Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Pain of Coping When a Job Is Snatched Away
The New York Times ^ | December 1, 2003 | JILL ANDRESKY FRASER

Posted on 12/01/2003 4:31:00 PM PST by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

THREE years ago, Susan Sullivan, then 34, and her husband, Peter, 44, were thriving. The couple, both marketing professionals, worked hard and enjoyed a combined income of about $250,000 a year.

Then, within two weeks of each other in the spring of 2001, the Sullivans lost their jobs, right about the time that she became pregnant. Unable to find work, they moved from Newton, Mass., a pricey Boston suburb, to Worcester, to cut their living expenses. With job prospects slim, they began entrepreneurial ventures: she, a marketing consulting firm, and he, a computer network security firm. Their daughter is now almost two. With combined yearly earnings of about $20,000, they have cut their spending to the bone and make ends meet with food stamps and credit cards.

"We had about $40,000 in savings, but we spent that a long time ago," Ms. Sullivan said. "Now we owe more money in credit card bills than I ever would have believed possible. We don't spend money on anything at all that isn't a complete necessity. Your whole way of thinking changes. The other day I was so excited: I got a credit card offer for a new card that will give us a long period with zero percent financing."

The Sullivans are scarcely alone. There were, on average, 8.4 million unemployed Americans in 2002. By October, according to the most current statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, their ranks had grown to 8.8 million. One out of every four had been looking for a job for 27 weeks or longer, up from one out of five a year earlier.

And many who are working do so only part time. In October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4.8 million people were involuntarily working part time - either because they could not find full-time jobs or because their employers had put them on part-time schedules. That is up 11.6 percent, from 4.3 million a year earlier.

In recent years, the effect of widespread joblessness on consumption patterns in the United States has been tough to recognize, largely because so many people, employed as well as unemployed, have relied heavily upon credit cards, mortgage refinancings and other loans to sustain spending that might otherwise have been unaffordable.

That spending has helped cushion the economy through some rocky times. "But the big question, moving forward, is whether we'll see enough recovery in the labor market so that income growth will be able to replace all these one-time events, like tax cuts and refinancings," Jared Bernstein, senior economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, said.

With recent rosy news about the economy's third quarter, it might be hoped that increased hiring will enable households to recover from the financial difficulties of unemployment. But interviews with men and women in a variety of careers, family situations and cities across the country suggest that even as jobs are filled, the personal economic pain for those who have long been unemployed will be long lasting.

Consider Quay Anderson, a 30-year-old father of three young children, who lost his job as a crane operator in February. His job, which paid $16 an hour, had been the sole source of income for his family in Carlisle, Pa. Now, after going through retraining at the Regional Manufacturing Workforce Transition Center in Steelton, Pa., Mr. Anderson is on the verge of being hired as a commercial driver. But he said that it could take as long as five years of steady employment to get his family back in the financial shape they enjoyed before he lost his job.

"We've completely maxed out on credit cards and any other credit lines we had," he said. "I had a gun collection that I sold in order to raise money for groceries." The family does not spend money on anything that is not necessary. It is upsetting "when your kids want to go to Wendy's or McDonald's and you've got to say no," he said.

"We can't take them to see 'Brother Bear' in the movies," he said, "because we can't afford four movie tickets.''

A close look at household spending suggests the multiplicity of ways, large and small, that the rise in unemployment in the past year or so has affected consumption patterns and the economy.

"We have a 6-year-old son, and, although it's not the end of the world, it would have been nice to give him music lessons, but we can't," said Ellen Ball, 44, of Brookline, Mass. "We don't eat out. We don't travel. I used to make charitable contributions in the past. Now I ask, when people call, 'Can I give you my time instead?' "

Before Ms. Ball and her 42-year-old husband, Bruce Haimowitz, lost their jobs as software engineers in 2002, they earned a combined income well into the six figures. He was out of work for about a year before landing two jobs - one part time, one full time - that between them pay him about $45,000 a year. After looking for more than a year herself, Ms. Ball expects to start work shortly at a part-time $12-an-hour job. "We can't save,'' she said. "We don't entertain at all. We're in a holding pattern."

The path out of long-term unemployment is often a part-time job or full-time work at a lower pay scale, but it is not a promising path.

"The problem is the overarching forces that have resulted in major job losses and downward income mobility are permanent," said Stephen Roach, chief economist of Morgan Stanley. "If anything, they'll intensify, as high-wage jobs in both production and the services continue to move to countries like China and India where costs are lower. That's going to keep consumers under a lot of pressure."

Not surprisingly, families with nest eggs and other savings have been best able to cope with prolonged joblessness and declining household earnings. As soon as Mr. Haimowitz found work, he and Ms. Ball, lifelong savers, were able to refinance their mortgage, which helped lower their monthly expenses.

Andrea, 45, and Will Gill, 50, actually traded up to a $450,000 home in Smithtown, N.Y., even after Mr. Gill, a computer network consultant, had been out of work for two years. Mrs. Gill, an online manager for a travel agency, has had three years of pay cuts. Their household income is now about a third of what it used to be.

"We had built up equity in our old house, have always been savers, and we didn't have any credit card debt," Mr. Gill said. "Since buying the house, we can manage just by taking about $20,000 out of our savings each year. By most people's standards, we're not hurting."

But even the Gills have cut their spending. "When our bedroom set was falling apart, we fixed it rather than buying a new one," Mrs. Gill said. During this holiday season, they expect to cut their gift-buying budget by about two-thirds.

The question for many is whether the national economy will be able to shrug off the impact of the prolonged joblessness of families like these without skipping a beat. Their spending patterns and savings cushions, after all, have remained relatively strong. But the impact on the economy may be more pronounced when it comes to those households that experienced job losses when they had little or no savings, high levels of debt, or both. For those families, financial problems have escalated, and they may pose some collective risks to the economy.

One risk arises from households that have cashed in part or all of their retirement savings to meet day-to-day expenses. "Out here, where home prices are really high, there are a lot of couples with mortgages that only can be supported on two incomes," said Dan Rink, a career coach in Alameda, Calif. "When one spouse loses a job, it's a catastrophe. I see a lot of unemployed people who are drawing down their retirement funds just in order to make their mortgage payments."

A more immediate high-risk decision among the unemployed is whether to give up health insurance. "It's more important for us to stay current with our mortgage payments," said Robert Love, 60, of Houston, who lost his job as a manager of safety and quality control about two years ago. Neither he nor his wife, Ann, 56, who works as a receptionist at a beauty salon, has health insurance. "Quite honestly, you try not to think about it," he said. "Just hope everyone stays healthy."

The need for such survival strategies raises the prospect that large numbers of tapped-out baby boomers will reach retirement unprepared. Jonathan Greentree, 51, of Columbus, Ohio, lost his public relations job in 2001. He is now working in a part-time $8-an-hour retailing job that will last only through the holiday season.

Mr. Greentree has pared his budget to essentials but says he has been unable to make more than a year's worth of child-support payments for his 15-year-old son. He owes real estate taxes on his home, has depleted his savings, spent the proceeds raised from a mortgage refinancing, tapped out a line of credit and accumulated large credit card debts.

"To be real honest, college savings have fallen by the wayside," he said. "I have very little retirement savings. It's scary. If I ever do get a job, I've got to get credit counseling because I don't know how to solve these problems."

Some people do manage to re-enter the work force and regain financial stability, but still feel anxieties. Ian Boardman, 44, of Arlington, Mass., who has a doctorate in cognitive science and experience at some dot-com start-ups, has had two different bouts of unemployment since the spring of 2001. Recently, he was hired by a research laboratory, weeks before his unemployment insurance would have run out.

"My wife is a financial whiz who has renegotiated our mortgage twice to save money," he said. "We've been able to make do on unemployment, with a little help from our parents. We're not big on consumption anyway."

But Mr. Boardman emphasized that he and his family lost their sense of security. "We are middle class," he said. "We're good people. And what does the system say to us? 'Sink or swim.' "

The biggest question for many people is: What will happen if new job opportunities are indeed created during the recovery but do not provide enough pay and benefits to repair the financial damage caused by prolonged unemployment?

That is a question facing Richie Calladio-Nuzzo; his wife, Jenni; and their 13-year-old daughter, Michelle, of Newton, Conn. Mr. Calladio-Nuzzo, 34, an electrician, used to earn at least $30 an hour, with benefits, in union-covered jobs. But he spent nine months during 2002 unemployed and still could not find work in the winter and spring of 2003.

"It was really bad," he recalled. "All last winter, we kept our house heated at 58 degrees. Early on, we maxed out on our credit cards, and we couldn't keep up with the payments we owed. I don't go to the doctor at all. But when it comes to a choice between buying medicine for my wife, who has asthma, and eyeglasses for my daughter, who needs them to see, or paying the electric bill, well, we did what we could. Fortunately, the electric company can't cut you off during the winter."

In May, Mr. Calladio-Nuzzo received permission from his union to take a nonunion job, which pays $20 an hour, and offers no benefits.

"I'm glad to be working, but let's be real," he said. "The only impact this job has had is that I no longer have to call the phone company and electric company to make special payment arrangements. Our heater is broken upstairs, and I can't afford to bring in a plumber to fix it. We still have to screen our phone calls. A collection agency will call and say, 'Make a one-time payment of $800.' And I tell them, 'Are you kidding? If I could pay you $800, wouldn't I have just paid the $100 minimum that's due?' "

From Mr. Calladio-Nuzzo's perspective, it is difficult to see any light at the end of the tunnel. "You think you'd enjoy it to know that you're not going through this alone," he said. "But when I see the guys that I've worked with, it's awful. We look at each other and say, 'It's never going to end.' "

That is just what Pam Shira Fleetman, 55, a technical writer in Acton, Mass., fears. She has been out of work since July 2002, and recently cashed in her retirement account so she could pay enough of her overdue mortgage and property tax bills to avoid losing her house. She has "huge" credit card bills. Her car is nearly nine years old. A divorced parent, she worries that next year, when her son turns 13, she will not have any money to spend on a bar mitzvah.

"When I think about all this," Ms. Fleetman said, "there's just one question I'd like to ask all those titans of industry who are laying people off and outsourcing all those jobs overseas: 'Who do you think you're going to be able to sell your products and services to here in the U.S.?' "


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: globalism; thebusheconomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-206 next last

1 posted on 12/01/2003 4:31:01 PM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
"The problem is the overarching forces that have resulted in major job losses and downward income mobility are permanent," said Stephen Roach, chief economist of Morgan Stanley. "If anything, they'll intensify, as high-wage jobs in both production and the services continue to move to countries like China and India where costs are lower
2 posted on 12/01/2003 4:36:03 PM PST by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
NYTimes reports that dog bites man. These are such easy stories to find and write - regardless of the overall health of the economy.
3 posted on 12/01/2003 4:37:18 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The New York Times responds to the spate of good economic news that is their nightmare. Of course, it would have been impossible to find unemployed people during the Clinton presidency, I am quite sure. Wonder how Howell Raines is getting by in unemployment -- think he can afford an occasional outing to Wendy's? I also wonder how people who were making $250K a year only had 40K set aside, and how they could wind up in a situation where their combined income is now 20K. This one doesn't pass the smell test. I didn't check the byline -- was this a Jayson Blair entry? I hate the New York Times.
4 posted on 12/01/2003 4:38:42 PM PST by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Boo-freakin-hoo.
I prepared for the self-evident downturn in the economy by not having any credit debt in the first place.
If I lose my job, I'm screwed.
But at the risk of torquing anyone off -- everyone who got laid off at our plant deserved it and the company is better without them.
Don't tell me a sob story about some union rat or some marketing whiz who was making 200K.
5 posted on 12/01/2003 4:39:07 PM PST by baltodog (I'm Polish. I'm left-handed. I'm a drummer. I demand reparations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Indeed. My husband was laid off shortly after our marriage, and I started working a $6 per hour job. We survived. Lesson: life is tough, get over it.
6 posted on 12/01/2003 4:39:35 PM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: speedy
I also wonder how people who were making $250K a year only had 40K set aside, and how they could wind up in a situation where their combined income is now 20K

No kidding. Shoot most grocery stores don't start full time people at less than 7.50 an hour, which full time for a year for 2 people would be 30k a year.

7 posted on 12/01/2003 4:42:27 PM PST by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Excrement occurs, and then you die...lather, rinse, repeat.
8 posted on 12/01/2003 4:44:21 PM PST by gorush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
marketing professionals = bubble economy hucksters.

They were overpaid for jobs that were not real. (probably)
9 posted on 12/01/2003 4:44:52 PM PST by bert (Don't Panic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Downward mobility. Living the American Dream.
10 posted on 12/01/2003 4:45:57 PM PST by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: anniegetyourgun; speedy
The good news is that if the NY Slimes continues to turn off real conservatives, they could be laying off a lot of the lunatic libs working for the Slimes.

So come to the thread below and revel in the NY Slimes getting some economic kicks for its vile liberalism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1031824/posts

New York Times Seen In Lackluster Ad Trend
Forbes ^ | 2003/11/24/ | Forbes Staff


Posted on 12/01/2003 1:36 PM PST by Grampa Dave


New York Times Seen In Lackluster Ad Trend Forbes Staff , 11.24.03, 12:03 PM ET

NEW YORK -

New York Times (nyse: NYT - news - people ) stock softened after a Banc of America Securities research note said the media company and rival Knight Ridder (nyse: KRI - news - people ) finished October on a lackluster note, posting respective ad sales growth gains of just 1.2% and 0.4%.

Bank of America Securities said the color ad page count at the flagship newspaper of Dow Jones (nyse: DJ - news - people ), The Wall Street Journal, is averaging 8.3 pages per day so far this November, which is up from the November 2002 level of 6.8 pages per day. But the securities firm said that earnings risks persist for the newspaper sector overall in the fourth quarter due to weak ad sales.

It noted that although telecoms now offer wireless portability, there have been very few ads for the new service in newspapers. In addition, department stores' ad spending remains soft and is continuing to shift to other forms of media.

Despite its concerns about Knight Ridder's weak ad spending in October, Banc of America Securities reiterated a "buy" rating for it and Tribune (nyse: TRB - news - people ) while maintaining "neutral" ratings on New York Times and Dow Jones. New York Times was down 48 cents at $45.36; Dow Jones, down 1 cent at $49.92; Tribune, up 7 cents at $48.10; and Knight Ridder, up 47 cents at $73.23

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1031824/posts
12 posted on 12/01/2003 4:46:39 PM PST by Grampa Dave (Sore@US, the Evil Daddy War bucks, has owned the Demonic Rats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
$20,000 a year combined? You've got to be kidding?

My wife and I could work at a fast-food restaurants or grocery stores and make more than $20,000 a year.

These people need to get their hands dirty. I would work 2 low paying jobs to make ends meet for my family. It appears that they don't want to subject themselves to work that is below their standard.

Good grief, I made $34,000 a year when I was 20 working 2 jobs!

Please correct me if I'm "out of touch" here...
13 posted on 12/01/2003 4:47:13 PM PST by TSgt (I am proudly featured on U.S. Rep Rob Portman's homepage: http://www.house.gov/portman/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: speedy
Living above your means can put a dent in the savings plan.
14 posted on 12/01/2003 4:48:24 PM PST by cyborg (mutt-american)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Yep -- this is a dog bites man story.

When people loses jobs, it's always tough.

But, as far as this article goes, the reasons are a glut of jobs in a short lived bubble in the Internet/tech, where a large percentage of people with visions of being millionaires straight out of college decided to major in the "computer sciences" -- it easy to forget the cause for today's lost jobs (unsustainable growth) started long before Bush took office.

NAFTA and the sending of jobs over seas is part of the picture too.

Bush needs to address this, but he is NOT the cause and NO amount of avoiding these facts from he NYT will make it all any different!
15 posted on 12/01/2003 4:48:40 PM PST by Jackson Brown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
A few years ago -- when Bush I was in office, if I recall correctly -- the Slimes did another hard look at the suffering middle classes and found a guy who was so hard up for a buck he had fallen behind on the maintenance schedule for his Mercedes!

Obviously, the Slimes hasn't received the last copy of the Democrats' 2004 playbook and is still going on about lost jobs.

Those people make me want to puke. If I wasn't a good citizen and didn't pick up after my dog moves its bowels, there'd be no useful purpose for the Slimes whatsoever
16 posted on 12/01/2003 4:49:38 PM PST by Kiss Me Hardy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
"Good. If there are enoght of them maybe they will help to vote our present globalist turkey out of the White House and we can get someone who knows something about economics or anything else other than bombing ragheads."

You are even more pitiful/laughable than Willie is with the above remark.

17 posted on 12/01/2003 4:49:43 PM PST by Grampa Dave (Sore@US, the Evil Daddy War bucks, has owned the Demonic Rats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Creepy little whiners.

There are plenty of jobs out there, but not necessarily in marketing. This is God's way of telling them to do something else with their lives.

Okay [rubbing fingers together]: World's Smallest Violin Playing Hearts and Flowers.
18 posted on 12/01/2003 4:49:57 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
$40,000 in savings from a $500,000 income?

I guess some really do live pay check to pay check.

Dummies!
19 posted on 12/01/2003 4:50:03 PM PST by Weimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: baltodog
Don't tell me a sob story about some union rat or some marketing whiz who was making 200K.

I live in the "steel valley," where all the union drones are whining about the prospect of Pres. Bush eliminating tariffs against foreign steel. Keep in mind that these guys - with barely a high school education - are making around $80K per year for manual labor jobs. Gee, why do you suppose that Brasilian or Chinese steel is so relatively cheap, and why would U.S. automakers rather buy the foreign stuff?

20 posted on 12/01/2003 4:50:11 PM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-206 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson