Unemployed need not apply

[Engineer]

It would be nice if that was true, but it's not. Most of it is just who you know, or just luck of the draw. I have seen the exceptional and the dumbass have about the same chances to lose there job.

That is a great point as far as "who you know". It works in keeping your job as well as getting a new one (helped me get two and could have helped me keep my lost one for 8 more months but I gave it up to look for something more solid).

 

[Jhhnn]

There's nothing sad about living within your means. What's sad is that the generation or two before them was living high on the hog with Uncle Sammy's magical credit card.

Nice finger pointing. Nevermind that America's wealthiest were reaping most of the rewards as income shifted to the top and their effective federal tax rates shrank. Debt hasn't been totally because of spending, but rather because of taxcuts as well.

Had Reaganomics never been implemented, the govt fiscal situation would likely be far more favorable today.

 

[sandorski]

What kind of jobs were those and do they make up for the higher paid with benefits jobs that are being lost?

I dunno the answer to that. Probably are not as good as before. However, it's a start and a good trend if it can be maintained. The US is still a long way from fully recovering, but you have to start somewhere and it appears the Recovery has at least started.

 

[PoAT.PaN]

I can see arguments from both sides. For some companies, I'm sure they cut ineffective workers, but in others, whole divisions were cut. Thats the good and the bad. I think this is a time where, getting a reference from your former manager is the best way to go about it. I don't know how often references are actually checked in the corporate world, but this seems the exact place where it would be useful.

 

[BoberFett]

Nice finger pointing. Nevermind that America's wealthiest were reaping most of the rewards as income shifted to the top and their effective federal tax rates shrank. Debt hasn't been totally because of spending, but rather because of taxcuts as well.

Had Reaganomics never been implemented, the govt fiscal situation would likely be far more favorable today.

Which has jack shit to do with anything. What a pathetic duhversion attempt, you silly little wanker.

America as a whole has been living beyond it's means. Average Americans were complicit with the transfer of wealth you're bitching about, and were more than happy to buy things made in China using money they borrowed from the same people who were shipping jobs overseas. Cry more bitch.

 

[Jhhnn]

Which has jack shit to do with anything. What a pathetic duhversion attempt, you silly little wanker.

America as a whole has been living beyond it's means. Average Americans were complicit with the transfer of wealth you're bitching about, and were more than happy to buy things made in China using money they borrowed from the same people who were shipping jobs overseas. Cry more bitch.

Yeh, right. I appreciate the ad hom- it's the last resort of the argumentatively challenged. Of course many people have lived beyond their means. They've been encouraged to do so by authority figures they trust. Remember the Ownership Society? The whole schtick about how the fundamentals of the economy were strong even as it was falling apart? And the best one of all, the song and dance about how the financial elite would use their tax cut money to create American jobs?

Reaganomics never was about living within our means, and anybody with half a brain needs to realize that. For the federal govt, it was more like quitting an executive job to work part time (tax cuts at the top) then running up the credit cards buying fancy guns (defense spending). When GWB took charge, the answer to those problems was... more of the same, harder and deeper. He just used a new boogeyman, the Terrarist Threat! and knowingly, complicitly, let Wall St run wild with the greatest looting spree in the history of finance.

Obviously, people can be chumps- just look at the last election to see that. Which doesn't mean that anybody can preach values while taking advantage of that. Well, anybody other than Republicans, who do so reflexively, instinctively. Hell, they sold taxcuts and wars at the same time, as if the fiscal consequences would never meet.

When working people have trouble making ends meet, they economize, for sure, but they often try to find ways to boost income, too- they don't volunteer for a pay cut which is what repubs do for the federal govt every time they get to run things.

 

[Qianglong]

I am just saying that is the general idea behind postings like this.

Not saying it is good or bad, but that is the mindset.

Just like hiring a 28-37 year old woman. Wouldn't want to hire someone who is in their prime child bearing years.

What type of dumbass comments are these? That is why age is an illegal question to ask and you should just STFU.

 

[BoberFett]

Of course many people have lived beyond their means. They've been encouraged to do so by authority figures they trust.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

They need some way to cut the number of applicants down to a reasonable size. I don't see why this is any worse than requiring a college degree that could be done by an semi-skilled chimp.

Could it be because they are cementing class stratification?

Discrimination against the unemployed and underemployed who are objectively qualified to do the work will end up creating a caste-like system. If you are unemployed for no reason of your own then you will just be condemned to be a member of the lower class. Likewise, if you are employed you can change jobs and maintain your current class status even if you aren't as good at your job as some members of the lower caste.

They are, in essence, destroying any chance people have for upward mobility. It strikes me as being un-American.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

More often it is not.

Are you open to the possibility that market forces beyond one's control can have a great impact on one's economic and career success? Is it more likely that someone will be successful when they are in a market where there are more jobs available relative to the supply of qualified people for those jobs or when there are fewer jobs and a huge supply of qualified people? Is it thus possible that market issues could play a huge role in this?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The good news is that Jobs are starting to come back. The Bad News is that they'll continue to come back slowly.

...and the jobs that are coming back are more likely than not dead-end low-wage jobs. Lost middle class jobs are being replaced by poverty-wage jobs. Even those poverty-wage jobs are not coming back in sufficient numbers to merely keep pace with the population growth amongst working-aged people. (We need about 125,000-150,000 net new jobs each month merely to keep pace with population growth; anything below that constitutes a loss relative to population.)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This is one of the reasons why business are doing well now despite lower employees; their productivity is up on a per-employee basis.

Are the alleged productivity gains real productivity gains or are they "productivity gains" in the form of people working longer and harder hours? In other words, are the alleged productivity gains really just a masked way of saying, "employees are receiving lower wages"?

Let's suppose that terrified salaried employees begin working an extra 10 hours per week. You might say that "productivity is up!" when in reality the employees' wages are down in terms of the amount of compensation they receive per the amount of labor they provide.

Also, do the alleged productivity gains include production that occurs overseas? If the cost of production decreases as a result of access to impoverished labor abroad, is that really a true productivity gain or is it merely the ability to hire people at slave wages?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

When I was a chemist, I don't think I ever had any problem at work that was as difficult as any one of my classes.

What made you stop being a chemist? Would you recommend getting a hard science degree to other people?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Regarding the unemployment rate, though, you see with manufacturing essentially machines are better than poorly-educated people. And this is why maufacturing in the US is increasing dollar per worker at a fast rate (automation, technology). Once any business gets to the point that it can create a machine or automated process that is cheaper than you then you are no longer needed. And the worse your education the more likely this is to happen, generally. It's not quite that simple, obviously: a software process could be cheaply created to replace a $60k/year worker while creating a functioning robot to lay bricks and replace a $60k/year brick-layer is trickier.

The problem is not automation and real productivity gains (an increase the amount of production per unit of human effort expended). The problem is that actual productivity gains are not cycling back into the economy. In theory a real productivity gain should free up money to be spent on other things--lost jobs in one field would be replaced by new jobs in other fields. Any new jobs that open up as a result of consumers' ability to spend money for other goods and services seem to be getting performed in China, India, and Mexico (or by foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas, or by masses of immigrants).

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Employment is improving. I'm not just talking about the Unemployment Rate, I'm fully aware of its' variables, but the amount of new Jobs coming onto the Market. 192,000 for Feb.

38,000 (net) jobs lost in February?

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts takes issue with that 192,000 figure. He argues that that number is based on optimistic assumptions that don't hold true. It might even be possible that, in reality, 38,000 net jobs were lost in February.

More Jobs Mirage in February--BLS Continues to Overestimate Job Growth

As one who has often reported the monthly payroll jobs breakdown, I am struck by the fact that these categories are the ones that have accounted for job growth for year after year. How can this be? How can Americans, who have had no growth in their real incomes and who are foreclosed from their homes and maxed out on credit card debt, car payments, and student loans, spend more every month in bars and restaurants? How can a few service areas of the economy grow when nothing else is?

The answer is that there were not 192,000 new jobs. Statistician John Williams estimates the reported gain was overstated by about 230,000 jobs. In other words, about 38,000 jobs were lost in February.


There are various reasons that job gains are overstated and losses understated. One is the BLS’s "birth-death model." This is a way of estimating the net of non-reported new jobs from business start-ups and job losses from business shut-downs. During recessions this model doesn’t work, because the model is based on good times when new jobs always exceed lost jobs. On the "death" side, if a company goes out of business because of recession and, therefore, doesn’t report its payroll, the BLS assumes the previously reported employees are still in place. On the "birth" side, the BLS adds 30,000 jobs to the monthly numbers as an estimate of new start-ups.


Williams estimates the "death" side is really reducing employment by about 200,000 per month, and the "birth" side is stillborn. Therefore, "the BLS continues regularly to overestimate monthly growth in payroll employment by roughly 230,000 jobs." The benchmark revisions of payroll jobs bear out Williams. The last two benchmark revisions resulted in a reduction of previously reported employment gains of about 2 million jobs.

 

[Phokus]

Which has jack shit to do with anything. What a pathetic duhversion attempt, you silly little wanker.

America as a whole has been living beyond it's means. Average Americans were complicit with the transfer of wealth you're bitching about, and were more than happy to buy things made in China using money they borrowed from the same people who were shipping jobs overseas. Cry more bitch.

Ahahah, i waltz into this thread not expecting you to be posting here and here you are talking shit to another P&N member.

I'm collecting unemployment right now because it's there. I don't need it, but I'm eligible so I damn well am going to take it. I'm against unemployment as it currently exists - Boberfett

Know your place and take a seat, thanks.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Surely discriminating against unemployed is bad for their own business, right? Because the employed people already have a job and benefits, and they will be wanting better, while unemployed people will definitely be willing to settle for less and may well take just about anything?

This is an interesting point. Perhaps an unemployed person who has the qualifications would be very thankful to have a job in his field and work extra hard at it. The same could also be said for employers who hire entry-level college grads in certain fields but discriminate against college grads from previous classes who were never able to find work in their fields.

Perhaps it could become a contrarian hiring strategy.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That's true in some cases. OTOH, executive decisions often target entire under performing divisions of the company for liquidation. And there's the macro economic overview, as well, with entire sectors of the economy having massive layoffs, as in construction. Skills are meaningless unless they're in demand, and that means all the skills in that sector, from engineering to finance to project management to skilled trades & laborers.

Another factor that plays into who gets laid off is politics. Some people are just better liked by the boss for personality reasons than other people. Some even have family connections or connections to the decision-maker's friends. Sometimes it's just a matter of money--lay off the more expensive employees.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I dunno the answer to that. Probably are not as good as before. However, it's a start and a good trend if it can be maintained. The US is still a long way from fully recovering, but you have to start somewhere and it appears the Recovery has at least started.

There isn't going to be a real recovery for the U.S. Basic principles of economics (supply of labor and demand for labor) dictate that wages for Americans must decrease much closer to third world levels. This is happening because the U.S. has effectively merged its labor market (and thus the nation's standard of living) with that of the third world, so wages, purchasing power, and standard of living must average out with that of the third world.

We might see some short-lived "recoveries" during upswings of the business cycle but the overall trend will continue to be sharply downward.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

This is an interesting point. Perhaps an unemployed person who has the qualifications would be very thankful to have a job in his field and work extra hard at it. The same could also be said for employers who hire entry-level college grads in certain fields but discriminate against college grads from previous classes who were never able to find work in their fields.

Perhaps it could become a contrarian hiring strategy.

Not to mention the fact that a business could likely hire in a formerly unemployed worker for less than someone currently working. For me to leave my company and move to a similar position elsewhere, I'd need a 20% to 30% raise to make it worth my time whereas someone who has my skill set but is unemployed might work for what I currently make.

I've never been laid off, but I've survived numerous rounds of layoffs at places I've worked. I've generally seen the writing on the wall and fled before it happened to me. That's why it never hurts to keep the resume updated and to periodically review job sites, especially if you're in an unstable situation. The best time to find a job is always when you have a job, and not just for the reasons specified in the OP.

 

[yllus]

Of course you do because it's a self-serving view. One that makes you think you are one of the valuable people.

No, I acknowledge it because it has truth to it. It's not a hard rule that is never ever wrong, but few rules are of that sort. If a company is cutting staff by 25%, then I'd wager that it's not the top performers being let go. If a company is cutting staff by 75%, then all bets are probably off.

Bull. In small companies, I would agree that those that deserve to be laid off, do indeed get laid off. I watched that when working for a 250 employee company. In three years we shrunk from 250 down to 36 employees. In the early rounds of layoffs, all the unprofessional, lazy pricks got let go.... Ultimately a lot of good people got let go too in the later rounds.

Fast forward several years... I'm working for a 20,000 employee company... Four years of layoffs, and I get selected early in 2010 to go. The irony is, I made "The President's Club" that year for over-achieving my targets... and still I was just a number and let go. I made that award 2 out of the 4 years I was there... which in my position, was rare in the company. At the end of the day they had too many redundant resources, and they kept the other guy that was working some pretty important internal projects and was assigned to our largest customer all along. Meh.

Fast forward again... to December of 2010... I'm hired by a near 400,000 employee company - paying me more, and the HUGE irony is I'm now competing directly against my former employer in some accounts, and I'm going to stomp all over them with my success.

So... In small companies, the first round of layoffs take out the shit people, but in larger companies you are indeed just a number. Hard work and success doesn't protect you though I do think it delays the inevitable.

Which proves my point. Cuts a company makes to shed weight are of the lower performers. When a company cuts its staff by 85% (your example), it's simply a massacre.

It would be nice if that was true, but it's not. Most of it is just who you know, or just luck of the draw. I have seen the exceptional and the dumbass have about the same chances to lose there job.

How often does the dumbass know someone who knows someone willing to hire them? The guys who know someone are generally the guys who've established a reputation for themselves as a top performer, even if that reputation has been earned quietly without any glad-handing at social events. If you're good at what you do, word gets around.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Ah, so now the "job creators" have shut the doors when they threw everyone out in 2008.

 

[Moonbeam]

The unemployed need to join hire on as bounty hunters. 50 dollars a pelt for employers who will hire them now that they have found work.

 

[BoberFett]

Ahahah, i waltz into this thread not expecting you to be posting here and here you are talking shit to another P&N member.

When another P&N member needs a bitch slapping, I simply do what needs to be done.

Know your place and take a seat, thanks.

Spoken like a true enemy of the common man.

Don't worry about me spanky, I'll work when the state stops paying me not to.

 

[Phokus]

When another P&N member needs a bitch slapping, I simply do what needs to be done.

That's funny, that's exactly how i approach your terrible posting.

Spoken like a true enemy of the common man.

Don't worry about me spanky, I'll work when the state stops paying me not to.

Sure you will. The common man isn't a flipping moron using unemployment benefits as some sort of political stunt.