LJWorld.com weblogs Sharpening My Pen

Where Are the Jobs?

Advertisement

http://www.alternet.org/story/150358/8_unemployed_for_every_job_opening:_what_are_they_supposed_to_do_once_their_benefits_run_out?akid=6719.283578.Zi3i6o&rd=1&t=2

There is a political storm brewing on both sides of the aisle and I don't think either party is seeing it. There are now eight people who want jobs for every job opening in the United States. Oddly, there is every indication that they are being ignored by the government at every level. The GOP is too embroiled in "social" legislation; legislating and restricting abortion, cutting social programs and cutting taxes for the top 1% in the nation. The jobless, who voted for these people on the promise of "jobs", are seeing no benefit from this and, in fact, are feeling betrayed as many of the social programs being cut are the same programs supporting them in their joblessness, including food stamps and WIC. Those that do have jobs are hanging on to them tightly and see efforts by the GOP in multiple states to smash unions, both public and private, as threats to their livelihood. In the last ten years the Middle Class has shrunk and those that used to belong to it and want to rejoin it are angry, and getting angrier, that legislators they elected are not only not following through on their promises but act like they never made those promises in the first place.

The GOP swept into power this past election cycle on the promise that economic relief was coming. Many voters are upset and disappointed that, to date, they have yet to see a single piece of legislation addressing it. Even support for the Tea Party is waning as the large numbers of retirees that made up it's membership are seeing their pensions threatened and alarmed at proposed Social Security cuts coming from the party they supported.

The Democratic side of the aisle is in no better shape, although they have the excuse that their efforts are being blocked by partisanship moves by the GOP. The most recent joke is that, "If President Obama came out in favor of oxygen, Republicans would suffocate themselves." When people see this type of extreme partisanship, they despair that anything will get done and, indeed, to date, the Federal government has had to pass stop gap temporary legislation on the budget three times. However, I don't blame just the GOP for this. Both sides of the aisle are engaging in this kind of behavior.

Does this mean that I think the Wisconsin Democratic senators were in the wrong for leaving the state? Yes and no. That was a case where the Democratic legislators were so ignored and their voices silenced so badly that, as their was absolutely no effort to compromise, they did what they felt they had to do. Walker made it plain he was passing the legislation with them or without them, and in the end he did do it without them. Worse, to date, even though an injunction has been issued by state courts to prevent the legislation from going into law, the Governor is acting as though the injunction doesn't exist. This is a situation where elected officials are quite literally running roughshod over their own electorate. Much the same is happening now in this state to the horror, dismay and frustration of the very people who elected these legislators.

What I truly find amazing is that these legislators, voted in on a wave of desire for "change", a hope that politics wouldn't be "business as usual", seem to be completely oblivious to what they are doing. The general attitude isn't, "Let's get to work.". The attitude is, "We won! And boy are we going to make you PAY!" And the general wave in the direction of the electorate is, "Thanks, suckah!".The very idea that they could be "one and done" doesn't even seem to enter their thoughts. All of them seem to believe that their very election was a mandate to do as they pleased. There are probably a number of people who did vote for them with that mandate. However, I don't think anyone realized or expected how that mandate would manifest or it's result.

One thing is for sure; the unemployed, the under employed and those who see their employment threatened are fast becoming a voice to be reckoned with. As the Tea Party wanes, the Coffee Party gains. Believe me, it's not too early for elected legislators to start paying attention.

Comments

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

LOL!!!! There weren't "schisms" in the Tea Party? C'mon, Snap, you can come up with a better answer than that.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

No it didn't. As I stated below, much of the GOP "revolution" in the last election cycle was based on jobs and the economy. To date almost none of the legislation coming out of state houses or Washington is addressing it. Why? To an extent I can understand DC as the GOP only took over the House and getting legislation past the Senate and the POTUS could be difficult. But legislation isn't even being introduced. It appears that all energy is being directed at gridlock over the budget with neither side willing to compromise an inch. You give some root causes (and believe it or not they are causes I am willing to consider, although our approaches on how to handle those causes may be different). Yet you don't address the "here and now" and the current political climate of ignoring these things as if they don't exist.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Wow, LO. I'm kind of.....flummoxed; one could say gobsmacked. You actually wrote something with which I agree. (Wait, let me do a quick scan of my ideology.) Actually, this isn't as rare as you would think. I have friends that live in Cottage Grove, OR. It's an odd area; full of extreme (and I do mean extreme) left old hippies and extreme (and I do mean extreme) right old farmers. They all get involved in local politics and oddly, in their extremities, have found common ground.

MyName 4 years ago

Clearly businesses make decisions about when and who to hire based upon what the government decides, and not whether hiring one more person would improve their bottom line. I think you're giving the government too much credit (or blame).

If you want to hear a theory that actually makes sense from someone an economist, instead of a political "theorist": http://www.amazon.com/Great-Stagnation-Low-Hanging-Eventually-ebook/dp/B004H0M8QS .

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

And you are failing to mention that since the so called "Republican takeover" not a single piece of legislation has addressed it either.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

And by the way, I didn't "throw the GOP under the bus". Between Peck and abortion legislation, they're doing a darned good job of that all by themselves without my help.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Oh fer godsake, 'rush. It doesn't have anything to do with jobs. That's the point. Why don't YOU stay focused.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

" I didn't "throw the GOP under the bus". Between Peck and abortion legislation, they're doing a darned good job of that all by themselves "

I don't think the Republicans have lost any votes or support from the rabid liberals who seem to be the only ones concerned about the issues you mentioned.

Kirk Larson 4 years ago

"What about round 1 of O'bamas " shovel ready jobs" - seen any ?" The interchange in north Lawrence in front of Johnny's and the new engineering building at KU just to name a few of many. What's funny is all the republicans who made a big stink about how the stimulus didn't work and then try to take credit for the jobs it brought in.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Actually, I stated in my blog post that the Dems are just as much at fault for this as the GOP. (Obama isn't god, 'rush. He's the executive department. He can't do much if the legislation isn't passed. Executive orders can only go so far.) Both sides are ignoring the problem and both sides are sweeping it under the rug like a dirty little secret.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"Obama isn't god, 'rush. He's the executive department. He can't do much if the legislation isn't passed. Executive orders can only go so far."

Now you're getting desperate. What about the two entire years he had both sides of the legislature in Democratic hands, pray tell?

Kirk Larson 4 years ago

That's 2 right here in town. There's a lot more across the country.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Actually, DIST, S:314 did pass. And almost every piece of legislation you mentioned is legislation (with the possible exception of one) to continue current funding. None of it is new. Good try, but not good enough.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/mar... Read the first two paragraphs. It passed in the Senate in a 24 to 15 vote. You want to call the LJ World liars go right ahead. There was no "false claim" and you proved nothing beyond the fact that you're no better than the FOX commentators that you watch.

RoeDapple 4 years ago

,Truck driving jobs nationally are being under filled by as much as 10% in some locations due to under-qualified applicants. Poor driving records, inability to pass drug screens and poor math and communication skills are leaving jobs unfilled that start at $40,000 plus benefits with many having as much as a $10,000 sign up bonus. Anyone who can qualify and isn't afraid to get a little dirt under their fingernails can go to work tomorrow.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

So why aren't we seeing legislation to promote this, Roe? Wouldn't you rather see your tax dollars go to retraining of qualified ex factory workers for such positions rather than just giving them their 99 weeks of unemployment and then dumping them on their keesters to languish on what welfare they can get? Many of these people would be happy to get the 6 months or weeks of training it takes to get their CDL and go over the road.but they don't have the foggiest notion where to start. On top of that, UI doesn't support retraining. Depending on the amount of time you spend in school your benefits can and will be cut off. Your words "Anyone who can qualify ..." is the big stickler. On top of that, this is just one sector. Not everybody can go into OTR truck driving. Are there others?

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"So why aren't we seeing legislation to promote this, Roe?"

Maybe because some people don't automatically think the solution to every problem under the sun is more legislation?

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

And maybe if if it isn't addressed through legislation this country is going to go down like the Titanic. More unemployed is less coming in, in taxes, and more going out to support the unemployed and keep them from starving to death. Legislators should be concerned if for no other reason than it's going to eventually cut into their paycheck. Well, except for those who are already on the Koch brothers payroll.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Yeah, let's get in a Koch brothers whine, regardless of whether or not it's related to the topic.

By all means, let's create jobs through legislation. That way, we can negate the gain from increased income tax revenues with the cost of their creation! Brilliant!

Private sector employment is actually up, cait48. It's the public sector which is (thankfully) shrinking.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Typical TS whiny BS that contributes nothing to the debate. Move along, nothing to see here.

grammaddy 4 years ago

They've been shipped overseas to people who are willing to work for much less. It's about the bottom line. And the GOP is too busy trying to discredit Obama to get any real work done on anything that matters.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Lordie, where to start in this sea of BSs.

First of all, while the headline of the little story you linked to has been spreading through the internet like wildfire, it is ridiculously misleading. Buried within that story is a small admission that the actual ratio of unemployed to openings is FIVE to one, not eight to one. To reach the 8:1 figure, they included people working part-time jobs while seeking other employment. Now, while it might make sense to count an aerospace engineer flipping burgers at McDonald's as unemployed, you might want to consider that engineer is filling a spot that one of the other 14 million unemployed persons might have been perfectly happy with.

Second, the BLS statistics only count advertised openings. Any career counselor worth talking to will tell you that applying only for advertised openings is a pretty poor strategy for job seeking. There are a lot of jobs that don't get advertised for a number of reasons. (The BLS statistics also ignore some openings even for advertised jobs for other reasons.)

Third, since you don't seem to be paying attention, the ratio of unemployed-to-openings has already been steadily dropping.

Fourth, I must have lost the link somewhere, cait48 - would you be so kind as to provide the link to your blog from two months after the Obama administration took over, complaining about how the Democrats, who swept into power on their promise to fix the economy and provide jobs, had been focusing on other issues and ignoring the (much higher number of) unemployed?

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

  1. I understand there are problems with the story to which I linked. It was a jumping off point. And including the underemployed with the unemployed is not unreasonable in addressing what I did in the blog post. (take a look at the last sentence).
  2. The ratio of unemployed to openings is dropping only among those still being followed by the UI system. This does not take into account the "99'ers" that have exhausted their benefits and dropped off the radar. That ratio is dropping, not because more people are finding jobs, but because of attrition as more people leave the system. There's more than one way to manipulate numbers, friend.
  3. I never linked to any such article two months after Obama took over. You are confusing me with someone else.

jafs 4 years ago

I generally agree with many of your points.

Your 3, though, is exactly his point - he's accusing you of partisan politics by complaining about the GOP but not the Democrats.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

  1. Your blog is based on a false premise. You attempted to sensationalize the unemployment outlook in a rather weak attempt at criticizing Republicans, who, incidentally, control only one house of the legiuslature and not the White House. Including the 'underemployed' is NOT legitimate for these purposes, since those part-time jobs are included in the BLS statistics on job openings. To include the 'underemployed' in the ratio of job seekers to job openings while ignoring that fact is double-dipping.

  2. I'm not, and sincerely doubt I ever will be, your friend. And thank you for, inadvertantly as it was, demonstrating my point. The numbers aren't 'manipulated', BTW - they're reported. In and of themselves they're meaningless (and I am referring to the numbers on both sides of the ratio, the number of unemployed and the nnnumber of openings). It's the trend that's important, and analysis of the subfactors that contribute to that trend. And right now the trend in seekers-to-openings is decreasing. Further, hires-to-separations is increasing (suggesting the improvement is NOT due to the 99-ers). Even better, within the category of separations, the ratio of the subcategories of quits-to-layoffs is increasing (which is good because that reflects a perception of an increased availability of jobs). All of this, again, renders the basis of your blog entirely meaningless.

  3. No kiddin', ya' think? Sorry you didn't catch it (apparently a couple of people did, at least), but I was pointing out that it is somewhat duplicitous to whine about the Republicans - who don't even have control, and what limited power they do have has been in place for only two months - in the absence of similar complaints about the Democrats, under whose (longer) watch things were much, much worse.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Oh, almost forgot: Your blog is also grounded in another false premise, reflected in your later post suggesting legislation is necessary to create jobs. Given the lack of effectiveness of the Democrats' interventions, perhaps the Republicans are doing the best thing they could do for the economy and jobs creation by staying the heck out of it.

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

If you know somebody that needs a ghost writer, Bill Ayers is available. http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=26152

jafs 4 years ago

Nope.

The better a business does, the higher their profits are.

Those could be used to improve employee wages/benefits, or expand creating jobs, etc. but won't necessarily be used that way.

That's the flaw of "trickle down" theory.

Cait McKnelly 4 years ago

Actually it didn't work in the '80's. That's where the term "voodoo economics" came from.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Quick question, cait48 - as ksrush said, there's a difference between fact and theory (or cutesie names) - in fact, did tax revenues go up or down during the Reagan years?

jafs 4 years ago

Except if you look it up, you will find that Reagan in fact raised taxes quite a bit during his presidency.

His rhetoric and his actions were not aligned.

And, the flaw is quite clear - businesses are not required to do anything specific with higher profits.

If they do improve employee wages and benefits, employees benefit. If they expand and hire more people, then those people benefit.

If they don't, then none of those folks benefit.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

What the HECK are you talking about?

The top marginal personal income tax rate before Reagan took office was 70%. In 1982, the first year that the country would have been operating entirely on his budget, it was 50%. When he left office it was 28%.

As for capital gains, the top rate was 28% before he took office, lowered to 20%, then went back up to 28 (and then 33) after the Democrats took control of both houses in '87. The top marginal corporate rate was reduced from 46% to 34%.

Now, if you had said Reagan brought in a whole heck of a lot more tax revenue, that would be true. He did bring in a whole boatlaod of increased tax dollars - by cutting taxes. Imagine that.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Saw it. The gist of the whole thing was that if corporations weren't getting taxed to death here, the jobs and money wouldn't be going overseas.

bad_dog 4 years ago

And furthermore, how corporations feel beholden to direct profits to their shareholders at the expense of American jobs/workers. It's understandable though; if the Board doesn't maximize profits, the directors will be gone.

No real surprises there-just the way it is in this country today. No matter the implications the bottom line is the bottom line. Maximizing profits is an all consuming passon. I still find it difficult though to feel too much sorrow for big business when my effective tax rate is significantly higher than many of theirs. I can't easily relocate to Zug, Switzerland for a number of reasons, nor can I hire a legion of accountants and tax attorneys but that's my problem.

Seriously, the tax code needs significant revision for both personal and corporate taxation. The message is clear, lower corporate tax rates or else those companies that can will continue to relocate and/or offshore jobs as is their right under the current laws.

bad_dog 4 years ago

Indeed, that is why many workers chose to organize.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

"how corporations feel beholden to direct profits to their shareholders at the expense of American jobs/workers"

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a value judgment. But the reality that directors and managers indeed DO have a legal fiduciary responsibility to the people that paid to own part of their company is not, it's a fact.

RoeDapple 4 years ago

"So why aren't we seeing legislation to promote this, Roe?"

Can't say Cait. What I do know is before trucking was deregulated rates went up every year based on the poorest performers in the industry. After 1980 many truck lines failed but many new ones have sprung up with all of them having to compete heavily to get business. This actually works to keep freight charges down and service up. There's still plenty of government involvement in trucking, but deregulation reduced the rate of inflation on goods moved by truck. And that would be just about everything.

ivalueamerica 4 years ago

The new GOP congress has yet to pass a single piece of legislation to create new jobs.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

As I said above, good for them! Since the Democrats' legislation was a collection of miserable failures, perhaps the Republicans are bright enough to realize that the best thing they can do to repair the economy and job situation is to stay the heck out of it.

Oh, forgot - to a Democrat, no problem can be solved without legislation - preferably costly legislation that involves raising taxes (OTHER people's taxes, of course).

pace 4 years ago

The new GOP congress has yet to pass a single piece of legislation to create new jobs.

good point.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Whereas the the Democrats passed all kinds of legislation and spent all kinds of money - and to quote the headline of this blog, "Where are the jobs?"

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Hmm, cait48 doesn't seem to want to respond to my post. Maybe she didn't see it in these nested threads, let's try again. In reply to your March 28th, 8:56 a.m., cait48:

  1. Your blog is based on a false premise. You attempted to sensationalize the unemployment outlook in a rather weak attempt at criticizing Republicans, who, incidentally, control only one house of the legiuslature and not the White House. Including the 'underemployed' is NOT legitimate for these purposes, since those part-time jobs are included in the BLS statistics on job openings. To include the 'underemployed' in the ratio of job seekers to job openings while ignoring that fact is double-dipping.

  2. I'm not, and sincerely doubt I ever will be, your friend. And thank you for, inadvertantly as it was, demonstrating my point. The numbers aren't 'manipulated', BTW - they're reported. In and of themselves they're meaningless (and I am referring to the numbers on both sides of the ratio, the number of unemployed and the number of openings). It's the trend that's important, and analysis of the subfactors that contribute to that trend. And right now the trend in seekers-to-openings is decreasing. Further, hires-to-separations is increasing (suggesting the improvement is NOT due to the 99-ers). Even better, within the category of separations, the ratio of the subcategories of quits-to-layoffs is increasing (which is good because that reflects a perception of an increased availability of jobs). All of this, again, renders the basis of your blog entirely meaningless.

  3. No kiddin', ya' think? Sorry you didn't catch it (apparently a couple of people did, at least), but I was pointing out that it is somewhat duplicitous to whine about the Republicans - who don't even have control, and what limited power they do have has been in place for only two months - in the absence of similar complaints about the Democrats, under whose (longer) watch things were much, much worse.

Oh, almost forgot: Your blog is also grounded in another false premise, reflected in your later post suggesting legislation is necessary to create jobs. Given the lack of effectiveness of the Democrats' interventions, perhaps the Republicans are doing the best thing they could do for the economy and jobs creation by staying the heck out of it.

RoeDapple 4 years ago

I think the last time a president promised "a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage" (before Obama) was Republican Herbert Hoover. Six months later we had the Great Depression. I believe Republicans are wise to stay away from those kind of promises.

jafs 4 years ago

Anybody who's interested in Reagan's actual record on taxes should google "myths about reagan", and you'll find a nice article by the Washington Post. entitled "5 myths about Ronald Reagan".

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Yeah. Good article. Didja' maybe happen to notice that it's an opinion piece, written by the author of "Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy," who also happens to be a senior fellow at Media Matters? And that it also happens to be, well, a little short on actual numbers?

Here's a thought: How about Googling the actual tax tables and looking at whether the tax rates were higher or lower when Reagan left office than when he took office?

Of course, if you insist on including payroll taxes, it changes the picture somewhat. Then again, if you count the Christmas Club deduction from your paycheck as an income tax, it would change it somewhat. Don't want to pay that much in SS & Medicare? Great, I agree with you. So let's scrap the SS system and let people plan, and save, for their own retirements.

Liberty275 4 years ago

Wow, talk about bad timing.

"The GOP is too embroiled in "social" legislation; legislating and restricting abortion, cutting social programs and cutting taxes for the top 1% in the nation. The jobless, who voted for these people on the promise of "jobs", are seeing no benefit from this"

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/01/markets/markets_newyork/ "The closely watched report showed the U.S. economy created 216,000 jobs in March -- easily topping forecasts -- and the unemployment rate dipped to 8.8%."

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Pretty much entirely in the private sector, too. Guess we didn't need legislation to force companies to hire people.

Liberty275 4 years ago

When the results are fully analyzed, I wouldn't be surprised to find out having opposing parties controlling the house and senate, keeping legislation in gridlock, is the main reason businesses made decisions to hire. While democrats ruled the exec and legislative branches, they could run rough shod over business at will. With the house falling to the right, that threat to America has been stopped, giving entrepreneurs some assurance the rug won't be pulled from beneath their feet on behalf of the special interest du jour on the right or the left.

notajayhawk 4 years ago

Or, to put it more concisely, the less the government does, the better off the economy and job situation are.

Wonder where cait went? Wasn't this her blog?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.