Topic: Who do you know that is unemployed?

[Alphabet Soup]

So, we're all under-employed and the high unemployment occurs most
in certain geographical areas and specific demographic groups?

I can't speak to the geographical considerations but I would wager that traditional manufacturing sectors and urban areas are experiencing the worst of it.

And I would posit that young adults (sub-thirty at any rate) are finding employment surprisingly sparse for their demographic. I see more older workers altering their plans and hanging on longer than they anticipated. While not exactly a zero-sum game, it does affect opportunities when considering the limitations of maintaining head-count. In other words, every old coot like me that is hanging in when I should be golfing translates into one less opening for some young buck.

And it is purely opinion on my part, but I can't help but notice an increase in the entitlement attitude that affects this demographic when it comes to seeking employment. They apparently aren't hungry enough to do what it takes to score a job. They feeeeeel that someone owes them and are (to varying degrees) perfectly content to sit on their duffs and wait for that self-same someone to seek them out and hand them a job - preferably on a silver platter.

Then when you add the cultural oddities into the mix the results are off the charts. Talking to my daughter about her cousin who just got this huge tattoo across her back. Thank God my daughter has the common sense to recognize that people who disfigure themselves in this manner do themselves no favors. Garish tats, various piercings, Ubangi-lips - they may seem stylish, but here's a clue - not to a hiring manager or the HR rep they aren't. When the pickings are slim it is insane to further marginalize your chances.

[Castaway]

Two weeks ago  34 people were right sized.  We knew every single one of them.  It was friggen GUT WRENCHING!!!!!!!!

I'll be glad when this month is over. 

Today 15 of them have found work, all of them were offered fair severance packages.  I cannot get into further details.


I've watched someone I personally know move into town and collect under the "follow the spouse" law.  They held both a nurse and a teaching license.  She told me "I am taking a well deserved vacation", that was the last time we interacted on a personal basis with the couple.  Sadly he was one right sized, they have owned a house for less than a year and now she has not worked for a year so will NOT be eligible for unemployment when/if they return where they moved here from.  If she would have worked she would have been eligible.  This BS is what is breaking the nations back...it's not only the poor. 

My nieces husband goes on and off UE like a pro.  He holds a job long enough to be eligible then somehow gets fired.  In TN the laws are ridiculous on appealing, it's easier to pay it and move on. 

Underemployment is nothing new, since when did Americans become to good for two jobs if needed to make ends meet? 

[Predator Don]

So, we're all under-employed and the high unemployment occurs most
in certain geographical areas and specific demographic groups?

There is a lot of truth to the statement "we are all underployed".

I'm not technically underemployed, but since  economic conditions have stretched well past normal recessionary timeframes, the effect has spread throughout demographic and geographical regions normally sheltered from a slowdown.

5-7 % unemployment doesn't affect me. It is normally in urban areas or very rural areas and frankly, liberal states. The extremes.  8-9% unemployment is an inconvenience to me, but did not affect my business in any real negative measurement. Normally, 16 months and its comes back.....Now we have a 9+ unemployment rate, another 7-9 % who have dropped out of the job market and who knows the % of those who took cut in pay, less hours, etc. And after 3 years of hope and change, the effect is more than measurable to me.

While spending trillions, supposedly, to stem the tidal wave. And we have another year to go.

[Libertas]

I am technically underemployed, but by choice, call it a mini-Galt effect, I don't want to be in a higher tax bracket and I enjoy what I do and have other supplemental income as well.  I think the circle of friends and family we keep has a lot to do with how visible unemployment is to us.  I suspect most of us have familiy and friends much like us, self-motivated and hard-working, proud productive members of society who do not look first to others to solve our problems, we solve our own problems.  So our demographic is likely to be less impacted, unless we happen to be in the wrong industry.  Back in the 90's I was in banking and was laid off twice (this was during the consolidation wave sweeping the industry) but I found new positions easily.

[Glock32]

I was laid off in Feb. 2009 and did not get another full-time W2 position until this year. In the intervening period I did a substantial amount of contract work, some of which occasionally paid very well, but by nature they are always short lived gigs. Since '09 I have been working harder for less money than I was making 5 years prior. It's an unpleasant state of affairs, yet my position is much better than some. In an effort to look on the positive side of things, the additional workload has given me exposure to some things I had not previously worked with, which should hopefully prove advantageous if we ever again have a functional economy.

I agree that the strict figures of unemployment aren't telling the real story. The weak economy has resulted in a lot of businesses transitioning to contractors and part-timers. Either of these is far preferable to having no income at all, but it's still a big step backwards for a lot of people. I always heard the 1990s referred to as "the lost decade" in Japan, and I think it's clear we are pretty much losing a decade here as well. People's careers have been pushed back by the equivalent of years, and it's all by design, the design of those who want to promote malcontent and dependence.

[Libertas]

The Regime released U-3 rate at 8.6%, looks a bit cooked to me, as usual.

The more meaningful U-6 is at 16.2%

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Our lost decade continues...

[Glock32]

Yes, and the administration's stenographers in the media continue to belatedly report all this stuff in the context of how "unexpected" it was. It's always unexpected. For going on three years now, every month the figures are "unexpectedly" poor. And even at that, they are always revised later to show that they're even worse than the initial reports indicate.

When something is so consistently "unexpected" doesn't that sort of demand a reassessment of what "expected" means? Nah.....

[BMG]

When something is so consistently "unexpected" doesn't that sort of demand a reassessment of what "expected" means? Nah.....

Or at the very least, a re-assessment of the ineptitude of those, supposedly in charge, that are continuously finding things, that they are supposed to be experts on, to be 'unexpected'.

[Pandora]

When something is so consistently "unexpected" doesn't that sort of demand a reassessment of what "expected" means? Nah.....

Or at the very least, a re-assessment of the ineptitude of those, supposedly in charge, that are continuously finding things, that they are supposed to be experts on, to be 'unexpected'.

No - they know exactly what they're doing and the consequences and now they're lying.  "Unexpected" now means "expected, and we're going to pretend confusion and concern".

[Sectionhand]

The Regime released U-3 rate at 8.6%, looks a bit cooked to me, as usual.

And Libertas ... you're not the only one who thinks so . I found it a bit fishy when the number was first reported and so did several other morning news people who thought a drop of almost half a percent on reletively weak employment figures just didn't sound right . A Wall St. analyst seemed uncomfortable with the figure but wanted to accept it while being grilled over it . She finally said that it may well be revised back upward but gave one of those " even if it isn't true , it's good news for shoppers " answers . That's real fvcking helpful !

[Predator Don]

The Regime released U-3 rate at 8.6%, looks a bit cooked to me, as usual.

The more meaningful U-6 is at 16.2%

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Our lost decade continues...

Come see me in Feb when all the temp people are let go.

[Libertas]

The Regime released U-3 rate at 8.6%, looks a bit cooked to me, as usual.

And Libertas ... you're not the only one who thinks so . I found it a bit fishy when the number was first reported and so did several other morning news people who thought a drop of almost half a percent on reletively weak employment figures just didn't sound right . A Wall St. analyst seemed uncomfortable with the figure but wanted to accept it while being grilled over it . She finally said that it may well be revised back upward but gave one of those " even if it isn't true , it's good news for shoppers " answers . That's real fvcking helpful !

Most of the drop was due to the denominator growing smaller...more people threw up their hands and said "screw it" and left the workforce.  If they extend unemplyment benefits, guess what?  Yup, even the bogus U-3 number will pop back up.

Most people are truly ignorant of how the game is played.  We call them sheeple and they bray like donkey's!

[Libertas]

The Regime released U-3 rate at 8.6%, looks a bit cooked to me, as usual.

The more meaningful U-6 is at 16.2%

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

Our lost decade continues...

Come see me in Feb when all the temp people are let go.

That'll make the U-6 number higher for sure.

[Sectionhand]

It's interesting how the unemployment figure can drop by .4% yet the number of employed stays virtually the same . Keep in mind that these figures come from the Dept. of Labor ... and who does the Secretary of Labor answer to ? By the way ... Hilda Solis is a fvcking Communist . 

[warpmine]

It's interesting how the unemployment figure can drop by .4% yet the number of employed stays virtually the same . Keep in mind that these figures come from the Dept. of Labor ... and who does the Secretary of Labor answer to ? By the way ... Hilda Solis is a fvcking Communist . 

Tell me it isn't so

Just about everybody working for me is under employed and will jump at the chance to work an extra day. Most are over qualified for the skill level required.

How many unemployed voters will do the ::lalanotlistening::thingy and pull the swith for Odumbass again this next cycle?

The money coming in is basically adjusted for material inflation but we're all stuck with having to pay with an ever worsening degraded currency. It's very depressing.