinafor cheaper labor, or have one employee do the work of two ("increasingworker productivity"), or instead, automate or hire robots to do the workof humans, then it means that less people are working --- and so therefore,they don't have extra money in their pockets to spend.That sounds like perfect common sense, right? But not tomulti-millionaires like Bill O’Reilly.Most Republican politicians (receiving government salariesfrom government jobs) and those champions of the “job creators” over at Fox News say there are plenty of jobs,and that Americans who are unemployed are just lazy and want a free ride. (Just ask Mitt Romney, he’ll tell you.)Republican politicians and Fox News commentators:Dumb and dumber. And many are millionaires, so how can someone so stupid becomeso wealthy, as opposed to some people who are very intelligent but remain sopoor? One might think some good luck and God’s good graces might have somethingto do with it.In an economic system that uses the principles of"supply and demand", the consumers provide the demand forgoods and the "job creators" provide the supply. Simple.Sounds like perfect common sense, right?Nick Hanauer, a multi-millionaire entrepreneur and venturecapitalist, tried to explain this simple economic theory to Neil Cavuto at FoxNews, but Nick Hanauer was rudely talked over by a know-it-all Neil Cavuto.(The video is here at my YouTube channel).Just as Nick Hanauer once explained in a speech he gave at TEDUniversity, "Somebody like me makes hundreds or thousands as timesmuch as the median American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of times asmuch stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pantsand shirts a year like most American men. Occasionally we go out to eat withfriends."The Republicans hounded President Obama for the past 4years: "Where are the jobs?" But why didn't they ask the "jobcreators"? They have over $2 trillion parked overseas from foreign profitsand don’t want to pay the taxes.I heard that the $600 billion-a-year defense budget createsa lot of jobs (and a lot of profits for defense contractors too). As amatter-of-fact, the government hires more people than Wal-Mart and McDonaldscombined; so maybe "government” really does create jobs.During the latest recession (the Great Recession) the"rebound" in employment has been weaker than the previous tworecessions --- and G.D.P. growth in the current "jobless recovery" has also been much slower.Laura D’Andrea Tyson, professor at the Haas School ofBusiness at the University of California, Berkeley writes: "The lossof jobs in the most recent recession was more than twice as large as inprevious recessions, meaning a slow recovery has also meant a much higherunemployment rate. Most economists believe that it's because of weak aggregate demand."What? Did she say "demand"? That makes too muchsense!The 2008 recession resulted from a systemic financial crisisrooted in banking corruption that resulted in an asset bubble that gripped thehousing market with particular ferocity. So private sector demandcontracted sharply.The large and persistent decline in private-sector demandthat began the 2008 recession explains why the painfully slow recovery is soapparent in the private-sector financial balance — net private saving — thedifference between private saving and private investment.The private-sector financial balance swung from a deficit of−3.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2006 (near the height of the last stock market boom)to a surplus of about 6.8 percent in 2010 — and about 5 percent today. Thisrepresents the sharpest contraction and weakest recovery in the private sectorsince post-World War II.But the Republicans and those at Fox News ignore thefacts and blame the jobless for being unemployed, rather than the banks or “jobcreators” who’d do anything to save or make a dollar.Growth in private consumption has been especially slow inthis recovery compared with the average for previous recoveries (meaning, farless demand = far less spending = far less hiring).And weak investment demand cannot be explained by lowprofits and/or high taxes either. After all, corporate profits just recentlyhit another historic peak and taxes on investment income are now at historiclows. (Some guy who once ran for president once said, "I'm not concernedabout the very rich, they're doing just fine.")Another factor contributing to the slow pace of the current"recovery" has been the relatively weak growth of governmentspending on goods and services — by both state and local governments, andby the federal government. (The GOP has been ruthlessly whining aboutgovernment spending and government employees ever since Obama was firstelected.) And the contraction in government spending and decline inpublic-sector employment have also been major headwinds restraining G.D.P.growth.Stronger demand now would encourage more private investmentand stem the loss of skills and productivity resulting from long-termunemployment and the drop in the labor force’s “participation rate”. (More onthat below.)Add to that, all the spending cuts scheduled for next year —the so-called “fiscal cliff” —which would also have a large negative effects ondemand, output, and employment.Nancy Folbre, economics professor at the University ofMassachusetts writes:“For the past four years, this nation has tolerated levelsof unemployment that have essentially made it impossible for most of thoseseeking paid employment to find it, with a ratio of unemployed workers to jobopenings of more than three to one.”Some Republicans have long insisted that many of thejobless, relaxing in a billowy social safety net, simply aren't trying hardenough to find a job.New York Times Economix contributor Casey Mulligancontends that the poverty rate should have risen between 2007 and 2011, but didn't because public assistance was neutralizing the effect of job loss andundermining incentives to work. (WRONG!)Shawn Fremstad of the Center for Economic Policy andResearch challenges that methodology, pointing to measurements showing thatthe poverty rate did rise significantly among working-age adults overthis period. Furthermore, increased unemployment contributed to economic stressacross most of the social spectrum, not just among the poor and near poor.Between 2007 and 2011, average household income declined inall of the four bottom quintiles. The most recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau shows America’s poverty rate had a huge spike, and that nearly 50 millionAmericans, more than 16 percent of the population, are now struggling tosurvive.But it's worse than that. The U.S. Census Bureau'slatest poverty report is far from a complete picture. One problem with theCensus report is that it uses the same income threshold to determine if aperson (or household) is impoverished that has been in use since 1964. The onlychanges have been to adjust income levels for inflation. Currently, anyoneearning less than $11,484 per year is considered to be living in poverty. For afamily of four, the earnings threshold is $23,021 per year. Try living on thatin 2013.When Heather Boushey and Jane Farrell at the Center forAmerica Progress reported that "in 2011 the typical U.S. household hadan income of $50,054," they are painting a much rosier picture than mostother economists.I would have said it this way: "The Social SecurityAdministration, in its latest report, shows that 50% of the entire Americanworkforce (those that pay payroll taxes on a W-4 form for wages) earned lessthan $26,363.55 a year after taxes. Inother words, HALF of all Americans earn poverty or near-poverty wages.When they (and everyone else) reports "a typical U.S.household", what they really mean is "two adults who have to work attwo or more low-paying jobs at places like Wal-Mart with no healthcareinsurance or pension plans --- just to pay the rent."A single parent (with one income) would have an especiallyhard time...part of the 47%...those .who need food stamps (aka "freestuff").And this really ruffles my feathers! Everybody in the mediaconstantly parrots the same old government talking points without everresearching the real facts behind their numbers. A perfect example was AGAIN diatribed inthe New York Times:"Paralysis by discouragement is a pretty good descriptionof a growing segment of the United States population. In general, the higherthe unemployment rate in a state, the higher the percentage of discouragedworkers (those who did not search for work in the previous four weeks, for thespecific reason that they believed no jobs were available for them) and thehigher the percentage of marginally attached workers (those who did not searchfor work in the previous four weeks, for any reason)."The myth of "discouraged workers" >>>After people run out of unemployment benefits, they have no one, no place, orno government agency to report to on their current status. In reality, they arejust written off as "discouraged workers" --- as people who stoppedlooking for work and dropped out of the labor force. (I for one didn't drop out, I wasforced out.)I have been out of work since October 2008. The unemploymentrate peaked at 10.2% in October of 2009 with over 15 million Americansunemployed at the time. My unemployment benefits ran out of June 2010. Todaythe unemployment rate is reported to be under 8% --- when less than 5 millionjobs were created since the unemployment rate peaked in 2009. That's not evenenough to keep up with natural population growth, let alone the re-hiring the 8million people who lost their jobs between 2007 and 2009. It’s called “math”.Yes, a few went on disability or took an early SocialSecurity retirement at 62, but…And what about the 6 million high school and college gradsfrom 2008 to the present, who just like the old folks, can't even get a lousyjob at McDonald's? There are literally MILLIONS of Americans who have had noincome at all for two years and longer(like myself), and so therefore can't buy things to grow the economy.Rich people aren't "job creators", people withgood-paying jobs that spend money and create "demand" are the REALjob creators.The "labor force participation rate" has declinedsignificantly since the last recession began, especially among less-educatedmen like myself, those who were between jobs and didn't have enough seniorityto avoid a layoff, and were too old to be re-hired somewhere else, but yet tooyoung to collect a reduced Social Security check or pension.If you unemployed today (especially long-termed unemployed) and you only have ahigh school education --- and are 50 years or older --- then you’re competing with 22-year-old college graduatesfor a job as a Wal-Mart greeter for $8.50 an hour.And like me, you are between a rock and a very hard place.
Kaydol:
Kayıt Yorumları (Atom)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder