Talk politics.

You get all the internets for this post. All of them.

May I link this to my FB page and quote the last three paragraphs?

When faced with an ocean of applications and only a teaspoon of positions to fill, one way or another, there is always going to be someone unfairly excluded. That is just the nature of the problem. Arbitrarily choosing one qualified applicant over another is as unfair when you do it as when someone with different prejudices does it.

I never face this dilemma. Where I am we are chronically short of qualified applicants so I basically hire on sight now. That being said, there are plenty of jobs where long term unemployment raises questions, STEM jobs, for instance. There are others which are so physically demanding that an applicant over a certain age has to at least raise questions. I know I'd be apprehensive about hiring a 50 year old line cook. Quite apart from wondering why they are still a line cook, I'd question their ability to handle the hours, the pressure and the sheer time standing. Not that I'd be in much position to pass. Better to fire them later if they can't hack it.

"what alternative are you proposing for dealing with this large pool of human resources you are so willing to toss into the dustbin?"

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge. “And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation?”

More seriously, you raise a valid question. I note that the first to respond quickly jumped to defend, or at least explain, the lack of hiring of the chronically unemployed. What is missed in this mad rush to defend the corporatocracy is any consideration of whether allowing a massive segment of our population to remain unemployed has negative consequences for society as a whole. Do the effects ripple outwards? Do we just wash our hands of the jobless and pretend that this has no effect on us?

Is it not, perhaps, in our best interests to ensure that those who fall through the cracks because of what (we are told) is merely smart business practice have some sort of safety net?

The Maddow Blog had a short blurb about it (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/leaving-the-long-term-jobless-behind) this morning as well. I agree with their contention: the Democrats cannot merely check off the "economic populism" check-box by raising the minimum wage. Yes, that wage should be raised, but it does no good to those without jobs. That is where they should place their focus if they are truly interested in helping those most hurt by the ongoing economic issues in our country.

I've never understood why if you were unemployed for X amount of time (it seems six months is the magic number), you were ruled out of the game automatically.

"surely you support some form of public assistance that will prevent the resulting large pool of the permanently jobless from starving or living on the streets?"

Disability seems to have stepped in to provide what you are asking for. I don't know of anyone who has suggested this is a good solution however.

"Everyone over 50 has no chance" is a hasty generalization, of course. The situation vary per industry etc., age and/or unemployment term is just one of the factors, not necessarily the most important one.
The article is, in fact, about those who sits at the same "administrative position" desk for decades. Many of these jobs simply disappear due to the paperless workflow and automation. Once the job itself disappears, it's hard to find another position simply because there aren't many around, and decreasing.
Actually, that understanding broadens the subject dramatically. Anyone with niche proficiency has a risk to face long unemployment; the older you are, the more (and narrower) experience you nave, the higher the risk.
Internet search has effectively killed many "middleman" businesses, I've seen a couple of pretty miserable real estate agents who used to do great. They're in their 40s, and the only thing they know how to do is how to show you apartments.
When a fab shuts down in some area, market gets plenty of high-skilled, super-specialized professionals 50+, who can (presumably) only do well what they did for decades.
Their CVs would hardly even match any other position in the area, they're definitely overqualified to flip hamburgers either. One of the classes at ACC was full of old lads from former Motorola semiconductor fab near Austin, TX trying to learn something about Windows servers.
Younger people from the same fab were more flexible to either learn new things, or move to a new place, while the old folks were trapped by their specialization and experience (they were also heavily overestimating their value).
An important things is, these changes rarely happen suddenly. If some business has problems, or a plant is going to be closed, of massive layoffs are planned, insiders either know or feel, usually.
Another important thing is, the no-skill jobs like scrubbing toilets, or construction - a logical gateway of last resort - are effectively banned for many Americans, because outsource is cheaper than dealing with minimum wage, insurance, and other regulations.

There is not a silver bullet to guarantee help to all those who're out of business. These ideas are pretty much in the current economic mainstream, so there shall be plenty of articles.

Logically, to remove the obstacles between these people and their job or business shall help the situation overall. Ironically, exactly the measures to protect workers seem to backfire in this case. To have $5 per hour is better than nothing (ask any Latino at the nearest construction yard) yet the lady in the article mentioned has exactly nothing, and so on. Even the "safety net" seem to backfire, because most of the humans act the best with their ass on fire - exactly the moment safety net delays.
Well, those old lads from the fab in Austin, TX - they knew the fab is going to be closed. Why didn't they act? Because they could. There was a "safety net" - they got the money, the benefits, they've spent a couple of month just relaxing - exactly a couple of month out of work mentioned.

There is a difference between the unemployed and the unemployable, and there is no exact science to discerning the difference by looking at a page or two written up by someone who is biased towards themselves (which we all are - so I'm not singling out people applying for jobs).

If you're unemployed, you pitch yourself to a business the same way a single person pitches themselves to a potential mate - you downplay your flaws, if not deny their existence completely - all the while knowing the other party is working off the safe - but not necessarily true - assumption that there is something wrong with you.

Unemployment by age as of November 2013

Total, 16 years and over 7
16 to 19 years 20.8
16 to 17 years 23.7
18 to 19 years 19.2
20 years and over 6.5
20 to 24 years 11.6
25 years and over 5.9
25 to 54 years 6.2
25 to 34 years 7.4
35 to 44 years 5.7
45 to 54 years 5.5
55 years and over 4.9
http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm

Everyone over 35 year old is below average unemployment rate. The older you are the more chances you are employed.

So you were saying...