The Permanently Unemployed
5/12/13 10:52![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFrom the New York Times:
Long-term joblessness — the kind that Ms. Barrington-Ward and about four million others are experiencing — is now one of the defining realities of the American work force.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 7.3 percent, down from 10 percent four years ago. Private businesses have added about 7.6 million positions over the same period. But while recent numbers show that there are about as many people unemployed for short periods as in 2007 — before the crisis hit — they also show that long-term joblessness is up 213 percent.
In part, that’s because people don’t return to work in an orderly, first-fired, first-hired fashion. In any given month, a newly jobless worker has about a 20 to 30 percent chance of finding a new job. By the time he or she has been out of work for six months, though, the chance drops to one in 10, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
I've so far had three conversations, online and off, with people who say that, when hiring, they either reject out of hand any resume that shows the person is unemployed and/or over a certain age or instruct their recruiters to do this. They look ever so regretful about it. Shake their heads. Furrow their brows. Shrug as though they aren't responsible and some invisible force is making them do it.
So I have a question for any of you employers who do this or instruct your recruiters to do this. If you are going to systematically shut out Americans who've faced long-term unemployment, or have been careless enough to be born before 1964, 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? Is that correct? In between tossing into the shredder any resume or application that indicates the person has been out of work for more than a few months, or (horrors!) has a few gray hairs, no doubt you actively campaign for some permanent government system of financial support for the thousands and thousands of human beings you are consigning to permanent unemployment.
Right?
If not, what alternative are you proposing for dealing with this large pool of human resources you are so willing to toss into the dustbin?
*
Long-term joblessness — the kind that Ms. Barrington-Ward and about four million others are experiencing — is now one of the defining realities of the American work force.
The unemployment rate has fallen to 7.3 percent, down from 10 percent four years ago. Private businesses have added about 7.6 million positions over the same period. But while recent numbers show that there are about as many people unemployed for short periods as in 2007 — before the crisis hit — they also show that long-term joblessness is up 213 percent.
In part, that’s because people don’t return to work in an orderly, first-fired, first-hired fashion. In any given month, a newly jobless worker has about a 20 to 30 percent chance of finding a new job. By the time he or she has been out of work for six months, though, the chance drops to one in 10, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
I've so far had three conversations, online and off, with people who say that, when hiring, they either reject out of hand any resume that shows the person is unemployed and/or over a certain age or instruct their recruiters to do this. They look ever so regretful about it. Shake their heads. Furrow their brows. Shrug as though they aren't responsible and some invisible force is making them do it.
So I have a question for any of you employers who do this or instruct your recruiters to do this. If you are going to systematically shut out Americans who've faced long-term unemployment, or have been careless enough to be born before 1964, 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? Is that correct? In between tossing into the shredder any resume or application that indicates the person has been out of work for more than a few months, or (horrors!) has a few gray hairs, no doubt you actively campaign for some permanent government system of financial support for the thousands and thousands of human beings you are consigning to permanent unemployment.
Right?
If not, what alternative are you proposing for dealing with this large pool of human resources you are so willing to toss into the dustbin?
*
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/13 22:36 (UTC)That's nice. Now let's get back to the real world. in other words, you disagree because it is not part of your 'real world' solutions? That is how difficult it is to save all the generations who don't have employment. Can you even grasp an economy where everyone's needs are met and humanity is given leisure to create, instead of consume? Running around with bandages to keep people from starving is not a long term, nor a valid short term solution. Your only REAL long term solutions are government mandated to US businesses.
1. Hiring by quota and not by merit.
2. Require business to everything necessary to hire and keep for life all citizens who desire an income, whether trainable, qualified or not, or
3. pay a poor tax, as long as there is a person out there who requires food clothing shelter and transportation.
However, business will just move to another country. Soon, there will be few actual 'job creators' left to hire domestically. The rest is just serviced based low income positions.
But I'm sure we can come up with a government mandate to force businesses to stay in the US. It's called a 'rabbit hole'
You go in first.
(no subject)
Date: 7/12/13 22:58 (UTC)Nobody.
Is.
Rejecting.
Triage.
Again, I suggest you read the above several times. It seems to be a concept you folks have a hard time processing.
Have you done it? Is it processed? Okay. Here's the next part. It's a little more complicated, but I'm sure if you put in an all-nighter, you can probably get your head around it. Here goes:
What those of us in favor of healthcare reform ARE rejecting is triage BASED SOLELY ON WHETHER THE PATIENT CAN PAY.
Please let me know if there's something about this statement you have trouble understanding.
rd: you disagree because it is not part of your 'real world' solutions?
I disagree because in our current reality, every person does not have the ability to go 'off grid' with their own unlimited cheap power source. If you want to work for that, fine. That's not how things stand today.
rd: Your only REAL long term solutions are government mandated to US businesses. 1. Hiring by quota and not by merit.
Do point out where I've advocated this.
rd: Require business to everything necessary to hire and keep for life all citizens who desire an income, whether trainable, qualified or not....
Or this.
rd: pay a poor tax, as long as there is a person out there who requires food clothing shelter and transportation.
Yes, I do advocate that part of our taxes go towards public assistance to the poor. There is nothing remotely radical or outrageous about it.
What IS radical and outrageous is the notion that allowing the poor to end up homeless and starving is preferable to requiring wealthy Americans to pay higher taxes.
rd: However, business will just move to another country.
No businesses left in Canada? Or in Western Europe? Great Britian? Australia?
This is what I mean by you folks living in lala land. You invoke apocalyptic consequences for us adopting policies that most western industrialized nations have already embraced with success.