Posted on 05/24/2005 6:36:44 AM PDT by Dubya
After three years of unemployment, Allen Gruenhut finally landed a job as director of human resources for a company in the stone business on Long Island. His age, 53, worked against him in his long hunt for work, he contends, and so did the six-figure salary he earned at his previous job, in banking.
"They would not take me seriously at job interviews when I said I would be happy with a lower salary," Gruenhut said.
Jackie Ellenwood, 31, is still without a job. She had worked for three travel agencies over 13 years, until her last job, in Allen Park, Mich., ended in a layoff nine months ago. The industry is shrinking in response to more Internet bookings and cutbacks in corporate travel, so Ellenwood is looking for work elsewhere and studying to become a nurse.
The experiences of Gruenhut and Ellenwood help explain why many of the nation's unemployed are still struggling to get back to work. Not since World War II has the percentage of long-term joblessness -- the unemployed out of work for six months or more -- been so high for so long after a recession has ended.
The unemployment rate is what---5% or so????
I guess the MSM has to find some bad news. Its not like older workers have ever faced job discriminaiton before. Or, heaven forbid, a person may have to move to find a job.
If you're out of work for three years that's choice, not a predicament. Change is difficult, but unavoidable.
But then, leave it to the NYT to parse some facet of unemployment to make the Bush White House look like villains.
Must be a slow day for the MSM! My local paper has about 4 pages of help wanted ads, guess welfare must be paying to a good wage.
NY Times sending out trial balloon "issues" to flog in the next election?
Horse and buggy whip workers had a hard time too... I wonder what they did...?
Its that mean ole news media again. :^)
Work is out there. Some folks think too many jobs are beneath them.
But then, leave it to the NYT to parse some facet of unemployment to make the Bush White House look like villains.
======
Yes, the MSM is good at focusing on any "negative" news, and spinning it into a major national disaster... :-)
Bad news for America remains GOOD NEWS for the left. Doom and gloom, gross negativism, and disaster remain the purpose and focus of the useless, irrelevant left.
I like almost everything that GW Bush has done.
And I think that it is not his fault or the Congress that the NYT article is true.
But it is true. I've seen this data published on this topic for the last 6 months (from non liberal media) and the employment picture is not robust. The employment picture is as good as one can expect given the stock mkt. bubble, 9-11, a worldwide economic slowdown, high energy, etc.
But this data and story is not spin.
Maybe this will help her get a job.
I sure hope so.
Quite so. What an agenda! Bad news for someone is good news for them. That makes as much sense as blaming rain on wet streets. No wonder the Dems keep losing.
The government published unemployment rate is 5%, but that number is prepared like government budgets: using mathematical legerdemain to produce a result that is objectively true only for some of its inputs, but involves a lot of subjective assumptions as well. The primary vehicle driving the government official figure is unemployment claims and benefits paid. Of course, benefits run out, and when they do, people stop reporting to the unemployment office, there being no further incentive to do so.
The Labor Department attempts to correct for people who are still unemployed but looking for work, but does not consider the "discouraged unemployed" who have ceased seeking work in the jobless figures. The problem, of course, is that the number for unemployed still seeking work and discouraged unemployed is simply a SWAG. There is no concrete number to use, so the statisticians at the Department of Labor make an educated guess. They try to be objective, but the nature of a SWAG is that it isn't objective. It's a subjective number based on assumptions.
We really don't know the unemployment rate in America. We don't have a way to collect the numbers. The government guesses and publishes the statistics, which blend unemployment benefits paid and new claims - objective numbers - with guesses about the other stuff. Note that the departments that prepare these statistics are headed by political appointees. This does not mean that the numbers are cooked, but it does inflect what assumptions are taken.
These little stories are interesting, but they are carefully selected based on the writer's bias. They don't tell the whole tale.
Shouldnt that say: "BEFORE" world war 2? From what I remember, we had very little unemployment during world war 2. Anyways, I dont believe the 5% number. I have never ever been surveyed by the unemployment survey takers( I have been surveyed by hundreds of other surveyers though) , and I have never known anyone who has ever been surveyed for unemployment numbers. How many here on this board have been surveyed for the official unemployment numbers? Speak up.
Any able bodied person who is unemployed for 3 years is so by choice.
I've been out of work for over 23 years, wonder if I'll ever get hired....
I am not sure exactly what this means, but it certainly does not match what the headline says. The NYT is very creative in their use of statistics.
If someone 'ceases' to seek work, they have other avenues of obtaining revenue.
Balderdash.....people are one helluva lot more selective about what they are "willing" to do then they were in the 1940s. The same guy with the 6 figure income won''t consider working for the mid 90s so he stubbornly refuses to take a job. The jobs are there, it's just a matter of getting these idiots to take them
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.