10% unemployment is here to stay

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Well I'm union and apparently union contracts supersede state law. So in order for me to get 1.5x pay, I must have physically worked 40 hours in a week, no matter if I work an 8 hour shift or 24 hour shift, if my hours only total 40 in a week, it's all straight time. So any week with a holiday, you can kiss most of your would be OT hours goodbye.

Also double time doesn't exist, save for working on a holiday. In reality you are getting screwed because you're only getting paid your regular rate, which gets raped hardcore by taxes, on top of your already guaranteed holiday pay though.

Could be worse though, California is the ONLY state in the country my union has overtime whatsoever in the contract. Other states they can put in 80 hour weeks, and it's all straight time.

Miss my previous union, anything after 8 was OT, anything after 12 was DT regardless of your weekly total. Holidays were 8hrs 2.5x, and after 8 it was triple time.

That's how I had it at a job in CA; anything over 40 hours in a week was 1.5x. But, for example, currently I get OT over 7.5 hrs in a day, also in CA. It varies from employer to employer, but you're still getting 1.5x pay in both scenarios. CA is a very labor-friendly state, you come here to have the best career possible for the best pay. In labor-unfriendly states like TX, well, that'll differ.


I don't know the stats but based on my last 3 positions (including current one), it's on the rise. Job before last used to pay 1.5X pay for anything over 45 (nothing extra between 40 and 45) but that was completely removed in 2008.

Last position removed it before I got there and used to pay 1.5X for anything over 40.

Current position used to pay 1.5X and was considered an hourly position for the most part but now, is hiring only salary positions. All I can say is that if I don't get some time off with pay soon and the hours don't drop significantly below what I'm being "TOLD" that I have to work, job #4 of the last 10 months might be coming up shortly.

I highly doubt that my last two employers and current employer are the only ones doing this, especially with workers saying "at least I have a job in this economy!".

Depending on your state, you can report illegal labor practices pretty easily. I used to work for a firm that did labor litigation, and it's not uncommon I can tell you. It's simply illegal not to pay OT here, but I don't know the labor laws in every state of course.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
^ Those numbers aren't that damning and pretty easy to explain by only one phenomenon for the most part. And that's simply that enrollment in colleges and trade schools have exploded to record highs, some 40 and 50 year highs, which accounts for at least hundreds of thousands of people who quit looking for work, probably 1M+ (see here and here). Which makes sense considering employers are looking for highly skilled labor they're currently just not finding in the job market, something that can't be satisfied nearly enough with H1B's. I bet the employment outlook is likely to surge ahead more than people think.
 

RbSX

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
8,351
1
76
^ Those numbers aren't that damning and pretty easy to explain by only one phenomenon for the most part. And that's simply that enrollment in colleges and trade schools have exploded to record highs, some 40 and 50 year highs, which accounts for at least hundreds of thousands of people who quit looking for work, probably 1M+ (see here and here). Which makes sense considering employers are looking for highly skilled labor they're currently just not finding in the job market, something that can't be satisfied nearly enough with H1B's. I bet the employment outlook is likely to surge ahead more than people think.

Okay what came first the chicken or the egg?

It doesn't matter how qualified potential employees are. If a significant portion of employed labour has a significant wage cut, they won't be able to pay for the services of those more qualified workers.

These numbers aren't easily explained away, nor easily solvable.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Employers have tons of highly skilled options available in the job markets, they'd just rather overwork their current salaried employees while not compensating them...or, even if they do compensate them, they're still ahead in not hiring.

H1B is codeword for get more labor for cheaper. Gives the Execs a win-win, too juicy to pass up....

Chuck
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Okay what came first the chicken or the egg?

It doesn't matter how qualified potential employees are. If a significant portion of employed labour has a significant wage cut, they won't be able to pay for the services of those more qualified workers.

These numbers aren't easily explained away, nor easily solvable.

Not sure what you're saying here, highly skilled labor at a good salary ($40K+) is in huge demand. There's a big shortage, so just because people "want" a job doesn't mean it's fruitful to "look" for work. They need to be qualified, and businesses can certainly afford it since, well, they're actually offering and taking on those big salaries. Besides, wages and hours have increased (slightly) since January 2008, so there's no real evidence that people are being run into the ground instead of hiring another employee. At least not more than normal. Businesses are of course going to heap more duties onto people than they're original job title no matter how good the economy is, that's just good financial sense.

In the end, you have to have some sort of basic education, and in the case of skilled technical labor that requires college and/or trade schools. Trade schools are especially booming, as they offer a more direct and frankly a quicker route to finding work sooner. 2 yrs vs. 4 yrs is a big difference. Ideally, college + trade school and/or significant experience as a replacement for one of the two. But you can do just fine on 2 yrs schooling + experience to earn $40K+.
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Where exactly are all these jobs that are in huge demand? Literally anything and everything I, anyone I've talked to (that is a huge range of types of people), has either said no one is hiring, or, a job was posted/available and sh1ttons of people applied (as in, 1 job, many many many many many many applicants).

Where exactly are you were the job market is that booming?
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
Where exactly are all these jobs that are in huge demand? Literally anything and everything I, anyone I've talked to (that is a huge range of types of people), has either said no one is hiring, or, a job was posted/available and sh1ttons of people applied (as in, 1 job, many many many many many many applicants).

Where exactly are you were the job market is that booming?

Places with strong economy and lots of jobs and not enough manpower to fill them:::
fantasy-land
imagination-land
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Where exactly are all these jobs that are in huge demand? Literally anything and everything I, anyone I've talked to (that is a huge range of types of people), has either said no one is hiring, or, a job was posted/available and sh1ttons of people applied (as in, 1 job, many many many many many many applicants).

Where exactly are you were the job market is that booming?

I can think of several different positions off the top of my head that are hiring on Dice, CareerBuilder and Monster, some posted for as long as 2 years, within a 60 mile radius of Los Angeles:

1) Dice, Desktop Support
2) Dice, Sys Admin
3) Network Admin, Dice
4) Software Developer, Dice

Pages and pages of job offerings there, so I think you get the point. The lowest paying job I saw there was $34,000, and that was lowball. Average experience range is 2-4 yrs or 3-5 years. Average pay was $55,000. With benefits. Again, there's a significant shortage of people with those skills, all of which is attainable with a combination of schooling, internships, some experience (scales directly with pay) and just basic interest in one's career (i.e. if you're a nerd). That's where people are headed though, nerdom. :D
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,165
1,637
126
Not sure what you're saying here, highly skilled labor at a good salary ($40K+) is in huge demand. There's a big shortage, so just because people "want" a job doesn't mean it's fruitful to "look" for work. They need to be qualified, and businesses can certainly afford it since, well, they're actually offering and taking on those big salaries. Besides, wages and hours have increased (slightly) since January 2008, so there's no real evidence that people are being run into the ground instead of hiring another employee. At least not more than normal. Businesses are of course going to heap more duties onto people than they're original job title no matter how good the economy is, that's just good financial sense.

In the end, you have to have some sort of basic education, and in the case of skilled technical labor that requires college and/or trade schools. Trade schools are especially booming, as they offer a more direct and frankly a quicker route to finding work sooner. 2 yrs vs. 4 yrs is a big difference. Ideally, college + trade school and/or significant experience as a replacement for one of the two. But you can do just fine on 2 yrs schooling + experience to earn $40K+.

40K is not really a good salary, unless you are talking about places with low cost of living... Around here, 80K or more is a "good salary", I'm somewhere between 40 and 80, and I've got a 45 minute commute to deal with as I like living in a nice neighborhood, and it's the closest affordable nice part of town.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
40K is not really a good salary, unless you are talking about places with low cost of living... Around here, 80K or more is a "good salary", I'm somewhere between 40 and 80, and I've got a 45 minute commute to deal with as I like living in a nice neighborhood, and it's the closest affordable nice part of town.

$40K is upper 20% of the income distribution. That's a good salary in 90% of the country unless you're supporting an entire family in a high-priced area, in which case you need a wife with the same/better income. Of course, it highly depends on how old you are, which scales directly with experience for most people. You're not going to start out at $40K at age 35 or 40 if you used to make that at a previous job in your mid-20's. You'll probably start out at $50K or $60K if you have 10 years experience. $80K pretty much means you've made it, and with sensible financial planning you're set for retirement very easily.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
there are jobs in many places, however; most can't afford to move.

Also another issue is in two income families, one may have a great opportunity elsewhere yet there be no counterpart for the other. They break even or it's a net loss.
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
The thing with unemployment is it doesn't count underemployment nor those that are now ineligible for further unemployment benefits.

They fall off the radar.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
I wouldn't be surprised if we lowered unemployement eventually, but this is one of those things where each recover is going to be weaker and weaker.

It's funny, but sometimes i think we'd be better served having a faster downfall so we could finally get some real radical change, but it's as if people don't really notice it because it happens so slowly. If we went from the 70's to the late 2000's in the span of a few years, wall street bankers would be sent to the gallows to be publicly executed.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Paul Craig Roberts's latest op-ed might be of interest:

Spinning Unemployment (stats) in a Collapsing Empire

Note that according to Shadow Stats, the real unemployment rate is 22.4%.

Personally, I'm not sure that declining labor participation is such a horrible thing. As boomers roll off the roles of labor it makes way for younger people, especially as the boomers go from accumulation to consumption of goods and services, many of which are still manufactured or served here.

Labor participation has been raising for 2 decades, mainly as the hump of the boomers grew and now is starting to recede. While many boomers rely on pensions and/or SS, not all do and most have a huge amount of assets.

Shadowstats reports what it wants and I don't believe all of the stats. I think their inflation states massively overstate the issues.

The article seems overly imperialistic and unsurprising coming from a Reagan admin appointee. A huge portion of our current problem can be laid directly upon his (and other Bush appointee) shoulders. Bailouts to the "rich" started under their admin with huge tax cuts to the same.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
I can think of several different positions off the top of my head that are hiring on Dice, CareerBuilder and Monster, some posted for as long as 2 years, within a 60 mile radius of Los Angeles:

1) Dice, Desktop Support
2) Dice, Sys Admin
3) Network Admin, Dice
4) Software Developer, Dice

Pages and pages of job offerings there, so I think you get the point. The lowest paying job I saw there was $34,000, and that was lowball. Average experience range is 2-4 yrs or 3-5 years. Average pay was $55,000. With benefits. Again, there's a significant shortage of people with those skills, all of which is attainable with a combination of schooling, internships, some experience (scales directly with pay) and just basic interest in one's career (i.e. if you're a nerd). That's where people are headed though, nerdom. :D

That's a cool site (haven't been there), but it really doesn't mean much.

Companies publically post jobs all the time that they know they're not going to fill. Whether that's because they needed to post the job for some reason but will never interview, actually need someone but have to post publically but will hire internally, or actually have a job and would hire publically but won't hire because they really don't like the applicants.

Stiking out all the jobs in that state (impossible to determine, but for sure a fair %), you have left the true jobs being offered and will be filled. Those links don't show how many are applying for them.

I'm not a fan of extending Unemployment forever, but, I do sympathize with many folks out there....finding a job, getting an interview for it, getting hired onto it, and then taking the (very likely) significantly reduced pay you'll be getting, and hopefully working full time at it instead of part time hourly, is very tough right now....

Chuck
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
That's a cool site (haven't been there), but it really doesn't mean much.

Companies publically post jobs all the time that they know they're not going to fill. Whether that's because they needed to post the job for some reason but will never interview, actually need someone but have to post publically but will hire internally, or actually have a job and would hire publically but won't hire because they really don't like the applicants.

I've seen no data that indicates a significant % of businesses post jobs they have no intention or very little intention of filling. It costs money to post jobs on job boards. I don't doubt that it happens, but it's not a significant % if I had to guess.

Stiking out all the jobs in that state (impossible to determine, but for sure a fair %), you have left the true jobs being offered and will be filled. Those links don't show how many are applying for them.

I'm not a fan of extending Unemployment forever, but, I do sympathize with many folks out there....finding a job, getting an interview for it, getting hired onto it, and then taking the (very likely) significantly reduced pay you'll be getting, and hopefully working full time at it instead of part time hourly, is very tough right now....

Chuck

Job market is certainly tough, but I wouldn't call it dire and we're certainly not in a recessionary environment.
 

RbSX

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
8,351
1
76
The thing with unemployment is it doesn't count underemployment nor those that are now ineligible for further unemployment benefits.

They fall off the radar.

Yes it does.

That is u6 unemployment, which isn't what everyone advertises.

Right now underemployment, discouraged workers + u2 unemployment is 16.7%.

What isn't accounted for in the unemployment stats is people that have given up working, which is indicated in the civilian workforce participation stat which dropped from 64.5% to 64.2%.
 

RbSX

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
8,351
1
76
I've seen no data that indicates a significant % of businesses post jobs they have no intention or very little intention of filling. It costs money to post jobs on job boards. I don't doubt that it happens, but it's not a significant % if I had to guess.



Job market is certainly tough, but I wouldn't call it dire and we're certainly not in a recessionary environment.

I tread very softly here, but that last statement makes you a certified idiot.

Right now there are roughly 15 million unemployed with 3 million available jobs. 5 people for every available job.

Before the recession it was only 2:1.

I was watching a report on it yesterday. Even, theoretically, if unemployment was as good as you say it is, the fact is that most people are replacing their jobs with jobs that pay substantially less.

In an article quoted earlier on in this thread, it stated that people that had been unemployed but found jobs within 3 months of being laid off, 50% reported a wage decline. Of those, 46% reported a wage decline of 20% or more.

Seriously, that's enough to cripple the economy.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I tread very softly here, but that last statement makes you a certified idiot.

A fantastic compliment considering the source, rofl.

Right now there are roughly 15 million unemployed with 3 million available jobs. 5 people for every available job.

Before the recession it was only 2:1.

Link?

I was watching a report on it yesterday. Even, theoretically, if unemployment was as good as you say it is, the fact is that most people are replacing their jobs with jobs that pay substantially less.

Wages and hours have increased since January 2008, which is roughly when the recession started:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/history/realer_12152000.txt <-- 2000
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_11192008.pdf <--- 2008
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_12162009.pdf <--- 2009
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/realer_11172010.pdf <--- 2010
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

Oh, and U6 unemployment has been the same or higher no less than 7 times since 1900.

In an article quoted earlier on in this thread, it stated that people that had been unemployed but found jobs within 3 months of being laid off, 50&#37; reported a wage decline. Of those, 46% reported a wage decline of 20% or more.

Seriously, that's enough to cripple the economy.

Yet the numbers cited above actually say it really doesn't. They also say that we saw 3%+ GDP growth and 1.1M+ private sector jobs created last year.

All of this easily findable on the Internet if you bothered to put, well, any effort whatsoever into your research. But hey, that's what I'm here for kiddo. ;)
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I've seen no data that indicates a significant % of businesses post jobs they have no intention or very little intention of filling. It costs money to post jobs on job boards. I don't doubt that it happens, but it's not a significant % if I had to guess.



Job market is certainly tough, but I wouldn't call it dire and we're certainly not in a recessionary environment.

It's not that big a cost to keep an ad out there.

Sadly most dice jobs and the like around here have crazy job requirements with low salaries.

Unfortunately the ones they do fill are usually by some kid still living at home that doesn't need much. We filled such a position at our company once.

However; it became clear when one doesn't have to worry about their job so much what kind of attendance and work ethic you get.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126

Click me...


The total number of job openings in September was 2.9 million, while the total number of unemployed workers was 14.8 million (the latter data are from the Current Population Survey). This means that the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings was 5.0-to-1 in September, an increase from the revised August ratio of 4.8-to-1. The job-seekers ratio is displaying a similar trend to other labor market data – substantial improvements from late 2009 to the spring of 2010, and then stalling out what are still crisis levels. September’s value, at 5-to-1, is over three times as high as the first half of 2007, when the ratio averaged 1.5-to-1.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
It's not that big a cost to keep an ad out there.

Sadly most dice jobs and the like around here have crazy job requirements with low salaries.

Unfortunately the ones they do fill are usually by some kid still living at home that doesn't need much. We filled such a position at our company once.

However; it became clear when one doesn't have to worry about their job so much what kind of attendance and work ethic you get.

Last I checked, each ad a company put up on Monster.com was $500. That isn't all that cheap.