The Long-Term Unemployed Are Doomed

[Mass]

Sadly, Matt is correct, and, while the GOP bears a lot of blame, Democrats are not blameless.

Beyond the obvious lack of basic decency that leads to use unemployed people as political baseball, what frustrates me more and more is the inability of some part of the democrats to see long term employment as something that can be fixed and not simply people you send a check to. The check is the bare minimum. But it is very depressing to see some on the Democratic side think this is going to stay this way and not offering potential ways to help long term unemployed people.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/12/11/long_term_unemployment_doom.html

The Long-Term Unemployed Are Doomed
...

One consequence of this is that the unemployment rate will almost certainly go down, since some fairly substantial fraction of the long-term unemployed will just stop looking for a job and drop out of the labor force. If you're long-term unemployed, then almost by definition looking for work has not been very successful at getting you work. What it has gotten you is a UI check. Take away the check, there's no point in bothering, and so the denominator in the unemployment rate falls and thus the unemployment rate falls.


The bad news is that the long-term unemployed are screwed.

...
In effect, when companies are looking to hire people they scan through the resumés they get in the mail and their first step is to throw out all the resumés of people who've been unemployed for a long time. This is research based on pretty well-designed experiments that control for other variables beyond long-term unemployment. You should feel free to see that as a vile form of discrimination, or as a sensible business heuristic according to your temperament. The point is that the people who are about to lose UI benefits are not going to be able to find jobs. Not today, not after they lose benefits. In fact, they probably won't be able to find jobs ever.
...
Mailing Unemployment Insurance checks to people who aren't so much unemployed as unemployable is obviously not an ideal public policy. But simply doing nothing for them is cruel and insane. The time-tested way of re-employing a large mass of long-term unemployed is to fight a major world war with German and Japan. The circumstances of mobilizing for major armed conflict in 1940-42 proved that when you really want to put people to work it can be done. So it's always possible that the Senkaku Islands will come to the rescue. But large-scale armed conflict has a lot of offsetting negative consequences. What we need are targeted "mobilization" programs that don't rely on the outbreak of an enormous war. That would take, I think, two major forms.

...
But we're not going to do that. And we're not going to do relocation assistance. And we're not going to do direct hiring and public works. We're going to do nothing. We're going to tell people to go out and look for work, even though employers looking to hire can still afford to be very choosy and generally refuse to even consider the long-term unemployed as job applicants. The country failed these people first by letting the labor market stay so slack for so long that they became un-hirable, and now we're going to fail them again.

BTW, Boehner said this morning that the conditions to consider (not accept) extension are

a/ that it be paid fully (without any tax increase of course)
b/ That it includes measures to create more jobs (but not saying what he considers which is bad as these measures must be cost free as well and without tax increases as well).

So, basically, it is his way to say NO without saying NO>

[ProSense]

1. This:

One is direct government hiring of the long-term unemployed to do some kind of public service work. Making this happen would require you to go outside the standard civil service and federal contracting frameworks, which obviously neither civil servants nor federal contractors are going to like. But it has the job-creating punch of a major war without all the death and destruction. The other is relocation assistance. The metropolitan areas of Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks, Sioux Falls, Ames, Iowa City, Lincoln (Neb.), Midland, Burlington, Mankato (Minn.), Logan, Rochester (Minn.), Billings, Dubuque, Morgantown, Odessa, Rapid City, Omaha, Waterloo (Iowa), Columbia (Mo.), and St. Cloud all have unemployment rates below 4 percent. Those are the kind of places where the labor market is tight enough that discrimination against the long-term unemployed shouldn't be a major factor. There's work to be done in these towns, and evidently most people are reluctant to move to small isolated cities in extremely cold locations (also Midland, which isn't cold). Grant programs to connect the long-term unemployed with job opportunities on the Plains and offer financial assistance for relocation could do a lot of good.

[Mass]

2. Thanks, I thought I had excerpted that too. I must have deleted it by error.\nt

[2naSalit]

4. Unfortunately...

the locations you mention in the Dakotas and Billing, MT are all jobs related to the big oil/NG extraction boom there (along with coal mining) and not only are they specific jobs that most unemployed are doing, they are not good jobs, there is no place to live other than sh*tholes and man-camps and it's very dangerous just existing in these places along with no accessible healthcare to speak of. The employers see workers like they are cattle and replaceable on a whim as well. It's way more complex than your post implies.

But the point that something like the CCC types of employment moves by the gov't should be considered and implemented is worthy of note.

[badtoworse]

32. Do some research into the site conditions under which the Hoover Dam was built in the 30's

Very similar situation - people were desperate for work and the conditions were horrendous. That, by the way, was a public works project. I'm not defending treating people that; I'm just pointing out that it's not new.

[2naSalit]

38. The conditions

were pretty bad in that case but I knew some brothers who built some of the roads in Yellowstone NP back then, and some others out in the western states, who didn't have it all that bad... kind of a toss up. But I live near enough the Bakkan oil play to know that it is a place to avoid, it's worse than most boomtown human atrocities one can imagine. If I had to travel east, I'd go way south to I-80 just to avoid even driving anywhere near that and least of all due to the road traffic.

There were countless suggestions made on that "talk to us" web site Obama had going right after he was elected and before the inauguration. I read it every day and posted on it, even got invited to apply for a position. But that was then and not many of those ideas have seen the light of day thanks to our failure of a Congress and too much heaping swill (lobbyist pressure, two unfunded wars, the crash... among other pressures) mixed in with the new president's gruel to deal with. Seems like our voices were pretty much swept under the carpet and now we have crumbling infrastructure that is now another decade older and barely addressed (I'm counting those bridges that fell and a couple other punctuated incidents).

So our Congress isn't even good at putting on a show worth paying for and look what they have wrought for us, austerity in spades. They have to go and they should be fined for their insistence in being worthless seemingly to punish us for putting Obama in office.

[badtoworse]

34. What is the pay like in those locations?

I'd guess that it's decent. I made good money working construction in Iraq in the late 70's, but the climate was awful. From May through September high temps were in the 120's every day with a 20 - 30 mph wind. It sucked, but you got used to it.

If I were long-term unemployed, a construction or oilfield job in North Dakota would look attractive - cold weather sucks too but you can dress for it. Besides the money, it's a fresh start.

[2naSalit]

40. The money is really attractive while you're

looking at it from the outside BUT once you get there and you realize that you'll be paying the majority of your paycheck on some rathole of a bunk house just to get some sleep, that is if you can sleep while guarding the few possessions you need to keep handy like your tools etc. And if you're not putting it all into that, it will be spent getting to and from work, buying really bad food at exorbitant prices while watching your back 24/7... oh an then there's the actual job that is often 60+ hrs a week while getting no rest due to the conditions of surviving during the off time. Everybody is heavily armed and set on hair trigger. High crime and cost, low level of humanity... if you make it out of there with any cash, it will be a surprise. This is what I have seen during the beginning and from refugees that I know who tried to make a go of it there.

[badtoworse]

45. I had no idea - sounds worse than Iraq

Iraq was a shithole, but at least it was relatively safe. Hussein was a ruthless dictator who didn't put up with much in the way of crime.

[truedelphi]

42. We have two simultaneous problems - one is people who are

Long term unemployed.

Meanwhile, we have tons and tons of people who owe on Student Loans. And those loans need to be handled.

So does the government of the USA put its own citizens on the work roles and let them handle the Student loan phone calls, and all the resulting paperwork?

Of Course Not! We have people in third world countries handling these loans.

It is also said many people will end up defaulting on these loans. Well, maybe if people inside this nation's borders had work, then there would not be such a problem on default!

[Laelth]

3. Lots of people are doomed.

Sadly, it appears that the majority of now-middle-aged GenX is doomed--too old and overqualified for entry-level positions, unable to amass any wealth, unable to keep up with increased costs of living, defeated, and depressed.

I have a thread about that subject, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024135755



-Laelth

[loudsue]

5. And all the while, insurance co's, pharmacy co's, oil co's - overcharging Americans

along with all the other corporations, banks and universities that are SUCKING ALL the money out of the American economy, while we go down.

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an invisible hand trying to kill the people of this once great nation?

[Demo_Chris]

14. Not just you. :(

[jtuck004]

19. > an invisible hand < Not inisible. It's the one people use to change the channel on their remoteq

with while they are watching the Voice instead of taking responsibility for their freedom and economics, and allowing the tyrants to glean all they want from the products of their labor, the tyrants that profit by financing our future away.

People have been trying to teach us that since Mother Jones, but apparently we are too, what, stupid like cattle? lazy? susceptible to the soma of the moment? to listen, and act.

The tyrant has nothing more that what we give him or her by our inaction. That was true when Boetie wrote about it in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude in 1548, and it's true today.

99%. That's 308,880,000 people vs. 3,120,000. How anyone thinks the 1% could win without our doing everything in our power to help them is beyond me.

[loudsue]

25. That hits on something I've been thinking about, jtuck. What if we start battling under their SAME

battle cry? We need to start shouting them down, with the meme that, if capitalism is dog eat dog to get to the top, then WE'RE the dogs that are going to eat THEM....there are MORE of us!!!

Workers need a new rally cry in this country, and labor unions need to change how they go about seeing themselves, and BEING seen by the people.

[merrily]

26. I'm game, but it's hard to battle the establishment and their propaganda arms,

including mass media.

[jtuck004]

35. But our enemies, and they are enemies, don't yell. They just find a way to own assets and operate

them at a profit. Then keep the profit.

We can yell and scream and fight all day long, but as long as we keep supporting their pursuit of profit instead of using all that effort to get our own voice in ownership, I doubt there will be any substantial change. Actually I think they would prefer we do that, because they can use that instability to create even more profit.

The one thing that will cause them pain is to get our hands on assets and learn to be productive with them. Then use the profits for ourselves. It's the one thing that might threaten their hold, which is partly why they concentrate on trying to distract us with all the other stuff.

One can raise taxes, enact laws, etc., but all that has been tried, (there was a lot of that going on until a lot of people walked away from they had and voted for Reagan) and it only lasts until the next politician they buy. We could keep the wealthy fom being so efficient at buying politicians, but that just means they will have to pay more people to do their bidding, And if those people don't have a better offer, they will go to the dark side.

We have a couple hundred years of labor history and a much longer period than that to see how people were stronger in cooperative efforts. Some people are seeing it - the Steelworkers Union signed an agreement with Mondragon last year to create a cooperative effort. If we could figure out a way to organize millions of people, get them to realize that the only way they will ever be able to control their lives is to control the assets, i.e. own them, along with which comes learning how to use them and hang onto them and make them productive, then we could create the kind of country this one has the promise of being.

Otherwise I think the wealthy have nothing to fear at all.

[loudsue]

41. I have long been a fan of Mondragon, and the ideas behind it. I struggle w/ the knowledge that

some people just want to be wage slaves, with a good wage. Some (actually, a great many) people don't WANT the power, responsibility and freedom that comes with ownership; they just want to be treated fairly, so they can raise, feed, shelter, educate and love their families -- no complications, competitions (battles) & decisions that come with ownership.

Then, there are those of us who don't mind making the decisions, brainstorming strategies, and taking control of critical pieces of a pie to achieve a goal, and finding those who can supplement our abilities to move something LARGE forward, for the benefit of EVERYONE involved. It SEEMS to me that it's a niche at this point, rather than a MOVEMENT. It requires (IMO) a group or organization to be the authoritarian figure to push it forward. And THEN overcome the "establishment's" efforts to quash it, as they mercilessly target the leadership with the tools at their disposal.

I've long wished it would be the labor unions. I'm not sure the Union leadership gets it. Do you see where I'm going with this? I wonder what it would take to motivate the support from the massive and very CAPABLE work force in this country to lift such a concept off the ground, when they are being so deluged with propaganda and distractions (the kids' soccer games, new smart phones, the amazing race, American Idol, Dancing w/ the Stars, the Super bowl, Nascar, CSI, NCIS, Black Friday, etc, etc, etc. ) .

It's a new world, so we have to figure out a new approach. But at the same time, there are certain things about human nature that will always be the same. We just need to find the sweet spot where we can engage the new approach with ancient & current "human nature".

[jtuck004]

44. We went to see Robert Reich's "Inequality for All" today - he spoke

to a union, and there was this guy in the front row more or less telling Reich that is was necessary for him to get lower wages to
keep the companies making more, while Reich was trying to explain that this was the problem.

I think the Koch bros ought to hire that guy for $3 a week - I suspect he would just be giddy...

The problem with that whole "just want to be a wage slave" thing is that you can't. You will be meat for the grinder. Not everyone wants to be a soldier, but when the enemy gets to be a certain size you are going to fight or die. Or maybe fight and die. But you are going to be in the battle whether you want to ignore it or not.

And that's where everyone is today. It's kind like that whole responsibility of freedom thing. People want to sit and not get a little conversant, not vote, not take part in what's going on. So the people who own the assets, and thus the power, begin to, slowly at first and with increasing rapidity, take more, and more. They will take it all and leave this place barren like a desert. It makes no difference if it kills their income, they will get it somewhere else. They are like a virus that kills its host, and then dies because there is nothing left to sustain it. But the host is dead.

I read a lot of stuff about labor from 1865 to roughly the 1930's, and there was a big difference between the unions of old, or Industrial Unions, and the unions we have now, the Business Unions.

The "Industrial Unions", typified by the organizing of Mother Jones, Bill Haywood, the UE, etc, was all about worker voice and control. They mostly rejected Socialists, and flat out disagreed with the Communists. Rather, they were looking for a more uniquely American solution, which was never realized. (It's in university libraries, so if you get a chance read "Them and Us" by Matles - he was a UE organizer, explains it very well, and the biographies of Big Bill Haywood and Mother Jones add some necessary context and philosophy). In those and other books you read how their aim was to organize the people for power and control, to have a voice, being much more in control than the "Business Unions" we wound up with gave us. But business, conspiring with the government, and Gompers with his "Business Unions" destroyed that movement, co-opted what was left, and essentially ceded the power to business. That worked more or less ok until the late 70's, as union membership rose along with wages. But it cut the heart out of the movement, and they lost what would have been the educational arm, the consciousness-raising that organizing for worker power naturally brought with it. So people forgot that they needed to stay vigilant and keep organizing, and when times got tough Reagan and his ilk were able to gain more of a foothold. They began not only the process of destroying the unions, but also of lowering taxes on the wealthy, and it was also the beginning of the rise of borrowing that hid the slow erosion of people's purchasing power. Those things combined, and accelerated, and we are where we are today, with unions demonstrating in front of empty buildings. Sad.

I think if we were to have a chance we can't go back to the Business Union model. If a union is the answer we have to adopt the Industrial Union model, and not quit until it is realized, whatever that means today. Unions may not be the answer in this world of technology vs the old factory floors, however.

Regardless, and whatever form it takes, it is going to require the 99% percent to mostly work with each other and quit supporting the tyrants. Because, in the end, the only power, money, or wealth the tyrants have is what we give them. If we work together to simply stop supporting them, and support ourselves, we will win. And if we can't figure that out, they will have all the marbles. And we will become the Western remake of the United States of India, if we are lucky. North Korea if we are not.

[ErikJ]

6. Government is employer of last resort

Having the government step forward as the employer of last resort worked in the 1930's, and it would work again today.

[Ace Acme]

11. There's a difference. In the 30s there was lots of land, there were lots of resources,

and there were potential markets for US-manufactured products.

All that was needed was to mobilize capital and labor and develop these opportunities (which required developing confidence both on the capital side and the customer side, so it wasn't simple). But when labor went to work turning forests into tract homes, there was plenty for all.

With a greater population today, and the resources depleted, we can't expect to build a growing economy on the exploitation of resources. There's no longer plenty for all. There's enough for all, but the government doesn't want to get in the business of housing and feeding people, and rational solutions to the problems are not politically popular. Even acknowledging the problem is not politically popular.

[truedelphi]

43. See my reply, number 42, quite a ways above yours.

The solutions are obvious, and basically come back to the idea that outsourcing of jobs should not be allowed!

[Treant]

7. I hate to say it

But I'm long-term unemployed. Fortunately, I have a reasonably well-placed friend in a company that, regrettably, isn't hiring and wouldn't hire in my field anyway (although they bloody well need somebody)

He is, however, willing to swear up and down in a court of law that I'm doing extensive work for the place. So is his boss. In reality, I just volunteer there when something comes up.

At least I look employed.

[AZ Progressive]

8. Your country doesn't care about you

The reality we live in nowadays. What a nice way to promote patriotism.

[jtuck004]

9. "The check is the bare minimum." The check is harmful. People want to work and be useful.

Real Democrats as far back as Eleanor Roosevelt (and probably before) spoke of the need for work and how it supported one's self-respect, and that has always been the case. You can pay people who are unable to work, children. Everyone else deserves, and we as a nation deserve, work.

We should be using the $85 billion a month that we are using to support the criminals at the banks that donated so heavily to the Democratic Party to provide facilities that ordinary people can use to better themselves, to rebuild infrastructure.

The debts we really ought to be concerned about are the trade imbalance, and the investments we should making in ourselves for our future, the one we quit paying into 40 years ago or so. If we reversed those, the one Bonehead is so concerned about would take care of itself.

[Shandris]

12. There are not, and no longer will be, enough jobs for people...

...to continue to base their self-worth on work - not until work is redefined, at least.

We need to make "work" cover more things, imo. Infrastructure is a good start, but with modern materials each project only need be completed once, then left alone for a verrrrrrrry long time. There just isn't enough there to count anymore. People need to not only be able to, but free to choose what 'work' means to them and be paid for it, be it child-rearing, art, business, or what-have-you.

Post-scarcity approaches rapidly, and we'd darn well better be ready to deal with it or it will turn very nasty, I'm afraid.

[BelgianMadCow]

13. on redefining work

I say running a household and raising children, or taking care of elderly or sick relatives is a job. It's just one that capitalists don't value (unless carried out by the private sector, and we know how great that has been doing in giving us all a fair share), so unless we change the system, that is how it will remain.

[Shandris]

15. 100% agree, and I strongly feel that our path to the future is laid in convincing people...

...that all of those are very valid, pay-worthy occupations along with things like visual art, poetry, sculpture, and things of that nature. Any task that performs a service to society, whether asked for or not, is a valid occupation. Not just things that make capitalists money, as you so rightly put it.

[BelgianMadCow]

18. Maynard Keynes predicted that by now, we would all be having something like three-days work weeks

and lots of leisure time, based on an ever more efficient technological production system. That hasn't happened, because somehow we became convinced that "keeping up" with the neighbors and the ads on TV was the way to go. And so we live in a consumerist nightmare that is plundering the planet and the majority of its people. And of course, also because wages have remained stagnant whilst productivity rose. You 've probably seen the graph around on DU. Four decades of stolen fruits of labor, simple. At the same time, that assures that people remain obedient. Debt slaves, is the better term.

All the while knowing that money is just a construct, and that in theory "we" are the masters of it, why not simply give everybody as much as needed for a decent living and let them decide how to lead their lives? People argue that then nobody will work, but recent experiments with supplying a "basic income", as that's called, in India, show the opposite. People use it to further themselves and the common good.

And as you rightly point out, anything that isn't of value in the consumer economy, like arts or philosophy or history, or caring or community, runs the risk of being eliminated from education.

Thankfully, this kind of "life" is so far from the human soul if you will that I don't think it's sustainable.

[jtuck004]

17. Yep. And that's kinda what ol' Eleanor was getting at...

They paid people for a large variety of things, things that were meaningful to them in some cases, things that have endured for a long, long time. And not just bridges. (Eleanor was the real Democrat we ought to be looking to, not Franklin, btw. But that's another post).

I can't find the post, but in the economics group, a couple of years ago I think, someone said they were going to ask everyone who ran for office in the future what their plan was for no growth. They, of course, would be afraid to reply. I thought that was a great idea then, and I still do. We have been living on debt, with the profit of that going to the banksters for decades, after Carter told us we needed to grow up and was rejected in favor of a clown that would sell our seed corn, our future, out from under us and call it profitable. Yet he could not have done that had the Democrats not helped him do so.

Carter was correct then and now.

Things have already turned very nasty for a lot of people, but, as usual, they will take it out on each other. The very wealthy think it's great -

"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets." Whether it was John or Nathan Rockefeller that said this, people who think the workers are going to threaten the very wealthy are kidding themselves. The populists will invoke visions of guillotines, without reading the ending chapters of that little revolution in which the working people and their leaders who started the revolution became the final victims, and the wealthy took over from the tyrants.

The very wealthy will simply find opportunity in what is here and what is coming. The only way to beat them is to get together and quit supporting them and those who do their bidding.

Because all they have is what we have given them.

[Mass]

23. I totally agree. We need to create jobs, and to train people for these jobs if there is

really a mismatch. We need to pay these jobs decently, so that people can live on them.

But we never seem to be able to have this discussion.

[jtuck004]

24. Mexico is doing this right now. Employers are actually paying for people's education and training

so they can employ them, while we sit around and think that they are wanting to flood over our borders.

Big story in the NY TImes just a few weeks ago - it's what WE used to do, until we sold our souls to the financiers of doom, and elected their lackeys.

[merrily]

27. But, it's so much cheaper just to make workers desperate for any job.

[hfojvt]

30. speak for yourself

guarantee me my unemployment check of $193 a week again for the rest of my life and I would quit my fucking job so fast the sonic boom would break every window in town.

I need that work like I need a kick in the balls.

Of course, I just got done volunteering seven hours on my weekend.

[jtuck004]

31. But you wouldn't just sit there, as evidenced by your volunteer work?

Just because you would take a check and leave a job that sucks doesn't mean that you wouldn't be productive. You just wouldn't be supporting the inequality that we foster every day.

That's the point. Most people want, need to do something productive. We are biologically driven to do things. That many are not doing something which is even close to meaningful or spirit-renewing, whatever that means to them, is a symptom of the illness or system we have allowed to be built around us, the one where most of us don't have a voice.

If someone doesn't want to take a soul-sapping job in the Walmart Industrial Complex, or work for wages that barely leave enough for bus fare to get food stamps, or pick cotton all day for nothing doesn't necessarily mean they are lazy. It may mean that they still have some human spirit left.

Not to say that there wouldn't be the occasional person who just gets the check and stares at the ceiling or does little of substance, or even does things that are harmful to others, (for example, certain politicians), but most people aren't that.

[hfojvt]

37. but there's nothing stopping an unemployed person

who gets that check from doing volunteer work.

My wages leave me plenty of extra money. But I am not all that interested in money. I remember my first job out of college. I was a GS-7 mathematician (supposedly, although I was actually writing and running accounting programs), making $8.57 an hour. Well, I was saving about $800 a month out of THAT paycheck. To give me incentive to keep that job, they promised to promote me every year up to GS-12, which would be three promotions in three years - GS-9, GS-11, and GS-12.

Which meant a LOT more money. GS-9s made $10.45 an hour. But a higher hourly wage just gives me more extra money. The main thing I really wanted to buy with my money - was free time. At GS-12 pay I could easily meet my needs with a twenty hour workweek. That may not have been true if I had had a family, but really it felt like a 40 hour week plus an hour lunch and an hour commute was pretty much sucking my whole life away. I still hate 40 hour weeks, but at least now I no longer have the hour lunch and have half the commute (or less).

As for supporting the inequality, I don't see how I am doing that, really, working for the government as I do. I am probably on the good side of inequality, making much more money than a McDonalds worker, a Wal-mart worker or the people at the local factories.

[Skittles]

39. 40 hour weeks

I haven't seen that - well, EVER

[AZ Progressive]

10. When people decide that their interests must come ahead of the interests of the rich elite

things will change in this country.

I say, promote self interest, but self interests of the 99%!!! That's where selfishness should count. After all, the 1% are astronomically selfish to the point that they don't care to destroy millions of American people's lives if it means more profit for them. The rich have lost the right to be treated fairly by f***ing over the 99% for decades.

[FarCenter]

16. The government does not base unemployment numbers on the people collecting unemployment

The unemployment rate is calculated based on the household survey.

See http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed in How the Government Measures Unemployment

For example, a person who has been out of the labor force to care for children or an elderly parent and who begins looking for a job will be counted as "unemployed".

The only effect is that some people who are looking for work only to continue to collect unemployment, but who do not want to work, will stop looking for work.

[AZ Progressive]

20. What is the idea that people don't want to work?

If you don't work, in most cases eventually you'll have no money, and unless your able to live with parents, relatives, or a significant other that's in a much better shape than you, your pretty much f***ed. Even if you are able to, you don't have much freedom when someone else is controlling the money.

[FarCenter]

22. The U.S. labor force is still shrinking. Here’s why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/08/the-u-s-labor-force-is-still-shrinking-rapidly-heres-why/

You can live off of investments and savings; social security retirement or disability; earnings of your SO, children, or parents; borrow money to go to school; work in the underground economy; engage in a criminal enterprise; etc.

The labor force participation rate was around 59%, went up to 67%, and is now down to 63%.

[AZ Progressive]

21. The only other alternative to working for someone else is to work for yourself

Start up a small business of course.

However, that most often requires capital, at least some start up money. Good luck finding money if you don't have a job to assure creditors that you'll pay it back. You'll need to have generous parents or a friend with money.

[merrily]

28. Yes, choosing wealthy parents is always a path to employment.

Then, there are those who chose parents who need to be supported financially and maybe cared for physically as well in their "golden years."

[merrily]

29. It's not inability to see unemployment as something that can be fixed.

the inability of some part of the democrats to see long term {un}employment as something that can be fixed and not simply people you send a check to.

Assuming that Democratic officeholders who do not behave as we wish are stupid, dense, uninformed, or "caving" is a habit we need to break. If anything, they know more than we do about issues like unemployment.

Languaging things that way is another habit we need to break.

[BlueJazz]

33. I like the comedian that was talking about giving trained Lions to the unemployed.

"What's the Lion for ??"
"He's extremely sensitive to my moods. He doesn't like it when I get depressed"

[davidpdx]

36. I support the extension of UE benefits

With a slow recovery not everyone will end up getting back to work right away. The economy should pick up considerably next year though.

[Ace Acme]

46. Why do you think the economy will pick up?

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:32 PM - Edit history (1)

The needs for life (food and clothing) have largely been automated or offshored. Construction remains largely unautomated, but I suspect that's because the banksters profit from the inefficiency. A couple of years ago CNN was reporting that there were 18 million vacant housing units. At the time the homeless population was about 4 million, so I guess we're looking at a housing surplus.

The larger economy depends on a lot of consumer demand for things they don't need. What market forces do you think will facilitate its recovery?

[davidpdx]

47. Just call it a hunch

It won't be huge, but it will be better.