There Are Not Enough Jobs.

[kpete]

Get The Economy To Capacity. Then Cut Long-Term Unemployment Benefits.
Posted by Matt Bruenig on December 30, 2013

If it was the case that unemployed people are just refusing to take jobs, then you would see a great deal more reported job openings. The number of unemployed people would be high and the number of job openings would be high as well. In that case, you might force the two to come together by trying to starve out the unemployed, as the conservatives support. But when jobs are scarce because of a weak economy, starving out the unemployed won’t put them in jobs that simply do not exist.

http://www.demos.org/blog/12/30/13/get-economy-capacity-then-cut-long-term-unemployment-benefits

[Shandris]

1. And worse, the longer they are unemployed the less likely it is they will ever...

...find work because businesses are training HR to reject people who have gaps in their employment record. Considering the number of 'jobs' (and I use that term very loosely) currently occupied by people who already have another job (because underemployed), I don't think there will -ever- be enough jobs again. Technology is taking them faster than it can create them...and we haven't even truly hit self-replicating machines and materials yet, although we're nearing that point.

Once we do...

So yah. UE -must- stay.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. and the older they are the less likely finding a job gets.

[jeff47]

4. Technology has always replaced more jobs than it created

The combine harvester replaced a lot more farm labor jobs than mechanic jobs it created. However, at the time the former-farm labor could find work in the cities as factory jobs exploded.

Factory jobs aren't exploding anymore. Nor is some other field.

So in the relatively near future, we're going to have to figure out what to do about the workers who just aren't needed anymore. Our current path of "do nothing" isn't going to be sustainable. People will get desperate enough to break out the guillotines.

"Easiest" fix will probably be to make a 32 hour week "normal", with per hour pay going up to make up for the lost time ($10/hour 40-hour-week becomes $12.50/hr 32-hour-week). That would add more jobs through covering that "lost day", as well as more jobs dealing with leisure activities.

[Shandris]

8. And even that will only be a stopgap measure...

...because the speed of technological innovation will outstrip even the maintenance of jobs in fields when the materials for those jobs, and the shipping of product to/for those jobs can be handled cheaper and more effectively by robots. Google's acquisition of Boston Dynamics is a horrific harbinger in that scenario; their CEO, like him or not, doesn't make it a habit of investing in too much that fails - he just aims for a longer timeline, much like Amazon's.

With robot-driven trucks in use in some mines already, it is -literally- only a matter of time.

Gah! Sorry, I went soapbox mode. But yah, you make a very valid point.

[2naSalit]

3. I guess in their fabtasy oriented reckoning

they think we unemployed should just disappear into thin air, since there are no actual jobs to be had.

This reminds me of my time driving semis in California... in all of southern CA there were about eight truck stops for drivers to access services from fuel, meals, showers, a place to park while waiting for dispatch, get repairs to having a place to shut it down when you run out of hours available for legal operation. And it took a long time to get to one if you had to go anywhere in the LA basin or San Diego (San Diego didn't have any). It was as though we were to suddenly materialize at delivery and pick up locations and magically disappear thereafter, we could only use the two right lanes on the highways regardless of the number of lanes and just generally looked upon with disdain. And most folks didn't get that everything they have has traveled on a truck at some point, and everything they made or grew also went to market on a truck. Go figure.

So, much like that basket of inappropriate conditions, this unemployment thing is very much in need of change. And then there are those of us who no longer qualify for UI benefits and those who have given up on having a job anyway... not counted because the picture would be simply untenable.

Fantasies-R-Us = the US Congress

[Sweet Freedom]

5. I was recently laid off

and what I am finding in my job search is that the majority of companies have now combined multiple jobs under one title.

So I am no longer a graphic designer, I have to be a graphic designer who is also the public affairs specialist who manages social media, builds and programs websites, serves as company photographer and videographer and editor, has exceptional instructional development skills, 10+ yrs in sales, marketing, database and brand management, an established presence with local media, excellent copywriting skills and is proficient in Microsoft office, indesign, illustrator, photoshop, flash, dreamweaver, after effects, premiere, HTML5, CSS, Wordpress, must be able to travel to trade show events and is bilingual.

And while I know some about most of these areas, it's a ridiculous expectation for $40k and a nearly impossible set of responsibilities to effectively manage.

OMG!! Maybe there are plenty of jobs, but cheap companies have combined all the remotely related positions!!

[penultimate]

15. Oh that's been going on for awhile now...

I've noticed it's actually not as bad as it was a few years ago though, but there are some companies that still try to pull stunts like that. Sometimes they annoy me enough that I write long winded emails detailing how ridiculous they're being. It's even worse when they require a vast skill-set and then only want to pay entry-level wages (or less)

It's funny how many on the right say "get some skills and a real job if you want more money", but in the end lot of companies will still try to screw over their employees.

[question everything]

6. What I don't understand is the worry about baby boomers retiring

There are stories that companies are worried about the gap that will happen when seasoned baby boomers retire.

So why not start hiring younger people and start training them?

[Loge23]

7. Because businesses really don't like to hire anyone.

The primary (and only) goal of business in the 21st century is to make money - lots of money.
That means maximizing the output with minimal input.
Since the depression began (2007), companies shed their workforce significantly - all kinds of companies, big and small.
For some, it was basic survival; for others - an opportunity.
Funny thing happened: many survived! They also realized that they could get by rather well with less employees - especially since the ones that remained were traumatized into working harder for less pay (in the absence of increases) and slimmer benefits.

Add in the technological factors and you have the new American workforce - only rich guys!

[OnlinePoker]

9. In one of the sections I deal with, there are 995 workers

Of those, 300 have reached time requirements to retire today if they wanted (these are government union jobs), but they don't. Management has an apprenticeship program, but there's only so many spaces allocated and because the hangers on don't retire, quite often the apprentices complete their programs and there are no jobs to hire them into. So that newfound experience goes out the door and we have to start with a new batch. I will hate to see the day when all 300 decide they've had enough and leave at the same time. Operations could grind to a halt.

[randr]

10. There are not enough projects

manufacturers, or small town businesses.
Republicans refuse to start rebuilding our infrastructure, manufacturers have left the country for tax breaks and higher profits, and mom and pop shops have been shut down by the crap the manufacturers ship in from over seas.
We need to tax the excessive profits and put America back to work.

[theHandpuppet]

12. Well said

Think how many people we could employ just to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure!

[redwitch]

11. Wait! I have the perfect solution! Let's raise the retirement age!

That would help, right?

[world wide wally]

13. All of the points made here are poignent and accurate. As if this isn't enough of a

challenge in and of itself, we have one political party sabotaging any remote steps toward a solution. I'd love to be able to say "keep your cin up", but I am much more inclined to say, "we're fucked".

[maced666]

14. Say hello to your REPUBLICAN congress.

They are designed, effective, trained and purposeful job killers. Paid for and supported by - absurdity.

[Sirveri]

16. It's pointless to cut long term UI benefits.

If the economy is at capacity, they won't be using the benefits anyways.