Skip to main content



* The unemployed need not apply.



The Help-Wanted Sign Comes With a Frustrating Asterisk*

 


That is the message being broadcast by many of the nation’s employers, making it even more difficult for 14 million jobless Americans to get back to work.

 

A recent review of job vacancy postings on popular sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder and Craigslist revealed hundreds that said employers would consider (or at least “strongly prefer only people currently employed or just recently laid off.

 

Unemployed workers have long suspected that the gaping holes on their rÉsumÉs left them less attractive to employers. But with the country in the worst jobs crisis since the Great Depression, many had hoped employers would be more forgiving.

 

“I feel like I am being shunned by our entire society,” said Kelly Wiedemer, 45, an information technology operations analyst who said a recruiter had told her that despite her skill set she would be a “hard sell” because she had been out of work for more than six months.

 

Given that the average duration of unemployment today is nine months — a record high — limiting a search to the “recently employed,” much less the currently employed, disqualifies millions.

 

“It is really a buyer’s market for employers right now,” said Harry J. Holzer, an economist at Georgetown University and the Urban Institute. One consequence is that the long-term unemployed will rack up even more weeks of unemployment, Mr. Holzer said, and will find it harder to make the transition back to work.

 

Many firms that are not intentionally screening out the unemployed may still disqualify such applicants for having bad credit histories after having fallen behind on the bills — which they of course need a job to pay.

 

Government incentives for companies to hire unemployed workers have met with limited success. One such tax incentive from last year was poorly publicized, so most employers did not know about it. Better publicity may not suffice, either. An experiment from the 1980s found that telling companies that the unemployed were eligible for generous wage subsidies actually made employers less likely to hire such workers.

 

It’s not clear what can be done to pull workers out of this unemployment trap.

 

The best solution, economists say, would be to encourage job growth more broadly, which may initially involve poaching people from other companies but could eventually draw even the least desirable workers back into jobs. During the boom years of the late ’90s, the labor market was so tight that ex-convicts had relatively little trouble finding work.

 

In the meantime, people like Ms. Wiedemer — who has been out of work for three years — are exhausting their benefits and piecing together what support they can from food stamps and family members. And they are stuck hoping that economic growth manages to outpace their own descent into permanent economic exile.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&wpisrc=nl_wonk


It used to be you needed a college degree to get a better job. 


Now you need to have a job just to get a job.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

They only want working people to pay taxes. Those who sit on their butts and count their money could continue doing that without government interference. Why nitwits continue to believe that the republicans are on their side, is unbelievable. The republicans are opposed to public education because they will fair better when the maximum number of voters are brainwashed onto re-electing them. Republicans thrive on keeping voters ignorant enough to vote for them.

"Bush's method was to lower taxes to create jobs. It hasn't worked for the past ten years, so the republicans want to do it again. This is the definition of insanity."

From January 2001 the unemployment rate rose from 4.2% to a peak at 6.3% in June 2003 and reached a low of of 4.4% in March 2007. After the economic slowdown, the rate rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008.  Obama would kill for such unemployment rates.  The definition of insanity is to continue with Obama's plans

 

"the repubs want to eliminate ALL taxes on the rich."

 

Silly, unserious statement from a silly, unserious person. 

 

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Obviously, that the economy will not grow enough to ensure sufficient job growth to alleviate stupid hiring practices, if Obama's methods continue.

An exactly what was Bush's method?

 

Another foolish socialist to compliment Jimbo. Answer to Prop, It has everything to do with Obama. Obama’s foolish policies and agenda are driving up unemployment and there is no end in sight. He promised to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are now participating in the Libyan Revolution. Every time you socialists get cornered you try to pull the Bush Card. Well my friends it’s getting old. I’m sure somebody might try to pull the race card because I think Obama sucks as our Nation’s leader. Our economy was on the ropes when he took office so what did Obama and his fellow socialists do?  With the democrats having complete control of the Congress and Legislative branch they decided we need to work on Cap and Trade(Spend). This is after Billions of dollars went to bankrupt corporations, that should have had to filed for bankruptcy like the rest of us. And so called shovel ready jobs. What a wasteful joke that was. Let’s not forget who oversaw this mess, Biden. Remember the Millions going to a non-existent district in AZ.

Then let’s fix the economy and produce jobs, right? No Obama says. We need a massive healthcare program so we can be like Canada or Britton. Are you kidding me. First off it was illegally rammed down Citizens throat. Second we are bankrupt, we can’t afford it. Third we will loose a lot of our rights and the Federal Gov’t don’t have the power to do this short of an amendment. Check the Fed. Gov’t’s  enumerated powers.

 

http://www.archives.gov/exhibi...rs/constitution.html

Now the Americans that don’t want our Grandchildren to have to pay for our countries debt forever, have a little leverage. How do you think we felt when Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t even hear of letting a Republican even voice their opinion. We can’t keep spending and become one big California. I personally hope we default. Maybe that way we will think twice before spending on every earmark we can think of.

Skippy

Don't blame the employers. They are faced with making cutbacks wherever possible. They have to worry about surviving in the downturn. They are not hiring for a reason...and it's not because they are "evil" or "spiteful". But employers are the only ones that can "actually do something" about unemployment...it's a lie and myth that "congress" or the "president" can "do something"...the only thing they can do is either place more burdens on employers or do what they should and remove those burdens.

 

Lower labor costs now and permanently, not a short term tax credit that benefits no one...And stop extending unemployment benefits.

 

The saying "if you subsidize something, you get more of it" applies to unemployment benefits (just as it applies to welfare)...increased unemployment benefits will simply give us more unemployment.

 

The expansion of unemployment benefits amount to telling a lie to people, that they can continue to hold out for higher wages when the most important thing workers can do is to lower their offering prices for labor on the market...As the article said "it's a buyers market" right now.

 

Another great step would be to eliminate the minimum wage. This would give workers the freedom to offer their services at any rate privately negotiated between the employee and the employer. The minimum wage merely puts a floor on wages and acts like any price control...in this case, it creates a surplus of labor services that go unpurchased. It actually outlaws some jobs that would be productive at say $5 an hour, but not at minimum wage.

 

But the simple fix to the unemployment problem (and nearly every politcal/economic problem) is to get the federal government out of the way...lower labor costs that the government imposes that burdens hiring new employees.

 

But of course critics say we'll all be dead in a ditch somewhere without our wise overlords!

 

Nonsense...we need a dramatic change in the way we think of the role of government in our lives. It is just simply not the role of the federal government to do these things. And it is certainly not the role of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution to do them. It is not the purpose of the federal government to provide unemployment insurance, provide job training for someone who is unemployed, be concerned with who is or isn't employed, or "do something" about unemployment. Neither is it the purpose of the federal government to make laws regarding minimum wages, child labor, family and medical leave, discrimination in hiring, collective bargaining, or workplace drug testing.

 

The best way to get more jobs would be: Lower Labor Costs Now.

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The mistake are the same, all that changed was the party affiliation of the president. 


That's right, Obama has continued Bush's compassionate conservativism. That means the expansion of the social welfare state continued under Bush but the brainiac repubs on this board squawked not a bit. Bush NEVER vetoed a spending bill until his last year in office. He is the one who started the Wall Street bailout, started all the international wars, doubled the national debt, expanded the police state, stole liberties, did violence to the Constitution, authorized war crimes, and each and every one of these acts continues to be defended by the repubs on this board, all the while condemning Obama for continuing and expanding these acts.

Another foolish socialist to compliment Jimbo

 

 Skippy,

 When you actually stand for, and put forward candidates who stand for, the principles of liberty you espouse, and condemn with the same force those who claim to be one of you but in policy deny it, I will once again be willing to call myself one of your number.

   The truth be told, I am probably more conservative than you are. But I won't stand for hypocrisy, whether in the opponents or my own party. So for now, I have no party. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "I did not leave the Republican party, It left me".

Originally Posted by Extra-260:

Another foolish socialist to compliment Jimbo

 

 Skippy,

 When you actually stand for, and put forward candidates who stand for, the principles of liberty you espouse, and condemn with the same force those who claim to be one of you but in policy deny it, I will once again be willing to call myself one of your number.

   The truth be told, I am probably more conservative than you are. But I won't stand for hypocrisy, whether in the opponents or my own party. So for now, I have no party. In the words of Ronald Reagan, "I did not leave the Republican party, It left me".

Skippy is not a Republican. He is a Socialist.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

The mistake are the same, all that changed was the party affiliation of the president. 


That's right, Obama has continued Bush's compassionate conservativism. That means the expansion of the social welfare state continued under Bush but the brainiac repubs on this board squawked not a bit. Bush NEVER vetoed a spending bill until his last year in office. He is the one who started the Wall Street bailout, started all the international wars, doubled the national debt, expanded the police state, stole liberties, did violence to the Constitution, authorized war crimes, and each and every one of these acts continues to be defended by the repubs on this board, all the while condemning Obama for continuing and expanding these acts.

 

Obama signed onto the Wall Street bailout then went even further. I recall 9/11 was the US being attacked, it Bush 8 years to double it, Obama added 5 trillion in two, Obama has ignored the constitution when he wants to, avoided Congress approval for Libya, extended and enhanced the Patriot Act,  is trying to mandate a fine for not having health care, and has embarrassed us around the world so bad the French told him to "Man UP!".

 

So if you want to dump both parties I agree.

If you want to say one is worse than the other, pick a side.Under Bush we had low unemployment, high business growth and a high DOW.

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Is a socialist the same thing as a bigamist?   A group working together under the control of a single entity, sharing resources, sharing wealth, etc.

Ditto don't you own a dictionary?

Let's see.

 

Bigamist

 

  

big·a·mous

[bíggəməss]

adj

 

 

with illegal second marriage:

involved in or constituting an illegal marriage made when an existing marriage is still valid

[Late 19th century. < Latin bigamus (see bigamy)]

 

 

 

socialist

 

  

so·cial·ist

[sṓshəlist]or So·cial·ist [sṓshəlist]

n

(plural so·cial·ists) (plural So·cial·ists)

 

believer in socialism:

somebody who believes in or supports socialism or a socialist party

adj

 

1.

 

advocating socialism:

relating to, based on, or advocating socialism

2.

 

relating to socialists:

relating to socialists or a socialist party

-so·cial·is·tic [sshə lístik], , adj
-so·cial·is·ti·cal·ly [sshə lístiklee], , adv

 

I guees not.

Skippy





Originally Posted by skippy delepepper:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Is a socialist the same thing as a bigamist?   A group working together under the control of a single entity, sharing resources, sharing wealth, etc.

Ditto don't you own a dictionary?

Let's see.

 

Bigamist

 

  

big·a·mous

[bíggəməss]

adj

 

 

with illegal second marriage:

involved in or constituting an illegal marriage made when an existing marriage is still valid

[Late 19th century. < Latin bigamus (see bigamy)]

 

 

 

socialist

 

  

so·cial·ist

[sṓshəlist]or So·cial·ist [sṓshəlist]

n

(plural so·cial·ists) (plural So·cial·ists)

 

believer in socialism:

somebody who believes in or supports socialism or a socialist party

adj

 

1.

 

advocating socialism:

relating to, based on, or advocating socialism

2.

 

relating to socialists:

relating to socialists or a socialist party

-so·cial·is·tic [sshə lístik], , adj
-so·cial·is·ti·cal·ly [sshə lístiklee], , adv

 

I guees not.

Skippy




The question is what kind of Socialist, Fascist or Communist?

Originally Posted by Renegade Nation:

Don't blame the employers. They are faced with making cutbacks wherever possible. They have to worry about surviving in the downturn. They are not hiring for a reason...and it's not because they are "evil" or "spiteful". But employers are the only ones that can "actually do something" about unemployment...it's a lie and myth that "congress" or the "president" can "do something"...the only thing they can do is either place more burdens on employers or do what they should and remove those burdens.

 

Lower labor costs now and permanently, not a short term tax credit that benefits no one...And stop extending unemployment benefits.

 

The saying "if you subsidize something, you get more of it" applies to unemployment benefits (just as it applies to welfare)...increased unemployment benefits will simply give us more unemployment.

 

The expansion of unemployment benefits amount to telling a lie to people, that they can continue to hold out for higher wages when the most important thing workers can do is to lower their offering prices for labor on the market...As the article said "it's a buyers market" right now.

 

Another great step would be to eliminate the minimum wage. This would give workers the freedom to offer their services at any rate privately negotiated between the employee and the employer. The minimum wage merely puts a floor on wages and acts like any price control...in this case, it creates a surplus of labor services that go unpurchased. It actually outlaws some jobs that would be productive at say $5 an hour, but not at minimum wage.

 

But the simple fix to the unemployment problem (and nearly every politcal/economic problem) is to get the federal government out of the way...lower labor costs that the government imposes that burdens hiring new employees.

 

But of course critics say we'll all be dead in a ditch somewhere without our wise overlords!

 

Nonsense...we need a dramatic change in the way we think of the role of government in our lives. It is just simply not the role of the federal government to do these things. And it is certainly not the role of the federal government under the U.S. Constitution to do them. It is not the purpose of the federal government to provide unemployment insurance, provide job training for someone who is unemployed, be concerned with who is or isn't employed, or "do something" about unemployment. Neither is it the purpose of the federal government to make laws regarding minimum wages, child labor, family and medical leave, discrimination in hiring, collective bargaining, or workplace drug testing.

 

The best way to get more jobs would be: Lower Labor Costs Now.

 

 

Don't blame the employers?


Corporations Sit On $1.8 Trillion Until They Get Their Way

Back in early 2008 when the primaries were heating up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a friend with contacts in high corporate places whispered a secret in my ear. The secret he told: Money sources will tighten and corporations will hoard cash in an effort to make whichever Democrat is elected a one-term wonder.

 

At the time I shook it off as wishful thinking. After all, he's one of those corporate guys, and saw the handwriting on the wall. Knowing he wouldn't get another Republican administration for awhile (If I had my way, it would be forever), he was just whispering silly scare threats in my ear to suppress any enthusiasm I might have had for a Democratic President.

 

Fast forward to July, 2010 and his words practically scream at me. Anyone who doubts what is happening in this country right now should go read Fareed Zakaria's column about why corporations are hoarding cash. Hoarding to the tune of nearly 2 TRILLION dollars, by the way.

 

Note to those who insist on Obama's corporatist stature: Corporations aren't happy. They're kind of angry, actually, because after all the years of freedom from regulation, they're being regulated. And they're being regulated by a Democratic administration, which means they're actually being effectively regulated.


Now, the CEOs have some core beliefs, and Obama just doesn't fit the mold of the corporate go-to in the Oval Office for these guys. There are no CEOs in his cabinet, he has no private sector cronies, and he believes in good government. See? Those are core Democratic values. Republicans, on the other hand, worship at the Altar of the Bottom Line, think CEOs should run the country and the world, and DROVE US INTO THE DITCH WITH THEIR BUDDIES CHENEY AND BUSH.

 

Anyone who thinks the unemployment situation is a product of poor governing on the part of this President can't recognize a class war when they see it. The real issue on the table here is corporate power and control.

 

Consider the recent Luntz-style attacks on the unemployed. Rather than addressing the reasons for the stubbornly high unemployment rate, they choose to demonize those who are unemployed. We're too stupid,too lazy, or we want to be paid too much to rehire.

 

Of course, none of these things are true, but they offer cover for CEOs to duck the true questions about why they'd rather simply sit on the cash and forego expansion for now. They'd rather do it because they can. Because they can afford to wait until they have a puppet in the oval office who will do their bidding, who will call off the regulatory dogs, and who understands unique corporate challenges.

 

So what are we to do? Well, one possibility is looking to (or creating) small businesses. The problem there is that small businesses are concerned about hiring people when consumers aren't buying anything. And consumers aren't going to buy anything if they have no money because they have no job and their unemployment benefits have run out.

 

It looks to me like it's time for the President and the Congress to start listening to Paul Krugman. After all, what is government for if not to be the safety net for people when out-of-balance power players such as the top 500 corporate CEOs decide they're going to outwait the unemployed until they write the rules?

http://crooksandliars.com/karo...llion-until-they-get


Originally Posted by Road Puppy:

"Sign says ya gotta have a d##n job/to get a job...."

 

Man....That some kinda sucks.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGmtmdRvMkY&feature=fvst

 

 

And the sign said "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said "You look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do"
So I took off my hat, I said "Imagine that. Huh! Me workin' for you!"
Whoa-oh-oh

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house, "Hey! What gives you
the
right?"
"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"
"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, Man, you're some kinda sinner"

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

Now, hey you, mister, can't you read?
You've got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat
You can't even watch, no you can't eat
You ain't supposed to be here
The sign said you got to have a membership card to get inside
Ugh!

[Lead Guitar]

And the sign said, "Everybody welcome. Come in, kneel down and pray"
But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all, I didn't have a
penny to pay
So I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said, "Thank you, Lord, for thinkin' 'bout me. I'm alive and doin' fine."
Wooo!

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Sign
Sign, sign

 

 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by Renegade Nation:

Don't blame the employers...The best way to get more jobs would be: Lower Labor Costs Now.

 

 

Don't blame the employers?


Corporations Sit On $1.8 Trillion Until They Get Their Way...


 


 

A lot of unsubstantiated allegations to which...so what?

 

The answer is still...Lower Labor Costs.

 

1st...that means less political influence...if what you posted is actually true, the way to combat that is by reducing the political influence of Washington...then there would be no reason to "withhold" anything.

 

It's the same if you want money out of politics...take away political power...you take away the incenctive.

 

2nd...and more to fundamental beliefs...Whose money is it anyway?  Yours?  Mine?  Societies?  No...honestly earned money by private business/persons is theirs...and what they do with it...invest, influence, or light cigars with is totally their discretion...if you believe in life, liberty, freedom and rule of law.

 

But you have FDR as your avatar so those beliefs are at best suspect.

 

Lower Labor Costs and labor will be in demand.

Propie,

 

"Now, the CEOs have some core beliefs, and Obama just doesn't fit the mold of the corporate go-to in the Oval Office for these guys. There are no CEOs in his cabinet, he has no private sector cronies, and he believes in good government. See? Those are core Democratic values. Republicans, on the other hand, worship at the Altar of the Bottom Line, think CEOs should run the country and the world, and DROVE US INTO THE DITCH WITH THEIR BUDDIES CHENEY AND BUSH."

 

Obama hasn't met with half his cabinet in the last two years.  Many of his advisers are academics with no real world experience, as shown by their economic results, so far.

 

Remember General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt he appointed to head a CEO-heavy jobs council.  The same GE that paid no US taxes last year and moved high tech jobs overseas.

 

The federal governments policies, insisting non-credit worth people be lent money for mortgages they couldn't afford, propelled by a trillion dollars provided by Fannie/Freddie drove the economy into a ditch.  Obama is now rolling the economy off a cliff.

 

Originally Posted by Renegade Nation:
Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by Renegade Nation:

Don't blame the employers...The best way to get more jobs would be: Lower Labor Costs Now.

 

 

Don't blame the employers?


Corporations Sit On $1.8 Trillion Until They Get Their Way...


 


 

A lot of unsubstantiated allegations to which...so what?

 

The answer is still...Lower Labor Costs.

 

1st...that means less political influence...if what you posted is actually true, the way to combat that is by reducing the political influence of Washington...then there would be no reason to "withhold" anything.

 

It's the same if you want money out of politics...take away political power...you take away the incenctive.

 

2nd...and more to fundamental beliefs...Whose money is it anyway?  Yours?  Mine?  Societies?  No...honestly earned money by private business/persons is theirs...and what they do with it...invest, influence, or light cigars with is totally their discretion...if you believe in life, liberty, freedom and rule of law.

 

But you have FDR as your avatar so those beliefs are at best suspect.

 

Lower Labor Costs and labor will be in demand.

 

 

How low are you willing to go? What if it's free? It should really be in demand then.

 

 

If the employer thinks his employees aren't worth much, let him do everything himself without any employees for a year -- no scabs, no replacements, no new hires. All by himself.

 

As I've said in the past, if you want to find the source of prosperity of any company with employees, look for him whose sweat is on the shop room floor and not for him whose name is on the door or the sign out front. The only difference between an employee and a full partner in the business is the wording of a simple contract.

 

The employees helped make the money; they should help spend it. When the employees gripe as much about that kind of "fair share" as the wealthy do about what they pay in taxes, then we'll talk about this again.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×