Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
bobosmitor
5469 Followers
Forgiven Sinner
1941 Followers
Steven Woodcock
1164 Followers
kentivarna
1090 Followers
MediaSight
13123 Followers
Gloria Boler
961 Followers
amyvernonJan 13, 2011
I think a lot of people forget that recoveries are never just an upward march. Sort of like when you're sick and you're feeling great one day and try to do your regular daily routine. You end up back in bed with a fever by day's end.
lucas123Jan 13, 2011
Job's recovery is always the last thing after a prolonged recession.
daimposterJan 14, 2011
there is always a lag in employment compared to economic recovery. there is an economic term for it but i just can't remember it.
juliochavezJan 14, 2011
This isn't a recession like one we've ever seen before, so saying that job recovery always comes last, or pointing out that there's even a term for that, has little meaning.
It is by definition a recession ( well, was ) because of the GDP, but it didn't happen because of the business cycle. It's because of a fundamental flaw in the financial system that allows things like this to happen. In my opinion, it's just as likely that growth is over for good, as it is that we're going to bounce back to steady, perpetual growth. I'm talking about the US economy but even worldwide, population growth ( or creating the illusion of growth through introducing more money ) can't create growth if the Earth's resources are dwindling.
surferessJan 13, 2011
If I didn't know better, I'd think the Republicans are just out there not hiring to make Obama look bad. But that would prolly just be my conspiracy theory mind in action and would be silly, right?
anomaly100Jan 14, 2011
Corporations' profits are soaring and they aren't hiring. It does make a person wonder why.
youareretardedJan 14, 2011
Would you hire people if you could cut your staff in half and get them to pick up the slack in fear of being let go?
bdbrJan 14, 2011
Business people are intelligent, they're not going to hire or not hire people just based on who is president. They hire because of demand. When we're growing out of a slump at a snail's pace, there isn't a fast-growing need for more jobs.
lucas123Jan 13, 2011
My neighbor has been out of work for a year and a half. Her daily job has been putting out resumes and going to interviews. It's tough for professionals out there, especially if you're over 50.
rujtuJan 13, 2011
There's a 7-11 right down the street from me that has had a hiring sign up for a month. Maybe she should get a regular job and send out resumes after work.
yibbutkeenJan 13, 2011
Just for fun, ask them how many people have applied, and how many just wanted their unemployment forms stamped for another 2 weeks/month. I'd bet around 1/2 were just looking to keep their unemployment payments coming.
smurfzJan 13, 2011
Wow. Don't know how you've gotten anywhere in life with that kind of thinking.
yibbutkeenJan 14, 2011
Simple - last time I checked where I work, 53% of the applicants didn't want a job, just a sign-off that they were looking for work
rujtuJan 13, 2011
I don't think that's why they keep the sign up. Perhaps you've missed my point here.
chilidogsJan 14, 2011
Corporate gas stations never take those signs down. They keep thousands of applications on file. I bet if you look at the sign all it has a phone number that you call. The sign does not mean that that store even has an open position.
rujtuJan 14, 2011
It's a 7-11. No gas. Handwritten sign. "Apply Within."
daimposterJan 14, 2011
rujtu: i could be wrong but going from say making $60k/yr to a $10/hr job is difficult. On top of that, i believe unemployment benefits are reduced or completely taken away if a person in this scenario got the $10/hr job.
So why take a job making 1/3 of what you use make only to make less than you make on unemployment AND have less time for researching new jobs?
chilidogsJan 14, 2011
You may be wrong about a gas station paying $10 per hour too. That seems a bit high.
rujtuJan 14, 2011
"So why take a job making 1/3 of what you use make only to make less than you make on unemployment AND have less time for researching new jobs?"
Out of some sense of self respect?
Look, I'm not saying it would be easy to swallow the fact that you're apparently not worth 60k a year anymore. But after a year and a half of looking, she's apparently not.
Yes, she would lose unemployment benefits, but at 10/hr, she would gain financial assistance benefits. Cards to save money on groceries, energy credits, low income housing. I don't mind giving money to people who take whatever work they can get and still need a little support. However, I think a year and a half of unemployment is more than enough. At that point, you need to accept your new reality, suck it up, and get a job.
Unless she wants to be a leech. I don't hate on leeches. I just don't respect them.
People act like there aren't jobs in this country just because there aren't jobs they want to do. It's an entitled attitude of a bygone era. Surprise! That degree you spent 60k on may be worth nothing. Surprise! Those years of busting you ass for a company may have earned you no benefits. Surprise! The position you had being a middle man that made nothing and contributed nothing has been wiped out because people don't have money to blow on bulls**t anymore.
s**t happens. Get a job.
daimposterJan 15, 2011
if the professional gets that $10/hr job...than a person who typically gets that $10//hr job is now going to be jobless.
i understand what you are trying to say but a professional taking a 7-11 job is a HORRIBLE example for the reasons i pointed out previously.
Now, one can argue about someone released from a upper level management and not being able to find other upper level management positions but passing on opportunities for mid-level management. The concern in this scenario though is that it's hard to take a step back for personal reasons but it's also hard to take a step back without impacting your future career options. You take a step back and work there for 2 years, the last think on your resume is that mid-level management position and not the upper-level management position. It becomes harder to get back to the position you previously had.
rujtuJan 15, 2011
A horrible example of what, exactly?
As for the impact of taking a job at 7-11 on your career options: You know what looks worse than having 7-11 on your resume? Not working for 2 years. People tend to frown on that.
Not that her resume was that stellar anyway, obviously.
You'd have to be stupid or naive to think that, after being turned down for two years, you should be worried that a cashier job might make your resume less attractive.
Your first arguement in the above post is too ridiculous to respond to.
scamper22Jan 13, 2011
one wonders if there's actually so much work to do?
If you were to ask someone from the 50s what they thought our life would be like in the year 2010 with all of our robots and automation... they would have thought we'd be working less. Yet we're all working more.
Rather than embrace this... which would mean... embracing deflation to an extent... we've invented a lot of unproductive work and unproductive markets for the sake of work.
The housing market being one of the worst. Let's drive growth by making people pay through the teeth for shelter... we have places like vancouver where people are spending 70% of their income just on housing. It's a totally government run market. The government essentially controls both the suppy (via urban planning) and the demand (via immigration).
A lot it is just meant to make sure we have an upper class, middle class, and a working class.
technology is great... but we have to be willing to be more equal with it.
For example, machines are great... they free up human labor. So we can have more people being nurses, waiters, doctors...
But of course, that means that we won't be taxing a well paid private sector labor force to pay 'high than normal' wages to nurses, doctors, teachers, lawyers...
But then of course why go into these jobs if not to take advantage of poorly paid waiters and other people :P
We should be embracing job sharing and the like and yes... working much less.
There will still be some high paying jobs that require hard work... you can't really have r&d engineers working part time. The product needs to ship...
But these are such a minority of jobs these days. In a large country like the US (300+ million people) most jobs are going to be regular service sector jobs or jobs people consider menial (farm labor...)
And the wages of your public sector service jobs MUST match that of your private sector jobs.
A private service sector of waiters, cooks, retail... can only support corresponding wages for doctors, nurses....
tomtutsJan 14, 2011
I agree about more automation and whatnot reducing the sheer amount of work that is out there for people to do. I think it is a natural consequence of technological progress, and will continue for as long as tech continues to move forward. I think we (the US) should move to a 35 or even 30 hour workweek as considered full time; it would definitely kick the unemployment numbers in the pants, and help to spread the available work around more.
weisondJan 13, 2011
well..with a higher than seasonal average uptick in payrolls over this holiday season, it's not too surprising to see a higher than seasonal average retracement afterwards..
njhc46Jan 14, 2011
f**ked is f**ked.