The Painful Truth about Unemployment

This pathetic Think Progress piece reminds me why solving the unemployent problem is going to be so difficult. The TP loons are upset with Newt Gingrich for saying this:

I would agree to a short-term extension of unemployment. But I have proposed, since we spent $134 billion last year in unemployment, that we change the entire program into a worker training program and not give anybody money for doing nothing.

For me, the irony is that I had said something similar that very morning without knowing anything about Gingrich's idea. It simply makes sense to me that people unemployed for a year or more are going to be very hard to fit into today's job market and it's crazy to pay people not to work. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who will, in fact, do nothing until their unemployment runs out, and with the latest unemployment extensions, it means someone could be sitting around unemployed for nearly four years. Does anyone honestly think a person who hasn't worked in four years is going to find employment quickly after the unemployment checks quit coming?

Yet reading the Think Progress piece, you'd think we were talking about slave labor here, rather than getting people to be self-supporting again.

The economy grows by nearly two dollars for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits “because recipients typically spend all of their benefit payments quickly.” The money “ripples through the economy into supermarkets, gasoline stations, utilities, convenience stores.” Flush with the revenue provided by these new consumers, those businesses are then able to hire additional workers and diminish the ranks of the unemployed.

Except for the fact that somebody is having to work in the private sector to pay for those benefits "rippling through the economy," and that person has less of his own money to spend. It's hard to imagine who it is who can't find a job in three years, but I guess if you're a trade show organizer, there probably aren't many of those jobs out there these days. You might have to take a job that's beneath you. Well, in another 13 months. In the meantime, I'll continue working my two jobs to support you.

Headline Displays Freudian Slip About Unemployment Benefits

Here's the headline:
Two Million Americans May Be Forced to Seek Work As Extended Jobless Benefits Run Out
Shouldn't people be looking for work while they're getting Unemployment?

The Unintended Consequences of Government Policy

We all tend to take our personal experiences and compare them (favorably) to the world at large. Sometimes, this creates an accurate picture of the world and sometimes it doesn't.

I was thinking about this today after my husband told me certain decisions he'd made in response to Obamacare. Remember, President Barack Obama promised that, not only would you be allowed to keep your insurance and your doctor, but that your rates wouldn't go up.

Well, guess what? Our health insurance rates are going up and our coverage is going down. In and of itself, this is bad enough. But the higher cost for health insurance has created some unpleasant and unintended consequences.

And uncertainty. Because we are uncertain about what health care costs will be like next year, my husband decided to cut down his United Way contribution. Way down. His reasoning is that he can donate more later if our health care doesn't cost as much as he thinks it might. While I hate cutting that contribution, it makes sense to me.

And the whole situation got me to thinking: if rising insurance costs--remember, our insurance wasn't supposed to go up under Obamacare--is causing us to cut our charitable donations (at least in this area), what will those increases do to others? Is this the Hope and Change We Can Believe In?

Taxing the Rich

Dana has a nice post on the liberal obsession with taxing behavior they dislike, which makes very good points, but lead me to this Ross Douthat column which argues that "taxing the rich" can sometimes be a good thing.

The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn’t exactly that we tax high rollers’ incomes too lightly. It’s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily — underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

Over the last couple of years, there's been a great deal of talk about "too big to fail" companies and bailing out banks and such. There are those who argue that such bailouts were necessary to keep our economy from falling off a cliff, but it certainly illuminates the idea that there's one set of rules for the rich and another for the rest of us.

Back during the S&L crisis of the late 1980s, I thought it was insane that there was federal insurance covering at least $100k of anybody's money in the shakiest institution in town. That insurance encouraged people to find the worst savings and loan with the highest interest rate to bank with, safe in the knowledge that they would be able to get their funds regardless of the institution's solvency. That the taxpayer was on the hook for these ponzi schemes was no matter to me; I liked getting the high interest rates. Of course, I was young and liberal then, not realizing that I would be expected to pay higher taxes for years to come for financing these bogus schemes.

It's 20 years later and, apparently, we've still not learned the S&L lesson that bailing out bad companies doesn't really improve their performance. Why are we still subsidizing bad business decisions for big businesses? No doubt the employees of said institutions would be harmed (fired) when the company goes bust, but why are GM employees more deserving of my tax dollars than my favorite doughnut shop owner?

This policy is typical of the way the federal government does business. In case after case, Washington’s web of subsidies and tax breaks effectively takes money from the middle class and hands it out to speculators and have-mores. We subsidize drug companies, oil companies, agribusinesses disguised as “family farms” and “clean energy” firms that aren’t energy-efficient at all. We give tax breaks to immensely profitable corporations that don’t need the money and boondoggles that wouldn’t exist without government favoritism.

Douthat also points out this subsidizing the rich is evident in Social Security and Medicare, as well. The problem with means testing those programs, though, is that they were never sold as welfare programs (which would make them more vulnerable to cost-cutting). We were all told that everyone gets a share. IMO, the biggest problem with Social Security is the cap on the tax. Why is it that only the first $106,800? If you're going to tax people for this, it would bring in more income to tax the whole thing, not that I'm a big tax-everybody-person.

The bottom line here is that subsidizing bad behavior is bad public policy, whether you're talking about welfare, unemployment, or government subsidies for businesses. They all send the wrong message: taxpayers are suckers.

Stupid Liberal Tricks: Republicans Hate the Unemployed

Steve Benen must be a total idiot or just a jerk to write this:

"The jobs are there"? No, they're really not. Nationwide, there are five applicants for every one opening, which is a terribly painful ratio. Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is currently at a 26-year high.

Corbett not only seems confused about economic conditions, but his animosity about the jobless' attitudes is awful. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that an unemployed worker who's exhausted his/her benefits will be more desperate to take any job than an unemployed worker who's still receiving public aid. But this dynamic matters a whole lot more when there are plenty of job opportunities for those who want them. That's just not the current reality.

To hear Corbett tell it, the unemployed prefer to be unemployed -- turning down job opportunities that pay more, choosing to rely on aid that offers far less. Worse, Corbett doesn't seem to realize that his approach makes the larger problem worse -- cutting people off from unemployment benefits undercuts consumer spending, which in turn leads to less demand and fewer job opportunities.

Ok, so Benen is just an ass, obviously. And, amazingly, he twists the idea that people will wait to find a job longer if they are receiving unemployment than if they aren't into "hate."

Hey, jerk. Take it from somebody who's been unemployed. It's a sucky market to find a job but you can do it. What you can't do (and find employment) is decide to wait a month and take a "vacation" before you start looking. Or only look at jobs that pay as well as the one you left. Or try to get a better paying job. See, the idea is that you take a job close to what you were making--maybe not as much--and then keep looking for a better job. The old ditty about finding a better job while you have one is still true.

How do I know the market sucks but you can find a job if you bust your ass and look? Because I decided to find a full-time job last December to help pay off our debt (see Another Reason to Live Debt-Free) because I was sick and tired of being sick and tired. I busted my ass to find a full-time job (or, at least, I tried harder than usual). I put out lots of resumes. I had tons of phone interviews. I had lots of in-person interviews. I called in favors from friends who tried to get me hired. And guess what? Eventually, I got a full-time job. It took six months to do it, but I got one, and I'm making more money now than I've ever made (God is good).

Along the way, I took a patchwork of part-time jobs and one-day gigs to add money to our budget. I'm still working both my part-time and full-time jobs to try to get all the debt paid off faster (we're still hoping for the end of the year). Our plans didn't work the way we thought they would because it took much longer than usual for me to find a job, but, nonetheless, we'll make it.

This isn't bragging. Near the end, I'd begun having that "Oh, shit" feeling one gets when you realize things are way worse than you thought they were. I'd started contemplating taking a lesser paying job (along with my part-time gigs) just so I'd be gainfully employed. What I'm saying is, it's a bad market, but there are jobs, and telling people they're going to have to settle for less and make it up in volume doesn't mean you hate the unemployed.

Or, put another way:

Republicans assume someone earning $50,000 who loses his job is likely to hold out for a $50,000 position while utilizing his unemployment benefits. If his jobless benefits expire before he finds a position he may be forced to accept a lower paying job – say $35,000. Ironically, the job seeker will still make more than he made on unemployment and he is gaining valuable job experience and will likely be able to move back up the wage ladder as the economy grows and recovers. Extending jobless benefits may allow the job seeker to avoid accepting a lower paying job keeping him out of the employment market longer potentially making him less and less attractive to potential employers. It is hard for most workers to accept that they aren’t worth the $50,000 they made last year to accept that $35,000 position – but it is most likely the best economic decision they could make.

Economists are arguing that it could take nearly a decade for the job market to recover. That means a lot of people are going to have to take jobs they would have turned down only a couple of years ago. It's tough when you've been living on $100k to discover your same talents are only worth $70,000 now, but that's the reality we are living in. And there's nothing hateful about realizing that unemployment benefits we can't afford because of our national debt is giving people false hope that they'll get that $100k a year job in four more months.

Understanding the Obama Economy

From National Review:

Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one. And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.

It's important to remember who pays for those government jobs. It's the millions of Americans who used to have private sector jobs and now don't.

Matthew Yglesias Is Scared about the Unemployment Rate...

But doesn't offer any solutions.

It's unsurprising that leftwingers have no ideas about how to increase employment. They don't really like employers very much.

Finding a Job

With unemployment at nearly 10%, finding a job these days can be a daunting task. Even in Texas, where unemployment is more around 8%, the pinch is felt, if not directly, in more subtle ways.

About six months ago, my husband and I decided to get serious about paying off our debt. I decided to seek fulltime employment to this end. For the past couple of years, I've worked freelance, which was great for being home when I wanted to be, but the stability just wasn't there. So, I started looking for fulltime work.

I've never had a problem finding a job when I wanted one. I don't say that to brag, it's just a fact. I started looking somewhat aggressively in December. Over the past six months I've had many phone interviews and almost as many in-person interviews. Most of those interviews were the kind where I walked out knowing I'd nailed it. I'd answered the questions I was asked, asked relevant questions and was friendly and intelligent. But a funny thing happened after these interviews. Well, ok, it wasn't funny, it was perplexing, then fear-inducing.

I didn't get any of the jobs. Not. one.

The first time or two, I shrugged it off as just "it wasn't the right fit." But by the fourth or fifth time I'd been rejected, it became personal. I nailed that interview. Why aren't they calling me back?

Then it hit me. There was someone else out there every bit as qualified as I was (and maybe more) who had also nailed the interview (and maybe better).

And then, the more terrifying part sunk in. There were probably a lot more people as qualified all going for the same jobs. A lot more.

It's a bad economy out there. A scary economy. And the experts are saying it's not going to get better for a long time. That means a lot of people are going to be discouraged, wind up in jobs far below their capabilities or on unemployment for a loooong time.

I fortunately found a new job, but the experience has left me with a lot of empathy for those still looking, and realizing that every job could have 500 applicants.

Unemployed Need Not Apply

Disturbing job ads

a current job posting on The People Place, a job recruiting website for the telecommunications, aerospace/defense and engineering industries, an anonymous electronics company in Angleton, Texas, advertises for a "Quality Engineer." Qualifications for the job are the usual: computer skills, oral and written communication skills, light to moderate lifting. But red print at the bottom of the ad says, "Client will not consider/review anyone NOT currently employed regardless of the reason."

In a nearly identical job posting for the same position on the Benchmark Electronics website, the red print is missing. But a human resources representative for the company confirmed to HuffPost that the The People Place ad accurately reflects the company's recruitment policies.

"It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here. We do get a lot of applications blindly from people who are currently unemployed -- with the economy being what it is, we've had a lot of people contact us that don't have the skill sets we want, so we try to minimize the amount of time we spent on that and try to rifle-shoot the folks we're interested in."

There are about 5.5 people looking for work for every job available, according to the latest data from the Labor Department.

Couple this with the May jobs report that showed only 31,000 private sector jobs created, and you have a disaster not just looming, but happening. The government could encourage companies to hire out of work people through tax credits and other incentives for hiring workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer, but this White House and Congress seem more interested in handouts than hand ups.

Shocker: "Study Finds Increased Government Spending Results in Higher Unemployment"

From Hot Air:

Instead of providing a stimulating effect to the economy, government spending creates pressures on private industry to reduce staff and investment...

If this seems counterintuitive, it might be from marinating too long in Beltway conventional wisdom. When private entities (citizens or businesses) retain capital, it gets used in a more rational manner, mainly because the entity has competitive incentives to use capital wisely and efficiently. The private entity also has his own interests in mind, and can act quickly to use the capital to its best application. Private entities innovate and look to create and expand markets, creating more growth.
In comparison, government moves much slower with capital. It generally works to its own benefit and not that of private entities. Lacking competition, there is no incentive for efficiency. Most importantly, it rarely creates new markets or growth but instead creates a spoils system that ends up reorganizing the status quo to favor some and disfavor others.

Taxes Lower in 2009?

USA Today has a story about how Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

Gosh, I wonder what else happened in 2009? You gotta go to Newsbusters to find out.

The newspaper downplayed the pain caused by the recession and the fact that the downturn lowered both incomes and consumption...

But USA Today also buried important reasons for the drop in tax payments. One reason was that the recession cut incomes, but they didn't mention that until the ninth paragraph. Lower income means taxpayers paid at a lower rate because of the progressive income tax structure. In addition, unemployment in 2009 reached levels not seen for roughly 25 years. The recession also caused "sharp" cuts in consumer spending, resulting in much lower sales tax payments.

USA Today gave credit to the massive stimulus bill for "tax cuts," specifically the "Making Work Pay" credit. But the paper waited until the last paragraph to admit that the lower tax burden may only last through the end of 2010 because "virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year."

Meanwhile, 15.3 million people were out of work last month, and they probably didn't spend very much because of it. The idea that less taxes because fewer people are working is a good thing is disgusting and USA Today should be ashamed to spin the news this way.

Where Are the *Real* Jobs?

Liberals are touting today's jobs report as some sort of breakthrough.

But economists sounded a cautious note, pointing out that a sizable portion of the growth came from the government’s hiring of 48,000 census workers, mostly temporary jobs.

You know your economy is weak when you are having to cheer the hiring of temporary workers. But let's do some remedial math:

162,000 new jobs minus 48,000 temporary census workers equals 114,000. And according to the labor department, the economy has to create 100,000 jobs each month just to keep up wiht new entrants. So, in other words, 14,000 jobs were created that cut into the unemployed ranks. Now that's something to cheer about!

The unemployment rate is still 9.7% and that rate is supposed to remain for the rest of the year. Liberals are simply pathetic when they try to paint this as "the economy turning around." But with Teh One's approval numbers in the tank, what's a good sycophant to do? Too bad for them that we know better.

85,000 Job Loss for December

One more lump of coal in the stocking for Barack Obama who, really, deserves it.

Democrats have tried to spin the job loss numbers as not too bad. I even heard some government official (sorry, wasn't paying close enough attention to get his name) on the BBC World News trying to say that these numbers were a good thing, since the U.S. isn't losing jobs as fast as we were last January. Riight.

In reality, the job numbers are terrible news for Democrats (don't tell Delaware Liberal, though). Average Americans measure the economy by the unemployment rate, only giving a passing glance to GDP growth. Regardless of how well GDP does, until Americans are seeing more "Now Hiring" signs in store windows, they are going to say the economy is lousy, and they aren't going to allow Obama and the Democrats to try to blame George W. Bush for their screwups.

Shocker! Stimulus Money Goes 2 to 1 to Democrat Districts

We know that Democrats believe in paying back their constituents, but this is ridiculous.

A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.

It's just proof that Porkapalooza was about bringing home the bacon rather than helping the economy.

"There is no sane explanation for all this other than crass political calculation."

That's Gail Collins complaining that Republicans trying to kill Obamacare are just playing politics.

On Thursday, Senator Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat who’s up for election next year, introduced an amendment specifically promising that Medicare recipients would not lose any of their current guaranteed benefits. It passed 100 to 0. Meanwhile, Colorado voters were getting robocalls from John McCain warning that the health care bill was going to cut their “vital Medicare coverage.”

I guess Collins buys the load o' crap from Democrats that Obamacare is about cutting costs, increasing coverage and creating better medical care. Things that Obamacare doesn't do by anyone's estimates.

I'm delighted that Republicans have discovered how to procedurally muck up the works for Democrats trying to push through the budget-busting Obamacare that Americans don't want. It is with incredible gaul that Democrats are hellbent on passing legislation they were not, in fact, elected to pass, all because they want to redistribute income and figure the best way to do it is to create a bunch of programs and tax the hell out of everyone to get it. Anyone who thinks their access to health care and the quality thereof is going to be better once Democrats get through with their "fixes" is an utter fool or won't be relying on it.

A quick side note: does anyone know how the taxes in the various bills will affect temp workers? According to the Labor Department last month, temp workers were among the only job areas that grew. This tells me that many companies are going to use temps before considering hiring full-time employees, since they don't have to pay benefits for temps. But, I assume, under Obamacare, someone will have to pay the penalties for those workers. Any ideas?

It's Hard to Believe the Mouth-Breathers at Media Matters Are This Dumb...

but their own words seem to justify calling them mouth-breathers.

Reacting to new unemployment data, Rep. John Boehner blamed the crisis on health care reform, clean energy legislation, and the Employee Free Choice Act. However, blaming an ongoing crisis on potential future legislation is akin to saying, "I have heartburn because I'm considering eating tacos tonight."

Is Chris Harris really such a moron that he doesn't think this legislation affects the future hiring practices of businesses? Or does he honestly think that businesses don't figure in the costs of federal regulation and tax policy into hiring decisions? The idea that businesses aren't concerned about the potential growth of the nanny state under Democrats is laughable. Or comes from a man who never ran a business.

Unemployment at *Only* 10%

I guess we're supposed to be happy about this.

The unemployment rate unexpectedly fell to 10 percent in November as employers cut the smallest number of jobs since the recession began. The better-than-expected job figures are a rare note of encouraging news for the labor market.

Hooray! Sure, we're still losing quarts of blood, but we're just losing them slower. Isn't that good news?

From the Heritage Foundation:

n January 2008, the United States economy employed 138.1 million people and the unemployment rate stood at 4.9%. But the powers in Washington thought deficit spending could boost a slowing economy, so Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) passed and President George Bush signed a $168 billion economic stimulus bill made up of temporary tax cuts and increased mortgage grantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By January 2009 that economic stimulus worked so well that the U.S. economy had lost 3.5 million jobs and the unemployment rate stood at 7.6%. Again the powers in Washington thought deficit spending was the answer, so Speaker Nancy Pelosi and newly minted President Barack Obama dialed up $787 billion in temporary tax cuts and permanent spending increases. Ten months later, the U.S. economy has now shed another 3.59 million jobs and the unemployment rate stand at 10%.

At this rate, the Democrats really will spend us into a Great Depression. But at least they're doing something, right?

Unemployment Hits 10.2%

The last time unemployment was this high, I was a sophomore in college, editor of my junior college newspaper, wearing pink oxford shirts and pipestem jeans.

The jump into the realm of double-digit joblessness — from 9.8 percent in September — provided a sobering reminder that, despite the apparent end of the Great Recession, economic expansion has yet to translate into jobs, leaving tens of millions of people still struggling.

“The guy on the street is going to ask, ‘What recovery?’ ” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at the PNC Financial Services Group in Pittsburgh. “The job market is still in reverse.”

Until the unemployment rate starts going down significantly, it won't matter to average Americans what the GDP is. For them, we'll still be in a recession and Democrats will pay the price for the Obama recession.

Regardless of the Number of Jobs This Administration Claims to Have "Saved," The Unemployment Rate Is Still Almost 10%

The White House is laughably trying to claim that it has "saved" 640,000--er, make that 1 million jobs, but has to admit to a lot of fuzzy math to get to that figure.

The White House argues that the actual job number is actually larger than 640,000 -- closer to 1 million jobs when one factors in stimulus jobs added in October and, more importantly, jobs created indirectly, such as "the waitress who's still on the job," Vice President Biden said today.

Now, is that the waitress who has a job today but has already been told that she's being let go at the end of the week? I guess that's above Biden's paygrade to assess. Lots of people have survived layoffs to this point but who are in line to get cut by, say, January.

And more to the point, even if we credit the Obama administration with "saving" 1 million jobs, those jobs come at the cost of $160,000 a piece.

Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to the vice president, called that "calculator abuse."

He said the cost per job was actually $92,000 -- but acknowledged that estimate is for the whole stimulus package as of the end of 2010.

$92,000 for a waitressing job? That's an accomplishment only the echo chambers at Delaware Liberal could love.

It's true that GDP was up 3.5% for the quarter, but as long as unemployment stays around 10%, the Obama recession isn't going to be over in most people's minds. And don't bother with the "unemployment is a lagging indicator" meme. If you just won the layoff lottery, you aren't too interested in lagging or leading indicators.

Unemployment Rate 9.8%

That's 531,000 new jobless claims this week.

More people are dropping from the rolls or moving on to "extended benefits."

Many recipients are moving onto extended benefit programs approved by Congress in response to the recession, which began in December 2007 and is the worst since the 1930s. Those extensions add up to 53 weeks of benefits on top of the 26 typically provided by the states.

When those programs are included, the total number of recipients dropped to 8.8 million in the week ending Oct. 3, the latest data available, down about 50,000 from the previous week. That decline is likely due to recipients running out of benefits, rather than finding jobs, economists say.

I remember liberals complaining about GWB's "jobless recovery." Well, at least unemployment was still about 4-5%. Now we're told to get used to 8% unemployment.

It's not a recovery without jobs. Period.