Unemployment

So my government professor said something that I thought was really deep in class today:
"In a general scope, yes the unemployment rate is at %7.3. But if you look closely, if you look at the people, you'll realize that for someone who is in that %7.3, the unemployment rate is actually %100".

This had me thinking, so I thought I'd see what you fine folks had to say. :)

To the government, unemployment is a national problem that needs fixing, and seeing as how there are other problems that are considered worse and warrant more attention, not much is being done about unemployment. Not nothing, just not enough. My question to you is this:

How much do you think unemployment impacts the nation as a whole?

And now, do you think it's important for us to not only think about our national averages, but to also think about each individual case, and the trials and crap they go through?

Do you think that kind of thought would provoke more action?

Do you think that an employed individual, whether on the civil level or in the government, could truly understand how it is to be unemployed? How is not being able to feel for the unemployed affecting what the government does about it?

I was starting to wonder when this is going to be brought up.

What I believe in the unemployment problem is that it's hurting the country, but it's hurting the individuals that are unemployed even more. This is especially the case with those that are just starting to come into the work force. It's really hard enough to find a position in employment as it is. But throw in the fact that employers have really heightened standards when it comes to the capabilities of the applicants, most of the time their efforts prove to be fruitless.

With all that is said, I do believe that it's very important to think about each individual case, & not just the national averages, because some of them just couldn't get employed no matter how hard they try.

I'm a bit of a statist and collectivist, so what I say might be a bit insensitive.

Unemployment's impact on the government is to a certain extent about security. The more people you have out of work, the more people you have knocking on and possibly break down your doorstep.

Unemployment's impact on businesses is to a certain extent good. They are able to compete for the best employees whereas that pool would be smaller with a full employment regime. However, if you're a domestic oriented business, high unemployment can be bad because it's less money and less demand and less business.

Unemployment's on us, haha, is bad. It's what we call a bad job market.

"In a general scope, yes the unemployment rate is at %7.3. But if you look closely, if you look at the people, you'll realize that for someone who is in that %7.3, the unemployment rate is actually %100".

Click to expand...

This I might disagree with, or at least qualify. That 7.3% can be 100% unemployable people or 100% people in between jobs or somewhere in between. It may be the result of economic restructuring, where jobs are changing and people are leaving less competitive sectors to work in more competitive ones. The inefficiency of creating jobs according to the demand of different sectors can account for unemployment. Now on the other end of the scale, a significant part of that 7.3% could consist of 'hard to employ' individuals, and that's a problem of training and education. What I think is important though, is whether these unemployed people have been the same people for the last decade, or if they are actually different people that happen to be unemployed at different times.

I'm not an economist, though, and anybody with an economics background should blast this post into pieces.

I've had my share of experience on this subject. I was right out of college with my shiny useless degree and I did feel like unemployment was a very big deal.

Not really going to say much about the politics and policy side of things, but from a personal standpoint it feels really, really crappy to be unemployed. People look at you like you're a lazy slob if you don't spend every minute working toward getting a job. (Fun fact: looking for a job is at least or more work than actually having a job.) It's disheartening. Having a high unemployment rate means you feel like there is even less chance that you'll get a job because everyone is worried about being unemployed. People don't retire from where they work so there are no new openings, and when there are there are people with a lot more experience than you who are applying.

A number of my friends have had trouble with this, too. Not necessarily with not having jobs, but being in jobs that were only part-time or that they just hated. They might not be in the 7.3%, but they also feel the impact of unemployment.

The problem, and I will keep saying this to the day I die, is how the nation (and actually now the world) works. Our economic system is based on the idea that everyone SHOULD get a job. Companies in the U.S. outsource jobs and get more income from it, we as Americans buy materials made outside of the U.S., and everything we do - in truth - is based around WHETHER OR NOT someone has money. Want to go to college? MONEY! (Not that college is actually good for anything or that IT GOES AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE IS FREE. *cough*) Want to have a place to live, internet, food, etc? GET A JOB!

Rather than forcing each individual to work, have those that want MORE money work but set a price for all products so reasonable that a "standard check" given in response to contributions made by elite from outsourcing and similar programs will cover basic expenses. It takes a bit from communism. And yes, I will admit, communism never worked before. But that's because communist countries forced people to work in return for their check and forced each person to do a certain type of work. Now that we have a nation where work isn't always REQUIRED by NATURE (aka we have either machines or other countries doing alot of stuff now), we can send out checks without FORCING people to work.

As long as we eliminate the idea that everyone absolutely HAS to have a job to survive and manipulate the way our nation works now to challenge that idea, we'll be fine, I think.

Communism worked because it provided jobs to people. They didn't have to force anybody to work. People want jobs, and they got them. What we're dealing in the US now is the lack of jobs. The reason people don't have jobs now isn't because they don't want to work, it's because they're not here.

BlahISuck said:

This I might disagree with, or at least qualify. That 7.3% can be 100% unemployable people or 100% people in between jobs or somewhere in between.

Click to expand...

Well, what the quote actually means is that if a person is in that %7.3, they're completely unemployed and thus can't/don't care about national statistics. To the rest of the nation, we know that the unemployment rate is %7.3, but to the unemployed, it's %100. Get my drift.

Furthermore, unemployed people have it on a personal level that directly correlates with their way of life, and not as a national average that is a problem the country needs to fix. :p

BlahISuck said:

Communism worked because it provided jobs to people. They didn't have to force anybody to work. People want jobs, and they got them. What we're dealing in the US now is the lack of jobs. The reason people don't have jobs now isn't because they don't want to work, it's because they're not here.

Click to expand...

Sorry, sorry... I should have been clear.

Communism operated under that principle, yes, but if people didn't work in those countries, nothing would have gotten done. I agree that the people WANTED the jobs; heck, I want to work too, but many times over those people could not choose what jobs they received. And when people didn't want to have a basic job that was necessary for that society, and people weren't forced to do it, that service was eliminated.

The good thing nowadays is that many of those services can run WITHOUT people. People can still get tons of jobs that fit their interest while at the same time they don't have to do jobs that are AGAINST their interest. The problem is that people need jobs PERIOD in this society and many times have to seek jobs against their interest in order to get a job at all, while other people that have someone else's dream job want a dif. job but got THAT job because it was simply available.

Communism would fail if services required people to work. Many no longer do. Communism, even if only as a small "standard check", would work in our society and allow people the ability to not worry about survival. At the same time, they could then seek out their dream jobs and get paid more for those so that they could raise their standard of living, if they wanted to, or even choose to NOT receive a paycheck since they wouldn't need one.

See where I'm going with this? Not everyone wants a job and those that do can't get their dream job because they NEED some job, any job, they can take, even if it means taking it away from those that WANT that specific job. There is a difference between "want" and "need". The problem is that this society says they "need".

I remember a professor of mine once commented on the "obsession" that the US has with unemployment. While Canadian unemployment never reached the heights of 9.8%, it still trended a fraction of a percentage point below that of the US pretty much through the whole recession - yet it just isn't so prominent in our national discourse. Maybe the American emphasis on employment has something to do with partisan politics or the political culture?

My area once had the HIGHEST unemployment rate in the NATION, but that has improved sliiiightly this year but we're now the highest in the state. But that's still the worst. :(

I'm like Scarfy there, sadly. A college graduate with a shiny degree, in hopes of getting a job right after, which sadly never happened. Many jobs require experience, and entry-level jobs are extremely scarce. I mean, I don't have 10+ years experience and a bachelor's degree to work in an entry-level position? That's what most employers here are expecting now, and today, I still see those jobs. Because there's NO WAY they're gonna find someone with that kind of experience.

And here's a funny story I would looooove to talk about: the valley here isn't doing much to stablize the unemployment rate, and people do agree with me on this. Many employers are doing illegal moves to manipulate the hiring system. They're hiring people without even interviewing them or even filling out an application, and the people who actually got an interview and/or filled out an application are always left unanswered, even if you call them for a follow up, they'll always push you away. Gracefully, there are several jobs there who kind enough to let people apply to jobs the way it should be, but overall, what they're doing is simply unfair. Then there was this job fair I attended a few weeks ago, which was in regards to the new mall opening in November. It was the most disorganized piece of **** I've ever attended. Employers are not that enthusiastic, you just give the filled application and/or your resume to the employer, and before you even present yourself they're like "oh ok i'll give you a call". And worst of all, some employers even rejected my application because I was apparently required to provide a resume to back it up.

I'm pretty sure I've applied to almost every single business here in the valley, and have attended several job fairs. I did what I thought it was best. I dressed professionally, my resume was up to date, my attitude to "work" was there. But I was always taken advantage of. My last resort would either move back to San Diego, where there are more jobs of my kind, or move to Mexico where there are jobs that are more likely to hire me because I speak English. I haven't done this because my mother was worried about my safety, but I kept telling her I'd be fine.

This, what I had just explained, is not helping the unemployment rate at all. We're still seeing more people getting welfare, food stamps, long lines at the unemployment center, more people trying to get jobs where $9.00 an hour will hopefully get them moving on with their lives at least. I've been feeling the pain of unemployment for a couple of years now, and to be honest, it hurts, even as a college student where I have to rely on financial aid.

I'd go more on a political standpoint, but I spent a whole 20 minutes writing this and I think I should stop. lol But at least I can tell you guys my point of view and how things go on in my area...which is something to bring up at least.

PEDRO12 said:

Well, what the quote actually means is that if a person is in that %7.3, they're completely unemployed and thus can't/don't care about national statistics. To the rest of the nation, we know that the unemployment rate is %7.3, but to the unemployed, it's %100. Get my drift.

Click to expand...

I'm still confused by this. Is it saying that 100% of 7.3 is the entirety of the 7.3? Because yeah, we know. 100% of something is usually always considered all of it.

Or is he saying that 100% of the unemployed are extreme pessimists and see that there are actually no jobs out there for anyone. In which case it would be more that the employment rate is actually 0% which does not equate to the unemployment rate being 100%, you know because there is at least some people who have jobs; 92.7% of people actually and that means that 92.7% of people are not unemployed rendering the perspective of people without jobs at 92.7% inaccurate and shouldn't be considered as any kind of useful statistic.

OR! Are they so self involved that they are only taking into consideration themselves, taking one piece of data and calling the resulting graph complete?

Either way, I'm confused and I don't want to think anymore.

You're overthinking it. I think it just means that while 7.3% doesn't sound like a high number (in other words, most people still have work, which is good for the economy, right, and only a few don't) the people within that 7.3%, the people without work, don't care if 92.7% have jobs since they themselves don't have jobs.

Yeah, it might be self-centered as you say, but, well, should people think of the overall strength of the economy before they think of their own well-being?

7.3% sounds relatively low, but, you know, if the normal work schedule is 40 hrs a week, it's not like everybody out there is working 37 hours and still doing okay. Heck, when unemployment levels are "good" like at 4% that's still a lot of people who have no work, have to rely on government help, aren't contributing much to the overall economy. In the kind of world we live in unemployment should be close to 0%, or whatever the number is when you factor in people who simply cannot work and factor out people who are retired.

I'm not sure as to why the United States has such a small welfare state, yet it is so paranoid about unemployment.

PEDRO12 said:

So my government professor said something that I thought was really deep in class today:
"In a general scope, yes the unemployment rate is at %7.3. But if you look closely, if you look at the people, you'll realize that for someone who is in that %7.3, the unemployment rate is actually %100".

This had me thinking, so I thought I'd see what you fine folks had to say. :)

To the government, unemployment is a national problem that needs fixing, and seeing as how there are other problems that are considered worse and warrant more attention, not much is being done about unemployment. Not nothing, just not enough. My question to you is this:

How much do you think unemployment impacts the nation as a whole?

And now, do you think it's important for us to not only think about our national averages, but to also think about each individual case, and the trials and crap they go through?

Do you think that kind of thought would provoke more action?

Do you think that an employed individual, whether on the civil level or in the government, could truly understand how it is to be unemployed? How is not being able to feel for the unemployed affecting what the government does about it?

Click to expand...

Your professor is correct, for the wrong reason. The sentence does not really say anything about unemployment, but speaks volumes to our loss of perspective. Funny how such topics always wind up having other topic brought into them because of a misuse of some phrase or word. The phrase is more appropriate in an anthropology class.

However, to the actual topic brought up in your questioning, it is a bit pertinent. The unemployment is an issue that has never gone away, it's always been high, more often higher than today, even in the US. It's an ugly fact of capitalism and commerce, without those we'd all be living in squalor though.

But a 7.3% is not a big number for unemployment, however the numbers are rarely accurate for this no matter what era you are talking about. Even today, it's difficult to track most people, impossible to track all people, in the US. Lots of open areas for people to vanish, and thousands of people disappear, most times because they want to, every year. What we can do is improve the economy through various controversial ideas, thus bringing back more production businesses. Right now our exports are negligible, and only a few companies are holding the country up, ironically they are also the companies that get the most unwarranted hatred from uneducated consumers.

Produce more and more people will have jobs.

I went through unemployment myself, so I understand how tough it can be.

I got into a discussion the other day with someone who was never unemployed. This was a woman in her 40's. She got a job right out of college and has been working since. She claimed that unemployment was a not a big deal, and that is was grown out of proportion for the benefits of the government--in their political "dilemma". She doesn't understand why it is so hard for people to find a job.