US Job Numbers SUCK

[DirthNader]

We're not looking for rocket scientists...just people with good organization skills, good ability to learn, and good reasoning skills. Nobody like that is applying because they've already figured out that they're more or less better off on unemployment.

My company is hiring. Pretty aggressively, I might add. We were understaffed before the recession, and had multiple rounds of layoffs in '09 because the mothership was doing them as well.

The people they've brought on board are rarely impressive. We've had to fire more than a few. Many "professionals" are lacking in basic soft skills like actually showing up for work. Some I can empathize with; they've been without pay and benefits for so long that they're catching up on personal matters with their newfound means but unfortunately neglecting the newfound job that's given them said means. Others simply can't do basic tasks that they've been hired to do.

I don't know what it is - our benefits aren't the best, but we have them and the pay is competitive. The only thing I can figure is that the people that are out there aren't the best, and that running on a skeleton crew of layoff survivors for so long we're used to a level of talent that doesn't exist in the candidate market.

 

[Fern]

He started the major deregulation of the US financial sectors.

You might want to give this article a read: http://www.totalnoid.com/2009/12/14/rolling-stones-matt-taibbi-obamas-big-sellout/

An excerpt:

The irony of Bob Rubin: He’s an unapologetic arch-capitalist demagogue whose very career is proof that a free-market meritocracy is a myth. Much like Alan Greenspan, a staggeringly incompetent economic forecaster who was worshipped by four decades of politicians because he once dated Barbara Walters, Rubin has been held in awe by the American political elite for nearly 20 years despite having fucked up virtually every project he ever got his hands on. He went from running Goldman Sachs (1990-1992) to the Clinton White House (1993-1999) to Citigroup (1999-2009), leaving behind a trail of historic gaffes that somehow boosted his stature every step of the way.

As Treasury secretary under Clinton, Rubin was the driving force behind two monstrous deregulatory actions that would be primary causes of last year’s financial crisis: the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (passed specifically to legalize the Citigroup megamerger) and the deregulation of the derivatives market. Having set that time bomb, Rubin left government to join Citi, which promptly expressed its gratitude by giving him $126 million in compensation over the next eight years (they don’t call it bribery in this country when they give you the money post factum). After urging management to amp up its risky investments in toxic vehicles, a strategy that very nearly destroyed the company, Rubin blamed Citi’s board for his screw-ups and complained that he had been underpaid to boot. “I bet there’s not a single year where I couldn’t have gone somewhere else and made more,” he said.

Despite being perhaps more responsible for last year’s crash than any other single living person — his colossally stupid decisions at both the highest levels of government and the management of a private financial superpower make him unique — Rubin was the man Barack Obama chose to build his White House around.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

lol...

Okay, here's the current scorecard:

At Fault:

Bush
Reagan
Boehner

Not At Fault:
Obama
Clinton
Pelosi

That depends on whose posts in this thread you are reading. Apparently, you think only one side is playing the blame game. Need I quote the ones blaming Obama here? Get off your high horse.

 

[woolfe9999]

Good thing this isn't about assigning blame, else this would look like just another thread blaming everything bad on Republicans whilst grasping everything good as evidence of Democrats' almightiness.

Unless you're one of the people in the thread blaming Obama.

You guys crack me up with your blatant hypocrisy and blindness to the faults of your own side.

 

[Fern]

What a heap of shit post. Federal, local and state gov'ts have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs this year.
-snip-

I've hearing we've lost ZERO federal jobs. So no, I don't think you're factually correct.

As far as state and local jobs, I've heard a much lower number than "hundreds of thousands". However, given the lower tax base available to state/local (real estate values down so r/e tax, sales down so less sales tax, income tax so less income tax revenue) and no more huge federal subsidies (stimulus bill) state/local sector employment should fall even more.

Fern

 

[Infohawk]

I don't know what it is - our benefits aren't the best, but we have them and the pay is competitive. The only thing I can figure is that the people that are out there aren't the best, and that running on a skeleton crew of layoff survivors for so long we're used to a level of talent that doesn't exist in the candidate market.

That is silly. It's always amazing how often people resort to self-serving theories that revolve around them being better than others. The main problem with that theory (that all the "good" people are already taken) is that there are always young people entering the workforce. They just need to be trained at the specifics of a job, which in 95% of cases isn't that complicated but people like to make out to be.

 

[spacejamz]

Why work when you can get all of this bailout money???

 

[werepossum]

Y0ou might want to give this article a read: http://www.totalnoid.com/2009/12/14/rolling-stones-matt-taibbi-obamas-big-sellout/

An excerpt:



Fern

And the Republicans voted for heavily for that deregulation than did the Dems. The two parties are much more alike than different.

Unless you're one of the people in the thread blaming Obama.

You guys crack me up with your blatant hypocrisy and blindness to the faults of your own side.

I do not blame Obama for anything more than being ineffectual and, believing that government is the root of everything good, attempting to grow its power as much as possible. I think under President McCain things would be 98% the same, Obamacare being the notable difference. Well, Obamacare and bowing to tyrants; McCain doesn't bow well.

 

[theeedude]

I have an awesome idea, why don't we cut government spending now and have government employees added to the ranks of unemployed. That's going to make the jobs picture so much better. I can't explain how, but it makes sense after a few drinks.

 

[DirthNader]

That is silly. It's always amazing how often people resort to self-serving theories that revolve around them being better than others. The main problem with that theory (that all the "good" people are already taken) is that there are always young people entering the workforce. They just need to be trained at the specifics of a job, which in 95% of cases isn't that complicated but people like to make out to be.

How is it self-serving? I don't give a shit about "being better than others" when it means that I have to spend extra hours in the office doing work that someone else was hired to do. I'm certainly not getting overtime. Self-serving would be to have slew of awesome new hires and kick my feet up on my desk.

I can't answer why our hiring managers aren't bringing in young talent. Seems like most of the folks they bring in are middle-aged. And frankly, they can't do what we hire them to do. The last two embedded software engineers couldn't do basic tasks in common software languages. One of them also decided he didn't need to show up for work on Fridays, and the other thought that 10AM-2PM with a two-hour lunch was an acceptable work schedule.

 

[brencat]

Y0ou might want to give this article a read: http://www.totalnoid.com/2009/12/14/rolling-stones-matt-taibbi-obamas-big-sellout/

An excerpt:

Fern

Love Matt Taibbi. This was discussed in his book 'Griftopia' which I highly recommend to everyone.

 

[Xenon14]

What a difference in tone between 2009 and 2011. Reality is a bitch. http://www.reboilroom.com/2011/07/reflections-on-economics-problems.html

 

[Infohawk]

How is it self-serving? I don't give a shit about "being better than others" when it means that I have to spend extra hours in the office doing work that someone else was hired to do. I'm certainly not getting overtime. Self-serving would be to have slew of awesome new hires and kick my feet up on my desk.

It's the theory that's self-serving. It's easier to just conclude that you're smarter / harder working than other people than to think about other reasons why your employers haven't hired other people. Don't worry about it. Most of what goes on in this forum is ego-stroking.

 

[DirthNader]

It's the theory that's self-serving. It's easier to just conclude that you're smarter / harder working than other people than to think about other reasons why your employers haven't hired other people. Don't worry about it. Most of what goes on in this forum is ego-stroking.

Other reasons I've thought of:
1. Company benefits (basically gutting our health care to catostrophic covereage) aren't competitive
2. Poor hiring / evalaution of candidates
3. Preference for contract labor over direct hires (this is hit or miss)
4. Multiple rounds of layoffs in 2009 and massive layoffs in 2003 leaving a black mark

What about the contention that I was originally replying to? That people just find it easier to stay unemployed? I don't buy that one, personally. I can see it leading to a preference to unemployment over underemployment though; my gut reaction to losing my job would be to go back to waiting tables until I found something else, but the reality is likely that my unemployment check would be more than the money I'm bring in waiting tables.

 

[woolfe9999]

I've hearing we've lost ZERO federal jobs. So no, I don't think you're factually correct.

As far as state and local jobs, I've heard a much lower number than "hundreds of thousands". However, given the lower tax base available to state/local (real estate values down so r/e tax, sales down so less sales tax, income tax so less income tax revenue) and no more huge federal subsidies (stimulus bill) state/local sector employment should fall even more.

Fern

You're right, as it states baldly in the OP's article.

The private sector added 57,000 jobs last month, accounting for all the jobs created, with government employment shrinking 39,000 because of fiscal problems at local and state governments.

However, those are the figures for this month alone. Over the sweep of this year, it's pretty clear that it's the public sector losses that are driving the overall numbers down. Add yes, for now, it's state and local. If deficit reduction cuts starting kicking in for the federal government this year, we'll be seeing federal jobs padding that loss number soon enough.

- wolf

 

[drebo]

IMHO the reason no one is applying for many of the jobs available is because many have over hyped college degrees and 10s of thousands of dollars in debt and feel that they are entitled to an awesome job.

The reality is that those aren't the jobs available and many people don't need an expensive degree in philosophy, English or art history.

Edit: For the record, I find the problems in the United States mind boggling, as I think many of the casual observers feel the same way.

I do agree with much of your argument though.

I've always been of the opinion that we need more vocational education in the US. Skilled labor makes the world go round. Degrees in philosphy do not.

 

[her209]

I've hearing we've lost ZERO federal jobs. So no, I don't think you're factually correct.

As far as state and local jobs, I've heard a much lower number than "hundreds of thousands". However, given the lower tax base available to state/local (real estate values down so r/e tax, sales down so less sales tax, income tax so less income tax revenue) and no more huge federal subsidies (stimulus bill) state/local sector employment should fall even more.

Fern

Its true. At the end of 2010, there were 22,252,000 government (fed/state/local) jobs of that, 2,853,000 jobs were federal minus postal workers. The preliminary numbers in the June 2011 Employment Situation Summary Report puts them at 22,064,000 and 2,830,000 respectively.

 

[drebo]

That is silly. It's always amazing how often people resort to self-serving theories that revolve around them being better than others. The main problem with that theory (that all the "good" people are already taken) is that there are always young people entering the workforce. They just need to be trained at the specifics of a job, which in 95% of cases isn't that complicated but people like to make out to be.

The problem with "young people" is that they generally fall into one of three categories: 1) people with useless college degrees that expect to make $60k/yr right out of college with no work experience, 2) people without college degrees that expect to make $60k/yr right out of highschool with no work experience or skills, and 3) people who finish (or drop out of) high school and expect to make money without actually having to do anything.

None of those categories make very good employees. Entitlement mentality is the root cause of nearly all of our problems. Entitled to a specific wage. Entitled to a specific benefits package. Entitled to money for nothing. Entitled to a specific job. Entitled to a college degree. That's not how the real world works, and such mentality just fucks everything up for everyone.

 

[ProfJohn]

And so are yours. The basis for my opinion is this, the unscrupulous pursuit of profit has sold off American jobs for the sake of a few dollars here and there. Well, those missing jobs are costing the country a lot more than the sum of those extra profits.

I mean seriously, wouldn't America love to have those jobs back now? Reagan wasn't solely responsible, this is the culmination of the last 25 years bad decisions.

Your idea is foolish.

How do we go from the two longest expansions in US history to "we're screwed" in 2 years?

 

[IGBT]

this is the obama economy. His failure..his finger prints. All over it.

 

[her209]

You idea is foolish.

How do we go from the two longest expansions in US history to "we're screwed" in 2 years?

Let's see... manufacturing jobs experience a net loss of jobs even when the employment number was at its last peak in June 2007.

Jobs disappear.

Job losses continue under Obama.

 

[ProfJohn]

Let's see... manufacturing jobs experience a net loss of jobs even when the employment number was at its last peak in June 2007.

And your point??

How many tech jobs exist today that didn't exist 10 years ago?

 

[ayabe]

And your point??

How many tech jobs exist today that didn't exist 10 years ago?

This is from 2010 but..

"Amar Mann, a regional economist for the B.L.S. who is based in San Francisco, said that in 2008 — even before the recession hit bottom — there were 108,000, or 19.9 percent, fewer high-tech jobs in the Bay Area than in 2000, when the bubble reached its peak. During that same period, inflation-adjusted average incomes fell by 13.5 percent in the Valley, while high-tech workers elsewhere in the country enjoyed a 1.3 percent gain."

http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/silicon-valleys-high-tech-jobs-and-wages-decline/

That is also just one area. The only real growth has been in healthcare.

 

[her209]

That is also just one area. The only real growth has been in healthcare.

Yup up almost 1 million jobs since Obama took office.

 

[her209]

And your point??

How many tech jobs exist today that didn't exist 10 years ago?

If you're thinking there's been one tech (I'm assuming you mean technician and not technology) job created for one manufacturing job lost, you're seriously mistaken.