Skip to comments.CBS: Chronic unemployment worse than Great Depression
Posted on 06/06/2011 9:34:07 AM PDT by Justaham
The media began the weekend making unfavorable comparisons between Barack Obamas economy and the Great Depression, and now theyre beginning the week with another one and this ones more accurate. CBS delved into the jobless numbers and discovered that the percentage of unemployed who have been out of work for more than six months now exceeds that of the 1930s economic collapse:
There is an unfortunate adage for the unemployed: The longer folks are out of a job, the longer it takes them to find a new one.
CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy reports that the chronically unemployed face the hardest road back to recovery, and that while the jobs picture may be improving statistically on a national level, it is not for them.
About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months a higher percentage than during the Great Depression.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Oops, the honeymoon is over. You know this is not going to sit well with King Ego.
The longer you are unemployed the longer you are likely to stay that way>
I wonder how much apathy enters into that.
Obama = FDR.
I remember a saying that went something like “You have to have a job to get another job” (I’m paraphrasing). I wonder if some companies, businesses etc... look more favorably toward an applicant that is currently employed vs one (maybe with better qualifications) that is currently unemployed?
We had better talk nice to the Chinese.
Those in a long time secure position had better start watching their backs at this point.
This is a shot across Obama’s bow. The MSM needs a new set of marching orders.
Really good job search sites:
State (and territories) Job Banks
Companies DO look more favorably towards those job seekers who are currently employed. This has been common the business world for years, unrelated to the current economic downturn.
The thinking, rightly or wrongly, is as follows:
Businesses hiring for any but an entry-level type of job seek those who have experience in that area. The ideal job candidate will be someone who is currently working in the field.
And related to that, the thinking is that if a job candidate is such a great candidate, that he/she would not be out of work for long. The thinking is that if he/she were laid off, that he/she would find something else soon if he/she was a top notch candidate.
And, related to layoffs and downsizing, the thinking is that if one were such a great worker,that he/she would not have been laid off; that he/she would have been among those kept when a business went through a merger/reorganization/downsizing.
Bottom line — business people think that top notch job candidates will find work fairly quickly if they are unemployed involuntarily for any reason. That may not be fair, but that’s how many business people look at it.
I guess the saying is true then? In a way it is sad because a very good applicant can be right there. I guess he or she could explain why they are out of work. That could possibly help. I mean if an entire business shut down, it had no reflection on that employee. If they were the top 10% newest hired, and the company got rid of that %.... it makes sense. Here is a question that I have wondered: let’s say a person was let go and is an accountant (fill in any sort of job). They can’t find an accounting job right away so they get a job at Home Depot (fill in any other sort of job). Would they still look hirable as an accountant or have they forfeited that job experience because of the Home Depot association?
UHOh is the MSM starting to report the truth about their guy? If so he is in deep deep do do with no boots.
Take the banner and Barry and overlay it on a shot of those waiting in an unemployment line or old soup lines from the ‘30’s. :>
When the store is in trouble you don’t go get a starry-eyed kid out the toy aisle to turn things around, especially when the kid is as screwed up as Obama.
It all depends how long someone worked at Home Depot or some other place like that. If they worked at Home Depot for just a few months, to earn money and make ends meet, that would not be held against them. But if the time at Home Depot stretched out to nine months, let’s say, then unfortunately some employers would think, why didn’t this person find work at an accountant yet, in this example.
So shorter term temporary working at some random job so you can pay the bills won’t be held against you. But if that period of time stretches out to long term, then questions will arise as to why you still haven’t found work in the field in which you have the experience.
It is often a problem with the potential employer saying the prospective employee has been unemployed for too long a period or that they are “too old” or the potential employee’s expectations for pay and advancement will be too high or the position is below their experience level and they won’t do well with a lesser job or they have had only partime jobs for the last few years so they are unreliable. Those attitudes often leads to apathy. There are a lot of people out there trying, repeadedly, to find any job and who are honest, hard workers with a wide range of skills and experience but too many employers have set up hiring rules that exclude potential employees who might be the best choice.
If any in the MSM report how Porkulus was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, then we’ll know that something is up.
That factor has ben in the news a lot lately.One of the companies actually put in their help wanted ad.Most companies just toss the application without saying anything.
“I wonder if some companies, businesses etc... look more favorably toward an applicant that is currently employed”
...absolutely! Just ask any 20 year housewife.
"fair" is a concept I never considered while interviewing a candidate for a job. My concern was to find the employee that was going to do the best job for me. I always took a long hard look at a person that wasn't working, and an even harder look at someone unemployed for an extended time.
news storis on that happening:
Wow! That is depressing. I mean let’s say someone loses their job because the company went under or was downsized... talk about pressure on them. How horrible to think “I’m done” instead of “I got kicked in the teeth and will just get up and keep trying until I get another job”. It sort of sounds like the old “who’s on first” joke. “I need a job”, says the applicant. “Well, you could have this job if you still had that job”, said the employer. Crazy.
Katie....... hey Katie.......... are you on the list?
Katie....... hey Katie.......... are you on the list?
If I know SeeBS, this is all about timing: Make it look as bad as possible now, and then say how much better it is finally getting in the months leading to the election. I may be all wet, but I just don’t trust SeeBS to be sane on this.
Yes i is very depressing for those out of work from more than 6 months.Even though it’s always been known that having a job made it easier to get another but this is beyond that.IMHO getting any job while still looking for one in your field would probably help with this.
I used to hire a lot of engineers and my view was that 'there must be something wrong that I'm not seeing' on the people who were unemployed for an extended time.
And, with so many applicants/choices...why should I take the chance.
Interruptions in employment in a given profession is looked upon unfavorably. Skills get stale, not up to speed on current software; training, regulatory familiarity all fall to the wayside during a lengthy hiatus.
Doesn’t sound “fair” but put yourself in the shoes of the person doing the hiring, that might make it seem more logical.
http://www.simplyhired.com is another good job search site.
I have known several people who lost their job due to the economy (not personal reasons). A few used their unemployment... and pretty much all of it until it either ran out or almost ran out to get another job). Most took another job even if the salary was way lower and it wasn’t anywhere near what the previous job had been. A few still have the much lower paying jobs but to be honest, I respect them immensely. They knew they had to feed their families and took a job beneath their experience and education.
“...put yourself in the shoes of the person doing the hiring”.
I understand. I truly wouldn’t want to be the person hiring. My husband assists his boss during the hiring practice and their power to find out information is pretty limited. For example, if they contact the previous employer, they don’t say too much like “they never showed up, abused FMLA etc..”. The standard of “they were a satisfactory employee” is usually given. Sometimes, they hire and the person is worthless but the original employer is afraid of being sued (I guess) if they didn’t rate the person as “satisfactory”.
And on deck for the democrats!!!!!
Hilary Clinton. The smartest woman in the world!!
The MSM has put themselves in a difficult position. No pity here, but they openly campaigned for the foreigner. The MSM business income has been declining quite a bit. George soros steps in with millions of bucks to fund barak friendly media. So now, the MSM is dependant on barak’s benefactor’s cash to stay solvent.
Bet the kenyan reminds of that soon.
The number in soup lines, know today as Food Stamps, is a lot more than in the 1930’s: 45 million people get Food Stamps. Imagine that. There are 80 million households but 45 million people are using soup lines.
This is a Great Depression.
Checking employment history has been reduced to merely a means to weed out padded resumés. No employer with half a brain would actually say anything more than to confirm employment, title, salary, job description, date of hire and date of departure. Any other information can and often does result in a lawsuit.
It’s really not hard to identify the right candidate, provided that right candidate is among those interviewed. They’re often not, which is the hard part, even in bad economic times. Of course, I’m talking about people with a certain propensity and skillset that anyone in the field would recognize. After that, it’s all personality and whether or not they’d be a good fit for the company culture.
My husband and boss hired a woman who sounded good, said all the right stuff etc.. What they didn’t know is she is a chronic abuser of FMLA. From my understanding, this is a serious issue to many employers (perhaps you would know that better than me). Currently, they have two FMLA abusers and there is little to be done about it. They have to document the time and it has to reach a huge amount before they can be relieved of their employment. Of course, this little bit of info couldn’t be told to them by her current employer.
I guess I’ve been lucky in 20 years of hiring, only got one bad apple during that whole time, who constantly attempted to set up racial bias or sexual harassment claims. She never did succeed with us, but did get her previous employer and her next employer, I found out well after the fact. Fairly lucrative, it sounds like. Settled almost without exception. Talk about putting an office on pins and needles.
Forfeit. Once you trade down it’s nearly impossible to get back up.
An accountant who gets a job flipping burgers,
can only get a new job... flipping burgers.
Been there, done that.
That’s my answer to those smarter than thou who are telling me that “there are jobs out there”.
Then the unemployment rate is even far more disturbing to me than before. It puts a person between a rock and a hard place. Out of work then you won’t get a job. Don’t find a job equal to the one before then you won’t get a similar job in the future. I am sorry that has happened to you.
I guess the scheiss is hitting der lüfter, and the MSM is forced to note (without naming names, of course, it’s still Bush’s fault!)
And the fix was so easy to see:
Lower corporate taxes, do away with taxes on profits earned overseas - trillions would have been repatriated, hold off on new regulations, discourage, through legislation perhaps, if not through public campaigns, outsourcing of jobs overseas.
Not only easy to see but proposed by many on the pages of the WSJ and other outlets. Proven methods free of any political left right ideologies.
But we have two parties (one and a half, really) in the pockets of big business, of big unions, of status quo. One big corrupt banana republic. Hello, Argentina, sorry we’re late following you!
Can you volunteer your services for a charitable organization or something, to keep your hand in it, list that on your resumé? Keep the emergency trade down job but still be an accountant? Some employers would look favorably upon it, community involvement, determination. It’d help if the burger-flipping was second shift with days free, but I could see that turning things around.
I’m not in the game any more, but it’s happened to me (from IT to hellish tech support, with no way back into IT, until a lucky break happened from an unprejudiced expat European, no less.)
Still, it is practically impossible, out of one’s IT or any computer related job, to keep one’s skills up to date. In fact, staying at such a job you won’t keep your skills up to date doing what you’ve been doing for the past several years. Your employer is your benefactor upon whom you depend for new technologies and new learning experiences. Take a course at a community college? It won’t help you find a new job, two years of experience is always required. Again, been there, done that.
I’m no IT guy but am occasionally forced to act like one. I’m with a smaller company now, they’re a former customer of mine, had to shut my business down in 2008 due to the economy.
We’re still on XP, still rely far too heavily upon an AS/400, too. The whole world’s not bleeding edge, most of it lags behind, some lag way behind due to industrial software that is not supported beyond a certain OS, which is the case with the company I’m with now.
I guess I’m trying to hold out hope for people who feel trapped. The working world is not at all uniform.