http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/ar … employment
This is interesting, in spite of high unemployment some firms are having trouble hiring! One of the reasons sited in this article is extended unemployment benefits. Can it be that entitlements are preventing folks from returning to work as the republicans argued when the democrats sought to extend benefits from 99 weeks to 126 weeks?
man, that'd be pretty nice. Sittin' on my bum all day doin' what I want ... AND GETTIN' PAID FOR DOING IT!!
It really doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you pay people to not work, AND if you pay them to not get married (that's a sneaky part of a lot of the welfare laws), they won't get married and they won't find work.
... Now the chorus of liberals "but we need to help the unfortunate"!!
I agree, we do, but we can help them the most by not helping them directly.
Oh yeah, they have to help the less fortunate like the public service unions of teachers, police and fire fighters at the expense of the food stamp program.
Food stamp recipients are at an all time high thanks to the economy, and the democrats were willing to cut funding of that program to help those less fortunate teachers, police and fire fighters.
They are the biggest hypocrites going!
Really? What caused this mess in the first place?? 40 years of trickle down bullsh*t, that's what.
And what is the repubs solution? Keep the tax cuts for the rich. Add 1.4 trillion to the deficit, which they care so much about......RIIIIGHT. *wink* *wink*
"Oh, I smell a rat...I smell a rat. You can bet your little behind, I smell a rat."
Or should I say elephant?
actually this was all created via monetary expansion and putting whacky incentives in the housing market.
Just check out the people who ACTUALLY saw the meltdown coming: Ron Paul, Peter Schiff (who is owed a single penny from a top economist because he was right), and Rand Paul (and a lot of others down at the Mises Institute, like Walter Block).
All three of those people are up for election / re election, but everyone seems to hate them. Both Paul candidates have been painted as racists because of their WHACKY views that "you actually own your own property", and peter schiff was laughed at on national TV ... until he was proven right.
take an economics class if it is within your realm of capabilities "lovemychris".
or perhaps it was our socialistic welfare system and policies that helped the less fortunate during the 1800's and early 1900's that catapulted us to number one in the world and made us the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, oh wait never mind they didn't exist.
must have been that "trickle down bullsh*t". but small minds prefer that trickle up poverty I suppose.
You got it wrong...it's trickle up wealth, taken from the bottomed down poverty.
Or did you miss the huge income gap brought on by "They elected us, it's their due" Republicans???
I have no interest in economics...why don't you take a psychology class? Then you can decipher the mind-set of GREED that has been fostered upon us as The American Dream.
It's a Nightmare!!
Okay, I don't know your story, but it's obvious to me that you've never had to try to exist on unemployment benefits...
My husband lost his job three years ago...and he filed for "gasp"...the terrible unemployment wages that, by the way, he'd paid into for many many years and never had used.
He was paid $300 a week for "sitting around his bum, doing what he wanted", which, incidentally, was mostly spent looking for more work, online and in person, submitting resume after resume...going to interview after interview...
In this area, jobs are few and far between. Hundreds of applicants for a single job opening, even part-time minimum wage jobs.
We lost our home, and moved into a apartment for half of what we paid before with our mortgage.
So yeah, we just LOVED giving up the comforts that we had before he lost his job, and we just LOVED trying to pay our bills on $300 a week...
Good Grief--It's time to stop generalizing, and putting everyone in the same compartment. Not everyone wants to "live in the lap of luxury" that unemployment provides.
Not really. I'm currently collecting unemployment myself (after avoiding it for as long as possible) and I'm doing everything I can to find a job and get off of it; it doesn't really pay enough to cover the bills. I had a lot more free time and less stress when I actually had a full-time job!
There are 5 unemployed workers for every job. Most of the people drawing unemployment benefits do look for jobs and would much prefer to be working. There is evidence that unemployment benefits do prolong unemployment for a small minority of people who can live on benefits that are less than half of what they were earning when working. The main reason for continued high unemployment is that, thanks to the Republicans in the Senate and a couple of Blue Dog Democrats, is that the stimulus package that was passed was too small and too slow to take effect. Some blame Obama's economic advisers--Sommers and Geithner for being too cautious. Sommers is an arrogant asshole, in my opinion.
In Canada...I pay into 'employment insurance'...ours was lowered from 52 weeks to ?...I'm not really sure. This insurance is also extended to women having children; they are able to stay home for a bit after their child is born (receive 66% of their earned income). Maybe part of the reason to extend the benefits is to allow women to stay home longer with their children...before returning to work. In Canada there is a lack of child care for children 0 to 3 years old...it's an expensive group for childcare providers to offer because of the rules/regs around the safety of the youngest children (0 - 3). I don't know what that looks like in the US...but there could be a lack of childcare providers there too. Just a thought.
Who are all these supposed companies having trouble hiring workers? Where are the facts to back up these claims.
I find it strange that bureau of economic research latest report june 13th 2010 shows that there are 5.5 unemployed for every 1 job opening.
Every report and every newspaper article i read show there are a lot more unemployed than job openings. So i think your logic of unemployment hurting job hiring is not factual. If the job openings were closer to the number of unemployed then i could see your point of view but not when unemployment is this high.
And by the way i am not unemployed!
Unemployment pays 2/3rds of your weekly wage.....not much to live on with the high cost of America-the-Profiteers.
I have a friend who was fired and now her company is trying to hire her as a temp. She says no way....she's holding out for a real job at real wages with real benefits. That's what they fired her from, and she's not settling for less......
And why should she? All they're trying to do is scale down the wages....screw them! Let the fat-cats do all the work since they don't want to pay.
We need more people like her to stand up for the American worker...not global corporate companies who care nothing for the lives of people they employ. Living wage or none at all!!
the reason they're scaling down wages is because there's a bit of deflation going on. there's, strangely, less money in these sectors (because people aren't buying the goods/services in question), and thus they simply can't pay people.
Most likely what's happening is that real wages are gradually re-adjusting - people will be paid less, but their money will be worth more...
... until the monetary inflation catches up.
It's interesting because deflation is happening side by side with monetary inflation. I'm guessing that the extra money is being funneled into a certain area and one day the dam will burst.
Everyone's asking if there's going to be a "double dip recession", but they seem to have forgotten that it's actually going to be a triple dip - everyone seems to have forgotten the tech bubble in 2001. I got a feeling this third one is going to be rea~~~lly bad.
I think there's plenty of blame to go around. It was sort of a perfect storm.
And, unfortunate, no seems to be understanding that Congress and all other politicians refuse to address the underlying issue.
Surely not only Democratic policies. Republican policies did as much...
Democratic policies driving this high unemployment are you serious, no really?. The stimulus created jobs and saved some more but in the end i think we shoould have made it bigger. Hey if you think those tax cuts for the rich is what the economy needs then go ahead and vote for the gop but if you want the country to progress then vote for democrats.
For this same reason i blogged i give up on america for the fact the right can't and will not see the right does not offer anyone but the rich anything good. It is the democrats who are pulling us out the recession but the right is too blind to see it happen.
It wasn't just the housing bubble and bad lending that caused this. Money flows upwards naturally. A part of it then -theoretically- flows back down via taxes, charity and reinvestment in the people via business ventures. If the folks at the top choose to reinvest their returns elsewhere -as in foreign business pursuits and moving existing facilities and pursuits out of the country as well, then the moneys which were formerly invested at home are simply gone, for all practical purposes to the folks at the bottom. Additionally a good deal of their tax dollars are gone as well. Leaving the folks at the bottom with little left to live on besides charity.
Habee has it right. It was a perfect storm. Many trends from the last few decades all caught up with us at once.
yes, that would be nice in a more ideal employment climate, but now small businesses and companies are hiring more temps because they can't afford to give new hires benefits.
the large corporations keep outsourcing taking away both skilled and unskilled job positions not only taking away jobs that are needed here now, but evading taxes. those corps. should be taxed for outsourcing and rewarded for keeping jobs here in our country.
I am not a big corporation Rebekah, in fact I am not a corporation at all - and I outsource my job positions. I cannot afford an American worker. Do you know what cannot afford mean? If you try to tax me for outsourcing, so my employment related costs get comparable with me hiring American workers, I either go bankrupt or move my company offshore. Either way you lose all the taxes I pay now.
I'm not referring to non-corporations Misha. I'm talking about big corporations and some private sector corporations that outsource jobs, displacing a lot of workers who aren't trained for re-entering the work force. this takes more money to train them in an already bleak employment environment. white collar workers are competing for some of the same jobs as blue collar workers. who is that company going to hire?
I've studied all the reasons for outsourcing and what the economists say.. and yet who is going to buy the products and pay for the services that are now done off shore if they don't have a job to pay for them?
there's something disconcerting about calling customer support for an American company and talking to someone I can barely understand in the Philippines or India..
while corporations continue to outsource jobs monthly.
something is just not right about it and it indeed has affected a segment of the unemployed and displaced worker.
I don't see why being a corporation or not matters at all in this regard. Their margins are not better than mine, in fact my margins are probably better.
Nobody can afford American workers now, you guys priced yourselves way out of the world labor market with minimal wages, social benefits, and union bargaining power. Greed, as everybody keeps repeating. Employees' greed is ruining America.
I have to take issue with the last part of your post. The labour market were sold down the river by profiteering labour bosses - but they were sold out to the employers.
Labour prices are a result of imbalance between the perceived market (expected standards of living etc) and the real market (where the US has been borrowing to artificially fund its economy for ten years or more).
labour is stuck with a minimum it needs to survive and wages that are less than that at the bottom. The employers are ok because they can use cheap illegal labour (which is why this issue is not being solved). and of course online people like yourself (and me I suppose) can source anywhere in the world.
This is an issue of macro-economics where greed and a declining economy meet.
Not sure what exactly your issues are - our positions don't seem to be far away - or I possibly misunderstood what you said.
No we are not far away - I thought you were blaming the workers for their high wages, I was pointing out where the cause lay.
Yeah, I was blaming the workers. I guess Rebekah is right and I got lost in Es and Rs at the end.
So, to reiterate, I do think that the generations of workers are to blame for their greed which led to labor costs that businesses cannot afford - of course if you need to blame somebody.
American free trade policies supported by both parties, more than any other single factor, are responsible for the decline in high paying manufacturing jobs that have been sent to China, Cambodia, Mexico, Bangladesh and other low wage countries. WalMart has been responsible for more job losses and bankruptcies of American companies by it's Buy China policies. American workers can hardly be expected to compete with Chinese workers making $1/hour in unsafe, polluting plants. In some industries China is losing jobs to Cambodia where workers get 30 cents an hour.
The cost of living is much cheaper...I met a woman from China while in Okinawa that said we would be considered rich living on a serviceman's salary.
First off, the employers that are having problems with hiring are mostly offering way below fair market wage. Some of these employers expect you to relocate internationally for roughly $30k a year. People who are barely making the bills on unemployment cannot afford to take a job that pays less than unemployment. those people collecting unemployment that have families are not currently paying for daycare, transportation, and the other hundred little things that are involved with a job.
To accept a job that pays below what they are collecting on unemployment with the addition of child care, gas, uniforms, etc. makes it even harder to make the rent let alone the rest of the bills.
Unemployment is the result of a major loss of industrial infrastructure. We no longer manufacture the items we once did. Everything right down to legal services is being outsourced to other countries. Until we can get regulation in place that bring business and employment back within US borders we will continue on the current trend.
We need to go back to manufacturing our clothing, shoes, carpets, bedding, electronics, automobiles, and the countless other things that we once made here in America. Once the government loosens the purse strings that enable those of us searching for ways to recreate that infrastructure then jobs will follow.
Isn't it possible that the people themselves created this problem? Wanting something for nothing? Wanting the Gov't to take care of them? Demanding results? Just a thought...
I think you forgot the 'r' on the end of 'employees'... of course companies can afford to hire Americans. but they're going where it costs them the least amount of $, taking advantage of tax loopholes. that has to change.
there's nothing wrong with a unskilled or skilled worker expecting to receive a livable wage/salary in this country.
it's these huge multi-national companies that are running the show.
I agree--some of the jobs my husband applied for were offering wages that were the same as he was making 30 years ago...it's insane!
I got lost in those complex words
No, the vast majority of companies cannot afford American workers. They are too expensive. And I told you what will happen when you tax this.
Unemployment compensation is not a "Democratic policy." It has been supported by both parties as effective and necessary since World War II. However, the benefit extensions in the current recession have been passed by Democrats over GOP opposition. In previous recessions, none as deep and prolonged as the current one, unemployment benefit extensions have been passed almost routinely with bi-partisan support--on humanitarian grounds and because of their counter-cyclical effect.
Which Democratic policies are you (OP) referring to?
High unemployment is, as mentioned several posts ago, due to America's shift from being a labor-intensive manufacturing society to being a service-based economy.
We've lost (some temporarily, some forever) entire industries that employed MILLIONS of Americans.
The Internet is also part of the problem.
American companies don't even have to outsource in a physical sense. They can outsource in a virtual sense to workers anywhere in the world.
I would really like to hear what sparked this thread.
by Eugene Hardy 6 years ago
Specifically, you have run out of benefits and you still can not find a job?
by cliffordh 9 years ago
I was one of many individuals yesterday that, was disappointed in the Senateâ��s refusal to fund emergency unemployment benefits for millions of Americans across the country who, were in desperate need of it, using the catchall excuse their reluctance to add more to an already growing deficit...
by Jim Hunter 8 years ago
Thats ridiculous, if you can't find a job in your area in three years then move to where the jobs are. Unemployment is beginning to be a career for some people.
by Jimbo'daNimbo 7 years ago
What should we be most concerned about? The continuing feeding frenzy from the leftist media about Rush(even after he apologized)or real issues of the day that actually affect our lives?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Do you contend that poor people in America are ENTITLED, want others to support them, & give themservices which they believe are rights such as housing, food, medical care, college education,& related services? Why? Why not?
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
The five month jobs report is out and Donald Trump saw a gain of 863,000. Impressive yes? Not so fast.Clinton 1st term - 948,000Clinton 2nd term - 1,400,000Bush 1st term - Lost 400,000 going into recessionBush 2nd term - 1,200,000Obama 1st term - Lost millions due to the Great 2008...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|